Logan Leader | 1881-12-02 | Page 2 | The Nashville "American" and "Mormonism."

THE NASHVILLE "AMERICAN" AND "MORMONISM." Last week we alluded to the Nashville (Tenn.) Daily American, and its article pertaining to "Mormonism." Its issue of Nov. 11th contained the following editorial: There is but one way to strike at Mormonism. The government must put an end to polygamy and the industry of raising children as a speculation and means of obtaining slaves. When Mormonism is stripped of this single distinctive feature, it will have been utterly shorn of its power. Then it will become like any other wild delusion. There it appeals to two of man's most informal passions when they are unremedied?. The fools [who] have got themselves into this lawlessness, have no right to complain of the hardship of separation. Let them obey the law and they will not suffer. No remedy will be adequate so long as congress allows one of these tramplers upon the law to enter its halls. It is true that the present delegate is not a Mormon, but the Mormon was not denied his certificate or his seat on that ground. Congress should declare that no man having a plurality of wives shall enter its halls as a delegate or member, and regard the belonging to a sect that permits it, as ??? evidence of violation of the law. Prescription of any fool for opinions sake must be avoided, but it is not necessary to be too particular. If a man belonged to a society which insisted upon human sacrifices or indulged in canabalism [cannibalism], we suppose congress would not hesitate to turn him out on that ground, and this is worse. The above is a fair sample of the lunacy of editors, who, knowing nothing of "Mormonism" except that they hate it, and make to suggest the course that Congress should pursue in relation to it. "The industry of raising children as a speculation, and means of obtaining slaves." What kind of an idea does this writer have of the "Mormons" anyhow? There were men in Tennessee, before the war, who were charged with selling their own off-spring, begotten by female slaves. Is it possible that this writer places the "Mormons" on the same plane? No other construction can be placed upon that sentence. If it was written in honesty, it was an honesty resulting from a degree of ignorance that totally unfits the writer to wield a public quill. It is more likely, however, that it was written in the same spirit that prompted the accusations against the Savior. "When ‘Mormonism' is stripped of this single distinctive feature, polygamy will have been utterly shorn of its power." There is some little truth in this, for it is by the aid of plural marriage that the "Mormons" are producing a generation of youth who could not but be a power in any part of the earth where they might locate, and who, growing up in the faith of their fathers, and assisted by the blessings of God, will yet prove themselves an irresistible power among the nations of the earth, in forwarding to universal dominion the kingdom represented by the prophet Daniel as a "stone cut from the mountain without hands," that ultimately filled the whole earth. True it is that, in this world, the principle of plural marriage will enhance the power of the Latter-day Saints, as it will also enhance their glory and exaltation in the world to come. And, by the way, here is the secret of the anxiety of the father of lies and of his children to destroy it, and the people who practice it. "The fools who have got themselves into this lawlessness have no right to complain of the hardship of a separation." Tear asunder husband and wife, parent and offspring; disrupt the tenderest ties known to the human heart; brand with bastard thousands of innocent children born in virtuous wedlock, and with burning, consuming infamy, their mother whose virtue is as unspoiled as any ever born by woman; make outcasts by the thousand, of families whose social, moral and religious standing is now unquestioned, "the fools" who have assumed these, the tenderest relations of life, "have no right to complain of the hardship of a separation." "The fool has said he is the Son of God, therefore he has no right to complain if we do crucify him." Where is the essential difference between this saying of the ancient chief priest, and that of the modern scribe we have quoted. In obedience to what he believed to be a divine command, the relation to his fellow man, namely, that of their Redeemer and King. For his active faith in this divine command, the chief priest thought he "had no right to complain at the hardships of" crucifixion. In obedience to what they believe to be a divine command, the Latter-day Saints have assumed family relations, a disruption of which would be worse than death, and yet the American thinks "the fools have no right to complain of the hardship of a separation." The heartlessness, the cruelty, the ferocity, unrivalled [unrivaled] even among brutes, which some men, in their utterances and actions display towards others who differ from them in religious matters, is difficult to account for. But God, in his wisdom, inspired laws in this republic, which prevent such men as the American writer from wreaking their fanatical fury upon those of a different faith from their own. Ours is a government, conducted by the representatives of the people. It is a government of, for, and by the people. Its quintessence consists in having the people represented in the government. Hence the necessity of allowing any portion of the people holding views which differ from those of the majority, to have those views represented in Congress, providing the people holding such peculiar views are numerous enough to elect a representative. The people of Utah are numerous enough to elect a representative to Congress. Therefore they have this unquestionable right. The man whom ??? must be permitted to take his seat, unless he is shown to be unqualified by the provisions of some existing law. Such a law does not exist. Public opinion will not disqualify him. Nor will a charge of felony. To be disqualified on that ground, he must first be duly convicted. There have been many men in Congress charged with bribery, embezzlement and other crimes. Do such ??? charge them out? The idea is absurd. The Delegate from Utah, we mean the legally elected one, not the individual so called by the American - has never been legally convicted of any crime, hence he is in law, as well as in the hearts of his constituents, held to be innocent of any, and to talk of barring him from his seat in Congress on popular accusation is absurd. These remarks are in reply to those of the American on the delegate question.