Newspapers / The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, … / May 30, 1835, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
'IlIl!' IPIHI) ) hole vVb. ..3(). Tuvbovoxigh, (Edgecombe County, X. C.) Saturday, May 30, 183;5. Vol. XI Xo. 23. 'flit "TttrhnrnU'jk Press,' i,v a kk(; k Howard, ci1)IiIim1 weekly, Ht T' Dollars and f 'U Cents 't vrar, iJ' paiil in a.lvance 7Vf ii)lltrs, .it th rxir;tion of the siSiriii" v.r. For any prio. l.ss r 1 ;. jlf l f: I'll Vl.v" II.-M- lllitlllli J I Mil il . " . - " I' slltis 1 ileis are ;l lil'fity l liniii imie hi .uty tinu'. " civii ni.- ilienuf ami p,uir.,r micit Ui-xe rf-iilin at 1 t.nuv mint mvai :.illv piy in aHMiuy, or ,' a rcsiiilile tefriencr i'i thi vrinitv. S VKn ti-em"nts u(i' "? linp Ih Inns, Ik" incited t 5" ''' s'lh fir.t iu,?r-,,,-n aiJ '-" cents -cli ciM'.iiiinancp. I. !):- cer 'one at that r ite for r 16 iin-. V'vi riienie' t- tiwt le mai keil the nuin !.,(.! ineitins required, or I hey illl , niiiin.'! until otherwise or.iti.d, unl ,,,11:.1 ;u'Crdinf:Jy. l of r aM.liesi.ed t'i the V'ditor nint lie ....tiiiiJ irthev iuny not beattendtd to. .1,1 i c ommttmcations. Till-. TARBOUO rilKSS. Vtir Sir: I send you the with -,i fjr publication in your paper, if von will be si) good as to ilo so a:ii liiiulv it worthy of your press, a, Djn a? possible. Now, George, . J tell vou what it is I send it to Kou in its rags, written by candle i'lctiii iI,ll without much reflection; 'anJ if v ou think with me you can e.isiiv dress it but should you 'liu:, it i bad rowing against the ;u;:iJ. However, you must do the vou can to help me in a dead lift Id nothing pass but truth, end not abue, and add to or di rcir.iih sentences for the better, as ou are smoother mouthed than ne. For I am a rough hewer ai l.esi,but I have eat many a good infill out of a black pot. 1 tell von, George, I have a reason yon jhouM help me, and put this in the bi'st dress you can that is, t!:e sale of my next pamphlets, which I hope will turn to your, profit and not mire. But take care, and don't do too much, so as ( n throw my dress overboard. j Your sincere friend. JOSHUA LAWRENCE. Mr. George Howard. Mr. George Howard, Editor of the Tar Lord Press. Dear Sir: I saw in a column of onr valuable paper a tew days i a-t, my name held tip in nomina tion a a member of the Convention tithe State of North Carolina. Relieving mv fellow citizens do l ot know my mini! on this subject, f jtiearui': that mv name will as a candidate, in different pru of the county of Edgecombe, 1 taie this early opportunity to tiiem know my mind in that u?, luat they may be prepared !j ti:oi)e some other person that m' wish the office and is far bet- qualified to till it than myself. I'M I Jiave never at any time in ny lite made an attempt for any of honor or profit, is well l!;,nvi lo them; and will also that in no part of my life ; bought, desired, willed, or iu'A have had any office in this e, or the United States, from J e President to a corporal, since protested religion; because it ;y)' enrinnber my ministry with liV'y difficulties of which they are ''fainted and as I now think, b-ive always thought, that :j1 ol being a minister'of God, H woi of devil, or men,) is the -office on earth of honor or that a human being can be '?;ed- Can I but discharge l r ili profit to mankind and ! 110r wam any other honors I v, !,Vei!vu!u,rdie with; connected . ,1" me suilenngs, reproaches, j-'-a losses to w hich a faithful miu j;tr ,s subject. Therefore, J flly fellow citizens will ac- of my thanks and grateful vi edmel,ts ,;,r their good and repect for me or my tal- .,jY"d txcuse me from filling IrJ!,,ce Uiat I have no desire for ,sh to ernbarli in, and fix their ti,,,'"0'1 bome ol,ier man bv the ll me p Mr inn ti.. .r. so important a trust as that ' 1 1 7 mat, IdjJd- of laving ! ivv n fundamental law for til State, which may be for the happiness or misery of thou sands unborn. Nevertheless, fel low citizen-, be assured that I am the firm fi ieud of civil and reli gious liberty to the full extent of my abilities with all faithfulness, where il shall not interfere with my ministerial office, and am ready to serve the church of my native State in all emergencies yet ren der to Ciusar the things that are Casar's, and to God the things that are his for he has the first claim on my services, therefore you must excuse me from filling that oflice. Yet I beg your indulgence so far as to olfer you a few thoughts on the proposed amendments of the Constitution of the State, (in a hurry of business) that is, ou the S2i article, which reads thus: XXXI!. Tl) at no person, who hal! drny the Ik hi (if God, or the truth of the I'ton-stant religion, or thir div ine an t hot itv either ct' the O d or New Testaments, or who shall j hold leliinu!, principles incompati ble with the freedom and safety of the tate, aSiall be Capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, i in the civil department, within this) tate." j Now I would ak, why did our torelathers, the framers of the Constitution of this State, put this clause in the Constitution can you say? Is it not written as with j a sunbeam in the very expressions ' of the article.' That they saw, J whether real or imaginary, great! danger to society by letting a man into oflice uf trut or profit that denied the being of a God that! denied the truth of the Protestant; religion that denied the divine authority of the Old or New Tes- laments or that held religious J principles contrary to the freedom ! and safety of the Stale. Anifue cause they thought, whether real ly so or not, that men holding such principles were dangerous, to civil society; therefore they j erected these four barriers to keep; such men out of office of trust ! or profit in the civil department j of this State. The only question then that arises here were the framers of the Constitution right j or not? On this pivot turns allj that any Convention can say on tins oJc article. It they were right, then let the article stand as it is. II they were nut right, then . alter it. Then there are some of: the good people of this State, it J is presumed, that say that the fra-. mers of the Constitution were not right in their opinoiu ou this ar-l tide; there are others who think ; they were, of which I am one. Then each party have tlreir rea sons to offer, why it is not right; and their reasons why it is right, and ought to stand as it is, sacred and inviolate, and unchanged to all generations. Now the strongest argument that can be used why this 32d ar ticle should be altered is, because it makes a religious test; it makes that religious test an inability to the citizen from holding certain offices of trust or profit; it makes an inequality in the members of the same society, and grants to one an eligibility to oflice" and not another; it gives Torn an office and puts money in his pocket, be cause lie believes in a God, reli gion, the Bible, and shapes his creed to please the State,- but Jack, because he denies all these, is sent by this article empty away. These, with other objections, I must believe, form the strongest ground of objection to this article that can be taken, which I cannot now separately discuss, yet I am firmly of opinion that our fathers of liberty were right in this arti cle first, because all laws are designed to curb our vices, and the vices of certain men and their acts, for the benefit and the peace of the rest or major part of socie ty. I hen this article of cotislitu- tional law is highly necessary ta curb the licentious and profane (-....v..ta ui sueo men as trie arti cle sets forth such as deny the being of a God, he. Then to al ter the article is to throw down the fence our fathers have set up as a safeguard to the peace, mor ality, prosperity and safety of this State, and let into oflice of trust and profit wolves, tithe gatherers, pickpockets, and atheists, those lools of scripture language that sav in their heart there is no God. I, for one, want no such men in office in this Slate and thus by letting such men into oflice, open a still w ider door to let in atheism, infidelity, anarchy and confusion throughout the State; for right eousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people much more so" to those in office. Second, is there not the same reason lo amend the 31st article, which disables ministers of the gospel from a seat in either the House of Commons or Senate? Surely, for this article denies them equality with the rest of their fellow citizens for office. But of this no amendment or al teration is proposed, although they rest essentially upon the same grounds of plea. Why then alter the one and not the other? Whv was one proposed for an altera tion and not the other? 1 tell vou, my fellow citizens, both these ar ticles are right as they stand, and for the sake of posterity 1 beg you as a well wisher of my State, don't suffer a pin to be moved in either. There is a thousand times more danger in altering the 32d, than there would be in alter ing the 31st; but the reason why one is proposed and not the other, it is to be feared, is, that there are designers behind the curtain who feel they cannot pocket the loaves until these barriers of the Consti tution are broken down. Be on your guard our fathers have for the best of reasons put up the fence; you keep it up, since none can break it down but 3 ourselves; remembering that it is easier to keep up the fence and keep the hogs out, than it is to' get them out alter they gel in and then put up the fence. Let the legislator anil all others know your prompt ness and stability when your sovereignty is attacked, or cun ningly designed to be abridged in that which may be for the general good of society, although it may seem to bear hard upon a few scramblers for office and profit. I ask you, is a man worthy of your trust, who denies the being of a God? This is one of the strongest bands of moral and civil society. Break this, and at once more than half the bauds are bro ken that tie and support good society together, and throws open all the doors W vice, r or if no God, no accountability hereafter; if no God, no resurrection of the dead, nor future rewards to the good, nor punishment for the wicked; if no God, then there is nothing to fear but penal laws and we see that both these joined together cannot now keep men from crime and maintain peace in society. How will it then be, if you remove the first band? If ne God, what can give solemnity to an oath? How will you support truth and justice in society, w hen the very heathen of all ages and all countries have been forced to have an oath as a test of truth, and that founded on the belief of a God, whether Jupiter, Apollo, Vulcan, Diana, or the belief of the Great Spirit? From the days of Abraham until now, an oath has been the lest of truth and its confirmation; and the belief of a God is, and must be, all that can give solemnity to an oath, aided by penal law, And we find that both these cannot keep some men from swearing false how will it then be, if men in public office are ipermitted vauntingly and exul- tingly to proclaim, there is lio God? tell you, fellow citizens, an attack on (his article is a sat isfactory proof to me that infideli ty in our land is raising its de formed head. Alter this article and you will endanger the peace, safety, and happiness of our State. So then, it is nothing but the be lief of a God and religion that can give support to good society.! whether that God or religion be j true or false. The history of allj nations prove this fact. Then let ' this part of the Constitution stand ! as it is, and we shall get along as! we have done, and that is well i enough. For these and many other reasons that I could assign, I think no man fit for any public1 office, nor to be trusted with my civil nor religious rights no, iior' the public purse neither lhatdc- nies the being of a God. To deny the truth of the Pro testant religion I am well aware' that this is the biting clause and ' the great bulwark in the 32d ar-; tide, that is chiefly aimed at to1 be undermined and removed out' of the way, that some tender con-1 sciences may come into office of trust and profit. I then come to j enquire, what is meant in this' clause ofthe32d article, by ihe words (Protestant religion?) that he that is so base as lo deny this kind of religion should be disabled from holding an office of trust or profit in the civil department of this Stale, as thought the framers of the Constitution; or else they would not have put this clause in the article, if tl.ey had not thought such a man dangerous to civil society, who denied the Protes tant religion. Were they right or wrong, is the ground of argu ment. I ay they were right, and 1 give a few reasons to show they were so. It is well known to all readers of ecclesiastical history, that the j Christian religion was violently opposed by Jews and Heathens' for the first 300 years, and that j its professors waded through j blood, tribulation, fire and sword; 1 and that in or about the year 323, j it supplanted Heathenism and be-' came the established religion of the Koman empire; and that then, after its establishment, Bishop Sylvester became a tool of State, and plunged the Christian religion into error, superstition, and ab surd ceremonies; and that from 3J3, the Bishops ofBoim? rose by gradual steps of authority un til they acquit cd the title of Uni versal Bishop, which title was conferred on Boniface 111. bv the Emperor Piiocas, in the year GOG. From ihe days of Sylves ter up to the year 1500," there were many dissenting and protes ting persons and sects from and against the Roman Catholic re ligion, which had became oppres sive and absurd past endurance by virtuous men such as Claude of Turin, Peter Waldo of France, Wicklilfe, Jerome, Huss, he. &c. These men protested against the Church of Koine not mention ing the various sects that protes ted yet the word Protestant nev er became a common acceptable phrase for a body of professing Christians, until after the year 1517; it was then given to the Lutherans, and h?As loig since become an established and an ac customed term, and used in the general to signify Al sects and persons that oppose the Catholic religion, and 'dissent from that church. For the words refor mers, disseiuers, and proteslants, al are used to mean a people or sect that protest against the Cath olic religion. Then I shall hazard nothing by saying, that what our fathers the framers of this article in the Con stitution meant by this clause, the Protestant religion, was, when taken either in its limited or broadest sense, all religions but that of the Roman Catholic, and comprehends the Church of Engl and, Baptists,lIethodisls,Quakers, Lutherans, Mennonites, Congre gationalists, Independents, Riora vians, Swedenborgiaus, Univer salisis, Presbyterians, &c. &ic So that their plain and obvious meaning was by the Words Pro tistant religion, not the religion of the Church of England only, from which they (our fathers,) had suffered so much by tithing and persecution, but any religion that was amon them at that time pro testing against the Catholics. But to be plainer in their meaning, he that believed that there was no religion or true church of God, but the Catholic church, should not be eligible to an office of trust or profit in the civil department of this State. That this was their meaning 1 have not a .doubt, be cause the very face of the Consti tution goes to shjow that their in tention was to toLerate all reli gions; and that that man who be lieved that there was no religion, which was first to deny the being of a God, and secondly, to de ny the truth of the Protestant religion, should not hold an office, &c. So that the one who believed in no religion, and he that denied the other, was in their opinion not fit for office, nor to be trusted with the civil affairs of the State. And the reason why they thought so is, that Catholics con tend they are the only true apos tolic church on earth; that they and they alone are right, and all other sects and professors are heretics, and are only fit fuel for fire, and therefore, they have burned their thousands and des troyed their millions of honest and virtuous citizens, and filled king doms and nations with rebellion, oppressive taxes, bloodshed and misery. And, secondly, the fra mers of ihe Constitution knew what the Catholics had done to destroy the freedom, and safety, and lives, and prope' of the people of England. Ireland, France, Germany, &.c. therefore they put up this fence to keep them out of power, and do you keep it up, for oigce and profit is power. Thirdly, it is well known that the Catholics have a Pope, and that he is a despot and tyrant in church and JState; and that they have swayed their iron sceptre over churches, States and king doms as angry agents ofheJI, none can doubt that reads church history; and the framers of the Constitution wanted no spiritual master, nor civil one either, in North Carolina no despots nor tyrants to filch their pockets nor rule over theni with a rod of iron. They had by hard suffering broke the yoke of John Bull and his tithing prang of Oxford and Cam bridge tobacco men, and were determined to be free from lords spiritual, and lords and kings ci vil; for this reason they put in ibis clause in the Constitution, and do you, fellow citizens, keen k in, if you have no use for a Pope in North Carolina. The Catho lics enjoy all the privileges bv the Constitution of worshipping Almighty God in the way they think right, and practice their own modes of worship as much as miv other citizens in the State; but this is not the thwsr wanted what then? It is office, oflice of trust; it is profitah, that's ihe bite loaves and fishes. This is what North Carolina must hold a Con vention for, and spend her thous ands, to put some men in office that the sufferers for liberty did not think worthy of oflice, trust, or profit. For who cannot see, a plain r.s the nose on his face, that it is to get into office of trust and profit that it is- proposed to alter this article! But you will say, the spirit of Catholicism is much altered. Dont tell me-r-the beast is the beast, if he has got his deadly wound it is the arne scarlet colored beat it always was. If the wise rul rs of nations had not put up t lie bulwarks of toleration to all sects, this beast would yet kill sheep as in d;ys of old, and be colored wiih the blood of the s;dnts. For when wolves won't kill sheep out of the pen, then I may believe this fact, ihat the spirit of Catholicism is changed. The sheep are fenced op, of which ibis clause in the Constitution is one part no thanks lo wolves not lo kill sheep in Ihe pen. Was not Ibis the case, the world would flow with Protestant blood, as did the street of Pai is on the night of St. Bar tholomews. Then I say our fathers w ere right in this clause, to keep a few men out of office of trust and profit; to keep them out of power, for the general good, peace, and safety of society, or the major part of ihe State. And it is sound, good, and wise policy to disable a few scramblers for office, for the benefit of the rest. It is clear that every sect in tha United States protest against the Roman Catholic religion this is obvious to all men that read church history. So that to deny the truth of the Protestant reli gion, is to deny the truth of all religion but that of the Roman Catholic. And lor this reason our fathers shut such men out of office of trust or profit in the civil department of this Mate. For it would at once give them, (the Catholics,) the pre-eminence a hove all other sects to acknowl edge this fact and put them in office of trust and profit, lo use that despotic power in church and state that they have in countries heretofore, where they have had ihe power of doii g so. And I see no cause why these four disa bilities to hold office should be a plea for ihe alteration of the 32d ariicle, more than other disabilities mentioned in ihe Constitution such as, each Senator should pos sess S00 acres of land; this is a disability 10 office, and may per haps keep oul of the Senate men of better talents than twenty men worth 300 acres of land. And also each Common r shall possess 100 acres of land here is another fence put up by the framers of the Constitution, yet both are rigbl and good. Another is, lhat of not permitting a free man of ihe ase of 21 years to vole for a Senator without he possesses 50 acres of land. A man not beinsc eligible to the office of Governor under 30 years of age, &c. &c. All these are qually disabilities to office in the Constitution as well as those mentioned in the 32d article, and n tt upon as good ground of plea for their alteration; yet no mention is made of these, and ihe reason is plain to me lhat :s. lhat the Roman Catholics are at the bottom of the alteration of the 32d article. The next disability is, to deny the divine arthoi ily of either life Old or New Testaments. The man that would openly7 do this crime, ihe framers of the Constitu tion thought unfit to hold an office of trust or profit in the civil de partment of ibis Slate. Now the argument is, not whether the scriptures are really of divine au thority or not, which thing I be lieve; bul the argument stands thus: were the framers of the Constitution right or not, in this clause of the 32d article, to pro hibit a man from office who dares to make such an avowal of his disbelief of the scriptures. I say they were right, in my opinion, for which 1 offer a lew reasons out of the many I could give. Fust, it is ou this basis of ihe truth or divine authority of the scriptures, that the society of some of ihe first Slates in ihe Union were formed. On this truth they agreed, and the Bible became ihe lest of truth and juliee. among them. On this truth of ihe divine authority of the sciiptures, are di 1 i:t. VI : 1 if 1 . : t Ml;, .1 ! j
The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
May 30, 1835, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75