Peninsula Enterprise, June 5, 1886

Untitled

Moral -- AlcoholInfrastructure -- Public : Churches

Mr. Editor -- The closing of the saloons of our Island has resulted as prophesied by the many who took a hand in bringing about the result. Every day has the appearance of the Sabbath. Men who loafed at our bar-rooms have disappeared from their old haunts, and their wives and children bear testimony to happier homes. The ten thousand dollars that annually dropped in the tills of our saloons has been turned into other channels and the evidence of our merchants is "weekly cash sales have increased since the adoption of prohibition." The old story that "Chincoteague is dead" is true, so far as the whiskey business is concerned.

Our people realizing their indebtedness to the Rev. S. U. Grimsley of the Baptist church, for his untiring devotion to the cause of prohibition, quickly organized a surprise for him a few nights ago. An ox team had to be called into service to bear the immense load of contributions to his home. Such a piling up of good things of this life on an occasion of this kind we never before witnessed. The immense throng that gathered to do the Parson honor at this pounding, irrespective of church relationship, tell too plainly how he has won the hearts of our people by the bold stand he took in defense of the homes against the saloons. No danger of his starving while we have enough, and to spare.

"X."

CHINCOTEAGUE, VA., June 2, '86.

Untitled

Moral -- AlcoholAfrican-Americans -- Race relations

Mr. Editor -- The Rev. Mr. Poulson gets his ire up over the facts as published in my last communication, the truths of which, as relating to himself, he fully established, in his argument to justify his cause, as published in your last issue. That there are but two sides to this bar-room question, right and wrong, no sane man will deny, unless he is peculiarly interested. When Brother Poulson says "the canvass by "X" and others was most thorough" he is near the truth, as the writer put in six weeks of laborious work at his own expense to counteract the still hunt influence of the saloons and get the voters right on the question. "Had he staid at home as I did instead of running to every negro meeting and hut he would have found the vote against license greater." We confess this to be strange advice. Is that the course adopted by the Parson in teaching reforms, and in trying to win souls for Christ? We succeeded and we attribute our success to hard work, and we don't propose to try the stay at home plan when we want to accomplish an object. The information we got in reference to the buying of votes came direct from the saloon men to the writer, and from one colored leader who offered "X" his vote and influence for the temperance ticket if we would out bid the other side. We would ask the Parson what the jugs and demijohns landed at our stations and wharves reported by him have got to do with the question of rum mills or no rum mulls? Will license make consumption less? The parson must think so, else why did he vote to license that, the sight of which he says will make us sadder men?

We have read Paul's wonderful praise of charity in the Gospel to the Corinthians but we fail to see that he teaches us to love the most damnable curse of the nineteenth century.

In closing let me say that nothing the Parson wrote about us is disagreeable. The only disagreeable part of this whole affair, to us, and to members of his congregation with whom we conversed, is to find him, in ministerial garments defending the most iniquitous system that ever cursed the human race. We have come to the conclusion that there is more truth than fiction in the story of the hard shell Baptist minister, as told by Parson Grimsley, and that he is not the only divine of that persuasion who would sit over the still and sing

"Streams of mercy never ceasing

Call for songs of loudest praise."

X.

Untitled

Moral -- AlcoholAfrican-Americans -- Race relations

Editor Enterprise. -- Sir: Replying to the remarkable communication from the three ministers of Onancock in your last issue. I will say that I have been for nearly two years the regular Eastern Shore correspondent of the New York Herald, and as such am the responsible author of the telegram sent to that paper from Onancock on the 2nd day of May, 1886. Having reproduced this dispatch one month after its publication, these gentlemen make bold to assert that in sending it to the Herald I have assailed their character as christian ministers and sought to injure men whose sole aim has been the public good. Now, I emphatically deny that I have ever desired or attempted, directly or indirectly to injure any one of these gentlemen at any time: nor can I see anything in the dispatch they have reproduced can be tortured into the support of such an assertion. And being supported in this opinion by every fair minded, unbiased man with whom I have talked on the subject, both here and elsewhere, I challenge these gentlemen to state what grounds they have for bringing against me this serious accusation, in which they have presumed to divine my motives and sit in judgment on my intentions. The dispatch was sent to The Herald because my duty as the correspondent of that paper demanded it of me. Now, while the language of these gentlemen would justify the belief that they would like to get the people of the county (few of whom have any personal knowledge of the question at issue) to deny the accuracy of every statement in this dispatch, that seems to have given them so much offense, yet I am sure there is but one statement in it that they would venture to call in question; and that is the one representing them as having paid close attention to the colored voters, held meetings with them, and fraternized with them on familiar terms. "The head and front of my offending hath this extent -- no more." The communication of these ministers compel me to state, in a few words and as mildly as I can, the grounds on which this statement was made: These gentlemen, all three of them, are known to have participated in a meeting held in the Town Hall of Onancock at the very inception of the prohibition contest in this district. There were present in that meeting two colored ministers and several other prominent representatives of that race, with the approval, if not on the invitation, of the white ministers. In this preliminary council of war, as I was afterward credibly informed, a committee was appointed, consisting of members of both races, to organize victory among their respective county men. Later on, Capt. W. C. Dutton, Chief of Good Templars in Virginia, came over from Portsmouth, and with the approval of the white ministers here, labored faithfully and effectively among the colored people, going to the meetings that were held in the colored churches at night, and by his earnest appeals and stirring exhortation turning the tide in favor of prohibition. I was told at the time that Capt. Dutton was attended on his missionary tour among the colored people by one, if not two, of the white ministers of Onancock, who rendered valuable assistance in capturing colored votes. And then again I was told by persons who ought to know, that one of these ministers "worked like a Trojan" on the day of the election among the colored voters. These representations made to me by persons whom I considered reliable, from the basis for the statement which I regret to see has given, so much offense to these gentlemen, whose christian character and social standing I would be the last one to assail.

It is an additional source of regret that these gentlemen have seen fit in the manner of publication to do violence to the time-honored proprieties that usually regulate such matters. I would fain believe, however, that this was not intentional; for there has not been a moment since the dispatch was published when they could not have obtained the author's name by applying through the only recognized channel of communication.

And now having satisfied them of my willingness to assume full responsibility for all my act and word, and having disclaimed any thought or intention of doing them the slightest injury in any way, I leave it with them to decide whether they will persist in placing me in a false position before this people.

FRANK P. BRENT.

Onancock, June 2nd, 1886.

Untitled

Moral -- AlcoholAfrican-Americans -- Race relations

Mr. Editor & In your valuable paper under date of May 22nd, I find a letter written by a correspondent who signs himself "X" wherein the writer declares that "the local option campaign in Atlantic district is ended and prohibition is secured," and the writer thereof proceeds to state that "your correspondent having made a thorough canvass of the district does not hesitate to say that all the piety and ninetenths of all the intelligence and wealth of this district backed up and supported this prohibition movement. But for the vote of the negroes, upon which the saloon men relied, the leaders of whom were bought, the victory would have been as complete as the victory of Chincoteague." Your correspondent, "X", not being satisfied with his exaggerated statements, has further to say, "that the supposed stronghold of the license system, New Church, where the liquor men concentrated their forces, and where the large negro vote was influenced and led by a colored man who is a Methodist and the chairman of the Board of Trustees of his church, gave the insignificant majority of twenty-seven for license, and this would have been wiped out had it not been for the pernicious influence of a white minister of the gospel, who dared, in opposition to every other minister and all the christian influence of this county, white and colored stand up on the day of election and defend, with his voice; an ballot, the liquor traffic."

In the heat of a lively contested campaign such exaggerated statements purporting to be facts, might have been overlooked by those who had the manliness, arising from honest conviction to decide on which side of the contest they would cast their votes, but the election is over, the defeated side having yielded a ready and willing obedience to the law of the land, however much they may have doubted the propriety of such legislation or its consistency with the Bill of Rights of Virginia, or its constitutionality under State or Federal Constitutions, are questions not proper to discuss now. Suffice it to say that, the party in this district who opposed local option, are equally as honest in their views of what is for the best interest of the people, as "X" himself, or those he professes to represent, but which it seems he has misrepresented, for no sane man, whether he be for or against the licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors, can by any means be induced to accept the unsupported statements made by "X" in regards to the piety or religion of men. It seems to me that it would be more charitable in "X" to allow some other persons of a less disposition to exaggerate to sit in judgment, than to arrogate to himself the responsibility of deciding, a matter of such gravity and importance himself, constituting himself, prosecutor, judge and jury in the matter. That there are men, high-minded, honorable gentlemen, eminent for their piety, and prominent men both in church and State, who are temperate themselves, and who advocate temperance in all things, who are opposed to local option, and under their honest convictions voted to license the sale of intoxicating liquors, fully believing they did right, and that the two evils they had chosen the lesser one, no sane man will attempt to deny. That such men, living in what has heretofore been regarded as a free country, should be placarded and held up to the world, as persons devoid of piety is an insult, not only to those individuals themselves, but all the true christian men of this district, county and State, and deserves to be sternly rebuked. In regard to the intelligence of the people of this district. I will only say that I do not propose to constitute myself the judge in that matter, as I am not willing to say that all men have voted the Republican ticket are men of no intelligence, nor am I willing to make the assertion that, the men who have uniformly voted the Democratic ticket, constitute nineteenths of the intelligence of this district. The fact of a majority on the one side or the other is no certain assurance that the majority side has with it all, or even nine-tenths, of the intelligence of a community. So much for X's nine-tenths of the intelligence of the district. Now, in regard to the nine-tenths of all the wealth of the district that backed up and supported this prohibition movement referred to by X. I am at loss to understand by what analogy X has been enabled to ascertain the exact wealth of every man in this district to locate the individual vote deposited by each voter, and proportion the general result in such a hair splitting way, as to ascertain that, exactly nine-tenths of all persons of the district, who may happen to be possessed of wealth, cast their votes for local option. Remembering that X told us in his noted epistle, that he made a thorough canvass of the district prior to the election, I will be generous, and admit that he intended excepting New Church -- the head-quarters and home of the "Sodomites," but neglected to say so in writing, for he would certainly have mentioned every liquor man, who could be induced to swallow local option or even if one failed to vote against their pet scheme, he would have received, if not the right hand, one hand of fellowship. He seemed to have forgotten to make a note, while canvassing around New Church, that there are gentlemen living near and at that village whose assessable reality and personality require several figures to denote their wealth, and upon that valuable property they are required to pay taxes, who voted for licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors, believing that to be the lesser evil, knowing full well that prohibition will not prohibit, preferring the license system where they can partially control the sale of liquors, to free whiskey, kill quick and such -- peddled around by a certain class of persons, and sold at cheap rates, dealing out destruction to minors and the youth of the district, and no one to be held accountable -- vigilance committees to the contrary, not withstanding. No, Mr. X, the license men of this district are opposed to free whiskey, they do not want whiskey sent out to the people in those ugly, black, flat glass bottles -- even if sent 120 pint bottles at a time, nine-tenths of that number to strict prohibitionists, in a box to one address, to be distributed according to directions sent by the agent of these men. These license men are very much opposed to prohibitionists using the vile stuff imported into their midst in those ugly glass bottles. The license men of this district sympathize very much with the thirsty local optionists, but sympathy seems to be but little relief. X, are you temperate in the use of all things? and are all your followers temperate? if so, you are entitled to some compassion. But be careful my local option friends, and let those of your number without sin cast the first stone; lookout and see to if that local option man is not the first one caught violating your "pet law," for the signs at the present time are portentous. To all of the many pious, intelligent and wealthy friends of local option, I have only to say, practice what you preach -- so far as is lawful, christian like and charitable, but for the sake of common humanity do not as some of your chief leaders have advised, suffer your zeal to run away with your better judgment by following their advice to destroy men's property if they shall engage in a business under a proper license, that may be unpleasant to you. Such threats have been made by local option men living in the very district that "X" boasts of having canvassed thoroughly.

Who the white minister of the Gospel referred to by "X," as wielding such pernicious influence at New Church, on the day of the election is, I do not know positively, but from his manly stand taken on the occasion, determined to cast his vote without fear, favor or affection, I should judge him to be possessed of fully as much piety and intelligence as one who could make such preposterous statements as are to be found in the letter referred to over the signature of "X".

XX.

Greenbackville, May 24, 1886.