Indeed, this error, this diverging point in const.i.tutional interpretation, has been the real cause--the "causa causarum"--of the late war; and not the "negro," or "cotton," or the "spirit of domination," or "difference of race," or what not, might serve as the "_proximate cause_," but the real cause lay far back of them. I am willing to admit that political events do not always proceed on a strictly logical order, but nevertheless there is a sequence, indeed an inevitable chain of cause and effect in the progress of public affairs, such as we see in individual conduct, but only on a broader scale.

Now what is the _civil power_, or _State_; what its origin, its authority, its legitimate functions, its rights and duties? Here I must, of necessity, be very brief. The State originated from the natural desire which men experience to obtain certain goods, such as peace, security of life and property, of personal rights and privileges, etc., etc. These are goods which neither individuals, nor families, nor private corporations can procure for themselves satisfactorily. People therefore unite to establish a State, in order to attain, through the State, what they cannot do by their own private exertions. The State, then, is made by the people and for the people. In our form of government it is a mere corporate agency. Its duty is to see that justice is administered, and personal rights and property protected. It holds the sword of justice not for _itself_, but for _others_; it is the _servant_, and not the _master_. The people were not made for the State, or given to the State, but the State is posterior to the people; it was, as I said before, established by the people and for the people. In them, under G.o.d, resides the sovereignty and ultimate permanent authority. The right of the State is to discharge the duties a.s.signed it within the sphere of its delegated authority--that is all.

That sphere of action of the State in this country is clearly defined in the written Const.i.tution. The State, then, must scrupulously abstain from violating any of the rights it was organized to protect.

There never has been, and never will be, but two forms of government--one seeking to restrain, the other to enlarge, the liberties of the people. To the former belong the centralized and despotic governments of the past and present; to the latter, the limited and representative ones.

Russia, without doubt, is the highest type of that despotism so common among Pagan nations. The Czar is the successor of the Gentile Caesar; he unites in himself the civil and spiritual power; the inevitable result is social oppression, denial of the rights of conscience, of the family, and of the political society. Our government has already made gigantic steps in the same direction. Many of the political minds of this country have been drawn within the circle of _monarchial_ ideas. They are unconsciously, as it were, adopting their forms of thought, and applying their forms of expression to our government, and claiming for it the prerogatives and supremacy appertaining to the feudal inst.i.tutions of Asia and Europe. Our simple democratic form of government seems to be getting ashamed of its plebeian origin, and ambitious to ape the language and pretensions of its former masters. This decadence was made apparent not long ago, in the discussions "for the removal of the United States Capitol." In a two-hours' discussion, the word "Republic," or "Federal Government," or "United States," was not once mentioned!! It was "_Nation_," "Empire," etc., etc., _usque ad nauseam_, from beginning to end. To a reflecting mind, this language has an ominous significance.

It smacks strongly of monarchy.

But some one will perhaps say, "Sir, what has all this dissertation to do with your subject? You commence by disclaiming against the _Public School System_, and here you are giving a grave lecture on the nation relapsing into imperialism or monarchy."

It has a great deal to do; it is an attempt to trace effects to their causes. This government of ours, both in its Federal and State capacity, is growing ambitious to play the _King_. It is setting itself up as master. It is using the language of all tyrants: "_Sic volo, sic jubeo_," etc., etc. It claims, after the example of Prussia or Russia, or some other despotism, _to direct the education of the children_ of the people. It even claims them as belonging to itself. It is the great feudal master. It takes upon itself the old duty of providing instruction for the sons and daughters of its dependents. It takes upon itself the discharge of duties imposed on parents by Divine Law, just as if fathers and mothers had lost their natural instincts as well as sense of duty; just as if the State had all the intelligence, virtue, and forethought of the public in her keeping. It dispenses parents from a duty from which G.o.d will never dispense them. It has usurped the office of teacher; it will, if not checked, set itself up as preacher. It makes Sunday laws, temperance laws; it places marriage on the footing of simple contracts, facilitates divorce; it is constantly, in all these things and many others, repeating the "mot" ascribed to a King of France: "_L'etat c'est moi_." In fine, it makes, as it has been aptly, but not very reverently, said, G.o.d a little man, and itself and the State a little G.o.d, not in love and charity, indeed, but in power and authority.

Here is where the danger comes from, and it is against this that the people must provide. The people must see to it that the State, or those who are charged with its authority, keep within their proper place. The people can never be too vigilant or jealous of their const.i.tuted authority, never permit themselves to be the victims of misplaced confidence. The State is not seldom the usurper--the rebel that should be watched. The allegiance is not to it, but from it to the people--its master. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

The people have been greatly deceived and wronged by the State on the establishment of the Public School system. The better to understand this, let us see again, in a few words, what are the _principles_ on which the establishment of public schools is based. How did men arrive at the idea that the State should be a school-master? If we consult history, we shall find that this idea rests upon most objectionable grounds. In Europe--in Protestant countries--the education of youth was held to belong to the church. But as the Protestant prince was also the chief bishop of his church, he had the care of schools, as well as the administration of other religious matters. According to this principle of the _State-church_, all the schools were _State-schools_. At the present day, Protestant princes and princesses are not looked upon as chief bishops, but the consequence of this objectionable system does still remain, and has gained a foothold even in this free country.

The French Revolution, among other things, diffused communistic and socialistic theories. Nay, communism and socialism seemed to have, for a moment, the fullest sway in those revolutionary proceedings. It is from such socialistic revolutionists that came the idea, or rather principle, which was made a law, that the State should educate the children of its subjects. Accordingly the school-system was arranged, which Napoleon I.

highly welcomed and retained, as he saw in it a welcome instrument of his despotism. In fact, nothing pleases State-absolutism or despotism so much as the complete control of education through the system of State-schools. As the result of impartial history, then, we see that the foundation of the State-school system is nothing else than the objectionable Protestant State-church, and especially revolutionary socialism.

But most absurd did the State-school system appear after it had been transplanted into free America. Here this "State system of education"

was at first applied to the poor, and other unprovided-for "waifs of society." But not long after, the State claimed to have a paramount interest in the children of all cla.s.ses; it made no distinction, it knew not the rich from the poor, but opened its scholastic treasures alike, and it was thought to be all right.

What an absurdity! The State, as I have remarked, must scrupulously abstain from violating any of those rights which it was organized to protect. It must not paralyze or take away the industry of the individual, family, or private inst.i.tutions by subst.i.tuting for it its own industry. The State should rather protect and promote the industry of its subjects, as well as other rights and liberties. Let me speak more plainly: the State, for instance, should protect trade, but it should not be itself a tradesman; the State should encourage agriculture, but it should not be itself a farmer; the State should sustain honest handicraft, but it should not work at shoe-making or tailoring, and bread-baking. So, in the same manner, the State should promote and protect education, but it should not be itself a school-master, and give instruction.

What a cry would be raised if the State erected State workshops, and thereby ruined all other similar trades! Now the State does the same thing, as far as possible, in regard to education. What an absurdity! In our free country, State education has no more foundation in good sense than the old sumptuary laws, that regulated the length of a boot or the dimensions of a skirt.

If the State claims the right to educate our children, why does it not just as well claim the right to nurse, feed, clothe, doctor, and lodge them? Indeed these necessities are more indispensable, and must be supplied to a considerable extent before education can be given at all.

Why should the State throw all these burdens on the parents, and a.s.sume that of instruction? It cannot claim to know more of grammar than of the art of nursing and cooking. It is even said that the tailor and barber have more to do in fashioning the man than the school-master.

Again, how absurd is it not for the State to undertake to teach all alike, without regard to their circ.u.mstances or prospects in life, the same business. This scholastic equality soon ends, if it ever had a reality. They cannot all expect to be Newtons, Humboldts, or La Places.

They cannot be all, nay, not one in ten thousand, "professors," or "editors," or what not. We cannot, if we would, escape the sentence imposed on our forefather in the garden: "Thou shalt eat thy bread in the sweat of thy face." As well might the State claim that all the children from seven to seventeen years of age should sit at the same table, provided at public expense, and be served with the same food and the same number of dishes. If the State (in order to prepare the rising generation to make citizens, which must be its reason, if any) thinks it necessary to prescribe a State education, it is equally important that their food, and even their clothing, should be of the approved State quality and pattern!!! All know that this was the old Lacaedemonian plan, and how it ended history tells;--in ferocity, avarice, dishonesty and disruption. All admit the folly and wickedness of forcing a people into uniformity in matter of religion. Now it is just as unreasonable, just as absurd, just as wicked to force the people into uniformity in the matter of education. One species of tyranny as well as the other disregards the just claims of conscience, tramples on the most vital rights of individuals, and usurps the most sacred right of the family.

The State may, indeed, require that the children should be educated, in order that they may one day become worthy members of society, and fit subjects for the State; but claim, and give, and control their education, the State cannot. There is in all this matter a feature not always clearly represented. It is this: any provision made by the "State" for education, must refer _to the poor and otherwise unprovided_, and be justified on the grounds of the State standing to these cla.s.ses _in loco parentis_; beyond this, though the State, as to "charitable uses," may be defined _parens patria_, yet, as to the people at large, _it has nothing to do with their education whatever_. If this simple though undeniable fact were properly understood, it would save a world of trouble and confusion.

I am speaking of a "_Christian State_," and the State in America is Christian. The very graves, if necessary, would open and give up their dead to bear testimony to its Christian origin. Its civilization is Christian, and is the product of the principles of the "_New Law_" as taught and promulgated by the Church. The distinguishing feature of this civilization is, that it has a.s.serted the dignity of freedom of the _individual man_, while the ancient, or Gentile, civilization, _sunk_ the _individual man_ in the composite society called the State. In that case it was but reasonable that the _State_ should, _as owner_, take upon itself the burden of providing, not only for his government, but also for the education of his offspring. These, too, belonged to it, on the maxim of Roman or Pagan law, that _partus sequitur ventrem_, or the offspring follows the parent. This is the origin of the Pagan doctrine, "_the children of the State_"--a miserable relic of barbarism. It is important to keep this fact in mind, when we deny the _supremacy of the State_ in the matter of education.

Our children, then, are not the _children of the State_. The State has no children, and never had, nor will. The State does not own them, nor their fathers nor mothers, nor anybody else in this country, thank G.o.d!

We have not got that far yet on the road to civil slavery, and I hope we never shall. We are not Pagans, nor Mahometans, nor Russians. We have not sold out, and don't intend to! We are free, for with a great price our forefathers have bought this freedom; and better still, we are made, through the mercy of our Divine Author, Christians, and heirs to a heavenly kingdom. Our children, too, are free; they belong by the order of nature to their parents, and by the order of grace to our Lord Jesus Christ. They are children of G.o.d and heirs to His heavenly kingdom. It is not on the State, but on parents, that G.o.d imposed the duty to educate their children, a duty from which no State can dispense, nor can fathers and mothers relieve themselves of this duty by the vicarious a.s.sumption of the State. They have to give a severe account of their children on the Day of Judgment, and they cannot allow any power to disturb them in insisting upon their rights and making free use of them.

The State has no more authority or control rightfully over our children, than over a man's wife. The right to educate our children is a right of conscience, and a right of the family. Now these rights do not belong to the temporal order at all; and outside of this the State has no claim, no right, no authority. When the State has children, it will be time enough to teach them. How long will it take our enlightened age to learn this simple but important truth?

Nothing shows better the absurdity of the State in claiming the right of education, than its incompetency for the task. The State is forbidden any interference with religion.

I have shown that the whole system is infidel in principle. The State says we want no religion taught in the Public Schools, because, as we cannot teach you religion without inculcating some form or other professed by some sect or other, and as we do not wish to give offence, we will teach you none. Let the child believe anything or nothing, so as it is not some form of "sectarianism." I worship in the "Pantheon;" all are alike to me, of course. In all this the State is perfectly consistent, and cannot do otherwise. It has undertaken a part _it is not competent to perform_. The State, as State, professes no form of belief. Its G.o.ds, its worships, its altars, its victims, its rewards, its punishments, its heaven, its h.e.l.l--are here. It teaches no religion, because it don't profess any. It was not born, it will not die, it has no soul, it was not created, it will not be judged in the world to come, like men.

But let me not be misunderstood as concluding that states, nations, or kingdoms are not moral persons, and are not responsible for their acts and conduct to Almighty G.o.d. They have no right to do wrong more than an individual. "States" have their lives, their mission, their destiny; they have their sphere here below. They represent the temporal, or the things which belong to Caesar.

The State, then, is a moral person, and _a fortiori_, a religious person, _for there can be no morality without religion_. But though religion, in a general sense, be recognized by the State, it has no authority to control or direct it. It must respect the conscience of an individual. This is his birthright, and cannot be voted away, whether to support Public Schools or Public Churches.

If there be amongst us any number, great or small, who deny the common faith, it is the duty of the State to tolerate them. A greater power--G.o.d--does this. But the State itself cannot profess or _play infidel_, or, under pretence of avoiding sectarian partiality, strike at the root of all Christianity. I admit the State is of the "temporal order," and cannot discriminate between the various modes of belief; but not for that can it place itself _outside_ of them. It is _distinguishable_, but not _separable_, from the spiritual order. It is simply a means to a greater end. It is a mischievous error to say that the State has nothing to do with religion, and may act outside of its obligations. If by this it is meant that the State cannot establish or maintain any special form of religion, or interfere with its profession, or even denial by others, I admit the proposition; but if, on the other hand, it is meant that it regards Christianity and infidelity, G.o.d or no G.o.d, truth and error, either as equal or unimportant, then I utterly deny and condemn it. To bear with and tolerate error is its duty; to foster or provide for its support or propagation, or place it on the same footing with revealed truth, is another and very different thing.

The const.i.tutions of the State guarantee to every citizen the right to worship G.o.d according to the dictates of his own conscience; but this is not guaranteeing to every one the liberty of not worshipping G.o.d at all, to deny His existence, His revelation, or to worship a false G.o.d. The freedom guaranteed is the freedom of religion, not the freedom of infidelity. The American Const.i.tution grants to the infidel the right of protection in his civil and political equality, but it grants him no right to protection and support in his infidelity; for infidelity is not a religion, but the denial of all religion. The American State is Christian, and under the Christian law, and is based upon Christian principles. It is bound to protect and enforce Christian morals and its laws, whether a.s.sailed by Mormonism, Spiritism, Freelovism, Pantheism, or Atheism. But the State does the contrary. For, I ask, is not the State indirectly prohibiting the profession of Christianity by establishing a system of education which prohibits all religious instruction? The State forbids the teacher to speak a word on the subject of religion.

The State says that "it is an admitted axiom that our form of government, more than all others, depends on the _virtue and intelligence of the people_. The State proposes to furnish this _virtue_ and _intelligence_ through the _Public Schools_." That is, the safety of the State depends on the virtue and intelligence of the people, and the latter is derived from the virtue and intelligence of the "State." But where does the virtue and intelligence of the State come from? The only answer on this theory is, from the people. So the "State" enlightens and purifies the people, and the people enlighten and purify the "State."

The people support the State, the State supports the Public Schools, and they support the State. If this is not what logicians call a "vicious circle," it looks very much like it. It puts me in mind of the Brahmin's theory of the support of the earth. The Hindoo says, "The world rests on the back of an elephant--the elephant rests on the back of a turtle."

But what does the turtle rest on? So it is with our "_Public School Brahmins_." They will tell you, with all the coolness of Hindoo hypocrisy and pretension, that the "State depends on the schools--the schools on the State or people," but they do not say what the turtle stands on. This is the dilemma that all who rest society on the State, or on an atheistical basis, get into. They would cut the world loose from its a.s.signed order of dependence on Divine Law, and "set it a-going on its own hook." But the trouble is, they have no support for this turtle; they have an earth without axis. The Public School savans would have a self-supporting, a self-adjusting, and a self-created State, balanced on nothing, resting on nothing, responsible to nothing, and believing in nothing but in its own perfection and immortality. They pretend, "through G.o.dless schools," to give virtue without morality, morality without religion, and religion without G.o.d; thereby sinking below the level of the poor Indian, whose untutored mind sees G.o.d in the clouds, and hears Him in the wind.

The nameless abominations of the Communists, Fourrierists, and other such vile and degraded fraternities; the cold-blooded murders and frightful suicides that fill so many domestic hearths with grief and shame; the scarcely-concealed corruption of public and professional men; the adroit peculation and wilful embezzlement of the public money; those monopolizing speculations and voluntary insolvencies so ruinous to the community at large; and, above all, those shocking atrocities so common in our country of unbelief--the legal dissolution of the matrimonial tie, and the wanton tampering with life in its very bud; all these are humiliating facts sufficient to convince any impartial mind that there can be no social virtue, no morality, no true and lasting greatness, without religion.

"Religion," says Lord Derby, "is not a thing apart from education, but is interwoven with its whole system; it is a principle which controls and regulates the whole mind and happiness of the people." And, "Popular education," says Guizot, "to be truly good and socially useful, must be fundamentally religious."

The essential element of education--its pith and marrow, so to speak--is the religious element. By excluding it from the school-room the State has committed a crying injustice to the rising generation, and one of the worst--if not the very worst--of crimes against society. It is not one portion of the "triple man," but the whole--the physical, intellectual, and moral being--the body, the mind, the head, as stated in a previous chapter--that must be cultivated and "brought up."

Neglect any one part of man's nature, and you at once disturb the equilibrium of the whole, and produce disorder; educate the body at the expense of the mind and soul, and you will have only animated clay; educate the intelligence at the expense of the moral and religious feelings, and you but fearfully increase a man's power to effect evil.

You store the a.r.s.enal of his mind with weapons to sap alike the altar and the throne, to carry on a war of extermination against every holy principle, against the welfare and the very existence of society.

Science, without religion, is more destructive than the sword in the hands of unprincipled men; it will prove more of a demon than a G.o.d. It is these upholders of the present Public School system that arrest the progress of true happiness in our country, and prepare terrible catastrophes, which may deluge the land with blood.

Who were the leaders in the work of destruction and wholesale butchery in the Reign of Terror? The nurslings of lyceums in which the chaotic principles of the "philosophers" were proclaimed as _oracles of truth_.

Who are those turbulent revolutionists who now long to erect the guillotine by the Tuilleries? And who are those secret conspirators and their myrmidon partisans who have sworn to unify Italy or lay it in ruins? Men who were taught to scout the idea of a G.o.d and rail at religion, to consider Christianity as a thing of the past; men who revel in wild chimeras by night, and seek to realize their mad dreams by day.

Let us, then, dear American fellow-citizens, rest a.s.sured that intellectual discipline, without the cooperation of any religious element, will not, and cannot, produce the greatness of a nation, nor can it maintain its life and splendor and prevent its decay; let us, on the contrary, be persuaded that the only safety for a commonwealth, the only source of greatness and prosperity for a nation, as well as of tranquillity and happiness for the individual, is the true religion of Jesus Christ; it is this religion alone that is the safeguard of morality, and morality is the best security of law, as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

CHAPTER X.

THE STATE A ROBBER.--VIOLATION OF OUR CONSt.i.tUTION AND COMMON LAW.

We have seen, so far, that the irreligious, G.o.dless system of the Public Schools tends directly to turn the youth of both s.e.xes into the worst kind of infidels; to make them disregard good principles, and hold iniquity in veneration; to do away, not only with all revealed religion, but even with the law of nature; to make them practise fraud, theft, and robbery almost as a common trade; to make them regardless of their parents and of all divinely const.i.tuted authority; we have seen that this G.o.dless system of education is the most powerful means to create confusion, not only in religion, but also in government and in the family circle; to increase the number of apostates, and make of these apostates members of such secret societies as aim at the overthrow of governments and all good order, and Christian religion itself.

Truly, this G.o.dless system of education, if carried out to its logical consequences, will disrupt society, destroy the right of the Christian family entirely, bring back on the world the barbarism, tyranny and brutality of Pagan antiquity, and make slaves and victims of its children and their posterity forever!

Who does not feel most indignant at the State for having introduced such a G.o.dless system of education? And for the support of this system of education--of this _prolific mother of children of anti-Christ_--we are enormously t.i.thed and taxed! Horrible!

I have shown that the State in America is Christian; that it cannot profess or play infidel. What right, then, has a Christian State to compel Christians to support infidel schools? Is not this compulsory support most violative of const.i.tutional and religious rights? According to the Const.i.tution of the State, "no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience." Now, the direction and control of the education of our children is clearly not only a duty, but a "right of conscience." This right, of course, belongs to all denominations, whether few or many. By what authority, then, does the State impose _an established system_ of education at our expense against this const.i.tutionally guaranteed right of conscience? I would like to know wherein this differs from an established church, such as has been lately removed, after having been imposed for centuries by State supremacy on the Irish people, without their consent.

_It is, in fact, much worse_; for though the Episcopal Church was not in accordance with the religious belief of a majority, yet it was, nevertheless, a Christian Church of a sect of high orthodox pretensions.

But these "_Public Schools_," for whose support we and all other Christian denominations are taxed, are, by their own confession, utterly _irreligious_. The early Christians refused to burn even a little gum-rosin (incense) before the Pagan idols, and preferred rather to go to the lions; but we Christians, in this late day, and in what is boastingly called "Free America," are forced to pay taxes to support what is worse than heathen idols--schools from which the name of G.o.d is excluded, and, to our shame, we submit.

Referring to the wrong done to Catholics who cannot, in conscience, send their children to these schools, Judge Taft, of Ohio, said not long ago:

"This is too large a circ.u.mstance to be covered by the Latin phrase, 'De minimis non curat lex.' These Catholics (paying their proportion of the taxes) are constrained, every year, on conscientious grounds, to yield to others their right to one-third of the school-money, a sum averaging, at the present time, about $200,000 every year. That is to say, these people are _punished_ every year, for believing as they do, to the extent of $200,000; and to that extent those of us who send our children to these excellent common schools _become beneficiaries of the Catholic money_. What a shame for Protestants to have their children educated for money robbed from Catholics! Mercantile life is supposed to cultivate, in some, a relish for hard bargains. But if it were a business matter, and not a matter of religious concern, could business men be found willing to exact such a pecuniary advantage as this? I think it would shock the secular conscience!"

The State, in creating _free schools_, is like the Turkish Bashaw's mode of making pork cheap. He first compelled the Jews to buy it at a rate fixed by himself; but the Jews had no use for it, so it was left for every one to pick up at will. Indeed, what is a school worth when a man will pay a premium to be exempt from sending his children to it? The State, boasting of its splendid Public Schools, is also like that poor fellow who wore a gold watch and boasted of it. "Where did you get it?"