The Methodist Episcopal Church.
All my ancestors and relatives for many generations have been Protestants. I was brought up under the auspices of the Old School Presbyterian Church, of which my parents were members from my early childhood until their deaths at advanced ages. I have never been a member of any church, but my feelings and sympathies have always been that of a Protestant. I respect all true sects and denominations of the great Christian Church. I respect the religion of the Jews, of Buddha, and of Confucius, for the good that is in them. I respect every man's religious faith, as long as it is truly a religious faith. I uphold the right of every man to worship God according to his liking. I respect, I admire, the man who against opposition and against his material and business interests follows the dictates of his conscience in religious and other matters of principle. While I may not agree with him, I defend his right. It is immaterial to me whether Dr. McLoughlin was a Protestant or a Roman Catholic. It is sufficient to me that he honestly acted according to his reason, his judgment, and what he considered was right. I condemn any persecution of him for being true to his conscience. I have great admiration for the Methodist missionaries who were true to their principles, who tried to lead blameless lives and to convert the Indians, and respected the rights of others. It is immaterial to me whether the missionaries were Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, or Roman Catholics, so long as they were really missionaries and true to their God, according to their lights, true to their professions, to themselves, and to their fellow men. I have no attack to make on religion, nor on the Methodist Episcopal Church, nor on its true missionaries, clerical or lay.
The Methodist Episcopal Church has been one of the great civilizing agencies in the United States, particularly in the newer parts of the country. In its earlier days, and until the great growth of the country in the past forty or fifty years, it reached a class of people, which no other denomination could reach or influence, and made better people of them. All churches and denominations are subject to conditions and to evolution. And the Methodist Episcopal Church is today one of the great and influential churches in the United States.
There always have been and there always will be men who make use of religion for sinister purposes. These unworthy missionaries who were parties to the unjust treatment of Dr. McLoughlin are not entitled to escape criticism, nor to have their wrongful acts passed over because of their religious pretentions. They are subject all the more to severe condemnation. All good Methodists condemn those wrongful acts of the missionaries as all true, honest Oregon pioneers condemn the acts of the pioneers who abused or cheated Dr. McLoughlin. But these base actions were not sustained by, nor concurred in by all the Methodist missionaries. Some condemned these actions. Others of these missionaries, appreciating what Dr. McLoughlin had done for them, and his humanitarianism, spoke in his praise, but did not break with their fellows who were persecuting Dr. McLoughlin. Some of the signers of the Shortess petition afterwards regretted, or were ashamed of their actions in so doing. Some timid persons may say that it would be better, in this address, merely to speak of the kind acts and high character of Dr. McLoughlin and not of the wrongful and unjust ways in which he was treated by some of the early immigrants, by some of the Methodist missionaries, by Thurston, by Bryant, and others. But that would not show what he suffered for the upbuilding of Oregon, nor his martyrdom on account of his humanity, of his principles, and of his integrity. It would not be a true, nor an accurate account of his life and time.
Some persons in writing a life of Jesus would speak of his gentleness, his kindness, and his humanity, and say no more. They would not say anything against the Pharisees, nor of their condemnation by Jesus, because the Pharisees were people of some standing in their community, and did some kindly acts, and for fear of offending the descendants of the Pharisees. Such historians would not say anything against Caiaphas, the high priest, nor his actions against Jesus, because they might offend those religiously inclined. They would not say anything against those who cried "Crucify him," in their religious zeal. They would not say anything against Pontius Pilate, for fear of being thought to have attacked the Judiciary. They would either omit the crucifixion or merely say the last days of Jesus were passed somewhat in sorrow and in pain. But such a history would be trivial, and of no value. It would fail to show what Jesus did and suffered in his endeavors to help mankind. It would be a history in name only.
Dr. McLoughlin's Memorial to Congress.
By the passage of the Donation Land Law, and also by reason of the letter and of the speeches of Thurston in Congress, Dr. McLoughlin was put in the humiliating position of having to issue a printed circular letter to get expressions of opinions of others, as to the falsity of the charges made against him by Thurston, and to support a memorial to Congress which Dr. McLoughlin afterwards sent to Congress with all the evidence. But his memorial accomplished nothing. There was, too, the question that Congress had given away his land claim, which was then technically the property of Oregon, for an university, and that Congress could not, with dignity to itself, revoke its gift. And who was Dr. McLoughlin to Congress? He was away out in Oregon nearly 4,000 miles from Washington. There were great and serious matters to be considered by Congress. The Oregon question was settled. What were the wrongs and misfortunes of one old man to Congress?
In answer to the printed circular issued by Dr. McLoughlin, after the passage of the Donation Land Law, for the purposes of his memorial to Congress, he received many commendatory letters. I give merely excerpts from the letter of that noble old pioneer, Jesse Applegate, an immigrant of 1843. He wrote: "I have received your letter of inquiries, and take pleasure in replying to such of them as I personally know to be true. I came to this country in the fall of 1843, and, from that time forward, I can safely testify that your conduct has been the most generous and philanthropic, not only to immigrants from the United States, but to all requiring your assistance, whether natives or foreigners. I can also say that you have greatly encouraged and given much assistance in settling and developing the resources of the country, but I have by no means considered your motive for doing so political, or that your charitable acts were intended to advance the interests of any particular nation, but that you acted in the one case simply from a sense of Christian duty and humanity, and in the other from a natural desire to be useful in your day and generation.... But as the office of Chief Factor of the Hudson's Bay Company is in no way connected with politics, the discharge of its duties imposed no restrictions upon your private sentiments, and unless they led to a betrayal of your trust, which has never been charged against you, as an Irishman and a Catholic, you were free to feel and express your partiality for the free and tolerant institutions of the United States. That you did entertain such partiality, from my first acquaintance with you, need not depend upon my assertion, for it is a fact well known, and one you did not pretend to conceal."
Jesse Applegate then says, in this letter, that he was present in 1845 when Dr. McLoughlin applied to Judge Peter H. Burnett, the Chief Justice of the Provisional Government, to take the oath of allegiance to the United States and to obtain first naturalization papers, but Judge Burnett declined to grant the request for he believed he did not have any jurisdiction to do so. Jesse Applegate further said in his letter: "That 'you pulled down houses and turned women and children out of them,' is a charge not only false, but too absurd to require refutation or notice. I can myself state, from experience, which accords with that of every other destitute immigrant who applied to you for assistance, either before or since my arrival in the country, that your conduct was entirely the reverse. My own company, of more than seventy persons, mostly women and children, who arrived at Vancouver in the storms of winter, in a condition the most destitute and miserable, were received by you, not as strangers, or foreigners, or as some would have it, enemies, but as brethren and fit subjects of hospitality and Christian charity, and our reception was not more kind and generous than was extended to every immigrant who sought your hospitality or assistance.... But however unjust the Oregon Land Law has been towards you, it may be said in excuse for the members of Congress who passed it, that with the concurring and uncontradicted evidence of the Delegate and Chief Justice of Oregon before them, you neither had nor would become an American citizen, they are not chargeable with injustice."[53]