AMERICAN"
ITHE AMERICAN
Cheapest Paper in America.
ttbaeritt K 4
THEAMERk4 N.
BOO to Jan. I. tat
A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER.
"AMERICA FOR AMERICANS" We hold thaVall men are Americana who Swear Allegiance to the United Sutra without a mental reservation In favor of the Poe.
PRICE FIVE CENTS.
Volume V
OMAHA, NEBRASKA, FRIDAY. JUNE 5, 189G.
Number 23
THE
HERSOEY SL CAKROLL
Rev. Hershey Says the New
York Independent is
Proven Wrong.
President Lincoln on Papal In
terference Dr. Hershey's
hlrd Open Letter to
Carroll.
To Rev. H. R. Carroll, LL. D., Re
ligious Editor New York Independent
ly Dear Sir. I addressed my second
letter to you two weeks since; during
the interim I have been too busy with
pressing professional duties to give at
tention to the interesting controversy
Into which you have forced me. I now
address myself, most seriously, to your
gravest misrepresentation of history,
and most culpable denial of fact. I am
laboring under a great surprise ever
elnce jour misleading editorial of
March 19. What sort of a motive could
actuate such wholly inaccurate state
ments as you wrote? And the surprise
becomes still greater when I reflect
that you used, as an occasion to do this
favor to a designing Romanism in our
country, my statement In the Boston
Standard, which rests upon such diplo
matic and historic fact, that I had not
supposed any intelligent man would
think of making a denial. Why,
should as soon consider reliable the
Cuban war nws, which comes to us
via Madrid, as statements in your de
partment of the Independent. Fair and
just men will have nothing but words
of censure for publio writers who will
deliberately pervert history. I wrote
this paragraph in my Standard article:
The president (Lincoln) about the
same period of peril, directed Secre
tcry Seward to direct our minister at
Rome to inform the pope that this
country would confidently expect no in
terference from foreign sources at the
time of our internal troubles.
To this you reply, with strange dis
regard for the facts, or in ignorance of
them:
We had. no minister at Rome until
. Rome became the capital of united
Italy, which was several years after
the close of our civil war. Even if
t'ue, what would it amount to? Eng
land, France, Spain and other countries
recognized the belligerency ol tne
southern confederacy two years earlier.
Eleewhire in your editorial you refer
to the "mendacious charge that the
pope had recognized the southern con
federacy," and that to "revive these
slanders in the face of the facts" that
you had disclosed, "is to deliberately
bear falee witness." In my article I
had no thought of reminding anyone of
the pope's recognitlen of the confeder
acy, but since you have made the con
nection, it is just as well to consider
the whole case, especially as you seem
to be laboring under the idea that you
had, at some prior time, proven that
the pope never did anything of the
kind. When the evidence is In, I. sus
pect that you may feel that you have
been playing the part of "that false
witness," but I am prepared to mention
that you have in your editorial, and
upon former occasions, been "deliber
ately bearing false witness," or else,
like most of the Roman Catholic
papers, you write without caring
enough about the facts to examine into
them.
Now, sir, address yourself to a con
sideration of the facts. You tell your
readers that !we "had no minister at
Rome until Rome became the capital
of United Italy, several years after
the war."CDo you deliberately falsify?
I refer you to the documents of the
United States government, in which
you will find the personnel of our dip
lomatic and consular relations with the
pontifical or papal states, the capital of
which was Rome. As early as 1855
our resident 'minister at the papal
court was Hon. Lewis Cass, Jr., of
Michigan, with larger salary than the
minister to EnglaDd. In June, 1858,he
was succeeded by Hon. John P. Stock
ton of New Jersey. In August of 1862
his successor was appointed in the per
son of Hon. R. M. Blotchford of New
York, and he was succeeded in October,
1863, by the fHon. Rufus King of the
same state. As to our consuls, W. J.
Stillman was appointed in September,
1861, and succeeded by E. C. Cushman
in February, 1865. This covers the
war perlod,rand several years before.
I see again, how you have fallen into
the error of surmising a fact from a
vague rumor 'floating about in your
memory. The fact is, our diplomatic
relations with the papal states had
lapsed for a period, I think, of about
five years, just prior to 1870, because
congress lefused to make the appro
priation of money to support the mis
sion. The legation had been kept up
Uncle Sam. "Columbia, this
the belief that unless there is
for years by the Democratic and Whig
parties, and was supported during the
war by the Republican party. And
the attempt was made in 1870, during
the Vatican council and through the
influence of the Roman Catholic lobby,
to return to f h Custom, Mx. Brooks,
member of coogtess from New York,
advocated sending a minister to Rome
again, on the ground of "the temporal
power and relations of Rome." And
yet you write with the Roman party,
and say no claim is made for any tem
poral power for the pope. Upon the
19th of May, 1870, Hon. Godlove S.
Orth from Indiana, an early political
friend of my father's, said in the house:
"I am opposed to re-establishing this
mission at Rome, which was discon
tinued five years ago." Fromthlsitls
clear the appropriation was cut off in
1865, which was after the close of the
war.
You remember no, I am reminded
that you do not remember these things
very well so I may tell you how the
appropriation for the legation at Rome
came to be cut off. It came about as a
sequence to papal interference with
the religious rights of Americans at
the residence of the United States
minister at Rome. The habit had been
formed of holding religious service at
the legation residence. Mr. Cass was
a Protestant, and he saw no reason
why he should not worship God as he
wanted to. A Methodist minister, not
of the kind that you are, sir, was in
vited to conduct Sabbath worship.
The pope ordered him without the city
walls. The paper of your admirable
friend, Archbishop Hughes, said this
at the time, "that upon the first con
vert being made, the minister would
be kicked out of Rome, though Mr.
Cass, the United States ambassador,
should bundle up his traps and follow
him."
Several years later, Mr. Cass was
sent to the senate from Michigan. He
addressed that body on the outrageous
intolerance of the papal court against
the living and the dead in the city of
Rome, and some weeks later, when the
vote was being taken on the appropria
tion for foreign legations, some senator
moved that the legation at Rome be
left without an appropriation, and that
began the five-year interim to which
Congressman Orth referred to in 1870.
So much for your denial that we had
a legation at Rome prior to 1870.
Now, about Mr. Lincoln instructing
the United States minister to Rome to
warn the pope to keep his hands off.
You remember that early in the war
Mr. Davis had sent a Roman Catholic
ecclesiastic by the name of Lynch to
Europe, and that this man Lynch tar
ried a great while at the court of
Rome. Following this, Mr. Lincoln
became so impressed with the baneful
influence of the papacy upon the pa
triotism of the north, that, in addition
to the ordinary diplomatic methods,
ii 1 1 1 jiii
Hyp i -
place is infested with those critters today. They are Amusing
a little of the spirit of Seventy-six
he at one time sent a special envoy to
Rome to counteract that influence. If
you will examine the diplomatic corre
spondence of that period, you will find
that as early as April 29, 1861, the
president has the secretory. of state
write our minister at Rome, accreditor?
to the court of the pontifical states,
that "the government of the pope Is
surrounded by elements of political
revolution," and that as the United
States will not interfere in the domes
tic affairs of the pope, it is confidently
expected that he will not interfere in
the affairs of the United States. The
state department had sufficient evi
dence of papal intentions, else this in
struction to the United States minister
at Rome is without explanation. If
you will look into the life of Secretary
of State Seward, by his son, Frederick
W., you will find that in 1864 our de
partment of state gave instructions to
the United States minister at Rome to
counteract the Influence of the pope,
and to say to Cardinal Antonelli, the
pope's secretary of state, that the rebel
course ought not to obtain, and "could
not win, tven with the declared favor
of the church." This is documentary
evidence, and you will permit me to
commend to your reflection Lord Ao
ton's declaration on the value of such
evidence. "History," says he, "to be
above evasion or dispute, must stand on
documents, not on opinions." The
Issues of our state department at Wash
ington, and the biography of Secretary
Seward, make your opinion of very
light weight.
I am not done, Doctor. You say it 1b
a "mendacious charge," that the pope
gave any official countenance to the
southern confederacy. And even if he
had, other nations recognized the
beligerent rights of the southern cause.
You do seem to be very sensitive to
any alleged slander against the foolish
old man at Rome, who claims (see
Smith on Canon Law, authorized by
Leo XIII.) to be the only channel
through which God will have anything
to do with the regulation of earthly
affairs. And to spare the pope you
would slander history and fact. Now,
against the bold, bare frontage of fact,
how appears your statement that the
pope did not give any recognition of
the southern confederacy? I ask you
to confront these several weighty facts:
1. The American congress had in
formation placing this beyond your
power to dispute. Mr. Dawes, of Massa
chusetts, making a speech on the atti
tude of the government of the Roman
church, in congress, May 19, 1870, said:
"It took sides with the enemies of our
country In the late war, and recognized
the southern confederacy."
2. The attitude of the papacy during
our civil war was a source of anxiety to
our government, and to thoughtful
men. The general trend of the Roman
church was unfriendly. Read this
high authority in Butler's "Mexico in
- r t
displayed pretty soon, they will
Transition," a valuable work, which I
suppose will be no longer Issued by the
Methodist Book concern if you are
elevated to a position in that publish
log house; for, of course, you would
poison that as quickly as you have the
Independent - ' '-.
3. Please read an editorial in Har
per's Weekly for February 9, 1867,which
says in regard to the papal government,
that it was the "only government in
the world to recognize the southern
confederacy." And, while you are at
it, turn to the same paper for June 29,
1867, and read this: "The pope was
the first and only authority which
recognized the southern confederacy."
And you understand that Ilarpefs
Weekly of that day was more reliable
than the New York Independent of this
day.
4. It was during the war, when the
pope was cunningly conspiring to bring
advantage to his church, through the
disturbances in the United States and
Mexico, viz.: December 8, 1864, that
he Issued that celebrated political en
cyclical in which he said that "the
best condition of society is that in
which the power of the laily Is com
pelled to inflict the penalties of law
upon violators of the Catholic faith."
This doctrine Mr. Bingham condemned
on the floor of congress, declaring it to
be an attempt to fetter, the freedom of
conscience, and the freedom of speech,
and uttered in the interest of universal
despotism.
5. Do I understand that you deny
that the pope wrote the president of
the southern confederacy, addressing
him In his official capacity, as the head
of the confederacy? I have seen this
letter. It Is, or was, when I examined
it, among the abandoned property of
the confederacy, In the treasury de
partment at Washington. With that
letter was originally a note from a con
federate papal agent at the court of
Rome (Dudley Mann). In his transmit
ting note Mr. Mann says: "It will live
(the pope's letter to Davis) forever in
story as the production of the first
potentate who formally recognized
your official position, and accorded to
one of the diplomatic representatives
of the confederate states an audience
in an established court palace, like
that of St. James on the Tulleries." It
appears perfectly clear from this that
the confederate government was enjoy
ing diplomatic relations with the
court. Several foreign governments
issued acts of belligerency. That was
saying a state of war existed. You
seem to see no difference between this
and a diplomatic correspondence.-" To
address a letter officially to the head of
an insurgent government, as the repre
sentative head of such government, is
to recognize the" standing of such gov
ernments This is a well-known princi
ple of diplomacy. When the popeoe"
gan his letter to Mr. Davis: "Illustri
ous and Honorable President," he gave
to look at, but I am inclined to
think they own the Country.
that official recognition I am writing
about.
6. Read the "Rise and Fall of the
Confederate Government," by Jeffer
son Davis, and you will find the ex
president of the confederacy saying
this: "Napoleon andhe pop were
both anxious to do mre than recog
nize the southern confederacy." Is
this not rather high authority as to
the way in which Pope Plus IX., pon
tifical head of the Roman church, and
M r. Jefferson Davis, president of the
southern confederacy, understood each
other?
7. It was my pleasure, a few years
ago, to spend a night with a cultivated
old gentleman in his Virginia home.
He had been a chaplain in the confed
erate army, serving, if I remember, in
General Gordon's corps, and in the exi
gency of battle, sometimes on his staff.
He told me that he distinctly remem
bered that the pope was carrying on
some sort of negotiations, that it was
generally known and generally regret
ted, and that the letter which has been
discovered (the one I refer to) was not
the first communication.
8. I must suggest that you read Mr.
Robert Reid Harrison, the eminent
southern author and historical writer,
who says in writing about the cause
that was lost: "In this colossal war
the confederate states never received
friendly words from a power claiming
sovereignty, except from the pontiff of
the Roman church to Jefferson Davis,
president of the confederate states."
8. Once more I refer you to an ar
ticle I have had sent me from the
Iiamhler, a Roman Catholic paper (I
think) of England. Sorry I cannot
give date of issue, but you can look it
up. In that article Is this paragraph:
"The south had the assurance from the
pope that the Jesuits, bishops and
priests would help them. The pope of
Rome was the only crowned prince in
the whole world who recognized the
southern confederacy."
10. Now, Doctor, add to all these
statements of what has been currently
held in great Britain and our country,
on the attitude of the papacy to the
confederacy, and to the documentary
evidence, the fact that Davis had a
high Roman ecclesiastic Archbishop
Lynch at the court of Rome, for the
specific purpose of diplomatic negotia
tions. I confess I do not trust the Ro
man priestly agent on any political
mission. Hence, I have no higher
opinion of the trustworthiness of Arch
bishop Hughes on a political mission
than of Archbishop Lynch. The differ
ence between a papal priest and Prot
estant minister is this: The minister
can forget his denominational relations
in performing his political duties; the
priest, never. I recommend to your
consideration the testimony of the
great English law commentator.Black
stone, who says that "it took centuries
to protect and perfect the nation
against the1 rapacity and schemes of
the prlcHts to avoid the statute."
It was this same poe, about the
same time, who was conspiring, through
his age nts, to destroy the rights of the
Mexican people and erect In that coun
try, only separated from us by the Rio
Grande river, a papal empire, wholly
governed by his law. It was this same
pope who formed a conspiracy to cen
tralize the government of the Inde
pendent Italian states, under himself,
as the tole temporal head.
As ex-Secretary of the Navy Thomp
son has forcibly put It, "a man must
be stupid if he cannot, and wilful If be
will not see that the doctrines an
nounced by Pius IX. and Leo XIII. vio
late all the fundamental principles of
our government, and which may be
rightfully resisted whenever the pope
finds It expedlont to so command."
"Now, ilr, these weighty words of men
better situated to know, and better ex
perienced to judge upon these matters
than ourselves, desorveyour reflection,
as they have had mine.
In the face of this Imposing array of
testimony, will you still say that Presi
dent Lfncoln did an "absurd" thing it
he sent a communication to Arch
bishop Hughes, directing Mb attention
to his responsibility towards the New
York rioters. I question if you are in
a situation to dismiss any act of Presi
dent Lincoln with the judgment of ab
surdity flung at it. Such keen insight
into international relations during a
time of war, when the enemy bad
secret agoDts" working in all parts of
Europe; such superior wisdom in esti
mating the spirit of men and move
ments; such straightforward and states
manlike action, when his mind was
once made up; such a clear and quite
sublime course of judgment in direct
ing the affairs of state during these
four years of terrlflo strife, and no less
stupendous peril, were exercised by
President Lincoln as, perhaps, not
elsewhere in our whole administrative
history. It is altogether reasonable to
suppose that Mr. Lincoln understood
more about the danger threatening
from the Tiber than yourself, and it ill
becomes you or I to say that if he did
this or that It was "manifestly absurd."
It is worth while for me to give, in
this connection, a paragraph to show
that the disposition of the mind of Mr.
Davis was not unlikely soil for papal'
Intriguers to work in.
Davis was placed in a Roman Catho
lic school when he was seven years old
and a monks' school at that and
against the consent of his mother. This
monkery school was under the Domini
cans. I have no space here to discuss
what the ethical effect of Dominican
training is on a certain type of mind.
You remember Mrs. Davis testified
bow her husband felt towards the pope,
and that the pope bad written letters
and sent his picture to Mr. Davis. You
understand as well as I do, that the
sole interest of the pepe in Mr. Davia
centred in the fact that he was at the
head of the rebellious attempt to de
stroy the American union. You re
member that when the Christian peo
ple of France and England united in a
paper of sympathy to the Christian
people of the United States, expressing
their hope for the cause of the union, a
message concurred in by some 800 min
isters of France and more than 4,000 in
England, there was not a Roman Cath
olic priest or bishop among them all
Protectants, every one.
What more shall I say at this point?
If you still hold, In perfect candor of
conscience, that American civilization
of 200 years' standing, has no case to
make out against the papal party for
an unfriendly attitude, a treasonable
course of action, and repeated acts of
political conspiracy against our system
of constitutionalism and free institu
tions, then, In the interest of the papal
cause you hold dear, I invite you to a
joint debate, early next fall, In the city
of New York or in Boston. I will fur-,
nish free a large and pleasant church,
capable of holding 3,000 people, and
will guarantee a respectful hearing by
that number of people.
Now, my dear doctor, giving you
time to reflect over the evil course Into
which you have fallen, before address
ing my last letter to you, I beg to as
sure you of the kindliest personal feel
ings. Yours for historical accuracy,
Scott F. Hershey.
Boston, Mass., May 9, 1896.
Stars and Stripes For Church Spirei
Sandusky, O., May 31. The new
Columbus Avenue Congregational
church was dedicated to-day by the
Rev. Charles S. Mills, and at the even
ing service an American flag was pre
sented to the church, which will be
raised on the spire during the hours of
worship. This, it is said, will be the
only church in the United States over
which the Stars and Stripes will wave.
Mark our great offer, then send the
paper to a friend.
