The Test Oath
333
The Greenville convention, indeed, was said to be nothing more than a means to regain party ascendancy, and the Mercury constantly referred to it as "the late electioneering doings."[1]
When the elections for militia officers were held, several Union men were elected. These men refused to take the oath, and their commissions were withheld. Several cases went to the courts,[2] but probably one of the first, which attracted the most attention and was followed eagerly by all as the test case, arose in Charleston. Judge E. H. Bay, of Charleston, on March 4 rendered a decision in favor of the constitutionality of the military oath. In this case there was a motion
- ↑ Mercury, February 18, 24, March 31, April 24, 1834; Messenger, February 26, March 19. The Mercury made many efforts to discredit and ridicule the convention. On April 5 it said: "We learn that some pf the meetings which sent delegates to the Nation of Greenville were exceedingly select and private, and the secret well kept for a time, as it was entrusted to very few. At Anderson it is said that the meeting was over before the people knew it was to take place, and if we remember right, that it was necessarily unanimous, as besides the chairman and secretary there was a 'respectable' attendance of only one person. The chairman may have opened the meeting as the Dean did the service when his congregation consisted of his Clerk, with 'Dearly beloved Roger,' instead of 'Dearly beloved Brethren.'"
- ↑ Perry Collection, Vol. XIV, opinion of Judge J. S. Richardson in the case of McDonald v. McMeekin, Lancaster district, April, 1834.
