Brother Dan eviscerates a Russell preacher

This is another Dan M. Baker story and the photograph of him --- taken upon his election to the Iowa Legislature during November of 1875 --- one I've not used before. Dan was editor and publisher of The Chariton Leader during the 1870s as well as the author and editor behind the local history portion of Lucas County's 1881 history book, his final task in Iowa before departing with his family to spend the rest of his life in California. There, he became widely known as a crusading journalist and occasional politician.

Although popular among his readers because of his wit, writing skills and ability to charm, Dan was not your typical Lucas Countyan of the day. He was a Democrat in an overwhelmingly Republican county, a religious free-thinker unaffiliated with any local church and an opponent of prohibition, then looked upon by many as the cure for all of the nation's social ills.

Largely because of the sheer force of his personality, he was unexpectedly elected during November of 1875 to serve as Lucas County's state representative during the upcoming 16th General Assembly. 

Mr. Baker, of course, was not all sweetness and light and if crossed did not hesitate to use his editorial platform to strike back. 

That's what happened during early December of 1875 when a preacher --- most likely Methodist because divines of that denomination were those with whom he most frequently collided --- denounced him from the pulpit of a church in Russell. Methodist preachers were staunch prohibitionists at the time.

Here is Dan's response, a minor masterpiece of political invective published in The Chariton Leader of Dec. 11, 1875. He also deserved some form of award for the length of his opening sentence.

+++

An esteemed friend of ours, a gentleman and worthy member of the church, informs us that a certain Divine in the vicinity of Russell, whose self righteousness constitutes the bulk of his piety and whose ridiculous egotism is only equaled by his pitiful ignorance, preached a sermon in the Russell church on last Sabbath, in which he took occasion to dilate largely upon the liquor question, and the Iowa law, both of which he is about as familiar with as was Balaam's ass, and wound up his contemptable remarks by declaring that the people of Lucas county had elected a man to represent them in the Legislature who absolutely favored free whisky as free as water besides being a very immoral man in the bargain.

Of course his low-flung insulting remarks were intended for us, and were eminently characteristic of the elevated fountain from which they flowed. When he called us a free whisky man, and spoke of us in that capacity, he simply lied maliciously and willfully, and knew he lied when he uttered the remark, and as usual with creatures of his stamp who (thank God for the honor of the Christian religion are rare) sheltered himself behind the sanctity of a pulpit to avoid just criticism upon his foul slang.

When reference to the question of morality, if he is a standard of either truth, virtue, honesty or charity, we plead guilty to the charge of immorality, and beg leave to select a model of those virtues from the immoral portion of humanity. Let him henceforth comport himself as a decent man or he will secure what he so earnestly seeks, notoriety.