This book is one of the best of its kind. The selection of games, amusements, etc., is very good, and the directions given in regard to them are short, simple, and clear. It cannot fail to add to the happiness of any home it may enter.
The Wonders of Water.From the French of Gaston Tissandier. Edited, with numerous Additions, by Schele De Vere, D.D., LL.D. New York: Charles Scribner & Co. 1872. 1 vol.12mo.
A most interesting and useful little volume, containing valuable information in regard to the uses of water, the history of artesian wells, ancient and modern water-works, etc., etc. The book is elegantly got up and well illustrated.
THE
VOL. XIV., No.84.—MARCH, 1872.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1872, byRev.I. T. Hecker, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.
The activity and universality of the American press are proverbial. Leaving out of sight the innumerable political organs which dabble in everything, there is not a department of human knowledge, not a recognized theological creed, not a leading foreign nationality, not a prominentismof the day, that has not its daily or weekly to represent it. And they all speak and investigate with unlimited freedom. The race of Robert Burns’s “chiel” who was “takin’ notes” has been multiplied until they here outnumber the sands on the sea-shore. Nothing escapes them. All shortcomings of whatever origin are certain of detection by some of them, and they are not restrained by any false modesty from instant proclamation thereof. Everybody is held accountable to everybody else. Republicans and Democrats keep up permanent mutual inquisition, Protection and Free-trade spy out each other’s defects, and rival sects seem firmly to believe in the chastening influence of announcement of their neighbors’ faults.
More than any of these, more than all put together, is Catholicity in the United States subjected to the most ceaseless and penetrating surveillance. The curiosity prompting this surveillance is sometimes friendly, but generally the reverse. English literature, essentially anti-Catholic and bigoted, has made its mark upon American education, and with many people the intolerant falsehood of much English history still passes for truth. So-called religious (Protestant) papers are never at a loss for a leader topic—“Abuse the Catholics.” Protestant ministers find heads of discourse always ready in anti-Popery admonitions. We personally know many excellent men among them who conscientiously strive to do their duty as they understand it, and are above such wrong; but there are large numbers of Poundtexts and Brandlighters, obscure in position, of uncertain education and wretchedly paid, who make of “Popery” a stalking-horse, and seek to fill their empty pews and depleted pockets with the fruits of anti-Popery excitement. Added to such editors and such preachers as we describe, there is asmall army of literary and theological stragglers, bummers, and disgraced deserters hovering on the rear of these regular forces, always in the field with lectures, pamphlets, keys to Popery, horrible disclosures, and all the pestilent riff-raff of anti-Catholic literature. One would think the Protestant army of observation on such a footing sufficiently well-organized, active, and effective to guard the walls of the American Zion and sound a timely alarm.
But the publishing firm of Messrs. Harper & Brothers is not of that opinion, and they appear to have discovered that it is their duty to take under their special protection and keeping the public schools, the Bible, the Protestant religion, and the liberties of America;—thus demonstrating the wretched incapacity and utter failure of our civil authorities, our religious press, and the Protestant ministry to do their plainest duty. The gentlemen in question publish, here in New York,Harper’s Monthly Magazine, and a hebdomadal calledHarper’s Weekly: A Journal of Civilization. These periodicals contain a variety of light literature, papers on current topics, poetry, anecdotes, and highly-flavored anti-Popery articles. Besides these last, theWeeklygenerally has one or more caricatures calculated to disseminate the worst falsehoods, and to excite hatred towards Catholics and contempt for their religion.
For years past, a constantly recurring subject of its most offensive form of caricature has been the person of the venerable Pontiff PiusIX.It is difficult to conceive how any man of even ordinary instincts of propriety—we care not what his religious prejudices might be—could have for this revered personage any feeling but one of profound respect. An aged bishop, fourscore years of age,whose purity of character is without speck or stain, whose long life has been one of labor and usefulness, piety and virtue, beginning his sacerdotal career as a missionary in a foreign land, then serving faithfully as the director of charitable institutions and hospitals, whose first acts of power were those of benevolence and universal amnesty, toward whom, on the part of the tens of thousands of Protestants who have seen and spoken with him, no sentiments but those of profound admiration and veneration are ever expressed—such a character as this is selected by theJournal of Civilizationas the favorite butt of its indecent ribaldry.
We here leave entirely out of sight all consideration of the question of outrage upon the religious sensibilities of millions of Catholics in the United States, and place the judgment of the offence upon the broad ground of civilized propriety. The men who perpetrate this outrage seek to justify themselves on the plea that it is as king or temporal sovereign of Rome they caricature him. Their offence is aggravated by so flimsy and paltry a pretext. The merits of the disputes among the monarchs of Europe do not concern us here in America to that extent, and if they did, as a question of monarchical right and precedence of seniority, the kings and emperors of Europe are all new-comers and upstarts by the side of the Roman Pontiff.
While these caricatures are essentially addressed to a sentiment of religious bigotry, their authors seek, by the false association of some political idea, not only to excuse them on that ground, but to reinforce that bigotry with all the strength of political hatred. Take, for instance, the filthy crocodile picture. There is an appeal whose falsity is only exceededby its beastliness. Then the “Roman Catholic mission from England to the heathens of America” (Weekly, Dec. 30, 1871), in which the pure Christian, the devoted philanthropist, the perfect gentleman—MostRev.Archbishop Manning—is portrayed with iron shackles in his hand, which he holds concealed behind him, striving to entice the negroes to come to him; to whom a negro replies (so naturally!): “No, thank you. We have just been emancipated, and, if England is responsible for slavery in the United States, I don’t care to jump from the English frying-pan into the English fire.”
The favorite device of theWeeklygentlemen is to represent the perpetrators of offences against law and order, and the participators in municipal robbery and corruption, as Catholics, and, in their persons, to hold the Catholic Church responsible for such offences. It is not necessary to dwell on the absurdity of such a charge, nor on the hardship and injustice of such a responsibility.
There are thousands of men in this city, supposed to be Catholics—nay, who, if asked the question, will say that they are—who have not been inside of a Catholic Church nor spoken to a priest for long years, men whose lives are scandalous in their irregularities and crimes. Such as these bring disgrace upon the church whose precepts they trample under foot. If arrested for violation of the laws of the land, we sincerely trust they may have legally meted out to them the fullest measure of punishment. The properly constituted authorities will have our thanks for so doing. TheWeeklywriters are ignorant of much that touches Catholic faith and practice, but they are not ignorant of the fact that the custom among Protestant churches of considering as members those onlywho make avowed profession, and live up to the requirements of strict church membership, does not prevail in the Catholic Church. The difference with us is betweenpracticalCatholics and those who, neglecting their religious duties, live in sin; and we state with profound regret that the number of this latter class is very much larger than any one who loves his church cares to see.
But it is all the same thing to the Harper scribes, and the indifferent Catholic, the bad Catholic, the Catholic who is a scandal to his church, is a “good enough Morgan” for ourWeekly, which constantly represents him as an active and devout member of the church, in direct communication with the Holy See. How if a similar rule were to be applied generally, and we should in every case of moral dereliction seek out the sect with which the sinner has some real or supposed affiliation, and charge the crime upon the religious teachings of that sect?
Is the Presbyterian Church to be made responsible for New York municipal defalcations because connection with them is charged on the Presbyterian, Mayor Hall? Is the Methodist Church answerable for Tammany frauds because Tweed is a Methodist? Let us suppose for a moment a man so devoid of all sense and decency as to compile a narrative of crimes and outrages perpetrated by people known to be Methodists, beginning years back with the well-known (Avery-Cornell) seduction and murder case in which a Methodist minister was the criminal, and coming down past the scandalous publication by Methodist printers of the infamous book of Maria Monk, to the late horrible story, in a Western city, of torture through long years of an unoffending child by its unnatural Methodist parents, to theshameful malversations of a religious Book Concern, to the gigantic thefts in our city administration, to the Drew complication of the Erie abomination, which shines by its absence in all the lateHarperchronicles; and, having completed his catalogue, to present and denounce these crimes as the legitimate result of the teachings of the Methodist Church. It would be waste of words to point out the false reasoning, the injustice, the malice of such a performance. For, however Christian sects may differ on doctrinal points, and whatever may be alleged as to the extent of their theological errors, none of them deliberately teach immorality, and all inculcate the precepts of the decalogue.
What, then, shall be thought of a journal which, week after week, loudly and persistently, not only accuses the Catholic Church in the persons of her ministers of teaching the most flagrant immorality, but seeks—coupling with this grave charge the imputation of striving to create civil discord—by every artifice of rhetoric, by every device of exaggeration, by every appeal of gross caricature, to arouse the wildest passions and the fiercest bigotry? The journal in question labors to stir up, and it does stir up, bad blood and hot strife among hitherto peaceful neighbors.
The charge is a serious one, and we make it knowingly. Instances and illustrations in its support may be found in nearly all the numbers of theWeeklyfor years past.
For its anti-Catholic operations, theJournalis used as a sort of tender to the heavy transport, theMonthly, which frequently gives its readers long, elaborate, and malicious articles, made up mainly of exploded calumnies, threadbare anti-Popery rhetoric of the school of Brownleeand the early Know-Nothings, and the extraordinary lucubrations of a contributor whom we can only describe as Harper’s comic historian. This singular writer undertakes to demonstrate, for instance, that the Apostle of Ireland was not a Catholic missionary at all, but in religious faith a sort of Old-School Presbyterian, who went about distributing Bibles among the “savage Irish,” making strong “anti-Popery” speeches, and delivering lectures on popular education to the serfs of his day!
Absurd as these articles are from a literary point of view, they are yet full of inflammable material, and play as recklessly with fire as the more brutal incentives of theWeekly. For it must be borne in mind that most of these direct appeals to religious bigotry are intended not so much for home consumption as for their effect upon the general rural mind, and that their evident purpose is to arouse another Know-Nothing revival throughout the country.
There are, unfortunately, too many people thoughtless enough, or, perhaps, wicked enough, to respond to these incentives—people so far forgetting themselves as to imagine that their own religion, or something which they imagine stands for it, must be the state church in America, and that it is free to them to persecute and outlaw the professors of a faith which, in their ignorance, they despise and hate.
But we are satisfied that, on the other hand, there is too much intelligence, moderation, forbearance, and patriotism among American citizens to permit the success of schemes aimed at once against liberty of conscience, the peace of society, and the true freedom of our institutions.
And among these citizens we rank—by no means the last—the
CATHOLICS OF THE UNITED STATES.
We can only qualify as impertinent the coolness with which these scribes of the Messrs. Harper talk about “receiving” Catholics “hospitably into this free Protestant land.” When and how were these gentlemen constituted the dispensers of the hospitalities of this free country? When and how did this country become a “Protestant land”? At what period of the history of America were Catholics strangers here?
Under somewhat similar provocation, the great Montalembert, from the tribune in the Chamber of Peers, told certain Frenchmen: “We are the sons of the Crusaders, and we fear not the progeny of Voltaire.” And we, Catholics of the United States, say to these gentlemen who seek to inaugurate another Know-Nothing campaign, that here in America we are neither strangers nor new-comers of yesterday.
We came in the caravels of Columbus, we came with the Cartiers and the La Salles, the Brébœufs and the Jogues, the Joliets and the Marquettes, with the men whose blood of martyrdom moistened the soil of New York, with the men whose bones had mingled with the savannas of the South and the prairies of the West long before Plymouth Rock was heard of. We came—not with the Hessians of George—but with the army of Rochambeau and the fleet of De Grasse, with the arms of Catholic France and the gold of Catholic Spain, to aid our American struggle for liberty. The largest fortune risked in signing our Declaration of Independence was a Catholic fortune. As Catholics, we have proved our devotion to our country in three wars. The ranks of our army and the ships of our navy are full of our people, and if, at this moment,you undertake to blot the names of Catholic officers from naval and army registers, you will be compelled to deface entire pages. We are of all the walks of life, from the humblest to the highest, pursuing our legitimate business, and fulfilling our duties as citizens, fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers. We have schools, seminaries, and colleges successfully active, increasing in number and usefulness, and only not entirely filled with Catholic pupils because of the great number of youths sent to them by non-Catholic parents. We are merchants, bankers, editors, clerks, mechanics, artists, farmers, lawyers, physicians, legislators, and laborers. We fill professors’ chairs and seats on the judicial bench. We have among us thousands of cultivated men and refined and elegant women, the peers of any in the land. We are, as a body, good and law-abiding citizens. We respect ourselves. We mean to be respected. And we protest against the bigoted and senseless denunciation and caricature of our faith in the pretended exposure of fictitious plots against the institutions and liberties of our country.
There exists evidently, among the Know-Nothing writers referred to, some faint appreciation of these facts, and, with labored display of politeness, they seek to turn the difficulty by reference to “respectable citizens,” appeals to “intelligent Romanists” (thus designating us, in their clumsy courtesy, by a nickname), and such declarations as “we do not in any just sense accuse all adherents of that church of hostility to our institutions” (“ourinstitutions!”) We distinctly decline to accept any such qualification or apology. So far as our religion is concerned, we are all, lettered and unlettered, rich and poor, on a footing ofperfect equality. The lady in the parlor and the servant in her kitchen abide by the same religious observances, the rich banker and his poorest clerk hold precisely the same faith, and the wealthy merchant and his drayman out there in the street, kneel at the same altar. We are aware that all this is “horridly ungenteel,” but it is an old habit of our people. Eighteen hundred years ago and more, we were assured that the poor we have always. And we have them. They never leave us, and are not likely to. Poor-houses came in with the Reformation, and then poverty first became disgraceful. For poverty, and, yet more, for the shame of poverty, the needy and wretched cannot enter elegant Protestant conventicles.
And now that we have seen the nature and complexion of the attempted revival of Know-Nothing violence, it may be asked, Who are the men who promote it, creating prejudice, fostering bigotry, inflaming religious rancor, arraying neighbor against neighbor, and endangering the peace of the community? Have they a special mission from on high? Are their scribes inspired writers? Or, perchance, are the antecedents of those publishers and proprietors such as to have established a character for pure patriotism and disinterested virtue so pre-eminently superior as to authorize them to set themselves up the self-constituted guardians of American liberty and evangelical Christianity?
We propose to examine these questions in the light of the printed record of the responsible proprietors of theJournal of Civilization. To that printed record we shall strictly confine ourselves. And in taking the first step toward the fulfilment of our duty, we regret that circumstances will compel the revelation of some
AWFUL DISCLOSURES.
The excitement and violent denunciation of Catholicity produced many years ago by the publication of an infamous book said to have been written by one Maria Monk are still remembered among us, as well as the thorough exposure of its utter falsehood, made by Colonel Stone of New York, and other Protestant gentlemen.
The book was entitledThe Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, and from its title-page purported to be published byHowe and Bates. Howe and Bates! Who were Howe and Bates? There was none to make reply. For neither to the book trade nor in the flesh were “Howe and Bates” ever known of mortal man.
As to the character of the book in question, we are further enlightened by the author of a work entitled “Protestant Jesuitism, by a Protestant,” published by the Harpers in 1838. At page 34 of the book, Maria Monk’s work is described as “one of the most arrant fictions that was ever palmed upon the community,” and the author adds: “The people of this land—and it is the common attribute of human nature—love excitement, and unfortunately there are those who know how to produce it, and profit by it.” Unfortunate, indeed, it is that there are those who stand ready to profit by foul slander and malignant falsehood concerning their neighbor. Unfortunate, indeed, that men can be found who, for the sake of a few dollars, could consent to spread, broadcast upon the world, printed vilification and outrage of noble, pure-minded women, who, solely for the love of God and out of their own abundant charity, devote their lives to alleviating the sufferings of the needy, the afflicted, and the sick.Who are they who profited by it? If we can obtain a satisfactory answer to that question, we may probably be far on the way toward solving the mystery which hovers over the existence of “Howe and Bates.”
Maria Monk’s disclosures were not all made in the book published by that somewhat nebulous firm. The most “awful” of all her “awful disclosures” were made in the dignified form of a bill in equity which she filed against her publishers, who, by their own admissions and declarations, turn out to be not “Howe and Bates,” who from this moment for ever disappear from view, but Messrs. James, John, Joseph W., and Fletcher Harper.
The bill filed for discovery and account against the defendants as booksellers and publishers by Maria Monk, a minor, through her next friend, shows that complainant was authoress of a work which she had copyrighted and stereotyped, and that said stereotype plates were paid for by her with money belonging to her, and that she was liable for any balance unpaid; that after the copyright had been so taken out, the said plates got into the possession of the defendants, and that they had published the work under the title of “Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, as exhibited in a narrative of her sufferings during a residence of five years as a novice, and two years as a black nun, in the Hôtel Dieu at Montreal.” Further, that she was a minor, was entirely unacquainted with the modes of doing business, that she believed that persons professing to be her friends had made some bargains for her in relation to said work, that this was known to the defendants, and yet they pretended to take out another copyright of the same work in the District of Massachusetts, and publisheda large number of impressions from the plates, and issued the book; and that they had large profits in their hands which belonged to the complainant.
Prayer that the said James, John, Joseph W., and Fletcher Harper make full statement, etc., and deliver over all sums of money and property, with account of sales and amount received for same.
We have had occasion to see that the proprietors of theJournal of Civilizationare fiercely patriotic. And they were so, long before that civilizing journal was founded. Their first impulse on receiving a copy of this latest “awful disclosure” by Maria Monk was an impulse of patriotism, of indignation that a foreigner should presume to expect copyright protection in the United States. Thrice is he armed who has statutory law, patriotism, and an act of Congress upon which to fall back, and the defendants, in such panoply as that, straightway filed a demurrer.[147]Maria Monk’s copyright was first issued and had precedence of seniority, but respondents demurred, first and principally, on the ground that “the complainant did not show herself to be a citizen entitled to take out a copyright.” The demurrer also set up other matters in avoidance.
In deciding the case, the Vice-Chancellor closed the delivery of his opinion by saying: “It [the bill] does not show any privity of contract or dealing between the parties; no agreement expressed or implied by which the defendants can be held to account to the complainant for the profits of the work. It rather showsthat, by fraud or wrong, the defendants obtained possession of the stereotype plates, and, altering the title of the book to that ofAwful Disclosures, etc., published it in defiance of her rights. If she has sustained loss by such conduct of the defendants, she must persuade a jury to give her compensation in a verdict of damages against them, when, perhaps, the merits of herAwful DisclosuresandNunnery Unveiled, and the motives of those who have promoted and prompted the publication, will duly be considered.”
Demurrer sustained, and bill dismissed at costs of complainant.
All of which, and more, may be found inEdwards’s Chancery Reports,vol. iii., p.109.
PAST AND PRESENT.
Within the past twelve years, a new generation of readers has grown up in the United States—a generation far outnumbering its predecessor, and the circulation of the journal published by the Harper Brothers has increased immensely. The great body of its readers of to-day are profoundly impressed with a sense of its unvarying and undying patriotism, and it probably never occurs to the soldier who, when a mere boy, shouldered his musket in defence of the Union, that his now furiously patrioticHarper’s Weeklywas originally, and as long as it was found to pay, the advocate of secession and the apologist of slavery. How sadly true this is, we propose to show by presenting the results of our examination into
THE JOURNAL IN THE HOUR OF TRIAL.
On opening the volume of theWeeklyfor the year 1861, we felt quite confident of finding an admirably executedfull-length picture of the then President-elect of the United States, and confess to some disappointment when, instead thereof, occupying the entire first page, we discover portraits of “The Georgia Delegation in Congress,” followed by sketches highly laudatory of the seven gentlemen composing the delegation. The same number makes calm and commentless record of “The South Carolina Proclamation of Independence,” and the spread of secession through the South.
January 12, 1861.—Under the heading “The Great Southern Movement,” the publishers “beg to draw attention to the following list of illustrations of thePending Revolution,” such unseemly words as rebellion and treachery being left to the unprincipled Abolition papers of that day. In the same number we have “The Revolution at Charleston” in cuts of “Anderson at Sumter” and “The Charleston Militia taking Fort Pickens”—thus making a nice balance. Doubtless the Lincoln portrait will come in our next number.
Why, what are these? Portraits and laudatory notices of Governor Pickens, Honorable Judge McGrath, and “Rev.Dr. Bachman, who asked a blessing on the Secession Ordinance,” the signing of which, according to the fervid account cited from a Charleston paper, was a scene “profoundly grand and impressive”; there were “patriarchs in age—the dignitaries of the land—the high-priests of the church of Christ—reverend statesmen—and wise judges of the law”—in the midst of whom “the President advanced with the consecrated parchment”—which holy document was the ordinance of secession. We continue turning leaf after leaf with but slight edification—Skating Park—Old Fashions—Humors of the Day—Rarey the HorseTamer—Love Story—etc. Pleasant reading for people sitting over a volcano.
January 26gives us “The Prayer at Sumter,” a drop of mournful comfort. Then an editorial, “Wanted, a Capital.” It opens impressively: “Some practical people, viewing the dissolution of the Union as a fixed fact,[148]and assuming that all or nearly all the Border States will go with their Southern slave sisters, are already casting about in search of a new capital.” The vigorous patriotism of this idea is strengthened by a sweet allegory, in a column of small type, entitled “John Ardens and James Placens.” You see the delicate joke in the mild Latin? Ardens is a fiery fellow, who absurdly insists on having what he is entitled to. Placens is a gentleman, a practical philosopher, who very sensibly submits to any imposition on pocket or principle for the sake of peace. The placid moral is, “In things indifferent yield rather than quarrel.” Logically enough, two pages further on we have “The Firing on the Star of the West,” as a mere passing incident of the day. Meantime Fort Sumter does heavy duty on the illustrated pages, and is served up without intermission, from sea, from land, by day, by night,en barbette,en côtelette, and in every other conceivable way.
February 2, 1861.—Another grand page of portraits—not of Lincoln and Seward, but of “The Seceding Mississippi Delegation in Congress,” followed by a page in small type of fulsome praise of the seven members—Jefferson Davis, Brown, Barksdale, Lamar, R. Davis, Singleton, and McRae. With the praise we also have copious and labored arguments for slavery and secession, thus:“Personally, Senator Davis is the Bayard of Congress,sans peur et sans reproche; a finished scholar; a high-minded gentleman; a devoted father; a true friend. He is emphatically one of those ‘born to command,’ and is doubtlessdestined to occupy a high position either in the Southern Confederacy or in the United States.” On which we would merely remark that as to the non-fulfilment of this prophecy there has been some disappointment in the first-named country, and great dissatisfaction in the second. This Mississippi article closes with the assurance from one of the seven that slavery is not only national, but “a universal institution of God and man, nature and Christianity, earth and heaven—having its origin in the law of God, sustained by the Bible, sustained by Christianity,” etc., etc.
We continue turning the leaves. And now that we have had quite enough of “the Seceding Delegations,” we naturally hope that room may be found for a portrait of the President-elect. At page 76 we come to “Portrait of the South Carolina Minister of War,” which is not the object of our search.
February 9.—What, again? “The Seceding Alabama Delegation in Congress.” A full-page of portraits of nine gentlemen who do not look at all amiable. Following this comes the regulation two and a half columns of praise in small type, interspersed with extracts from their speeches. Of one of these delegates—a party by the name of Curry—we are assured that
“Nature has endowed him with a mind so active that he can apparently discover, by a glance so rapid as to seem intuition, those truths which common capacities struggle hard to comprehend, while his genius enables him to enforce by argument, and his accomplishments toillustrate, those topics upon which he addresses the House.”
Naturally enough follows, on page 88, a View of the City of Montgomery, showing the state-house where “The Congress of the Southern Confederacy Meets.”
February 16, 1861.—Concerning so-called stay-laws passed in the South, which were at the time generally understood to mean practical repudiation of mercantile debts due to the North, hark how sweetly sings the Northern secession siren with elaborate Harp accompaniment: “We trust that our Southern friends will believe that we have no partisan purpose in view if we direct their attention to the fatal consequences of the stay-laws, etc., etc. For many years our Southern States have enjoyed first-rate credit, both at the North and abroad. Southern obligations have always been preferred in New York to obligations from the East or West.... Southern men have been considered here as good under all circumstances. Their honor has been relied on to any extent.Houses which would not trust Western or Eastern dealers a hundred dollars have been delighted to give credits of thousands to Southerners.The simple reason was that people have had an undying faith in the honor of the Southern people—a firm conviction that under no circumstances would they seek to evade payment of their debts.” And here the siren’s song is broken by a gush of tears—“Is this faith, is this conviction to be demolished now by the passage of stay-laws?” Then follow the perennial “View of Sumter,” double-page Paris fashions, etc., until we reach (p. 109) Views of the “Mint and the New Custom House,” New Orleans, “of which the United States have had only a brief occupancy”—“bothof which have been seized by the state authorities.” There is no comment on this “seizure” by the state authorities, but more than three months afterward we shall find “civilization” waking up in wrath and fulminating thus: “All that the rebels of New Orleans wanted when they stole the mint was to be let alone.” In this same number (p. 112) we have the sneering caricature of the calamity of the country which at the time afforded the enemies of the American Union exquisite delight and “prolonged shouts of laughter.” It is entitled “The Crippled American Eagle, the Cock, and the Lion.” To the eagle, dilapidated, lame, and on crutches: “Lion.—Why, Brother Jonathan, you don’t look so fierce as you used. How about the Monroe Doctrine now?Cock.—Yes, my good Jonathan, what you tink ofPrivateeringunder de present circumstance?”
At last, in the number of February 23, we reach portraits of “President and Vice-President”—what? surely we must be mistaken! No—the print is very clear in its large capitals—“Of the Southern Confederacy.” And very good portraits they are, too, but not of the President and Vice-President we were expecting to see. The number of March 2 gives us a full-page woodcut of “The President-elect Addressing the People.” The “people” are represented by twenty-six hats and the scanty outlines of eleven men, but in compensation we have a thrilling view of two gigantic lamp-posts, and, in exaggerated disproportion, the pillars of the balcony over the centre of whose summit appears the upper half of a small, lean figure supposed to be that of A. Lincoln. This is somewhat disappointing, but, by way of consolation, the next page enlightens us on the subject of patriotism:“This subject of patriotism is in a fair way of being more thoroughly ventilated than it ever was before. Everybody appears to admit that patriotism is a virtue, and that a man should love his country. But the question arises at every corner, What is our country?” The topic is illustrated by watery hypotheses from Smith, Jones, and Thomson, and the editor adds some strong milk to the water with—“Can he claim the title of patriot if he loves his state only, and confesses no obligation to the rest of the confederacy?”
For men who have progressed far enough in constitutional law and patriotism to call the Union a confederacy we have strong hopes. Further on, under heading, “The Southern Confederacy,” we are advised that “the President has nominated”—so and so—“to his cabinet.” Then follows “President Davis’s Inaugural”—not the President we are looking for. Then come “Snake Stories,” “Aunt Maria,” “The Mazed Fiddler,” “Romance by Lever”—pleasant reading for perilous times—until, at last, our search is ended, our patience rewarded, and at page 144, in the number of March 2, 1861, we have a full-length portrait of Abraham Lincoln, President-elect of the United States. It is
A REMARKABLE PICTURE.
It is indeed a picture so remarkable that we would advise every American who voted for Mr. Lincoln, every American who, whether he voted for or against him, yet credited him with the reputation of being at least a decent person, and every man, of whatever nationality, who considered him not positively a degraded loafer—we would advise all such, if they can find a copy ofHarper’s Weekly: A Journal of Civilization, ofMarch 2, 1861, to contemplate and study that picture, and then form their opinion of the Christianity and the patriotism of the men who, at that crisis of the country’s fate, and in that dangerous hour of feverish excitement and political passion, could, in cold blood, spread such a firebrand sketch broadcast through the land. We further commend this counsel more especially to those present readers and approvers of theJournal of Civilizationwho cherish the memory of a murdered President whom they remember as at least blameless in life, pure in character, kind of heart, charitable in impulse, and noble in patriotism.
We will endeavor to describe the drawing. Mr. Lincoln is represented, in a room at the Astor House, standing, or rather staggering, under the influence of liquor, with a just emptied glass in his hand. He is surrounded by four boon companions, two of them with drunken leer and Bardolphian noses; a third in the background looks vacantly on with expression of maudlin stupidity; while the fourth, like the rest, glass in hand, stands at the open window, and—partially sobered by the shock—gazes at a passing funeral procession. On the moving hearse, accompanied by mourners and decked with solemn black plumes, are inscribed the words:
Union,
Constitution.
Under this work of art—a wretched, scratchy woodcut—we read:
OUR PRESIDENTIAL MERRYMAN.
“The Presidential party was engaged in a lively exchange of wit and humor. The President-elect was the merriest among the merry and kept those around him in a continual roar.”—Daily Paper.
Now, let it be borne in mind that this very suggestive piece of malice was published just on the eve of Mr. Lincoln’s inauguration at Washington, whose atmosphere was black with lowering clouds of rebellion, where threats were rife that he would never take his seat in the Presidential chair, and where men’s minds were already warped and inflamed by misrepresentations and falsehoods concerning him, the belief in which by a large portion of the community would seriously blunt any sharp opprobrium of murder, and soften down assassination to the meritorious taking off of an unworthy drunken demagogue. If the conductors of this organ of “civilization” are capable of giving the greatest publicity to a horrible caricature on such a subject, and at a moment fraught with such dreadful contingencies, need there be any room for surprise that they do not stickle at far worse when the subjects of their defamation are “only Catholics”?
ANOTHER PICTURE.
But we have not yet done with this number of March 2. It was the strongest bid of the journal for Southern favor and patronage. On the same page with the cut we have described is another, a more elaborate, more artistic, and better executed picture. Scene: Interior of a church—pews full of worshippers—minister officiating—administration of the sacrament. At the chancel railing kneels George Washington. With one hand, the clergyman standing in the sanctuary holds away the cup from the would-be communicant, and with the other contemptuously waves him off. The Father of his Country makes a gesture of indignant remonstrance, while the minister’s assistant with a long stick points toa tablet in the wall, on which are engraved the words:
The Higher Law.
No Communion with Slaveholders.
Is the reader edified? There is more to come. The officiating minister is Henry Ward Beecher—an unmistakable portrait. His assistant is John Brown—an excellent likeness—and the pointer he uses is one of the well-known “Harper’s Ferry Pikes.” Under the engraving we read:
No Communion with Slaveholders.
“Stand aside, you Old Sinner! We are holier than thou.”
Will the members of Plymouth Church in Brooklyn, who now see the efforts of the journal to misrepresent Catholics in doctrine and in morals, please read these efforts by the light of this George Washington picture?
We also commend careful examination, of this picture to the friends and admirers of Mr. Beecher. Let them ask themselves this question: Would the men who, for the sake of a little larger circulation, do not hesitate to caricature their own Protestant co-religionists—would these men, we say, be reasonably expected to be very scrupulous in the vilification of those whose Catholic faith they detest?
And for similar reasons, we commend consideration of both these pictures to all readers of aJournal of Civilizationwhich, week after week, by innuendo, assertion, falsehood, and caricature, strives to awaken the lowest prejudices of religiousintolerance, the vilest passions of religious bigotry, and the sweeping persecution of American citizens who choose to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience.
We see that, in 1861, the proprietors of theJournal of Civilizationheld sentiments looked upon in this latitude as rebel and pro-slavery. We freely admit that they had a perfect right so to do, accepting, of course, the legal and social consequences flowing from such holding. Open to them to assume the social and moral superiority of Southern gentlemen over Northern traders. Free to them to vaunt Southern honor at the expense of Northern honesty. But surely they might advocate, as they did, with all the eloquence of their editorials and all the influence of their wide circulation, the dissolution of the Union and the strong reprobation of anti-slavery sentiment, without insinuating that Eastern and Western merchants are swindlers, without calumniating Mr. Lincoln, and without vilifying Mr. Beecher?
The journal’s proprietors were perfectly well aware how grossly Mr. Lincoln was misrepresented, and how utterly he was misunderstood in the South. To what extent sectional bitterness was intensified against him was shown by the free application of the epithet “gorilla.” Under these circumstances, was it—we will not say considerate—but was it honest, was it fair, to picture him as a drunken clown to men who did not know him, and were all too ready to believe it? Was it respectful, was it decent, to caricature the President-elect to those who did know him, as celebrating in drunken orgies the death of the Constitution and the funeral of the Union?
Henry Ward Beecher was looked upon in the South as the ardentapostle of an Abolition evangel which taught servile insurrection and midnight murder—not an enviable reputation surely. But was it fair, was it honest, to give shape, body, and unnatural proportions to this belief by picturing him as insulting the Father of his Country, aided by John Brown as his henchman, armed with a Harper’s Ferry spear?
And so we reach the journal’s issue of March 9, 1861, but have thus far found no portrait of President either elect orde facto, except as a drunken clown (Mr. Merryman). We learn, however, by way of explanation, that he is a sectional President! A long editorial of this number is headedReconstruction, and contains such vigorous Union sentiment as this:
“Granted—if you will, for the sake of argument—that the Southern rebellion against the election of a sectional President is treason, and liable to punishment—is it wise, is it prudent, is it possible to punish it?”
Again:
“It would undoubtedly be a very mischievous undertaking to keep half a dozen states in the Union against the deliberate wishes of their people. Whatever popular feeling—roused to frenzy by the seizure of forts, arsenals, revenue cutters, and mints—might prompt on the spur of the moment,there can be no question but the enterprise of holding the Union together by force would ultimately prove futile.It would be in violation of the principle of our institutions!”
An interesting number, this of March 9, with a fine portrait of “General David E. Twiggs, late of the United States Army,” a whole-page view of “Inauguration of President Jefferson Davis of the Southern Confederacy,” and an article explanatory of the same.
No “sectional President here,” andthe inauguration is described as “solemn and impressive.”
At page 160 (March 9) we have a cartoon of four vulgar caricatures, entitled collectively “The Flight of Abraham” (as reported by a Modern Daily Paper), and separately: (1.)The Alarm.—A gaunt figure sits upright in bed with nightcap on. A lantern is held in at the open door, from which come the words: “Run, Abe, for your life, the Blood Tubs are after you!!!” (2.)The Council.—General Sumner, with a pair of large cavalry boots in one hand, and in the other a handkerchief which he holds to his eyes, weeping vociferously—boo-o-o, stands near “Abe”; on the other side is Mrs. Lincoln in dowdy dishabille, crying bitterly, “Do go!” (3.)The Special Train.—” He wore a Scotch plaid cap and a very long military cloak, so that he was entirely unrecognizable”—an ignoble picture. (4.)The Old Complaint.—Lincoln presents himself to the astonished Buchanan dissolved with fright, while Seward whispers to Buchanan, “Only a little attack of ager, your excellency.”
Editorial correspondence at page 162 gives us the valuable information that “Senator Wigfall is a finished orator—probably the most charming in the senate,” and that he is “the exact opposite of Chandler and Wilkinson”—“very unpleasant speakers to listen to.” Senator Mason, we are told, “with all his faults is perhaps the nearest approach in the present senate to the beau ideal of a senator.” At page 168 (March 16) we have a large cut representing “The Inauguration of Abraham LincolnasPresident of the United States,” and we cannot help contrasting the phraseology of this announcement with a previous one: “Inauguration of President Jefferson Davis of the Southern Confederacy.”
And so we progress to April 27, 1861, page 258, where we find President Lincoln’s Proclamation of April 15 thus announced: “War is declared. President Lincoln’s proclamation, which we publish above, is an absolute proclamation of war against the Gulf States.” Better late than never, we at last, after long, weary waiting, find in this number, page 268, the long-looked-for “Portrait of the President,” accompanied by a biographical sketch of Mr. Lincoln. It was really high time that the readers of theCivilizationshould be told something of their President nearly two months after he had assumed the reins of government. To make everything pleasant and impartial, however, the opposite page gives us the copy of a full-length photograph of General Beauregard. Having paid your money, choice is optional.
We have thus seen with what persistence and industry theJournal, during the long, critical months of the beginning of that eventful year 1861, was the ardent panegyrist of everything Southern, the stern rebuker and enemy of anti-slavery, the mocker and caricaturist of Northern Union sentiment, and the contemptuous sneerer at Abraham Lincoln. But all this fine talk about principle and lofty assumption of stern virtue was a mere question of circulation, and the sympathy of theJournalwent with its pecuniary benefit, so far and no farther.
The immutability of its principles was subject to be disturbed by just such considerations as those which carried conviction to the understanding of Hans Breitman, and which he so admirably explained in his great political speech: