The Cincinnati Convention.
[Mr. F. E. Abbott, editor of the Index, Toledo, O., attended the above convention, and presented a protest against their proceedings and their object. The remarks of Mr. Abbott concerning the convention, from which extracts are here given, and the protest, given in full, will be interesting to all our readers.—Eds. Review.] The “National Convention to Secure the Religious Amendment of the United States Constitution” was held in Thoms’ Hall, Cincinnati, on Wednesday, Jan. 31, and Thursday, Feb. 1. The hall accommodates about seven hundred or eight hundred, and was well filled at every session of the convention. About two hundred and fifty delegates, from ten different States, reported themselves. The audiences were in full sympathy with the object of the convention, if frequent and loud applause is a trustworthy sign of sympathy; although it was evident that a minority of those present were attracted only by curiosity. The spirit of the convention was that of deep earnestness, and impressed the attentive observer as indicative of strong convictions very sincerely held. It was a note-worthy circumstance that, comparatively speaking, very few women were present. From the introductory speech and Report of the General Secretary, it appeared that the National Association (by which the convention was called) has at least thirty auxiliary associations, each with a membership ranging from twenty to three hundred. Within the past year nearly two hundred public meetings have been held, attended mostly by “large and enthusiastic audiences.” It was proposed to push the work of the Association with redoubled energy by distributing tracts, sending out lecturers, holding meetings for public discussion, multiplying subordinate associations, and circulating petitions to Congress. The great aim of the Association is to prevent the abrogation of Sunday laws, the expulsion of the Bible from the schools, and so forth, by so amending the United States Constitution as “to place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages in our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the nation.” From the Report of the Executive Committee it appeared that ten thousand copies of the proceedings of the Philadelphia convention have been gratuitously distributed; that a General Secretary (Rev. D. McAllister) has been appointed, with a salary of $2,500; and that a long and elaborate paper by Prof. Taylor Lewis of Union College, in advocacy of the ideas and objects of the Association, will soon be published; that the number of the Executive Committee is recommended to be increased to twenty-five, besides including all presidents of auxiliary associations; that $2,177 have been raised the past year by the Association, and that a balance of over $90 remains in the treasury. Nearly $1800 were raised at this convention. The Business Committee recommended that the delegates to this convention hold meetings in their respective localities to ratify the resolutions adopted at Cincinnati; that twenty thousand copies of the proceedings of this convention be published in tract form; and that the friends of the Association be urged to form auxiliary associations. All these recommendations were adopted. The resolutions passed were as follows:— “Resolved, That the State as a power claiming and exercising supreme jurisdiction over millions of human beings, as the solemn arbiter of life and death, and as an educating power, has necessarily a moral character and accountability of its own. “Resolved, That it is the right and duty of the United States, as a nation settled by Christians, a nation with Christian laws and usages, and with Christianity as its greatest social force, to acknowledge itself in its written Constitution, to be a Christian nation. “Resolved, That as the disregard of sound theory always leads to mischievous practical results, so in this case the failure of our nation to acknowledge, in its organic laws, its relation to God and his moral laws, as a Christian nation, has fostered the theory that government has nothing to do with religion but to let it alone, and that consequently State laws in favor of the Sabbath, Christian marriage, and the use of the Bible in the schools, are unconstitutional. “Resolved, That we recognize the necessity of complete harmony between our written constitution and the actual facts of our national life; and we maintain that the true way to effect this undoubted harmony is not to expel the Bible and all idea of God and religion from our schools, abrogate laws enforcing Christian morality, and abolish all devout observances in connection with government, but to insert an explicit acknowledgment of God and the Bible in our fundamental law. “Resolved, That the proposed religious amendment, so far from tending to a union of Church and State, is directly opposed to such union, inasmuch as it recognizes the nation’s own relations to God, and insists that the nation should acknowledge these relations for itself, and not through the medium of any church establishment.” As most of our readers probably know through the daily papers, we asked and obtained the privilege of making a remonstrance against the object for which the convention was held. Our first impression was that the written remonstrance would never be heard from, after once being handed to the Business Committee. But we had been so favorably impressed by the spirit and manner of almost all of the leading men of the convention (there were one or two exceptions), that we were unwilling to form this opinion hastily, and therefore sought an interview with one of the Business Committee, Rev. Mr. Milligan, between two of the sessions. He very courteously explained that the Committee had intended to read the remonstrance, with a reply; but that if we preferred to speak, the privilege would be cheerfully granted. It was finally arranged that the written remonstrance should be handed in, and that an opportunity should also be accorded for a brief oral address. We desire here to express our warm appreciation of the frankness, courtesy, and kindliness, with which we were treated by the officers and members of the convention; and to say emphatically that we found them to be so thoroughly sincere and earnest in their purpose that they did not fear the effect of a decided but temperate protest. This fact speaks volumes in their praise, as men of character and convictions. We saw no indication of the artful management which characterizes most conventions. The leading men—Rev. D. McAllister, Rev. A. M. Milligan, Prof. Sloane, Prof. Stoddard, Prof. Wright, Rev. T. P. Stephenson—impressed us as able, clear-headed, and thoroughly honest men; and we could not but conceive a great respect for their motives and their intentions. It is such qualities as these in the leaders of the movement that give it its most formidable character. They have definite and consistent ideas; they perceive the logical connection of these ideas, and advocate them in a very cogent and powerful manner; and they propose to push them with determination and zeal. Concede their premises, and it is impossible to deny their conclusions; and since these premises are axiomatic truths with the great majority of Protestant Christians, the effect of the vigorous campaign on which they are entering cannot be small or despicable. The very respect with which we were compelled to regard them, only increases our sense of the evils which lie germinant in their doctrines; and we came home with the conviction that religious liberty in America must do battle for its very existence hereafter. The movement in which these men are engaged has too many elements of strength to be contemned by any far-seeing liberal. Blindness or sluggishness to-day means slavery to-morrow. Radicalism must pass now from thought to action, or it will deserve the oppression that lies in wait to overwhelm it. Without further comments at present, we append the remonstrance. It was not read, as reported but the substance of it was given extemporaneously in different language. The opening sentence was written with the expectation of not being allowed to speak—an expectation afterwards agreeably disappointed by the courtesy and liberality of the officers of the convention:— “In accordance with the convention’s vote, I submit the following written remonstrance to the Business Committee, although I requested the privilege of making an oral one:— “Without casting any reflections upon the motives which have led to this attempt to Christianize the United States Constitution, I wish to enter a most earnest protest against the attempt itself. I will not inflict a long document on your attention, but confine myself to a single point of vast practical importance. “If the proposed changes are ever made in the Constitution, their necessary result will be to prevent all persons except Christian believers from holding any office, civil or military, under the American government. No honest disbeliever in the newly incorporated doctrines will be able to take the oath of allegiance required from all United States officials and soldiers. Only Christian believers and dishonest disbelievers will be able to take it; consequently the entire power of the government, both political and military, will be constitutionally concentrated in the hands of those who believe, or profess to believe, the doctrines thus incorporated. “The very large portion of the American people who do not believe in these doctrines will thus be rendered incapable of holding office, deprived of all representation in Congress and the other branches of the national government, and robbed of rights which have been hitherto recognized as theirs from the very adoption of the Constitution. They will be degraded to a subject class, ruled by an aristocracy of Christian believers. “This state of things once established, the ‘appropriate legislation’ by which the new policy must be sustained will necessarily involve the proscription and suppression of free thought, free speech, and a free press. Whether intended now or not, oppressive persecution must be the consequence of the adoption of the proposed amendment. All your disclaimers of the intent or wish to persecute are utterly idle. The matter will not be in your hands. Persecution will grow like a cancer in the body politic just as soon as the coveted inequality of religious rights once poisons its blood. “Now I urge you to consider well the temerity of your proposed usurpation of political power. I warn you against the peril, instigating the Christian part of our population to attempt this usurpation. I caution you against the folly of supposing that the majority of the people will finally consent to this subversion of their common liberties. I beg you to count the cost of this agitation before you carry it further. It is a wild and insane delusion to expect that the great body of freedom-lovers will ever submit voluntarily, or can be made to submit by force, to any such outrageous oppression, whether in the name of God or man. I make no threat whatever, but I state a truth fixed as the hills, when I say that before you can carry this measure and trample on the freedom of the people, you will have to wade through seas of blood. Every man who favors it votes to precipitate the most frightful war of modern times; and it is simply preposterous for any of your number to speak of the liberals as ‘threatening war.’ You threaten war when you avow a purpose to destroy the equality of religious rights now guaranteed by the Constitution to all American citizens. On the assailant in this struggle be all the responsibility of its results. “In the name of freedom, and humanity, and peace, I appeal to you to recognize the real tendencies of your enterprise, and to abandon it as not only hopeless, but also most dangerous to the tranquility of the land. If you are thoughtlessly favoring a scheme whose success would be the establishment of a Christian oligarchy on the ruins of this free republic, you will turn away from it with horror when reflection has shown you its sure issue. But if you deliberately aim to compass this usurpation of power and this disfranchisement of all but Christian believers, notwithstanding the inevitable calamities involved, you will, if as honest and earnest as I believe you to be, point out to the people the abyss that yawns before their feet. Of this be sure—there are millions of men in America who will never submit to be ruled by an oligarchy, whether Christian or anti-Christian. If I wished to destroy Christianity in this country by unscrupulous means, I should encourage your attempt in every way; for the reaction you will create will open the eyes of millions to the fact that Christianity and freedom are incompatible. But because you are not only Christians, but also fellow-citizens, fellow-men, and brothers, I appeal to you most earnestly to BE CONTENT WITH THE EQUAL RIGHTS YOU NOW ENJOY BEFORE THE LAW, without seeking to destroy the rights of those who are not Christians in belief. I appeal to you to make no further efforts to fan into a flame the dangerous fires of religious bigotry; for the conflagration, once kindled, you will be powerless to control. Rise above the temptation to seek the triumph of your creed by political strife, and trust your cause, as I trust mine, to the power of truth over the human soul.”