thoughts on Times and Things. O tempora! O mores! — Horace. (Leland) 1836

Communications

We are happy to be able to commence this volume with the following interesting communication from our venerable correspondent Eld. JOHN LELAND.

Thoughts on Times and Things.
O tempora! O mores! — Horace.

In the tenth century, the opinion that the world would close with that century was set on by the priests, and universally believed in Christendom. This firm belief of the people, the priests worked to their own advantage; for at the close of the century, the people would give first their money and next their lands to the priests for their prayers; concluding that the prayers of the priests would be of more consequence to them than their money and land would be, which would soon be burnt up. At length the century closed; but the world still remained—remained it is true; but a very considerable part of it was in the hands of the priests: and is there any account that the priests ever restored the money and land which they had acquired through holy fraud?

Some time afterwards, Peter the hermit left his cell, and taking a crucifix in his hand ran mad to the princes in Europe and inflamed them to form union—raise their armies, and take the Holy Land, (where Christ was born, taught, wrought miracles and died,) out of the possession of infidels; or the judgments of God would [fall] upon them. From this, the Holy War, called the Crusade, began, and continued, with some intervals, nearly 200 years, wasting the lives of millions, and effected [little]. In cases like these, some great object will be held up to raise wonder of the multitude and bewilder their eyes from seeing the cheat, until, like Thales the philosopher, who gazed at noon to see the stars in the heavens, tumbled into the ditch at his feet.

In the days of the Commonwealth in England, a sect arose, called The fifth monarchy men, [who] held that the four monarchies spoken of in the Scriptures were out, and that Christ would assume his throne on earth and give the kingdom to the saints; and that all earthly monarchies would cease. Oliver Cromwell favored the views of these people, and when he assumed the protectorship, he assured them that he did it [only] with it in his power to give it up to Christ the more readily. That monarchy has existed from that time to this, and still exists, [so far as known] in truth.

Some men among us profess to be greatly alarmed at the spread of the Roman Catholics. They say that there are six hundred thousand within the limits of the United States; all busy at work, like a worm under the bark of a tree, to sap our free government, and set up a papal hierarchy with all the horrors of an Inquisition. This alarm has the complexion of design, to move men to advance their money to make and send missionaries to check the religion of others; for no man who has the soul of an American and the heart of affection for our democratic institutions, will either fear or wish to injure the papists. Supposing the number should be one million, what could that one million do in a country of fourteen million? Is it probable that the Catholics will increase faster, either by births or emigration, than the Protestants? If not, where is the ground of alarm? Their freedom of religion is guaranteed to them in our Constitution of Government, and no benevolent man can wish to have them oppressed as they are in Ireland. In the American Revolution and in the formation of the Constitution under which we live and prosper, the tocsin sounded loud, “America shall be an asylum for the distressed of every nation to flee to,” and who can wish to subvert that freedom? The French Catholics were great helpers to Americans in their struggles for Independence (Lafayette among the rest), and now to deny them the hospitalities of good friends would be base ingratitude. If any of them commit overt acts, punish them, but let them have free scope to publish their religion. If they send their missionaries among those of a different religion to make proselytes, it is doing no more than protestants do. Should they by fair persuasion (for they cannot do it by force until they become a majority) increase in numbers above all other sects collectively; in that case, they must, of right, have the rule; for no man who has a soul of an American will deny [the maxim], that “The voice of a majority is the voice of the whole.” The men of this generation have neither power nor right to say what laws a future generation shall be governed by. An express declaration of their opinion is all that belongs to them.

There are a great many Slaves in the U. States; the exact number I cannot ascertain; (say one million, be the same more or less,) the condition of whom has given the patriots, philanthropists, and religionists great searchings of heart. The abolitionists of late have come forward and seem to demand the unconditional manumission of all of them, without prescribing any rational mode for their future subsistence. If these prophets can prove their commission, like Moses, or have any reason to believe that God will feed the liberated slaves with manna, it is hoped that the slave-holders will obey and not harden their hearts; otherwise, their exertions seem calculated to alienate the slave-holding States from the others, and make the condition of the slaves more miserable. But notwithstanding the measures of the abolitionists are reprobated by every friend to his country, yet the question “What shall we do with the slaves?” must at some time, in some shape be met and decided. The Emancipators have effected nothing. The Liberia exportation affords nothing very flattering; what then shall be done? It cannot be expected that a question, encumbered with so many conflicting interests and opinions, can be easily answered: the most rational solution may be fraught with serious consequences. To proclaim a Jubilee and set them all free, without house or home, tools or money, or friends to take them in, would be sacrificing them to starvation. In such a state, they would wander in droves into all the States, seeking supplies for the calls of nature. Would the abolitionists be pleased to have thousands of them scouring the States in which they live, and groups of them at their own doors or around their dwellings begging or stealing?

Let Congress locate a section of territory for the accommodation of as many as choose to go with the consent of their masters—let their expenses be borne and their equipage of clothing, provisions, implements of husbandry and mech[anical tools,] with all that is necessary for 3 years, including teachers to learn them to read and write, [be furnished] by the treasury of the United States. So far, Congress can proceed towards the liberation of the slaves. This would give relief to those slave-holders who, in heart, are opposed to slavery and would gladly set their slaves free if they could be provided for.

If the legislatures of the slave-holding States, in behalf of their constituents should pass laws for the gradual manumission of all the slaves, that all of them who were in existence at the time of passing those laws should be held in servitude for life; except, with the consent of their masters, they should choose to go to the land provided for them; and that those who should be born after the passing of those laws should be free at the age of 21 years; the children of whom should be free-born; it would gradually lower the price of slaves as property; and gradually [encourage] them to seek their liberty. It would also give time to the masters to re-model their systems to live without the labor of slaves.