|
It is certainly
surprising how difficult a thing it is to overcome prejudice,
however foolish its origin and vague its scope. Daily we see
long-exploded follies exhumed from their quiet sepulcher, to again pass
over the earth, only to give place to some equally mischievous and silly
notion. At the same time, it is painful to the lover of true and
rational civil and religious liberty to be compelled to witness the
constant inroads which parties
strive to make upon the rights of others, however well these may be
secured by the laws of the land. One would be led to suppose that in
this country, of so vast an extent, and of freedom for enterprise, where
the unrestricted exercise of all religions leaves each in perfect
freedom to seek its own extension among all classes by persuasions and
argument, no sect or division would strive to gain an unfair advantage
over another, a prerogative, which, in the course of a just
administration of the laws, does not belong to it.
Both these positions have been clearly exemplified
by the course of the late governor of South Carolina, as exhibited in
the proceedings of the Israelites of Charleston, held on the 16th
of November last. If ever any class of men deserved consideration at the
hands of their rulers, the Jews of South Carolina are surely entitled
thereto. They are emphatically citizens of the state, not alone by grant
of law, but because they themselves have striven for the independence of
the land. From the time that the starry banner was flung upon the
breeze, till this very moment, they have always ranked among the
defenders of the soil on which they were born, or which they had chosen
as their residence. If the number of these defenders has been small, say
if you will, inappreciably small, it was certainly in proportion to
their body in comparison with the other inhabitants; and never, we
venture to say, was there brought against them a charge of treason
against the sovereignty of the laws. If, therefore, the other
inhabitants have a right to the consideration and the liberties which
they enjoy, the Jews have it equally so; especially as they come not to
ask any exclusive privileges, but to be left in possession of the
immunities which the constitution guarantees to all, and to be allowed
to join in the joys, the sufferings, and aspirations of their
fellow-citizens.
Governor Hammond showed himself but little
acquainted with his duties of a governor of a free people, by
forgetting, or not heeding, the existence of a numerous body of men who
are generally so well known as the Jews of South Carolina, some of whom
have been legislators in the very capitol at Columbia, from which he
dictates his proclamation. Was it the silly prejudice of the vulgar
which prevented him from knowing of the existence of these men? was it
because they are Jews who depart from the dogmas of those communities of
which he professes not to be a member? No doubt, he was clinging in his
imagination to times never known in this country since its freedom was
established, which proscribed persons for their speculative opinions,
and hence he forgot that there were such people as Israelites within the
bounds of the state of South Carolina. There is nothing uncharitable in
so designating Governor Hammond’s course; for in his apology he
classes them with Deists, Atheists, Mormons and Mahomedans, no doubt for
the purpose of throwing odium upon them, and to excite prejudice against
them in the public mind. Did Governor Hammond know any thing of the
opinions of the Jews, that he should so class them? And where, pray, did
his fellow-Christians derive their code of morals and religious ideas,
save the only one of a mediator, but from the Bible of the Israelites?
How absurd, then, is it in him to cast odium upon them by such
combinations, when at the same time he would necessarily stigmatize his
own creed and religious opinions!
But to leave this point, it is still more painful
to contemplate the attempt, thus clearly foreshadowed, to establish in
this country, too, what Europeans call at times “a Christian State.”
We acknowledge that by far the greatest number of inhabitants belongs to
what is called the Christian church; but, independently of the
difficulty of defining who are
Christians, including Deists, Atheists, Mormons, and others: we contend
that, as far as religion is concerned, the majority has no rule whatever
over the minority by any right, either reasonable or constitutional.
For, although the majority must rule in all republican countries, it is
for all that restricted of right by a constitution, or the supreme law
of the land, which throws its panoply over every inhabitant of the
state; so that, for instance, he cannot be imprisoned without a charge
being brought against him before a lawfully constituted magistrate, nor
can he be tried without being confronted with his accusers, nor
condemned without a verdict of a jury of his countrymen, or some
tribunal specially authorized to pronounce judgment. It is needless to
go into particulars which are apparent to all.—It
hence appears that a majority cannot do every thing; and among the
prohibited things is the abridgment of any one’s rights for
opinion’s sake. It matters not in this respect whether the majority be
Christian or Jewish; the constitution knows nothing of either; and it is
well known that, in the fundamental charter of the United States,
neither Christianity nor Judaism is mentioned by name. Consequently,
neither can be said to govern the land, neither can be said to tolerate
the other. The constitution found us living side by side upon the soil
of America; both Jews and Christians had sacrificed blood and treasure
in the achievement of the independence of the Union; both therefore were
placed upon such an equality that a preference was given to neither;
especially as the wise men who framed the constitution under the
presidency of Washington, had seen the evils of a dominant church
clearly proved in England and America, by the treatment Catholics,
Episcopalians, Puritans, Covenanters, Independents, Quakers and Jews,
had suffered or inflicted on each other. Let no one believe that such
men as Franklin and Madison were ignorant of what they were doing; they
knew and surveyed the whole ground before them; and it is not necessary
for such an humble individual as we are to write their praises, which
are best inscribed in the monument of legislative wisdom which they laid
before the country as the effect of their mature deliberation.
It is the business of all classes of the community
to look well to this instrument; and no one can safely depart from it,
led by the powerlessness of his opponents, to enforce upon them a
species of religious test before he admits them to equal rights. We
repeat what our Carolina friends say, and what we advanced in one of our
earlier works, the Jew is not tolerated in this country; he belongs to
the constitution, which assures him the privilege of worshipping God as
his conscience dictates to him. If even the Christians, therefore, are
in the majority, and could with impunity violate the compact on which
the state rests for safety, they may be sure that it would sooner or
later react upon themselves with fearful retribution. A time may come,
though we trust it never may, as it occurred in France, where religion
was abolished by ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE, not because it was right, but
because an irreligious madness had so enchained and enslaved the
majority of the so-called freedmen of republican France, that for a
while all opposition was useless and dangerous; and had these bloody
fanatics of infidelity only known how to use their triumph with
moderation, Christianity might never have been recalled to France as a
prudential state measure, a sort of coup
d’etat of the new dynasty. Or without this, if those whose numbers
outweigh ours choose to dictate laws, that either we shall be excluded
from some privilege, yes, even that of joining a universal thanksgiving
for benefits which we have all received, or forego our opinions, it next
may happen that a powerful sect may dictate to the weaker ones how they
shall be Christians, and how they shall be thankful.
Since, then, Christianity is not recognized by the
constitution of the Union, and the constitutions of nearly all the
states, no governor has the shadow of an authority to call upon the
inhabitants to pray to God through any mediator; for this procedure is
at once a command, as far as a proclamation can do so, to worship God in
a peculiar manner, and this one based upon Christianity, a religion
professed at this time by many, but never intended to be the state
religion, or favoured by the laws of the state, farther than to protect
the various communities or congregations in the possession of their
property acquired for the purpose of carrying on their peculiar forms
and customs. This the Jews have an equal claim to,—it
is their inalienable right,—and,
consequently, are again upon a level with the majority who are
Christians.
When, therefore, Governor Hammond called upon the
people of his state to worship on thanksgiving day as Christians, he
either meant to exclude the Jews from joining their fellow-citizens in
their devotions, after their own manner, or he bid them depart from it
and adopt the manner of those who compose, as he calls it, “a
Christian people.” Now he must have known that even without taking
into consideration Jews, Deists, Atheists, and Mahomedans, there are
many so-called Christians in the very state of South Carolina, who do
not believe in Christ as a redeemer? Did he mean to exclude them? Or did
he not know when penning his proclamation, that there are many of the
most enlightened men in his own state who are Unitarians,
or persons who deny the divinity of Christ, nearly as much as we do? Was
he aware that the leading literary periodical of the South, we mean the
Southern Review, is edited by one of these men, by Rev. Mr. Whittacker?
Yet these men call themselves Christians, and surely would be glad to
worship God on thanksgiving day, without praying to any one except to
God the Creator only!
We have expatiated upon this subject much more than
we intended, because of its great importance. It is painful at all times
to censure, especially those whom the people delight to honour as their
rulers; but we would not deserve to superintend the only Jewish
periodical in the Union, could we see our rights threatened, even the
breadth of a single straw, without entering our most solemn protest. If
“hereditary bondmen to be free, must themselves strike the blow,”
how much more necessary is it for freedmen to defend the inalienable
rights; and hence we are gratified that our friends in South Carolina
have, with such rare unanimity, stood forth to defend their just cause.
There are, to be sure, several exceptional passages, as we deem, in the
letter to the governor, especially the last clause, where they allude to
his retirement, which strikes us as in exceedingly bad taste, for it
could not add to nor diminish from the wrong they complain of, whether
Mr. Hammond or another were in the gubernatorial chair.—Another
thing they were wrong in, not to point out to the governor the example
of Governor Middleton, who, having, in March, 1812, set apart a day of
thanksgiving, calling upon all Christian denominations to have service
in their respective churches, made a handsome apology for the
unintentional slight offered to the Hebrew congregation.
(Vide
Occ. vol. i. p. 435, in the History of the Congregations of Charleston,
by N. L.) If they had done so, it is possible that Governor
Hammond might have retracted his ill-advised proclamation, and thus been
spared from penning a reply which is full of the common vulgarities
against the Jews, which are only fitting to men of little enlightenment.—However,
we cannot be too critical, especially as we see that in the remonstrance
under question both congregations joined; and that out of respect due to
their religion, neither the Rev. Mr. Poznanski nor the Rev. Mr.
Rosenfeld attempted to keep the thanksgiving based upon the offensive
proclamation.
Other matters contained in this correspondence we
may discuss on another occasion; for the present, however, we have said
enough, perhaps more than was expected from us.
Ed. Oc.
At a numerous meeting of
Israelites, held at the Masonic Hall, on the 16th of
November, Michael Lazarus, Esq., was called to the Chair, and S.
Valentine, Esq., requested to act as Secretary.
The Chairman explained the object of the meeting to
be in consequence of the Governor’s Proclamation of 9th
September, the tenor of which excluded the Israelites of this city and
State from his invitation to public prayer and thanksgiving. His
Excellency had been courteously addressed through a public and private
source, calling his attention to the fact. After
the lapse of some time, he having declined to notice their complaint,
the following letter was transmitted to his Excellency.
To his Excellency James J. Hammond, Governor of
the State of South Carolina.
Sir,
The undersigned, Israelites of Charleston, deem it
due to themselves as American freemen, sternly and solemnly to protest
against the language and spirit of the Proclamation published by your
Excellency in the Charleston Mercury of the 13th ult. Their
voice of firm remonstrance, would have long ere this been heard, but
that you had been addressed on the subject by others of our citizens,
and we desired to afford you ample time to respond. This you have failed
to do; want of time cannot therefore be plead as an excuse, and the
silence which courtesy prompted, must now be broken.
That no conflict of opinion may arise as to the
precise language of your Proclamation, we here insert it, as it
originally appeared, over your official hand and seal.
Executive Department,
Columbia, Sept. 9, 1844.
“By his Excellency James H. Hammond, Governor and
Commander-in-Chief in and over the State of South Carolina.
“Whereas, it becomes all Christian nations to
acknowledge at stated periods, their dependence on Almighty God, to
express their gratitude for His part mercies, and humbly and devoutly to
implore His blessing for the future:
“Now, therefore, I, James H. Hammond, Governor of
the State of South Carolina, do, in conformity with the established
usage of this State, appoint the first Thursday in October next, to be
observed as a day of Thanksgiving, Humiliation and Prayer, and invite
and exhort our citizens of all denominations to assemble at their
respective places of worship, to offer up their devotions to God their
Creator, and his Son Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world
“Given under my hand, and the seal of the State,
in Columbia, this ninth day of September, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and forty-four, and in the sixty-ninth year of
American Independence.
By the Governor,
JAMES H. HAMMOND.
“Robt. Q. Pinckney,
Secretary of State.”
You have thus obviously excluded the Israelites of
South Carolina from a participation in the religious observances of the
occasion. To do this you have adopted a phraseology as unusual
as it is offensive. No casuistry however subtle,—no
constructions however ingenious, can bring the mind to any other
conclusion. It is true, you “exhort our citizens of all denominations
to assemble at their respective places of worship,” and had you
stopped there, you would have been clearly within
the legitimate sphere of your official duty. But, sir, you go further;
and state the particular creed upon which your Excellency would have “all
these denominations” to unite!—all
are invited “to offer up their devotions to God, the Creator, AND his
Son Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world.” Now, it is scarcely
necessary to remind one so profoundly skilled in logic, as well as
ethics, as yourself, that to invite one to do that, which you know his
conscience forbids, if not a mockery of his feelings, is certainly not
far removed from an insult to his understanding; and yet you must, or
should have known, that to a respectable portion of your constituents
your invitation presented no other features.
Sir, the Israelites of Charleston, while they hold
in all proper respect all other denominations of their fellow-citizens,
profess themselves a God-serving and prayerful people. They cherish with
unfaltering devotion their ancient and holy religion. They contemplate
with veneration its sublime truths; and they rely with calm confidence
upon its glorious and inspiring promises. They too, in common with all
others of the human family, have bowed their heads in humble submission
beneath the chastening rod of their Creator, and in their turn, have
also had cause, gratefully to acknowledge bounteous blessings bestowed
by His beneficent hand. Judge then, sir, what must have been their
emotions when they found themselves excluded by your Proclamation, from the general thanksgiving and
prayer of the occasion!
So utterly repugnant to their feelings—so
violative of the accustomed privileges—so
widely variant from the ordinary language of such papers—so
exclusive in its tone and spirit—did
the Israelites of Charleston regard your Proclamation, that, although
there are in the city two congregations of them, neither opened their
doors for worship on the day you had appointed. Nor could they, with a
proper reverence for the hallowed faith of their fathers, have acted
otherwise.
Sir, it is not our purpose to enter with you into
the discussion of doctrinal points; neither your
orthodoxy, nor ours is now in
question. We regard you in this issue only
as the Governor of South Carolina, and we propose to test the position
you have assumed, by that constitution, which you have sworn to support.
Thank God, sir, that noble instrument, together with the Constitution of
the United States, presents a glorious panoply of defence against the
encroachments of power, whether its designs be bold or insidious. Under
its universal and protecting spirit, we do not sue for toleration,
but we demand our rights. Let
us refer to first principles. From the reference both the Governor and the governed
may derive salutary instruction. What says then the first section of the eighth
article of the Constitution of South Carolina? The words are these
(1st Stat. at L. 191):
“The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall for ever hereafter be allowed
within this state to all mankind.”
Now, sir, we charge you with such obvious discrimination
and preference, in the tenor of your proclamation, as amounted to an
utter exclusion of a portion of the people of South Carolina. It would
seem (and we say it without irreverence) as if the finger of Providence
had penned that section of the constitution, in prophetic anticipation
of the case in point. From your perversion of it, what monstrous evils
might arise? if your Excellency could be justified in so framing your
proclamations as to shut out the religious privileges of the Israelites,
where are we to find the line of limitation? Instead of representing the
whole people of the state in
their various tenets and creeds, the governor would make his
own opinion the standard of orthodoxy, be it what it may. Episcopacy
and Presbytery would in turn exclude each other, as the views of the
functionary who may happen to fill the chair might lead. Individual
prejudice or prepossession would usurp the place of the constitution. An
orthodox Protestant governor
might exclude all who do not come up to his peculiar standard of faith;
and the Catholic, the Unitarian, the Israelite, and numerous other sects, may find their
privileges discriminated away,
and their most cherished opinions crushed or slighted by a gubernatorial
preference.
But, sir, while the constitution of our honoured
State is cherished by our people, as it now is, the errors or misdeeds
of those in authority cannot pass unnoticed, or unrebuked. It is a
palladium that throws its broad and protecting influence over all who
abide beneath it. It guarantees TO ALL, in its own expressive phrase,
“without discrimination or preference,” the free and full enjoyment of
every right, civil and religious; and we cherish its principles next to
the Holy Testimonies of our God! It is a noble covenant of Liberty, won
and consecrated by the blood of Heroes. The temple is pure and the
shrine is sacred. If desecrated by the minister the fault shall not be
ours. It is with hearts warmed by such memories, and minds kindling with
such associations, that we now record this our solemn and emphatic
protest against your proclamation, as unsanctioned by the letter or
spirit o the Constitution, as offensive and unusual in language, as
exclusive, arbitrary, and sectarian in its character.
In conclusion, sir, we would remind you that your
term of office is about to expire. A few fleeting days, and the robe
that you wear will grace the shoulders of your successor. We trust that
for your own reputation you will, ere that period arrives, remove the
impressions which the act in question has made upon the minds of a large
portion of your constituents.
We are, very respectfully,
Your obedient servants.
[ The above letter was signed by upwards of one
hundred Israelites, and transmitted to his Excellency. ]
The following reply was received from his
Excellency.
“Executive Department,
Silver Bluff, Nov. 4, 1844.
“Gentlemen—I
received to-day your memorial and protest against my Proclamation
appointing the third day of October for Thanksgiving, which, in
consequence of my allusion to ‘Jesus Christ the Redeemer’ you
denounce ‘as unsanctioned by the letter or spirit of the Constitution—as
offensive and unusual in language, as exclusive, arbitrary and sectarian
in its character.’ I have received heretofore several private
communications on the subject, and a public letter addressed me through
the columns of the Southern Patriot; I made no reply to any of these,
because I did not feel myself bound to notice them, and wished to avoid,
if possible, a controversy of this nature. Your memorial and protest,
however, signed as I perceive it is by over one hundred of the most
respectable Israelites of Charleston, rebuking in no measured terms, and
demanding, as I understand it, an apology, requires an answer. The
simple truth is, that at the time of writing my Proclamation it did not
occur to me, that there might be Israelites, Deists, Atheists, or any
other class of persons in the State who denied the divinity of Jesus
Christ. I could not therefore have intended to wound the feelings of
such individuals or associations of them. But I am aware that
forgetfulness can never justify a breach of public duty, I do not
therefore urge it in the least. And as you force me to speak, it is due
to candour to say, that had I been fully on my guard, I do not think I
should have changed the language of my Proclamation! and that I have no
apology to make for it now. Unhappily for myself I am not a professor of
religion; nor am I attached by education or habit to any particular
denomination, nor do I feel myself to be a fit and proper defender of
the Christian faith. But I must say that up to this time, I have always
thought it a settled matter that I lived in a Christian land! And that I
was the temporary chief magistrate of a Christian people. That in such a
country and among such a people I should be, publicly, called to an
account, reprimanded and required to make amends for acknowledging Jesus
Christ as the Redeemer of the world, I would not have believed possible,
if it had not come to pass. I have not examined nor am I now able to
refer to the Proclamations of my predecessors, to ascertain whether they
have limited their fellow-citizens to address their devotions to the
Father or the Son or to the Father only, nor could I verify the motives
which might have influenced them to do the one or the other. But I am of
the opinion that a Proclamation for Thanksgiving which omits to unite
the name of the Redeemer with that of the Creator is not a Christian
Proclamation, and might justly give offence to the Christian People,
whom it invited to worship. If in complaisance to the Israelites and
Deists, his name must be excluded, the Atheists might as justly require
that of the Creator to be omitted also; and the Mahometan or Mormon that
others should be inserted. I feel myself upon the broad ground that this
is a Christian community; and that as their chief magistrate it was my
duty and my right in conformity with usage, to invite them to return
thanks for the blessings they enjoy, to that Power from whence, and that
Being through whose intercession they believe that they derive them. And
whatever may be the language of Proclamation and of Constitution, I know
that the civilization of the age is derived from Christianity, that the
institutions of this country are instinct with the same spirit, and that
it pervades the laws of the State as it does the manners and I trust the
hearts of our people. Why do we observe the Sabbath instituted on honour
of Christ? Why do our laws forbid labour on that day or the execution of
civil process? it is because we are, and acknowledge ourselves, and wish
to be considered, a Christian people. You appeal to the Constitution as
guaranteeing ‘the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship without discrimination or preference to all mankind.’ If
the laws recognizing the Christian Sabbath do not violate the
Constitution, how can my Proclamation, which was compulsory on no one,
do it? If both are unconstitutional, why have not the Israelites
commenced by attacking these long-standing laws, and purifying our
legislation? Do they deem it easier to intimidate one man, and extract
from him a confession and an apology under the apprehension of their
fierce and unrelenting hostility, than to reform the State? In whatever
situation I have been placed, it has always been my aim to adhere
strictly to the Constitution and uphold the Laws. I did not think, and
do not now think, that I violated the Constitution of this State by my
Proclamation. That forbids the legislature to pass any law restricting
the most perfect toleration. I addressed to the Christian community, at
their request, a Proclamation inviting them to worship in accordance
with their faith; I had neither the power nor desire to compel any one
to offer his devotions contrary to his faith, or to offer them at all.
Those who did not choose to accept my invitation, were at full liberty
to decline it, and if the Israelites refused to open their Synagogues, I
had no complaint to make—no
penalty to exact. Had they stopped at that, such a manifestation of
their disapproval of my Proclamation would have been the more severely
felt by me, because of its dignity and its consonance with true
religious feelings as I apprehend them. But if, inheriting the same
scorn for Jesus Christ which instigated their ancestors to crucify him,
they would have felt themselves degraded and disgraced in obeying my
exhortation to worship their ‘Creator,’ because I had also
recommended the adoration of his ‘Son the Redeemer,’ still I would
not have hesitated to appoint for them, had it been requested, a special
day of Thanksgiving according to their own creed. This, however, was
not, I imagine, what the Israelites desired. They wished to be included
in the same invitation to the public devotion with the Christians! And
to make that invitation acceptable to them, I must strike out the
corner-stone of the Christian creed, and reduce the whole to entire
conformity with that of the Israelites; I must exhort a Christian People
to worship after the manner of the Jews. The Constitution forbids me to
‘discriminate’ in favour of the Christians; and I am denounced
because I have not ‘discriminated’ in favour of the Israelites. This
is the sum and substance of your charge. The terms of my Proclamation
were broad enough to include all believers. You wished me to narrow it
down to the exclusion of ninety-nine hundredths of my fellow-citizens.
Neither the Constitution, nor my public duty, would allow me to do this,
and they also forbid me to offer any apology for not having done it.
“Many topics in your memorial and its vehement
tone I pass over without comment, because I do not wish to go farther in
this unpleasant discussion, than briefly to state the prominent grounds
on which I justify my conduct. And I cannot but hope that when you come
to look dispassionately at the matter, you will perceive that the warmth
of your feelings has led you astray, that you have taken offence without
sufficient cause, and that in fulminating your wrath at me, you have
exhibited a temper which in the end may be more painful to yourselves
than it can be to me. Not that I do not regret sincerely that I have so
unexpectedly incurred your enmity, but because I suffer little when I am
satisfied that I have done no wrong.
“I have the honour to be
“Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. H. HAMMOND.”
All of which the chairman submitted
to the consideration of the meeting.
Whereupon, it was, on motion,
Resolved, That the whole subject be referred to a
committee, who, after due deliberation, submitted the following
REPORT.
It is evident to your committee, that, on the
appearance of the governor’s proclamation, the editor of the Southern
Patriot brought the subject before the executive by stating through
the columns of that journal, that the exclusion of the Israelites had
given just cause of offence to many citizens of that persuasion. Some
time after this, a gentleman, over his own signature, addressed a letter
to his excellency, couched in the most respectful language. Had the
governor been pleased to instruct his secretary to acknowledge either of
these, simply declaring their exclusion an oversight, the matter would
have been dropped at that point. But the courtesy usually extended in
such cases was withheld on this occasion. His excellency did not, in his
own language, “feel bound to answer,” and accordingly he took no
notice of either. This strange, and as we consider, discourteous course,
prompted a large number of Israelites to address him, and his rely to
them forms the subject of your committee’s present report.
Your committee regret that the positions taken by
the Israelites in their letter to his excellency, have been so
erroneously construed and misstated in his reply. This of course they
regard as unintentional on his part; but as an illustration of the
remark, his excellency states in the very first paragraph, that his
proclamation is denounced as unusual and offensive, in consequence of
his allusion to “Jesus Christ the Redeemer.” It will be perceived,
by reference to the letter of the Israelites, that such construction
cannot be maintained. The only correct interpretation of their language
is, that in so framing his proclamation they were entirely excluded
from “a participation in the religious observances of the occasion.”
That alone was their cause of complaint. Had his excellency, if he had
even pleased specially to invite our Christian fellow-citizens,
only gone a little farther, and extended it, as is customary, to all
other denominations, no dissatisfaction, in the opinion of your
committee, could possibly have existed among the Israelites. And was
this an unreasonable expectation on their part? Or would it have been an
extraordinary act on the part of his excellency? Assuredly not. He would
have been but pursuing the course usual on such occasions—they but
enjoying in common with other citizens an established privilege. His
Excellency states that he had not before him, when he wrote his
proclamation, those “of his predecessors,” to ascertain their mode
of invitation. This your committee regret; for they believe he would
have found that usage is against him. Of one thing they are
assured; that it has been the pride of our governors to show their
respect for the constitution, by the address with which they have on all
occasions of this kind infused into its spirit what satisfies the most
sensitive mind.
It
is proper here to remark, that nothing is more common even in
monarchical countries, having a state constitution, than for rulers to
call on every denomination to offer up prayers at their respective
places of worship. This practice prevails even in barbarous countries.
If the Nile is tardy in rising, the pacha of a dominant mosque calls on
persons of every sect to unite, but does not defeat the object by the
mandate, and cry of Allah and Mahomet. Thus, if the governor was
absolute, your committee cannot believe that a custom so general would
be outraged against the followers of a particular faith. These
comparisons, though rather mortifying to those constrained to make them,
are nevertheless necessary. His Excellency—with a written constitution
for his guide, has been pleased to act in direct contrast with this
course. Your committee are too
much in earnest on this subject to notice the sarcasm, temper, or taste
of this letter from the “department of state.” They decline to
comment on these topics—nor is it their right to have been informed of
his Excellency's creed, any more than if he had been pleased to speak
to us of his moral sentiments or private affairs. As citizens of the
state, they are aware of the respect due the executive office, and shall
not vary from the point of their rights. The feeling on their part is
any thing but that of pride, that such a document should be filed among
the annals of our state. With the miscellaneous remarks, theological,
philosophical, they have as little to do; such views may suit
ecclesiastical statesmen, and might form plausible reasons on their
part, if efforts are ever made, to subvert the present constitution, and
have one uniting church and state; but in the present form of the
charter, it bears a far more liberal interpretation than his Excellency
has given it.
Neither
can your committee, for the like reasons, and they are constrained to
add in self-respect, properly notice the classification, in which you
are included, of “Jews,” “Atheists,” “Mormons,” &c.
&c. except to expose the argument. The constitution has nothing to
do with the relative numbers of the citizens—with popular or unpopular
modes of faith. If either of these classes of citizens formed
nine-tenths of the population, and the other tenth were Christians, with
the present constitution, his Excellency, under his view, must exclude
the minority of Christians, and interpret Mormonism, or any other ism,
as the religion of the state.
Your
committee notice also in his Excellency's letter, language which they
deem calculated to excite the worst of feelings in our country. They
cannot believe that it was penned with such intention, but it has been
to them a source of much pain. They would notice particularly his
allusion to the crucifixion of Christ, and depreciate it sincerely as
tending to excite the prejudices of eighteen hundred years against a
small portion of his constituents. They appeal, however, to their
fellow-citizens of all denominations to support them in the declaration,
that nothing is more common than for Israelites here and elsewhere to
subscribe to the erection of churches consecrated to the numerous
sectaries of Christianity; and they trust to be found at their post, in
defence of the humblest of them, should fanaticism, or outrage of any
kind, (which Providence avert,) ever assail them.
But
on the main point, your committee in seriousness, as citizens of this
state, and of the United States, would be unworthy of the rights secured
to them, in common with all others, if they did not protest against the
principles set forth in the governor’s letter, which if admitted,
would form a base sufficient to measure away their rights, and the
rights of others, for what affects you now, might at another time be
fatal to the rights of other minorities. Such invasions silently
creeping in, some future proclamation may make farther discriminations,
expressing what the executive means by Christianity, and who are
Christians. The worst species of wrong is the partial one that aims at
the few; that abandons principles and strives to please numbers. Few or
many, popular or otherwise, the Israelites hope to be found always
upholding those principles, wherein as American citizens, they of right
are at issue with the interpretation of the spirit of the laws as
expressed by the governor. They maintain that the state government, like
that of the United States, is a government of equal rights in
religious privileges, as in all other things, and not as his Excellency
infers, a government of tolerance, enabling rulers to give or to
withhold. It would be an outrage on the constitution, and on the
character of the patriots who made it free and equal, and on our
countrymen around us, if any contrivance should make it otherwise. The
rights therein secured form the general sentiment of the people of this
country, and when attempted to be tempered with, find confirmation from
the Congress of the United States, in such manifestation, as in the
celebrated report of the Hon. R. M. Johnson, on the petition to arrest
the Sunday Mails. To that noble exposition your committee would commend
his Excellency's attention.
There
are numerous observations in the governor’s letter, which, however
much they may have wounded your feelings as Israelites, we prefer with a
view to the suppression of excitement to pass without notice here. Even
that impeachment of the purity of your motives conveyed in his question.
“whether you found it easier to intimidate one man than to reform the
state,” your committee, while in justice they are compelled to
disclaim and repel the insinuation, will also permit to pass without
farther comment. They desire to assuage, not to exasperate—and they
cannot but believe that much that is harsh and wounding in his
Excellency's letter, would not have been penned, but for the fact
which he himself declares, “that he is not a professor of religion,
and is not specially attached by habit, or education to any particular
denomination.”
In
conclusion, your committee cannot leave the whole matter with a safer
guardian than the public opinion of the country.
After
several animated addresses, the report was unanimously adopted.
On
motion,
Resolved,
That these proceedings be published in the public journals of this city,
and of Columbia, S. C.
MICHAEL
LAZARUS, Chairman.
S. VALENTINE, Secretary.
Charleston Mercury. |
