The Spectator, August 2, 1859, p. 2, c. 6
Messrs. Editors:--The lovers of peace and good order will appreciate the motive which prompts this communication. Far back, in the early history of this country, when its population was sparse, and churches few and far between, a necessity prompted the large and promiscuous assemblages at certain places, for religious exercises, known as "Camp- meetings."--Families removed to such places in their wagons, and either used them as places in which to lodge, or erected temporary huts or cabins, to be used during the continuance of the meeting. This was a period of our history when the people appreciated such opportunities, and to a greater or less degree profited, it may be, by them.--That day has long since passed away. Churches have so multiplied everywhere in our Valley, at least, as to do away with a necessity for such assemblages. The Methodist denomination was the first to introduce them, but for some years past they have yielded to an enlightened public sentiment and abandoned them. The character of the crowds which were drawn together, made up in a great degree of all that is most repulsive in society, and from great distances very often, hastened this feeling of opposition and prejudice against them. The mischief done on such occasions very far over balanced any good. The Sabbath has been almost entirely ignored, the peace and good order of society violated by drunkenness, profanity, fighting, huckstering, lewdness, and in short, by the perpetration of almost every crime. The families of those en camping on the ground, especially in the females, have had such an amount of drudgery and labor to perform in cooking and providing for the entertainment of their many friends and acquaintances, as to make it next to impossible they should enjoy any of the benefits of public worship. The neighborhood selected for such a meeting, regard it with anything but a feeling of comfort, and always desire it shall for the future be abated as a nuisance. Contiguous land holders suffer in the throwing down their fences, trespassing on their fields and crops, robbing their orchards and hen roosts, corrupting their slaves and ignoring their rights of every kind.--The business of the Courts is much increased and a conscienscious grand juror finds much to engage his attention.
In view of this state of public sentiment and the results of the Camp Meetings, as we read their history in the past, you will feel surprise, Messrs. Editors, to learn that an effort is on foot to institute them again, on the part of some of our Methodist friends. I say some, for I feel well assured, but few of them enter heartily into the idea. One of their clergy with intemperate zeal insists a Camp Meeting must and shall be held "altho a devil should be find behind every tree," to use the language which dame Rumour attributes to him; I am aware she is sometimes mendacious, but in this instance she approximates very closely, I presume, to the truth. He urges, too, that it be held hard by a church of another denomination, when, I doubt not, other situations might readily be had, where no conflict or interference with other denominations could be feared. Should such meeting be held, may we not hope that the amount of good may very far counterbalance the evil, and in such an event no one will more heartily rejoice than CONSERVATOR
The Spectator, August 2, 1859, p. 2, c. 5
A correspondent of the St. Louis Democrat, writing from Marshall, Saline county, Missouri, on the 26th ult., says:
Some time ago, you will recollect, a negro murdered a gentleman named Hinton, near Waverly, in this county. He was caught after a long search, and put to jail. Yesterday he was tried at this place and convicted of the crime, and sentenced to be hung. While the Sheriff was conveying him to prison he was set upon by the crowd and taken from that officer. The mob then proceeded to the jail and took from thence two other negroes. One of them had attempted the life of a citizen of this place, and the other had just committed an outrage upon a white girl. After the mob got the negroes together, they proceeded to the outskirts of the town, and selecting a proper place, chained the negro who killed Hinton, to a stake, got a quantity of dry wood, piled it around him, and set it on fire! Then commenced a scene which for sickening horrors has never been witnessed before in this, or perhaps any other place.
The negro was stripped to his waist, and barefooted. He looked the picture of despair--but there was no sympathy felt for him at the moment. Presently the fire began to surge up in flames around him, and its effects were soon made visible in the futile attempts of the poor wretch to move his feet. As the flames gathered around his limbs and body, he commenced the most frantic shrieks and appeals for mercy--for death--for water! He seized his chains--they were hot, and burnt the flesh off his hands. He would drop them and catch at them again and again. Then he would repeat his cries; but all to no purpose. In a few moments he was a charred mass--bones and flesh alike burnt into a powder. Many, very many of the spectators, who did not realize the full horrors of the scene until it was too late to change it, retired disgusted and sick at the sight. May Marshall never witness such another spectacle.
The ends of justice are surely as fully accomplished by the ordinary process of law as by the violence of an excited populace.
If the horrors of the day had ended here, it would have been well, but the other negroes were taken and hung--justly, perhaps--but in violation of law and good order. They exhibited no remorse. One of the simply remarked, "that he hoped before they hunt him they would let him see the other boy burnt!"
The Saline County Herald, edited by Mr. Geo. W. Allen, formerly of this county, confirms the above, and gives and account of the hanging of another negro by the people. On a Monday, the 18th, a little girl of Arrow Rock, Saline county, who was in company with another little girl, and some little boys, returning from gathering blackberries, was picked up in the road by a negro fellow and carried into the woods, and there most brutally treated. Mr. N.H. Huston was the first to arrive at the place, but not in time to arrest the scoundrel. He was subsequently arrested, and upon an examination before a Committee--and after his guilt was made apparent, he was taken and hanged on Monday night, and his body was permitted to remain upon the tree until Tuesday morning. The burning and hanging in Marshall occurred on Tuesday.
The Spectator, August 9, 1859, p. 1, c. 1
Mr. Wm. A. Perrin, of this place, was bitten by a rattle-snake at Stribling Springs, on Saturday afternoon last, and died from the effects of the poison on Sunday morning. He had caught the snake and was playing with it at the time the wound was inflicted.
The Spectator, August 9, 1859, p. 2, c. 4
Messrs. Editors.--I was at the Presbyterian Church on last Saturday, and was pleased to see it so neatly carpeted; but the question occurred to me, how can that neatness be preserved in a Church where so many tobacco chewers attend, and chew tobacco all the time? I wonder if gentlemen cannot be induced to forbear the use of the "weed" for about one hour and a half. I believe it is not considered genteel to chew tobacco in private parlors and spit over the carpets; if so, it must be looked upon as far from genteel to spit tobacco juice over the floor or carpet of the House of God.
The Spectator, August 16, 1859, p. 2, c. 1
We publish in another column a communication from Mr. F. O. Tebbs, to the editors of this paper. We are personally unacquainted with Mr. Tebbs, but are informed that he is a Revered gentleman of the Methodist Episcopal Church on the Churchville Circuit. It must be admitted that he introduces himself rather roughly to entire strangers, and peppers us pretty severely considering the range of the thermometer; but in consideration of the friendly counsel which he so liberally intermingles with his censures, we find it impossible to be agitated. We take it for granted that Mr. Tebbs is a very good fellow, as we have generally found the Methodist clergy to be, and would not have our readers estimate either his temper or his talents by the erratic ebullitions of a temporary excitement. Controversies we avoid, even those of a political character, and a controversy with the Rev. Mr. Tebbs in regard to the advantages or disadvantages of camp meetings we cannot undertake in the midst of the "dog- days." Inasmuch, however, as the Reverend gentleman has traveled entirely out of his circuit to assault the editors of this paper, we are compelled to say a word in justification of our course. In doing so we shall confine ourselves to Mr. Tebbs and his affectionate letter of reproof and advice, as we have nothing to say in regard to the Methodist Church or its meetings, or even the "brethren of the camp-meeting Committee."
Mr. Tebbs brings a "specific charge" against us, viz.: that we have allowed our paper to be used for the purpose of attacking the Methodist denomination and its "meetings," and says, "I hold you, gentlemen, responsible for the publication of that article." The article in question was written by a highly respectable and responsible gentleman of the county, and sent to us with a request for its publication. The writer complained of camp-meetings generally, as prejudicial to the public morals, and lamented the fact that one was about to be held in a certain quarter of the county. We conceived that he had a right to entertain and express, nor did we feel at liberty as conductors of a public journal, to decline to publish his views in regard to the matter. The fact that it was a Methodist meeting, or that our subscribers in that region were Methodists, had nothing whatever to do with our decision of the question. We published it because we recognize the right of every man in this "land of the free and home of the brave," to discuss freely any matter in which he may conceive the public interests or the public morals to be involved, no matter whose toes it pinches. We should have inserted it just as freely, if it had been an assault upon an Episcopal Convention or a Presbyterian Synod. It does us no manner of harm for Mr. Tebbs to hold us responsible. If we held ourselves responsible it might give us some trouble, but we don't, nor is it the habit among gentlemen for our profession to hold themselves responsible for the statements of their correspondents. All the satisfaction that we can afford Mr. Tebbs, therefore, is to let him follow the example of Tom Brown and "hold on to his holt." Every man at all familiar with the duties and responsibilities of a newspaper editor knows that the position taken by Mr. Tebbs is not only untenable but absurd. The author of the article is alone responsible for its sentiments and its statements. His name is in our possession, and if desired by those offended, for the purpose of seeking redress, will be cheerfully given up when demanded. In the meantime, his statements may be denied or his arguments refuted by any friend of the Methodist Church, our columns being freely opened for the purpose, as is manifest by our publication of Mr. Tebbs assault upon ourselves. If the Methodist Church has been "unjustifiably misrepresented," Mr. Tebbs might have been more profitably engaged in correcting the misrepresentations, than in manufacturing thunder bolts to hurl at us.
We have nothing to say in regard to the number and strength and influence of the Methodist Church, whose name is "Legion," and who have not "bowed the knee to Baal." Doubtless it is all true enough. We have never written a line derogatory to that denomination, and have in this instance only published an article, which, according to Mr. Tebbs own showing, was merely "a source of amusement, affording an opportunity of merriment over the ignorance, not to any impudence, of its author." It seems to have been a very harmless affair, therefore. Moreover, Mr. Tebbs should remember that "we are enjoying the civil and religious liberties for which our fathers nobly fought and bled, that cannot in any sense tolerate proscription either in regard to the EXPRESSION OF OPINION or the holding of camp-meetings;" and that it would have been intolerant in us to have denied our corespondent the privilege of expressing his opinion. Perhaps our "fathers nobly fought and bled" for the express purpose of giving Mr. Tebbs the privilege of expressing his opinion.
We are much obligated to Mr. Tebbs for his suggestion in regard to the proprietary of letting "the Methodists and especially their camp-meetings alone," but inasmuch as we have never yet disturbed either we do not stand in need of his advice. We do not know whether we are his seniors or not, but judging from the puerility of his conclusions in regard to our responsibility for other peoples saying and doings, we should not take him to be very mature. At any rate we have had a little more experience in editorial ethics and etiquette than our respected corespondent, and he must not think hard of us if we continue to decide questions of professional propriety for ourselves.
We are equally obliged to Mr. Tebbs for his kind tender of a cordial welcome either at Churchville or the camp-meeting. When we commenced his sentence--"The author of this resides in Churchville," we supposed that he means to inform us where we could find "pistols and coffee for two," and no one can imagine the sensation of relief we experienced when the paragraph was concluded, and we found it but an invitation to tea. If possible, we shall visit the camp-ground, when we hope to hear Mr. Tebbs in his appropriate sphere. We are sure that his pulpit performances will far surpass his newspaper effort in logical cogency, and, we trust, be more successful in promoting the cause of religion.
The Spectator, August 16, 1859, p. 2, c. 4
Messrs. Editors:--I was very much surprised to find in your columns over a fictitious signature a communication purporting to be an attack upon camp-meetings, but evidently a slur at the M. E. Church.
I hold you, gentlemen, responsible for the publication of that article, which to say the least, is highly insulting to the moral sense of those who have chosen that form of christianity known as Methodism.
Insulting, I repeat, because it makes the charge against a meeting somewhat peculiar to the Methodists, (but which originate among another sect) of being accessory to the basest crimes on record; such as theft, "drunkenness, lewdness" &c.
The question at issue between us is whether a newspaper the organ of a large and very influential party in this portion of Augusta should become the medium through which a christian denomination is slandered, their religious meeting denounced as productive of the "perpetration of almost every crime."
I do not presume that you would willfully and deliberately perform an act which would reflect upon yourselves as Editors or be calculated to injure the character of your paper, yet I must assure you that the appearance of the article to which I have referred, while it has not added one laurel to the crown of its author (whoever he may be, and we care not who) it has certainly detracted from your fame and attached a stigma to your paper.
It is a matter of fact that a majority of the members of that very church (in this part of the county) which have been unjustifiably misrepresented in your columns are of your political sentiments, and subscribers to your paper.--Think you, gentlemen, that it is right for such a vilification of their camp-meetings to be published in the Staunton Spectator (the paper of their choice) over a fictitious signature,--(that is you allow the meetings of the methodists to be denounced, their church allured at, and no one particularly responsible for it.)
You may (as many doubtless do) look upon the people called Methodists as a very meagre and insignificant part of the community, but you should remember that what is seen here (in the Valley) is only the remnant of our Isreal, for we have many more than seven thousand in the old dominion who have not bowed the knee to Baal.
If you'll look beyond the limits of our own beautiful valley and extend the circle of observation until you embrace the entire "land of the free and home of the brave," you'll see that our name is indeed "legion," and that numerically, influentially and affluently we'll compare favorably with any other religious denomination in the Union. If you doubt this we refer you to the statistics of the Nation.
You may entertain the thought that the writer of this (although his church is mighty in the land) is fearful in regard to the effect of that communication upon the public mind, especially as it comes through your paper. Not at all, gentlemen, for we never believed that any article like that would arrest public attention except as a source of amusement affording an opportunity of merriment over the ignorance, not to say impudence of its author. The judgement of many is, that it is too weak and unimportant to deserve a passing notice. (I mean of many who are called Methodists, and surely you'll not proscribe us in our opinions) although you have allowed us to be proscribed through your paper in regard to the kind of meetings we should hold. It is encouraging to know that we are enjoying the civil and religious liberties for which our "Fathers nobly fought and bled" that cannot in any sense tolerate proscription either in regard to the expression of opinion or the holding of camp- meetings.
With such a verdict, from persons whose views are to be respected, I had rather be in the place of the Brethren of the Camp-Meeting committee, loyal citizens of good old Augusta (notwithstanding they are Methodists) than in yours, Messrs. Editors, who have allowed the cudgel to be uplifted against them in your columns, yea, in the very paper for which most of the camp-meeting committee subscribe.
I think yours is not a very desirable position and it will require a vast deal of editorial ingenuity to get out of the difficulty into which you have placed yourselves.
Why gentlemen, you certainly were aware that it would not do to associate politics and religion or in other words apolitical newspaper with church matters. How did you happen to blunder in this instance? That you have made a mistake, and indeed, a great one is evident, and if you had made a similar one in any of the political contests through which you and your paper have passed, you would have fallen to rise no more.
You may be my seniors and yet I ought to suggest to you the propriety of letting the Methodists and especially their camp meetings alone.
If you say you are not attacking that denomination or any of their meetings we reply you have allowed your paper to be used for that purpose, which is the specific charge we bring against you, and the public can judge whether that charge is sustained or whether you are justifiable in allowing such an article to come to light (as the one to which I have alluded).
The author of this resides in Churchville and if either or all of you, gentlemen, should favor us with a call you'll find as hearty a welcome after the Old Virginia style as you can meet with anywhere, and if you'll attend our contemplated camp meeting, 19th Aug., I pledge myself to make your sojourn as pleasant as possible, and especially so, as our meeting is to be held in the very midst of the "enlightened public sentiment" of this praiseworthy old county.
Yours respectfully, F. C. Tebbs Churchville, Aug. 9th, 1859.
The Spectator, August 23, 1859, p. 2, c. 1
The brick building now occupied by Rev. Wm. Campbell with a portion of the lot was sold last week by Guy & Waddell, Real Estate Agent. Miss Sally Ryan purchaser. The house and lot on the south side of Main street at its western extremity belonging to Simpson F. Taylor, was sold by the same parties to Rev. Wm. G. Campbell.
The Spectator, August 23, 1859, p. 2, c. 2
An unknown correspondent enclosed the following rich paragraph to a gentleman of this place, without comment. It is an extract from the "Religious Telegraph," an abolition paper published at Dayton, Ohio:
"Robert Napper, who lives in Columbus, O., called in our office, on Monday last, and from him we obtained the following facts. He was, a few years since, a slave in Augusta county, Va. His master becoming involved, he, with other slaves, was about to be sold. Fearing that he might be carried away down South, he besought a wealthy man, in whom he had confidence, to buy him. The man refused, at first, saying that he never would own a slave. Napper proposed that he should buy him, and then give him a chance to work out his freedom. To this the wealthy non- slaveholder consented; and in four years and three months, Mr. Napper laid in his hands, as the result of his own toil, $1000 in specie! Free papers were then given him.
But now he was involved in new difficulties. His wife and five children were the property of a Presbyterian lady; and the laws required that he should leave the State within a year! What could he do? As a last and only hope he came to Ohio, and by hard work and the aid of friends he has been able to purchase his wife and youngest child. They are now with him at Columbus. The Presbyterian lady offers him another one of his children, a little boy, for $600; but will, on no account, sell the eldest three!--Mr. N. asks the public to aid him in purchasing his little son. Mr. N. is a noble looking man."
It will be seen from the above that Bob has lost none of his shrewdness and knavery. We know not whether he tells the truth in regard to the refusal of the mistress of his children to sell them to him; but if she does, we believe that slaveholders in this part of the country generally claim the right to dispose of their property or not, just as they see fit. To say the least of it, the noble looking Mr. Napper has suppressed the facts connected with his departure from this place. He was detected in stealing corn from a gentleman of the neighborhood, convicted of the offense before the Mayor of Staunton, whipped at the public whipping post, and ordered to leave the State. Perhaps the "Religious Telegraph" will put its readers in possession of these additional facts in the history of Mr. Napper.