[sflcat]

The Republic
May 1857

Letters to the editor

Dear Republic:

In this nation, we are seeing the rise of am anti-Christian spirit little if at all better in its nature or in its effects than that of the thief, the robber and the pirate, which arrogates to one portion of mankind a superior right over another portion, either as to freedom of opinion religious or political, the right to use its faculties for its own profit and advancement, or to participate in the government which all are required to support and obey. It is a spirit opposed to the great Christian rule of doing as we would be done by, of which spirit, robbery, slavery, political proscription, and religious persecution are only different manifestations. It makes a crime of that which the individual cannot avoid of possessing a particular skin, being born in a particular spot, or being convinced by the irresistible force of circumstances or of argument, of the truth or particular doctrines. It is a spirit which has covered the earth with misery and crimes. It is a spirit in which too many high professors of religious or political-purity partake, and upon which they act in one or other respect, while they are loud in their execrations of those who exhibit precisely the same spirit, only in a different form of manifestation. It is a spirit which makes the Creator a partial and grossly unjust being, and which, with the self conceit of the Pharisee that thanked God that he was not like the poor publican always assumes itself to be the favorite, and its opponents to be the proscribed of the and unjust Deity, which it has imagined.

Against this wicked and absurd spirit, abolitionists have arrayed themselves as to one form of its manifestation. Against it, we as a portion of the abolitionists, are resolved to array ourselves under whatever form it may assume. Against this spirit the law and the administrators of the law should ever be arrayed. It is because those administrators have been too often either neutral or arrayed on the same side with it, that its encroachments have at length become so alarming.

Ever since our national independence, the law has been enlisted in support of this spirit in reference to the colored man. They must be bad reasoners who would not carry out the principle, and apply it to other classes of men, if they believed in its justice in reference to the African descendant.

Though freedom of speech has been, in general, guaranteed by law, it has not been maintained in practice. For the last ten years the abolitionists have been subject to mob violence in three-fourths of the Union for the simple expression of their opinions. This violence has been either winked at, or indirectly approved, by a large portion of the men in authority, as well as of the political and religious leaders of the people.

Coming more directly to the city of Philadelphia, we find that about the year 1837 a few colored and white boys at a scene of amusement called the "flying horses," got into a quarrel in which the white boys, who were probably the aggressors, were worsted. They left and collected a mob of men and boys with whom they made an indiscriminate assault on the colored people of Southwark and Moyamensing who had given them no provocation. They tore down some houses, ransacked others, destroyed furniture, beat women and children, and killed an inoffensive man who was too ill to escape by flight.

A large portion of the community sanctioned this horrible crime on the pretext that the colored people must be taught to know their places: the public authorities winked at it, and the rioters and murderers were never even brought to trial.

In May, 1838, the celebrated burning of the Pennsylvania Hall (a popular meeting place for abolitionists) took place: after it had been delivered into the hands of the Mayor, under a solemn promise of protection - a promise which he did not even attempt to keep. This burning was palliated by clergymen and others in public speeches. It was applauded by a large portion of the merchants of the city. One of them went so far as to issue his card or advertisement, with a picture on it of Pennsylvania Hall in flames, thinking thereby to conciliate the slave holding merchants of the South. Although some of the rioters were known, and two or three indicted, the Attorney General never brought them to trial.

In 1842, a colored procession walking peaceably along the streets was assailed and dispersed by a mob. The colored people were pursued every where with savage ferocity. The Mayor and police being called on to suppress the riot, instead of arresting the rioters arrested those who were attacked. The mob thus encouraged proceeded to the burning of Smith's Hall and the African Presbyterian Church. Although the Mayor had been alerted about the intent to burn the church, he had scarcely any portion of his force on the ground, and none of it we believe stationed within the building. This burning was followed the succeeding days and nights by indiscriminate attacks and beatings of colored people, without the pretense of any offencse on their part, and by efforts to burn the remaining churches. No efficient attempt was made to arrest any considerable portion of the rioters: and the Mayor actually refused to take measures for the arrest of some whose names were given him, together with those of the witnesses, by a highly respectable citizen.

For some years past our city has been disturbed by continual riots, among the firemen and weavers, accompanied by most atrocious outrages, and our public authorities have been distinguished by a remarkable failure to arrest and try the criminals, especially the firemen.

There seems to be a belief by a great portion of the people, including many of the clergy, the professional men, the politicians and the public authorities, that the rights of men are unequal, that a portion of society might be trampled on at pleasure by other portions. The doctrine that black men are by birth the rightful subjects of oppression has naturally led to the extension of the same principle to foreigners. The idea that abolitionists are entitled to no protection, because their beliefs are unpalatable, is naturally extended to Catholics, whose doctrines are equally unpalatable to sectarians. Almost every class and every sect of men, are responsible for the mischief, for almost every class and sect have encouraged mob violence, when it was directed against what they deemed the right objects. And especially guilty are public authorities, from governors down to the constables and watchmen, not only for having neglected to enforce the law, but for having given positive encouragement by word and deed to its violators.

It is the duty of every man to set his face resolutely against all manner of religious, politicial and personal interference and to maintain the full that equality of rights, and of claims to benevolence, which is alike the doctrine of the New Testament and of the Declaration of Independence.

P.F., Philadelphia, PA

Entertainment news

Herman Melville's "The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade," a narrative following a con-man in a number of disguises on board a Mississippi River steamboat, has been released to mixed reviews and sluggish sales. Although Melville enjoyed moderate success with last year's publication of "The Piazza Tales," a collection of his short stories, he hasn't produced a real winner since his second novel, "Omoo: A Narrative of Adventures in the South Seas", which was published ten years ago. His more recent novels, "Mardi," "Redburn," "Whitejacket," "Moby ****," "Pierre," and "Israel Potter" have been critical and financial disappointments.

Meanwhile, Gustave Flaubert's controversial novel, "Madame Bovary," has generated brisk sales and additional outrage since its April publication in book form. The narrative, which depicts the adulterous affairs and excessive living of a doctor's wife bored with the banalities and emptiness of provincial life, was first serialized last year in the French journal "Revue de Paris". The French government brought an action against the publisher and Flaubert on immorality charges, but both were acquitted. The controversy has generated substantial curiosity and interest in the novel.

International news

Revolt in British India
After months of unrest, violence erupts on the subcontinent

It began in late January when numerous fires, believed to be arson, broke out in and around Calcuta. In March, a sepoy (an Indian soldier in the British army) named Mungal Pandy of the 34th Native Infantry "walked about the lines with a loaded musket, calling upon his comrades to rise, and threatening to shoot the first European who appeared." When a Lieutenant Baugh with a European sergeant and Muslim orderly rode up, there were shots and a fist fight. A group of twenty sepoys began to beat the Europeans' heads with their rifle butts. Regiment commander General He****y broke up the fight. Pandy and other leaders were arrested, court-martialed and hanged in April.

On May 3, the Indian situation came to a boil in Lucknow. A regiment of Oudh Irregular Infantry mutinied. They were subdued by British soldiers and their regiment was disbanded. On May 6 in Meerut a native calvary refused to parade before British officers. Eighty-five sepoys were arrested and convicted by a native court-martial. On May 9, they were stripped of their uniforms, placed in irons, paraded before European and native regiments and jailed under native guard.

On Sunday, May 10, at about 5:00 p.m. as the British were heading to evening Christian worship service. The remaining sepoys mutinied, let all the jail inmates out and went wild. Accompanied by a mob from the city's bazaar, the mutineers poured into the European settlement and slaughtered any Europeans or Indian Christians they found there. Whole families -- men, women, children and servants, were killed on sight. The cantonment was then burned. By the time the British soldiers regrouped, the mutineers had reportedly fled from Meerut toward Delhi, located roughly 40 miles to the west.

The revolt spread to Delhi on May 11. The sepoys there killed British officers and civilians as they took control of the city. Afterwards, they proclaimed Bahadur Shah, the last of the Moguls, emperor.

As the month progresses, the insurgency seems to be gaining momentum. Native mobs have rioted in a number of cities in central India and native soldiers in the region continue to defect. British intelligence believes the 38th, 54th, and 74th regiments of native infantry and native artillery under a leader named Bahkt Khan have joined the insurgents in their Delhi stronghold.

With trouble also simmering in China, the British have been slow to react to the Indian crisis. Many analysts believe that a delay in decisively dealing with the insurgency will only embolden other Indian provinces to revolt.

How this has come to be

Many believe the Sepoy Insurgency began long before 1857. The history of the war delves deep into the colonization and conquest of India and the conflicts between British and Indian culture and religion.

The British East India Company is the massive export company behind much of the colonization of India. The power of the East India Company took nearly 150 years to build. In the 18th century, the company became, in effect, the ruler of a large part of India, and a form of dual control by the company and a committee responsible to Parliament in London was introduced by the India Act of 1784. The East India Company set up factories (trading posts) in Masulipatam on the east coast of India in 1611; on the west coast in Surat in 1612; and on the east coast in Madras in 1639. Attempts to set up a factory on the Hooghly (one of the mouths of the Ganges) began in 1640, but were unsuccessful until 1690; the settlement later developed into the city of Calcutta. By 1652 there were some 23 English factories in India. Bombay came to the British crown in 1662, and was granted to the East India Company for £10 a year in 1668. The British victory in the Battle of Plassey in 1757 gave the company control of Bengal.

The East India Company has been allowed to operate in overseas markets despite the fact that the cheap imports of South Asian silk, cotton, and other products have hurt domestic business.

In 1767, the Company was forced into an agreement that is should pay 400,000 pounds into the National Exchequer annually. By 1848, the East India Company was experiencing financial difficulties and had reached a point where expanding revenue required expanding British territories in South Asia massively. The Government began to set aside adoption rights of native princes and began the process of annexing more than a dozen independent Indian states between 1848 and 1854.

In an article published in The New York Daily Tribune, journalist Karl Marx notes that "... in 1854 the Raj of Berar, which comprise 80,000 square miles of land, a population from four to five million, and enormous treasures, was forcibly seized."

In order to consolidate and control these new holdings, the East India Company established an army comprised mainly of native Indians officered by British soldiers. At the beginning of this year, that army numbered about 200,000 natives and 40,000 British.

Some believe religious differences between the East and West have also played a role in the insurgency. The sepoys' hesitation to use the newly issued Lee-Enfield Rifle is a case in point. The rifle was developed at the Enfield ****nal by James P. Lee and fires .303 caliber ammunition that has to be manually loaded. Loading involves biting the end of the cartridge, which is greased in pig fat and beef tallow. This presents a problem for native soldiers, as pig fat is a haraam, or forbidden, substance to Muslims, and beef fat is, likewise, deemed inauspicious for certain Hindus sects.

According to Captain Wright, a British officer who commands the Indian Rifle Instruction Depot: "Somewhere about the end of the third week in January, a khalasi, that is to say a laborer, accosted a high Brahmin sepoy and asked for a drink of water from his lotah (water-pot). The Brahmin refused because of the laborer's low caste. The khalasi then said, 'You will soon lose your caste, as ere long you will have to bite catridges covered with the fat of pigs and cows,' or, words to that effect."

While British officers have denied this is the case, it quickly spread among the sepoys.

Some British legislation has clashed with long-standing traditional Hindu or Muslim religious practices that are highly offensive to Western sensibilities. The prohibition of practices such as infanticide and saathi (often transliterated "sati"), or the ritual suicide of widows on their husbands' funeral pyres, has been a source of tension between many Hindus and the Colonial administration.

The emperor of the insurgents

The last Mughal king, Bahadur Shah, is better known as Bahadur Shah Zafar. He was born in 1775 at Delhi. He is the son of Akbar Shah from his Hindu wife Lalbai. Bahadur Shah, after the death of his father, was placed on the throne in 1837 when he was little over 60 years of age. He is last in the lineage of Mughal emperors who ruled over India for about 300 years. Bahadur Shah Zafar, like his predecessors, came to throne when the British domination over India was strengthening and the Mughal rule was nearing its end. The British have curtailed the power and privileges of the Mughal rulers to such an extent that by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar, the Mughal rule was confined to the Red Fort in Delhi. Bahadur Shah Zafar is obliged to live on British pension, while the reins of real power lay in the hands of the East India Company.

Urdu poetry has flourished under Shah's reign and he himself is a prolific poet and an accomplished calligrapher. He passes most of his time in the company of poets and writers and is the author of four diwans. Love and mysticism are his favorite subjects and often find expression in his poetry.