{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_34637/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_34637","id":"gutenberg_34637","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34637","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sermons, American","Unitarianism"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Julia Miller, Josephine Paolucci and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net. (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSPEECHES, ADDRESSES,\n\nAND\n\nOCCASIONAL SERMONS,\n\nBY\n\nTHEODORE PARKER,\n\nMINISTER OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN BOSTON.\n\nIN THREE VOLUMES.\n\nVOL. II.\n\nBOSTON:\nHORACE B. FULLER,\n(SUCCESSOR TO WALKER, FULLER, AND COMPANY,)\n245, WASHINGTON STREET.\n\n1867.\n\n\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by\nTHEODORE PARKER,\nIn the Clerk's Office of the District Court\nof the District of Massachusetts.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF VOLUME II.\n\n\nI.\n\nA SERMON OF THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF BOSTON.--Preached\nat the Melodeon, on Sunday, February 18, 1849\n\n                                                               PAGE 1\n\nII.\n\nSOME THOUGHTS ON THE MOST CHRISTIAN USE OF THE\nSUNDAY.--A Sermon preached at the Melodeon, on Sunday,\nJanuary 30, 1848                                                   56\n\nIII.\n\nA SERMON OF IMMORTAL LIFE.--Preached at the Melodeon\non Sunday, September 20, 1846                                     105\n\nIV.\n\nTHE PUBLIC EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE.--An Address\ndelivered before the Onondaga Teachers' Institute at Syracuse,\nNew York, October 4, 1849                                         139\n\nV.\n\nTHE POLITICAL DESTINATION OF AMERICA, AND THE\nSIGNS OF THE TIMES.--An Address delivered before\nseveral literary Societies in 1848                                198\n\nVI.\n\nA DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE DEATH OF JOHN\nQUINCY ADAMS.--Delivered at the Melodeon, on Sunday,\nMarch 5, 1848                                                     252\n\nVII.\n\nA SPEECH AT A MEETING OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY\nSOCIETY, TO CELEBRATE THE ABOLITION OF\nSLAVERY BY THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, April 6, 1848                     331\n\nVIII.\n\nA SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL, BEFORE THE NEW ENGLAND\nANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTION, May 31, 1848                             344\n\nIX.\n\nSOME THOUGHTS ON THE FREE SOIL PARTY, AND THE\nELECTION OF GENERAL TAYLOR, December, 1848                        360\n\n\n\n\nA SERMON OF THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF BOSTON.--PREACHED AT THE\nMELODEON, ON SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1849.\n\nMATTHEW VIII. 20.\n\n    By their fruits ye shall know them.\n\n\nLast Sunday I said something of the moral condition of Boston; to-day I\nask your attention to a Sermon of the Spiritual Condition of Boston. I\nuse the word spiritual in its narrower sense, and speak of the condition\nof this town in respect to piety. A little while since, in a sermon of\npiety, I tried to show that love of God lay at the foundation of all\nmanly excellence, and was the condition of all noble, manly development;\nthat love of truth, love of justice, love of love, were respectively the\ncondition of intellectual, moral, and affectional development, and that\nthey were also respectively the intellectual, moral, and affectional\nforms of piety; that the love of God as the Infinite Father, the\ntotality of truth, justice, and love was the general condition of the\ntotal development of man's spiritual powers. But I showed, that\nsometimes this piety, intellectual, moral, affectional or total, did not\narrive at self-consciousness; the man only unconsciously loving the\nInfinite in one or all these modes, and in such cases the man was a\nloser by frustrating his piety, and allowing it to stop in the truncated\nform of unconsciousness.\n\nNow what is in you will appear out of you; if piety be there in any of\nthese forms, in either mode, it will come out; if not there, its fruits\ncannot appear. You may reason forward or backward: if you know piety\nexists, you may foretell its appearance; if you find fruits thereof, you\nmay reason back and be sure of its existence. Piety is love of God as\nGod, and as we only love what we are like, and in that degree, so it is\nalso a likeness to God. Now it is a general doctrine in Christendom that\ndivinity must manifest itself; and, in assuming the highest form of\nmanifestation known to us, divinity becomes humanity. However, that\ndoctrine is commonly taught in the specific and not generic form, and is\nenforced by an historical and concrete example, but not by way of a\nuniversal thesis. It appears thus: The Christ was God; as such He must\nmanifest himself; the form of manifestation was that of a complete and\nperfect man. I reject the concrete example, but accept the universal\ndoctrine on which the special dogma of the Trinity is erected. From that\nI deduce this as a general rule: If you follow the law of your nature,\nand are simple and true to that, as much of godhead as there is in you,\nso much of manhood will come out of you, and, as much of manhood comes\nout of you, so much of godhead was there within you; as much subjective\ndivinity, so much objective humanity.\n\nSuch being the case, the demands you can make on a man for manliness\nmust depend for their answer on the amount of piety on deposit in his\ncharacter; so it becomes important to know the condition of this town in\nrespect of piety, for if this be not right in the above sense, nothing\nelse is right; or, to speak more clerically, \"Unless the Lord keep the\ncity, the watchman waketh but in vain,\" and unless piety be developed or\na-developing in men, it is vain for the minister to sit up late of a\nSaturday night to concoct his sermon, and to rise up early of a Sunday\nmorning to preach the same; he fights but as one that beateth the air,\nand spends his strength for that which is nought. They are in the right,\ntherefore, who first of all things demand piety: so let us see what\nsigns or proof we have, and of what amount of piety in Boston.\n\nTo determine this, we must have some test by which to judge of the\nquality, distinguishing piety from impiety, and some standard whereby to\nmeasure the quantity thereof; for though you may know what piety is in\nyou, I what is in me, and God what is in both and in all the rest of us,\nit is plain that we can only judge of the existence of piety in other\nmen, and measure its quantity by an outward manifestation thereof, in\nsome form which shall serve at once as a trial test and a standard\nmeasure.\n\nNow, then, as I mentioned in that former sermon, it is on various sides\nalleged that there are two outward manifestations of piety, a good deal\nunlike: each is claimed by some men as the exclusive trial test and\nstandard measure. Let me say a word of each.\n\nI. Some contend for what I call the conventional standard; that is, the\nmanifestation of piety by means of certain prescribed forms. Of these\nforms there are three modes or degrees: namely, first, the form of\nbodily attendance on public worship; second, the belief in certain\ndoctrines, not barely because they are proven true, or known without\nproof, but because they are taught with authority; and third, a passive\nacquiescence in certain forms and ceremonies, or an active performance\nthereof.\n\nII. The other I call the natural standard; that is, the manifestation of\npiety in the natural form of morality in its various degrees and modes\nof action.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is plain, that the amount of piety in a man or a town, will appear\nvery different when tested by one or the other of these standards. It\nmay be that very little water runs through the wooden trough which feeds\nthe saw-mill at Niagara, and yet a good deal, blue and bounding, may\nleap over the rock, adown its natural channel. In a matter of this\nimportance, when taking account of a stock so precious as piety, it is\nbut fair to try it by both standards.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet us begin with the conventional standard, and examine piety by its\nmanifestation in the ecclesiastical forms. Here is a difficulty at the\noutset, in determining upon the measure, for there is no one and general\necclesiastical standard, common to all parties of Christians, from the\nCatholic to the Quaker; each measures by its own standard, but denies\nthe correctness of all the others. It is as if a foot were declared the\nunit of long measure, and then the actual foot of the chief justice of a\nState, were taken as the rule by which to correct all measurements; then\nthe foot would vary as you went from North Carolina to South, and, in\nany one State, would vary with the health of the judge. However, to do\nwhat can be done with a measure thus uncertain, it is plain, that,\nestimated by any ecclesiastical standard, the amount of piety is small.\nThere is, as men often say, \"A general decline of piety;\" that is a\ncommon complaint, recorded and registered. But what makes the matter\nworse to the ecclesiastical philosopher, and more appalling to the\ncomplainers, is this: it is a decline of long standing. The disease\nwhich is thus lamented is said to be acute, but is proved to be chronic\nalso; only it would seem, from the lamentations of some modern\nJeremiahs, that the decline went on with accelerated velocity, and, the\nmore chronic the disease was, the acuter it also became.\n\nTried by this standard, things seem discouraging. To get a clearer view,\nlet us look a little beyond our own borders, at first, and then come\nnearer home. The Catholic church complains of a general defection. The\nmajority of the Christian church confesses that the Protestant\nReformation was not a revival of religion, not a \"Great awakening,\" but\na great falling to sleep; the faith of Luther and Calvin was a great\ndecline of religion--a decline of piety in the ecclesiastical form; that\nmodern philosophy, the physics of Galileo and Newton, the metaphysics of\nDescartes and of Kant, mark another decline of religion--a decline of\npiety in the philosophical form; that all the modern democracy of the\neighteenth and nineteenth centuries, marks a yet further decline of\nreligion--a decline of piety in the political form; that all the modern\nsecular societies, for removing the evils of men and their sins, mark a\nyet fourth decline of religion--a decline of piety in the philanthropic\nform. Certainly, when measured by the mediaeval standard of Catholicism,\nthese mark four great declensions of piety, for, in all four, the old\nprinciple of subordination to an external and personal authority is set\naside.\n\nAll over Europe this decline is still going on; ecclesiastical\nestablishments are breaking down; other establishments are a-building\nup. Pius the Ninth seems likely to fulfil his own prophecy, and be the\nlast of the Popes; I mean the last with temporal power. There is a great\nschism in the north of Europe; the Germans will be Catholics, but no\nlonger Roman. The old forms of piety, such as service in Latin, the\nwithholding of the Bible from the people, compulsory confession, the\nungrateful celibacy of a reluctant priesthood--all these are protested\nagainst. It is of no avail that the holy coat of Jesus, at Treves, works\ngreater miracles than the apostolical napkins and aprons; of no avail\nthat the Virgin Mary appeared on the nineteenth of September, 1846, to\ntwo shepherd-children, at La Salette, in France. What are such things to\nRonge and Wessenberg? Neither the miraculous coat, nor the miraculous\nmother, avails aught against this untoward generation, charm they never\nso wisely. The decline of piety goes on. By the new Constitution of\nFrance, all forms of religion are equal; the Catholic and the\nProtestant, the Mahometan and the Jew, are equally sheltered under the\nbroad shield of the law. Even Spain, the fortress walled and moated\nabout, whither the spirit of the middle ages retired and shut herself up\nlong since, womanning her walls with unmanly priests and kings, with\nunfeminine queens and nuns--even Spain fails with the general failure.\nBritish capitalists buy up her convents and nunneries, to turn them into\nwoollen mills. Monks and nuns forget their beads in some new\nhandicraft; sister Mary, who sat still in the house, is now also busy\nwith serving, careful, indeed, about more things than formerly, but not\ncumbered nor troubled as before. Meditative Rachels, and Hannahs, long\nunblest, who sat in solitude, have now become like practical Dorcas,\nmaking garments for the poor; the Bank is become more important than the\nInquisition. The order of St. Francis d'Assisi, of St. Benedict, even of\nSt. Dominic himself, is giving way before the new order of Arkwright,\nWatt, and Fulton,--the order of the spinning jenny and the power-loom.\nIt is no longer books on the miraculous conception, or meditations on\nthe five wounds of the Saviour, or commentaries on the song of songs\nwhich is Solomon's, that get printed there: but fiery novels of Eugene\nSue, and George Sand; and so extremes meet.\n\nProtestant establishments share the same peril. A new sect of\nProtestants rises up in Germany, who dissent as much from the letter and\nspirit of Protestantism, as the Protestants from Catholicism; men that\nwill not believe the infallibility of the Bible, the doctrine of the\nTrinity, the depravity of man, the eternity of future punishment, nor\njustification by faith--a justification before God, for mere belief\nbefore men. The new spirit gets possession of new men, who cannot be\nwritten down, nor even howled down. Excommunication or abuse does no\ngood on such men as Bauer, Strauss, and Schwegler; and it answers none\nof their questions. It seems pretty clear, that in all the north of\nGermany, within twenty years, there will be entire freedom of worship,\nfor all sects, Protestant and Catholic.\n\nIn England, Protestantism has done its work less faithfully than in\nGermany. The Protestant spirit of England came here two hundred years\nago, so that new and Protestant England is on the west of the ocean; in\nEngland, an established church lies there still, an iceberg in the\nnational garden. But even there, the decline of the ecclesiastical form\nof piety is apparent: the new bishops must not sit in the House of\nLords, till the old ones die out, for the number of lords spiritual must\nnot increase, though the temporal may; the new attempt, at Oxford and\nelsewhere, to restore the Middle Ages, will not prosper. Bring back all\nthe old rites and forms into Leeds and Manchester; teach men the\ntheology of Thomas Aquinas, or of St. Bernard; bid them adore the\nuplifted wafer, as the very God, men who toil all day with iron mills,\nwho ride in steam-drawn coaches, and talk by lightning in a whisper,\nfrom the Irk to the Thames,--they will not consent to the philosophy or\nthe theology of the Middle Ages, nor be satisfied with the old forms of\npiety, which, though too elevated for their fathers in the time of\nElizabeth, are yet too low for them, at least too antiquated. Dissenters\nhave got into the House of Commons; the test-act is repealed, and a man\ncan be a captain in the army, or a postmaster in a village, without\nfirst taking the Lord's Supper, after the fashion of the Church of\nEngland. Some men demand the abandonment of tithes, the entire\nseparation of Church and State, the return to \"The voluntary principle\"\nin religion. \"The battering ram which levelled old Sarum,\" and other\nboroughs as corrupt, now beats on the church, and the \"Church is in\ndanger.\" Men complain of the decline of piety in England. An intelligent\nand very serious writer, not long ago, lamenting this decline, in proof\nthereof, relates, that formerly men began their last wills, \"In the name\nof God, Amen;\" and headed bills of lading with, \"Shipped in good order,\nby the grace of God;\" that indictments for capital crimes charged the\nculprit with committing felony, \"At the instigation of the devil,\" and\nnow, he complains, these forms have gone out of use.\n\nIn America, in New England, in Boston, when measured by that standard,\nthe same decline of piety is apparent. It is often said that our\nmaterial condition is better than our moral; that in advance of our\nspiritual condition. There is a common clerical complaint of a certain\nthinness in the churches; men do not give their bodily attendance, as\nonce they did; they are ready enough to attend lectures, two or three in\na week, no matter how scientific and abstract, or how little connected\nwith their daily work, yet they cannot come to the church without\nteasing beforehand, nor keep awake while there. It is said the minister\nis not respected as formerly. True, a man of power is respected, heard,\nsought, and followed, but it is for his power, for his words of grace\nand truth, not for his place in a pulpit; he may have more influence as\na man, but less as a clergyman. Ministers lament a prevalent disbelief\nof their venerable doctrines; that there is a concealed skepticism in\nregard to them, often not concealed. This, also, is a well-founded\ncomplaint; the well-known dogmas of theology were never in worse repute;\nthere was never so large a portion of the community in New England who\nwere doubtful of the Trinity, of eternal damnation, of total depravity,\nof the atonement, of the Godhead of Jesus, of the miracles of the New\nTestament, and of the truth of every word of the Bible. A complaint is\nmade, that the rites and forms which are sometimes called \"the\nordinances of religion,\" are neglected; that few men join the church,\nand though the old hedge is broken down before the altar, yet the number\nof communicants diminishes, and it is no longer able-headed men, the\nleaders of society, who come; that the ordinances seem haggard and\nghastly to young men, who cannot feed their hungry souls on such a thin\npittance of spiritual aliment as these afford; that the children are not\nbaptized. These things are so; so in Europe, Catholic and Protestant; so\nin America, so in Boston. Notwithstanding the well-founded complaint\nthat our modern churches are too costly for the times, we do not build\ntemples which bear so high a proportion to our wealth as the early\nchurches of Boston; the attendance at meeting does not increase as the\npopulation; the ministers are not prominent, as in the days of Wilson,\nof Cotton, and of Norton; their education is not now in the same\nproportion to the general culture of the times. Harvard College,\ndedicated to \"Christ and the Church,\" designed at first chiefly for the\neducation of the clergy, graduates few ministers; theological literature\nno longer overawes all other. The number of church members was never so\nsmall in proportion to the voters as now; the number of Protestant\nbirths never so much exceeded the number of Protestant baptisms. Young\nmen of superior ability and superior education have little affection for\nthe ministry; take little interest in the welfare of the church. Nay,\nyouths descended from a wealthy family seldom look that way. It is poor\nmen's sons, men of obscure family, who fill the pulpits; often,\nlikewise, men of slender ability, eked out with an education\nproportionately scant. The most active members of the churches are\nsimilar in position, ability, and culture. These are undeniable facts.\nThey are not peculiar to New England. You find them wherever the\nvoluntary principle is resorted to. In England, in Catholic countries,\nyou find the old historic names in the Established Church; there is no\nlack of aristocratic blood in clerical veins; but there and everywhere\nthe church seems falling astern of all other craft which can keep the\nsea.\n\nSince these things are so, men who have only the conventional standard\nwherewith to measure the amount of piety, only that test to prove its\nexistence by, think we are rapidly going to decay; that the tabernacle\nis fallen down, and no man rises to set it up. They complain that Zion\nis in distress; theological newspapers lament that there are no revivals\nto report; that \"The Lord has withheld His arm,\" and does not \"pour out\nHis Spirit upon the churches.\" Ghastly meetings are held by men with\nsincere and noble heart, but saddened face; speeches are made which seem\na groan of linked wailings long drawn out. Men mourn at the infidelity\nof the times, at the coldness of some, at the deadness of others. All\nthe sects complain of this, yet each loves to attribute the deadness of\nthe rival sects to their special theology; it is Unitarianism which is\nchoking the Unitarians, say their foes, and the Unitarians know how to\nretort after the same fashion. The less enlightened put the blame of\nthis misfortune on the good God who has somehow \"withheld His hand,\" or\nomitted to \"pour out His Spirit,\"--the people perishing for want of the\nopen vision. Others put the blame on mankind; some on \"poor human\nnature,\" which is not what might have been expected, not perceiving\nthat if the fault be there it is not for us to remedy, and if God made\nman a bramble-bush, that no wailing will make him bear figs. Yet others\nrefer this condition to the use made of human nature, which certainly is\na more philosophical way of looking at the matter.\n\nNow there is one sect which has done great service in former days, which\nis, I think, still doing something to enlighten and liberalize the land,\nand, I trust, will yet do more, more even than it consciously intends.\nThe name of Unitarian is deservedly dear to many of us, who yet will not\nbe shackled by any denominational fetters. This sect has always been\nremarkable for a certain gentlemanly reserve about all that pertained to\nthe inward part of religion; other faults it might have, but it did not\nincur the reproach of excessive enthusiasm, or a spirituality too\nsublimated and transcendental for daily use. This sect has long been a\nspeckled bird among the denominations, each of which has pecked at her,\nor at least cawed with most unmelodious croak against this new-fledged\nsect. It was said the Unitarians had \"denied the Lord that bought them;\"\nthat theirs was the church of unbelief--not the church of Christ, but of\nNo-Christ; that they had a Bible of their own, and a thin, poor Bible,\ntoo; that their ways were ways of destruction; \"Touch not, taste not,\nhandle not,\" was to be written on their doctrines; that they had not\neven the grace of lukewarmness, but were moral and stone-cold; that\nthey looked fair on the side turned towards man, but on the Godward side\nit was a blank wall with no gate, nor window, nor loop-hole, nor eyelet\nfor the Holy Ghost to come through; that their prayers were only a show\nof devotion to cover up the hard rock of the flinty heart, or the frozen\nground of morality. Their faith, it was said, was only a conviction\nafter the case was proven by unimpeachable evidence, and good for\nnothing; while belief without evidence, or against proof, seems to be\nthe right ecclesiastical talisman.\n\nFor a long time the Unitarian sect did not grumble unduly, but set\nitself to promote the cultivation of reason and apply that to religion;\nto cultivate morality and apply it to life; and to demand the most\nentire personal freedom for all men in all matters pertaining to\nreligion. Hence came its merits; they were very great merits, too, and\nnot at all the merits of the times, held in common with the other sects.\nI need not dwell on this, and the good works of Unitarianism, in this\nthe most Unitarian city in the world; but as a general thing the\nUnitarians, it seems to me, did neglect the culture of piety; and of\ncourse their morality, while it lasted, would be unsatisfactory, and in\ntime would wither and dry up because it had no deepness of earth to grow\nout of. The Unitarians, as a general thing, began outside, and sought to\nwork inward, proceeding from the special to the general, by what might\nbe called the inductive mode of religious culture; that was the form\nadopted in pulpits, and in families so far as there was any religious\neducation attempted in private. That is not the method of nature, where\nall growth is the development of a living germ, which by an inward power\nappropriates the outward things it needs, and grows thereby. Hence came\nthe defects of Unitarianism, and they were certainly very great defects;\nbut they came almost unavoidably from the circumstances of the times.\nThe sensational philosophy was the only philosophy that prevailed; the\nOrthodox sects had always rejected a part of that philosophy, not in the\nname of science, but of piety, and they supplied its place not with a\nbetter philosophy, but with tradition, speaking with an authority which\nclaimed to be above human nature. It was not in the name of reason that\nthey rejected a false philosophy, but in the name of religion often\ndenounced all philosophy and the reason which demanded it. The\nUnitarians rejected that portion of Orthodoxy, became more consistent\nsensationalists, and arrived at results which we know. Now it is easy to\nsee their error; not difficult to avoid it; but forty or fifty years ago\nit was almost impossible not to fall into this mistake. Sometimes it\nseems as if the Unitarians were half conscious of this defect, and so\ndared not be original, but borrowed Orthodox weapons, or continued to\nuse Trinitarian phrases long after they had blunted those weapons of\ntheir point, and emptied the phrases of their former sense. In the\ncontroversy between the Orthodox and Unitarians, neither party was\nwholly right: the Unitarians had reason to charge the Orthodox with\ndebasing man's nature, and representing God as not only unworthy, but\nunjust, and somewhat odious; the Trinitarians were mainly right in\ncharging us with want of conscious piety, with beginning to work at the\nwrong end; but at the same time it must be remembered, that, in\nproportion to their numbers, the Unitarians have furnished far more\nphilanthropists and reformers than any of the other sects. It is time to\nconfess this on both sides.\n\nFor a long time the Unitarian sect did not complain much of the decline\nof piety; it did not care to have an organization, loving personal\nfreedom too well for that, and it had not much denominational feeling;\nindeed, its members were kept together, not so much by an agreement and\nunity of opinion among themselves, as by a unity of opposition from\nwithout; it was not the hooks on their shields that held the legion\ntogether with even front, but the pressure of hostile shields crowded\nupon them from all sides. They did not believe in spasmodic action; if a\nbody was dead, they gave it burial, without trying to galvanize it into\nmomentary life, not worth the spark it cost; they knew that a small\ncloud may make a good many flashes in the dark, but that many\nlightnings cannot make light. They stood apart from the violent efforts\nof other churches to get converts. The converts they got commonly\nadhered to their faith, and in this respect differed a good deal from\nthose whom \"Revivals\" brought into other churches; with whom\nChristianity sprung up in a night, and in a night also perished. Some\nyears ago, when this city was visited and ravaged by Revivals, the\nUnitarians kept within doors, gave warning of the danger, and suffered\nless harm and loss from that tornado than any of the sects. Unitarianism\nseems, in this city, to have done its original work; so the company is\nbreaking up by degrees, and the men are going off, to engage in other\nbusiness, to weed other old fields, or to break up new land, each man\nfollowing his own sense of duty, and for himself determining whether to\ngo or stay. But at the same time, an attempt is made to keep the company\ntogether; to cultivate a denominational feeling; to put hooks and\nstaples on the shields which no longer offer that formidable and even\nfront; to teach all trumpets to give the same sectarian bray, all voices\nto utter the same war-cry. The attempt does not succeed; the ranks are\ndisordered, the trumpets give an uncertain sound, and the soldiers do\nnot prepare themselves for denominational battle; nay, it often happens\nthat the camp lacks the two sinews of war--both money, and men. Hence\nthe denominational view of religious affairs has undergone a change; I\nmake no doubt a real and sincere change, though I know this has been\ndenied, and the change thought only official. The men I refer to are\nsincere and devout men; some of them quite above the suspicion of mere\nofficial conduct. This sect is now the loudest in its wailing; these\nChristian Jeremiahs tell us that we do not realize spiritual things,\nthat we are all dead men, that there is no health in us. These cold\nUnitarian Thomases crowd unwontedly together in public to bewail the\nspiritual weather, the dearth of piety in Boston, the \"General decline\nof religion\" in New England. Church unto church raises the Macedonian\ncry, \"Come over and help us!\" The opinion seems general that piety is in\na poor way, and must have watchers, the strongest medicine, and nursing\nquite unusual, or it will soon be all over, and Unitarianism will give\nup the ghost. Various causes have I heard assigned for the malady; some\nthink that there has been over-much preaching of philosophy, though\nperhaps there is not evidence to convict any one man in particular of\nthe offence; that philosophy is the dog in the manger, who keeps the\nhungry Unitarian flock from their spiritual hay, and cut-straw, which\nare yet of not the smallest use to him. But look never so sharp, and you\ndo not find this dangerous beast in the neighborhood of the fold. Others\nthink that there has been also an excess of moral preaching, against the\nprevalent sins of the nation, I suppose--but few individuals seem\nliable to conviction on that charge. Yet others think this decline comes\nfrom the fact that the terrors have not been duly and sufficiently\nadministered from the pulpit; that while Catholics and Methodists thrive\nunder such influences, the Unitarian widows are neglected in the weekly\nministration of terror and of threat; that there has not been so much an\nexcess of lightning in the form of philosophy or morality, but only a\nlack of thunder.\n\nThis temporary movement among the Unitarians of Boston is natural; in\nsome respects it is what our fathers would have called \"judicial.\" The\nUnitarians have been cold, have looked more at the outward\nmanifestations of goodness than at the inward spirit of piety which was\nto make the manifestations; they have not had an excess of philosophy,\nor of morality, but a defect of piety. They have been more respectable\nthan pious. They have not always quite rightly appreciated the\nenthusiasm of sterner and more austere sects; not always done justice to\nthe inwardness of religion those sects sought to promote. When their\nchurches get a little thin, and their denominational affairs a little\ndisturbed, it is quite natural these Unitarians should look after the\ncause and pass over to lamentations at the present state of things;\nwhile looking at the community from the new point of view, it is quite\nnatural that they should suppose piety on the decline, and religion\ndying out. Yes, in general it is plain that, if men have no eyes but\nconventional eyes, no spirit but that of the ecclesiastical order they\nserve in, and of the denomination they belong to, it is natural for them\nto think that because piety does not flow in the old ecclesiastical\nchannel, it does not flow anywhere, and there is none at all to run.\nThus it is easy to explain the complaint of the Catholics at the great\ndefection of the most enlightened nations of Europe; the lamentation of\nthe Protestants at the heresy of the most enlightened portion of their\nsect; and the Unitarian wail over the general decline of piety in the\ncity of Boston. Some men can only judge the present age by the\nconventional standard of the past, and as the old form of piety does not\nappear, they must conclude there is no piety.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet us now recur to the other or natural standard, and look at the\nmanifestation of piety in the form of morality. Last Sunday I spoke of\nour moral condition; and it appeared that morals were in a low state\nhere when compared with the ideal morals of Christianity. Now as the\noutward deed is but the manifestation of the inward life, and objective\nhumanity the index of subjective divinity, so the low state of morals\nproves a low state of piety; if the heart of this town was right towards\nGod, then would its hand also be right towards man. I am one of those\nwho for long years have lamented the want of vital piety in this\npeople. We not only do not realize spiritual things, but we do not make\nthem our ideals. I see proofs of this want of piety in the low morals of\ntrade, of the public press; in poverty, intemperance, and crime; in the\nvices and social wrongs touched on the last Sunday. I judge the tree by\nits fruit. But it is not on this ground that the ecclesiastical\ncomplaint is based. Men who make so much ado about the absence of piety,\ndo not appeal for proof thereof to the great vices and prominent sins of\nthe times; they see no sign of that in our trade and our politics; in\nthe misery that festers in putrid lanes, one day to breed a pestilence,\nwhich it were even cheaper to hinder now, than cure at a later time;\nnobody mentions as proof the Mexican War, the political dishonesty of\nofficers, the rapacity of office-seekers, the servility of men who will\ntamely suffer the most sacred rights of three millions of men to be\ntrodden into the dust. Matters which concern millions of men came up\nbefore your Congress; the great Senator of Massachusetts loitered away\nthe time of the session here in Boston, managing a lawsuit for a few\nthousand dollars, and no fault was publicly found with such neglect of\npublic duty; but men see no lack of piety indicated by this fact, and\nothers like it; they find signs of that lack in empty pews, in a\ndeserted communion-table, in the fact that children, though brought up\nto reverence truth and justice, to love man and to love God, are not\nbaptized with water; or in the fact that Unitarianism or Trinitarianism\nis on the decline! How many wailings have we all heard or read, because\nthe Puritan churches of Boston have not kept the faith of their grim\nfounders; what lamentations at the rising up of a sect which refuses the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, or at the appearance of a few men who,\nneglecting the common props of Christianity, rest it, for its basis, on\nthe nature of man and the nature of God: though almost all the eminent\nphilanthropy of the day is connected with these men, yet they are still\ncalled \"Infidel,\" and reviled on all hands!\n\nThe state of things mentioned in the last sermon does indicate a want of\npiety, a deep and a great want. I do not see signs of that in the debt\nand decay of churches, in absence from meetings, in doubt of theological\ndogmas, in neglect of forms and ceremonies which once were of great\nvalue; but I do see it in the low morals of trade, of the press; in the\npopular vices. On a national scale I see it in the depravity of\npolitical parties, in the wicked war we have just fought, in the slavery\nwe still tolerate and support. Yes, as I look on the churches of this\ncity, I see a want of piety in the midst of us. If eminent piety were in\nthem, and allowed to follow its natural bent, it would come out of them\nin the form of eminent humanity; they would lead in the philanthropies\nof this day, where they hardly follow. In this condition of the churches\nI see a most signal proof of the low estate of piety; they do not\nmanifest a love of truth, which is the piety of the intellect; nor a\nlove of justice, which is the piety of the moral sense; nor a love of\nlove, which is the piety of the affections; nor a love of God as the\nInfinite Father of all men, which is the total piety of the whole soul.\nFor lack of this internal divinity there is a lack of external humanity.\nWho can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? This is what I complain\nof, what I mourn over.\n\nThe clergymen of this city are most of them sincere men, I doubt not;\nsome of them men of a superior culture; many of them laborious men;\nmost, perhaps all of them, deeply interested in the welfare of the\nchurches, and the promotion of piety. But how many of them are marked\nand known for their philanthropy, distinguished for their zeal in\nputting down any of the major sins of our day, zealous in any work of\nreform? I fear I can count them all on the fingers of a single hand; yet\nthere are enough to bewail the departure of monastic forms, and of the\ntheology which led men in the dimness of a darker age, but cannot shine\nin the rising light of this. I find no fault with these men; I blame\nthem not; it is their profession which so blinds their eyes. They are as\nwise and as valiant as the churches let them be. What sect in all this\nland ever cared about temperance, education, peace betwixt nations, or\neven the freedom of all men in our own, so much as this sect cares for\nthe baptizing of children with water, and that for the baptizing of men;\nthis for the doctrine of the Trinity, and all for the infallibility of\nthe Bible? Do you ask the sects to engage in the work of extirpating\nconcrete wrong? It is in vain; each reformer tries it--the mild sects\nanswer, \"I pray thee have me excused;\" the sterner sects reply with\nawful speech. A distinguished theological journal of another city thinks\nthe philanthropies of this day are hostile to piety, and declares that\ntrue spiritual Christianity never prevails where men think slavery is a\nsin. A distinguished minister of a highly respectable sect declares the\ntemperance societies unchristian, and even atheistical. He reasons thus:\nThe church is an instrument appointed by God and Christ, to overcome all\nforms of wrong, intemperance among the rest; to neglect this instrument\nand devise another, a temperance society, to wit, is to abandon the\ninstitutions of God and Christ, and so it is unchristian and\natheistical. In other words, here is intemperance, a stone of stumbling,\nand a rock of offence, in our way; there is an old wooden beetle, which\nhas done great service of old time, and is said to have been made by\nGod's own hand; men smite therewith the stone or smite it not; still it\nlies there a stone of stumbling and a stone of shame; other men\napproach, and with a sledge-hammer of well-tempered steel smite the\nrock, and break off piece after piece, smoothing the rough\nimpracticable way; they call on men to come to their aid, with such\nweapons as they will. But our minister bids them beware; the beetle is\n\"of the Lord,\" the iron which breaks the rock in pieces is an\nunchristian and atheistical instrument. Yet was this minister an\nearnest, a pious, and a self-denying man, who sincerely sought the good\nof men. He had been taught to know no piety but in the church's form. I\nwould not do dishonor to the churches; they have done great service,\nthey still do much; I would only ask them to be worthy of their\nChristian name. They educate men a little, and allow them to approach\nemancipation, but never to be free and go alone.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI see much to complain of in the condition of piety; yet nothing to be\nalarmed at. When I look back, it seems worse still, far worse. There has\nnot been \"A decline of piety\" in Boston of late years. Religion is not\nsick. Last Sunday, I spoke of the great progress made in morality within\nfifty years; I said it was an immense progress within two hundred years.\nNow, there cannot be such a progress in the outward manifestation\nwithout a corresponding and previous development of the inward\nprinciple. Morality cannot grow without piety more than an oak without\nwater, earth, sun, and air. Let me go back one hundred years; see what a\ndifference between the religious aspect of things then and now!\ncertainly there has been a great growth in spirituality since that day.\nI am not to judge men's hearts; I may take their outward lives as the\ntest and measure of their inward piety. Will you say the outward life\nnever completely comes up to that? It does so as completely now as then.\nCompare the toleration of these times with those; compare the\nintelligence of the community; the temperance, sobriety, chastity,\nvirtue in general. Look at what is now done in a municipal way by towns\nand States for mankind; see the better provision made for the poor, for\nthe deaf, the dumb, the blind, for the insane, even for the idiot; see\nwhat is done for the education of the people--in schools, academies,\ncolleges, and by public lectures; what is done for the criminal to\nprevent the growth of crime. See what an amelioration of the penal laws;\nhow men are saved and restored to society, who had once been wholly\nlost. See what is done by philanthropy still more eminent, which the\ntown and State have not yet overtaken and enacted into law; by the\nvarious societies for reform--those for temperance, for peace, for the\ndiscipline of prisons, for the discharged convicts, for freeing the\nslave. See this Anti-slavery party, which, in twenty years, has become\nso powerful throughout all the Northern States, so strong that it cannot\nbe howled down, and men begin to find it hardly safe to howl over it; a\nparty which only waits the time to lift up its million arms, and hurl\nthe hateful institution of slavery out of the land! All these humane\nmovements come from a divine piety in the soul of man. A tree which\nbears such fruits is not a dead tree; is not wholly to be despaired of;\nis not yet in a \"decline,\" and past all hope of recovery. Is the age\nwanting in piety, which makes such efforts as these? Yes, you will say,\nbecause it does no more. I agree to this, but it is rich in piety\ncompared to other times. Ours is an age of faith; not of mere belief in\nthe commandments of men, but of faith in the nature of man and the\ncommandments of God.\n\nThis prevailing and contagious complaint about the decline of religion\nis not one of the new things of our time. In the beginning of the last\ncentury, Dr. Colman, first minister of the church in Brattle street,\nlamented in small capitals over the general decline of piety:--\"The\nvenerable name of religion and of the church is made a sham pretence for\nthe worst of villanies, for uncharitableness and unnatural oppression of\nthe pious and the peaceable;\" \"the perilous times are come, wherein men\nare lovers only of their own selves.\" \"Ah, calamitous day,\" says he,\n\"into which we are fallen, and into which the sins of our infatuated age\nhave brought us!\" He looks back to the founders of New England; they\n\"were rich in faith, and heirs of a better world,\" \"men of whom the\nworld was not worthy;\" \"they laid in a stock of prayers for us which\nhave brought down many blessings on us already.\" Samuel Willard\nbewailed \"the checkered state of the gospel church;\" it was \"in every\nrespect a gloomy day, and covered with thick clouds.\"\n\nWe retire yet further back, to the end of the seventeenth century; a\nhundred and sixty or seventy years ago, Dr. Increase Mather, not only in\nhis own pulpit, but also at \"the great and Thursday lecture,\" lamented\nover \"the degeneracy and departing glory of New England.\" He complained\nthat there was a neglect of the Sabbath, of the ordinances, and of\nfamily worship; he groaned at the lax discipline of the churches, and\nlooked, says another, \"as fearfully on the growing charity as on the\ngrowing vices of the age.\" He called the existing generation \"an\nunconverted generation.\" \"Atheism and profaneness,\" says he, \"have come\nto a prodigious height;\" \"God will visit\" for these things; \"God is\nabout to open the windows of heaven, and pour down the cataracts of His\nwrath ere this generation ... is passed away.\" If a comet appeared in\nthe sky, it was to admonish men of the visitation, and make \"the haughty\ndaughters of Zion reform their pride of apparel.\" \"The world is full of\nunbelief\" (that is, in the malignant aspect and disastrous influence of\ncomets), \"but there is an awful Scripture for them that do profanely\ncondemn such signal works!\"\n\nOne of the present and well-known indications of the decline of piety,\nthat is often thought a modern luxury, and ridiculously denounced in\nthe pulpit, which has done its part in fostering the enjoyment, was\npractised to an extent that alarmed the prim shepherds of the New\nEngland flock in earlier days. The same Dr. Mather preached a series of\nsermons \"tending to promote the power of godliness,\" and concludes the\nwhole with a discourse \"Of sleeping at sermons,\" and says: \"To sleep in\nthe public worship of God is a thing too frequently and easily\npractised; it is a great and a dangerous evil.\" \"Sleeping at a sermon is\na greater sin than speaking an idle word. Therefore, if men must be\ncalled to account for idle words, much more for this!\" \"Gospel sermons\nare among the most precious talents which any in this world have\nconferred upon them. But what a sad account will be given concerning\nthose sermons which have been slept away! As light as thou makest of it\nnow, it may be conscience will roar for it upon a death-bed!\" \"Verily,\nthere is many a soul that will find this to be a dismal thought at the\nday of judgment, when he shall remember so many sermons I might have\nheard for my everlasting benefit, but I slighted and slept them all\naway. Therefore consider, if men allow themselves in this evil their\nsouls are in danger to perish.\" \"It is true that a godly man may be\nsubject unto this as well as unto other infirmities; but he doth not\nallow himself therein.\" \"The name of the glorious God is greatly\nprophaned by this inadvertency.\" \"The support of the evangelical\nministry is ... discouraged.\" He thought the character of the pulpit was\nnot sufficient explanation of this phenomenon, and adds, in his\nsupernatural way, \"Satan is the external cause of this evil;\" \"he had\nrather have men wakeful at any time than at sermon time.\" The good man\nmentions, by way of example, a man who \"had not slept a wink at a sermon\nfor more than twenty years together,\" and also, but by way of warning,\nthe unlucky youth in the Acts who slept at Paul's long sermon, and fell\nout of the window, and \"was taken up dead.\" Sleeping was \"adding\nsomething of our own to the worship of God;\" \"when Nadab and Abihu did\nso, there went out fire from the Lord and consumed them to death.\" \"The\nholy God hath not been a little displeased for this sin.\" \"It is not\npunished by men, but therefore the Lord himself will visit for it.\"\n\"Tears of blood will trickle down thy dry and damned cheeks forever and\never, because thou mayest not be so happy as to hear one sermon, or to\nhave one offer of grace more throughout the never-ending dayes of\neternity.\" Other men denounced their \"Wo to sleepy sinners,\" and issued\ntheir \"Proposals for the revival of dying religion.\"\n\nDr. Mather thought there was \"A deluge of prophaneness,\" and bid men \"be\nmuch in mourning and humiliation that God's bottle may be filled with\ntears.\" He thought piety was going out because surplices were coming\nin; it was wicked to \"consecrate a church;\" keeping Christmas was \"like\nthe idolatry of the calf.\" The common-prayer, an organ, a musical\ninstrument in a church, was \"not of God.\" Such things were to our worthy\nfathers in the ministry what temperance and anti-slavery societies are\nto many of their sons--an \"abomination,\" \"unchristian and atheistic!\"\nThe introduction of \"regular singing\" was an indication to some that\n\"all religion is to cease;\" \"we might as well go over to Popery at\nonce.\" Inoculation for the smallpox was as vehemently and ably opposed\nas the modern attempt to abolish the gallows; it was \"a trusting more to\nthe machinations of men than to the all-wise providence of God.\"\n\n\"When the enchantments of this world,\" says the ecclesiastical\nhistorian, \"caused the rising generation more sensibly to neglect the\nprimitive designs and interests of religion propounded by their fathers;\na change in the tenor of the divine dispensation towards this country\nwas quickly the matter of every one's observation.\" \"Our wheat and our\npease fell under an unaccountable blast.\" \"We were visited with\nmultiplied shipwrecks;\" \"pestilential sicknesses did sometimes become\nepidemic among us.\" \"Indians cruelly butchered many hundreds of our\ninhabitants, and scattered whole towns with miserable ruins.\" \"The\nserious people throughout the land were awakened by these intimations of\ndivine displeasure to inquire into the causes and matters of the\ncontroversie.\" Accordingly, 1679, a synod was convened at Boston, to\n\"inquire into the causes of the Lord's controversie with his New England\npeople,\" who determined the matter.[1]\n\nA little later, in 1690, the General Court considered the subject anew,\nand declared, that \"A corruption of manners, attended with inexcusable\ndegeneracies and apostacies ... is the cause of the controversie.\" We\n\"are now arriving at such an extremity, that the axe is laid to the root\nof the trees, and we are in eminent danger of perishing, if a speedy\nreformation of our provoking evils prevent it not.\" In 1702, Cotton\nMather complains that \"Our manifold indispositions to recover the dying\npower of Godliness, were successive calamities, under all of which, our\napostacies from that Godliness, have rather proceeded than abated.\" \"The\nold spirit of New England has been sensibly going out of the world, as\nthe old saints in whom it was have gone; and, instead thereof, the\nspirit of the world, with a lamentable neglect of strict piety, has\ncrept in upon the rising generation.\"\n\nYou go back to the time of the founders and fathers of the colony, and\nit is no better. In 1667, Mr. Wilson, who had \"A singular gift in the\npractice of discipline,\" on his death-bed declared, that \"God would\njudge the people for their rebellion and self-willed spirit, for their\ncontempt of civil and ecclesiastical rulers, and for their luxury and\nsloth,\" and before that he said, \"People rise up as Corah, against their\nministers.\" \"And for our neglect of baptizing the children of the\nchurch,... I think God is provoked by it. Another sin I take to be the\nmaking light ... of the authority of the Synods.\" John Norton, whose\npiety was said to be \"Grace, grafted on a crab-stock,\" in 1660, growled,\nafter his wont, on account of the \"Heart of New England, rent with the\nblasphemies of this generation.\" John Cotton, the ablest man in New\nEngland, who \"Liked to sweeten his mouth with a piece of Calvin, before\nhe went to sleep,\" and was so pious that another could not swear while\nhe was under the roof, mourned at \"The condition of the churches;\" and,\nin 1652, on his death-bed, after bestowing his blessing on the President\nof Harvard College, who had begged it of him, exhorted the elders to\n\"Increase their watch against those declensions, which he saw the\nprofessors of religion falling into.\"[2] In 1641, such was the condition\nof piety in Boston, that it was thought necessary to banish a man,\nbecause he did not believe in original sin. In 1639, a fast was\nappointed, \"To deplore the prevalence of the small-pox, the want of zeal\nin the professors of religion, and the general decay of piety.\" \"The\nchurch of God had not been long in this wilderness,\" thus complains a\nminister, one hundred and fifty years ago, \"before the dragon cast\nforth several floods to devour it; but not the least of these floods was\none of the Antinomian and familistical heresies.\" \"It is incredible what\nalienations of mind, and what a very calenture the devil raised in the\ncountry upon this odd occasion.\" \"The sectaries\" \"began usually to\nseduce women into their notions, and by these women, like their first\nmother, they soon hooked in the husbands also.\" So, in 1637, the Synod\nof Cambridge was convened, to despatch \"The apostate serpent:\" one woman\nwas duly convicted of holding \"About thirty monstrous opinions,\" and\nsubsequently, by the civil authorities, banished from the colony. The\nsynod, after much time was \"spent in ventilation and emptying of private\npassions,\" condemned eighty-two opinions, then prevalent in the colony,\nas erroneous, and decided to \"Refer doubts to be resolved by the great\nGod.\" Even in 1636, John Wilson lamented \"The dark and distracted\ncondition of the churches of New England.\"\n\n\"The good old times,\" when piety was in a thriving state, and the\nchurches successful and contented, lay as far behind the \"Famous Johns,\"\nas it now does behind their successors in office and lamentation. Then,\nas now, the complaint had the same foundation: ministers and other good\nmen could not see that new piety will not be put into the old forms,\nneither the old forms of thought, nor the old forms of action. In the\ndays of Wilson, Cotton, and Norton, there was a gradual growth of\npiety; in the days of the Mathers, of Colman, and Willard, and from that\ntime to this, there has been a steady improvement of the community, in\nintellectual, moral, and religious culture. Some men could not see the\nprogress two hundred years ago, because they believed in no piety,\nexcept as it was manifested in their conventional forms. It is so now.\nMankind advances by the irresistible law of God, under the guidance of a\nfew men of large discourse, who look before and after, but amid the\nwailing of many who think each advance is a retreat, and every stride a\nstumble.\n\nNow-a-days nobody complains at \"The ungodly custom of wearing long\nhair;\" no dandy is dealt with by the church, for his dress; the weakest\nbrother is not offended by \"Regular singing,\"--so it be regular,--\"by\norgans and the like;\" nobody laments at \"The reading of Scripture\nlessons,\" or \"The use of the Lord's Prayer\" in public religious\nservices, or is offended, because a clergyman makes a prayer at a\nfuneral, and solemnizes a marriage,--though these are \"prelatical\ncustoms,\" and were detested by our fathers. Yet, other things, now as\nmuch dreaded, and thought \"of a bad and dangerous tendency,\" will one\nday prove themselves as innocent, though now as much mourned over. Many\nan old doctrine will fade out, and though some think a star has fallen\nout of heaven, a new truth will rise up and take its place. It is to be\nexpected that ministers will often complain of \"The general decay of\nreligion.\" The position of a clergyman, fortunate in many things, is\nunhappy in this: he seldom sees the result of his labors, except in the\nconventional form mentioned above. The lawyer, the doctor, the merchant\nand mechanic, the statesman and the farmer, all have visible and\npalpable results of their work, while the minister can only see that he\nhas baptized men, and admitted them to his church; the visible and\nquotable tokens of his success, are a large audience, respectable and\nattentive, a thriving Sunday school, or a considerable body of\ncommunicants. If these signs fail, or become less than formerly, he\nthinks he has labored in vain; that piety is on the decline, for it is\nonly by this form that he commonly tests and measures piety itself.\nHence, a sincere and earnest minister, with the limitations which he so\neasily gets from his profession and social position, is always prone to\nthink ill of the times, to undervalue the new wine which refuses to be\nkept in the old bottles, but rends them asunder; hence he bewails the\ndecline of religion, and looks longingly back to the days of his\nfathers.\n\nBut you will ask, Why does not a minister demand piety in its natural\nform? Blame him not; unconsciously he fulfils his contract, and does\nwhat he is taught, ordained, and paid for doing. It is safe for a\nminister to demand piety of his parish, in the conventional form; not\nsafe to demand it in the form of morality--eminent piety, in the form\nof philanthropy: it would be an innovation; it would \"Hurt men's\nfeelings;\" it might disturb some branches of business; at the North, it\nwould interfere with the liquor-trade; at the South, with the\nslave-trade; everywhere it would demand what many men do not like to\ngive. If a man asks piety in the form of bodily attendance at church, on\nthe only idle day in the week, when business and amusement must be\nrefrained from; in the form of belief in doctrines which are commonly\naccepted by the denomination, and compliance with its forms,--that is\ncustomary; it hurts nobody's feelings; it does not disturb the\nliquor-trade, nor the slave-trade; it interferes with nothing, not even\nwith respectable sleep in a comfortable pew. A minister, like others\nloves to be surrounded by able and respectable men; he seeks, therefore,\na congregation of such. If he is himself an able man, it is well; but\nthere are few in any calling, whom we designate as able. Our weak man\ncannot instruct his parishioners; he soon learns this, and ceases to\ngive them counsel on matters of importance. They would not suffer it,\nfor the larger includes the less, not the less the larger. He is not\nstrong by nature; their position overlooks and commands his. He must\nspeak and give some counsel; he wisely limits himself to things of but\nlittle practical interest, and his parishioners are not offended: \"That\nis my sentiment exactly,\" says the most worldly man in the church,\n\"Religion is too pure to be mixed up with the practical business of the\nstreet.\" The original and effectual preaching in such cases, is not from\nthe pulpit down upon the pews, but from the pews up to the pulpit, which\nonly echoes, consciously or otherwise, but does not speak.\n\nIn a solar system, the central sun, not barely powerful from its\nposition, is the most weighty body; heavier than all the rest put\ntogether; so with even swing they all revolve about it. Our little\nministerial sun was ambitious of being amongst large satellites; he is\nthere, but the law of gravitation amongst men is as certain as in\nmatter; he cannot poise and swing the system; he is not the sun thereof,\nnot even a primary planet, only a little satellite revolving with many\nnutations round some primary, in an orbit that is oblique, complicated,\nand difficult to calculate; now waxing in a \"Revival,\" now waning in a\n\"Decline of piety,\" now totally eclipsed by his primary that comes\nbetween him and the light which lighteth every man. Put one of the cold\nthin moons of Saturn into the centre of the solar system,--would the\nuniverse revolve about that little dot? Loyal matter with irresistible\nfealty gravitates towards the sun, and wheels around the balance-point\nof the world's weight, be it where it may, called by whatever name.\n\nWhile ministers insist unduly on the conventional manifestation of\npiety, it is not a thing unheard of for a layman to resolve to go to\nheaven by the ecclesiastical road, yet omit resolving to be a good man\nbefore he gets there. Such a man finds the ordinary forms of piety very\nconvenient, and not at all burdensome; they do not interfere with his\ndaily practice of injustice and meanness of soul; they seem a substitute\nfor real and manly goodness; they offer a royal road to saintship here\nand heaven hereafter. Is the man in arrears with virtue, having long\npractised wickedness and become insolvent? This form is a new bankrupt\nlaw of the spirit, he pays off his old debts in the ecclesiastical\ncurrency--a pennyworth of form for a pound of substantial goodness. This\nbankrupt sinner, cleared by the ecclesiastical chancery, is a solvent\nsaint; he exhorts at meetings, strains at every gnat, and mourns over\n\"The general decay of piety,\" and teaches other men the way in which\nthey should go--to the same end.\n\n    \"So morning insects that in muck begun,\n    Shine, buzz, and fly-blow in the evening sun.\"\n\nI honor the founders of New England; they were pious men--their lives\nproved it; but domineered over by false opinions in theology, they put\ntheir piety into very unnatural and perverted forms. They had ideas\nwhich transcended their age; they came here to make those ideas into\ninstitutions. That they had great faults, bigotry, intolerance, and\nsuperstition, is now generally conceded. They were picked men, \"wheat\nsifted out of three kingdoms,\" to plant a new world withal. They have\nleft their mark very deep and very distinct in this town, which was\ntheir prayer and their pride. It may seem unjust to ourselves to compare\na whole community like our own with such a company as filled Boston in\nthe first half century of its existence,--men selected for their\nspiritual hardihood; but here and now, in the midst of Boston, are men\nquite as eminent for piety who as far transcend this age, as the\nPuritans and the pilgrims surpassed their time. The Puritan put his\nreligion into the ecclesiastical form; not into the form of the Roman or\nthe English Church, but into a new one of his own. His descendant,\ninheriting his father's faith in God, and stern self-denial, but\nsometimes without his bigotry, intolerance, and superstition, with\nlittle fear but with more love of God, and consequently with more love\nof man, puts his piety into a new form. It is not the form of the old\nChurch; the Church of the Puritans is to him often what the Church of\nthe Pope and the prelates was to his ungentle sire. He puts his piety\ninto the form of goodness; eminent piety becomes philanthropy, and takes\nthe shape of reform. In such men, in many of their followers, I see the\nsame trust in God, the same scorn of compromising right and truth, the\nsame unfaltering allegiance to the eternal Father, which shone in the\npilgrims who founded this new world, which fired the reformers of the\nChurch; yes, which burned in the hearts of Paul and John. Piety has not\nfailed and gone out; each age has its own forms thereof; the old and\npassing can never understand the new, nor can they consent to decrease\nwith the increase of the new. Once, men put their piety into a church,\nCatholic or Protestant; they made creeds and believed them; they devised\nrites and symbols, which helped their faith. It was well; but we cannot\nbelieve those creeds, nor be aided by such symbols and such rites. Why\npretend to drag a weighty crutch about because it helped your father\nonce, wandering alone and in the dark, sounding on his dim and perilous\nway? Once earthen roads were the best we knew, and horses' feet had\nshoes of swiftness; now we need not, out of reverence, refuse the iron\nroad, the chariot and the steed of flame; nor out of irreverence need we\nspurn the path our fathers trod; sorely bested and hunted after,\ntear-bedewed and travel-stained, they journeyed there, passing on to\ntheir God. If the mother that bore us were never so rude, and to our\neyes might seem never so graceless now, still she was our mother, and\nwithout her we should not have been born. Wives and children may men\nhave, and manifold; each has but one mother. The great institution we\ncall the Christian Church has been the mother of us all; and though in\nher own dotage she deny our piety, and call us infidel, far be it from\nme to withhold the richly earned respect. Behind a decent veil, then,\nlet us hide our mother's weakness, and ourselves pass on. Once piety\nbuilt up a theocracy, and men say it was divine; now piety, everywhere\nin Christendom, builds up democracies; it is a diviner work.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe piety of this age must manifest itself in Morality, and appear in a\nchurch where the priests are men of active mind and active hand; men of\nideas, who commune with God and man through faith and works, finding no\ntruth is hostile to their creed, no goodness foreign to their litany, no\npiety discordant with their psalm. The man who once would have built a\nconvent and been its rigorous chief, now founds a temperance society,\ncontends against war, toils for the pauper, the criminal, the madman,\nand the slave, for men bereft of senses and of sense. The synod of Dort\nand of Cambridge, the assembly of divines at Westminster, did what they\ncould with what piety they had; they put it into decrees and platforms,\ninto catechisms and creeds. But the various conventions for reform put\ntheir piety into resolves and then into philanthropic works. I do not\nbelieve there has ever been an age when piety bore so large a place in\nthe whole being of New England as at this day, or attendance on\nchurch-forms so small a part. The attempts made and making for a better\neducation of the people, the lectures on science and literature\nabundantly attended in this town, the increased fondness for reading,\nthe better class of books which are read--all these indicate an\nincreased love of truth, the intellectual part of piety; societies for\nreform and for charity show an increase of the moral and affectional\nparts of piety; the better, the lovelier idea of God which all sects are\nembracing, is a sign of increased love of God. Thus all parts of piety\nare proving their existence by their work. The very absence from the\nchurches, the disbelief of the old sour theologies, the very neglect of\noutward forms and ceremonies of religion, the decline of the ministry\nitself, under the present circumstances, shows an increase of piety. The\nbaby-clothes were well and wide for the baby; now, the fact that he\ncannot get them on, shows plainly that he has outgrown them, is a boy\nand no longer a baby.\n\nOnce Piety fled to the Church as the only sanctuary in the waste wide\nworld, and was fondly welcomed there, fed and fostered. When power fled\noff from the Church--\"Wilt thou also go away?\" said she; \"Lord,\" said\nPiety, \"to whom shall we go? Thou only hast the words of everlasting\nlife.\" Once convents and cathedrals were what the world needed as\nshelter for this fair child of God; then she dwelt in the grim edifice\nthat our fathers built, and for a time counted herself \"lodged in a\nlodging where good things are.\" Now is she grown able to wander forth\nfearless and free, lodging where the night overtakes her, and doing what\nher hands find to do, not unattended by the Providence which hitherto\nhas watched over and blessed her. I respect piety in the Hebrew saints,\nprophets, and bards, who spoke the fiery speech, or sung their sweet and\nsoul-inspiring psalm:\n\n    \"Out from the heart of Nature rolled\n    The burdens of the Bible old.\"\n\nI honor piety among the saints of Greece, clad in the form of\nphilanthropy and art, speaking still in dramas, in philosophies, and\nsong, and in the temple and the statue too:\n\n    \"Not from a vain and shallow thought\n    His awful Jove young Phidias brought.\"\n\nI admire at the piety of the Middle Ages, which founded the monastic\ntribes of men, which wrote the theologies, scholastic and mystic both,\nstill speaking to the mind of men, or in poetic legends insinuated\ntruth; which built that heroic architecture, overmastering therewith the\nsense and soul of man:\n\n    \"The passive master lent his hand\n    To the vast Soul that o'er him planned:\n    And the same Power that reared the shrine,\n    Bestrode the tribes that knelt therein.\"\n\nBut the piety which I find now, in this age, here in our own land, I\nrespect, honor, and admire yet more; I find it in the form of moral\nlife; that is the piety I love, piety in her own loveliness. Would I\ncould find poetic strains as fit to sing of her--but yet such\n\n    \"Loveliness needs not the foreign aid of ornament,\n    But is, when unadorned, adorned the most.\"\n\nLet me do no dishonor to other days, to Hebrew or to Grecian saints.\nUnlike and hostile though they were, they jointly fed my soul in\nearliest days. I would not underrate the mediaeval saints, whose words\nand works have been my study in a manlier age; yet I love best the fair\nand vigorous piety of our own day. It is beautiful, amid the strong,\nrank life of the nineteenth century, amid the steam-mills and the\ntelegraphs which talk by lightning, amid the far-reaching enterprises of\nour time, and 'mid the fierce democracies, it is beautiful to find this\nfragrant piety growing up in unwonted forms, in places where men say no\nseed of heaven can lodge and germinate. So in a June meadow, when a boy,\nand looking for the cranberries of another year, faded and tasteless,\namid the pale but coarse rank grass, and discontented that I found them\nnot, so I have seen the crimson arethusa or the cymbidium shedding an\nunexpected loveliness o'er all the watery soil and all the pale and\ncoarse rank grass, a prophecy of summer near at hand. So in October,\nwhen the fields are brown with frost, the blue and fringed gentian meets\nyour eye, filling with thankful tears.\n\nThere is no decline of piety, but an increase of it; a good deal has\nbeen done in two hundred years, in one hundred years, yes, in fifty\nyears. Let us admit, with thankfulness of heart, that piety is in\ngreater proportion to all our activity now than ever before: but then\ncompare ourselves with the ideal of human nature, our piety with the\nideal piety, and we must confess that we are little and very low. Boston\nis the most active city in the world, the most enterprising. In no place\nis it so easy to obtain men's ears and their purses for any good word\nand work. But think of the evils we know of and tolerate; think of an\nideal Christian city, then think of Boston; of a Christian man, aye of\nChrist himself, and then think of you and me, and we are filled with\nshame. If there were a true, manly piety in this town, in due proportion\nto our numbers, wealth, and enterprise, how long would the vices of this\ncity last? How long would men complain of a dead body of divinity and a\ndead church, and a ministry that was dead? How long would intemperance\ncontinue, and pauperism, in Boston; how long slavery in this land?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLast Sunday, in the name of the poor, I asked you for your charity.\nTo-day I ask for dearer alms: I ask you to contribute your piety. It\nwill help the town more than the little money all of us can give. Your\nmoney will soon be spent; it feeds one man once; we cannot give it\ntwice, though the blessing thereof may linger long in the hand which\ngave. Few of us can give much money to the poor; some of us none at all.\nThis we can all give: the inspiration of a man with a man's piety in his\nheart, living it out in a man's life. Your money may be ill spent, your\ncharity misapplied, but your piety never. After all, there is nothing\nyou can give which men will so readily take and so long remember as\nthis. Mothers can give it to their daughters and their sons; men, after\nspending thereof profusely at home, can coin their inexhausted store\ninto industry, patience, integrity, temperance, justice, humanity, a\npractical love of man. A thousand years ago, it was easy to excuse men\nif they chiefly showed religion in the conventional pattern of the\nchurch. Forms then were helps, and the nun has been mother to much of\nthe charity of our times. It is easy to excuse our fathers for their\nsuperstitious reverence for rites and forms. But now, in an age which\nhas its eyes a little open, a practical and a handy age, we are without\nexcuse if our piety appears not in a manly life, our faith in works. To\ngive this piety to cheer and bless mankind, you must have it first, be\ncheered and blessed thereby yourself. Have it, then, in your own way;\nput it into your own form. Do men tell you, \"This is a degenerate age,\"\nand \"Religion is dying out?\" tell them that when those stars have faded\nout of the sky from very age, when other stars have come up to take\ntheir place, and they too have grown dim and hollow-eyed and old, that\nreligion will still live in man's heart, the primal, everlasting light\nof all our being. Do they tell you that you must put piety into their\nforms; put it there if it be your place; if not, in your place. Let men\nsee the divinity that is in you by the humanity that comes out from you.\nIf they will not see it, cannot, God can and will. Take courage from the\npast, not its counsel; fear not now to be a man. You may find a new Eden\nwhere you go, a river of God in it, and a tree of life, an angel to\nguard it; not the warning angel to repel, but the guiding angel to\nwelcome and to bless.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt was four years yesterday since I first came here to speak to you; I\ncame hesitatingly, reluctant, with much diffidence as to my power to do\nwhat it seemed to me was demanded. I did not come merely to pull down,\nbut to build up, though it is plain much theological error must be\ndemolished before any great reform of man's condition can be brought\nabout. I came not to contend against any man, or sect, or party, but to\nspeak a word for truth and religion in the name of man and God. I was in\nbondage to no sect; you in bondage to none. When a boy I learned that\nthere is but one religion though many theologies. I have found it in\nChristians and in Jews, in Quakers and in Catholics. I hope we are all\nready to honor what is good in each sect, and in rejecting its evil not\nto forget our love and wisdom in our zeal.\n\nWhen I came I certainly did not expect to become a popular man, or\nacceptable to many. I had done much which in all countries brings odium\non a man, though perhaps less in Boston than in any other part of the\nworld. I had rejected the popular theology of Christendom. I had exposed\nthe low morals of society, had complained of the want of piety in its\nnatural form. I had fatally offended the sect, small in numbers, but\nrespectable for intelligence and goodness, in which I was brought up. I\ncame to look at the signs of the times from an independent point of\nview, and to speak on the most important of all themes. I thought a\nhouse much smaller than this would be much too large for us. I knew\nthere would be fit audience; I thought it would be few, and the few\nwould soon have heard enough and go their ways.\n\nI know I have some advantages above most clergymen: I am responsible to\nno sect; no sect feels responsible for me; I have rejoiced at good\nthings which I have seen in all sects; the doctrines which I try to\nteach do not rest on tradition, on miracles, or on any man's authority;\nonly on the nature of man. I seek to preach the natural laws of man. I\nappeal to history for illustration, not for authority. I have no fear of\nphilosophy. I am willing to look a doubt fairly in the face, and think\nreason is sacred as conscience, affection, or the religious faculty in\nman. I see a profound piety in modern science. I have aimed to set forth\nabsolute religion, the ideal religion of human nature, free piety, free\ngoodness, free thought. I call that Christianity, after the greatest man\nof the world, one who himself taught it; but I know that this was never\nthe Christianity of the churches, in any age. I have endeavored to teach\nthis religion and apply it to the needs of this time. These things\ncertainly give me some advantages over most other ministers. Of the\ndisadvantages which are personal to myself, I need not speak in public,\nbut some which come from my position, ought to be noticed with a word.\nThe walls of this house, the associations connected with it, furnish\nlittle help to devotion; we must rely on ourselves wholly for that.\nOther clergymen, by their occasional exchanges, can present their\nhearers with an agreeable variety in substance and in form. A single\nman, often heard, becomes wearisome and unprofitable, for \"No man can\nfeed us always.\" This I feel to be a great disadvantage which I labor\nunder. Your kindness and affectionate indulgence make me feel it all the\nmore. But one man cannot be twenty men.\n\nWhen I came here I knew I should hurt men's feelings. My theology would\nprove more offensive and radical than men thought; the freedom of speech\nwhich men liked at a distance would not be pleasing when near at hand;\nmy doctrines of morality I knew could not be pleasing to all men; not to\nall good men. I saw by your looks that in my abstractions I did not go\ntoo far for your sympathy, or too fast for your following. I soon found\nthat my highest thought and most pious sentiment were most warmly\nwelcomed as such; but when I came to put abstract thought and mystical\npiety into concrete goodness, and translate what you had accepted as\nChristian faith into daily life; when I came to apply piety to trade,\npolitics, life in general, I knew that I should hurt men's feelings. It\ncould not be otherwise. Yet I have had a most patient and faithful\nhearing. One thing I must do in my preaching: I must be in earnest. I\ncannot stand here before you and before God, attempting to teach piety\nand goodness, and not feel the fire and show the fire. The greater the\nwrong, the more popular, the more must I oppose it, and with the\nclearer, abler speech. It is not necessary for me to be popular, to be\nacceptable, even to be loved. It is necessary that I should tell the\ntruth. But let that pass. You come hither week after week, it is now\nyear after year that you come, to listen to one humble man. Do you get\npoor in your souls? Does your religion become poor and low? Are you\ngetting less in the qualities of a man? If so, then leave me, to empty\nseats, to cold and voiceless walls; go elsewhere, and feed your souls\nwith a wise passiveness, or an activity wiser yet. Such is your duty;\nlet no affection for me hinder you from performing it. The same\ntheology, the same form suits not all men. But if it is not so, if I do\nyou good, if you grow in mind and conscience, heart and soul, then I ask\none thing--Let your piety become natural life, your divinity become\nhumanity.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] The Synod declared: \"That God hath a controversie with his New\nEngland people is undeniable.\" \"There are visible manifest evils, which\nwithout doubt the Lord is provoked by.\" 1. \"A great and visible decay of\nthe power of Godliness amongst many professors in these churches.\" 2.\n\"Pride doth abound in New England. Many have offended God by strange\napparel.\" 3. \"Church fellowship and other divine institutions are\ngrossly neglected.\" \"Quakers are false worshippers,\" \"and Anabaptists\n... do no better than set up an Altar against the Lord's Altar.\" 4. \"The\nholy and glorious name of God hath been polluted;\" \"because of swearing\nthe land mourns.\" \"It is a frequent thing for men to sit in prayer-time\n... and to give way to their own sloth and sleepiness.\" \"We read of but\none man in Scripture that slept at a sermon, and that sin had like to\nhave cost him his life.\" 5. \"There is much Sabbath-breaking; since there\nare multitudes that do profanely absent themselves from the public\nworship of God,... walking abroad and travelling ... being a common\npractice on the Sabbath Day.\" \"Worldly unsuitable discourses are very\ncommon upon the Lord's Day.\" \"This brings wrath, fires, and other\njudgments upon a professing people.\" 6. \"As to what concerns families\nand Government thereof, there is much amiss.\" \"Children and servants ...\nare not kept in due subjection.\" \"This is a sin which brings great\njudgments, as we see in Eli's and David's family.\" 7. \"Inordinate\npassions, sinful heats and hatreds, and that amongst church members.\" 8.\n\"There is much intemperance:\" \"it is a common practice for\ntown-dwellers, yea, and church members, to frequent public houses, and\nthere to misspend precious time.\" 9. \"There is much want of truth\namongst men.\" \"The Lord is not wont to suffer such an iniquity to pass\nunpunished.\" 10. \"Inordinate affection unto the world.\" \"There hath been\nin many professors an insatiable desire after land and worldly\naccommodations; yea, so as to forsake churches and ordinances, and to\nlive like heathen, only so that they might have elbow-room in the world.\nFarms and merchandisings have been preferred before the things of God.\"\n\"Such iniquity causeth war to be in the gate, and cities to be burned\nup.\" \"When Lot did forsake the land of Canaan and the church which was\nin Abraham's family, that so he might have better worldly accommodations\nin Sodom, God fired him out of all.\" \"There are some traders that sell\ntheir goods at excessive rates; day-laborers and mechanics are\nunreasonable in their demands.\" 11. \"There hath been opposition to the\nwork of reformation.\" 12. \"A public spirit is greatly wanting in the\nmost of men.\" 13. \"There are sins against the gospel, whereby the Lord\nhas been provoked.\" \"Christ is not prized and embraced in all his\noffices and ordinances as ought to be.\"\n\n[2] In 1646, Mr. Samuel Symonds wrote to Governor Winthrop, as follows:\n\"I will also mention the text preached upon at our last fast, and the\npropositions raised thereupon, because it was so seasonable to New\nEngland's condition. Jeremiah 30:17; For I will restore health to thee,\nand heal thee of thy wounds, saith the Lord; because they called thee an\noutcast, saying, This is Zion, whom noe man careth for.\n\n\"1. Prop. That sick tymes doe passe over Zion.\n\n\"2. That sad and bitter neglect is the portion, aggravation and\naffliction of Zion in the tyme of his sicknesse and wounds, but\nespecially in the neglect of those that doe neglect it, and yet,\nnotwithstanding, doe acknowledge it to be Zion.\n\n\"3. That the season of penitent Zion's passion, is the season of God's\ncompassion.\n\n\"This sermon tended much to the settling of Godly minds here in God's\nway, and to raise their spirits, and, as I conceive, hath suitable\neffects.\"\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nSOME THOUGHTS ON THE MOST CHRISTIAN USE OF THE SUNDAY.--A SERMON\nPREACHED AT THE MELODEON, ON SUNDAY, JANUARY 30, 1848.\n\nMARK II. 27.\n\n    The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.\n\n\nFrom past ages we have received many valuable institutions, that have\ngrown out of the transient wants or the permanent nature of man. Amongst\nthese are two which have done a great service in promoting the\ncivilization of mankind, which still continue amongst us. I speak now of\nthe institution of Sunday, and that of preaching. By the one, a seventh\npart of the time is separated from the common pursuits of life, in order\nthat it may be devoted to bodily relaxation, and to the culture of the\nspiritual powers of man; by the other, a large body of men, in most\ncountries the best educated class, are devoted to the cultivation of\nthese spiritual powers. Such at least is the theory of those two\ninstitutions, be their effect in practice what it may. This morning,\nlet us look at one of them, and so I invite your attention to some\nthoughts relative to the Sunday--to the most Christian and profitable\nuse of that day.\n\nThere is a stricter party of Christians amongst us, who speak out their\nopinions concerning the Sunday; this comprises what are commonly called\nthe more \"evangelical\" sects. There is a party less strict in many\nparticulars, comprising what are commonly called the more \"liberal\"\nsects. They have hitherto been comparatively silent on this theme. Their\nopinions about the Sunday have not usually been so plainly spoken out,\nbut have been made apparent by their actions, by occasional and passing\nwords, rather than by full, distinct, and emphatic declarations. The\nstricter party, of late years, have been growing a little more strict;\nthe party less strict likewise advance in the opposite direction.\nRecently, a call has been published by a few men, for a convention to\nconsult and take some steps towards the less rigid course, for the\npurpose, as I understand it, of making the Sunday even more valuable\nthan it is now. I take it for granted that both parties desire to make\nthe best possible use of the Sunday--the use most conducive to the\nhighest interests of mankind; that they desire this equally. There are\ngood men on both sides, the more and the less strict; pious men, in the\nbest sense of that word, may be found on both sides. There is no need\nof imputing bad motives to either party in order to explain the\ndifference between the two.\n\nSuch is the aspect of the two parties in the field, looking opposite\nways, but at one another. It seems likely that there will be a quarrel,\nand, as is usual in such cases, hard words on each side, hard thoughts\nand unkind feelings on both sides. Before the quarrel begins, and our\neyes are blinded by the dust of controversy; before our blood is fired,\nand we become wholly incapable of judgment--let us look coolly at the\nmatter, and ask, Do we need any change in respect to the observance of\nthe Sunday? Are the present opinions respecting the origin, nature, and\noriginal design of that institution just and true? Is the present mode\nof observing it the most profitable that can be devised? The inquiry is\none of great importance.\n\nTo answer these questions, it is necessary to go back a little into the\nhistory of the Hebrew Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. However, it is\nnot needful to go much into detail, or consume this precious hour in a\nlearned discussion on antiquarian matters which concern none but\nscholars.\n\nWith the Hebrews the actual observance of Saturday--the Sabbath--as a\nday rest, seems to be of pretty late origin. The first mention of it in\nauthentic Hebrew history, as actually observed, occurs about two hundred\nyears after Samuel, and about six hundred after Moses--a little less\nthan nine hundred before Christ. The passage is found in 2 Kings 4: 23;\na child had died, as the narrative relates--the mother wished to send\nfor Elisha, \"the man of God.\" Her husband objects, saying, \"Wherefore\nwilt thou go to him to-day? it is neither new moon nor Sabbath.\" This\nconnection with the new moon is significant. In the earlier historical\nbooks of Joshua, Judges, the two books of Samuel, and the first of\nKings, there is no mention of the Sabbath, not the least allusion to it.\n\nThis seems to have been the origin of its observance:--The worship of\none God, with the distinctive name Jehovah, gradually got established in\nthe Hebrew nation; for this they seem largely indebted to Moses.\nGradually this worship of Jehovah became connected with a body of\npriests, who were regularly organized at length, and claimed descent\nfrom Levi--some of them from Aaron, his celebrated descendant, the elder\nbrother of Moses. The rise of the Levitical priesthood is remarkable,\nand easily traced in the Old Testament. Some books are entirely\ndestitute of a Levitical spirit, such as Genesis and Judges; others are\nfilled with it, as Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the books of Chronicles.\nWith the priesthood it seems there came the observance of certain days\nfor religious or festal purposes--New Moon days, Full Moon days, and the\nlike. These seem to have been derived from the nations about them, with\nwhom the moon--deified as Astarte, the Queen and Mother of Heaven, and\nunder other names--was long an object of worship. The observance of\nthose days points back to the period when Fetichism, the worship of\nNature, was the prominent form of religion. With the other days of\nreligious observance came the seventh day, called the Sabbath. No one\nknows its true historical origin. The statement respecting its origin,\nin the fourth commandment, and elsewhere in the Old Testament, can\nhardly be accepted as literally true by any one in this century. No\nscientific man, in the present stage of philosophic inquiry, will\nbelieve that God created the universe in six days, and then rested on\nthe seventh. Did other nations observe this day before the Hebrews; was\nit also connected with some Fetichistic form of worship; what was the\nhistorical event which led to the selection of that day in special? This\nit is easy to ask, but perhaps not possible to answer. These are curious\nquestions; they are of little practical importance to us at this moment.\n\nAfter the Hebrew institutions of religion got fixed--the worship of\nJehovah, the Levitical priesthood, and the peculiar forms of\nsacrifice--it became common to refer their origin back to the time of\nMoses, who lived fourteen or fifteen hundred years before Christ. Since\nfew memorials from his age have come down to us, it is plain we can know\nlittle of him. But from the impression which his character left on his\nnation, and through them on the whole world; from the myths so early\nconnected with his name, it seems pretty clear that he was one of the\ngreatest and most extraordinary men that ever lived. Mankind seldom tell\ngreat things of little men. It is difficult to say what share he had in\nmaking the laws of the Hebrew nation which are commonly referred to\nhim,--and, as it is popularly taught, revealed to him directly by\nJehovah. Perhaps we are not safe in referring to him even the whole of\nthe ten commandments; surely not in any one of their present forms.[3]\nWas the Sabbath observed as a day of rest before Moses? Was its\nobservance enforced by him? Was it even known to him? These questions\nare not easily answered. This is only certain: from the time of Moses to\nthat of Jehoram, a period of about six hundred years, there is no\nhistorical mention of its observance, not the least allusion to it. Yet\nwe have documents which treat of that period,--the books of Joshua,\nJudges, Samuel, and the Kings,--some of them historical documents, which\ngo into the minute detail of the national peculiarities, and were\nevidently written with a good deal of concern for strict integrity and\ntruth; they refer to the national rite of circumcision. Now, if the\nSabbath had been observed during that period, it is difficult to believe\nit would have received no passing notice in those historical books. But\nnot only is there no mention of it therein, none even in the times of\nDavid and Solomon, who favored the priesthood so strongly; but in the\nbook of Chronicles, the most Levitical book in the Bible, at a date more\nthan two hundred years later than the time of Jehoram, it is distinctly\ndeclared that the Sabbath had not been kept for nearly five hundred\nyears.[4] But even if this statement is true, which is scarcely\nprobable, it is plain from the frequent mention of the Sabbath in the\nwritings of the latter part of that period--Isaiah, Jeremiah, and\nothers--that the institution was one well known and highly regarded by\nreligious men. After the return from the Babylonian exile, it seems to\nhave been kept with considerable rigor; this we learn from the book of\nNehemiah.\n\nThe Hebrew law, as it is contained in the Pentateuch, is a singular\nmixture of conflicting statutes, evidently belonging to different ages,\nmany of them wholly unsuitable to the condition of the people when the\nlaws are alleged to have been given. However, they are all referred back\nto the time of Moses in the Pentateuch itself, and by the popular\ntheology at the present day. In the law the command is given to keep\nthe seventh day as a day of rest, and that command is referred\ndistinctly to Jehovah himself. The reason is given for choosing that\nday:--\"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the\nseventh day he rested and was refreshed;\" the Sabbath, therefore, was to\nbe kept in commemoration of the fact, that after Jehovah had spent the\nweek in creating the world, \"he rested and was refreshed.\" It was to be\na day of rest for master and slave, for man and beast. A special\nsacrifice was offered on that day, in addition to the usual ceremonies,\nbut no provision was made for the religious instruction of the people.\nThe Sabbath was what its Hebrew name implies, a rest from all labor. The\nlaw, in general terms, forbade all work; but, not content with that, it\ndescends to minute details, specifically prohibiting by statute the\ngathering or preparation of food on the Sabbath, even of food to be\nconsumed on that day itself; the lighting of a fire, or the removal from\none's place; and, by a decision where the statute did not apply, forbade\nthe gathering of sticks of wood. The punishment for violating the\nSabbath in general, or in any one of these particulars, was death:\n\"Whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.\" However, amusement\nwas not prohibited, nor eating and drinking, only work. The command,\n\"Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day,\" at a later period,\nwas liberally interpreted, and a man was allowed to go two thousand\ncubits, a Sabbath-day's journey.\n\nLong after the time of Moses, some of the Hebrews returned from exile\namongst a more civilized and refined people. It seems probable that only\nthe stricter portion returned and established themselves in the land of\ntheir fathers. Nehemiah, their leader, enforced the observance of the\nSabbath with a strictness and rigor of which earlier times afford no\nevidence. But the nation was not content with making it a day of\nidleness. They established synagogues, where the people freely assembled\non the Sabbath and other public days, for religious instruction, and\nthus founded an excellent institution which has shown itself fruitful of\ngood results. So far as I know, that is the earliest instance on record\nof provision being made for the regular religious instruction of the\nwhole people. Experience has shown its value, and now all the most\nhighly civilized nations of the earth have established similar\ninstitutions. However, in the synagogues the business of religious\ninstruction was not at all in the hands of the priests, but in those of\nthe people, acting in their primary character without regard to\nLevitical establishments. A priest, as such, is never an instructor of\nthe people; he is to go through his ritual, not beyond it.\n\nIt is easy to learn from the New Testament what were the current\nopinions about the Sabbath in the time of Christ. It was unlawful to\ngather a head of wheat on the Sabbath, as a man walked through the\nfields; it was unlawful to cure a sick man, though that cure could be\neffected by a touch or a word; unlawful for a man to walk home and carry\nthe light cushion on which he had lain. What was unlawful was reckoned\nwicked also; for what is a crime in the eyes of the priest, he commonly\npretends is likewise a sin before the eyes of God. Yet it was not\nunlawful to eat, drink, and be merry on the Sabbath; nor to lift a sheep\nout of the ditch; nor to quarrel with a man who came to deliver mankind\nfrom their worst enemies. It was lawful to perform the rite of\ncircumcision on the Sabbath, but unlawful to cure a man of any sickness.\nJesus once placed these two, the allowing of that ritual mutilation and\nthe prohibition of the humane act of curing the sick on the Sabbath, in\nridiculous contrast. In the fourth gospel he goes further, and actually\ndenies the alleged ground for the original institution of the Sabbath;\nhe denies that God had ever ceased from his work, or rested: \"My father\nworketh hitherto.\"[5] However, in effecting these cures he committed a\ncapital offence; the Pharisees so regarded it, and took measures to\ninsure his punishment. It does not appear that they were illegal\nmeasures. It is probable they took regular and legal means to bring him\nto condign punishment as a Sabbath-breaker. He escaped by flight.\n\nSuch was the Sabbath with the Hebrews, such the recorded opinion of\nJesus concerning it. There were also other days in which labor was\nforbidden, but with them we have nothing to do at present. Jesus taught\npiety and goodness without the Hebrew limitations; of course, then, the\nnew wine of Christianity could not be put into the old bottles of the\nJews. Their fast days and Sabbath days, their rites and forms, were not\nfor him.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow, not long after the death of Christ, his followers became gradually\ndivided into two parties. First, there were the Jewish Christians; that\nwas the oldest portion, the old school of Christians. They are mentioned\nin ecclesiastical history as the Ebionites, Nazarines, and under yet\nother names. Peter and James were the great men in that division of the\nearly Christians. Matthew, and the author of the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, were their evangelists. The church at Jerusalem was their\nstrong-hold. They kept the whole Hebrew law; all its burdensome ritual,\nits circumcision and its sacrifices, its new-moon days and its full-moon\ndays, Sabbath, fasts, and feasts; the first fifteen bishops of the\nchurch at Jerusalem were circumcised Jews. It seems to me they\nmisunderstood Jesus fatally; counting him nothing but the Messiah of the\nOld Testament, and Christianity, therefore, nothing but Judaism\nbrightened up and restored to its original purity.\n\nI have often mentioned how strongly Matthew, taking him for the author\nof the first gospel, favors this way of thinking. He represents Jesus as\ncommanding his disciples to observe all the Mosaic law, as the Pharisees\ninterpreted that law,[6] though such a command is utterly inconsistent\nwith the general spirit of Christ's teachings, and even with his plain\ndeclaration, as preserved in other parts of the same gospel. It is\nworthy of note, that this command is peculiar to Matthew. But there is\nanother instance of the same Jewish tendency, though not so obvious at\nfirst sight. Matthew represents Jesus as saying, \"The Son of man,\" that\nis, the Messiah, \"is Lord even of the Sabbath day.\" Accordingly, he is\ncompetent to expound the law correctly, and determine what is lawful to\ndo on that day. In Matthew, therefore, Jesus, in his character of\nMessiah, is represented as giving a judicial opinion, and ruling that it\n\"is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days.\" Now, Mark and Luke represent\nit a little different. In Mark, Jesus himself declares that \"The Sabbath\nwas made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.\" Matthew entirely omits\nthat remarkable saying. According to Mark, Jesus declares in general\nterms, that man is of more consequence than the observance of the\nSabbath, while Matthew only considers that the Messiah is \"Lord of the\nSabbath day.\" The cause of this diversity is quite plain. Matthew was a\nJewish Christian, and thought Christianity was nothing but restored\nJudaism.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe other party may be called liberal Christians, though they must not\nbe confounded with the party which now bears that name. They were the\nnew school of the early Christians. They rejected the Hebrew law, so far\nas it did not rest on human nature, and considered that Christianity was\na new thing; Christ, not a mere Jew, but a universal man, who had thrown\ndown the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. All the old,\nartificial distinctions, therefore, were done away with at once. Paul\nwas the head of the liberal party among the primitive Christians. He was\nconsidered a heretic; and though he was more efficient than any of the\nother early preachers of Christianity, yet the author of the Apocalypse\nthought him not worthy of a place in the foundation of the new\nJerusalem, which rests on the twelve apostles.[7] The fourth gospel with\npeculiarities of its own, is written wholly in the interest of this\nparty; James is not mentioned in it at all, and Peter plays but quite a\nsubordinate part, and is thrown into the shade by John. The disciples\nare spoken of as often misunderstanding their great Teacher. These\npeculiarities cannot be considered as accidental; they are monuments of\nthe controversy then going on between the two parties. Paul stood in\ndirect opposition to the Jewish Christians. This is plain from the\nepistle to the Galatians, in which the heads of the rival sects appear\nvery unlike the description given of them in the book of Acts. The\nobservance of Jewish sacred days was one of the subjects of controversy.\nLet us look only at the matter of the Sabbath, as it came in question\nbetween the two parties. Paul exalts Christ far above the Messianic\npredictions of the Old Testament, calling him an image of the invisible\nGod, and declaring that all the fulness of divinity dwells in him, and\nadds, that he had annulled the old Hebrew law. \"Therefore,\" says Paul,\n\"let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day,\nor of the new moon, or of the Sabbath.\"[8] Here he distinctly states the\nissue between the two Christian sects. Elsewhere he speaks of the Jewish\nparty, as men that \"would pervert the gospel of Christ,\" by teaching\nthat a man was \"justified by the works of the law;\" that is, by a minute\nobservance of the Hebrew ritual.[9] Paul rejects the authority of the\nOld Testament. The law of Moses was but a schoolmaster's servant, to\nbring us to Christ; man had come to Christ, and needed that servant no\nlonger; the law was a taskmaster and guardian set over man in his\nminority, now he had come of age, and was free; the law was a shadow of\ngood things, and they had come; it was a law of sin and death, which no\nman could bear, and now the law of the spirit of life, as revealed by\nJesus Christ, had made men free from the law of sin and death. Such was\nthe work of the glorious gospel of the blessed God. Thus sweeping off\nthe authority of the old law in general, he proceeds to particulars: he\nrejects circumcision, and the offering of sacrifices; rejects the\ndistinction of nations as Jew and Gentile; the distinction of meats as\nclean and unclean, and all distinction of days, as holy and not holy. If\none man thought one day holier than another day; if another man thought\nall days equally holy, he would have each man true to his conviction,\nbut not seek to impose that conviction on his brothers. Such was Paul's\nopinion of \"The law of Moses;\" such, of the Sabbath; the Christians were\nnot \"subject to ordinances.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet us come now to the common practice of the early Christians. The\napostles went about and preached Christianity, as they severally\nunderstood it. They spoke as they found opportunity; on the Sabbath to\nthe Jews in the synagogues, and on other days, as they found time and\nhearers. It does not appear from the New Testament, that they limited\nthemselves to any particular day; they were missionaries, some of them\nremained but a little while in a place, making the most of their time.\nIt seems that the early Christians, who lived in large towns, met every\nday for religious purposes. But as that would be found inconvenient, one\nday came to be regarded as the regular time of their meetings. The\nJewish Christians observed the Sabbath with pharisaic rigor, while the\nliberal Christians neglected it. But both parties of Christians\nobserved, at length, the first day of the week as a peculiar day. No one\nknows when this observance of the Sunday began; it is difficult to find\nproof in the New Testament, that the apostles regarded it as a peculiar\nday; it seems plain that Paul did not. But it is certain that in the\nsecond century after Jesus, the Christians in general did so regard it,\nand perhaps all of them.\n\nWhy was the Sunday chosen as the regular day for religious meeting? It\nwas regarded as the day on which Jesus rose from the dead; and,\nfollowing the mythical account in Genesis, it was the day on which God\nbegan the creation, and actually created the light. Here there were two\nreasons for the selection of that day; both are frequently mentioned by\nthe early Christian writers. Sunday, therefore, was to them a symbol of\nthe new creation, and of the light that had come into the world. The\nliberal Christians, in separating from the Jewish Sabbath, would\nnaturally exalt the new religious day. Athanasius, I think, is the first\nwho ascribes a divine origin to the institution of Sunday. He says, \"The\nLord changed this day from the Sabbath to the Sunday;\" but Athanasius\nlived three centuries after Christ, and seems to have known little about\nthe matter.\n\nThe officers and the order of services in the churches on the Sunday\nseem derived from the usages of the Jewish synagogues. The Sunday was\nthus observed: the people came together in the morning; the exercises\nconsisted of readings from the Old Testament and such writings of the\nChristians as the assembly saw fit to have read to them. In respect to\nthese writings there was a wide difference in the different churches,\nsome accepting more and others less. The overseer, or bishop, made an\naddress, perhaps an exposition of the passage of Scripture. Prayers were\nsaid and hymns chanted; the Lord's supper was celebrated. The form no\ndoubt differed, and widely, too, in different places. It was not the\nform of servitude but the spirit of freedom, they observed. But all\nthese things were done, likewise, on other days; the Lord's supper could\nbe celebrated on any day, and is on every day by the Catholic church,\neven now; for the Catholics have been true to the early practices in\nmore points than the Protestants are willing to admit. In some places it\nis certain there was a \"communion\" every day. Sunday was regarded holy\nby the early Christians, just as certain festivals are regarded holy by\nthe Catholics, the Episcopalians, and the Lutherans, at this day; as the\nNew Englanders regard Thanksgiving day as holy. Other days, likewise,\nwere regarded as holy; were used in the same manner as the Sunday. Such\ndays were observed in honor of particular events in the life of Jesus,\nor in honor of saints and martyrs, or they were days consecrated by\nolder festivals belonging to the more ancient forms of religion. In the\nCatholic church such days are still numerous. It is only the Puritans\nwho have completely rejected them, and they have been obliged to\nsubstitute new ones in their place. However, there was one peculiarity\nof the Sunday which distinguished it from most or all other days. It was\na day of religious rejoicing. On other days the Christians knelt in\nprayer; on the Sunday they stood up on joyful feet, for light had come\ninto the world. Sunday was a day of gladness and rejoicing. The early\nChristians had many fasts; they were commonly held on Wednesdays and\nFridays, often on Saturday also, the more completely to get rid of the\nJewish superstition which consecrated that day; but on Sunday there must\nbe no fast. He would be a heretic who should fast on Sunday. It is\nstrictly forbidden in the \"canons of the apostles;\" a clergyman must be\ndegraded and a layman excommunicated, for the offence. Says St.\nIgnatius, in the second century, if the epistle be genuine, \"Every\nlover of Christ feasts on the Lord's day.\" \"We deem it wicked,\" says\nTertullian in the third century, \"to fast on the Sunday, or to pray on\nour knees.\" \"Oh,\" says St. Jerome, \"that we could fast on the Sunday, as\nPaul did and they that were with him.\" St. Ambrose says, the \"Manichees\nwere damned for fasting on the Lord's day.\" At this day the Catholic\nchurch allows no fast on Sunday, save the Sunday before the crucifixion;\neven Lent ceases on that day.\n\nIt does not appear that labor ceased on Sunday, in the earliest age of\nChristianity. But when Sunday became the regular and most important day\nfor holding religious meetings, less labor must of course be performed\non that day. At length it became common in some places to abstain from\nordinary work on the Sunday. It is not easy to say how early this was\nbrought about. But after Christianity had become \"respectable,\" and\nfound its way to the ranks of the wealthy, cultivated and powerful, laws\ngot enacted in its favor. Now, the Romans, like all other ancient\nnations, had certain festal days in which it was not thought proper to\nlabor unless work was pressing. It was disreputable to continue common\nlabor on such days without an urgent reason; they were pretty numerous\nin the Roman calendar. Courts did not sit on those days; no public\nbusiness was transacted. They were observed as Christmas and the more\nimportant saints' days in Catholic countries; as Thanksgiving day and\nthe Fourth of July with us. In the year three hundred and twenty-one,\nConstantine, the first Christian emperor of Rome, placed Sunday among\ntheir ferial days. This was perhaps the first legislative action\nconcerning the day. The statute forbids labor in towns, but expressly\nexcludes all prohibition of field-labor in the country.[10] About three\nhundred and sixty-six or seven, the Council of Laodicea decreed that\nChristians \"ought not to Judaize and be idle on the Sabbath, but to work\non that day; especially observing the Lord's day, and if it is possible,\nas Christians, resting from labor.\" Afterwards the Emperor Theodosius\nforbade certain public games on Sunday, Christmas, Epiphany, and the\nwhole time from Easter to Pentecost. Justinian likewise forbade\ntheatrical exhibitions, races in the circus, and the fights of wild\nbeasts, on Sunday, under severe penalties. This was done in order that\nthe religious services of the Christians might not be disturbed. By his\nlaws the Sunday continued to be a day in which public business was not\nto be transacted. But the Christmas days, the fifteen days of Easter,\nand numerous other days previously observed by Christians or pagans,\nwere put in the same class by the law. All this it seems was done from\nno superstitious notions respecting those days, but for the sake of\npublic utility and convenience. However, the rigor of the Jewish\nSabbatical laws was by no means followed. Labors of love, _opera\ncaritatis_, were considered as suitable business for those days. The\nvery statute of Theodosius recommended the emancipation of slaves on\nSunday. All impediments to their liberation were removed on that day,\nand though judicial proceedings in all other matters were forbidden on\nSunday, an exception was expressly made in favor of emancipating slaves.\nThis statute was preserved in the code of Justinian.[11] All these laws\ngo to show that there were similar customs previously established among\nthe Christians, without the aid of legislation.\n\nAbout the middle of the sixth century the Council of Orleans forbade\nlabor in the fields, though it did not forbid travelling with cattle and\noxen, the preparation of food, or any work necessary to the cleanliness\nof the house or the person--declaring that rigors of that sort belong\nmore to a Jewish than to a Christian observance of the day. That, I\nthink, is the earliest ecclesiastical decree which has come down to us\nforbidding field-labor in the country; a decree unknown till five\nhundred and thirty-eight years after Christ. But before that, in the\nyear three hundred and thirteen, the Council of Elvira in Spain\ndecreed, that if any one in a city absented himself three Sundays\nconsecutively from the church, he should be suspended from communion for\na short time. Such a regulation, however, was founded purely on\nconsiderations of public utility. Many church establishments have\nthought it necessary to protect themselves from desertion by similar\npenal laws.\n\nIn Catholic countries, at the present day, the morning of Sunday is\nappropriated to public worship, the people flocking to church. But the\nafternoon and evening are devoted to society, to amusement of various\nkinds. Nothing appears sombre, but every thing has a festive air; even\nthe theatres are open. Sunday is like Christmas, or a Thanksgiving day\nin Boston, only the festive demonstrations are more public. It is so in\nthe Protestant countries on the continent of Europe. Work is suspended,\npublic and private, except what is necessary for the observance of the\nday; public lectures are suspended; public libraries closed; but\ngalleries of paintings and statues are thrown open and crowded; the\npublic walks are thronged. In Southern Germany, and, doubtless,\nelsewhere, young men and women have I seen in summer, of a Sunday\nafternoon, dancing on the green, the clergyman, Protestant or Catholic,\nlooking on and enjoying the cheerfulness of the young people. Americans\nthink their mode of keeping Sunday is unholy; they, that ours is Jewish\nand pharisaical. In Paris, sometimes, courses of scientific lectures\nare delivered after the hours of religious services, to men who are busy\nduring the week with other cares, and who gladly take the hours of their\nonly leisure day to gain a little intellectual instruction.\n\nWhen England was a Catholic country, Catholic notions of Sunday of\ncourse prevailed. Labor was suspended; there was service in the\nchurches, and afterwards there were sports for the people, but they were\nattended with quarrelling, noise, uproar, and continual drunkenness. It\nwas so after the Reformation. In the time of Elizabeth, the laws forbade\nlabor except in time of harvest, when it was thought right to work, if\nneed were, and \"save the thing that God hath sent.\" Some of the\nProtestants wished to reform those disorders, and convert the Sunday to\na higher use. The government, and sometimes the superior clergy, for a\nlong time interfered to prevent the reform, often to protect the abuse.\nThe \"Book of Sports,\" appointed to be read in churches, is well known to\nus from the just indignation with which it filled our fathers.\n\nNow, it is plain, that in England, before the Reformation, the Sunday\nwas not appropriated to its highest use; not to the highest interests of\nmankind; no, not to the highest concerns, which the people, at that\ntime, were capable of appreciating. The attempts, made then and\nsubsequently, by government, to enforce the observance of the day, for\npurposes not the highest, led to a fearful reaction; that to other and\ncounter reactions. The ill consequences of those movements have not yet\nceased on either side of the ocean.\n\nThe Puritans represented the spirit of reaction against ecclesiastical\nand other abuses of their time, and the age before them. Let me do these\nmen no injustice. I honor the heroic virtues of our fathers not less\nbecause I see their faults; see the cause of their faults, and the\noccasion which demanded such masculine and terrible virtues as the\nPuritans unquestionably possessed. I speak only of their doctrine of the\nSunday. They were driven from one extreme to the other, for oppression\nmakes wise men mad. They took mainly the notions of the Sabbath, which\nbelong to the later portions of the Old Testament; they interpreted them\nwith the most pharisaical rigor, and then applied them to the Sunday.\nDid they find no warrant for that rigor in the New Testament? they found\nenough in the Old; enough in their own character, and their consequent\nnotions of God. They thus introduced a set of ideas respecting the\nSunday, which the Christian church had never known before, and rigidly\nenforced an observance thereof utterly foreign both to the letter and\nspirit of the New Testament. They made Sunday a terrible day; a day of\nfear, and of fasting, and of trembling under the terrors of the Lord.\nThey even called it by the Hebrew name--the Sabbath. The Catholics had\nsaid it was not safe to trust the Scriptures in the hands of the people,\nfor an inspired Word needed an expositor also inspired. The abuse which\nthe Puritans made of the Bible by their notions of the Sunday, seemed a\nfulfilment of the Catholic prophecy. But the Catholics did not see what\nis plain to all men now--that this very abuse of Sunday and Scripture\nwas only the reaction against other abuses, ancient, venerated, and\nenforced by the Catholic church itself.\n\nEvery sect has some institution which is the symbol of its religious\nconsciousness, though not devised for that purpose. With the early\nChristians, it was their love-feasts and communion; with the Catholics,\nit is their gorgeous ritual with its ancient date and divine\npretensions--a ritual so imposing to many; with the Quakers, who scorn\nall that is symbolic, the symbol equally appears in the plain dress and\nthe plain speech, the broad brim, and _thee_ and _thou_. With the\nPuritans, this symbol was the Sabbath, not the Sunday. Their Sabbath was\nlike themselves, austere, inflexible as their \"divine decrees;\" not\nhuman and of man, but Hebrew and of the Jews, stern, cold, and sad.\n\nThe Puritans were possessed with the sentiment of fear before God; they\nhad ideas analogous to that sentiment, and wrought out actions akin to\nthose ideas. They brought to America their ideas and sentiments. Behold\nthe effect of their actions. Let us walk reverently backward, with\naverted eyes to cover up their folly, their shame, and their sin, as\nthey could not walk to conceal the folly of their progenitors. The\nPuritans are the fathers of New England and her descendant States; the\nfathers of the American idea; of most things in America that are good;\nsurely, of most that is best. They seem made on purpose for their work\nof conquering a wilderness and founding a State. It is not with gentle\nhands, not with the dalliance of effeminate fingers, that such a task is\ndone. The work required energy the most masculine, in heart, head, and\nhands. None but the Puritans could have done such a work. They could\nfast as no men; none could work like them; none preach; none pray; none\ncould fight as they fought. They have left a most precious inheritance\nto men who have the same greatness of soul, but have fallen on happier\ntimes. Yet this inheritance is fatal to mere imitators, who will go on\nplanting of vineyards, where the first planter fell intoxicated with the\nfruit of his own toil. This inheritance is dangerous to men who will be\nno wiser than their ancestors. Let us honor the good deeds of our\nfathers; and not eat, but reverently bury their honored bones.\n\nThe Puritans represented the natural reaction of mankind against old\ninstitutions that were absurd or tyrannical. The Catholic church had\nmultiplied feast days to an extreme, and taken unnecessary pains to\npromote fun and frolic. The Puritans would have none of the saints' days\nin their calendar; thought sport was wicked; cut down Maypoles, and\npunished a man who kept Christmas after the old fashion. The Catholic\nchurch had neglected her golden opportunities for giving the people\nmoral and religious instruction; had quite too much neglected\npublic prayer and preaching, but relied mainly on sensuous\ninstruments--architecture, painting, music. In revenge, the Puritan had\na meeting-house as plain as boards could make it; tore the pictures to\npieces; thought an organ \"was not of God,\" and had sermons long and\nnumerous, and prayers full of earnestness, zeal, piety, and faith, in\nshort, possessed of all desirable things except an end. Did the\nCatholics forbid the people the Bible, emphatically the book of the\npeople--the Puritan would read no other book; called his children Hebrew\nnames, and reenacted \"the laws of God\" in the Old Testament, \"until we\ncan make better.\" Did Henry and Elizabeth underrate the people and\novervalue the monarchy, nature had her vengeance for that abuse, and the\nPuritan taught the world that kings, also, had a joint in their necks.\n\nThe Puritans went to the extreme in many things: in their contempt for\namusements, for what was graceful in man or beautiful in woman; in their\nscorn of art, of elegant literature, even of music; in their general\ncondemnation of the past, from which they would preserve little\nexcepting what was Hebrew, which, of course, they over-honored as much\nas they undervalued all the rest. In their notions respecting the Sunday\nthey went to the same extreme. The general reason is obvious. They\nwished to avoid old abuses, and thought they were not out of the water\ntill they were in the fire. But there was a special reason, also: the\nEnglish are the most empirical of all nations. They love a fact more\nthan an idea, and often cling to an historical precedent rather than\nobey a great truth which transcends all precedents. The national\ntendency to external things, perhaps, helped lead them to these peculiar\nnotions of the Sabbath. The precedent they found in \"The chosen people,\"\nand established, as they thought, by God himself.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe ideas of the Puritans respecting the Sunday are still cherished in\nthe popular theology of New England. There is one party in our churches\npossessed of many excellences, which has always had the merit of\nspeaking out fully what it thinks and feels. At this day that party\nstill represents the Puritanic opinions about the Sunday, though a\nlittle modified. They teach that God created the world in six days, and\nrested the seventh; that he commanded mankind, also, to rest on that\nday; commanded a man to be stoned to death for picking up sticks of a\nSaturday; that by divine authority the first day of the week was\nsubstituted for the seventh, and therefore that it is the religious duty\nof all men to rest from work on that day, for the Hebrew law of the\nSabbath is binding on Christians for ever. It is maintained that\nabstinence from work on Sunday is as much a religious duty as abstinence\nfrom theft or hatred; that the day must be exclusively devoted to\nreligion, in the technical sense of that word, to public or private\nworship, to religious reading, thought, or conversation. To attend\nchurch on that day is thought to be a good in itself, though it should\nlead to no further good, and therefore a duty as imperative as the duty\nof loving man and God. The preacher may not edify, still the duty of\nattending to his ministration of the word remains the same; for the\nattendance is a good in itself. It is taught that work, that amusement,\ncommon conversation, the reading of a book not technically religious, is\na sin, just as clearly a sin as theft or hatred, though perhaps not so\ngreat. Writing a letter, even, is denounced as a sin, though the letter\nbe written for the purpose of arresting the progress of a war, and\nsecuring life and freedom to millions of men.\n\nNow, it is very plain that such ideas are not consistent with the truth.\nIn the language of the church, they are a heresy. As we learn the facts\nof the case we must give up such ideas concerning the Sunday. It is like\nany other day. Christianity knows no classes of days, as holy or\nprofane; all days are the Lord's days, all time holy time.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut then comes the other question, What is the best use to be made of\nthe day; the use most conducive to the highest interests of mankind?\nWill it be most profitable to \"give up the Sunday,\" to use it as the\nCatholics do, as the Puritans did, or to adopt some other method? To\nanswer these questions fairly, let us look and see the effects of the\npresent notions about the Sunday, and the stricter mode of observing it\nhere in New England. The experience of two hundred years is worth\nlooking at. Let us look at the good effects first.\n\nThe good and evil of any age are commonly bound so closely together,\nthat in plucking up the tares, there is danger lest the wheat also be\nuprooted, at least trodden down. In America, especially in New England,\nevery thing is intense, with of course a tendency to extravagance, to\nfanaticism. Look at some of the most obvious signs of that intensity. No\nconservatism in the world is so bigoted as American conservatism; no\ndemocracy so intense. Nowhere else can you find such thorough-going\ndefenders of the existing state of things, social, ecclesiastical,\ncivil; such defenders of drunkenness, ignorance, superstition, slavery,\nand war; nowhere such radical enemies to the existing state of things;\nsuch foes of drunkenness, ignorance, superstition, slavery, and war. No\n\"Revivals of religion\" are like the American; none of old were like\nthese. See how the American soldiers fight; how the American men will\nwork. Puritanism was intense enough in England; in the New World it was\nyet more so. Our fathers were intense Calvinists; more Calvinistic than\nCalvin--they became Hopkinsian. They hated the Pope; kings and bishops\nwere their aversion. They feared God. Did they love him--love him as\nmuch? They had an intense religious activity, but they had another\nintensity. It is better that we should say it, rather than men who do\nnot honor them. That intensity of action, when turned towards material\nthings, or, as they called them, \"carnal things,\" needed some powerful\ncheck. It was found in their bigotry and superstition. In such an age as\ntheirs, when the Reformation broke down all the ordinary restraints of\nsociety, and rent asunder the golden ties which bound man to the past;\nwhen the Anglican church ended in fire, and the English monarchy in\nblood; when men full of piety thanked God for the fire and the\nbloodshed, and felt the wrongs of a thousand years driving them almost\nto madness--what was there to keep such men within bounds, and restrain\nthem from the wildest license and unbridled anarchy? Nothing but\nsuperstition; nothing short of fear of hell. They broke down the\nmonarchy; they trod the church under their feet. She who had once been\ncounted as the queen and mother of society, was now to be regarded only\nas the Apocalyptical woman in scarlet, the mother of abominations, bride\nof the devil, and queen of hell. The Old Testament wrought on the minds\nof these men like a charm, to stimulate and to soothe. \"One day,\" said\nthey, \"is made holy by God; in it shall no work be done by man or beast,\nor thing inanimate. On that day all must attend church as an act of\nreligion.\" Here, then, was a bar extending across the stream of\nworldliness, filling one seventh part of its channel, wide and deep, and\nwonderfully interrupting its whelming tide. I admire the divine skill\nwhich compounds the gases in the air; which balances centripetal and\ncentrifugal forces into harmonious proportions,--those fair ellipses in\nthe unseen air; but still more marvellous is that same skill, diviner\nnow, which compounds the folly and the wisdom of mankind; balances\ncentripetal and centrifugal forces here, stilling the noise of kings and\nthe tumult of the people, making their wrath to serve him, and the\nremnant thereof restraining forever.\n\nOn Sunday, master and man, the slave stolen from the wilderness, the\nservant--a Christian man bought from some Christian conqueror,--must\ncease from their work. Did the covetous, the cruel, the strong, oppress\nthe weak for six days, the Sabbath said, \"Hitherto shalt thou come, but\nno further.\" The servant was free from his master, and the weary was at\nrest. The plough stood still in the furrow; the sheaf lay neglected in\nthe field; the horse and the ox enjoyed their master's Sabbath of rest,\nall heedless of the divine decrees, of election or reprobation, yet not\nthe less watched over by that dear Providence which numbered the hairs\nof the head, and overruled the falling of a sparrow for the sparrow's\ngood. All must attend church, master and man, rich and poor, oppressor\nand oppressed. Good things and great things got read out of the Bible,\nit was the book of the people, the New Testament, written much of it in\nthe interest of all mankind, with special emphasis laid on the rights of\nthe weak and the duties of the strong. Good things got said in sermon\nand in prayer. The speakers must think, the hearers think, as well as\ntremble. Begin to think in a circle narrow as a lady's ring, or the\nAssembly's Catechism, you will think out; for thought, like all\nmovement, tends to the right line. Calvinism has always bred thinkers,\nand when barbarism was the first danger was perhaps the only thing which\ncould do it. Calvinism, too, has always shown itself in favor of popular\nliberty to a certain degree, and though it stops far short of the mark,\nyet goes far beyond the Catholic or Episcopalian.\n\nSunday, thus enforced by superstition, has yet been the education-day of\nNew England; the national school-time for the culture of man's highest\npowers; therein have the clergy been our educators, and done a vast\nservice which mankind will not soon forget. It was good seed they sowed\non this soil of the New World; the harvest is proof of that. They\nbuilded wiser than they knew. Their unconscious hands constructed the\nthought of God. Even their superstition and bigotry did much to preserve\nchurch and clergy to us; much also to educate and develop the highest\npowers of man. But for that superstition we might have seen the same\nanarchy, the same unbridled license in the seventeenth century, which we\nsaw in the eighteenth, as a consequence of a similar revolution, a\nsimilar reaction; only it would have been carried out with the intensity\nof that most masculine and earnest race of men. How much further English\natrocities would have gone than the French did go; how long it would\nhave taken mankind, by their proper motion, to reascend from a fall so\nadverse and so low, I cannot tell. I see what saved them from the\nplunge.\n\nTrue, the Sunday was not what it should be, more than the week;\npreaching was not what it should be, more than practice. But without\nthat Sunday, and without that preaching, New England would have been a\nquite different land; America another nation altogether; the world by no\nmeans so far advanced as now. New England with her descendants has\nalways been the superior portion of America. I flatter no man's\nprejudice, but speak a plain truth. She is superior in intelligence, in\nmorality--that is too plain for proof. The prime cause of that\nsuperiority must be sought in the character of the fathers of New\nEngland; but a secondary and most powerful cause is to be found also in\nthose two institutions--Sunday and preaching. Why is it that all great\nmovements, from the American Revolution down to anti-slavery, have begun\nhere? Why is it that education societies, missionary societies, Bible\nsocieties, and all the movements for the advance of mankind, begin here?\nWhy, it is no more an accident than the rising of the tide. Find much of\nthe cause in the superior character, and therefore in the superior aims\nof the forefathers, much also will be found due to this--Once in the\nweek they paused from all work; they thought of their God, who had\ndelivered them from the iron house and yoke of bondage; they listened to\nthe words of able men, exhorting them to justice, piety, and a heavenly\nwalk with God; they trembled at fear of hell; they rejoiced at hope of\nheaven. The church--no, the \"meeting-house\"--was the common property of\nall; the minister the common friend. The slave looked up to him; the\nchief magistrate dared not look down on him. For more than a hundred\nyears the ablest men of New England went into the pulpit. No talent was\nthought too great, no learning too rich and profound, no genius too holy\nand divine, for the work of teaching men their highest duty, and\nhelping to their highest bliss. He was the minister to all. There was\nnot then a church for the rich, and a chapel for the poor; the rich and\nthe poor met together, for one God was the maker of them all--their\nFather too; they had one Gospel, one Redeemer,--their Brother not less\nthan their God; they journeyed toward the same heaven, which had but one\nentrance for great and little; they prayed all the same prayer. The\neffect of this socialism of religion is seldom noticed; so we walk on\nmoist earth, not thinking that we tread on the thunder-cloud and the\nlightning. But it is not in human nature for men of intense religious\nactivity to meet in the same church, sing the same psalm, pray the same\nprayer, partake the same elements of communion, and not be touched with\ncompassion--each for all, and all for each. The same causes which built\nup religion in New England, built up democracy along with it. Is it not\neasy to see the cause which made the rich men of New England the most\nbenevolent of rich men; gave them their character for generosity and\npublic spirit--yes, for eminent humanity? The acorn is not more\nobviously the parent of the oak than those two institutions of New\nEngland the parent of such masculine virtues as distinguish her sons.\n\nRegarded merely as a day of rest from labor, the Sunday has been of\ngreat value to us. Considering the intense character of the nation, our\ntendency to material things, and our restless love of work, it seems as\nif a Moses of the nineteenth century, legislating for us, would enact\ntwo rest-days in the week, rather than one. It is a good thing that a\nman once a week pauses from his work, arrays himself in clean garments,\nand is at rest.\n\nRegarded in its other aspects, Sunday has aided the intellectual culture\nof the people to a degree not often appreciated. To many a man, yes, to\nmost men, it is their only reading day, and they will read \"secular\"\nbooks, spite of the clerical admonition. Many a poor boy in New England,\nwho has toiled all the week, and would gladly have studied all the\nnight, did not obstinate Nature forbid, has studied stealthily all\nSunday, not Jeremiah and the prophets, but Homer and the mathematics,\nand risen at length to eminence amongst cultivated men;--he has to thank\nthe Sunday for the beginnings of that manly growth.\n\nThe moral and religious effect of the day is yet more important. One\nseventh part of the time was to be devoted to moral and religious\nculture. The clergy watched diligently over Sunday, as their own day.\nWork was then the accident; religion was the business. Every thing with\nus becomes earnest; Sunday as earnest as the week. It must not be spent\nidly. Perhaps no body of clergymen, for two hundred years, on the whole,\nwere ever so wakeful and active as the American. They also are earnest\nand full of intensity, especially in the more serious sects. I think I\nam not very superstitious; not often inclined to lean on my father's\nstaff rather than walk on my own feet; not over-much accustomed to take\nthings on trust because they have been trusted to all along: but I must\nconfess that I see a vast amount of good achieved by the aid of these\ntwo institutions, the Sunday and preaching, which could not have been\ndone without them. I know I have my prejudices; I love the Sunday; a\nprofessional bias may warp me aside, for I am a preacher--the pulpit is\nmy joy and my throne. Judge you how far my profession and my prejudice\nhave led me astray in estimating the value of the Sunday, its preaching,\nand the good they have achieved for us in New England. I know what\nsuperstition, what bigotry, has been connected with both; I know it has\nkept grim and terrible guard about these institutions. I look upon that\nsuperstition and bigotry, as on the old New England guns which were\nfought with in the Indian wars, the French wars, and the\nRevolution;--things that did service when men knew not how to defend\nwhat they valued most with better tools and more Christian. I look on\nboth with the same melancholy veneration, but honor them the more that\nnow they are old, battered, unfit for use and covered with rust; I would\nrespectfully hang them up, superstition and the musket, side by side;\nhonorable, but harmless, with their muzzles down, and pray God it might\nnever be my lot to handle such ungodly weapons, though in a cause never\nso humane and holy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet us look a little at the ill effects of these notions of the Sunday\nand the observance which they led to. It is thought an act of religion\nto attend church and give a mere bodily presence there. Hence the\nminister often relies on this circumstance to bring his audience\ntogether; preaches sermons on the duty of going to church, while\ningenuous boys blush for his weakness, and ask, \"Were it not better to\nrely on your goodness, your piety, your wisdom; on your superior ability\nto teach men, even on your eloquence, rather than tell them it is an act\nof religion to come and hear you, when both they and you are painfully\nconscious that they are thereby made no wiser, no better, nor more\nChristian?\" This notion is a dangerous one for a clergyman. It flatters\nhis pride and encourages his sloth. It blinds him to his own defects,\nand leads him to attribute his empty benches to the perverseness of\nhuman nature and the carnal heart, which a few snow-flakes can frighten\nfrom his church, while a storm will not keep them from a lecture on\nscience or literature. No doubt it is a man's duty to seek all\nopportunities of becoming wiser and better. So far as church-going helps\nthat work, so far it is a duty. But to count it in itself, irrespective\nof its consequences, an act of religion, is to commit a dangerous\nerror, which has proved fatal to many a man's growth in goodness and\npiety. Let us look to the end, not merely at the means.\n\nThis notion has also a bad effect on the hearers. It is thought an act\nof religion to attend church, whether you are edified or not by sermon,\nby psalm, or prayer; an act of religion, though you could more\nprofitably spend the time in your own closet at home, or with your own\nthoughts in the fields. Of course, then, he who attends once a day is\nthought a Christian to a certain degree; if twice, more so; if thrice,\nwhy that denotes an additional amount of growth in grace. In this way\nthe day is often spent in a continual round of meetings. Sermon follows\nsermon; prayer treads upon the footsteps of prayer; psalm effaces psalm,\ntill morning, afternoon, evening, all are gone. The Sunday is ended and\nover; the man is tired--but has he been profited and made better\nthereby? The sermons and the prayers have cancelled one another, been\nheard and forgot. They were too numerous to remember or produce their\neffect. So on a summer's lake, as the winds loiter and then pass by,\nripple follows ripple, and wave succeeds to wave, yet the next day the\nwind has ceased and the unstable water bears no trace left there by all\nthe blowings of the former day, but bares its incontinent bosom to the\nfrailest and most fleeting clouds.\n\nAnother ill effect follows from regarding attendance at church as an act\nof religion in itself:--It is forgotten that a man cannot teach what he\ndoes not know. If you have more manhood than I, more religion; if you\nare the more humane and the more divine, it is idle for me to try and\nteach you divinity and humanity; idle in you to make believe you are\ntaught. The less must learn of the greater, not the greater directly of\nthe less. It is too often forgotten by the preacher that his hearers may\nbe capable of teaching him; that he cannot fill them out of an\nemptiness, but a fulness. Hence, it comes to pass that no one, how\nadvanced soever, is allowed to graduate, so to say, from the church.\nPerhaps it may do a great man, mature in Christianity, good to sit down\nwith his fellows and hear a little man talk who knows nothing of\nreligion; it may increase his sympathy with mankind. It can hardly be an\nact of religion to such a man so advanced in his goodness and piety;\nperhaps not the best use he could make of the hour.\n\nThe current opinion hinders social tendencies. A man must not meet with\nhis friend and neighbor, or if he does, he must talk with bated breath,\nwith ghostly countenance, and of a ghostly theme. From this abuse of the\nSunday comes much of the cold and unsocial character which strangers\ncharge us with. As things now go, there are many who have no opportunity\nfor social intercourse except the hours of the Sunday. Then it is\nforbidden them. So they suffer and lose much of the charm of life;\nbecome ungenial, unsocial, stiff, and hard, and cold.\n\nThis notion hinders men, also, from intellectual culture. They must read\nno book but one professedly religious. Such works are commonly poor and\ndull; written mainly by men of little ability, of little breadth of\nview; not written in the interest of mankind, but only of a sect--the\nCalvinists or Unitarians. A good man groans when he looks over the\nimmense piles of sectarian books written with good motives, and read\nwith the most devout of intentions, but which produce their best effect\nwhen they lead only to sleep. Yet it is commonly taught that it is\nreligion to spend a part of Sunday in reading such works, in listening,\nor in trying to listen, or in affecting to try and listen, to the most\nwatery sermons, while it is wicked to read some \"secular\" book,\nphilosophy, history, poem, or tale, which expands the mind and warms the\nheart. Our poor but wisdom-seeking boy must read his Homer only by\nstealth. There are many men who have no time for intellectual pursuits,\nnone for reading, except on Sunday. It is cruel to tell them they shall\nread none but sectarian books or listen only to sectarian words.\n\nBut there are other evils yet. These notions and the corresponding\npractice tend to make religion external, consisting in obedience to\nform, in compliance with custom; while religion is and can be only\npiety and goodness, love to God and love to man. To keep the Sunday\nidle, to attend church, is not being religious. It is easy to do that;\neasy to stop there, and then to look at real, manly saints, who live in\nthe odor of sanctity, whose sentiment is a prayer, their deeds religion,\nand their whole life a perpetual communion with God, and say, \"Infidel!\nUnbeliever.\"\n\nThen, as one day is devoted to religion, it is thought that is enough;\nthat religion has no more business in the world than the world in\nreligion. So division is made of the territory of mortal life, in which\npartition worldliness has six days, while poor religion has only the\nSunday, and content with her own limits, feels no salient wish to absorb\nor annex the week! It is painful to see this abuse of an institution so\nnoble. No commonness of its occurrence renders it less painful. It is\npainful to be told that men of the most scrupulous sects on Sunday, are\nin the week the least scrupulous of men.\n\nBut even in religious matters it is thought all things which pertain\ndirectly to the religious welfare of men are not proper to be discussed\non Sunday. One must not preach against intemperance, against slavery,\nagainst war, on Sunday. It is not \"evangelical;\" not \"preaching the\ngospel.\" Yet it is thought proper to preach on total depravity, on\neternal damnation; to show that God will damn forever the majority of\nmankind; that the apostle Peter was a Unitarian. The Sunday is not the\ntime, the pulpit not the place, preaching not the instrument, wherewith\nto oppose the monstrous sins of our day, and secure education,\ntemperance, peace, freedom, for mankind. It is not evangelical, not\nChristian, to do that of a Sunday! Yet wonderful to say, it is not\nthought very wicked to hold a political caucus on Sunday for the merest\nparty purposes; not wicked at all to work all day at the navy-yards in\nfitting out vessels, if they are only vessels of war; not at all wicked\nto toil all Sunday, if it is only in aiming to kill men in regular\nbattle. Theological newspapers can expend their cheap censure on a\nmember of Congress for writing a letter on Sunday, yet have no word of\nfault to find with the order which sets hundreds to work on Sunday in\npreparing armaments of war; not a word against the war which sets men to\nbutcher their Christian brothers on the day which Christians celebrate\nas the anniversary of Christ's triumph over death! These things show\nthat we have not yet arrived at the most profitable and Christian mode\nof using the Sunday; and when I consider these abuses I wonder not that\nthe cry of \"Infidel\" is met by the unchristian taunt, yet more deserved\nand biting, \"Thou hypocrite!\" I wonder not that some men say, \"Let us\naway with the Sunday altogether; and if we have no place for rest, we\nwill have none for hypocrisy.\"\n\nThe efforts honestly made by good and honest men, to Judaize the day\nstill more; to revive the sterner features of ancient worship; to put a\nyoke on us which neither we nor our fathers could bear; to transform the\nChristian Sunday into the Jewish Sabbath, must lead to a reaction. Abuse\non one side will be met by abuse on the other; despotic asceticism by\nlicense; Judaism by heathenism. Superstition is the mother of denial.\nMen will scorn the Sunday; abuse its timely rest. Its hours that may be\ndevoted to man's highest interests will be prostituted to low aims, and\nworldliness make an unbroken sweep from one end of the month to the\nother; and then it will take years of toil before mankind can get back\nand secure the blessings now placed within an easy reach. I put it to\nyou, men whose heads time has crowned with white, or sprinkled with a\nsober gray, if you would deem it salutary to enforce on your\ngrandchildren the Sabbath austerities which your parents imposed on you?\nIn your youth was the Sunday a welcome day; a genial day; or only\nwearisome and sour? Was religion, dressed in her Sabbath dress, a\nwelcome guest; was she lovely and to be desired? Your faces answer. Let\nus profit by your experience.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow can we make the Sunday yet more valuable? If we abandon the\nsuperstitious notions respecting its origin and original design, the\nevils that have hitherto hindered its use will soon perish of\nthemselves. They all grow out of that root. If men are not driven into\na reaction by pretensions for the Sunday which facts will not warrant;\nif unreasonable austerities are not forced upon them in the name of the\nlaw, and the name of God; there is no danger in our day that men will\nabandon an institution which already has done so much service to\nmankind. Let Sunday and preaching stand on their own merits, and they\nwill encounter no more opposition than the common school and the\nwork-days of the week. Then men will be ready enough to appropriate the\nSunday to the highest objects they know and can appreciate. Tell men the\nSunday is made for man, and they will use it for its highest use. Tell\nthem man is made for it, and they will war on it as a tyrant. I should\nbe sorry to see the Sunday devoted to common work; sorry to hear the\nclatter of a mill, or the rattle of the wheels of business on that day.\nI look with pain on men engaged needlessly in work on that day; not with\nthe pain of wounded superstition, but a deeper regret. I would not water\nmy garden with perfumes when common water was at hand. We shall always\nhave work enough in America; hand-work, and head-work, for common\npurposes. There is danger that we shall not have enough of rest, of\nintellectual cultivation, of refinement, of social intercourse; that our\ntime shall be too much devoted to the lower interests of life, to the\nmeans of living and not the end.\n\nI would not consider it an act of religion to attend church: only a\ngood thing to go there when the way of improvement leads through it;\nwhen you are made wiser and better by being there. I am pained to see a\nman spend the whole of a Sunday in going to church,--and forgetting\nhimself in getting acquainted with the words of the preachers. I think\nmost intelligent hearers, and most intelligent and Christian preachers,\nwill confess that two sermons are better than three, and one is better\nthan two. One need only look at the afternoon face of a congregation in\nthe city, to be satisfied of this. If one half the day were devoted to\npublic worship, the other half might be free for private studies of men\nat home, for private devotion, for social relaxation, for intercourse\nwith one's own family and friends. Then Sunday afternoon and evening\nwould afford an excellent opportunity for meetings for the promotion of\nthe great humane movements of the day, which some would think not\nevangelical enough to be treated of in the morning. Would it be\ninconsistent with the great purposes of the day, inconsistent with\nChristianity, to have lectures on science, literature, and similar\nsubjects delivered then? I do not believe the Catholic custom of\nspending the Sunday afternoon in England, before the Reformation, was a\ngood one. It diverted men from the higher end to the lower. I cannot\nthink that here and now we need amusement so much as society,\ninstruction, refinement, and devotion. Yet it seems to me unwise to\nrestrain the innocent sports of children of a Sunday, to the same degree\nthat our fathers did; to make Sunday to them a day of gloom and sadness.\nThoughtful parents are now much troubled in this matter; they cannot\nenforce the old discipline, so disastrous to themselves; they fear to\ntrust their own sense of what is right;--so, perhaps, get the ill of\nboth schemes, and the good of neither. There are in Boston about thirty\nthousand Catholics, twenty-five thousand of them, probably, too ignorant\nto read with pleasure or profit any book. At home, amusement formed a\npart of their Sunday service; it was a part of their religion to make a\nfestive use of Sunday afternoon. What shall they do? Is it Christian in\nus by statute to interdict them from their recreation? With the\nexception of children and these most ignorant persons, it does not\nappear that there is any class amongst us who need any part of the\nSunday for sport.\n\nI am not one of those who wish \"to give up the Sunday;\" indeed there are\nfew such men amongst us; I would make it yet more useful and profitable.\nI would remove from it the superstition and the bigotry which have so\nlong been connected with it; I would use it freely, as a Christian not\nenslaved by the letter of Judaism, but made free by an obedience to the\nlaw of the spirit of life. I would use the Sunday for religion in the\nwide sense of that word; use it to promote piety and goodness, for\nhumanity, for science, for letters, for society. I would not abuse it\nby impudent license on the one hand, nor by slavish superstition on the\nother. We can easily escape the evils which come of the old abuse; can\nmake the Sunday ten times more valuable than it is even now; can employ\nit for all the highest interests of mankind, and fear no reaction into\nlibertinism.\n\nThe Sunday is made for man, as are all other days; not man for the\nSunday. Let us use it, then, not consuming its hours in a Jewish\nobservance; not devote it to the lower necessities of life, but the\nhigher; not squander it in idleness, sloth, frivolity, or sleep; let us\nuse it for the body's rest, for the mind's culture, for head and heart\nand soul.\n\nMen and women, you have received the Sunday from your fathers, as a day\nto be devoted to the highest interests of man. It has done great service\nfor them and for you. But it has come down accompanied with superstition\nwhich robs it of half its value. It is easy for you to make the day far\nmore profitable to yourselves than it ever was to your fathers; easy to\ndivest it of all bigotry, to free it from all oldness of the letter;\neasy to leave it for your children an institution which shall bless them\nfor ages yet to come: or it is easy to bind on their necks unnatural\nrestraints; to impose on their conscience and understanding absurdities\nwhich at last they must repel with scorn and contempt. It is in your\nhands to make the Sunday Jewish or Christian.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[3] These celebrated commandments have come down to us in three distinct\nforms; namely, in Exodus xx., in Exodus xxxiv., and in Deut. v. The\ndifferences between these several codes are quite remarkable and\nsignificant.\n\n[4] 2 Chron. 36:21.\n\n[5] John 5:1-18, and 7:19-24.\n\n[6] Matthew 23:1-3.\n\n[7] Rev. 21:14.\n\n[8] Coloss. 2:16.\n\n[9] Galat. 1:5.\n\n[10] Justinian, _Cod._ Lib. iii. Tit. xii. l. 3.\n\n[11] _Cod._, Lib. iii. Tit. xii. l. 2. See also, l. 3 and 11.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nA SERMON OF IMMORTAL LIFE.--PREACHED AT THE MELODEON, ON SUNDAY,\nSEPTEMBER 20, 1846.\n\nWISDOM OF SOLOMON III. 1, 4.\n\n    The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God: their\n    hope is full of immortality.\n\n\nIt is the belief of mankind that we shall all live forever. This is not\na doctrine of Christianity alone. It belongs to the human race. You may\nfind nations so rude that they live houseless, in caverns of the earth;\nnations that have no letters, not knowing the use of bows and arrows,\nfire or even clothes, but no nation without a belief in immortal life.\nThe form of that belief is often grotesque and absurd; the mode of proof\nridiculous; the expectations of what the future life is to be are often\nchildish and silly. But notwithstanding all that, the fact still\nremains, the belief that the soul of a man never dies.\n\nHow did mankind come by this opinion? \"By a miraculous revelation,\" says\none. But according to the common theory of miraculous revelations, the\nrace could not have obtained it in this way, for according to that\ntheory the heathen had no such revelations; yet we find this doctrine\nthe settled belief of the whole heathen world. The Greeks and Romans\nbelieved it long before Christ; the Chaldees, with no pretence to\nmiraculous inspiration, taught the idea of immortality; while the Jews,\nspite of their alleged revelations, rested only in the dim sentiment\nthereof.\n\nIt was not arrived at by reasoning. It requires a good deal of hard\nthinking to reason out and prove this matter. Yet you find this belief\namong nations not capable as yet of that art of thinking and to that\ndegree, nations who never tried to prove it, and yet believe it as\nconfidently as we. The human race did not sit down and think it out;\nnever waited till they could prove it by logic and metaphysics; did not\ndelay their belief till a miraculous revelation came to confirm it. It\ncame to mankind by intuition; by instinctive belief, the belief which\ncomes unavoidably from the nature of man. In this same way came the\nbelief in God; the love of man; the sentiment of justice. Men could see,\nand knew they could see, before they proved it; before they had theories\nof vision; without waiting for a miraculous revelation to come and tell\nthem they had eyes, and might see if they would look. Some faculties of\nthe body act spontaneously at first--so others of the spirit.\n\nImmortality is a fact of man's nature, so it is a part of the universe,\njust as the sun is a fact in the heavens and a part of the universe.\nBoth are writings from God's hand; each therefore a revelation from Him,\nand of Him; only not miraculous, but natural, regular, normal. Yet each\nis just as much a revelation from Him as if the great Soul of all had\nspoken in English speech to one of us and said, \"There is a sun there in\nthe heavens, and thou shalt live for ever.\" Yes, the fact is more\ncertain than such speech would make it, for this fact speaks always--a\nperpetual revelation, and no words can make it more certain.\n\nAs a man attains consciousness of himself, he attains consciousness of\nhis immortality. At first he asks proof no more of his eternal existence\nthan of his present life; instinctively he believes both. Nay, he does\nnot separate the two; this life is one link in that golden and electric\nchain of immortality; the next life another and more bright, but in the\nsame chain. Immortality is what philosophers call an ontological fact;\nit belongs essentially to the being of man, just as the eye is a\nphysiological fact and belongs to the body of man. To my mind this is\nthe great proof of immortality: the fact that it is written in human\nnature; written there so plain that the rudest nations have not failed\nto find it, to know it; written just as much as form is written on the\ncircle, and extension on matter in general. It comes to our\nconsciousness as naturally as the notions of time and space. We feel it\nas a desire; we feel it as a fact. What is thus in man is writ there of\nGod who writes no lies. To suppose that this universal desire has no\ncorresponding gratification, is to represent Him, not as the father of\nall but as only a deceiver. I feel the longing after immortality, a\ndesire essential to my nature, deep as the foundation of my being; I\nfind the same desire in all men. I feel conscious of immortality; that I\nam not to die; no, never to die, though often to change. I cannot\nbelieve this desire and consciousness are felt only to mislead, to\nbeguile, to deceive me. I know God is my father, and the father of the\nnations. Can the Almighty deceive his children? For my own part, I can\nconceive of nothing which shall make me more certain of my immortality.\nI ask no argument from learned lips. No miracle could make me more sure;\nno, not if the sheeted dead burst cerement and shroud, and rising forth\nfrom their honored tombs stood here before me, the disenchanted dust\nonce more enchanted with that fiery life; no, not if the souls of all my\nsires since time began came thronging round, and with miraculous speech\ntold me they lived and I should also live. I could only say, \"I knew all\nthis before, why waste your heavenly speech!\" I have now indubitable\ncertainty of eternal life. Death removing me to the next state, can give\nme infallible certainty.\n\nBut there are men who doubt of immortality. They say they are conscious\nof the want, not of the fact. They need a proof. The exception here\nproves the rule. You do not doubt your personal and conscious existence\nnow; you ask no proof of that; you would laugh at me should I try to\nconvince you that you are alive and self-conscious. Yet one of the\nleaders of modern philosophy wanted a proof of his as a basis for his\nscience, and said,--\"I am because I think.\" But his thought required\nproof as much as his being; yes, logically more, for being is the ground\nof thinking, not thinking of being. At this day there are sound men who\ndeny the existence of this outward world, declaring it only a\ndreamworld. This ground, they say, and yonder sun have being but in\nfancy, like the sun and ground you perchance dreamed of last night whose\nbeing was only a being-dreamed. These are exceptional men, and help\nprove the common rule, that man trusts his senses and believes an\noutward world. Yet such are more common amongst philosophers than men\nwho doubt of their immortal life. You cannot easily reason those men out\nof their philosophy and into their senses, nor by your own philosophy\nperhaps convince them that there is an outward world.\n\nI think few of you came to your belief in everlasting life through\nreasoning. Your belief grew out of your general state of mind and heart.\nYou could not help it. Perhaps few of you ever sat down and weighed the\narguments for and against it, and so made up your mind. Perhaps those\nwho have the firmest consciousness of the fact are least familiar with\nthe arguments which confirm that consciousness. If a man disbelieves it,\nif he denies it, his opinion is not often to be changed immediately or\ndirectly by argument. His special conviction has grown out of his\ngeneral state of mind and heart, and is only to be removed by a change\nin his whole philosophy. I am not honoring men for their belief, nor\nblaming men who doubt or deny. I do not believe any one ever willingly\ndoubted this; ever purposely reasoned himself into the denial thereof.\nMen doubt because they cannot help it; not because they will, but must.\n\nThere are a great many things true which no man as yet can prove true;\nsome things so true that nothing can make them plainer, or more plainly\ntrue. I think it is so with this doctrine, and therefore, for myself,\nask no argument. With my views of man, of God, of the relation between\nthe two, I want no proof, satisfied with my own consciousness of\nimmortality. Yet there are arguments which are fair, logical, just,\nwhich satisfy the mind, and may, perhaps, help persuade some men who\ndoubt, if such men there are amongst you. I think that immortality is a\nfact of consciousness; a fact given in the constitution of man:\ntherefore a matter of sentiment. But it requires thought to pick it out\nfrom amongst the other facts of consciousness. Though at first merely a\nfeeling, a matter of sentiment, on examination it becomes an idea--a\nmatter of thought. It will bear being looked at in the sharpest and\ndryest light of logic. Truth never flinches before reason. It is so with\nour consciousness of God; that is an ontological fact, a fact given in\nthe nature of man. At first it is a feeling, a matter of sentiment. By\nthought we abstract this fact from other facts; we find an idea of God.\nThat is a matter of philosophy, and the analyzing mind legitimates the\nidea and at length demonstrates the existence of God, which we first\nlearned without analysis, and by intuition. A great deal has been\nwritten to prove the existence of God, and that by the ablest men; yet I\ncannot believe that any one was ever reasoned directly into a belief in\nGod, by all those able men, nor directly out of it by all the skeptics\nand scoffers. Indirectly such works affect men, change their philosophy\nand modes of thought, and so help them to one or the other conclusion.\n\nThe idea of immortality, like the idea of God, in a certain sense, is\nborn in us, and fast as we come to consciousness of ourselves we come to\nconsciousness of God, and of ourselves as immortal. The higher we\nadvance in wisdom, goodness, piety, the larger place do God and\nimmortality hold in our experience and inward life. I think that is the\nregular and natural process of a man's development. Doubt of either\nseems to me an exception, an irregularity. Causes that remove the doubt\nmust be general more than special.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHowever, in order to have a basis of thought and reasoning, as well as\nof intuition and reason, let me mention some of the arguments for\neverlasting life.\n\nI. The first is drawn from the general belief of mankind. The greatest\nphilosophers and the most profound and persuasive religious teachers of\nthe whole world have taught this. That is an important fact, for these\nmen represent the consciousness of mankind in the highest development it\nhas yet reached, and in such points are the truest representatives of\nman. What is more, the human race believes it, not merely as a thing\ngiven by miraculous revelation, not as a matter proven by science, not\nas a thing of tradition resting on some man's authority, but believes it\ninstinctively, not knowing and not asking why, or how; believes it as a\nfact of consciousness. Now in a matter of this sort the opinion of the\nhuman race is worth considering. I do not value very much the opinion of\na priesthood in Rome or Judea, or elsewhere on this point, or any other,\nfor they may have designs adverse to the truth. But the general\nsentiment of the human race in a matter like this is of the greatest\nimportance. This general sentiment of mankind is a quite different thing\nfrom public opinion, which favors freedom in one country and slavery in\nanother; this sentiment of mankind relates to what is a matter of\nfeeling with most men. It is only a few thinkers that have made it a\nmatter of thought. The opinion of mankind, so far as we know, has not\nchanged on this point for four thousand years. Since the dawn of\nhistory, man's belief in immortality has continually been developing and\ngetting deeper fixed.\n\nStill more, this belief is very dear to mankind. Let me prove that. If\nit were true that one human soul was immortal and yet was to be\neternally damned, getting only more clotted with crime and deeper bit by\nagony as the ages went slowly by, then immortality were a curse, not to\nthat man only, but to all mankind--for no amount of happiness, merited\nor undeserved, could ever atone or make up for the horrid wrong done to\nthat one most miserable man. Who of you is there that could relish\nHeaven, or even bear it for a moment, knowing that a brother was doomed\nto smart with ever greatening agony, while year on year, and age on age,\nthe endless chain of eternity continued to coil round the flying wheels\nof hell? I say the thought of one such man would fill even Heaven with\nmisery, and the best man of men would scorn the joys of everlasting\nbliss, would spurn at Heaven and say, \"Give me my brother's place; for\nme there is no Heaven while he is there!\" Now it has been popularly\ntaught, that not one man alone, but the vast majority of all mankind,\nare thus to be condemned; immortal only to be everlastingly wretched.\nThat is the popular doctrine now in this land. It has been so taught in\nthe Christian churches these sixteen centuries and more--taught in the\nname of Christ! Such an immortality would be a curse to men, to every\nman; as much so to the \"saved\" as to the \"lost;\" for who would willingly\nstay in Heaven, and on such terms? Surely not he who wept with weeping\nmen! Yet in spite of this vile doctrine drawn over the world to come,\nmankind religiously believes that each shall live for ever. This shows\nhow strong is the instinct which can lift up such a foul and hateful\ndoctrine and still live on. Tell me not that scoffers and critics shall\ntake away man's faith in endless life: it has stood a harder test than\ncan ever come again.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nII. The next argument is drawn from the nature of man.\n\n1. All men desire to be immortal. This desire is instinctive, natural,\nuniversal. In God's world such a desire implies the satisfaction thereof\nequally natural and universal. It cannot be that God has given man this\nuniversal desire of immortality, this belief in it, and yet made it all\na mockery. Man loves truth; tells it; rests only in it; how much more\nGod who is the trueness of truth. Bodily senses imply their objects--the\neye light, the ear sound; the touch, the taste, the smell, things\nrelative thereto. Spiritual senses likewise foretell their object,--are\nsilent prophecies of endless life. The love of justice, beauty, truth,\nof man and God, points to realities unseen as yet. We are ever hungering\nafter noblest things, and what we feed on makes us hunger more. The\nsenses are satisfied, but the soul never.\n\n2. Then, too, while this composite body unavoidably decays, this simple\nsoul which is my life decays not. Reason, the affections, all the powers\nthat make the man, decay not. True, the organs by which they act become\nimpaired. But there is no cause for thinking that love, conscience,\nreason, will, ever become weaker in man; but cause for thinking that all\nthese continually become more strong. Was the mind of Newton gone when\nhis frame, long over-tasked, refused its wonted work?\n\n3. Here on earth, every thing in its place and time matures. The acorn\nand the chestnut, things natural to this climate, ripen every year. A\nlonger season would make them no better nor bigger. It is so with our\nbody--that, under proper conditions, becomes mature. It is so with all\nthe things of earth. But man is not fully grown as the acorn and the\nchestnut; never gets mature. Take the best man and the greatest--all his\nfaculties are not developed, fully grown and matured. He is not complete\nin the qualities of a man; nay, often half his qualities lie all unused.\nShall we conclude these are never to obtain development and do their\nwork? The analogy of nature tells us that man, the new-born plant, is\nbut removed by death to another soil, where he shall grow complete and\nbecome mature.\n\n4. Then, too, each other thing under its proper conditions not only\nripens but is perfect also after its kind. Each clover-seed is perfect\nas a star. Every lion, as a general rule, is a common representation of\nall lionhood; the ideal of his race made real in him, a thousand years\nof life would not make him more. But where is the Adamitic man; the type\nand representative of his race, who makes actual its idea? Even Jesus\nbids you not call him good; no man has all the manhood of mankind. Yes,\nthere are rudiments of greatness in us all, but abortive, incomplete,\nand stopped in embryo. Now all these elements of manhood point as\ndirectly to another state as the unfinished walls of yonder rising\nchurch intimate that the work is not complete, that the artist here\nintends a roof, a window there, here a tower, and over all a\nheaven-piercing spire. All men are abortions, our failure pointing to\nthe real success. Nay, we are all waiting to be born, our whole nature\nlooking to another world, and dimly presaging what that world shall be.\nDeath, however we misname him, seasonable or out of time, is the\nbirth-angel, that alone.\n\n5. Besides, the presence of injustice, of wrong, points the same way.\nThe fact that one man goes out of this life in childhood, in manhood, at\nany time before the natural measure of his days is full; the fact that\nany one is by circumstances made wretched; that he is hindered from his\nproper growth and has not here his natural due--all intimates to me his\nfuture life. I know that God is just. I know His justice too shall make\nall things right, for He must have the power, the wish, the will\ntherefor, to speak in human speech. I see the injustice in this city,\nits pauperism, suffering, and crime, men smarting all their life, and by\nno fault of theirs. I know there must be another hemisphere to balance\nthis; another life, wherein justice shall come to all and for all. Else\nGod were unjust; and an unjust God to me is no God at all, but a\nwretched chimera which my soul rejects with scorn. I see the autumn\nprefigured in the spring. The flowers of May-day foretold the harvest,\nits rosy apples and its yellow ears of corn. As the bud now lying cold\nand close upon the bark of every tree throughout our northern clime is a\nsilent prophecy of yet another spring and other summers, and harvests\ntoo; so this instinctive love of justice scantly budding here and nipped\nby adverse fate, silently but clearly tells of a kingdom of heaven. I\ntake some miserable child here in this city, squalid in dress and look,\nignorant and wicked too as most men judge of vagrant vice, made so by\ncircumstances over which that child had no control; I turn off with a\nshudder at the public wrong we have done and still are doing; but in\nthat child I see proof of another world, yes, Heaven glittering from\nbehind those saddened eyes. I know that child has a man's nature in him,\nperhaps a Channing's trusting piety; perhaps a Newton's mind; has surely\nrudiments of more than these; for what were Channing, Newton, both of\nthem, but embryo men? I turn off with a shudder at the public wrong, but\na faith in God's justice, in that child's eternal life, which nothing\ncan ever shake.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIII. A third argument is drawn from the nature of God. He, as the\ninfinite, the unconditioned, the absolute, is all-powerful, all-wise,\nall-good. Therefore he must wish the best of all possible things; must\nknow the best of all possible things; must will the best of all possible\nthings, and so bring it to pass. Life is a possible thing; eternal life\nis possible. Neither implies a contradiction; yes, to me they seem\nnecessary, more than possible. Now, then, as life, serene and happy\nlife, is better than non-existence, so immortality is better than\nperpetual death. God must know that, wish that, will that, and so bring\nthat about. Man, therefore, must be immortal. This argument is brief\nindeed, but I see not how it can be withstood.\n\nI do not know that one of you doubts of eternal life. If any does, I\nknow not if these thoughts will ever affect his doubt. Still, I think\neach argument is powerful; to one that thinks, reasons, balances, and\nthen decides, exceeding powerful. All put together form a mass of\nargument which, as it seems to me, no logic can resist. Yet I beg you to\nunderstand that I do not rest immortality on any reasoning of mine, but\non reason itself; not on these logical arguments, but on man's\nconsciousness, and the instinctive belief which is common to the human\nrace. I believed my immortality before I proved it; believed it just as\nstrongly then as now. Nay, could some doubter rise, and, to my thinking,\nvanquish all these arguments, I should still hold fast my native faith,\nnor fear the doubter's arms. The simple consciousness of men is stronger\nthan all forms of proof. Still, if men want arguments--why, there they\nare.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe belief in immortality is one thing; the special form thereof, the\ndefinite notion of the future life, another and quite different. The\npopular doctrine in our churches I think is this: That this body which\nwe lay in the dust shall one day be raised again, the living soul joined\non anew, and both together live the eternal life. But where is the soul\nall this time, between our death-day and our day of rising? Some say it\nsleeps unconscious, dead all this time; others, that it is in Heaven\nnow, or else in hell; others, in a strange and transient home, imperfect\nin its joy or woe, waiting the final day and more complete account. It\nseems to me this notion is absurd and impossible: absurd in its doctrine\nrelative to the present condition of departed souls; impossible in what\nit teaches of the resurrection of this body. If my soul is to claim the\nbody again, which shall it be, the body I was born into, or that I died\nout of? If I live to the common age of men, changing my body as I must,\nand dying daily, then I have worn some eight or ten bodies. So at the\nlast, which body shall claim my soul, for the ten had her? The soul\nherself may claim them all. But to make the matter still more intricate,\nthere is in the earth but a certain portion of matter out of which human\nbodies can be made. Considering all the millions of men now living, the\nmyriads of millions that have been before, it is plain, I think, that\nall the matter suitable for human bodies has been lived over many times.\nSo if the world were to end to-day, instead of each old man having ten\nbodies from which to choose the one that fits him best, there would be\nten men, all clamoring for each body! Shall I then have a handful of my\nformer dust, and that alone? That is not the resurrection of my former\nbody. This whole doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh seems to me\nimpossible and absurd.\n\nI know men refer this, as many other things no better, to Jesus. I find\nno satisfactory evidence that he taught the resurrection of the body;\nthere is some evidence that he did not. I know it was the doctrine of\nthe Pharisees of his time, of Paul, the early Christians, and more or\nless of the Christian churches to this day. In Christ's time in Judea,\nthere were the Sadducees, who taught the eternal death of men; the\nPharisees who taught the resurrection of the flesh and its reunion with\nthe soul; the Essenes, who taught the immortality of the soul, but\nrejected the resurrection of the body. Paul was a Pharisee, and in his\nletters taught the resurrection of the dead, the belief of the\nPharisees. From him it has come down to us, and in the creed of many\nchurches it is still written, \"I believe in the resurrection of the\nflesh.\" Many doubted this in early times, but the council of Nice\ndeclared all men accursed who dared to doubt the resurrection of the\nflesh. I mention this as absurd and impossible, because it is still, I\nfear, the popular belief, and lest some should confound the doctrine of\nimmortality with this tenet of the Pharisees. Let it be remembered the\nimmortality of the soul is one thing, the resurrection of the body\nanother and quite different.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat is this future life? what can we know of it besides its existence?\nSome men speak as if they knew the way around Heaven as around the wards\nof their native city. What we can know in detail is cautiously to be\ninferred from the nature of man and the nature of God. I will modestly\nset down what seems to me.\n\nIt must be a conscious state. Man is by his nature conscious; yes,\nself-conscious. He is progressive in his self-consciousness. I cannot\nthink a removal out of the body destroys this consciousness; rather that\nit enhances and intensifies this. Yet consciousness in the next life\nmust differ as much from consciousness here as the ripe peach differs\nfrom the blossom, or the bud, or the bark, or the earthly materials out\nof which it grew. The child is no limit to the man, nor my consciousness\nnow to what I may be, must be hereafter.\n\nIt must be a social state. Our nature is social; our joys social. For\nour progress here, our happiness, we depend on one another. Must it not\nbe so there? It must be an advance upon our nature and condition here.\nAll the analogy of nature teaches that. Things advance from small to\ngreat; from base to beautiful. The girl grows into a woman; the bud\nswells into the blossom, that into the fruit. The process over, the work\nbegins anew. How much more must it be so in the other life. What old\npowers we shall discover now buried in the flesh; what new powers shall\ncome upon us in that new state, no man can know; it were but poetic\nidleness to talk of them. We see in some great man, what power of\nintellect, imagination, justice, goodness, piety, he reveals, lying\nlatent in us all. How men bungle in their works of art! No Raphael can\npaint a dew-drop or a flake of frost. Yet some rude man, tired with his\nwork, lies down beneath a tree, his head upon his swarthy arm, and sleep\nshuts, one by one, these five scant portals of the soul, and what an\nartist is he made at once! How brave a sky he paints above him, with\nwhat golden garniture of clouds set off; what flowers and trees, what\nmen and women does he not create, and moving in celestial scenes! What\nyears of history does he condense in one short minute, and when he\nwakes, shakes off the purple drapery of his dream as if it were but\nworthless dust and girds him for his work anew! What other powers there\nare shut up in men less known than this artistic phantasy; powers of\nseeing the distant, recalling the past, predicting the future, feeling\nat once the character of men--of this we know little, only by rare\nglimpses at the unwonted side of things. But yet we know enough to guess\nthere are strange wonders there waiting to be revealed.\n\nWhat form our conscious, social, and increased activity shall take, we\nknow not. We know of that no more than before our birth we knew of this\nworld, of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch, or the things which\nthey reveal. We are not born into that world, have not its senses yet.\nThis we know, that the same God, all-powerful, all-wise, all-good, rules\nthere and then, as here and now. Who cannot trust him to do right and\nbest for all? For my own part, I feel no wish to know how or where, or\nwhat I shall be hereafter. I know it will be right for my truest\nwelfare; for the good of all. I am satisfied with this trust.\n\nYet the next life must be a state of retribution. Thither we carry\nnothing but ourselves, our naked selves. Our fortune we leave behind us;\nour honors and rank return to such as gave; even our reputation, the\ngood or ill men thought we were, clings to us no more. We go thither\nwithout our staff or scrip; nothing but the man we are. Yet that man is\nthe result of all life's daily work; it is the one thing which we have\nbrought to pass. I cannot believe men who have voluntarily lived mean,\nlittle, vulgar and selfish lives, will go out of this and into that,\ngreat, noble, generous, good, and holy. Can the practical saint and the\npractical hypocrite enter on the same course of being together? I know\nthe sufferings of bad men here, the wrong they do their nature, and what\ncomes of that wrong. I think that suffering is the best part of sin, the\nmedicine to heal it with. What men suffer here from their wrong-doing is\nits natural consequence; but all that suffering is a mercy, designed to\nmake them better. Every thing in this world is adapted to promote the\nwelfare of God's creatures. Must it not be so in the next? How many men\nseem wicked from our point of view, who are not so from their own; how\nmany become infamous through no fault of theirs; the victims of\ncircumstances, born into crime, of low and corrupt parents, whom former\ncircumstances made corrupt! Such men cannot be sinners before God. Here\nthey suffer from the tyranny of appetites they never were taught to\nsubdue; they have not the joy of a cultivated mind. The children of the\nwild Indian are capable of the same cultivation as children here; yet\nthey are savages. Is it always to be so? Is God to be partial in\ngranting the favors of another life? I cannot believe it. I doubt not\nthat many a soul rises up from the dungeon and the gallows, yes, from\ndens of infamy amongst men, clean and beautiful before God. Christ, says\nthe Gospel, assured the penitent thief of sharing heaven with him--and\nthat day. Many seem inferior to me, who in God's sight must be far\nbefore me; men who now seem too low to learn of me here, may be too high\nto teach me there.\n\nI cannot think the future world is to be feared, even by the worst of\nmen. I had rather die a sinner than live one. Doubtless justice is there\nto be done; that may seem stern and severe. But remember God's justice\nis not like a man's; it is not vengeance, but mercy; not poison, but\nmedicine. To me it seems tuition more than chastisement. God is not the\nJailer of the Universe, but the Shepherd of the people; not the Hangman\nof mankind, but their Physician; yes, our Father. I cannot fear Him as I\nfear men. I cannot fail to love. I abhor sin, I loathe and nauseate\nthereat; most of all at my own. I can plead for others and extenuate\ntheir guilt, perhaps they for mine; not I for my own. I know God's\njustice will overtake me, giving me what I have paid for. But I do not,\ncannot fear it. I know His justice is love; that if I suffer, it is for\nmy everlasting joy. I think this is a natural state of mind. I do not\nfind that men ever dread the future life, or turn pale on their\ndeath-bed at thought of God's vengeance, except when a priesthood has\nfrightened them to that. The world's literature, which is the world's\nconfession, proves what I say. In Greece, in classic days, when there\nwas no caste of priests, the belief in immortality was current and\nstrong. But in all her varied literature I do not remember a man dying,\nyet afraid of God's vengeance. The rude Indian of our native land did\nnot fear to meet the Great Spirit, face to face. I have sat by the\nbedside of wicked men, and while death was dealing with my brother, I\nhave watched the tide slow ebbing from the shore, but I have known no\none afraid to go. Say what we will, there is nothing stronger and deeper\nin men than confidence in God, a solemn trust that He will do us good.\nEven the worst man thinks God his Father; and is he not? Tell me not of\nGod's vengeance, punishing men for his own glory! There is no such\nthing. Talk not to me of endless hell, where men must suffer for\nsuffering's sake, be damned for an eternity of woe. I tell you there is\nno such thing, nor can there ever be. Does not even the hireling\nshepherd, when a single lamb has gone astray, leave the ninety and nine\nsafe in their fold, go forth some stormy night and seek the wanderer,\nrejoicing to bring home the lost one on his shoulders? And shall God\nforget His child, his frailest or most stubborn child; leave him in\nendless misery, a prey to insatiate Sin, that grim, bloodthirsty wolf,\nprowling about the human fold? I tell you No; not God. Why, this\neccentric earth forsakes the sun awhile, careering fast and far away,\nbut that attractive power prevails at length, and the returning globe\ncomes rounding home again. Does a mortal mother desert her son, wicked,\ncorrupt and loathsome though he be? If so, the wiser world cries, Shame!\nBut she does not. When her child becomes loathsome and hateful to the\nworld, drunk with wickedness, and when the wicked world puts him away\nout of its sight, strangling him to death, that mother forgets not her\nchild. She had his earliest kiss from lips all innocent of coming ill,\nand she will have his last. Yes, she will press his cold and stiffened\nform to her own bosom; the bosom that bore and fed the innocent babe\nyearns yet with mortal longing for the murdered murderer. Infamous to\nthe world, his very dust is sacred dust to her. She braves the world's\nreproach, buries her son, piously hoping, that as their lives once\nmingled, so their ashes shall. The world, cruel and forgetful oft,\nhonors the mother in its deepest heart. Do you tell me that culprit's\nmother loves her son more than God can love him? Then go and worship\nher. I know that when father and mother both forsake me, in the\nextremity of my sin, I know my God loves on. Oh yes, ye sons of men,\nIndian and Greek, ye are right to trust your God. Do priests and their\nchurches say No!--bid them go and be silent forever. No grain of dust\ngets lost from off this dusty globe; and shall God lose a man from off\nthis sphere of souls? Believe it not.\n\nI know that suffering follows sin, lasting long as the sin. I thank God\nit is so; that God's own angel stands there to warn back the erring\nBalaams, wandering towards woe. But God, who sends the rain, the dew,\nthe sun, on me as on a better man, will, at last, I doubt it not, make\nus all pure, all just, all good, and so, at last, all happy. This\nfollows from the nature of God himself, for the All-good must wish the\nwelfare of His child; the All-wise know how to achieve that welfare; the\nAll-powerful bring it to pass. Tell me He wishes not the eternal welfare\nof all men, then I say, That is not the God of the universe. I own not\nthat as God. Nay, I tell you it is not God you speak of, but some\nheathen fancy, smoking up from your unhuman heart. I would ask the worst\nof mothers, Did you forsake your child because he went astray, and\nmocked your word? \"Oh no,\" she says; \"he was but a child, he knew no\nbetter, and I led him right, corrected him for his good, not mine!\" Are\nwe not all children before God; the wisest, oldest, wickedest, God's\nchild! I am sure He will never forsake me, how wicked soever I become. I\nknow that he is love; love, too, that never fails. I expect to suffer\nfor each conscious, wilful wrong; I wish, I hope, I long to suffer for\nit. I am wronged if I do not; what I do not outgrow, live over and\nforget here, I hope to expiate there. I fear a sin; not to outgrow a\nsin.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA man who has lived here a manly life, must enter the next under the\nmost favorable circumstances. I do not mean a man of mere negative\ngoodness, starting in the road of old custom, with his wheels deep in\nthe ruts, not having life enough to go aside, but a positively good man,\none bravely good. He has lived heaven here, and must enter higher up\nthan a really wicked man, or a slothful one, or one but negatively good.\nHe can go from earth to heaven, as from one room to another, pass\ngradually, as from winter to spring. To such an one, no revolution\nappears needed. The next life, it seems, must be a continual progress,\nthe improvement of old powers, the disclosure or accession of new ones.\nWhat nobler reach of thought, what profounder insight, what more\nheavenly imagination, what greater power of conscience, faith and love,\nwill bless us there and then, it were vain to calculate, it is far\nbeyond our span. You see men now, whose souls are one with God, and so\nHis will works through them as the magnetic fire runs on along the\nunimpeding line. What happiness they have, it is they alone can say. How\nmuch greater must it be there; not even they can tell. Here the body\nhelps us to some things. Through these five small loop-holes the world\nlooks in. How much more does the body hinder us from seeing? Through the\nsickly body yet other worlds look in. He who has seen only the daylight,\nknows nothing of that heaven of stars, which all night long hang\noverhead their lamps of gold. When death has dusted off this body from\nme, who will dream for me the new powers I shall possess? It were vain\nto try. Time shall reveal it all.\n\nI cannot believe that any state in Heaven is a final state, only a\ncondition of progress. The bud opens into the blossom, the flower\nmatures into the fruit. The salvation of to-day is not blessedness\nenough for to-morrow. Here we are first babes of earth, with a few\nsenses, and those imperfect, helpless and ignorant; then children of\nearth; then youths; then men, armed with reason, conscience, affection,\npiety, and go on enlarging these without end. So methinks it must be\nthere, that we shall be first babes of Heaven, then children, next\nyouths, and so go on growing, advancing and advancing--our being only a\nbecoming more and more, with no possibility of ever reaching the end. If\nthis be true, then there must be a continual increase of being. So, in\nsome future age, the time will come, when each one of us shall have more\nmind, and heart, and soul, than Christ on earth; more than all men now\non earth have ever had; yes, more than they and all the souls of men now\npassed to Heaven;--shall have, each one of us, more being than they all\nhave had, and so more truth, more soul, more faith, more rest and bliss\nof life.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nDo men of the next world look in upon this? Are they present with us,\nconscious of our deeds or thoughts? Who knows? Who can say aye or no?\nThe unborn know nothing of the life on earth; yet the born of earth know\nsomewhat of them, and make ready for their coming. Who knows but men\nborn to heaven are waiting for your birth to come--have gone to prepare\na place for us? All that is fancy, and not fact; it is not philosophy,\nbut poetry; no more. Of this we may be sure, that what is best will be;\nwhat best for saint or sinner; what most conducive to their real good.\nThat is no poetry, but unavoidable truth, which all mankind may well\nbelieve.\n\nThere are many who never attained their true stature here, yet without\nblameworthiness of theirs; men cheated of their growth. Many a Milton\nwalks on his silent way, and goes down at last, not singing and unsung.\nHow many a possible Newton or Descartes has dug the sewers of a city,\nand dies, giving no sign of the wealthy soul he bore!\n\n    \"Chill penury repressed his noble rage,\n    And froze the genial current of the soul.\"\n\nWhat if the best of you had been born slaves in North Carolina, or among\nsavages at New Zealand; nay, in some of the filthy cellars of Boston,\nand turned friendless into the streets; what might you have become?\nSurely not what you are; yet, before God, you might, perhaps, be more\ndeserving, and, at death, go to a far higher place. What is so terribly\nwrong here, must be righted there. It cannot be that God will thrust a\nman out of Heaven, because his mother was a savage, a slave, a pauper,\nor a criminal. It is men's impiety which does so here, not Heaven's\njustice there! How the wrong shall be righted I know not, care not now\nto know; of the fact I ask no further certainty. Many that are last\nshall be first. It may be that the pirate, in heaven, having outgrown\nhis earthly sins, shall teach justice to the judge who hanged him here.\nThey who were oppressed and trampled on, kept down, dwarfed, stinted and\nemaciate in soul, must have justice done them there, and will doubtless\nstand higher in Heaven than we, who, having many talents, used them\npoorly, or hid them idle in the dirt, knowing our Father's will, yet\nheeding not. It was Jesus that said, Many shall come from the east and\nthe west, and sit down in the kingdom of God, and men, calling\nthemselves saints, be thrust out.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nShall we remember the deeds of the former life; this man that he picked\nrags out of the mud in the streets, and another that he ruled nations?\nWho can tell; nay, who need care to ask? Such a remembrance seems not\nneeded for retribution's sake. The oak remembers not each leaf it ever\nbore, though each helped to form the oak, its branch and bole. How much\nhas gone from our bodies! we know not how it came or went! How much of\nour past life is gone from our memory, yet its result lives in our\ncharacter! The saddler remembers not every stitch he took while an\napprentice, yet each stitch helped form the saddle.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nShall we know our friends again? For my own part I cannot doubt it;\nleast of all when I drop a tear over their recent dust. Death does not\nseparate them from us here. Can life in heaven do it? They live in our\nremembrance; memory rakes in the ashes of the dead, and the virtues of\nthe departed flame up anew, enlightening the dim cold walls of our\nconsciousness. Much of our joy is social here; we only half enjoy an\nundivided good. God made mankind, but sundered that into men, that they\nmight help one another. Must it not be so there, and we be with our\nreal friends? Man loves to think it; yet to trust is wiser than to\nprophesy. But the girl who went from us a little one may be as parent to\nher father when he comes, and the man who left us have far outgrown our\ndream of an angel when we meet again. I cannot doubt that many a man who\nnot long ago left his body here, now far surpasses the radiant manliness\nwhich Jesus won and wore; yes, is far better, greater, too, than many\npoorly conceive of God.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere are times when we think little of a future life. In a period of\nsuccess, serene and healthy life; the day's good is good enough for that\nday. But there comes a time when this day's good is not enough; its ill\ntoo great to bear. When death comes down and wrenches off a friend from\nour side; wife, child, brother, father, a dear one taken; this life is\nnot enough. Oh, no, not to the coldest, coarsest, and most sensual man.\nI put it to you, to the most heartless of you all, or the most cold and\ndoubting--When you lay down in the earth your mother, sister, wife, or\nchild, remembering that you shall see their face no more, is life\nenough? Do you not reach out your arms for heaven, for immortality, and\nfeel you cannot die? When I see men at a feast, or busy in the street, I\ndo not think of their eternal life; perhaps feel not my own. But when\nthe stiffened body goes down to the tomb, sad, silent, remorseless, I\nfeel there is no death for the man. That clod which yonder dust shall\ncover is not my brother. The dust goes to its place, the man to his own.\nIt is then I feel my immortality. I look through the grave into heaven.\nI ask no miracle, no proof, no reasoning for me. I ask no risen dust to\nteach me immortality. I am conscious of eternal life.\n\nBut there are worse hours than these: seasons bitterer than death,\nsorrows that lie a latent poison in the heart, slowly sapping the\nfoundations of our peace. There are hours when the best life seems a\nsheer failure to the man who lived it, his wisdom folly, his genius\nimpotence, his best deed poor and small; when he wonders why he was\nsuffered to be born; when all the sorrows of the world seem poured upon\nhim; when he stands in a populous loneliness, and though weak, can only\nlean in upon himself. In such hour he feels the insufficiency of this\nlife. It is only his cradle-time, he counts himself just born; all\nhonors, wealth and fame are but baubles in his baby hand; his deep\nphilosophy but nursery rhymes. Yet he feels the immortal fire burning in\nhis heart. He stretches his hands out from the swaddling-clothes of\nflesh, reaching after the topmost star, which he sees, or dreams he\nsees, and longs to go alone. Still worse, the consciousness of sin comes\nover him; he feels that he has insulted himself. All about him seems\nlittle; himself little, yet clamoring to be great. Then we feel our\nimmortality; through the gairish light of day we see a star or two\nbeyond. The soul within us feels her wings, contending to be born,\nimpatient for the sky, and wrestles with the earthly worm that folds us\nin.\n\n    \"Mysterious Night! when our first Parent knew\n      Thee from report divine, and heard thy name,\n    Did he not tremble for this lovely frame,\n      This glorious canopy of light and blue?\n    Yet 'neath a curtain of translucent dew,\n      Bathed in the rays of the great setting flame,\n    Hesperus with the host of heaven came;\n      And lo, Creation widened in man's view.\n    Who could have thought such darkness lay concealed\n      Within thy beams, O Sun? or who could find,\n    Whilst fly and leaf and insect stood revealed,\n      That to such countless orbs thou mad'st us blind?\n    Why do we then shun Death with anxious strife?\n      If Light can thus deceive, wherefore not Life?\"\n\nI would not slight this wondrous world. I love its day and night. Its\nflowers and its fruits are dear to me. I would not wilfully lose sight\nof a departing cloud. Every year opens new beauty in a star; or in a\npurple gentian fringed with loveliness. The laws too of matter seem more\nwonderful the more I study them, in the whirling eddies of the dust, in\nthe curious shells of former life buried by thousands in a grain of\nchalk, or in the shining diagrams of light above my head. Even the ugly\nbecomes beautiful when truly seen. I see the jewel in the bunchy toad.\nThe more I live, the more I love this lovely world; feel more its Author\nin each little thing; in all that is great. But yet I feel my\nimmortality the more. In childhood the consciousness of immortal life\nbuds forth feeble, though full of promise. In the man it unfolds its\nfragrant petals, his most celestial flower, to mature its seed\nthroughout eternity. The prospect of that everlasting life, the perfect\njustice yet to come, the infinite progress before us, cheer and comfort\nthe heart. Sad and disappointed, full of self-reproach, we shall not be\nso forever. The light of heaven breaks upon the night of trial, sorrow,\nsin; the sombre clouds which overhung the east, grown purple now, tell\nus the dawn of heaven is coming in. Our faces, gleamed on by that, smile\nin the new-born glow; we are beguiled of our sadness before we are\naware. The certainty of this provokes us to patience, it forbids us to\nbe slothfully sorrowful. It calls us to be up and doing. The thought\nthat all will at last be right with the slave, the poor, the weak, and\nthe wicked, inspires us with zeal to work for them here, and make it all\nright for them even now.\n\nThere is small merit in being willing to die; it seems almost sinful in\na good man to wish it when the world needs him here so much. It is weak\nand unmanly to be always looking and sighing voluptuously for that. But\nit is of great comfort to have in your soul a sure trust in\nimmortality; of great value here and now to anticipate time and live\nto-day the eternal life. That we may all do. The joys of heaven will\nbegin as soon as we attain the character of heaven and do its duties.\nThat may begin to-day. It is everlasting life to know God, to have His\nSpirit dwelling in you, yourself at one with Him. Try that and prove its\nworth. Justice, usefulness, wisdom, religion, love, are the best things\nwe hope for in Heaven. Try them on--they will fit you here not less\nbecomingly. They are the best things of earth. Think no outlay of\ngoodness and piety too great. You will find your reward begin here. As\nmuch goodness and piety, so much Heaven. Men will not pay you--God will;\npay you now; pay you hereafter and for ever.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nTHE PUBLIC EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE.--AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE\nONONDAGA TEACHERS' INSTITUTE, AT SYRACUSE, NEW YORK, OCTOBER 4, 1849.\n\n\nEducation is the developing and furnishing of the faculties of man. To\neducate the people is one of the functions of the State. It is generally\nallowed in the free States of America, that the community owes each\nchild born into it a chance for education, intellectual, moral, and\nreligious. Hence the child has a just and recognized claim on the\ncommunity for the means of this education, which is to be afforded him,\nnot as a charity, but as a right.\n\nThe fact indicates the progress mankind has made in not many years. Once\nthe state only took charge of the military education of the people; not\nat all of their intellectual, moral, or religious culture. They received\ntheir military discipline, not for the special and personal advantage of\nthe individuals, Thomas and Oliver, but for the benefit of the state.\nThey received it, not because they were men claiming it in virtue of\ntheir manhood, but as subjects of the state, because their military\ntraining was needful for the state, or for its rulers who took the name\nthereof. Then the only culture which the community took public pains to\nbestow on its members, was training them to destroy. The few, destined\nto command, learned the science of destruction, and the kindred science\nof defence; the many, doomed to obey, learned only the art to destroy,\nand the kindred art of defence.\n\nThe ablest men of the nation were sought out for military teachers,\ngiving practical lessons of the science and the art; they were covered\nwith honor and loaded with gold. The wealth of the people and their\nhighest science went to this work. Institutions were founded to promote\nthis education, and carefully watched over by the state, for it was\nthought the Commonwealth depended on disciplined valor. The soldier was\nthought to be the type of the state, the archetype of man; accordingly\nthe highest spiritual function of the state was the production of\nsoldiers.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMost of the civilized nations have passed through that stage of their\ndevelopment: though the few or the many are still taught the science or\nthe art of war in all countries called Christian, there is yet a class\nof men for whom the state furnishes the means of education that is not\nmilitary; means of education which the individuals of that class could\nnot provide for themselves. This provision is made at the cost of the\nstate; that is, at the cost of every man in the state, for what the\npublic pays, you pay and I pay, rich or poor, willingly and consciously,\nor otherwise. This class of men is different in different countries, and\ntheir education is modified to suit the form of government and the idea\nof the state. In Rome the state provides for the public education of\npriests. Rome is an ecclesiastical state; her government is a\nTheocracy--a government of all the people, but by the priests, for the\nsake of the priests, and in the name of God. Place in the church is\npower, bringing honor and wealth; no place out of the church is of much\nvalue. The offices are filled by priests, the chief magistrate is a\npriest, supposed to derive his power and right to rule, not\ndemocratically, from the people, or royally, by inheritance,--for in\ntheory the priest is as if he had no father, as theoretically he has no\nchild,--but theocratically from God.\n\nIn Rome the priesthood is thought to be the flower of the state. The\nmost important spiritual function of the state, therefore, is the\nproduction of priests; accordingly the greatest pains are taken with\ntheir education. Institutions are founded at the public cost, to make\npriests out of men; these institutions are the favorites of government,\nwell ordered, well watched over, well attended, and richly honored.\nInstitutions for the education of the people are of small account, ill\nendowed, watched over but poorly, thinly attended, and not honored at\nall. The people are designed to be subjects of the church, and as little\nculture is needed for that, though much to make them citizens thereof,\nso little is given.\n\nAs there are institutions for the education of the priests, so there is\na class of men devoted to that work; able men, well disciplined,\nsometimes men born with genius, and always men furnished with the\naccomplishments of sacerdotal and scientific art; very able men, very\nwell disciplined, the most learned and accomplished men in the land.\nThese men are well paid and abundantly honored, for on their\nfaithfulness the power of the priesthood, and so the welfare of the\nstate, is thought to depend. Without the allurement of wealth and\nhonors, these able men would not come to this work; and without the help\nof their ability, the priests could not be well educated. Hence their\npower would decline; the class, tonsured and consecrated but not\ninstructed, would fall into contempt; the theocracy would end. So the\neducators of the priests are held in honor, surrounded by baits for\nvulgar eyes; but the public educators of the people, chiefly women or\nignorant men, are held in small esteem. The very buildings destined to\nthe education of the priests are conspicuous and stately; the colleges\nof the Jesuits, the Propaganda, the seminaries for the education of\npriests, the monasteries for training the more wealthy and _regular_\nclergy, are great establishments, provided with libraries, and furnished\nwith all the apparatus needful for their important work. But the\nschool-houses for the people are small and mean buildings, ill made, ill\nfurnished, and designed for a work thought to be of little moment. All\nthis is in strict harmony with the idea of the theocracy, where the\npriesthood is mighty and the people are subjects of the Church; where\nthe effort of the state is toward producing a priest.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn England the state takes charge of the education of another class, the\nnobility and gentry; that is, of young men of ancient and historical\nfamilies, the nobility, and young men of fortune, the gentry. England is\nan oligarchical state; her government an aristocracy, the government of\nall by a few, the nobility and gentry, for the sake of a few, and in the\nname of a king. There the foundation of power is wealth and birth from a\nnoble family. The union of both takes place in a wealthy noble. There,\nnobility is the blossom of the state; aristocratic birth brings wealth,\noffice, and their consequent social distinction. Political offices are\nchiefly monopolized by men of famous birth or great riches. The king,\nthe chief officer of the land, must surpass all others in wealth, and\nthe pomp and circumstance which comes thereof, and in aristocracy of\nbirth. He is not merely noble but royal; his right to rule is not at\nall derived from the people, but from his birth. Thus he has the two\nessentials of aristocratic influence, birth and wealth, not merely in\nthe heroic degree, but in the supreme degree.\n\nAs the state is an aristocracy, its most important spiritual function is\nthe production of aristocrats; each noble family transmits the full\npower of its blood only to a single person--the oldest son; of the\nhighest form, the royal, only one is supposed to be born in a\ngeneration, only one who receives and transmits in full the blood royal.\n\nAs the nobility are the blossom of the state, great pains must be taken\nwith the education of those persons born of patrician or wealthy\nfamilies. As England is not merely a military or ecclesiastical state,\nthough partaking largely of both, but commercial, agricultural and\nproductive in many ways; as she holds a very prominent place in the\npolitics of the world, so there must be a good general education\nprovided for these persons; otherwise their power would decline, the\nnobility and gentry sink into contempt, and the government pass into\nother hands,--for though a man may be born to rank and wealth, he is not\nborn to knowledge, nor to practical skill. Hence institutions are\nfounded for the education of the aristocratic class: Oxford and\nCambridge, \"those twins of learning,\" with their preparatories and\nhelp-meets.\n\nThe design of these institutions is to educate the young men of family\nand fortune. The aim in their academic culture is not as in Pagan Rome,\na military state, to make soldiers, nor as in Christian Rome, to turn\nout priests; it is not, as in the German universities, to furnish the\nworld with scholars and philosophers, men of letters and science, but to\nmature and furnish the gentleman, in the technical sense of that word, a\nperson conventionally fitted to do the work of a complicated\naristocratic state, to fill with honor its various offices, military,\npolitical, ecclesiastical or social, and enjoy the dignity which comes\nthereof. These universities furnish the individual who resorts thither\nwith opportunities not otherwise to be had; they are purchased at the\ncost of the state, at the cost of each man in the state. The alumnus at\nOxford pays his term-bills, indeed, but the amount thereof is a trifle\ncompared to the actual cost of his residence there; mankind pays the\nresidue.\n\nThese institutions are continually watched over by the state, which is\nthe official guardian of aristocratic education; they are occasionally\nassisted by grants from the public treasury, though they are chiefly\nendowed by the voluntary gifts of individual men. But these private\ngifts, like the public grants, come from the earnings of the whole\nnation. They are well endowed, superintended well, and richly honored;\ntheir chancellors and vice-chancellors are men of distinguished social\nrank; they have their representatives in Parliament; able men are sought\nout for teachers, professors, heads of houses; men of good ability, of\nmasterly education, and the accomplishments of a finished gentleman;\nthey are well paid, and copiously rewarded with honors and social\ndistinction. Gentility favors these institutions; nobility watches over\nthem, and royalty smiles upon them. In this threefold sunlight, no\nwonder that they thrive. The buildings at their service are among the\nmost costly and elegant in the land; large museums are attached to them,\nand immense libraries; every printer in England, at his own cost, must\ngive a copy of each book he publishes to Cambridge and Oxford. What\nwealth can buy, or artistic genius can create, is there devoted to the\nculture of this powerful class.\n\nBut while the nobility and gentry are reckoned the flower of the state,\nthe common people are only the leaves, and therefore thought of small\nimportance in the political botany of the nation. Their education is\namazingly neglected; is mainly left to the accidental piety of private\nChristians, to the transient charity of philanthropic men, or the\n\"enlightened self-interest\" of mechanics and small-traders, who now and\nthen found institutions for the education of some small fraction of the\nmultitude. But such institutions are little favored by the government,\nor the spirit of the dominant class; gentility does not frequent them,\nnor nobility help them, nor royalty watch over to foster and to bless.\nThe Parliament, which voted one hundred thousand pounds of the nation's\nmoney for the queen's horses and hounds, had but thirty thousand to\nspare for the education of her people. No honor attends the educators of\nthe people; no wealth is heaped up for them; no beautiful buildings are\nerected for their use; no great libraries got ready at the public\ncharge; no costly buildings are provided. You wonder at the colleges and\ncollegiate churches of Oxford and of Cambridge; at the magnificence of\npublic edifices in London, new or ancient--the House of Parliament, the\nBank, the palaces of royal and noble men, the splendor of the\nchurches--but you ask, where are the school-houses for the people? You\ngo to Bridewell and Newgate for the answer. All this is consistent with\nthe idea of an aristocracy. The gentleman is the type of the state; and\nthe effort of the state is towards producing him. The people require\nonly education enough to become the servants of the gentleman, and seem\nnot to be valued for their own sake, but only as they furnish pabulum\nfor the flower of the oligarchy.\n\nIn Rome and England, great sums have been given by wealthy men, and by\nthe state itself, to furnish the means of a theocratic or aristocratic\neducation to a certain class; and to produce the national priests, and\nthe national gentlemen. There public education is the privilege of a\nfew, but bought at the cost of the many; for the plough-boy in\nYorkshire, who has not culture enough to read the petition for daily\nbread in the Lord's Prayer, helps pay the salary of the Master of\nTrinity, and the swine-herd in the Roman Campagna, who knows nothing of\nreligion, except what he learns at Christmas and Easter, by seeing the\nPope carried on men's shoulders into St. Peter's, helps support the\nPropaganda and the Roman College. The privileged classes are to receive\nan education under the eye of the state, which considers itself bound to\nfurnish them the means of a public education, partly at the individual's\ncost, chiefly at the cost of the public. The amount of education depends\non three things:--on the educational attainments of the human race; on\nthe wealth and tranquillity of the special nation, enabling it to avail\nitself of that general attainment; and on the natural powers and\nindustry of the particular individual in the nation. Such is the\nsolidarity of mankind that the development of the individual thus\ndepends on that of the race, and the education of a priest in Rome or a\ngentleman in England is the resultant of these three forces,--the\nattainment of mankind, the power of the nation, and the private\ncharacter and conduct of the man himself. Each of these three is a\nvariable and not a constant quantity. So the amount of education which a\nman can receive at Oxford or at Rome fluctuates and depends on the\nstate of the nation and of the world; but as the attainments of mankind\nhave much increased within a few years, as the wealth of England has\nincreased, and her tranquillity become more secure, you see how easy it\nbecomes for the state to offer each gentleman an amount of education\nwhich it would have been quite impossible to furnish in the time of the\nYorks and the Lancasters.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn America things are quite other and different. I speak of the Free\nStates of the North; the Slave States have the worst features of an\noligarchy combined with a theocratic pride of caste, which generates\ncontinual unkindness; there the idea of the state is found inconsistent\nwith the general and public education of the people; it is as much so in\nSouth Carolina as in England or Rome; even more so, for the public and\ngeneral culture of all is only dangerous to a theocracy or aristocracy\nwhile it is directly fatal to slavery. In England, and still more in\nCatholic Rome, the churches--themselves a wonderful museum of\ncuriosities, and open all the day to all persons--form an important\nelement for the education of the most neglected class. But slavery and\neducation of the people are incommensurable quantities. No amount of\nviolence can be their common measure. The republic, where master and\nslave were equally educated, would soon be a red-republic. The\nslave-master knows this, and accordingly puts education to the ban, and\nglories in keeping three million barbarians in the land, and, of course,\nsuffers the necessary degradation which comes thereof. But in the free\nstates of the North the government is not a theocracy, or an\naristocracy; the state, in theory is not for the few, nor even for the\nmajority, but for all; classes are not recognized, and therefore not\nprotected in any privilege. The government is a democracy, the\ngovernment of all, by all, for all, and in the name of all. A man is\nborn to all the rights of mankind; all are born to them, so all are\nequal. Therefore, what the state pays for, not only comes at the cost of\nall, but must be for the use and benefit of all. Accordingly, as a\ntheocracy demands the education of priests, and an aristocracy that of\nthe nobility and the gentry, so a democracy demands the education of\nall. The aim must be, not to make priests and gentlemen of a few, a\nprivileged class, but to make men of all; that is, to give a normal and\nhealthy development of their intellectual, moral, affectional and\nreligious faculties, to furnish and instruct them with the most\nimportant elementary knowledge, to extend this development and\nfurnishing of the faculties as far as possible.\n\nInstitutions must be founded for this purpose--to educate all, rich and\npoor, men well-born with good abilities, men ill-born with slender\nnatural powers. In New England, these institutions have long since been\nfounded at the public cost, and watched over with paternal care, as the\nark of our covenant, the palladium of our nation. It has been recognized\nas a theory, and practised on as a fact, that all the property in the\nland is held by the state for the public education of the people, as it\nis for their defence; that property is amenable to education as to\nmilitary defence.\n\nIn a democracy there are two reasons why this theory and practice\nprevail. One is a political reason. It is for the advantage of the\nstate; for each man that keeps out of the jail and the poor-house,\nbecomes a voter at one-and-twenty; he may have some office of trust and\nhonor; the highest office is open before him. As so much depends on his\nvoting wisely, he must have a chance to qualify himself for his right of\nelecting and of being elected. It is as necessary now in a democracy,\nand as much demanded by the idea thereof, that all should be thus\nqualified by education, as it once was in a military state, that all\nshould be bred up soldiers.\n\nThe other is a philosophical reason. It is for the advantage of the\nindividual himself, irrespective of the state. The man is a man, an\ninteger, and the state is for him; as well as a fraction of the state,\nand he for it. He has a man's rights; and, however inferior in might to\nany other man, born of parentage how humble soever, to no wealth at all,\nwith a body never so feeble, he is yet a man, and so equal in rights to\nany other man born of a famous line, rich and able; of course he has a\nright to a chance for the best culture which the educational attainment\nof mankind, and the circumstances of the nation render possible to any\nman; to so much thereof as he has the inborn power and the voluntary\nindustry to acquire. This conclusion is getting acted on in New England,\nand there are schools for the dumb and the blind, even for the idiot and\nthe convict.\n\nSo, then, as the idea of our government demands the education of all,\nthe amount of education must depend on the same three variables\nmentioned before; it must be as good as it is possible for them to\nafford. The democratic state has never done its political and\neducational duty, until it affords every man a chance to obtain the\ngreatest amount of education which the attainment of mankind renders it\npossible for the nation, in its actual circumstances, to command, and\nthe man's nature and disposition render it possible for him to take.\n\nLooking at the matter politically, from the point of view of the State,\neach man must have education enough to exercise his rights of electing\nand being elected. It is not easy to fix the limits of the amount; it is\nalso a variable continually increasing. Looking at the matter\nphilosophically, from the point of view of the individual, there is no\nlimit but the attainment of the race and the individual's capacity for\ndevelopment and growth. Only a few men will master all which the\ncircumstances of the nation and the world render attainable; some will\ncome short for lack of power, others for lack of inclination. Make\neducation as accessible as it can now be made, as attractive as the\nteachers of this age can render it, the majority will still get along\nwith the smallest amount that is possible or reputable. Only a few will\nstrive for the most they can get. There will be many a thousand farmers,\ntraders, and mechanics in their various callings, manual and\nintellectual, to a single philosopher. This also is as it should be, and\ncorresponds with the nature of man and his function on the earth. Still\nall have the natural right to the means of education to this extent, by\nfulfilling its condition.\n\nTo accomplish this work, the democratic education of the whole people,\nwith the aim of making them men, we want public institutions founded by\nthe people, paid for by the public money; institutions well endowed,\nwell attended, watched over well, and proportionably honored; we want\nteachers, able men, well disciplined, well paid, and honored in\nproportion to their work. It is a good thing to educate the privileged\nclasses, priests in a theocracy, and gentlemen in an aristocracy. Though\nthey are few in number, it is a great work; the servants thereof are not\ntoo well paid, nor too much held in esteem in England, nor in Rome, nor\ntoo well furnished with apparatus. But the public education of a whole\npeople is a greater work, far more difficult, and should be attended\nwith corresponding honor, and watched over even more carefully by the\nstate.\n\nAfter the grown men of any country have provided for their own physical\nwants, and insured the needful physical comforts, their most important\nbusiness is to educate themselves still further, and train up the rising\ngeneration to their own level. It is important to leave behind us\ncultivated lands, houses and shops, railroads and mills, but more\nimportant to leave behind us men grown, men that are men; such are the\nseed of material wealth,--not it of them. The highest use of material\nwealth is its educational function.\n\nNow the attainments of the human race increase with each generation; the\nfour leading nations of Christendom, England, France, Germany, and the\nUnited States, within a hundred years, have apparently, at the least,\ndoubled their spiritual attainments; in the free states of America,\nthere is a constant and rapid increase of wealth, far beyond the\nsimultaneous increase of numbers; so not only does the educational\nachievement of mankind become greater each age, but the power of the\nstate to afford each man a better chance for a better education,\ngreatens continually, the educational ability of the state enlarging as\nthose two factors get augmented. The generation now grown up, is,\ntherefore, able and bound to get a better culture than their fathers,\nand leave to their own children a chance still greater.\n\nEach child of genius, in the nineteenth century, is born at the foot of\nthe ladder of learning, as completely as the first child, with the same\nbodily and spiritual nakedness; though of the most civilized race, with\nsix, or sixty thousands of years behind him, he must begin with nothing\nbut himself. Yet such is the union of all mankind, that, with the aid of\nthe present generation, in a few years he will learn all that mankind\nhas learned in its long history; next go beyond that, discovering and\ncreating anew; and then draw up to the same height the new generation,\nwhich will presently surpass him.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA man's education never ends, but there are two periods thereof, quite\ndissimilar, the period of the Boy, and that of the Man. Education in\ngeneral is the developing and instructing the faculties, and is,\ntherefore, the same in kind to both man and boy, though it may be\nbrought about by different forces. The education of the boy, so far as\nit depends on institutions, and conscious modes of action, must be so\nmodified as to enable him to meet the influences which will surround him\nwhen he is a man; otherwise, his training will not enable him to cope\nwith the new forces he meets, and so will fail of the end of making him\na man. I pass over the influence of the family, and of nature, which do\nnot belong to my present theme. In America, the public education of men\nis chiefly influenced by four great powers, which I will call\neducational forces, and which correspond to four modes of national\nactivity:\n\nI. The political action of the people, represented by the State;\n\nII. The industrial action of the people, represented by Business;\n\nIII. The ecclesiastical action of the people, represented by the Church;\n\nIV. The literary action of the people, represented by the Press.\n\nI now purposely name them in this order, though I shall presently refer\nto them several times, and in a different succession. These forces act\non the people, making us such men as we are; they act indirectly on the\nchild before he comes to consciousness; directly, afterwards, but most\npowerfully on the man. What is commonly and technically called\neducation--the development and instruction of the faculties of children,\nis only preparatory; the scholastic education of the boy is but\nintroductory to the practical education of the man. It is only this\npreparatory education of the children of the people that is the work of\nthe school-masters. Their business is to give the child such a\ndevelopment of his faculties, and such furniture of preliminary\nknowledge, that he can secure the influence of all these educational\nforces, appreciating and enhancing the good, withstanding,\ncounteracting, and at last ending the evil thereof, and so continue his\neducation; and at the same time that he can work in one or more of those\nmodes of activity, serving himself and mankind, politically by the\nstate, ecclesiastically by the church, literarily by the press, or at\nany rate, industrially by his business. To give children the preparatory\neducation necessary for this fourfold receptivity, or activity, we need\nthree classes of public institutions:\n\nI. Free common schools;\n\nII. Free high schools;\n\nIII. Free colleges.\n\nOf these I will presently speak in detail, but now, for the sake of\nshortness, let me call them all collectively by their generic name--the\nSchool. It is plain the teachers who work by this instrument ought to\nunderstand the good and evil of the four educational forces which work\non men grown, in order to prepare their pupils to receive the good\nthereof, and withstand the evil. So then let us look a moment at the\ncharacter of these educational forces, and see what they offer us, and\nwhat men they are likely to make of their unconscious pupils. Let us\nlook at the good qualities first, and next at the evil.\n\nIt is plain that business, the press, and politics all tend to promote a\ngreat activity of body and mind. In business, the love of gain, the\nenterprising spirit of our practical men in all departments, their\nindustry, thrift and forecast, stimulate men to great exertions, and\nproduce a consequent development of the faculties called out. Social\ndistinction depends almost wholly on wealth; that never is accumulated\nby mere manual industry, such is the present constitution of society,\nbut it is acquired by the higher forms of industry, in which the powers\nof nature serve the man, or he avails himself of the creations of mere\nmanual toil. Hence there is a constant pressure towards the higher modes\nof industry for the sake of money; of course, a constant effort to be\nqualified for them. So in the industrial departments the mind is more\nactive than the hand. Accordingly it has come to pass that most of the\nbrute labor of the free states is done by cattle, or by the forces of\nnature--wind, water, fire--which we have harnessed by our machinery, and\nset to work. In New England most of the remaining work which requires\nlittle intelligence is done by Irishmen, who are getting a better\nculture by that very work. Men see the industrial handiwork of the\nNorth, and wonder; they do not always see the industrial head-work,\nwhich precedes, directs and causes it all; they seldom see the complex\nforces of which this enterprise and progress are the resultant.\n\nThere is no danger that we shall be sluggards. Business now takes the\nsame place in the education of the people that was once held by war: it\nstimulates activity, promotes the intercourse of man with man, nation\nwith nation; assembling men in masses, it elevates their temperature, so\nto say; it leads to new and better forms of organization; it excites men\nto invention, so that thereby we are continually acquiring new power\nover the elements, peacefully annexing to our domain new provinces of\nnature--water, wind, fire, lightning--setting them to do our work,\nmultiplying the comforts of life, and setting free a great amount of\nhuman time. It is not at all destructive; not merely conservative, but\ncontinually creates anew. Its creative agent is not brute force, but\neducated mind. A man's trade is always his teacher, and industry keeps a\ncollege for mankind, much of our instruction coming through our hands;\nwith us, where the plough is commonly in the hands of him who owns the\nland it furrows, business affords a better education than in most other\ncountries, and develops higher qualities of mind. There is a marked\ndifference in this respect between the North and South. There was never\nbefore such industry, such intense activity of head and hand in any\nnation in a time of peace.\n\nThe press encourages the same activity, enterprise, perseverance. Both\nof these encourage generosity; neither honors the miser, who gets for\nthe sake of getting, or \"starves, cheats, and pilfers to enrich an\nheir;\" he does not die respectably in Boston, who dies rich and\nbequeaths nothing to any noble public charity. It encourages industry\nwhich accumulates with the usual honesty, and for a rather generous\nuse.\n\nThe press furnishes us with books exceedingly cheap. We manufacture\nliterature cheaper than any nation except the Chinese. Even the best\nbooks, the works of the great masters of thought, are within the reach\nof an industrious farmer or mechanic, if half a dozen families combine\nfor that purpose. The educational power of a few good books scattered\nthrough a community, is well known.\n\nThen the press circulates, cheap and wide, its newspapers, emphatically\nthe literature of men who read nothing else: they convey intelligence\nfrom all parts of the world, and broaden the minds of home-keeping\nyouths, who need not now have homely wits.\n\nThe state, also, promotes activity, enterprise, hardihood, perseverance\nand thrift. The American Government is eminently distinguished by these\nfive qualities. The form of government stimulates patriotism, each man\nhas a share in the public lot. The theocracies, monarchies, and\naristocracies of old time have produced good and great examples of\npatriotism, in the few or the many; but the nobler forms of love of\ncountry, of self-denial and disinterested zeal for its sake, are left\nfor a democracy to bring to light.\n\nHere all men are voters, and all great questions are, apparently and in\ntheory, left to the decision of the whole people. This popular form of\ngovernment is a great instrument in developing and instructing the mind\nof the nation. It helps extend and intensify the intelligent activity\nwhich is excited by business and the press. Such is the nature of our\npolitical institutions that, in the free states, we have produced the\ngreatest degree of national unity of action, with the smallest\nrestriction of personal freedom, have reconciled national unity with\nindividual variety, not seeking uniformity; thus room is left for as\nmuch individualism as a man chooses to take; a vast power of talent,\nenterprise and invention is left free for its own work. Elsewhere, save\nin England, this is latent, kept down by government. Since this power is\neducated and has nothing to hold it back; since so much brute work is\ndone by cattle and the forces of nature, now domesticated and put in\nharness, and much time is left free for thought, more intelligence is\ndemanded, more activity, and the citizens of the free states have become\nthe most active, enterprising and industrious people in the world; the\nmost inventive in material work.\n\nIn all these three forms of action there is much to stir men to love of\ndistinction. The career is open to talent, to industry; open to every\nman; the career of letters, business, and politics. Our rich men were\npoor men; our famous men came of sires else not heard of. The laurel,\nthe dollar, the office, and the consequent social distinction of men\nsuccessful in letters, business and politics, these excite the obscure\nor needy youth to great exertions, and he cannot sleep; emulation wakes\nhim early, and keeps him late astir. Behind him, scattering \"the rear of\ndarkness,\" stalk poverty and famine, gaunt and ugly forms, with scorpion\nwhip to urge the tardier, idler man. The intense ambition for money, for\npolitical power, and the social results they bring, keeps men on the\nalert. So ambition rises early, and works with diligence that never\ntires.\n\nThe Church, embracing all the churches under that name, cultivates the\nmemory of men, and teaches reverence for the past; it helps keep\nactivity from wandering into unpopular forms of wickedness or of\nunbelief. Men who have the average intelligence, goodness and piety, it\nkeeps from slipping back, thus blocking to rearward the wheels of\nsociety, so that the ascent gained shall not be lost; men who have less\nthan this average it urges forward, addressing them in the name of God,\nencouraging by hope of heaven, and driving with fear of hell. It turns\nthe thought of the people towards God; it sets before us some facts in\nthe life, and some parts of the doctrine, of the noblest One who ever\nwore the form of man, bidding us worship him. The ecclesiastical worship\nof Jesus of Nazareth is, perhaps, the best thing in the American church.\nIt has the Sunday and the institution of preaching under its control. A\nbody of disciplined men are its servants; they praise the ordinary\nvirtues; oppose and condemn the unpopular forms of error and of sin.\nPetty vice, the vice of low men, in low places, is sure of their lash.\nThey promote patriotism in its common form. Indirectly, they excite\nsocial and industrial rivalry, and favor the love of money by the honor\nthey bestow upon the rich and successful. But at the same time they\ntemper it a little, sometimes telling men, as business or the state does\nnot, that there is in man a conscience, affection for his brother-man,\nand a soul which cannot live by bread alone; no, not by wealth, office,\nfame and social rank. They tell us, also, of eternity, where worldly\ndistinctions, except of orthodox and heterodox, are forgotten, where\nwealth is of no avail; they bid us remember God.\n\nSuch are the good things of these great national forces; the good things\nwhich in this fourfold way we are teaching ourselves. The nation is a\nmonitorial school, wonderfully contrived for the education of the\npeople. I do not mean to say that it is by the forethought of men that\nthe American democracy is at the same time a great practical school for\nthe education of the human race. This result formed no part of our plan,\nand is not provided for by the Constitution of the United States; it\ncomes of the forethought of God, and is provided for in the Constitution\nof the Universe.\n\nNow each of these educational forces has certain defects, negative\nevils, and certain vices, positive evils, which tend to misdirect the\nnation, and so hinder the general education of the people: of these,\nalso, let me speak in detail.\n\nThe state appeals to force, not to justice; this is its last appeal; the\nforce of muscles aided by force of mind, instructed by modern science in\nthe art to kill. The nation appeals to force in the settlement of\naffairs out of its borders. We have lately seen an example of this, when\nwe commenced war against a feeble nation, who, in that special\nemergency, had right on her side, about as emphatically as the force was\non our side. The immediate success of the enterprise, the popular\ndistinction acquired by some of the leaders, the high honor bestowed on\none of its heroes, all this makes the lesson of injustice attractive. It\nmay be that a similar experiment will again be tried, and doubtless with\nlike success. Certainly there is no nation this side of the water which\ncan withstand the enterprise, the activity, the invention, industry and\nperseverance of a people so united, and yet so free and intelligent.\nAnother successful injustice of this character, on a large scale, will\nmake right still less regarded, and might honored yet more.\n\nThe force we employ out of our borders, might opposed to right, we\nemploy also at home against our brethren, and keep three millions of\nthem in bondage; we watch for opportunities to extend the institution of\nslavery over soil unpolluted by that triple curse, and convert the\nConstitution, the fundamental law of the land, into an instrument for\nthe defence of slavery.\n\nThe men we honor politically, by choosing them to offices in the state,\nare commonly men of extraordinary force, sometimes, it is true, only of\nextraordinary luck, but of only ordinary justice; men who, perhaps, have\nmind in the heroic degree, but conscience of the most vulgar pattern.\nThey are to keep the law of the United States when it is wholly hostile\nto the law of the universe, to the everlasting justice of God.\n\nI am not speaking to politicians, professional representatives of the\nstate; not speaking for political effect; not of the state as a\npolitical machine for the government of the people. I am speaking to\nteachers, for an educational purpose; of the state as an educational\nmachine, as one of the great forces for the spiritual development of the\npeople. Now by this preference of force and postponement of justice at\nhome and abroad, in the selection of men for office, with its wealth,\nand rank, and honor, by keeping the law of the land to the violation of\nthe law of God, it is plain we are teaching ourselves to love wrong; at\nleast to be insensible to the right. What we practise on a national\nscale as a people, it is not easy to think wrong when practised on a\npersonal scale, by this man and that.\n\nThe patriotism, also, which the state nurses, is little more than that\nOld Testament patriotism which loves your countryman, and hates the\nstranger; the affection which the Old Testament attributes to Jehovah,\nand which makes him say, \"I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau;\" a patriotism\nwhich supports our country in the wrong as readily as in the right, and\nis glad to keep one sixth part of the nation in bondage without hope. It\nis not a patriotism which, beginning here, loves all the children of\nGod, but one that robs the Mexican, enslaves the African, and\nexterminates the Indian.\n\nThese are among the greater evils taught us by the political action of\nthe people as a whole. If you look at the action of the chief political\nparties, you see no more respect for justice in the politics of either\nparty, than in the politics of the nation, the resultant of both; no\nmore respect for right abroad, or at home. One party aims distinctively\nat preserving the property already acquired; its chief concern is for\nthat, its sympathy there; where its treasure is, is also its heart. It\nlegislates, consciously or otherwise, more for accumulated wealth, than\nfor the laboring man who now accumulates. This party goes for the\ndollar; the other for the majority, and aims at the greatest good of the\ngreatest number, leaving the good of the smaller number to most\nuncertain mercies. Neither party seems to aim at justice, which protects\nboth the wealth that labor has piled up, and the laborer who now creates\nit; justice, which is the point of morals common to man and God, where\nthe interests of all men, abroad and at home, electing and elected,\ngreatest number and smallest number, exactly balance. Falsehood, fraud,\na willingness to deceive, a desire for the power and distinction of\noffice, a readiness to use base means in obtaining office--these vices\nare sown with a pretty even hand upon both parties, and spring up with\nsuch blossoms and such a fruitage as we all see. The third political\nparty has not been long enough in existence to develop any distinctive\nvices of its own.\n\nI shall not speak of the public or private character of the politicians\nwho direct the state; no doubt that is a powerful element in our\nnational education; but as a class, they seem no better and no worse\nthan merchants, mechanics, ministers and farmers, as a class; so in\ntheir influence there is nothing peculiar, only their personal character\nceases to be private, and becomes a public force in the education of the\npeople.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Churches have the same faults as the State. There is the same\npostponement of justice and preference of force, the same neglect of the\nlaw of God in their zeal for the statutes of men; the same crouching to\ndollars or to numbers. However, in the churches these faults appear\nnegatively, rather than as an affirmation. The worldliness of the church\nis not open, self-conscious and avowed; it is not, as a general thing,\nthat human injustice is openly defended, but rather justice goes by\ndefault. But if the churches do not positively support and teach\ninjustice, as the state certainly does, they do not teach the opposite,\nand, so far as that goes, are allies of the state in its evil influence.\nThe fact that the churches, as such, did not oppose the war, and do not\noppose slavery, its continuance, or its extension; nay, that they are\noften found its apologists and defenders, seldom its opponents; that\nthey not only pervert the sacred books of the Christians to its defence,\nbut wrest the doctrines of Christianity to justify it; the fact that\nthey cannot, certainly do not, correct the particularism of the\npolitical parties, the love of wealth in one, of mere majorities in the\nother; that they know no patriotism not bounded by their country, none\ncoextensive with mankind; that they cannot resist the vice of party\nspirit--these are real proofs that the church is but the ally of the\nstate in this evil influence.\n\nBut the church has also certain specific faults of its own. It teaches\ninjustice by continually referring to the might of God, not His justice;\nto His ability and will to damn mankind, not asking if He has the right?\nIt teaches that in virtue of His infinite power, He is not amenable to\ninfinite justice, and to infinite love. Thus, while the state teaches,\nin the name of expediency and by practice, that the strong may properly\nbe the tyrants of the weak, the mighty nation over the feeble, the\nstrong race over the inferior, that the government may dispense with\nright at home and abroad--the church, as theory in Christ's name,\nteaches that God may repudiate His own justice and His own love.\n\nThe churches have little love of truth, as such, only of its uses. It\nmust be such a truth as they can use for their purposes; canonized\ntruth; truth long known; that alone is acceptable and called \"religious\ntruth;\" all else is \"profane and carnal,\" as the reason which discovers\nit. They represent the average intelligence of society; hence, while\nkeeping the old, they welcome not the new. They promote only popular\nforms of truth, popular in all Christendom, or in their special sect.\nThey lead in no intellectual reforms; they hinder the leaders.\nNegatively and positively, they teach, that to believe what is\nclerically told you in the name of religion, is better than free,\nimpartial search after the truth. They dishonor free thinking, and\nvenerate constrained believing. When the clergy doubt, they seldom give\nmen audience of their doubt. Few scientific men not clerical believe the\nBible account of creation,--the universe made in six days, and but a few\nthousand years ago,--or that of the formation of woman, and of the\ndeluge. Some clerical men still believe these venerable traditions,\nspite of the science of the times; but the clerical men who have no\nfaith in these stories not only leave the people to think them true and\nmiraculously taught, but encourage men in the belief, and calumniate the\nmen of science who look the universe fairly in the face and report the\nfacts as they find them.\n\nThe church represents only the popular morality, not any high and\naboriginal virtue. It represents not the conscience of human nature,\nreflecting the universal and unchangeable moral laws of God, touched and\nbeautified by his love, but only the conscience of human history,\nreflecting the circumstances man has passed by, and the institutions he\nhas built along the stream of time. So, while it denounces unpopular\nsins, vices below the average vice of society, it denounces also\nunpopular excellence, which is above the average virtue of society. It\nblocks the wheels rearward, and the car of humanity does not roll down\nhill; but it blocks them forward also. No great moral movement of the\nage is at all dependent directly on the church for its birth; very\nlittle for its development. It is in spite of the church that reforms go\nforward; it holds the curb to check more than the rein to guide. In\nmorals, as in science, the church is on the anti-liberal side, afraid of\nprogress, against movement, loving \"yet a little sleep, a little\nslumber;\" conservative and chilling, like ice, not creative, nor even\nquickening, as water. It doffs to use and wont; has small confidence in\nhuman nature, much in a few facts of human history. It aims to separate\nPiety from Goodness, her natural and heaven-appointed spouse, and marry\nher to Bigotry, in joyless and unprofitable wedlock. The church does\nnot lead men to the deep springs of human nature, fed ever from the far\nheights of the Divine nature, whence flows that river of God, full of\nliving water, where weary souls may drink perennial supply. While it\nkeeps us from falling back, it does little directly to advance mankind.\nIn common with the state, this priest and Levite pass by on the other\nside of the least developed classes of society, leaving the slave, the\npauper, and the criminal, to their fate, hastening to strike hands with\nthe thriving or the rich.\n\nThese faults are shared in the main by all sects; some have them in the\ncommon, and some in a more eminent degree, but none is so distinguished\nfrom the rest as to need emphatic rebuke, or to deserve a special\nexemption from the charge. Such are the faults of the church of every\nland, and must be from the nature of the institution; like the state, it\ncan only represent the average of mankind.\n\nI am not speaking to clergymen, professional representatives of the\nchurch, not of the church as an ecclesiastical machine for keeping and\nextending certain opinions and symbols; not for an ecclesiastical\npurpose; I speak to teachers, for an educational purpose, of the church\nas an educational machine, one of the great forces for the spiritual\ndevelopment of the people.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Business of the land has also certain vices of its own; while it\npromotes the virtues I have named before, it does not tend to promote\nthe highest form of character. It does not promote justice and humanity,\nas one could wish; it does not lead the employer to help the operative\nas a man, only to use him as a tool, merely for industrial purposes. The\naverage merchant cares little whether his ship brings cloth and cotton,\nor opium and rum. The average capitalist does not wish the stock of his\nmanufacturing company divided into small shares, so that the operatives\ncan invest their savings therein and have a portion of the large\ndividends of the rich; nor does he care whether he takes a mortgage on a\nship or a negro slave, nor whether his houses are rented for sober\ndwellings, or for drunkeries; whether the state hires his money to build\nharbors at home, or destroy them abroad. The ordinary manufacturer is as\nready to make cannons and cannon-balls to serve in a war which he knows\nis unjust, as to cast his iron into mill-wheels, or forge it into\nanchors. The common farmer does not care whether his barley feeds\npoultry for the table, or, made into beer, breeds drunkards for the\nalmshouse and the jail; asks not whether his rye and potatoes become the\nbread of life, or, distilled into whiskey, are deadly poison to men and\nwomen. He cares little if the man he hires become more manly or not; he\nonly asks him to be a good tool. Whips for the backs of negro slaves are\nmade, it is said, in Connecticut with as little compunction as Bibles\nare printed there; \"made to order,\" for the same purpose--for the\ndollar. The majority of blacksmiths would as soon forge fetter-chains to\nenslave the innocent limbs of a brother-man, as draught-chains for oxen.\nChristian mechanics and pious young women, who would not hurt the hair\nof an innocent head, have I seen at Springfield, making swords to\nslaughter the innocent citizens of Vera Cruz and Jalapa. The ships of\nrespectable men carry rum to intoxicate the savages of Africa, powder\nand balls to shoot them with; they carry opium to the Chinese; nay,\nChristian slaves from Richmond and Baltimore to New Orleans and\nGalveston. In all commercial countries, the average vice of the age is\nmixed up with the industry of the age, and unconsciously men learn the\nwickedness long intrenched in practical life. It is thought industrial\noperations are not amenable to the moral law, only to the law of trade.\n\"Let the supply follow the demand\" is the maxim. A man who makes as\npractical a use of the golden rule as of his yard-stick, is still an\nexception in all departments of business.\n\nEven in the commercial and manufacturing parts of America, money\naccumulates in large masses; now in the hands of an individual, now of a\ncorporation. This money becomes an irresponsible power, acting by the\nlaws, but yet above them. It is wielded by a few men, to whom it gives a\nhigh social position and consequent political power. They use this\ntriple form of influence, pecuniary, social and political, in the spirit\nof commerce, not of humanity, not for the interest of mankind; thus the\nspirit of trade comes into the state. Hence it is not thought wrong in\npolitics to buy a man, more than in commerce to buy a ship; hence the\nrights of a man, or a nation, are looked on as articles of trade, to be\nsold, bartered, and pledged; and in the Senate of the United States, we\nhave heard a mass of men, more numerous than all our citizens seventy\nyears ago, estimated as worth twelve hundred millions of dollars.\n\nIn most countries business comes more closely into contact with men than\nthe state, or the church, or the press, and is a more potent educator.\nHere it not only does this, but controls the other three forces, which\nare mainly instruments of this; hence this form of evil is more\ndangerous than elsewhere, for there is no power organized to resist it\nas in England or Rome; so it subtly penetrates everywhere, bidding you\nplace the accidents before the substance of manhood, and value money\nmore than man.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNotwithstanding the good qualities of the Press, the books it\nmultiplies, and the great service it renders, it also has certain vices\nof its own. From the nature of the thing the greater part of literature\nrepresents only the public opinion of the time. It must therefore teach\ndeference to that, not deference to truth and justice. It is only the\neminent literature which can do more than this; books, which at first\nfall into few hands though fit, and like the acorns sown with the\nmulleins and the clover, destined to germinate but slowly, long to be\nover-topped by an ephemeral crop, at last, after half an hundred years,\nshall mature their own fruit for other generations of men. The current\nliterature of this age only popularizes the thought of the eminent\nliterature of the past. Great good certainly comes from this, but also\ngreat evil.\n\nOf all literature, the newspapers come most into contact with men--they\nare the literature of the people, read by such as read nothing else;\nread also by such as read all things beside. Taken in the mass, they\ncontain little to elevate men above the present standard. The political\njournals have the general vice of our politics, and the special faults\nof the particular party; the theological journals have the common\nfailings of the church, intensified by the bigotry of the sects they\nbelong to; the commercial journals represent the bad qualities of\nbusiness. Put all three together, and it is not their aim to tell the\ntruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, nor to promote\njustice, the whole of justice, and nothing but justice. The popular\nliterature helps bring to consciousness the sentiments and ideas which\nprevail in the state, the church, and business. It brings those\nsentiments and ideas intimately into connection with men, magnetizing\nthem with the good and ill of those three powers, but it does little\ndirectly to promote a higher form of human character.\n\nSo, notwithstanding the good influence of these four modes of national\nactivity in educating the grown men of America, they yet do not afford\nthe highest teaching which the people require, to realize individually\nthe idea of a man, and jointly that of a democracy. The state does not\nteach perfect justice; the church does not teach that, or love of truth.\nBusiness does not teach perfect morality, and the average literature,\nwhich falls into the hands of the million, teaches men to respect public\nopinion more than the word of God, which transcends that. Thus these\nfour teach only the excellence already organized or incorporated in the\nlaws, the theology, the customs, and the books of the land. I cannot but\nthink these four teachers are less deficient here than in other lands,\nand have excellences of their own, but the faults mentioned are\ninseparable from such institutions. An institution is an organized\nthought; of course, no institution can represent a truth which is too\nnew or too high for the existing organizations, yet that is the truth\nwhich it is desirable to teach. So there will always be exceptional men,\nwith more justice, truth and love than is represented by the\ninstitutions of the time, who seem therefore hostile to these\ninstitutions, which they seek to improve and not destroy. Contemporary\nwith the priests of Judah and Israel were the prophets thereof,\nantithetic to one another as the centripetal and centrifugal forces,\nbut, like them, both necessary to the rhythmic movement of the orbs in\nheaven, and the even poise of the world.\n\nIn Rome and in England the idea of a theocracy and an aristocracy has\nbecome a fact in the institutions of the land, which accordingly favor\nthe formation of priests and gentlemen. The teachers of the educated\nclass, therefore, may trust to the machinery already established to do\ntheir work, only keeping off the spirit of the age which would make\ninnovations; and such is the respectability and popular esteem of the\ninstitutions, that this is done easier than men think, by putting an\nexceptional book in the index at Rome or in the academical fire at\nOxford. But here, the idea of a democracy is by no means so well\nestablished and organized in institutions. It is new, and while a\ntheocrat and an aristocrat are respected everywhere, a democrat is held\nin suspicion; accordingly, to make men, the teacher cannot trust his\neducational machinery, he must make it, and invent anew as well as turn\nhis mill.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThese things being so, it is plain the teachers in the schools should be\nof such a character that they can give the children what they will most\nwant when they become men; such an intellectual and moral development\nthat they can appreciate and receive the good influence of these four\neducational forces, and withstand, resist, and exterminate the evil\nthereof. In the schools of a democracy which are to educate the people\nand make them men, you need more aboriginal virtue than in the schools\nof an aristocracy or a theocracy, where a few are to be educated as\ngentlemen or priests. Since the institutions of the land do not\nrepresent the idea of a democracy, and the average spirit of the people,\nwhich makes the institutions, represents it no more, if the children of\nthe people are to become better than their fathers, it is plain their\nteachers must be prophets, and not priests merely; must animate them\nwith a spirit higher, purer and more holy than that which inspires the\nstate, the church, business, or the common literature of the times. As\nthe teacher cannot impart and teach what he does not possess and know,\nit is also plain that the teacher must have this superior spirit.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo accomplish the public education of the children of the people, we\nneed the three classes of institutions just mentioned: free Common\nSchools, free High Schools and free Colleges. Let me say a word of each.\n\nThe design of the Common School is to take children at the proper age\nfrom their mothers, and give them the most indispensable development,\nintellectual, moral, affectional and religious; to furnish them with as\nmuch positive, useful knowledge as they can master, and, at the same\ntime, teach them the three great scholastic helps or tools of\neducation--the art to read, to write and calculate.\n\nThe children of most parents are easily brought to school, by a little\ndiligence on the part of the teachers and school committee; but there\nare also children of low and abandoned, or, at least, neglected parents,\nwho live in a state of continual truancy; they are found on the banks of\nyour canals; they swarm in your large cities. When those children become\nmen, through lack of previous development, instruction and familiarity\nwith these three instruments of education, they cannot receive the full\neducational influence of the state and church, of business and the\npress: they lost their youthful education, and therefore they lose, in\nconsequence, their manly culture. They remain dwarfs, and are barbarians\nin the midst of society; there will be exceptional men whom nothing can\nmake vulgar; but this will be the lot of the mass. They cannot perform\nthe intelligent labor which business demands, only the brute work, so\nthey lose the development which comes through the hand that is active in\nthe higher modes of industry, which, after all, is the greatest\neducational force; accordingly, they cannot compete with ordinary men,\nand remain poor; lacking also that self-respect which comes of being\nrespected, they fall into beggary, into intemperance, into crime; so,\nfrom being idlers at first, a stumbling-block in the way of society,\nthey become paupers, a positive burden which society must take on its\nshoulders; or they turn into criminals, active foes to the industry, the\norder, and the virtue of society.\n\nNow if a man abandons the body of his child, the state adopts that body\nfor a time; takes the guardianship thereof, for the child's own sake;\nsees that it is housed, fed, clad, and cared for. If a man abandons his\nchild's spirit, and the child commits a crime, the state, for its own\nsake, assumes the temporary guardianship thereof, and puts him in a\njail. When a man deserts his child, taking no concern about his\neducation, I venture to make the suggestion, whether it would not be\nwell, as a last resort, for the State to assume the guardianship of the\nchild for its own sake, and for the child's sake. We allow no one, with\never so thick a skin, to grow up in nakedness; why should we suffer a\nchild, with however so perverse a parent, to grow up in ignorance and\ndegenerate into crime? Certainly, a naked man is not so dangerous to\nsociety as an ignorant man, nor is the spectacle so revolting. I should\nhave less hope of a state where the majority were so perverse as to\ncontinue ignorant of reading, writing and calculating, than of one where\nthey were so thick-skinned as to wear no clothes. In Massachusetts,\nthere is an Asylum for juvenile offenders, established by the city of\nBoston, a Farm School for bad boys, established by the characteristic\nbenevolence of the rich men of that place, and a State Reform School\nunder the charge of the Commonwealth: all these are for lads who break\nthe laws of the land. Would it not be better to take one step more,\nadopt them before they offended, and allow no child to grow up in the\nbarbarism of ignorance? Has any man an unalienable right to live a\nsavage in the midst of civilization?\n\nWe need also public High Schools, to take children where the common\nschools leave them, and carry them further on. Some States have done\nsomething towards establishing such institutions; they are common in New\nEngland. Some have established Normal Schools, special High Schools for\nthe particular and professional education of public teachers. Without\nthese, it is plain there would not be a supply of competent educators\nfor the public service.\n\nThen we need free Colleges, conducted by public officers, and paid for\nby the public purse. Without these the scheme is not perfect. The idea\nwhich lies at the basis of the public education of a people in a\ndemocracy, is this: Every man, on condition of doing his duty, has a\nright to the means of education, as much as a right, on the same\ncondition, to the means of defence from a public enemy in time of war,\nor from starvation in time of plenty and of peace. I say every man, I\nmean every woman also. The amount of education must depend on the three\nfactors named before,--on the general achievement of mankind, the\nspecial ability of the state, and the particular power of the\nindividual.\n\nIf all is free, common schools, high schools, and colleges, boys and\ngirls of common ability and common love of learning, will get a common\neducation; those of greater ability, a more extended education, and\nthose of the highest powers, the best culture which the race can now\nfurnish, and the state afford. Hitherto no nation has established a\npublic college, wholly at the public cost, where the children of the\npoor and the rich could enjoy together the great national charity of\nsuperior education. To do this is certainly not consistent with the idea\nof a theocracy or an aristocracy, but it is indispensable to the\ncomplete realization of a democracy. Otherwise the children of the rich\nwill have a monopoly of superior education, which is the case with the\ngirls everywhere--for only the daughters of rich men can get a superior\neducation, even in the United States--and with boys in England and\nFrance, and of course the offices, emoluments and honors which depend on\na superior education; or else the means thereof will be provided for\npoor lads by private benefactions, charity-funds and the like, which\nsome pious and noble man has devoted to this work. In this case the\ninstitutions will have a sectarian character, be managed by narrow,\nbigoted men, and the gift of the means of education be coupled with\nconditions which must diminish its value, and fetter the free spirit of\nthe young man. This takes place in many of the collegiate establishments\nof the North, which, notwithstanding those defects, have done a great\ngood to mankind.\n\nThe Common Schools giving their pupil the power of reading, writing and\ncalculating, developing his faculties and furnishing him with much\nelementary knowledge, put him in communication with all that is written\nin a common form, in the English tongue; its treasures lie level to his\neye and hand. The High School and the College, teaching him also other\nlanguages, afford him access to the treasures contained there; teaching\nhim the mathematics and furnishing him with the discipline of science,\nthey enable him to understand all that has hitherto been recorded in the\ncompendious forms of philosophy, and thus place the child of large\nability in connection with all the spiritual treasures of the world. In\nthe mean time, for all these pupils, there is the material and the human\nworld about them, the world of consciousness within. They can study both\nand add what they may to the treasures of human discovery or invention.\n\nIt seems to me that it is the duty of the state to place the means of\nthis education within the reach of all children of superior ability,--a\nduty that follows from the very idea of a democracy, not to speak of\nthe idea of Christianity. It is not less the interest of the state to do\nso, for then, youths, well born, with good abilities, will not be\nhindered from getting a breeding proportionate to their birth, and from\noccupying the stations which are adequately filled only by men of\nsuperior native abilities, enriched by culture, and developed to their\nhighest power. Then the work of such stations will fall to the lot of\nsuch men, and of course be done. Eminent ability, talent, or genius,\nshould have eminent education, and so serve the nation in its eminent\nkind; for when God makes a million-minded man, as once or twice in the\nages, or a myriad-minded man, as He does now and then, it is plain that\nthis gift also is to be accounted precious, and used for the advantage\nof all.\n\nI say no state has ever attempted to establish such institutions; yet\nthe Government of the United States has a seminary for the public\neducation of a few men at the public cost. But it is a school to qualify\nmen to fight; they learn the science of destruction, the art thereof,\nthe kindred art and science of defence. If the same money we now pay for\nmilitary education at West Point were directed to the education of\nteachers of the highest class, say professors and presidents of\ncolleges; if the same pains were taken to procure able men, to furnish\nthem with the proper instruction for their special work, and give them\nthe best possible general development of their powers, not forgetting\nthe moral, the affectional and the religious, and animating them with\nthe philanthropic spirit needed for such a work, how much better results\nwould appear! But in the present intellectual condition of the people it\nwould be thought unworthy of a nation to train up school-masters! But is\nit only soldiers that we need?\n\nAll these institutions are but introductory, a preparatory school, in\nthree departments, to fit youths for the great educational establishment\nof practical life. This will find each youth and maiden as the schools\nleave him, moulding him to their image, or moulded by him to a better.\nSo it is plain what the teachers are to do:--besides teaching the\nspecial branches which fall to their lot, they are to supply for the\npupils, the defects of the State, of the Church, of Business, and the\nPress, especially the moral defects. For this great work of mediating\nbetween the mother and the world, for so furnishing and fitting the\nrising generation, introducing them into practical life, that they shall\nreceive all the good of these public educational forces with none of the\nill, but enhance the one while they withstand the other, and so each in\nhimself realize the idea of man, and all in their social capacity, the\nidea of a democracy--it is also plain what sort of men we need for\nteachers: we need able men, well endowed by nature, well disciplined by\nart; we need superior men--men juster than the state, truer and better\nthan the churches, more humane than business, and higher than the common\nliterature of the press. There are always men of that stamp born into\nthe world; enough of them in any age to do its work. How shall we bring\nthem to the task? Give young men and women the opportunity to fit\nthemselves for the work, at free common schools, high schools, normal\nschools, and colleges; give them a pay corresponding to their services,\nas in England and Rome; give them social rank and honor in that\nproportion, and they will come; able men will come; men well disciplined\nwill come; men of talent and even genius for education will come.\n\nIn the state you pay a man of great political talents large money and\nlarge honors; hence there is no lack of ability in politics, none of\ncompetition for office. In the church you pay a good deal for a \"smart\nminister,\" one who can preach an audience into the pews and not himself\nout of the pulpit. Talent enough goes to business; educated talent too,\nat least with a special education for this, honor, and social\ndistinction. Private colleges and theological schools, often, have\npowerful men for their professors and presidents; sometimes, men of much\ntalent for education; commonly, men of ripe learning and gentlemanly\naccomplishments. Even men of genius seek a place as teachers in some\nprivate college, where they are under the control of the leaders of a\nsect--and must not doubt its creed, nor set science a-going freely lest\nit run over some impotent theological dogma--or else of a little\ncoterie, or close corporation of men selected because radical or because\nconservative, men chosen not on account of any special fitness for\nsuperintending the superior education of the people, but because they\nwere one-sided, and leaned this way in Massachusetts and that in\nVirginia. Able men seek such places because they get a competent pay,\ncompetent honors, competent social rank. Senators and ambassadors are\nnot ashamed to be presidents of a college, and submit to the control of\na coterie, or a sect, and produce their results. If such men can be had\nfor private establishments to educate a few to work in such trammels and\nsuch company, certainly, it is not difficult to get them for the public\nand for the education of all. As the state has the most children to\neducate, the most money to pay with, it is clear, not only that they\nneed the best ability for this work, but that they can have it soon as\nthey make the teacher's calling gainful and respectable.\n\nIn England and Rome, the most important spiritual function of the state\nis the production of the gentleman and the priest; in democratic America\nit is the production of the man. Some nations have taken pains with the\nmilitary training of all the people, for the sake of the state, and made\nevery man a soldier. No nation has hitherto taken equivalent pains with\nthe general education of all, for the sake of the state and the sake of\nthe citizens;--\"the heathens of China\" have done more than any Christian\npeople, for the education of all. This was not needed in a theocracy,\nnor an aristocracy; it is essential to a democracy. This is needed\npolitically; for where all men are voters, the ignorant man, who cannot\nread the ballot which he casts; the thief, the pirate, and the murderer,\nmay, at any time, turn the scale of an election, and do us a damage\nwhich it will take centuries to repair. Ignorant men are the tools of\nthe demagogue; how often he uses them, and for what purposes, we need\nnot go back many years to learn. Let the people be ignorant and suffrage\nuniversal, a very few men will control the state, and laugh at the folly\nof the applauding multitude whose bread they waste, and on whose necks\nthey ride to insolence and miserable fame.\n\nAmerica has nothing to fear from any foreign foe; for nearly forty years\nshe has had no quarrel but of her own making. Such is our enterprise and\nour strength, that few nations would, carelessly, engage in war with us;\nnone, without great provocation. In the midst of us, is our danger; not\nin foreign arms, but in the ignorance and the wickedness of our own\nchildren, the ignorance of the many, the wickedness of the few who will\nlead the many to their ruin. The bulwark of America is not the army and\nnavy of the United States, with all the men at public cost instructed\nin the art of war; it is not the swords and muskets idly bristling in\nour armories; it is not the cannon and the powder carefully laid by; no,\nnor is it yet the forts, which frown in all their grim barbarity of\nstone along the coast, defacing the landscape, else so fair: these might\nall be destroyed to-night, and the nation be as safe as now. The more\neffectual bulwark of America is her schools. The cheap spelling-book, or\nthe vane on her school-house is a better symbol of the nation than \"The\nstar-spangled banner;\" the printing press does more than the cannon; the\npress is mightier than the sword. The army that is to keep our\nliberties--you are part of that, the noble army of teachers. It is you,\nwho are to make a great nation greater, even wise and good,--the next\ngeneration better than their sires.\n\nEurope shows us, by experiment, that a republic cannot be made by a few\nwell-minded men, however well-meaning. They tried for it at Rome, full\nof enlightened priests; in Germany, the paradise of the scholar, but\nthere was not a people well educated, and a democracy could not stand\nupright long enough to be set a-going. In France, where men are better\nfitted for the experiment than elsewhere in continental Europe, you see\nwhat comes of it--the first step is a stumble, and for their president,\nthe raw republicans chose an autocrat, not a democrat; not a mere\nsoldier, but only the name of a soldier; one that thinks it an insult\nif liberty, equality, and fraternity be but named!\n\nThink you a democracy can stand without the education of all; not barely\nthe smallest pittance thereof which will keep a live soul in a live\nbody, but a large, generous cultivation of mind and conscience, heart\nand soul? A man, with half an eye, can see how we suffer continually in\npolitics for lack of education among the people. Some nations are\npriest-ridden, some king-ridden, some ridden of nobles; America is\nridden by politicians, a heavy burden for a foolish neck.\n\nOur industrial interests demand the same education. The industrial\nprosperity of the North, our lands yearly enriching, while they bear\ntheir annual crop; our railroads, mills and machines, the harness with\nwhich we tackle the elements,--for we domesticate fire and water, yes,\nthe very lightning of heaven--all these are but material results of the\nintelligence of the people. Our political success and our industrial\nprosperity, both come from the pains taken with the education of the\npeople. Halve this education, and you take away three fourths of our\npolitical welfare, three fourths of our industrial prosperity; double\nthis education, you greaten the political welfare of the people, you\nincrease their industrial success fourfold. Yes, more than that, for the\nresults of education increase by a ratio of much higher powers.\n\nIt seems strange that so few of the great men in politics have cared\nmuch for the education of the people; only one of those, now prominent\nbefore the North, is intimately connected with it. He, at great personal\nsacrifice of money, of comfort, of health, even of respectability,\nbecame superintendent of the common schools of Massachusetts, a place\nwhence we could ill spare him, to take the place of the famous man he\nsucceeds. Few of the prominent scholars of the land interest themselves\nin the public education of the people. The men of superior culture think\nthe common school beneath their notice; but it is the mother of them\nall.\n\nNone of the States of the North has ever given this matter the attention\nit demands. When we legislate about public education, this is the\nquestion before us:--Shall we give our posterity the greatest blessing\nthat one generation can bestow upon another? Shall we give them a\npersonal power which will create wealth in every form, multiply ships,\nand roads of earth, or of iron; subdue the forest, till the field, chain\nthe rivers, hold the winds as its vassals, bind with an iron yoke the\nfire and water, and catch and tame the lightning of God? Shall we give\nthem a personal power which will make them sober, temperate, healthy,\nand wise; that shall keep them at peace, abroad and at home, organize\nthem so wisely that all shall be united, and yet, each left free, with\nno tyranny of the few over the many, or the little over the great?\nShall we enable them to keep, to improve, to double manifold the\npolitical, social, and personal blessings they now possess; shall we\ngive them this power to create riches, to promote order, peace,\nhappiness--all forms of human welfare, or shall we not? That is the\nquestion. Give us intelligent men, moral men, men well developed in mind\nand conscience, heart and soul, men that love man and God, industrial\nprosperity, social prosperity, and political prosperity, are sure to\nfollow. But without such men, all the machinery of this threefold\nprosperity is but a bauble in a child's hand, which he will soon break\nor lose, which he cannot replace when gone, nor use while kept.\n\nRich men, who have intelligence and goodness, will educate their\nchildren, at whatever cost. There are some men, even poor men's sons,\nborn with such native power that they will achieve an education, often a\nmost masterly culture; men whom no poverty can degrade, or make vulgar,\nwhom no lack of means of culture can keep from being wise and great.\nSuch are exceptional men; the majority, nine tenths of the people, will\ndepend, for their culture, on the public institutions of the land. If\nthere had never been a free public school in New England, not half of\nher mechanics and farmers would now be able to read, not a fourth part\nof her women. I need not stop to tell what would be the condition of her\nagriculture, her manufactures, her commerce; they would have been,\nperhaps, even behind the agriculture, commerce and manufactures of South\nCarolina. I need not ask what would be the condition of her free\nchurches, or the republican institutions which now beautify her rugged\nshores and sterile soil; there would be no such churches, no such\ninstitutions. If there had been no such schools in New England, the\nRevolution would yet remain to be fought. Take away the free schools,\nyou take away the cause of our manifold prosperity; double their\nefficiency and value, you not only double and quadruple the prosperity\nof the people, but you will enlarge their welfare--political, social,\npersonal--far more than I now dare to calculate. I know men object to\npublic schools; they say, education must be bottomed on religion, and\nthat cannot be taught unless we have a State religion, taught \"by\nauthority\" in all our schools; we cannot teach religion, without\nteaching it in a sectarian form. This objection is getting made in New\nYork; we have got beyond it in New England. It is true, all manly\neducation must be bottomed on religion; it is essential to the normal\ndevelopment of man, and all attempts at education, without this, must\nfail of the highest end. But there are two parts of religion which can\nbe taught in all the schools, without disturbing the denominations, or\ntrenching upon their ground, namely, piety, the love of God, and\ngoodness, the love of man. The rest of religion, after piety and\ngoodness are removed, may safely be left to the institutions of any of\nthe sects, and so the state will not occupy their ground.\n\nIt is often said that superior education is not much needed; the common\nschools are enough, and good enough, for it is thought that superior\neducation is needed for men as lawyers, ministers, doctors, and the\nlike, not for men as men. It is not so. We want men cultivated with the\nbest discipline, everywhere, not for the profession's sake, but for\nman's sake. Every man with a superior culture, intellectual, moral, and\nreligious, every woman thus developed, is a safeguard and a blessing. He\nmay sit on the bench of a judge or a shoemaker, be a clergyman or an\noysterman, that matters little, he is still a safeguard and a blessing.\nThe idea that none should have a superior education but professional\nmen--they only for the profession's sake--belongs to dark ages, and is\nunworthy of a democracy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is the duty of all men to watch over the public education of the\npeople, for it is the most important work of the state. It is\nparticularly the duty of men who, hitherto, have least attended to it,\nmen of the highest culture, men, too, of the highest genius. If a man\nwith but common abilities has attained great learning, he is one of the\n\"public administrators,\" to distribute the goods of men of genius, from\nother times and lands, to mankind, their legal heirs. Why does God\nsometimes endow a man with great intellectual power, making, now and\nthen, a million-minded man? Is that superiority of gift solely for the\nman's own sake? Shame on such a thought. It is of little value to him\nunless he use it for me; it is for your sake and my sake, more than for\nhis own. He is a precious almoner of wisdom; one of the public guardians\nof mankind, to think for us, to help us think for ourselves; born to\neducate the world of feebler men. I call on such men, men of culture,\nmen of genius, to help build up institutions for the education of the\npeople. If they neglect this, they are false to their trust. The culture\nwhich hinders a man from sympathy with the ignorant, is a curse to both,\nand the genius which separates a man from his fellow-creatures, lowlier\nborn than he, is the genius of a demon.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMen and women, practical teachers now before me, a great trust is in\nyour hands; nine tenths of the children of the people depend on you for\ntheir early culture, for all the scholastic discipline they will ever\nget; their manly culture will depend on that, their prosperity thereon,\nall these on you. When they are men, you know what evils they will\neasily learn from state and church, from business and the press. It is\nfor you to give them such a developing and such a furnishing of their\npowers, that they will withstand, counteract and exterminate that evil.\nTeach them to love justice better than their native land, truth better\nthan their church, humanity more than money, and fidelity to their own\nnature better than the public opinion of the press. As the chief thing\nof all, teach them to love man and God. Your characters will be the\ninspiration of these children; your prayers their practice, your faith\ntheir works.\n\nThe rising generation is in your hands, you can fashion them in your\nimage, you will, you must do this. Great duties will devolve on these\nchildren when grown up to be men; you are to fit them for these duties.\nSince the Revolution, there has not been a question before the country,\nnot a question of constitution or confederacy, free trade or protective\ntariff, sub-treasury or bank, of peace or war, freedom or slavery, the\nextension of liberty, or the extension of bondage--not a question of\nthis sort has come up before Congress, or the people, which could not\nhave been better decided by seven men, honest, intelligent, and just,\nwho loved man and God, and looked, with a single eye, to what was right\nin the case. It is your business to train up such men. A representative,\na senator, a governor may be made, any day, by a vote. Ballots can make\na president out of almost any thing; the most ordinary material is not\ntoo cheap and vulgar for that. But all the votes of all the conventions,\nall the parties, are unable to make a people capable of\nself-government. They cannot put intelligence and justice into the head\nof a single man. You are to do that. You are the \"Sacred Legion,\" the\n\"Theban Brothers\" to repel the greatest foes that can invade the land,\nthe only foes to be feared; you are to repel ignorance, injustice,\nunmanliness, and irreligion. With none else to help you, in ten years'\ntime you can double the value of your schools; double the amount of\ndevelopment and instruction you annually furnish. So doing, you shall\ndouble, triple, quadruple, multiply manifold the blessings of the land.\nYou can, if you will. I ask If you will? If your works say \"Yes,\" then\nyou will be the great benefactors of the land, not giving money, but a\ncharity far nobler yet, education, the greatest charity. You will help\nfulfil the prophecy which noble men long since predicted of mankind, and\nhelp found the kingdom of heaven on earth; you will follow the steps of\nthat noblest man of men, the Great Educator of the human race, whom the\nChristians still worship as their God. Yes, you will work with God\nhimself; He will work with you, work for you, and bless you with\neverlasting life.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nTHE POLITICAL DESTINATION OF AMERICA AND THE SIGNS OF THE\nTIMES.--DELIVERED BEFORE SEVERAL LITERARY SOCIETIES, 1848.\n\n\nEvery nation has a peculiar character, in which it differs from all\nothers that have been, that are, and possibly from all that are to come;\nfor it does not yet appear that the Divine Father of the nations ever\nrepeats himself and creates either two nations or two men exactly alike.\nHowever, as nations, like men, agree in more things than they differ,\nand in obvious things too, the special peculiarity of any one tribe does\nnot always appear at first sight. But if we look through the history of\nsome nation which has passed off from the stage of action, we find\ncertain prevailing traits which continually reappear in the language and\nlaws thereof; in its arts, literature, manners, modes of religion--in\nshort, in the whole life of the people. The most prominent thing in the\nhistory of the Hebrews is their continual trust in God, and this marks\nthem from their first appearance to the present day. They have\naccordingly done little for art, science, philosophy, little for\ncommerce and the useful arts of life, but much for religion; and the\npsalms they sung two or three thousand years ago are at this day the\nhymns and prayers of the whole Christian world. Three great historical\nforms of religion, Judaism, Christianity, and Mahometanism, all have\nproceeded from them.\n\nHe that looks at the Ionian Greeks finds in their story always the same\nprominent characteristic, a devotion to what is beautiful. This appears\noften to the neglect of what is true, right, and therefore holy. Hence,\nwhile they have done little for religion, their literature,\narchitecture, sculpture, furnish us with models never surpassed, and\nperhaps not equalled. Yet they lack the ideal aspiration after religion\nthat appears in the literature and art, and even language of some other\npeople, quite inferior to the Greeks in elegance and refinement.\nScience, also, is most largely indebted to these beauty-loving Greeks\nfor truth is one form of loveliness.\n\nIf we take the Romans, from Romulus their first king, to Augustulus the\nlast of the Caesars, the same traits of national character appear, only\nthe complexion and dress thereof changed by circumstances. There is\nalways the same hardness and materialism, the same skill in organizing\nmen, the same turn for affairs and genius for legislation. Rome borrowed\nher theology and liturgical forms; her art, science, literature,\nphilosophy, and eloquence; even her art of war was an imitation. But\nlaw sprung up indigenous in her soil; her laws are the best gift she\noffers to the human race,--the \"monument more lasting than brass,\" which\nshe has left behind her.\n\nWe may take another nation, which has by no means completed its history,\nthe Saxon race, from Hengist and Horsa to Sir Robert Peel: there also is\na permanent peculiarity in the tribe. They are yet the same bold, handy,\npractical people as when their bark first touched the savage shores of\nBritain; not over religious; less pious than moral; not so much upright\nbefore God, as downright before men; servants of the understanding more\nthan children of reason; not following the guidance of an intuition, and\nthe light of an idea, but rather trusting to experiment, facts,\nprecedents, and usages; not philosophical, but commercial; warlike\nthrough strength and courage, not from love of war or its glory;\nmaterial, obstinate, and grasping, with the same admiration of horses,\ndogs, oxen, and strong drink; the same willingness to tread down any\nobstacle, material, human or divine, which stands in their way; the same\nimpatient lust of wealth and power; the same disposition to colonize and\nreannex other lands; the same love of liberty and love of law; the same\nreadiness in forming political confederations.\n\nIn each of these four instances, the Hebrews, the Ionians, the Romans,\nand the Anglo-Saxon race, have had a nationality so strong, that while\nthey have mingled with other nations in commerce and in war, as victors\nand vanquished, they have stoutly held their character through all; they\nhave thus modified feebler nations joined with them. To take the last,\nneither the Britons nor the Danes affected very much the character of\nthe Anglo-Saxons; they never turned it out of its course. The Normans\ngave the Saxon manners, refinement, letters, elegance. The Anglo-Saxon\nbishop of the eleventh century, dressed in untanned sheep-skins, \"the\nwoolly side out and the fleshy side in;\" he ate cheese and flesh, drank\nmilk and mead. The Norman taught him to wear cloth, to eat also bread\nand roots, to drink wine. But in other respects the Norman left him as\nhe found him. England has received her kings and her nobles from\nNormandy, Anjou, the Provence, Scotland, Holland, Hanover, often seeing\na foreigner ascend her throne; yet the sturdy Anglo-Saxon character held\nits own, spite of the new element infused into its blood: change the\nministries, change the dynasties often as they will, John Bull is\nobstinate as ever, and himself changes not; no philosophy or religion\nmakes him less material. No nation but the English could have produced a\nHobbes, a Hume, a Paley, or a Bentham; they are all instantial and not\nexceptional men in that race.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow this idiosyncrasy of a nation is a sacred gift; like the genius of a\nBurns, a Thorwaldsen, a Franklin, or a Bowditch, it is given for some\ndivine purpose, to be sacredly cherished and patiently unfolded. The\ncause of the peculiarities of a nation or an individual man we cannot\nfully determine as yet, and so we refer it to the chain of causes which\nwe call Providence. But the national persistency in a common type is\neasily explained. The qualities of father and mother are commonly\ntransmitted to their children, but not always, for peculiarities may lie\nlatent in a family for generations, and reappear in the genius or the\nfolly of a child--often in the complexion and features: and besides,\nfather and mother are often no match. But such exceptions are rare, and\nthe qualities of a race are always thus reproduced, the deficiency of\none man getting counterbalanced by the redundancy of the next: the\nmarriages of a whole tribe are not far from normal.\n\nSome nations, it seems, perish through defect of this national\ncharacter, as individuals fail of success through excess or deficiency\nin their character. Thus the Celts, that great flood of a nation which\nonce swept over Germany, France, England, and, casting its spray far\nover the Alps, at one time threatened destruction to Rome itself, seem\nto have been so filled with love of individual independence that they\ncould never accept a minute organization of human rights and duties, and\nso their children would not group themselves into a city, as other\nraces, and submit to a strong central power, which should curb\nindividual will enough to insure national unity of action. Perhaps this\nwas once the excellence of the Celts, and thereby they broke the\ntrammels and escaped from the theocratic or despotic traditions of\nearlier and more savage times, developing the power of the individual\nfor a time, and the energy of a nation loosely bound; but when they came\nin contact with the Romans, Franks and Saxons, they melted away as snow\nin April--only, like that, remnants thereof yet lingering in the\nmountains and islands of Europe. No external pressure of famine or\npolitical oppression now holds the Celts in Ireland together, or gives\nthem national unity of action enough to resist the Saxon foe. Doubtless\nin other days this very peculiarity of the Irish has done the world some\nservice. Nations succeed each other as races of animals in the\ngeological epochs, and like them, also, perish when their work is done.\n\nThe peculiar character of a nation does not appear nakedly, without\nrelief and shadow. As the waters of the Rhone, in coming from the\nmountains, have caught a stain from the soils they have traversed which\nmars the cerulean tinge of the mountain snow that gave them birth, so\nthe peculiarities of each nation become modified by the circumstances to\nwhich it is exposed, though the fundamental character of a nation, it\nseems, has never been changed. Only when the blood of the nation is\nchanged by additions from another stock is the idiosyncrasy altered.\n\nNow, while each nation has its peculiar genius or character which does\nnot change, it has also and accordingly a particular work to perform in\nthe economy of the world, a certain fundamental idea to unfold and\ndevelop. This is its national task, for in God's world, as in a shop,\nthere is a regular division of labor. Sometimes it is a limited work,\nand when it is done the nation may be dismissed, and go to its repose.\n_Non omnia possumus omnes_ is as true of nations as of men; one has a\ngenius for one thing, another for something different, and the idea of\neach nation and its special work will depend on the genius of the\nnation. Men do not gather grapes of thorns.\n\nIn addition to this specific genius of the nation and its corresponding\nwork, there are also various accidental or subordinate qualities, which\nchange with circumstances, and so vary the nation's aspect that its\npeculiar genius and peculiar duty are often hid from its own\nconsciousness, and even obscured to that of the philosophic looker-on.\nThese subordinate peculiarities will depend first on the peculiar\ngenius, idea and work of the nation, and next on the transient\ncircumstances, geographical, climactic, historical and secular, to which\nthe nation has been exposed. The past helped form the circumstances of\nthe present age, and they the character of the men now living. Thus new\nmodifications of the national type continually take place; new\nvariations are played, but on the same old strings and of the same old\ntune. Once circumstances made the Hebrews entirely pastoral, now as\ncompletely commercial; but the same trust in God, the same national\nexclusiveness appear, as of old. As one looks at the history of the\nIonians, Romans, Saxons, he sees unity of national character, a\ncontinuity of idea and of work; but it appears in the midst of variety,\nfor while these remained ever the same to complete the economy of the\nworld, subordinate qualities--sentiments, ideas, actions--changed to\nsuit the passing hour. The nation's _course_ was laid towards a certain\npoint, but they stood to the right hand or the left, they sailed with\nmuch canvas or little, and swift or slow, as the winds and waves\ncompelled: nay, sometimes the national ship \"heaves to,\" and lies with\nher \"head to the wind,\" regardless of her destination; but when the\nstorm is overblown resumes her course. Men will carelessly think the\nship has no certain aim, but only drifts.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe most marked characteristic of the American nation is Love of\nFreedom; of man's natural rights. This is so plain to a student of\nAmerican history, or of American politics, that the point requires no\narguing. We have a genius for liberty: the American idea is freedom,\nnatural rights. Accordingly, the work providentially laid out for us to\ndo seems this,--to organize the rights of man. This is a problem\nhitherto unattempted on a national scale, in human history. Often\nenough attempts have been made to organize the powers of priests, kings,\nnobles, in a theocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, powers which had no\nfoundation in human duties or human rights, but solely in the\nselfishness of strong men. Often enough have the mights of men been\norganized, but not the rights of man. Surely there has never been an\nattempt made on a national scale to organize the rights of man as man;\nrights resting on the nature of things; rights derived from no\nconventional compact of men with men; not inherited from past\ngenerations, nor received from parliaments and kings, nor secured by\ntheir parchments; but rights that are derived straightway from God, the\nAuthor of Duty and the Source of Right, and which are secured in the\ngreat charter of our being.\n\nAt first view it will be said, the peculiar genius of America is not\nsuch, nor such her fundamental idea, nor that her destined work. It is\ntrue that much of the national conduct seems exceptional when measured\nby that standard, and the nation's course as crooked as the Rio Grande;\nit is true that America sometimes seems to spurn liberty, and sells the\nfreedom of three million men for less than three million annual bales of\ncotton; true, she often tramples, knowingly, consciously, tramples on\nthe most unquestionable and sacred rights. Yet, when one looks through\nthe whole character and history of America, spite of the exceptions,\nnothing comes out with such relief as this love of freedom, this idea of\nliberty, this attempt to organize right. There are numerous subordinate\nqualities which conflict with the nation's idea and work, coming from\nour circumstances, not our soul, as well as many others which help the\nnation perform her providential work. They are signs of the times, and\nit is important to look carefully among the most prominent of them,\nwhere, indeed, one finds striking contradictions.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe first is an impatience of authority. Every thing must render its\nreason, and show cause for its being. We will not be commanded, at least\nonly by such as we choose to obey. Does some one say, \"Thou shalt,\" or\n\"Thou shalt not,\" we ask, \"Who are you?\" Hence comes a seeming\nirreverence. The shovel hat, the symbol of authority, which awed our\nfathers, is not respected unless it covers a man, and then it is the man\nwe honor, and no longer the shovel hat. \"I will complain of you to the\ngovernment!\" said a Prussian nobleman to a Yankee stage-driver, who\nuncivilly threw the nobleman's trunk to the top of the coach. \"Tell the\ngovernment to go to the devil!\" was the symbolical reply.\n\nOld precedents will not suffice us, for we want something anterior to\nall precedents; we go beyond what is written, asking the cause of the\nprecedent and the reason of the writing. \"Our fathers did so,\" says\nsome one. \"What of that?\" say we. \"Our fathers--they were giants, were\nthey? Not at all, only great boys, and we are not only taller than they,\nbut mounted on their shoulders to boot, and see twice as far. My dear\nwise man, or wiseacre, it is we that are the ancients, and have\nforgotten more than all our fathers knew. We will take their wisdom\njoyfully, and thank God for it, but not their authority, we know better;\nand of their nonsense not a word. It was very well that they lived, and\nit is very well that they are dead. Let them keep decently buried, for\nrespectable dead men never walk.\"\n\nTradition does not satisfy us. The American scholar has no folios in his\nlibrary. The antiquary unrolls his codex, hid for eighteen hundred years\nin the ashes of Herculaneum, deciphers its fossil wisdom, telling us\nwhat great men thought in the bay of Naples, and two thousand years ago.\n\"What do you tell of that for?\" is the answer to his learning. \"What has\nPythagoras to do with the price of cotton? You may be a very learned\nman; you can read the hieroglyphics of Egypt, I dare say, and know so\nmuch about the Pharaohs, it is a pity you had not lived in their time,\nwhen you might have been good for something; but you are too\nold-fashioned for our business, and may return to your dust.\" An eminent\nAmerican, a student of Egyptian history, with a scholarly indignation\ndeclared, \"There is not a man who cares to know whether Shoophoo lived\none thousand years before Christ, or three.\"\n\nThe example of other and ancient States does not terrify or instruct us.\nIf slavery were a curse to Athens, the corruption of Corinth, the\nundoing of Rome, and all history shows it was so, we will learn no\nlesson from that experience, for we say, \"We are not Athenians, men of\nCorinth, nor pagan Romans, thank God, but free republicans, Christians\nof America. We live in the nineteenth century, and though slavery worked\nall that mischief then and there, we know how to make money out of it,\ntwelve hundred millions of dollars, as Mr. Clay counts the cash.\"\n\nThe example of contemporary nations furnishes us little warning or\nguidance. We will set our own precedents, and do not like to be told\nthat the Prussians or the Dutch have learned some things in the\neducation of the people before us, which we shall do well to learn after\nthem. So when a good man tells us of their schools and their colleges,\n\"patriotic\" school-masters exclaim, \"It is not true; our schools are the\nbest in the world! But if it were true, it is unpatriotic to say so; it\naids and comforts the enemy.\" Jonathan knows little of war; he has heard\nhis grandfather talk of Lexington and Saratoga; he thinks he should like\nto have a little touch of battle on his own account: so when there is\ndifficulty in setting up the fence betwixt his estate and his neighbors,\nhe blusters for awhile, talks big, and threatens to strike his father;\nbut, not having quite the stomach for that experiment, falls to beating\nhis other neighbor, who happens to be poor, weak, and of a sickly\nconstitution; and when he beats her at every step,--\n\n    \"For 'tis no war, as each one knows,\n    When only one side deals the blows,\n    And t' other bears 'em,\"--\n\nJonathan thinks he has covered himself \"with imperishable honors,\" and\nsets up his general for a great king. Poor Jonathan--he does not know\nthe misery, the tears, the blood, the shame, the wickedness, and the sin\nhe has set a-going, and which one day he is to account for with God who\nforgets nothing!\n\nYet while we are so unwilling to accept the good principles, to be\nwarned by the fate, or guided by the success, of other nations, we\ngladly and servilely copy their faults, their follies, their vice and\nsin. Like all upstarts, we pique ourselves on our imitation of\naristocratic ways. How many a blusterer in Congress,--for there are two\ndenominations of blusterers, differing only in degree, your great\nblusterer in Congress and your little blusterer in a bar-room,--has\nroared away hours long against aristocratic influence, in favor of the\n\"pure democracy,\" while he played the oligarch in his native village,\nthe tyrant over his hired help, and though no man knows who his\ngrandfather was, spite of the herald's office, conjures up some\ntrumpery coat of arms! Like a clown, who, by pinching his appetite, has\nbought a gaudy cloak for Sabbath wearing, we chuckle inwardly at our\nbrave apery of foreign absurdities, hoping that strangers will be\nastonished at us--which, sure enough, comes to pass. Jonathan is as vain\nas he is conceited, and expects that the Fiddlers, and the Trollopes,\nand others, who visit us periodically as the swallows, and likewise for\nwhat they can catch, shall only extol, or at least stand aghast at the\nbrave spectacle we offer, of \"the freest and most enlightened nation in\nthe world;\" and if they tell us that we are an ill-mannered set, raw and\nclownish, that we pick our teeth with a fork, loll back in our chairs,\nand make our countenance hateful with tobacco, and that with all our\nexcellences we are a nation of \"rowdies,\"--why, we are offended, and our\nfeelings are hurt. There was an African chief, long ago, who ruled over\na few miserable cabins, and one day received a French traveller from\nParis, under a tree. With the exception of a pair of shoes, our chief\nwas as naked as a pestle, but with great complacency he asked the\ntraveller, \"What do they say of me at Paris?\"\n\nSuch is our dread of authority, that we like not old things; hence we\nare always a-changing. Our house must be new, and our book, and even our\nchurch. So we choose a material that soon wears out, though it often\noutlasts our patience. The wooden house is an apt emblem of this sign\nof the times. But this love of change appears not less in important\nmatters. We think \"Of old things all are over old, of new things none\nare new enough.\" So the age asks of all institutions their right to be:\nWhat right has the government to existence? Who gave the majority a\nright to control the minority, to restrict trade, levy taxes, make laws,\nand all that? If the nation goes into a committee of the whole and makes\nlaws, some little man goes into a committee of one and passes his\ncounter resolves. The State of South Carolina is a nice example of this\nself-reliance, and this questioning of all authority. That little brazen\nState, which contains only about half so many free white inhabitants as\nthe single city of New York, but which none the less claims to have\nmonopolized most of the chivalry of the nation, and its patriotism, as\nwell as political wisdom--that chivalrous little State says, \"If the\nnation does not make laws to suit us; if it does not allow us to\nimprison all black seamen from the North; if it prevents the extension\nof Slavery wherever we wish to carry it--then the State of South\nCarolina will nullify, and leave the other nine-and-twenty States to go\nto ruin!\"\n\nMen ask what right have the churches to the shadow of authority which\nclings to them--to make creeds, and to bind and to loose! So it is a\nthing which has happened, that when a church excommunicates a young\nstripling for heresy, he turns round, fulminates his edict, and\nexcommunicates the church. Said a sly Jesuit to an American Protestant\nat Rome, \"But the rites and customs and doctrines of the Catholic church\ngo back to the second century, the age after the apostles!\" \"No doubt of\nit,\" said the American, who had also read the Fathers, \"they go back to\nthe times of the apostles themselves; but that proves nothing, for there\nwere as great fools in the first century as the last. A fool or a folly\nis no better because it is an old folly or an old fool. There are fools\nenough now, in all conscience. Pray don't go back to prove their\napostolical succession.\"\n\nThere are always some men who are born out of due season, men of past\nages, stragglers of former generations, who ought to have been born\nbefore Dr. Faustus invented printing, but who are unfortunately born\nnow, or, if born long ago, have been fraudulently and illegally\nconcealed by their mothers, and are now, for the first time, brought to\nlight. The age lifts such aged juveniles from the ground, and bids them\nlive, but they are sadly to seek in this day; they are old-fashioned\nboys; their authority is called in question; their traditions and old\nwives' fables are laughed at, at any rate disbelieved; they get\nprofanely elbowed in the crowd--men not knowing their great age and\nconsequent venerableness; the shovel hat, though apparently born on\ntheir head, is treated with disrespect. The very boys laugh pertly in\ntheir face when they speak, and even old men can scarce forbear a\nsmile, though it may be a smile of pity. The age affords such men a\nplace, for it is a catholic age, large-minded, and tolerant,--such a\nplace as it gives to ancient armor, Indian Bibles, and fossil bones of\nthe mastodon; it puts them by in some room seldom used, with other old\nfurniture, and allows them to mumble their anilities by themselves; now\nand then takes off its hat; looks in, charitably, to keep the mediaeval\nrelics in good heart, and pretends to listen, as they discourse of what\ncomes of nothing and goes to it; but in matters which the age cares\nabout, commerce, manufactures, politics, which it cares much for, even\nin education, which it cares far too little about, it trusts no such\ncounsellors, nor tolerates, nor ever affects to listen.\n\nThen there is a philosophical tendency, distinctly visible; a groping\nafter ultimate facts, first principles, and universal ideas. We wish to\nknow first the fact, next the law of that fact, and then the reason of\nthe law. A sign of this tendency is noticeable in the titles of books;\nwe have no longer \"treatises\" n the eye, the ear, sleep, and so forth,\nbut in their place we find works professing to treat of the \"philosophy\"\nof vision, of sound, of sleep. Even in the pulpits, men speak about the\n\"philosophy\" of religion; we have philosophical lectures, delivered to\nmen of little culture, which would have amazed our grandfathers, who\nthought a shoemaker should never go beyond his last, even to seek for\nthe philosophy of shoes. \"What a pity,\" said a grave Scotchman, in the\nbeginning of this century, \"to teach the beautiful science of geometry\nto weavers and cobblers.\" Here nothing is too good or high for any one\ntall and good enough to get hold of it. What audiences attend the Lowell\nlectures in Boston--two or three thousand men, listening to twelve\nlectures on the philosophy of fish! It would not bring a dollar or a\nvote, only thought to their minds! Young ladies are well versed in the\nphilosophy of the affections, and understand the theory of attraction,\nwhile their grandmothers, good easy souls, were satisfied with the\npossession of the fact. The circumstance, that philosophical lectures\nget delivered by men like Walker, Agassiz, Emerson, and their\ncoadjutors, men who do not spare abstruseness, get listened to, and even\nunderstood, in town and village, by large crowds of men, of only the\nmost common culture; this indicates a philosophical tendency, unknown in\nany other land or age. Our circle of professed scholars, men of culture\nand learning, is a very small one, while our circle of thinking men is\ndisproportionately large. The best thought of France and Germany finds a\nreadier welcome here than in our parent land: nay, the newest and the\nbest thought of England, finds its earliest and warmest welcome in\nAmerica. It was a little remarkable, that Bacon and Newton should be\nreprinted here, and La Place should have found his translator and\nexpositor coming out of an insurance office in Salem! Men of no great\npretensions object to an accomplished and eloquent politician: \"That is\nall very well; he made us cry and laugh, but the discourse was not\nphilosophical; he never tells us the reason of the thing; he seems not\nonly not to know it, but not to know that there is a reason for the\nthing, and if not, what is the use of this bobbing on the surface?\"\nYoung maidens complain of the minister, that he has no philosophy in his\nsermons, nothing but precepts, which they could read in the Bible as\nwell as he; perhaps in heathen Seneca. He does not feed their souls.\n\nOne finds this tendency where it is least expected: there is a\nphilosophical party in politics, a very small party it may be, but an\nactual one. They aim to get at everlasting ideas and universal laws, not\nmade by man, but by God, and for man, who only finds them; and from them\nthey aim to deduce all particular enactments, so that each statute in\nthe code shall represent a fact in the universe; a point of thought in\nGod; so, indeed, that legislation shall be divine in the same sense that\na true system of astronomy is divine--or the Christian religion--the law\ncorresponding to a fact. Men of this party, in New England, have more\nideas than precedents, are spontaneous more than logical; have\nintuitions, rather than intellectual convictions, arrived at by the\nprocess of reasoning. They think it is not philosophical to take a\nyoung scoundrel and shut him up with a party of old ones, for his\namendment; not philosophical to leave children with no culture,\nintellectual, moral, or religious, exposed to the temptations of a high\nand corrupt civilization, and then, when they go astray--as such\nbarbarians needs must, in such temptations--to hang them by the neck for\nthe example's sake. They doubt if war is a more philosophical mode of\ngetting justice between two nations, than blows to settle a quarrel\nbetween two men. In either case, they do not see how it follows, that he\nwho can strike the hardest blow is always in the right. In short, they\nthink that judicial murder, which is hanging, and national murder, which\nis war, are not more philosophical than homicide, which one man commits\non his own private account.\n\nTheological sects are always the last to feel any popular movement. Yet\nall of them, from the Episcopalians to the Quakers, have each a\nphilosophical party, which bids fair to outgrow the party which rests on\nprecedent and usage, to overshadow and destroy it. The Catholic church\nitself, though far astern of all the sects, in regard to the great\nmovements of the age, shares this spirit, and abroad, if not here, is\nwellnigh rent asunder by the potent medicine which this new Daniel of\nphilosophy has put into its mouth. Everywhere in the American churches\nthere are signs of a tendency to drop all that rests merely on\ntradition and hearsay, to cling only to such facts as bide the test of\ncritical search, and such doctrines as can be verified in human\nconsciousness here and to-day. Doctors of divinity destroy the faith\nthey once preached.\n\nTrue, there are antagonistic tendencies, for, soon as one pole is\ndeveloped, the other appears; objections are made to philosophy, the old\ncry is raised--\"Infidelity,\" \"Denial,\" \"Free-thinking.\" It is said that\nphilosophy will corrupt the young men, will spoil the old ones, and\ndeceive the very elect. \"Authority and tradition,\" say some, \"are all we\nneed consult; reason must be put down, or she will soon ask terrible\nquestions.\" There is good cause for these men warring against reason and\nphilosophy; it is purely in self-defence. But this counsel and that cry\ncome from those quarters before mentioned, where the men of past ages\nhave their place, where the forgotten is re-collected, the obsolete\npreserved, and the useless held in esteem. The counsel is not dangerous;\nthe bird of night, who overstays his hour, is only troublesome to\nhimself, and was never known to hurt a dovelet or a mouseling after\nsun-rise. In the night only is the owl destructive. Some of those who\nthus cry out against this tendency, are excellent men in their way, and\nhighly useful, valuable as conveyancers of opinions. So long as there\nare men who take opinions as real estate, \"to have and to hold for\nthemselves and their heirs forever,\" why should there not be such\nconveyancers of opinions, as well as of land? And as it is not the duty\nof the latter functionary to ascertain the quality or the value of the\nland, but only its metes and bounds, its appurtenances and the title\nthereto; to see if the grantor is regularly seized and possessed\nthereof, and has good right to convey and devise the same, and to make\nsure that the whole conveyance is regularly made out,--so is it with\nthese conveyancers of opinion; so should it be, and they are valuable\nmen. It is a good thing to know that we hold under Scotus, and Ramus,\nand Albertus Magnus, who were regularly seized of this or that opinion.\nIt gives an absurdity the dignity of a relic. Sometimes these worthies,\nwho thus oppose reason and her kin, seem to have a good deal in them,\nand, when one examines, he finds more than he looked for. They are like\na nest of boxes from Hingham and Nuremburg, you open one, and behold\nanother; that, and lo! a third. So you go on, opening and opening, and\nfinding and finding, till at last you come to the heart of the matter,\nand then you find a box that is very little, and entirely empty.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYet, with all this tendency--and it is now so strong that it cannot be\nput down, nor even howled down, much as it may be howled over--there is\na lamentable want of first principles, well known and established; we\nhave rejected the authority of tradition, but not yet accepted the\nauthority of truth and justice. We will not be treated as striplings,\nand are not old enough to go alone as men. Accordingly, nothing seems\nfixed. There is a perpetual see-sawing of opposite principles. Somebody\nsaid ministers ought to be ordained on horseback, because they are to\nremain so short a time in one place. It would be as emblematic to\ninaugurate American politicians, by swearing them on a weathercock. The\ngreat men of the land have as many turns in their course as the Euripus\nor the Missouri. Even the facts given in the spiritual nature of man are\ncalled in question. An eminent Unitarian divine regards the existence of\nGod as a matter of opinion, thinks it cannot be demonstrated, and\npublicly declares that it is \"not a certainty.\" Some American\nProtestants no longer take the Bible as the standard of ultimate appeal,\nyet venture not to set up in that place reason, conscience, the soul\ngetting help of God; others, who affect to accept the Scripture as the\nlast authority, yet, when questioned as to their belief in the\nmiraculous and divine birth of Jesus of Nazareth, are found unable to\nsay yes or no, not having made up their minds.\n\nIn politics, it is not yet decided whether it is best to leave men to\nbuy where they can buy cheapest, and sell where they can sell dearest,\nor to restrict that matter.\n\nIt was a clear case to our fathers, in '76, that all men were \"created\nequal,\" each with \"Unalienable Rights.\" That seemed so clear, that\nreasoning would not make it appear more reasonable; it was taken for\ngranted, as a self-evident proposition. The whole nation said so. Now,\nit is no strange thing to find it said that negroes are not \"created\nequal\" in unalienable rights with white men. Nay, in the Senate of the\nUnited States, a famous man declares all this talk a dangerous mistake.\nThe practical decision of the nation looks the same way. So, to make our\ntheory accord with our practice, we ought to recommit the Declaration to\nthe hands which drafted that great State-paper, and instruct Mr.\nJefferson to amend the document, and declare that \"All men are created\nequal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, if\nborn of white mothers; but if not, not.\"\n\nIn this lack of first principles, it is not settled in the popular\nconsciousness, that there is such a thing as an absolute right, a great\nlaw of God, which we are to keep, come what will come. So the nation is\nnot upright, but goes stooping. Hence, in private affairs, law takes the\nplace of conscience, and, in public, might of right. So the bankrupt\npays his shilling in the pound, and gets his discharge, but afterwards,\nbecoming rich, does not think of paying the other nineteen shillings. He\nwill tell you the law is his conscience; if that be satisfied, so is\nhe. But you will yet find him letting money at one or two per cent. a\nmonth, contrary to law; and then he will tell you that paying a debt is\na matter of law, while letting money is only a matter of conscience. So\nhe rides either indifferently--now the public hack, and now his own\nprivate nag, according as it serves his turn.\n\nSo a rich State borrows money and \"repudiates\" the debt, satisfying its\npolitical conscience, as the bankrupt his commercial conscience, with\nthe notion that there is no absolute right; that expediency is the only\njustice, and that King People can do no wrong. No calm voice of\nindignation cries out from the pulpit and the press and the heart of the\npeople, to shame the repudiators into decent morals; because it is not\nsettled in the popular mind that there is any absolute right. Then,\nbecause we are strong and the Mexicans weak, because we want their land\nfor a slave-pasture and they cannot keep us out of it, we think that is\nreason enough for waging an infamous war of plunder. Grave men do not\nask about \"the natural justice\" of such an undertaking, only about its\ncost. Have we not seen an American Congress vote a plain lie, with only\nsixteen dissenting voices in the whole body; has not the head of the\nnation continually repeated that lie; and do not both parties, even at\nthis day, sustain the vote?\n\nNow and then there rises up an honest man, with a great Christian heart\nin his bosom, and sets free a score or two of slaves inherited from his\nfather; watches over and tends them in their new-found freedom: or\nanother, who, when legally released from payment of his debts, restores\nthe uttermost farthing. We talk of this and praise it, as an\nextraordinary thing. Indeed it is so; justice is an unusual thing, and\nsuch men deserve the honor they thus win. But such praise shows that\nsuch honesty is a rare honesty. The northern man, born on the\nbattle-ground of freedom, goes to the South and becomes the most\ntyrannical of slave-drivers. The son of the Puritan, bred up in austere\nways, is sent to Congress to stand up for truth and right, but he turns\nout a \"dough-face,\" and betrays the duty he went to serve. Yet he does\nnot lose his place, for every dough-faced representative has a\ndough-faced constituency to back him.\n\nIt is a great mischief that comes from lacking first principles, and the\nworst part of it comes from lacking first principles in morals. Thereby\nour eyes are holden so that we see not the great social evils all about\nus. We attempt to justify slavery, even to do it in the name of Jesus\nChrist. The whig party of the North loves slavery; the democratic party\ndoes not even seek to conceal its affection therefor. A great politician\ndeclares the Mexican war wicked, and then urges men to go and fight it;\nhe thinks a famous general not fit to be nominated for President, but\nthen invites men to elect him. Politics are national morals, the morals\nof Thomas and Jeremiah, multiplied by millions. But it is not decided\nyet that honesty is the best policy for a politician; it is thought that\nthe best policy is honesty, at least as near it as the times will allow.\nMany politicians seem undecided how to turn, and so sit on the fence\nbetween honesty and dishonesty. Mr. Facing-both-ways is a popular\npolitician in America just now, sitting on the fence between honesty and\ndishonesty, and, like the blank leaf between the Old and New Testaments,\nbelonging to neither dispensation. It is a little amusing to a trifler\nto hear a man's fitness for the Presidency defended on the ground that\nhe has no definite convictions or ideas!\n\nThere was once a man who said he always told a lie when it would serve\nhis special turn. It is a pity he went to his own place long ago. He\nseemed born for a party politician in America. He would have had a large\nparty, for he made a great many converts before he died, and left a\nnumerous kindred busy in the editing of newspapers, writing addresses\nfor the people, and passing \"resolutions.\"\n\nIt must strike a stranger as a little odd, that a republic should have a\nslaveholder for President five sixths of the time, and most of the\nimportant offices be monopolized by other slaveholders; a little\nsurprising that all the pulpits and most of the presses should be in\nfavor of slavery, at least not against it. But such is the fact.\nEverybody knows the character of the American government for some years\npast, and of the American parties in politics. \"Like master, like man,\"\nused to be a true proverb in old England, and \"Like people, like ruler,\"\nis a true proverb in America; true now. Did a decided people ever choose\ndough-faces?--a people that loved God and man, choose representatives\nthat cared for neither truth nor justice? Now and then, for dust gets\ninto the brightest eyes; but did they ever choose such men continually?\nThe people are always fairly represented; our representatives do\nactually represent us, and in more senses than they are paid for.\nCongress and the Cabinet are only two thermometers hung up in the\ncapital, to show the temperature of the national morals.\n\nBut amid this general uncertainty there are two capital maxims which\nprevail amongst our huxters of politics: To love your party better than\nyour country, and yourself better than your party. There are, it is\ntrue, real statesmen amongst us, men who love justice and do the right,\nbut they seem lost in the mob of vulgar politicians and the dust of\nparty editors.\n\nSince the nation loves freedom above all things, the name democracy is a\nfavorite name. No party could live a twelvemonth that should declare\nitself anti-democratic. Saint and sinner, statesman and politician,\nalike love the name. So it comes to pass that there are two things\nwhich bear that name; each has its type and its motto. The motto of one\nis, \"You are as good as I, and let us help one another.\" That represents\nthe democracy of the Declaration of Independence, and of the New\nTestament; its type is a free school, where children of all ranks meet\nunder the guidance of intelligent and Christian men, to be educated in\nmind, and heart, and soul. The other has for its motto, \"I am as good as\nyou, so get out of my way.\" Its type is the bar-room of a tavern--dirty,\noffensive, stained with tobacco, and full of drunken, noisy, quarrelsome\n\"rowdies,\" just returned from the Mexican war, and ready for a \"buffalo\nhunt,\" for privateering, or to go and plunder any one who is better off\nthan themselves, especially if also better. That is not exactly the\ndemocracy of the Declaration, or of the New Testament; but of--no matter\nwhom.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThen, again, there is a great intensity of life and purpose. This\ndisplays itself in our actions and speeches; in our speculations; in the\n\"revivals\" of the more serious sects; in the excitements of trade; in\nthe general character of the people. All that we do we overdo. It\nappears in our hopefulness; we are the most aspiring of nations. Not\ncontent with half the continent, we wish the other half. We have this\ncharacteristic of genius: we are dissatisfied with all that we have\ndone. Somebody once said we were too vain to be proud. It is not wholly\nso; the national idea is so far above us that any achievement seems\nlittle and low. The American soul passes away from its work soon as it\nis finished. So the soul of each great artist refuses to dwell in his\nfinished work, for that seems little to his dream. Our fathers deemed\nthe Revolution a great work; it was once thought a surprising thing to\nfound that little colony on the shores of New England; but young America\nlooks to other revolutions, and thinks she has many a Plymouth colony in\nher bosom. If other nations wonder at our achievements, we are a\ndisappointment to ourselves, and wonder we have not done more. Our\nnational idea out-travels our experience, and all experience. We began\nour national career by setting all history at defiance--for that said,\n\"A republic on a large scale cannot exist.\" Our progress since has shown\nthat we were right in refusing to be limited by the past. The political\nideas of the nation are transcendant, not empirical. Human history could\nnot justify the Declaration of Independence and its large statements of\nthe new idea: the nation went behind human history and appealed to human\nnature.\n\nWe are more spontaneous than logical; we have ideas, rather than facts\nor precedents. We dream more than we remember, and so have many orators\nand poets, or poetasters, with but few antiquaries and general\nscholars. We are not so reflective as forecasting. We are the most\nintuitive of modern nations. The very party in politics which has the\nleast culture, is richest in ideas which will one day become facts.\nGreat truths--political, philosophical, religious--lie a-burning in many\na young heart which cannot legitimate nor prove them true, but none the\nless feels, and feels them true. A man full of new truths finds a ready\naudience with us. Many things which come disguised as truths under such\ncircumstances pass current for a time, but by and by their bray\ndiscovers them. The hope which comes from this intensity of life and\nintuition of truths is a national characteristic. It gives courage,\nenterprise, and strength. They can who think they can. We are confident\nin our star; other nations may see it or not, we know it is there above\nthe clouds. We do not hesitate at rash experiments--sending fifty\nthousand soldiers to conquer a nation with eight or nine millions of\npeople. We are up to every thing, and think ourselves a match for any\nthing. The young man is rash, for he only hopes, having little to\nremember; he is excitable, and loves excitement; change of work is his\nrepose; he is hot and noisy, sanguine and fearless, with the courage\nthat comes from warm blood and ignorance of dangers; he does not know\nwhat a hard, tough, sour old world he is born into. We are a nation of\nyoung men. We talked of annexing Texas and northern Mexico, and did\nboth; now we grasp at Cuba, Central America,--all the continent,--and\nspeak of a railroad to the Pacific as a trifle for us to accomplish. Our\nnational deeds are certainly great, but our hope and promise far\noutbrags them all.\n\nIf this intensity of life and hope have its good side, it has also its\nevil; with much of the excellence of youth we have its faults--rashness,\nhaste, and superficiality. Our work is seldom well done. In English\nmanufactures there is a certain solid honesty of performance; in the\nFrench a certain air of elegance and refinement: one misses both these\nin American works. It is said America invents the most machines, but\nEngland builds them best. We lack the phlegmatic patience of older\nnations. We are always in a hurry, morning, noon and night. We are\nimpatient of the process, but greedy of the result; so that we make\nshort experiments but long reports, and talk much though we say little.\nWe forget that a sober method is a short way of coming to the end, and\nthat he who, before he sets out, ascertains where he is going and the\nway thither, ends his journey more prosperously than one who settles\nthese matters by the way. Quickness is a great desideratum with us. It\nis said an American ship is known far off at sea by the quantity of\ncanvas she carries. Rough and ready is a popular attribute. Quick and\noff would be a symbolic motto for the nation at this day, representing\none phase of our character. We are sudden in deliberation; the\n\"one-hour rule\" works well in Congress. A committee of the British\nParliament spends twice or thrice our time in collecting facts,\nunderstanding and making them intelligible, but less than our time in\nspeech-making after the report; speeches there commonly being for the\npurpose of facilitating the business, while here one sometimes is half\nready to think, notwithstanding our earnestness, that the business is to\nfacilitate the speaking. A State revises her statutes with a rapidity\nthat astonishes a European. Yet each revision brings some amendment, and\nwhat is found good in the constitution or laws of one State gets\nspeedily imitated by the rest; each new State of the North becoming more\ndemocratic than its predecessor.\n\nWe are so intent on our purpose that we have no time for amusement. We\nhave but one or two festivals in the year, and even then we are serious\nand reformatory. Jonathan thinks it a very solemn thing to be merry. A\nFrenchman said we have but two amusements in America--Theology for the\nwomen and politics for the men; preaching and voting. If this be true,\nit may help to explain the fact that most men take their theology from\ntheir wives, and women politics from their husbands. No nation ever\ntried the experiment of such abstinence from amusement. We have no time\nfor sport, and so lose much of the poetry of life. All work and no play\ndoes not always make a dull boy, but it commonly makes a hard man.\n\nWe rush from school into business early; we hurry while in business; we\naim to be rich quickly, making a fortune at a stroke, making or losing\nit twice or thrice in a lifetime. \"Soft and fair, goes safe and far,\" is\nno proverb to our taste. We are the most restless of people. How we\ncrowd into cars and steamboats; a locomotive would well typify our\nfuming, fizzing spirit. In our large towns life seems to be only a\nscamper. Not satisfied with bustling about all day, when night comes we\ncannot sit still, but alone of all nations have added rockers to our\nchairs.\n\nAll is haste, from the tanning of leather to the education of a boy, and\nthe old saw holds its edge good as ever--\"the more haste the worse\nspeed.\" The young stripling, innocent of all manner of lore, whom a\njudicious father has barrelled down in a college, or law-school, or\ntheological seminary, till his beard be grown, mourns over the few years\nhe must spend there awaiting that operation. His rule is, \"to make a\nspoon or spoil a horn;\" he longs to be out in the world \"making a\nfortune,\" or \"doing good,\" as he calls what his father better names\n\"making noisy work for repentance, and doing mischief.\" So he rushes\ninto life not fitted, and would fly towards heaven, this young Icarus,\nhis wings not half fledged. There seems little taste for thoroughness.\nIn our schools as our farms, we pass over much ground but pass over it\npoorly.\n\nIn education the aim is not to get the most we can, but the least we can\nget along with. A ship with over-much canvas and over-little ballast\nwere no bad emblem of many amongst us. In no country is it so easy to\nget a reputation for learning--accumulated thought, because so few\ndevote themselves to that accumulation. In this respect our standard is\nlow. So a man of one attainment is sure to be honored, but a man of many\nand varied abilities is in danger of being undervalued. A Spurzheim\nwould be warmly welcomed, while a Humboldt would be suspected of\nsuperficiality, as we have not the standard to judge him by. Yet in no\ncountry in the world is it so difficult to get a reputation for\neloquence, as many speak and that well. It is surprising with what\nnatural strength and beauty the young American addresses himself to\nspeak. Some hatter's apprentice, or shoemaker's journeyman, at a\ntemperance or anti-slavery meeting, will speak words like the blows of\nan axe, that cut clean and deep. The country swarms with orators, more\nabundantly where education is least esteemed--in the West or South.\n\nWe have secured national unity of action for the white citizens, without\nmuch curtailing individual variety of action, so we have at the North\npretty well solved that problem which other nations have so often\nboggled over; we have balanced the centripetal power, the government and\nlaws, with the centrifugal power, the mass of individuals, into\nharmonious proportions. If one were to leave out of sight the three\nmillion slaves, one sixth part of the population, the problem might be\nregarded as very happily solved. As the consequences of this, in no\ncountry is there more talent, or so much awake and active. In the South\nthis unity is attained by sacrificing all the rights of three million\nslaves, and almost all the rights of the other colored population. In\ndespotic countries this unity is brought about by the sacrifice of\nfreedom, individual variety of action, in all except the despot and his\nfavorites; so, much of the nation's energy is stifled in the chains of\nthe State, while here it is friendly to institutions which are friendly\nto it, goes to its work, and approves itself in the vast increase of\nwealth and comfort throughout the North, where there is no class of men\nwhich is so oppressed that it cannot rise. One is amazed at the amount\nof ready skill and general ability which he finds in all the North,\nwhere each man has a little culture, takes his newspaper, manages\nhis own business, and talks with some intelligence of many\nthings--especially of politics and theology. In respect to this general\nintellectual ability and power of self-help, the mass of people seem far\nin advance of any other nation. But at the same time our scholars, who\nalways represent the nation's higher modes of consciousness, will not\nbear comparison with the scholars of England, France, and Germany, men\nthoroughly furnished for their work. This is a great reproach and\nmischief to us, for we need most accomplished leaders, who by their\nthought can direct this national intensity of life. Our literature does\nnot furnish them; we have no great men there; Irving, Channing, Cooper,\nare not names to conjure with in literature. One reads thick volumes\ndevoted to the poets of America, or her prose writers, and finds many\nnames which he wonders he never heard of before, but when he turns over\ntheir works, he finds consolation and recovers his composure.\n\nAmerican literature may be divided into two departments: the permanent\nliterature, which gets printed in books, that sometimes reach more than\none edition; and the evanescent literature, which appears only in the\nform of speeches, pamphlets, reviews, newspaper articles, and the like\nextempore productions. Now our permanent literature, as a general thing,\nis superficial, tame, and weak; it is not American; it has not our\nideas, our contempt of authority, our philosophical turn, nor even our\nuncertainty as to first principles, still less our national intensity,\nour hope, and fresh intuitive perceptions of truth. It is a miserable\nimitation. Love of freedom is not there. The real national literature is\nfound almost wholly in speeches, pamphlets, and newspapers. The latter\nare pretty thoroughly American; mirrors in which we see no very\nflattering likeness of our morals or our manners. Yet the picture is\ntrue: that vulgarity, that rant, that bragging violence, that\nrecklessness of truth and justice, that disregard of right and duty, are\na part of the nation's everyday life. Our newspapers are low and \"wicked\nto a fault;\" only in this weakness are they un-American. Yet they\nexhibit, and abundantly, the four qualities we have mentioned as\nbelonging to the signs of our times. As a general rule, our orators are\nalso American, with our good and ill. Now and then one rises who has\nstudied Demosthenes in Leland or Francis, and got a second-hand\nacquaintance with old models: a man who uses literary commonplaces, and\nthinks himself original and classic because he can quote a line or so of\nHorace, in a Western House of Representatives, without getting so many\nwords wrong as his reporter; but such men are rare, and after making due\nabatement for them, our orators all over the land are pretty thoroughly\nAmerican, a little turgid, hot, sometimes brilliant, hopeful, intuitive,\nabounding in half truths, full of great ideas; often inconsequent;\nsometimes coarse; patriotic, vain, self-confident, rash, strong, and\nyoung-mannish. Of course the most of our speeches are vulgar, ranting,\nand worthless, but we have produced some magnificent specimens of\noratory, which are fresh, original, American, and brand new.\n\nThe more studied, polished, and elegant literature is not so; that is\nmainly an imitation. It seems not a thing of native growth. Sometimes,\nas in Channing, the thought and the hope are American, but the form and\nthe coloring old and foreign. We dare not be original; our American pine\nmust be cut to the trim pattern of the English yew, though the pine\nbleed at every clip. This poet tunes his lyre at the harp of Goethe,\nMilton, Pope, or Tennyson. His songs might be better sung on the Rhine\nthan the Kennebec. They are not American in form or feeling; they have\nnot the breath of our air; the smell of our ground is not in them. Hence\nour poet seems cold and poor. He loves the old mythology; talks about\nPluto--the Greek devil, the fates and furies--witches of old time in\nGreece, but would blush to use our mythology, or breathe the name in\nverse of our devil, or our own witches, lest he should be thought to\nbelieve what he wrote. The mother and sisters, who with many a pinch and\npain sent the hopeful boy to college, must turn over the classical\ndictionary before they can find out what the youth would be at in his\nrhymes. Our poet is not deep enough to see that Aphrodite came from the\nordinary waters, that Homer only hitched into rhythm and furnished the\naccomplishment of verse to street-talk, nursery tales, and old men's\ngossip in the Ionian towns; he thinks what is common is unclean. So he\nsings of Corinth and Athens, which he never saw, but has not a word to\nsay of Boston, and Fall River, and Baltimore, and New York, which are\njust as meet for song. He raves of Thermopylae and Marathon, with never a\nword for Lexington and Bunker-hill, for Cowpens, and Lundy's Lane, and\nBemis's Heights. He loves to tell of the Ilyssus, of \"smooth-sliding\nMincius, crowned with vocal reeds,\" yet sings not of the Petapsco, the\nSusquehanna, the Aroostook, and the Willimantick. He prates of the\nnarcissus and the daisy, never of American dandelions and blue-eyed\ngrass; he dwells on the lark and the nightingale, but has not a thought\nfor the brown thrasher and the bobolink, who every morning in June rain\ndown such showers of melody on his affected head. What a lesson Burns\nteaches us, addressing his \"rough bur-thistle,\" his daisy, \"wee crimson\ntippit thing,\" and finding marvellous poetry in the mouse whose nest his\nplough turned over! Nay, how beautifully has even our sweet poet sung of\nour own Green river, our waterfowl, of the blue and fringed gentian, the\nglory of autumnal days.\n\nHitherto, spite of the great reading public, we have no permanent\nliterature which corresponds to the American idea. Perhaps it is not\ntime for that; it must be organized in deeds before it becomes classic\nin words; but as yet we have no such literature which reflects even the\nsurface of American life, certainly nothing which portrays our intensity\nof life, our hope, or even our daily doings and drivings, as the\nOdyssey paints old Greek life, or Don Quixote and Gil Bias portray\nSpanish life. Literary men are commonly timid; ours know they are but\npoorly fledged as yet, so dare not fly away from the parent tree, but\nhop timidly from branch to branch. Our writers love to creep about in\nthe shadow of some old renown, not venturing to soar away into the\nunwinged air, to sing of things here and now, making our life classic.\nSo, without the grace of high culture, and the energy of American\nthought, they become weak, cold, and poor; are \"curious, not knowing,\nnot exact, but nice.\" Too fastidious to be wise, too unlettered to be\nelegant, too critical to create, they prefer a dull saying that is old\nto a novel form of speech, or a natural expression of a new truth. In a\nsingle American work,--and a famous one too,--there are over sixty\nsimiles, not one original, and all poor. A few men, conscious of this\ndefect, this sin against the Holy Spirit of Literature, go to the\nopposite extreme, and are American-mad; they wilfully talk rude, write\nin-numerous verse, and play their harps all jangling, out of tune. A yet\nfewer few are American without madness. One such must not here be passed\nby, alike philosopher and bard, in whose writings \"ancient wisdom shines\nwith new-born beauty,\" and who has enriched a genius thoroughly American\nin the best sense, with a cosmopolitan culture and literary skill, which\nwere wonderful in any land. But of American literature in general, and\nof him in special, more shall be said at another time.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnother remarkable feature is our excessive love of material things.\nThis is more than a Utilitarianism, a preference of the useful over the\nbeautiful. The Puritan at Plymouth had a corn-field, a cabbage-garden,\nand a patch for potatoes, a school-house, and a church, before he sat\ndown to play the fiddle. He would have been a fool to reverse this\nprocess. It were poor economy and worse taste to have painters,\nsculptors, and musicians, while the rude wants of the body are uncared\nfor. But our fault in this respect is, that we place too much the charm\nof life in mere material things,--houses, lands, well-spread tables, and\nelegant furniture,--not enough in man, in virtue, wisdom, genius,\nreligion, greatness of soul, and nobleness of life. We mistake a\nperfection of the means of manliness for the end--manhood itself. Yet\nthe housekeeping of a Shakspeare, Milton, Franklin, had only one thing\nworth boasting of. Strange to say, that was the master of the house. A\nrich and vulgar man once sported a coach and four, and at its first\nturn-out rode into the great commercial street of a large town in New\nEngland. \"How fine you must feel with your new coach and four,\" said one\nof his old friends, though not quite so rich. \"Yes,\" was the reply, \"as\nfine as a beetle in a gold snuff-box.\" All of his kindred are not so\nnice and discriminating in their self-consciousness.\n\nThis practical materialism is a great affliction to us. We think a man\ncannot be poor and great also. So we see a great man sell himself for a\nlittle money, and it is thought \"a good operation.\" A conspicuous man,\nin praise of a certain painter, summed up his judgment with this: \"Why,\nSir, he has made twenty thousand dollars by his pictures.\" \"A good deal\nmore than Michael Angelo, Leonardo, and Raphael together,\" might have\nbeen the reply. But it is easier to weigh purses than artistic skill. It\nwas a characteristic praise bestowed in Boston on a distinguished\nAmerican writer, that his book brought him more money than any man had\never realized for an original work in this country. \"Commerce,\" said Mr.\nPitt, \"having got into both houses of Parliament, privilege must be done\naway,\"--the privilege of wit and genius, not less than rank. Clergymen\nestimate their own and their brothers' importance, not by their\napostolical gifts, or even apostolic succession, but by the value of the\nliving.\n\nAll other nations have this same fault, it may be said. But there is\nthis difference: in other nations the things of a man are put before the\nman himself; so a materialism which exalts the accidents of the\nman--rank, wealth, birth, and the like--above the man, is not\ninconsistent with the general idea of England or Austria. In America it\nis a contradiction. Besides, in most civilized countries, there is a\nclass of men living on inherited wealth, who devote their lives to\npolitics, art, science, letters, and so are above the mere material\nelegance which surrounds them. That class has often inflicted a deep\nwound on society, which festers long and leads to serious trouble in the\nsystem, but at the same time it redeems a nation from the reproach of\nmere material vulgarity; it has been the source of refinement, and has\nwarmed into life much of the wisdom and beauty which have thence spread\nover all the world. In America there is no such class. Young men\ninheriting wealth very rarely turn to any thing noble; they either\nconvert their talents into gold, or their gold into furniture, wines,\nand confectionary. A young man of wealth does not know what to do with\nhimself or it; a rich young woman seems to have no resource but\nmarriage! Yet it must be confessed, that at least in one part of the\nUnited States wealth flows freely for the support of public institutions\nof education.\n\nHere it is difficult for a man of science to live by his thought. Was\nBowditch one of the first mathematicians of his age? He must be at the\nhead of an annuity office. If Socrates should set up as a dealer in\nmoney, and outwit the brokers as formerly the Sophists, and shave notes\nas skilfully as of old, we should think him a great man. But if he\nadopted his old plan, what should we say of him?\n\nManliness is postponed and wealth preferred. \"What a fine house is\nthis,\" one often says; \"what furniture; what feasting. But the master of\nthe house!--why every stone out of the wall laughs at him. He spent all\nof himself in getting this pretty show together, and now it is empty,\nand mocks its owner. He is the emblematic coffin at the Egyptian feast.\"\n\"Oh, man!\" says the looker-on, \"why not furnish thyself with a mind, and\nconscience, a heart and a soul, before getting all this brass and\nmahogany together; this beef and these wines?\" The poor wight would\nanswer,--\"Why, Sir, there were none such in the market!\"--The young man\ndoes not say, \"I will first of all things be a man, and so being will\nhave this thing and the other,\" putting the agreeable after the\nessential. But he says, \"First of all, by hook or by crook, I will have\nmoney, the manhood may take care of itself.\" He has it,--for tough and\nhard as the old world is, it is somewhat fluid before a strong man who\nresolutely grapples with difficulty and will swim through, it can be\nmade to serve his turn. He has money, but the man has evaporated in the\nprocess; when you look he is not there. True, other nations have done\nthe same thing, and we only repeat their experiment. The old devil of\nconformity says to our American Adam and Eve, \"Do this and you shall be\nas gods,\" a promise as likely to hold good as the devil's did in the\nbeginning. A man was meant for something more than a tassel to a large\nestate, and a woman to be more than a rich housekeeper.\n\nWith this offensive materialism we copy the vices of feudal aristocracy\nabroad, making our vulgarity still more ridiculous. We are ambitious or\nproud of wealth, which is but labor stored up, and at the same time are\nashamed of labor which is wealth in process. With all our talk about\ndemocracy, labor is thought less honorable in Boston than in Berlin and\nLeipsic. Thriving men are afraid their children will be shoemakers, or\nply some such honorable and useful craft. Yet little pains are taken to\nelevate the condition or improve the manners and morals of those who do\nall the manual work of society. The strong man takes care that his\nchildren and himself escape that condition. We do not believe that all\nstations are alike honorable if honorably filled; we have little desire\nto equalize the burdens of life, so that there shall be no degraded\nclass; none cursed with work, none with idleness. It is popular to endow\na college; vulgar to take an interest in common schools. Liberty is a\nfact, equality a word, and fraternity, we do not think of yet.\n\nIn this struggle for material wealth and the social rank which is based\nthereon, it is amusing to see the shifting of the scenes; the social\naspirations of one and the contempt with which another rebuts the\naspirant. An old man can remember when the most exclusive of men, and\nthe most golden, had scarce a penny in their purse, and grumbled at not\nfinding a place where they would. Now the successful man is ashamed of\nthe steps he rose by. The gentleman who came to Boston half a century\nago, with all his worldly goods tied up in a cotton handkerchief, and\nthat not of so large a pattern as are made now-a-days, is ashamed to\nrecollect that his father was a currier, or a blacksmith, or a skipper\nat Barnstable or Beverly; ashamed, also, of his forty or fifty country\ncousins, remarkable for nothing but their large hands and their\nexcellent memory. Nay, he is ashamed of his own humble beginnings, and\nsneers at men starting as he once started. The generation of English\n\"Snobs\" came in with the Conqueror, and migrated to America at an early\nday, where they continue to thrive marvellously--the chief \"conservative\nparty\" in the land.\n\nThrough this contempt for labor, a certain affectation runs through a\ngood deal of American society, and makes our aristocracy vulgar and\ncontemptible. What if Burns had been ashamed of his plough, and Franklin\nhad lost his recollection of the candle-moulds and the composing stick?\nMr. Chubbs, who got rich to-day, imitates Mr. Swipes, who got rich\nyesterday, buys the same furniture, gives similar entertainments, and\ncounts himself \"as good a man as Swipes, any day.\" Nay, he goes a little\nbeyond him, puts his servants in livery, with the \"Chubbs arms\" on the\nbutton; but the new-found family arms are not descriptive of the\ncharacter of the Chubbses, or of their origin and history--only of their\nvanity. Then Mr. Swipes looks down on poor Chubbs, and curls his lip\nwith scorn; calls him a \"parvenu,\" \"an upstart,\" \"a plebeian;\" speaks of\nhim as one of \"that sort of people,\" \"one of your ordinary men;\"\n\"thrifty and well off in the world, but a little vulgar.\" At the same\ntime Mr. Swipes looks up to Mr. Bung, who got rich the day before\nyesterday, as a gentleman of old family and quite distinguished, and\nreceives from that quarter the same treatment he bestows on his\nleft-hand neighbor. The real gentleman is the same all the world over.\nSuch are by no means lacking here, while the pretended gentlemen swarm\nin America. Chaucer said a good word long ago:\n\n    \"--This is not mine intendement\n    To clepen no wight in no age\n    Only gentle for his lineage;\n    But whoso that is virtuous,\n    And in his port not outrageous:\n    When such one thou see'st thee beforn,\n    Though he be not gentle born,\n    Thou mayest well see this in soth,\n    That he is gentle, because he doth\n    As 'longeth to a gentleman;\n    Of them none other deem I can;\n    For certainly withouten drede,\n    A churl is deemed by his deed,\n    Of high or low, as ye may see,\n    Or of what kindred that he be.\"\n\nIt is no wonder vulgar men, who travel here and eat our dinners, laugh\nat this form of vulgarity. Wiser men see its cause, and prophesy its\nspeedy decay. Every nation has its aristocracy, or controlling class: in\nsome lands it is permanent, an aristocracy of blood; men that are\ndescended from distinguished warriors, from the pirates and freebooters\nof a rude age. The nobility of England are proud of their fathers'\ndeeds, and emblazon the symbols thereof in their family arms, emblems of\nbarbarism. Ours is an aristocracy of wealth, not got by plunder, but by\ntoil, thrift, enterprise; of course it is a movable aristocracy: the\nfirst families of the last century are now forgot, and their successors\nwill give place to new names. Now earning is nobler than robbing, and\nwork is before war; but we are ashamed of both, and seek to conceal the\nnoble source of our wealth. An aristocracy of gold is far preferable to\nthe old and immovable nobility of blood, but it has also its peculiar\nvices: it has the effrontery of an upstart, despises its own ladder, is\nheartless and lacks noble principle, vulgar and cursing. This lust of\nwealth, however, does us a service, and gives the whole nation a\nstimulus which it needs, and, low as the motive is, drives us to\ncontinual advancement. It is a great merit for a nation to secure the\nlargest amount of useful and comfortable and beautiful things which can\nbe honestly earned, and used with profit to the body and soul of man.\nOnly when wealth becomes an idol, and material abundance is made the\nend, not the means, does the love of it become an evil. No nation was\never too rich, or overthrifty, though many a nation has lost its soul by\nliving wholly for the senses.\n\nNow and then we see noble men living apart from this vulgarity and\nscramble; some rich, some poor, but both content to live for noble aims,\nto pinch and spare for virtue, religion, for truth and right. Such men\nnever fail from any age or land, but everywhere they are the exceptional\nmen. Still they serve to keep alive the sacred fire in the hearts of\nyoung men, rising amid the common mob as oaks surpass the brambles or\nthe fern.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn these secondary qualities of the people which mark the special signs\nof the times, there are many contradictions, quality contending with\nquality; all by no means balanced into harmonious relations. Here are\ngreat faults not less than great virtues. Can the national faults be\ncorrected? Most certainly; they are but accidental, coming from our\ncircumstances, our history, our position as a people--heterogeneous,\nnew, and placed on a new and untamed continent. They come not from the\nnation's soul; they do not belong to our fundamental idea, but are\nhostile to it. One day our impatience of authority, our philosophical\ntendency, will lead us to a right method, that to fixed principles, and\nthen we shall have a continuity of national action. Considering the\npains taken by the fathers of the better portion of America to promote\nreligion here, remembering how dear is Christianity to the heart of all,\nconservative and radical--though men often name as Christian what is\nnot--and seeing how truth and right are sure to win at last,--it becomes\npretty plain that we shall arrive at true principles, laws of the\nuniverse, ideas of God; then we shall be in unison also with it and Him.\nWhen that great defect--lack of first principles--is corrected, our\nintensity of life, with the hope and confidence it inspires, will do a\ngreat work for us. We have already secured an abundance of material\ncomforts hitherto unknown; no land was ever so full of corn and cattle,\nclothing, comfortable houses, and all things needed for the flesh. The\ndesire of those things, even the excessive desire thereof, performs an\nimportant part in the divine economy of the human race; nowhere is its\ngood effect more conspicuous than in America, where in two generations\nthe wild Irishman becomes a decent citizen, orderly, temperate, and\nintelligent. This done or even a-doing, as it is now, we shall go forth\nto realize our great national idea, and accomplish the great work of\norganizing into institutions the unalienable rights of man. The great\nobstacle in the way of that is African slavery--the great exception in\nthe nation's history; the national sin. When that is removed, as soon it\nmust be, lesser but kindred evils will easily be done away; the truth\nwhich the land-reformers, which the associationists, the free-traders,\nand others, have seen, dimly or clearly, can readily be carried out. But\nwhile this monster vice continues, there is little hope of any great and\npermanent national reform. The positive things which we chiefly need for\nthis work, are first, education, next, education, and then education, a\nvigorous development of the mind, conscience, affections, religious\npower of the whole nation. The method and the means for that I shall not\nnow discuss.\n\nThe organization of human rights, the performance of human duties, is an\nunlimited work. If there shall ever be a time when it is all done, then\nthe race will have finished its course. Shall the American nation go on\nin this work, or pause, turn off, fall, and perish? To me it seems\nalmost treason to doubt that a glorious future awaits us. Young as we\nare, and wicked, we have yet done something which the world will not let\nperish. One day we shall attend more emphatically to the rights of the\nhand, and organize labor and skill; then to the rights of the head,\nlooking after education, science, literature, and art; and again to the\nrights of the heart, building up the State with its laws, society with\nits families, the church with its goodness and piety. One day we shall\nsee that it is a shame, and a loss, and a wrong, to have a criminal, or\nan ignorant man, or a pauper, or an idler, in the land; that the jail,\nand the gallows, and the almshouse are a reproach which need not be. Out\nof new sentiments and ideas, not seen as yet, new forms of society will\ncome, free from the antagonism of races, classes, men--representing the\nAmerican idea in its length, breadth, depth, and height, its beauty and\nits truth, and then the old civilization of our time shall seem\nbarbarous and even savage. There will be an American art commensurate\nwith our idea and akin to this great continent; not an imitation, but a\nfresh, new growth. An American literature also must come with democratic\nfreedom, democratic thought, democratic power--for we are not always to\nbe pensioners of other lands, doing nothing but import and quote; a\nliterature with all of German philosophic depth, with English solid\nsense, with French vivacity and wit, Italian fire of sentiment and soul,\nwith all of Grecian elegance of form, and more than Hebrew piety and\nfaith in God. We must not look for the maiden's ringlets on the baby's\nbrow; we are yet but a girl; the nameless grace of maturity, and\nwomanhood's majestic charm, are still to come. At length we must have a\nsystem of education, which shall uplift the humblest, rudest, worst born\nchild in all the land; which shall bring forth and bring up noble men.\n\nAn American State is a thing that must also be; a State of free men who\ngive over brawling, resting on industry, justice, love, not on war,\ncunning, and violence,--a State where liberty, equality, and fraternity\nare deeds as well as words. In its time the American Church must also\nappear, with liberty, holiness, and love for its watchwords, cultivating\nreason, conscience, affection, faith, and leading the world's way in\njustice, peace, and love. The Roman Church has been all men know what\nand how; the American Church, with freedom for the mind, freedom for the\nheart, freedom for the soul, is yet to be, sundering no chord of the\nhuman harp, but tuning all to harmony. This also must come; but hitherto\nno one has risen with genius fit to plan its holy walls, conceive its\ncolumns, project its towers, or lay its corner-stone. Is it too much to\nhope all this? Look at the arena before us--look at our past history.\nHark! there is the sound of many million men, the trampling of their\nfreeborn feet, the murmuring of their voice; a nation born of this land\nthat God reserved so long a virgin earth, in a high day married to the\nhuman race,--rising, and swelling, and rolling on, strong and certain as\nthe Atlantic tide; they come numerous as ocean waves when east winds\nblow, their destination commensurate with the continent, with ideas vast\nas the Mississippi, strong as the Alleghanies, and awful as Niagara;\nthey come murmuring little of the past, but, moving in the brightness of\ntheir great idea, and casting its light far on to other lands and\ndistant days--come to the world's great work, to organize the rights of\nman.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nA DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE DEATH OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. DELIVERED AT\nTHE MELODEON, IN BOSTON, MARCH 5, 1848.\n\n\nWithin a few days one of the most distinguished statesmen of the age has\npassed away; a man who has long been before the public, familiarly known\nin the new world and the old. He was one of the prominent monuments of\nthe age. It becomes us to look at his life, works, and public character,\nwith an impartial eye; to try him by the Christian standard. Let me\nextenuate nothing, add nothing, and set down nought from any partial\nlove or partial hate. His individuality has been so marked in a long\nlife, his good and evil so sharply defined, that one can scarcely fail\nto delineate its most important features.\n\nGod has made some men great and others little. The use of great men is\nto serve the little men; to take care of the human race, and act as\npractical interpreters of justice and truth. This is not the Hebrew\nrule, nor the heathen, nor the common rule, only the Christian. The\ngreat man is to be the servant of mankind, not they of him. Perhaps\ngreatness is always the same thing in kind, differing only in mode and\nin form, as well as degree. The great man has more of human nature than\nother men, organized in him. So far as that goes, therefore, he is more\nme than I am myself. We feel that superiority in all our intercourse\nwith great men, whether kings, philosophers, poets, or saints. In kind\nwe are the same; different in degree.\n\nIn nature we find individuals, not orders and genera; but for our own\nconvenience in understanding and recollecting, we do a little violence\nto nature, and put the individuals into classes. In this way we\nunderstand better both the whole and each of its parts. Human nature\nfurnishes us with individual great men; for convenience we put them into\nseveral classes, corresponding to their several modes or forms of\ngreatness. It is well to look at these classes before we examine any one\ngreat man; this will render it easier to see where he belongs and what\nhe is worth. Actual service is the test of actual greatness; he who\nrenders, of himself, the greatest actual service to mankind, is actually\nthe greatest man. There may be other tests for determining the potential\ngreatness of men, or the essential; this is the Christian rule for\ndetermining the actual greatness. Let us arrange these men in the\nnatural order of their work.\n\nFirst of all, there are great men who discover general truths, great\nideas, universal laws, or invent methods of thought and action. In this\nclass the vastness of a man's genius may be measured, and his relative\nrank ascertained by the transcendency of his ideas, by the newness of\nhis truth, by its practical value, and the difficulty of attaining it in\nhis time, and under his peculiar circumstances. In literature it is such\nmen who originate thoughts, and put them into original forms; they are\nthe great men of letters. In philosophy we meet with such; and they are\nthe great men of science. Thus Socrates discovered the philosophical\nmethod of minute analysis that distinguished his school, and led to the\nrapid advance of knowledge in the various and even conflicting\nacademies, which held this method in common, but applied it in various\nways, well or ill, and to various departments of human inquiry; thus\nNewton discovered the law of gravitation, universal in nature, and by\nthe discovery did immense service to mankind. In politics we find\nsimilar, or analogous men, who discover yet other laws of God, which\nbear the same relation to men in society that gravitation bears to the\norbs in heaven, or to the dust and stones in the street; men that\ndiscover the first truths of politics, and teach the true method of\nhuman society. Such are the great men in politics.\n\nWe find corresponding men in religion; men who discover an idea so\ncentral that all sectarianism of parties or of nations seems little in\nits light; who discover and teach the universal law which unifies the\nrace, binding man to man, and men to God; who discover the true method\nof religion conducting to natural worship without limitation, to free\npiety, free goodness, free thought. To my mind such are the greatest of\ngreat men, when measured by the transcendency of their doctrine and the\nservice they render to all. By the influence of their idea, letters,\nphilosophy, and politics become nobler and more beautiful, both in their\nforms and their substance.\n\nSuch is the class of discoverers; men who get truth at first hand, truth\npertaining either especially to literature, philosophy, politics,\nreligion, or at the same time to each and all of them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe next class consists of such as organize these ideas, methods,\ntruths, and laws; they concretize the abstract, particularize the\ngeneral; they apply philosophy to practical purposes, organizing the\ndiscoveries of science into a railroad, a mill, a steam-ship, and by\ntheir work an idea becomes fact. They organize love into families,\njustice into a state, piety into a church. Wealth is power, knowledge is\npower, religion power; they organize all these powers, wealth,\nknowledge, religion, into common life, making divinity humanity, and\nthat society.\n\nThis organizing genius is a very great one, and appears in various\nforms. One man spreads his thought out on the soil, whitening the land\nwith bread-corn; another applies his mind to the rivers of New England,\nmaking them spin and weave for the human race; this man will organize\nhis thought into a machine with one idea, joining together fire and\nwater, iron and wood, animating them into a new creature, ready to do\nman's bidding; while that with audacious hand steals the lightning of\nheaven, organizes his plastic thought within that pliant fire, and sends\nit of his errands to fetch and carry tidings between the ends of the\nearth.\n\nAnother form of this mode of greatness is seen in politics, in\norganizing men. The man spreads his thought out on mankind, puts men\ninto true relations with one another and with God; he organizes\nstrength, wisdom, justice, love, piety; balances the conflicting forces\nof a nation, so that each man has his natural liberty as complete as if\nthe only man, yet, living in society, gathers advantages from all the\nrest. The highest degree of this organizing power is the genius for\nlegislation, which can enact justice and eternal right into treaties and\nstatutes, codifying the divine thought into human laws, making absolute\nreligion common life and daily custom, and balancing the centripetal\npower of the mass, with the centrifugal power of the individual, into a\nwell-proportioned state, as God has balanced these two conflicting\nforces into the rhythmic ellipses above our heads. It need not be\ndisguised, that politics are the highest business for men of this class,\nnor that a great statesman or legislator is the greatest example of\nconstructive skill. It requires some ability to manage the brute forces\nof Nature, or to combine profitably nine-and-thirty clerks in a shop;\nhow much more to arrange twenty millions of intelligent, free men, not\nfor a special purpose, but for all the ends of universal life!\n\nSuch is the second class of great men; the organizers, men of\nconstructive heads, who form the institutions of the world, the little\nand the great.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe next class consists of men who administer the institutions after\nthey are founded. To do this effectually and even eminently, it requires\nno genius for original organization of truths freshly discovered, none\nfor the discovery of truths, outright. It requires only a perception of\nthose truths, and an acquaintance with the institutions wherein they\nhave become incarnate; a knowledge of details, of formulas, and\npractical methods, united with a strong will and a practised\nunderstanding,--what is called a turn for affairs, tact, or address; a\nknowledge of routine and an acquaintance with men. The success of such\nmen will depend on these qualities; they \"know the ropes\" and the\nsoundings, the signs of the times; can take advantage of the winds and\nthe tides.\n\nIn a shop, farm, ship, factory, or army, in a church or a State, such\nmen are valuable; they cannot be dispensed with; they are wheels to the\ncarriage; without them cannot a city be inhabited. They are always more\nnumerous than both the other classes; more such are needed, and\ntherefore born. The American mind, just now, runs eminently in this\ndirection. These are not men of theories, or of new modes of thought or\naction, but what are called practical men, men of a few good rules, men\nof facts and figures, not so full of ideas as of precedents. They are\ncalled common-sense men; not having too much common-sense to be\nunderstood. They are not likely to be fallen in with far off at sea;\nquite as seldom out of their reckoning in ordinary weather. Such men are\nexcellent statesmen in common times, but in times of trouble, when old\nprecedents will not suit the new case, and men must be guided by the\nnature of man, not his history, they are not strong enough for the\nplace, and get pushed off by more constructive heads.\n\nThese men are the administrators, or managers. If they have a little\nless of practical sense, such men fall a little below, and turn out only\ncritics, of whom I will not now stop to discourse.\n\nTo have a railroad, there must have been first the discoverers, who\nfound out the properties of wood and iron, fire and water, and their\nlatent power to carry men over the earth; next, the organizers, who put\nthese elements together, surveyed the route, planned the structure, set\nmen to grade the hill, to fill the valley, and pave the road with iron\nbars; and then the administrators, who, after all that is done, procure\nthe engines, engineers, conductors, ticket-distributors, and the rest of\nthe \"hands;\" they buy the coal and see it is not wasted, fix the rates\nof fare, calculate the savings, and distribute the dividends. The\ndiscoverers and organizers often fare hard in the world, lean men, ill\nclad and suspected, often laughed at, while the administrator is thought\nthe greater man, because he rides over their graves and pays the\ndividends, where the organizer only called for the assessments, and the\ndiscoverer told what men called a dream. What happens in a railroad\nhappens also in a Church, or a State.\n\nLet us for a moment compare these three classes of great men. Measured\nby the test referred to, the discoverers are the greatest of all. They\nanticipate the human race, with long steps, striding before their kind.\nThey learn not only from the history of man, but man's nature; not by\nempirical experience alone, but by a transcendent intuition of truth,\nnow seen as a law, now as an idea. They are wiser than experience, and\nby divination through their nobler nature know at once what the human\nrace has not learned in its thousands of years, kindling their lamp at\nthe central fire now streaming from the sky, now rushing broad-sheeted\nand terrible as ground-lightning from the earth. Of such men there are\nbut few, especially in the highest mode of this greatness. A single One\nmakes a new world, and men date ages after him.\n\nNext in order of greatness comes the organizer. He, also, must have\ngreat intellect, and character. It is no light work to make thoughts\nthings. It requires mind to make a mill out of a river, bricks, iron,\nand stone, and set all the Connecticut to spinning cotton. But to\nconstruct a State, to harness fittingly twenty million men, animated by\nsuch divergent motives, possessing interests so unlike--this is the\ngreatest work of constructive skill. To translate the ideas of the\ndiscoverer into institutions, to yoke men together by mere\n\"abstractions,\" universal laws, and by such yoking save the liberty of\nall and secure the welfare of each--that is the most creative of poetry,\nthe most constructive of sciences. In modern times, it is said, Napoleon\nis the greatest example of this faculty; not a discoverer, but an\norganizer of the highest power and on the largest scale. In human\nhistory he seems to have had no superior, perhaps no equal.\n\nSome callings in life afford little opportunity to develop the great\nqualities above alluded to. How much genius lies latent no man can know;\nbut he that walks familiarly with humble men often stumbles over masses\nof unsunned gold, where men proud in emptiness, looked only for common\ndust. How many a Milton sits mute and inglorious in his shop; how many a\nCromwell rears only corn and oxen for the world's use, no man can know.\nSome callings help to light, some hide and hinder. But there is none\nwhich demands more ability than politics; they develop greatness, if the\nman have the germ thereof within him. True, in politics, a man may get\nalong with a very little ability, without being a discoverer or an\norganizer; were it otherwise we should not be blessed with a very large\nHouse, or a crowded Senate. Nay, experience shows that in ordinary times\none not even a great administrator may creep up to a high place and hang\non there awhile. Few able administrators sit on the thrones of Europe at\nthis day. But if power be in the man, the hand of politics will draw out\nthe spark.\n\nIn America, politics more than elsewhere demand greatness, for ours is,\nin theory, the government of all, for all, and by all. It requires\ngreater range of thought to discover the law for all than for a few;\nafter the discovery thereof it is more difficult to construct a\ndemocracy than a monarchy, or an aristocracy, and after that is\norganized, it is more difficult to administer. It requires more manhood\nto wield at will \"the fierce democratie\" of America than to rule England\nor France; yet the American institutions are germane to human nature,\nand by that fact are rendered more easy, complicated as they are.\n\nIn politics, when the institutions are established, men often think\nthere is no room for discoverers and organizers; that administrators\nalone are needed, and choose accordingly. But there are ideas well\nknown, not yet organized into institutions: that of free trade, of\npeace, of universal freedom, universal education, universal comfort, in\na word, the idea of human brotherhood. These wait to be constructed into\na State without injustice, without war, without slavery, ignorance, or\nwant. It is hardly true that Infinity is dry of truths, unseen as yet;\nthere are truths enough waiting to be discovered; all the space betwixt\nus and God is full of ideas, waiting for some Columbus to disclose new\nworlds. Men are always saying there is no new thing under the sun, but\nwhen the discoverer comes, they see their mistake. We want the new eye.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow, it is quite plain where we are to place the distinguished person of\nwhom I speak. Mr. Adams was not a discoverer; not an organizer. He added\nno truth to mankind, not known before, and even well known; he made no\nknown truth a fact. He was an administrator of political institutions.\nTaking the whole land into consideration, comparing him with his\ncompetitors, measuring him by his apparent works, at first sight he does\nnot seem very highly eminent in this class of political administrators.\nNay, some would set him down, not an administrator so much as a\npolitical critic.\n\nHere there is danger of doing him injustice, by neglecting a fact so\nobvious, that it is seldom seen. Mr. Adams was a northern man, with\nnorthern habits, methods, and opinions. By the North, I mean the free\nStates. The chief business of the North is to get empire over nature;\nall tends to that. Young men of talents become merchants,\nmerchant-manufacturers, merchant-traders. The object directly aimed at,\nis wealth; not wealth by plunder, but by productive work. Now, to get\ndominion over nature, there must be education, universal education,\notherwise there is not enough intelligent industry, which alone insures\nthat dominion. With widespread intelligence, property will be widely\ndistributed, and, of course, suffrage and civil power will get\ndistributed. All is incomplete without religion. I deny not that these\npeculiarities of the North, come, also, from other sources, but they all\nare necessary to attain the chief object thereof--dominion over the\nmaterial world. The North subdues nature by thought, and holds her\npowers in thrall. As results of this, see the increase in wealth which\nis signified by northern railroads, ships, mills, and shops; in the\ncolleges, schools, churches, which arise; see the skill developed in\nthis struggle with nature, the great enterprises which come of that,\nthe movements of commerce, manufactures, the efforts--and successful,\ntoo--for the promotion of education, of religion. All is democratic, and\nbecomes more so continually, each descendant founding institutions more\nliberal than those of the parent State. Men designedly, and, as their\nbusiness, become merchants, mechanics, and the like; they are\npoliticians by exception, by accident, from the necessity of the case.\nFew northern men are politicians by profession; they commonly think it\nbetter to be a collector or a postmaster, than a Senator, estimating\nplace by money, not power. Northern politicians are bred as lawyers,\nclergymen, mechanics, farmers, merchants. Political life is an accident,\nnot an end.\n\nIn the South, the aim is to get dominion over men; so, the whole working\npopulation must be in subjection, in slavery. While the North makes\nbrute nature half intelligent, the South makes human nature half brutal,\nthe man becoming a thing. Talent tends to politics, not trade. Young men\nof ability go to the army or navy, to the public offices, to diplomatic\nposts, in a word, to politics. They learn to manage men. To do this,\nthey not only learn what men think, but why they think it. The young man\nof the North seeks a fortune; of the South, a reputation and political\npower. The politician of the South makes politics the study and work of\nhis whole life; all else is accidental and subordinate. He begins low,\nbut ends high; he mingles with men; has bland and agreeable manners; is\nfrank, honorable, manly, and knows how to persuade.\n\nSee the different results of causes so unlike. The North manages the\ncommercial affairs of the land, the ships, mills, farms, and shops; the\nspiritual affairs, literature, science, morals, education,\nreligion;--writes, calculates, instructs, and preaches. But the South\nmanages the political affairs, and has free-trade or tariff, war or\npeace, just as she will. Of the eight Presidents who were elected in\nfifty years, only three were northern men. Each of them has retired from\noffice, at the end of a single term, in possession of a fortune, but\nwith little political influence. Each of the five southern Presidents\nhas been twice elected; only one of them was rich. There is no accident\nin all this. The State of Rhode Island has men that can administer the\nConnecticut or the Mississippi; that can organize Niagara into a cotton\nfactory; yes, that can get dominion over the ocean and the land: but the\nState of South Carolina has men that can manage the Congress, can rule\nthe North and South, and make the nation do their bidding.\n\nSo the South succeeds in politics, but grows poor, and the North fails\nin politics, but thrives in commerce and the arts. There great men turn\nto politics, here to trade. It is so in time of peace, but, in the day\nof trouble, of storms, of revolution like the old one, men of tall\nheads will come up from the ships and the shops, the farms and the\ncolleges of the North, born discoverers and organizers, the aristocracy\nof God, and sit down in the nation's councils to control the State. The\nNorth made the revolution, furnished the men, the money, the ideas, and\nthe occasion for putting them into form. At the making of the\nConstitution, the South out-talked the North; put in such claims as it\nsaw fitting, making the best bargain it could, violating the ideas of\nthe Revolution, and getting the North, not only to consent to slavery,\nbut to allow it to be represented in Congress itself. Now, the South\nbreaks the Constitution just when it will, puts northern sailors in its\njails, and the North dares not complain, but bears it \"with a patient\nshrug.\" An eastern merchant is great on a southern exchange, makes\ncotton rise or fall, but no northern politician has much weight at the\nSouth, none has ever been twice elected President. The North thinks it\nis a great thing to get an inoffensive northern man as Speaker, in the\nHouse of Representatives. The South is an aristocracy, which the\ndemocracy of the North would not tolerate a year, were it at the North\nitself. Now it rules the land, has the northern masses, democrats and\nwhigs, completely under its thumb. Does the South say, \"Go,\" they\nhasten; \"Come,\" they say \"Here we are;\" \"Do this,\" they obey in a\nmoment; \"Whist,\" there is not a mouse stirring in all the North. Does\nthe South say \"Annex,\" it is done; \"Fight,\" men of the North put on the\ncollar, lie lies, issue their proclamations, enroll their soldiers, and\ndeclare it is moral treason for the most insignificant clergyman to\npreach against the war.\n\nAll this needs to be remembered in judging of Mr. Adams. True he was\nregularly bred to politics, and \"to the manor born;\" but he was a New\nEngland man, with northern notions, northern habits, and though more\nthan fifty years in public life, yet he seems to have sought the object\nof New England far more than the object of the South. Measure his\ngreatness by his service; but that is not to be measured by immediate\nand apparent success.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn a notice so brief as this, I can say but little of the details of Mr.\nAdams's life, and purposely pass over many things, dwelling mainly on\nsuch as are significant of his character. He was born at Quincy, the\n11th of July, 1767; in 1777 he went to Europe with his father, then\nMinister to France. He remained in Europe most of the time, his powers\ndeveloping with rapidity and promise of future greatness, till 1785,\nwhen he returned and entered the junior class in Harvard College. In\n1787, he graduated with distinguished honors. He studied law at\nNewburyport, with Judge Parsons, till 1790, and was a lawyer in Boston,\ntill 1794.\n\nThat may be called the period of his education He enjoyed the\nadvantages of a residence abroad, which enabled him to acquire a\nknowledge of foreign languages, modes of life, and habits of thought.\nHis father's position brought the son in contact with the ablest men of\nthe age. He was Secretary of the American minister to Russia at the age\nof fourteen. He early became acquainted with Franklin and Jefferson, men\nwho had a powerful influence on his youthful mind. For three years he\nwas a student with Judge Parsons, a very remarkable man. These years,\nfrom 1767 to 1794, form a period marked by intense mental activity in\nAmerica and in Europe. The greatest subjects which claim human\nattention, the laws that lie at the foundation of society, the State,\nthe church, and the family, were discussed as never before. Mr. Adams\ndrew in liberty and religion from his mother's breast. His cradle rocked\nwith the Revolution. When eight years old, from a hill-top hard by his\nhouse he saw the smoke of Charlestown, burning at the command of the\noppressor. The lullaby of his childhood was the roar of cannon at\nLexington and Bunker Hill. He was born in the gathering of the storm, of\na family that felt the blast, but never bent thereto; he grew up in its\ntumult. Circumstances like these make their mark on the character.\n\nHis attention was early turned to the most important matters. In 1793,\nhe wrote several papers in the \"Centinel,\" at Boston, on neutral rights,\nadvising the American government to remain neutral in the quarrel\nbetween France, our ally, and others; the papers attracted the attention\nof Washington, who appointed the author Minister to Holland. He remained\nabroad in various diplomatic services in that country, in Russia and\nEngland, till 1801, when he was recalled by his father, and returned\nhome. It was an important circumstance, that he was abroad during that\ntime when the nation divided into two great parties. He was not called\non to take sides with either; he had a vantage ground whence he could\noverlook both, approve their good and shun their evil. The effect of\nthis is abundantly evident in all his life. He was not dyed in the wool\nby either political party,--the moral sense of the man drowned in the\nprocess of becoming a federalist or a democrat.\n\nIn 1802, he was elected to the Senate of Massachusetts, yet not wholly\nby the votes of one party. In 1803, he was chosen to the Senate of the\nUnited States. In the Massachusetts Legislature he was not a strict\nparty man; he was not elected to the Senate by a strictly party vote. In\n1806, he was inaugurated as Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard\nUniversity, and continued in that office about three years. In 1808, he\nresigned his place in the Senate. In 1809, he was sent by Mr. Madison as\nMinister to Russia, and remained abroad in various ministries and\ncommissions, till 1817, when he returned, and became Secretary of State\nunder Mr. Monroe. This office he filled till he became President, in\n1825. In 1829, failing of reelection, he retired to private life. In\n1831, he was elected as one of the Representatives to Congress from\nMassachusetts, and continued there till his death, the first President\nthat ever sat in an American Congress.\n\nIt will be fifty-four years the thirtieth of next May, since he began\nhis public career. What did he aim at in that long period? At first\nsight, it is easy to see the aim of some of the conspicuous men of\nAmerica. It has obviously been the aim of Mr. Clay to build up the\n\"American System,\" by the establishment of protective duties; that of\nMr. Calhoun to establish free trade, leaving a man to buy where he can\nbuy cheapest, and sell where he can sell dearest. In respect to these\nmatters the two are exactly opposite to one another--antithetic as the\npoles. But each has also, and obviously, another aim,--to build up the\ninstitution of slavery in the South. In this they agree, and if I\nunderstand them aright, this is the most important political design of\neach; for which Mr. Calhoun would forego even free trade, and Mr. Clay\nwould \"compromise\" even a tariff. Looked at in reference to their aims,\nthere is a certain continuity of action in both these gentlemen. I speak\nnot now of another object which both have equally and obviously aimed\nat; not of the personal, but the political object.\n\nAt first sight, it does not appear that Mr. Adams had any definite\nscheme of measures which he aimed to establish; there is no obvious\nunity of idea, or continuity of action, that forces itself upon the\nspectator. He does not seem to have studied the two great subjects of\nour political economy, finance and trade, very deeply, or even with any\nconsiderable width of observation or inquiry; he had no financial or\ncommercial hobby. He has worked with every party, and against every\nparty; all have claimed, none held him. Now he sides with the\nfederalists, then with the democrats; now he opposes France, showing\nthat her policy is that of pirates; now he contends against England; now\nhe works in favor of General Jackson, who put down the nullification of\nSouth Carolina with a rough hand; then he opposes the general in his\naction against the Bank; now he contends for the Indians, then for the\nNegroes; now attacks Masonry, and then Free trade. He speaks in favor of\nclaiming and holding \"the whole of Oregon;\" then against annexing Texas.\n\nBut there is one sentiment which runs through all his life: an intense\nlove of freedom for all men; one idea, the idea that each man has\nunalienable rights. These are what may be called the American sentiment,\nand the American idea; for they lie at the basis of American\ninstitutions, except the \"patriarchal,\" and shine out in all our\nhistory--I should say, our early history. These two form the golden\nthread on which Mr. Adams's jewels are strung. Love of human freedom in\nits widest sense is the most marked and prominent thing in his\ncharacter. This explains most of his actions. Studied with this in mind,\nhis life is pretty consistent. This explains his love of the\nConstitution. He early saw the peculiarity of the American government;\nthat it rested in theory on the natural rights of man, not on a compact,\nnot on tradition, but on somewhat anterior to both, on the unalienable\nrights universal in man, and equal in each. He looked on the American\nConstitution as an attempt to organize these rights; resting, therefore,\nnot on force, but natural law; not on power, but right. But with him the\nConstitution was not an idol; it was a means, not an end. He did more\nthan expound it; he went back of the Constitution, to the Declaration of\nIndependence, for the ideas of the Constitution; yes, back of the\nDeclaration to Human Nature and the Laws of God, to legitimate these\nideas. The Constitution is a compromise between those ideas and\ninstitutions and prejudices existing when it was made; not an idol, but\na servant. He saw that the Constitution is \"not the work of eternal\njustice, ruling through the people,\" but the work \"of man; frail,\nfallen, imperfect man, following the dictates of his nature, and\naspiring to be perfect.\"[12] Though a \"constitutionalist,\" he did not\nworship the Constitution. He was much more than a \"defender of the\nConstitution,\"--a defender of Human Rights.\n\nMr. Adams had this American sentiment and idea in an heroic degree.\nPerhaps no political man now living has expressed them so fully. With a\nman like him, not very genial or creative, having no great constructive\nskill, and not without a certain pugnacity in his character, this\nsentiment and idea would naturally develop themselves in a negative\nform, that of opposition to Wrong, more often than in the positive form\nof direct organization of the Right; would lead to criticism oftener\nthan to creation. Especially would this be the case if other men were\nbuilding up institutions in opposition to this idea. In him they\nactually take the form of what he called \"The unalienable right of\nresistance to oppression.\" His life furnishes abundant instances of\nthis. He thought the Indians were unjustly treated, cried out against\nthe wrong; when President, endeavored to secure justice to the Creeks in\nGeorgia, and got into collision with Governor Troup. He saw, or thought\nhe saw, that England opposed the American idea, both in the new world\nand the old. In his zeal for freedom he sometimes forgot the great\nservices of England in that same cause, and hated England, hated her\nwith great intensity of hatred, hated her political policy, her\nmonarchy, and her aristocracy, mocked at the madness of her king, for he\nthought England stood in the way of freedom.[13] Yet he loved the\nEnglish name and the English blood, was \"proud of being himself\ndescended from that stock,\" thinking it worth noting, \"that Chatham's\nlanguage was his mother tongue, and Wolfe's great name compatriot with\nhis own.\" He confessed no nation had done more for the cause of human\nimprovement. He loved the Common Law of England, putting it far above\nthe Roman Law, perhaps not without doing a little injustice to the\nlatter.[14] The common law was a rude and barbarous code. But human\nliberty was there; a trial by jury was there; the habeas corpus was\nthere. It was the law of men \"regardful of human rights.\"\n\nThis sentiment led him to defend the right of petition in the House of\nRepresentatives, as no other man had dared to do. He cared not whether\nit was the petition of a majority, or a minority; of men or women, free\nmen or slaves. It might be a petition to remove him from a committee, to\nexpel him from the House, a petition to dissolve the Union--he\npresented it none the less. To him there was but one nature in all, man\nor woman, bond or free, and that was human nature, the most sacred thing\non earth. Each human child had unalienable rights, and though that child\nwas a beggar or slave, had rights, which all the power in the world,\nbent into a single arm, could not destroy nor abate, though it might\nravish away. This induced him to attempt to procure the right of\nsuffrage for the colored citizens of the District of Columbia.\n\nThis sentiment led him to oppose tyranny in the House of\nRepresentatives, the tyranny of the majority. In one of his juvenile\nessays, published in 1791, contending against a highly popular work, he\nopposed the theory that a State has the right to do what it pleases,\ndeclaring it had no right to do wrong.[15] In his old age he had not\nagain to encounter the empty hypothesis of Thomas Paine, but the\nsubstantial enactment of the \"Representatives\" of the people of the\nUnited States. The hypothesis was trying to become a fact. The South had\npassed the infamous Gag-Law, which a symbolical man from New Hampshire\nhad presented, though it originated with others.[16] By that law the\nmouth of the North was completely stopped in Congress, so that not one\nword could be said about the matter of slavery.\n\nThe North was quite willing to have it stopped, for it did not care to\nspeak against slavery, and the gag did not stop the mouth of the\nNorthern purse. You may take away from the North its honor, if you can\nfind it; may take away its rights; may imprison its free citizens in the\njails of Louisiana and the Carolinas; yes, may invade the \"Sacred soil\nof the North,\" and kidnap a man out of Boston itself, within sight of\nFaneuil Hall, and the North will not complain; will bear it with that\npatient shrug, waiting for yet further indignities. Only when the\nNorthern purse is touched, is there an uproar. If the postmaster demands\nsilver for letters, there is instant alarm; the repeal of a tariff\nrouses the feelings, and an embargo once drove the indignant North to\nthe perilous edge of rebellion! Mr. Adams loved his dollars as well as\nmost New England men; he looked out for their income as well; guarded as\ncarefully against their outgo; though conscientiously upright in all his\ndealings, kind and hospitable, he has never been proved generous, and\ngenerosity is the commonest virtue of the North; is said to have been\n\"close,\" if not mean. He loved his dollars as well as most men, but he\nloved justice more; honor more; freedom more; the Unalienable Rights of\nman far more.\n\nHe looked on the Constitution as an instrument for the defence of the\nRights of man. The government was to act as the people had told how.\nThe Federal government was not sovereign; the State government was not\nsovereign;[17] neither was a court of ultimate appeal;--but the People\nwas sovereign; had the right of Eminent Domain over Congress and the\nConstitution, and making that, had set limits to the government. He\nguarded therefore against all violation of the Constitution, as a wrong\ndone to the people; he would not overstep its limits in a bad cause; not\neven in a good one. Did Mr. Jefferson obtain Louisiana by a confessed\nviolation of the Constitution, Mr. Adams would oppose the purchase of\nLouisiana, and was one of the six senators who voted against it. Making\nlaws for that Territory, he wished to extend the trial by jury to all\ncriminal prosecutions, while the law limited that form of trial to\ncapital offences. Before that Territory had a representative in\nCongress, the American government wished to collect a revenue there. Mr.\nAdams opposed that too. It was \"assuming a dangerous power;\" it was\ngovernment without the consent of the governed, and therefore an unjust\ngovernment. \"All exercise of human authority must be under the\nlimitation of right and wrong.\" All other power is despotic, and \"in\ndefiance of the laws of nature and of God.\"[18]\n\nThis love of freedom led him to hate and oppose the tyranny of the\nstrong over the weak, to hate it most in its worst form; to hate\nAmerican Slavery, doubtless the most infamous form of that tyranny now\nknown amongst the nations of Christendom, and perhaps the most\ndisgraceful thing on earth. Mr. Adams called slavery a vessel of\ndishonor so base that it could not be named in the Constitution with\ndecency. In 1805, he wished to lay a duty on the importation of slaves,\nand was one of five senators who voted to that effect. He saw the power\nof this institution--the power of money and the power of votes which it\ngives to a few men. He saw how dangerous it was to the Union; to\nAmerican liberty, to the cause of man. He saw that it trod three\nmillions of men down to the dust, counting souls but as cattle. He hated\nnothing as he hated this; fought against nothing so manfully. It was the\nlion in the pathway of freedom, which frightened almost all the\npoliticians of the North and the East and the West, so that they forsook\nthat path; a lion whose roar could wellnigh silence the forum and the\nbar, the pulpit and the press; a lion who rent the Constitution,\ntrampled under foot the Declaration of Independence, and tore the Bible\nto pieces. Mr. Adams was ready to rouse up this lion, and then to beard\nhim in his den. Hating slavery, of course he opposed whatever went to\nstrengthen its power; opposed Mr. Atherton's Gag-law; opposed the\nannexation of Texas; opposed the Mexican war; and, wonderful to tell,\nactually voted against it, and never took back his vote.\n\nWhen Secretary of State, this same feeling led him to oppose conceding\nto the British the right of searching American vessels supposed to be\nconcerned in the slave-trade, and when Representative to oppose the\nrepeal of the law giving \"protection\" to American sailors. It appeared\nalso in private intercourse with men. No matter what was a man's\ncondition, Mr. Adams treated him as an equal.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis devotion to freedom and the unalienable rights of man, was the most\nimportant work of his life. Compared with some other political men, he\nseems inconsistent, because he now opposes one evil, then its opposite\nevil. But his general course is in this direction, and, when viewed in\nrespect to this idea, seems more consistent than that of Mr. Webster, or\nCalhoun, or Clay, when measured by any great principle. This appears in\nhis earlier life. In 1802, he became a member of the Massachusetts\nSenate. The majority of the General Court were federalists. It was a\ntime of intense political excitement, the second year of Mr. Jefferson's\nadministration. The custom is well known--to take the whole of the\nGovernor's Council from the party which has a majority in the General\nCourt. On the 27th of May, 1802, Mr. Adams stood up for the rights of\nthe minority. He wanted some anti-federalists in the Council of\nGovernor Strong, and as Senator threw his first vote to secure that\nobject. Such was the first legislative action of John Quincy Adams. In\nthe House of Representatives, in 1831, the first thing he did was to\npresent fifteen petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District\nof Columbia, though, from constitutional scruples, opposed to granting\nthe petitions. The last public act of his life was this:--The question\nwas before the House on giving medals to the men distinguished in the\nMexican war; the minority opposing it wanted more time for debate; the\nprevious question was moved, Mr. Adams voted for the last time,--voted\n\"No,\" with unusual emphasis; the great loud No of a man going home to\nGod full of \"The unalienable right of resistance to oppression,\" its\nemphatic word on his dying lips. There were the beginning, the middle,\nand the end, all three in the same spirit, all in favor of mankind; a\nremarkable unity of action in his political drama.\n\nSomebody once asked him, What are the recognized principles of politics?\nMr. Adams answered that there were none: the recognized precepts are bad\nones, and so not principles. But, continued the inquirer, is not this a\ngood one--To seek \"The greatest good of the greatest number?\" No, said\nhe, that is the worst of all, for it looks specious while it is ruinous.\nWhat shall become of the minority, in that case? This is the only\nprinciple,--\"To seek the greatest good of all.\"\n\nI do not say there were no exceptions to this devotion to freedom in a\nlong life; there are some passages in his history which it is impossible\nto justify, and hard to excuse. In early life he was evidently ambitious\nof place, and rank, and political power. I must confess, it seems to me,\nat some times, he was not scrupulous enough about the means of attaining\nthat place and power. He has been much censured for his vote in favor of\nthe Embargo, in 1807. His vote, howsoever unwise, may easily have been\nan honest vote. To an impartial spectator at this day, perhaps it will\nbe evidently so. His defence of it I cannot think an honest defence, for\nin that he mentions arguments as impelling him to his vote which could\nscarcely have been present to his mind at the time, and, if they were\nhis arguments then, were certainly kept in silence--they did not appear\nin the debate,[19] they were not referred to in the President's\nmessage.[20]\n\nI am not to praise Mr. Adams simply because he is dead; what is wrong\nbefore is wrong after death. It is no merit to die; shall we tell lies\nabout him because he is dead? No, the Egyptian people scrutinized and\njudged their kings after death--much more should we our fellow-citizens,\nintrusted with power to serve the State. \"A lavish and undistinguishing\neulogium is not praise.\" I know what coals of terrible fire lie under my\nfeet, as I speak of this matter, and how thin and light is the coat of\nashes deposited there in forty years; how easily they are blown away at\nthe slightest breath of \"Hartford Convention,\" or the \"Embargo,\" and the\nold flame of political animosity blazes forth anew, while the hostile\nforms of \"federalists\" and \"democrats\" come back to light. I would not\ndisquiet those awful shades, nor bring them up again. But a word must be\nsaid. The story of the embargo is well known: the President sent his\nmessage to the Senate recommending it, and accompanied with several\ndocuments. The message was read and assigned to a committee; the\nordinary rule of business was suspended; the bill was reported by the\ncommittee; drafted, debated, engrossed, and completely passed through\nall its stages, the whole on the same day, in secret session, and in\nabout four hours! Yet it was a bill that involved the whole commerce of\nthe country, and prostrated that commerce, seriously affecting the\nwelfare of hundreds of thousands of men. Eight hundred thousand tons of\nshipping were doomed to lie idle and rot in port. The message came on\nFriday. Some of the Senators wanted yet further information and more\ntime for debate, at least for consideration,--till Monday. It could not\nbe! Till Saturday, then. No; the bill must pass now, no man sleeping on\nthat question. Mr. Adams was the most zealous for passing the bill. In\nthat \"debate,\" if such it can be called, while opposing a postponement\nfor further information and reflection, he said, \"The President has\nrecommended the measure on his high responsibility; I would _not\nconsider_, I would _not deliberate_; I would _act_. Doubtless the\n_President possesses such further information as will justify the\nmeasure_!\"[21] To my mind, that is the worst act of his public life; I\ncannot justify it. I wish I could find some reasonable excuse for it.\nWhat had become of the \"sovereignty of the people,\" the \"unalienable\nright of resistance to oppression?\" Would _not consider_; would _not\ndeliberate_; would _act_ without doing either; leave it all to the \"high\nresponsibility\" of the President, with a \"doubtless\" he has \"further\ninformation\" to justify the measure! It was a shame to say so; it would\nhave disgraced a Senator in St. Petersburg. Why not have the \"further\ninformation\" laid before the Senate? What would Mr. Adams have said, if\nPresident Jackson, Tyler, or Polk, had sent such a message, and some\nSenator or Representative had counselled submissive action, without\nconsidering, without deliberation? With what appalling metaphors would\nhe describe such a departure from the first duty of a statesman; how\nwould the tempestuous eloquence of that old patriot shake the Hall of\nCongress till it rung again, and the nation looked up with indignation\nin its face! It is well known what Mr. Adams said in 1834, when Mr.\nPolk, in the House of Representatives, seemed over-laudatory of the\nPresident: \"I shall never be disposed to interfere with any member who\nshall rise on this floor and pronounce a panegyric upon the chief\nmagistrate.\n\n    'No, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp,\n    And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee\n    Where thrift may follow fawning.'\"\n\nYet the future of Mr. Polk was not so obvious in 1834, as the reward of\nMr. Adams in 1808.\n\nThis act is particularly glaring in Mr. Adams. The North often sends men\nto Washington who might have done it without any great inconsistency;\nmen, too, not so remarkable for infirmity in the head, as for that less\npardonable weakness in the knees and the neck; men that bend to power\n\"right or wrong.\" Mr. Adams was not afflicted with that weakness, and so\nthe more to be censured for this palpable betrayal of a trust so\nimportant. I wish I could find some excuse for it. He was forty years\nold; not very old, but old enough to know better. His defence made the\nmatter worse. The Massachusetts Legislature disapproved of his conduct;\nchose another man to succeed him in the Senate. Then Mr. Adams resigned\nhis seat, and soon after was sent minister to Russia, as he himself\nsubsequently declared,[22] \"in consequence of the support he had for\nyears given to the measures of Mr. Jefferson's administration against\nGreat Britain.\" But his father said of that mission of his son,\n\"Aristides is banished because he is too just.\"[23] It is easy to judge\nof the temper of the times, when such words as those of the father\ncould be said on such an occasion, and that by a man who had been\nPresident of the United States! When a famine occurs, disease appears in\nthe most hideous forms; men go back to temporary barbarism. In times of\npolitical strife, such diseases appear of the intellectual and moral\npowers. No man who did not live in those times can fully understand the\nobliquity of mind and moral depravity which then displayed themselves\namongst those otherwise without reproach. Says Mr. Adams himself,\nreferring to that period, \"Imagination in her wildest vagaries can\nscarcely conceive the transformation of temper, the obliquities of\nintellect, the perversions of moral principle, effected by junctures of\nnigh and general excitement.\" However, it must be confessed that this,\nthough not the only instance of injustice, is the only case of servile\ncompliance with the Executive to be found in the whole life of the man.\nIt was a grievous fault, but grievously did he answer it; and if a long\nlife of unfaltering resistance to every attempt at the assumption of\npower is fit atonement, then the expiation was abundantly made.\n\nAbout the same time, Mr. Adams was chairman of a committee of the\nSenate, appointed to consider the case of a Senator from Ohio. His\nconduct, on that occasion, has been the theme of violent attack, and\ndefence as violent. To the calm spectator, at this day, his conduct\nseems unjustifiable, inconsistent with the counsels of justice, which,\nthough moving with her \"Pace of snail,\" looks always towards the right,\nand will not move out of her track, though the heavens fall.\n\nWhile Mr. Adams was President, Hayti became free; but he did not express\nany desire that the United States should acknowledge her independence,\nand receive her minister at Washington,--an African plenipotentiary. In\nhis message,[24] he says, \"There are circumstances that have hitherto\nforbidden the acknowledgment,\" and mentions \"additional reasons for\nwithholding that acknowledgment.\" In the instructions to the American\nfunctionary, sent to the celebrated Congress of Panama, it is said, the\nPresident \"is not prepared now to say that Hayti ought to be recognized\nas an independent sovereign power;\" he \"does not think it would be\nproper at this time to recognize it as a new State.\" He was unwilling to\nconsent to the independence of Cuba, for fear of an insurrection of her\nslaves, and the effect at home. The duty of the United States would be\n\"To defend themselves against the contagion of such near and dangerous\nexamples,\" that would \"constrain them ... to employ all means necessary\nto their security.\" That is, the President would be constrained to put\ndown the blacks in Cuba, who were exercising \"The unalienable right of\nresistance to oppression,\" for fear the blacks in the United States\nwould discover that they also were men, and had \"Unalienable rights!\"\nHad he forgotten the famous words, \"Resistance to tyrants is obedience\nto God?\" The defence of such language on such an occasion is, that Mr.\nAdams's eyes were not yet open to the evil of slavery. That is a good\ndefence, if true. To me it seems a true defence. Even great men do not\nsee every thing. In 1800, Fisher Ames, while delivering the eulogy on\nGeneral Washington, censured even the British government, because, \"In\nthe wilds of Africa, it obstructed the commerce in slaves!\" No man is so\nwise as mankind. It must be confessed that Mr. Adams, while Secretary of\nState, and again, while President, showed no hostility to the\ninstitution of slavery. His influence all went the other way. He would\nrepress the freedom of the blacks, in the West Indies, lest American\nslavery should be disturbed, and its fetters broke; he would not\nacknowledge the independence of Hayti, he would urge Spain to make peace\nwith her descendants, for the same reason--\"not for those new\nrepublics,\" but lest the negroes in Cuba and Porto Rico should secure\ntheir freedom. He negotiated with England, and she paid the United\nStates more than a million of dollars[25] for the fugitive slaves who\ntook refuge under her flag during the late war. Mr. Adams had no\nscruples about receiving the money during his administration. An attempt\nwas repeatedly made by his secretary, Mr. Clay, through Mr. Gallatin,\nand then through Mr. Barbour, to induce England to restore the \"fugitive\nslaves who had taken refuge in the Canadian provinces,\" who, escaping\nfrom the area of freedom, seek the shelter of the British crown.[26]\nNay, he negotiated a treaty with Mexico, which bound her to deliver up\nfugitive slaves, escaping from the United States--a treaty which the\nMexican Congress refused to ratify! Should a great man have known\nbetter? Great men are not always wise. Afterwards, public attention was\ncalled to the matter; humble men gave lofty counsel; Mr. Adams used\ndifferent language, and recommended different measures. But long before\nthat, on the 7th of December, 1804, Mr. Pickering, his colleague in the\nSenate of the United States, offered a resolution, for the purpose of\namending the Constitution, so as to apportion representatives, and\ndirect taxes among the States, according to their free inhabitants.\n\nBut there are other things in Mr. Adams's course and conduct, which\ndeserve the censure of a good man. One was, the attempt to justify the\nconduct of England, in her late war with China, when she forced her\nopium upon the barbarians with the bayonet. To make out his case, he\ncontended that \"In the celestial empire ... the patriarchal system of\nSir Robert Filmer, flourished in all its glory,\" and the Chinese claimed\nsuperior dignity over all others; they refused to hold equal and\nreciprocal commercial intercourse with other nations, and \"It is time\nthis enormous outrage upon the rights of human nature, and the first\nprinciples of the laws of nations, should cease.\"[27] It is true, the\nChinese were \"barbarians;\" true, the English carried thither the Bible\nand Christianity, at least their own Christianity. But, even by the law\nof nations, letting alone the law of nature, the barbarians had a right\nto repel both Bible and Christianity, when they came in a contraband\nshape--that of opium and cannon balls. To justify this outrage of the\nstrong against the weak, he quite forgets his old antipathy to England,\nhis devotion to human freedom, and the sovereignty of the people,\ncalling the cause of England \"a righteous cause.\"\n\nHe defended the American claim to the whole of Oregon, up to 54 deg. 40'.\nHe did not so much undertake to make out a title to either, by the law\nof nature or of nations, but cut the matter short, and claimed the whole\nof Oregon, on the strength of the first chapter of Genesis. This was the\nargument: God gave mankind dominion over all the earth;[28] between\nChristian nations, the command of the Creator lays the foundation of all\ntitles to land, of titles to territory, of titles to jurisdiction. Then\nin the Psalms,[29] God gives the \"uttermost part of the earth for a\npossession\" to the Messiah, as the representative of all mankind, who\nheld the uttermost parts of the earth in chief. But the Pope, as head of\nthe visible church, was the representative of Christ, and so, holding\nunder him, had the right to give to any king or prelate, authority to\nsubdue barbarous nations, possess their territory, and convert them to\nChristianity. In 1493, the Pope, in virtue of the above right, gave the\nAmerican continent to the Spanish monarchs, who, in time, sold their\ntitle to the people of the United States. That title may be defective,\nas the Pope may not be the representative of Christ, and so the passage\nin the Psalms will not help the American claim, but then the United\nStates will hold under the first clause in the Testament of God, that\nis, in Genesis. The claim of Great Britain is not valid, for she does\nnot want the land for the purpose specified in that clause of the\nTestament, to \"Replenish the earth and subdue it.\" She wants it, \"That\nshe may keep it open as a hunting-ground,\" while the United States want\nit, that it may grow into a great nation, and become a free and\nsovereign republic.[30]\n\nThis strange hypothesis, it seems, lay at the bottom of his defence of\nthe British in their invasion of China. It would have led him, if\nconsistent, to claim also the greater part of Mexico. But, as he did not\npublicly declare his opinion on that matter, no more need be said\nconcerning it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch was the most prominent idea in his history; such the departures\nfrom it. Let us look at other events in his life. While President, the\nmost important object of his administration was the promotion of\ninternal improvements, especially the internal communication between the\nStates. For this purpose the government lent its aid in the construction\nof roads and canals, and a little more than four millions of dollars\nwere devoted to this work in his administration. On the 4th of July,\n1828, he helped break ground for the Chesapeake and Ohio canal,\nthinking it an important event in his life. He then said there were\nthree great steps in the progress of America. The first was the\nDeclaration of Independence and the achievement thereof; the second, the\nunion of the whole country under the Constitution; but the third was\nmore arduous than both of the others: \"It is,\" said he, \"the adaptation\nof the powers, physical, moral, and intellectual, of the whole Union, to\nthe improvement of its own condition; of its _moral_ and _political_\ncondition, by wise and liberal institutions; by the cultivation of the\nunderstanding and the heart; by academies, schools, and learned\ninstitutions; by the pursuit and patronage of learning and the arts; of\nits _physical_ condition, by associated labor to improve the bounties\nand supply the deficiencies of nature; to stem the torrent in its\ncourse; to level the mountain with the plain; to disarm and fetter the\nraging surge of the ocean.\"[31] He faithfully adhered to these words in\nhis administration.\n\nHe was careful never to exceed the powers which the Constitution\nprescribed for him. He thought the acquisition of Louisiana was\n\"accomplished by a flagrant violation of the Constitution,\"[32] and\nhimself guarded against such violations. He revered the God of Limits,\nwho, in the Roman mythology, refused to give way or remove, even for\nJupiter himself. No man was ever more conscientious on that ground. To\nhim the Constitution meant something; his oath to keep it meant\nsomething.\n\nNo great political event occurred in his administration; the questions\nwhich now vex the country had not arisen. There was no quarrel between\nfreedom and slavery; no man in Congress ventured to denounce slavery as\na crime; the African slave-trade was thought wrong, not the slavery\nwhich caused it. Party lines, obliterated under Mr. Monroe's\nadministration, were viewed and marked with a good deal of care and\nexactness; but the old lines could not be wholly restored. Mr. Adams was\nnot the President of a section of the country; not the President of a\nparty, but of the nation. He favored no special interest of a class, to\nthe injury of another class. He did not reward his friends, nor punish\nhis foes; the party of the spoils, patent or latent at all times, got no\nspoils from him. He never debauched his country by the removal and\nappointment of officers. Had he done otherwise, done as all his\nsuccessors have done, used his actual power to promote his own ambition,\nno doubt he might have been reelected. But he could not stoop to manage\nmen in that way. No doubt he desired a reelection, and saw the method\nand means to effect that, but conscience said, \"It is not right.\" He\nforbore, lost his election, and gained--we shall soon see what he\ngained.\n\nOn the 19th of July, 1826, at a public dinner at Edgefield Court-house,\nSouth Carolina, Mr. McDuffie said, \"Mr. Adams came into power upon\nprinciples utterly subversive of the republican system; substituting the\nworst species of aristocracy, that of speculating politicians and\noffice-hunters, in the place of a sound and wholesome republican\ndemocracy.\" When Mr. Adams retired from office, he could remember, with\nthe virtuous Athenian, that no man had put on mourning for him because\nunjustly deprived of his post. Was an office-holder or an office-wanter\na political friend of Mr. Adams, that did not help him; a foe, that did\nnot hinder. He looked only to the man's ability and integrity. I wish it\nwas no praise to say these things; but it is praise I dare not apply to\nany other man since Washington. Mr. Adams once said, \"There is no\nofficial act of the chief magistrate, however momentous, or however\nminute, but it should be traceable to a dictate of duty, pointing to the\nwelfare of the people.\" That was his executive creed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs a public servant, he had many qualities seldom united in the same\nperson. He was simple, and unostentatious; he had none of the airs of a\ngreat man; seemed humble, modest, and retiring; caring much for the\nsubstance of manhood, he let the show take care of itself. He carried\nthe simplicity of a plain New England man into the President's house,\nspending little in its decorations--about one fourth, it is said, of the\namount of his successor. In his housekeeping, public or private, there\nwas only one thing much to be boasted of and remarked upon: strange to\nsay, that was the master of the house. He was never eclipsed by his own\nbrass and mahogany. He had what are called democratic habits, and served\nhimself in preference to being served by others. He treated all that\nwere about him with a marked deference and courtesy, carrying his\nrespect for human rights into the minutest details of common life.\n\nHe was a model of diligence, though not, perhaps, very systematic. His\nState papers, prepared while he was Minister, Secretary, or Member of\nCongress, his numerous orations and speeches, though not always\ndistinguished for that orderly arrangement of parts which is instinctive\nwith minds of a high philosophical character, are yet astonishing for\ntheir number, and the wide learning they display. He was well acquainted\nwith the classic and most modern languages; at home in their literature.\nHe was surprisingly familiar with modern history; perhaps no political\nman was so thoroughly acquainted with the political history of America,\nand that of Christian Europe for the last two hundred years. He was\nwidely read and profoundly skilled in all that relates to diplomacy, and\nto international law. He was fond of belles-lettres, and commented on\nShakspeare more like a professor than a layman in that department. Few\ntheologians in America, it is said, were so widely read in their\npeculiar lore as he. He had read much, remembered much, understood much.\nHowever, he seems to have paid little attention to physical science, and\nperhaps less to metaphysical. His speeches and his conversation, though\nneither brilliant, nor rich in ideas, astonished young men with an\naffluence of learning, which seemed marvellous in one all his life\ndevoted to practical affairs. But this is a trifle: to achieve that,\nnothing is needed but health, diligence, memory, and a long life. Mr.\nAdams had all these requisites.\n\nHe had higher qualities: he loved his country, perhaps no man more so;\nhe had patriotism in an heroic degree, yet was not thereby blinded to\nhumanity. He thought it a vital principle of human society, that each\nnation should contribute to the happiness of all; and, therefore, that\nno nation should \"regulate its conduct by the exclusive or even the\nparamount consideration of its own interest.\"[33] Yet he loved his\ncountry, his whole country, and when she was in the wrong he told her\nso, because he loved her. This, said he, would be a good sentiment: \"Our\ncountry! May she be always successful; but, whether successful or not,\nmay she be always in the right.\" He saw the faults of America, saw the\ncorruption of the American government. He did not make gain by this in\nprivate, but set an honest face against it.\n\nHe was a conscientious man. This peculiarity is strongly marked in most\nof his life. He respected the limit between right and wrong. He did not\nthink it unworthy of a statesman to refer to moral principles, to the\nabsolutely right. I do not mean to say, that in his whole life there was\nno departure from the strict rule of duty. I have mentioned already some\nexamples, but kept one more for this place: he pursued persons with a\ncertain vindictiveness of spirit. I will not revive again the old\nquarrels, nor dig up his hard words, long ago consigned to oblivion; it\nwould be unjust to the living. He was what is called a good hater. If he\nloved an idea, he seemed to hate the man who opposed it. He was not\ncontent with replying; he must also retort, though it manifestly\nweakened the force of the reply. In his attacks on persons he was\nsometimes unjust, violent, sharp, and vindictive; sometimes cruel, and\neven barbarous. Did he ever forgive an enemy? Every opponent was a foe,\nand he thrashed his foes with an iron hoof and winnowed them with a\nstorm. The most awful specimens of invective which the language affords\ncan be found in his words--bitter, revengeful, and unrelenting. I am\nsorry to say these things; it hurts my feelings to say them, yours not\nless to hear them. But it is not our fault they are true; it would be\nmine, if, knowing they were true, I did not on this occasion point them\nout in warning words. Mr. Adams says that Roger Williams was\nconscientious and contentious; it is equally true of himself. Perhaps\nMr. Adams had little humor, but certainly a giant's wit; he used it\ntyrannously and like a giant. Wit has its place in debate; in\ncontroversy it is a legitimate weapon, offensive and defensive. After\none has beaten the single barley-corn of good sense out of a whole\nwagon-load of chaff, the easiest way to be rid of the rubbish is to burn\nit up with the lightning of wit; the danger is, that the burning should\nbegin before the separation is made; that the fire consume the good and\nbad indifferently. When argument is edged and pointed with wit, it is\ndoubly effective; but when that edge is jagged with ill-will, poisoned,\ntoo, with personal spleen, then it becomes a weapon unworthy of a man.\nSometimes Mr. Adams used his wit as fairly as his wisdom; and bags of\nwind, on which Hercules might have stamped and beaten a twelvemonth, but\nin vain--at a single puncture from that keen wit gave up their ghost and\nflattened into nothing; a vanity to all men, but a vexation of spirit to\nhim who had blown them so full of his own soul. But sometimes, yes,\noften, Mr. Adams's wit performs a different part: it sits as a judge,\nunjust and unforgiving, \"often deciding wrong, and when right from\nwrong motives.\" It was the small dagger with which he smote the fallen\nfoe. It is a poor praise for a famous man, churchman, or statesman, to\nbeat a blackguard with his own weapons. It must be confessed, that in\ncontroversy, Mr. Adams's arrows were sharp and deftly delivered; but\nthey were often barbed, and sometimes poisoned.\n\nTrue, he encountered more political opposition than any man in the\nnation. For more than forty years he has never been without bitter and\nunrelenting enemies, public and private. No man in America, perhaps,\never had such provocations; surely, none had ever such opportunities to\nreply without retorting. How much better would it have been, if, at the\nend of that long life and fifty years' war, he could say he had never\nwasted a shot; had never sinned with his lips, nor once feathered his\npublic arrow with private spleen! Wise as he was, and old, he never\nlearned that for undeserved calumny, for personal insult and abuse,\nthere is one answer, Christian, manly, and irrefutable--the dignity of\nsilence. A just man can afford to wait till the storm of abuse shall\nspend its rage and vanish under the rainbow, which itself furnishes and\nleaves behind. The retorting speech of such a man may be silvern or\niron; his silence, victorious and golden.\n\nIt is easy to censure Mr. Adams for such intemperance of speech and\npersecution of persons; unfortunately, too easy to furnish other\nexamples of both. We know what he spoke--God only what he repressed.\nWho knows out of how deep a fulness of indignation such torrents gush?\nTried by the standard of other men, his fellow politicians of America\nand Europe, he was no worse than they, only abler.[34] The mouse and the\nfox have as great a proportionate anger as the lion, though the one is\nridiculous and the other terrific. Mr. Adams must be tried by his own\nstandard, the rule of right, the standard of conscience and of\nChristianity; then surely he did wrong. For such a man the vulgarity of\nthe offence is no excuse.\n\nWith this and the other exceptions he appears a remarkably conscientious\nman in his public life. He may often have erred, as all men, without\nviolating his own sense of right.\n\nWhile he was President he would not consent to any \"public manifestation\nof honors personal to himself.\" He would not accept a present, for his\nBible taught him what experience continually enforces, that a gift\nblinds the eyes of wise men and perverts their judgment. While at St.\nPetersburg, the Russian Minister of the Interior, then an old man, felt\nuneasy on account of the presents accepted during his official service,\nand, calculating the value of all gifts received, returned it to the\nimperial treasury. This fact made an impression on Mr. Adams, and led\nto a resolution which he faithfully kept. When a bookseller sent him a\ncostly Bible, he kept the book, but paid its full value. No bribes, no\npensions in any form, ever soiled justice in his hands. He would never\nbe indebted to any body of men, lest they might afterwards sway him from\nthe right path.\n\nBecause he was a conscientious man he would never be the servant of a\nparty, and never was. It was of great advantage to him that he was\nabsent while the two chief parties were forming in the United States. He\ncame into the Massachusetts Legislature as a federalist, but some\nanti-federalists also voted for him. His first vote showed he was not\nlimited by the common principles of a party. He was chosen to the Senate\nof the United States, not by a party vote. At first he acted mainly with\nthe federalists, though not always voting with his colleague; but in\n1807 acted with the administration in the matter of the Embargo. This\nwas the eventful crisis of his life; this change in his politics, while\nit gave him station and political power, yet brought upon him the\nindignation of his former friends; it has never been forgotten nor\nforgiven. Be the outward occasion and inward motive what they may, this\nled to the sundering of friendships long cherished and deservedly dear;\nit produced the most bitter experience of his life. Political men would\nnaturally undertake to judge his counsel by its probable and obvious\nconsequences, the favor of the Executive, rather than attribute it to\nany latent motive of patriotism in his heart.\n\nWhile at the head of the nation he would not be the President of a\nparty, but of the people; when he became a representative in Congress he\nwas not the delegate of a party, but of justice and the eternal right,\ngiving his constituents an assurance that he would hold himself in\nallegiance to no party, national or political. He has often been accused\nof hatred to the South; I can find no trace of it. \"I entered Congress,\"\nsays he, \"without one sentiment of discrimination between the North and\nSouth.\" At first he acted with Mr. Jackson, to arrest the progress of\nnullification, for the democracy of South Carolina was putting in\npractice what the federalists of New England have so often been alleged\nto have held in theory, and condemned on that allegation. Here he was\nconsistent. In 1834, he approved the spirit of the same President in\ndemanding justice of France; but afterwards he did not hesitate to\noppose, and perhaps abuse him.\n\nHe had a high reverence for religion; none of our public men more. He\naimed to be a Christian man. Signs of this have often been sought in his\nhabits of church-going, of reading the Bible; they may be found rather\nin the general rectitude of his life, public and private, and in the\nhigh motives which swayed him, in his opposition to slavery, in the\nself-denial which cost him his reelection. In his public acts he seems\nanimated by the thought that he stood in the presence of God. Though\nrather unphilosophical in his theology, resting to a great degree on the\nauthority of tradition and the letter, and attaching much value to forms\nand times, he yet saw the peculiar excellence of Christianity,--that it\nrecognized \"Love as the paramount and transcendent law of human nature.\"\nI do not say that his life indicates the attainment of a complete\nreligious repose, but that he earnestly and continually labored to\nachieve that. You shall find few statesmen, few men, who act with a more\ncontinual and obvious reference to religion as a motive, as a guide, as\na comfort. He was, however, no sectarian. His devotion to freedom\nappeared, where it seldom appears, in his notions about religion. He\nthought for himself, and had a theology of his own, rather\nold-fashioned, it is true, and not very philosophical or consistent, it\nmay be, and in that he was not very singular, but he allowed others to\nthink also for themselves, and have a theology of their own. Mr. Adams\nwas a Unitarian. It is no great merit to be a Unitarian, or a Calvinist,\nor a Catholic, perhaps no more merit to be one than the other. But he\nwas not ashamed of his belief when Unitarianism was little, despised,\nmocked at, and called \"Infidelity\" on all sides. When the Unitarian\nchurch at Washington, a small and feeble body, met for worship in an\nupper room--not large, but obscure, over a public bathing-house--John\nQuincy Adams, the Secretary of State and expecting to be President, came\nregularly to worship with them. It was not fashionable; it was hardly\nrespectable, for the Unitarians were not then, as now, numerous and\nrich: but he went and worshipped. It was no merit to think with any\nsect, it was a great merit to dare be true to his convictions. In his\ntheology, as in politics, he feared not to stand in a minority. If there\never was an American who loved the praise of God more than the praise of\nmen, I believe Mr. Adams was one.\n\nHis devotion to freedom, his love of his country, his conscientiousness,\nhis religion, are four things strong and noticeable in his character.\nYou shall look long amongst our famous men before you find his equal in\nthese things.[35]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSomebody says, no man ever used all his intellectual faculties as far\nas possible. If any man is an exception to this rule, it is Mr. Adams.\nHe was temperate and diligent; industrious almost to a fault, though not\norderly or systematic. His diplomatic letters, his orations, his reports\nand speeches, all indicate wide learning, the fruit of the most\nremarkable diligence. The attainments of a well-bred scholar are not\noften found in the American Congress, or the President's house. Yet he\nnever gives proof that he had the mind of a great man. In his special\ndepartment of politics he does not appear as a master. He has no great\nideas with which to solve the riddles of commerce and finance; has done\nlittle to settle the commercial problems of the world,--for that work\nthere is needed not only a retrospective acquaintance with the habits\nand history of men, but the foresight which comes from a knowledge of\nthe nature of things and of man. His chief intellectual excellence seems\nto have been memory; his great moral merit, a conscientious and firm\nhonesty; his practical strength lay in his diligence. His counsels seem\nalmost always to have come from a knowledge of human history, seldom to\nhave been prompted by a knowledge of the nature of man. Hence he was a\ncritic of the past, or an administrator of the present, rather than a\nprophetic guide for the future. He had many facts and precedents, but\nfew ideas. Few examples of great political foresight can be quoted from\nhis life; and therein, to his honor be it spoken, his heart seems to\nhave out-travelled his head. The public affairs of the United States\nseem generally to be conducted by many men of moderate abilities, rather\nthan by a few men of great genius for politics.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMr. Adams wrote much. Some of his works are remarkable for their beauty,\nfor the graceful proportions of their style, and the felicity of their\ndecoration. Such are his celebrated Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory,\nwhich are sufficiently learned and sagacious, not very philosophical,\nbut written in an agreeable style, and at the present day not wholly\nwithout value. His review of the works of Fisher Ames, I speak only of\nthe rhetoric, is, perhaps, the finest of his compositions. Some of his\nproductions are disorderly, ill-compacted, without \"joints or\ncontexture,\" and homely to a fault: this oration is a growth out of a\ncentral thought, marked by an internal harmony; that, a composition, a\npiece of carpentry distinguished by only an outward symmetry of members;\nothers are neither growth nor composition, only a mass of materials\nhuddled and lumped together. Most of his later productions, with the\nexception of his congressional speeches, are hard, cold, and unfinished\nperformances, with little order in the thoughts, and less beauty in the\nexpression. His extemporaneous speeches have more of both; they are\nbetter finished than his studied orations. He could judge and speak\nwith fury, though he wrote with phlegm. His illustrations are usually\ndrawn from literature, not from nature or human life; his language is\ncommonly cold, derived from the Roman stream which has been filtered\nthrough books, rather than from the deep and original well of our Saxon\nhome. His published letters are compact, written in a cold style,\nwithout playfulness or wit, with no elegance, and though mostly business\nletters, they are not remarkable for strength or distinctness. His\ndiligence appears in verse as well as prose. He wrote much that rhymed\ntolerably; little that was poetical. The same absence of nature, the\nsame coldness and lack of inspiration, mark his poetry and prose. But in\nall that he wrote, with the exceptions mentioned above, though you miss\nthe genial warmth, the lofty thought, the mind that attracts, embraces,\nwarms, and inspires the reader, you find always a spirit of humanity, of\njustice, and love to God.\n\nMr. Adams was seldom eloquent. Eloquence is no great gift. It has its\nplace among subordinate powers, not among the chief. Alas for the\nstatesman or preacher who has only that to save the State withal!\nWashington had none of it, yet how he ruled the land! No man in America\nhas ever had a political influence so wide and permanent as Mr.\nJefferson; yet he was a very indifferent writer, and never made a speech\nof any value. The acts of Washington, the ideas of Jefferson, made\neloquence superfluous. True, it has its value: if a man have at command\nthe electricity of truth, justice, love, the sentiments and great ideas\nthereof, it is a good thing to be able with Olympian hand to condense\nthat electric fire into bolted eloquence; to thunder and lighten in the\nsky. But if a man have that electric truth, it matters little whether it\nis Moses that speaks, or only Aaron; whether or not Paul's bodily\npresence be weak and his speech contemptible: it is Moses' thought which\nthunders and lightens out of Sinai; it is Paul's idea that is powerful\nand builds up the church. Of true eloquence, the best thoughts put in\nthe best words, and uttered in the best form, Mr. Adams had little, and\nthat appeared mainly in the latter part of his life. Hundreds have more.\nWhat passes for eloquence is common in America, where the public mouth\nis always a-going. His early orations are poor in their substance and\nfaulty in their form. His ability as an orator developed late; no proofs\nof it appear before he entered the House of Representatives, at a good\nold age. In his manner of speaking there was little dignity and no\ngrace, though sometimes there was a terrible energy and fire. He was\noften a powerful speaker--by his facts and figures, by his knowledge,\nhis fame, his age, and his position, but most of all by his independent\ncharacter. He spoke worthily of great men, of Madison or Lafayette,\nkindling with his theme, and laying aside all littleness of a party.\nHowever, he was most earnest and most eloquent not when he stood up the\nchampion of a neglected truth, not when he dwelt on great men now\nvenerable to us all, but when he gathered his strength to attack a foe.\nIncensed, his sarcasm was terrific; colossal vanity aspiring to be a\nGhenghis Khan, at the touch of that Ithuriel spear shrank to the\ndimensions of Tom Thumb. His invective is his masterpiece of oratoric\nskill. It is sad to say this, and to remember, that the greatest works\nof ancient or of modern rhetoric, from the thundering Philippics of\nDemosthenes down to the sarcastic and crazy rattle of Lord Brougham, are\nall of the same character, are efforts against a personal foe! Men find\nhitherto the ablest acts and speech in the same cause,--not positive and\ncreating, but critical and combative,--in war.\n\nIf Mr. Adams had died in 1829, he would have been remembered for awhile\nas a learned man; as an able diplomatist, who had served his country\nfaithfully at home and abroad; as a President spotless and\nincorruptible, but not as a very important personage in American\nhistory. His mark would have been faint and soon effaced from the sands\nof time. But the last period of his life was the noblest. He had worn\nall the official honors which the nation could bestow; he sought the\ngreater honor of serving that nation, who had now no added boon to give.\nAll that he had done as Minister abroad, as Senator, as Secretary, and\nPresident, is little compared with what he did in the House of\nRepresentatives; and while he stood there, with nothing to hope, with\nnothing to fear, the hand of Justice wrote his name high up on the walls\nof his country. It was surprising to see at his first attendance there,\nmen who, while he was President, had been the loudest to call out\n\"Coalition, Bargain, Intrigue, Corruption,\" come forward and express the\ninvoluntary confidence they felt in his wisdom and integrity, and their\nfear, actual though baseless, that his withdrawal from the Committee on\nManufactures would \"endanger the very Union itself.\"[36] Great questions\nsoon came up: nullification was speedily disposed of; the Bank and the\ntariff got ended or compromised, but slavery lay in the consciousness of\nthe nation, like the one dear but appalling sin in a man's heart. Some\nwished to be rid of it, northern men and southern men. It would come up;\nto justify that, or excuse it, the American sentiment and idea must be\ndenied and rejected utterly; the South, who had long known the charms of\nBathsheba, was ready for her sake to make way with Uriah himself. To\nremove that monstrous evil, gradually but totally, and restore unity to\nthe nation, would require a greater change than the adoption of the\nConstitution. To keep slavery out of sight, yet in existence,\nunjustified, unexcused, unrepented of, a contradiction in the national\nconsciousness, a political and deadly sin, the sin against the Holy\nSpirit of American Liberty, known but not confessed, the public secret\nof the people--that would lead to suppressing petitions, suppressing\ndebate in Congress and out of Congress, to silencing the pulpit, the\npress, and the people.\n\nUnder these circumstances, Mr. Adams went to Congress, an old man, well\nknown on both sides the water, the presidential laurels on his brow,\nindependent and fearless, expecting no reward from men for services\nhowever great. In respect to the subject of slavery, he had no ideas in\nadvance of the nation; he was far behind the foremost men. He\n\"deprecated all discussion of slavery or its abolition, in the House,\nand gave no countenance to petitions for the abolition of slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia or the territories.\" However, he acquired new ideas\nas he went on, and became the congressional leader in the great movement\nof the American mind towards universal freedom.\n\nHere he stood as the champion of human rights; here he fought, and with\nall his might. In 1836, by the celebrated resolution, forbidding debate\non the subject of slavery, the South drove the North to the wall, nailed\nit there into shameful silence. A \"Northern man with Southern\nprinciples,\" before entering the President's chair, declared, that if\nCongress should pass a law to abolish slavery in the District of\nColumbia, he would exercise his veto to prevent the law.[37] Mr. Adams\nstood up manfully, sometimes almost alone, and contended for freedom of\nspeech. Did obstinate men of the North send petitions relative to\nslavery, asking for its abolition in the District or elsewhere? Mr.\nAdams was ready to present the petitions. Did women petition? It made no\ndifference with him. Did slaves petition? He stood up there to defend\ntheir right to be heard. The South had overcome many an obstacle, but\nthat one fearless soul would not bend, and could not be broken. Spite of\nrules of order, he contrived to bring the matter perpetually before\nCongress, and sometimes to read the most offensive parts of the\npetitions. When Arkansas was made a State, he endeavored to abolish\nslavery in its domain; he sought to establish international relations\nwith Hayti, and to secure the right of suffrage for the colored citizens\nof the District of Columbia. The laws which forbid blacks to vote in the\nNorthern States he held \"in utter abhorrence.\"\n\nHe saw from afar the plots of southern politicians, plots for extending\nthe area of slavery, for narrowing the area of freedom, and exposed\nthose plots. You all remember the tumult it excited when he rose in his\nplace holding a petition from slaves; that the American Congress was\nthrown into long and disgraceful confusion. You cannot have forgotten\nthe uproar which followed his presenting a petition to dissolve the\nUnion![38] I know few speeches more noble and manly than his on the\nright of petition,--occasioned by that celebrated attempt to stifle\ndebate, and on the annexation of Texas. Some proposed to censure him,\nsome clamored, \"expel him,\" some cried out, \"burn the petitions!\" and\n\"him with them,\" screamed yet others. Some threatened to have him\nindicted by the grand jury of the district, \"or be made amenable to\n_another tribunal_,\" hoping to see \"an incendiary brought to condign\npunishment.\" \"My life on it,\" said a southern legislator, \"if he\npresents that petition from slaves, we shall yet see him within the\nwalls of the penitentiary.\" Some in secret threatened to assassinate him\nin the streets. They mistook their man; with justice on his side he did\n\"not fear all the grand juries in the universe.\" He would not curl nor\ncringe, but snorted his defiance in their very face. In front of\nridicule, of desertion, obloquy, rage, and brutal threats, stood up that\nold man, bald and audacious, and the chafed rock of Cohasset stands not\nfirmer mid the yesty waves, nor more triumphant spurns back into the\nocean's face the broken billows of the storm. That New England knee bent\nonly before his God. That unpretending man--the whole power of the\nnation could not move him from his post.\n\nMen threatened to increase the slave power. Said one of the champions of\nslavery with prophetic speech, but fatal as Cassandra's in the classic\ntale, Americans \"would come up in thousands to plant the lone star of\nthe Texan banner on the Mexican capital.... The boundless wealth of\ncaptured towns and rifled churches, and a lazy, vicious, and luxurious\npriesthood, would soon enable Texas to pay her soldiery and redeem her\nState debt, and push her victorious arms to the very shores of the\nPacific. And would not all this extend the bounds of slavery? Yes, the\nresult would be, that before another quarter of a century the extension\nof slavery would not stop short of the Western ocean.\" Against this\ndanger Mr. Adams armed himself, and fought in the holiest cause--the\ncause of human rights.\n\nI know few things in modern times so grand as that old man standing\nthere in the House of Representatives, the compeer of Washington, a man\nwho had borne himself proudly in kings' courts, early doing service in\nhigh places, where honor may be won; a man who had filled the highest\noffice in any nation's gift; a President's son, himself a President,\nstanding there the champion of the neediest of the oppressed: the\nconquering cause pleased others; him only, the cause of the conquered.\nHad he once been servile to the hands that wielded power? No thunderbolt\ncan scare him now! Did he once make a treaty and bind Mexico to bewray\nthe wandering fugitive who took his life in his hand and fled from the\ntalons of the American eagle? Now he would go to the stake sooner than\ntolerate such a deed! When he went to the Supreme Court, after an\nabsence of thirty years, and arose to defend a body of friendless\nnegroes torn from their home and most unjustly held in thrall; when he\nasked the judges to excuse him at once both for the trembling faults of\nage and the inexperience of youth, the man having labored so long\nelsewhere that he had forgotten the rules of court; when he summed up\nthe conclusion of the whole matter, and brought before those judicial\nbut yet moistening eyes the great men whom he had once met there--Chase,\nCushing, Martin, Livingston, and Marshall himself; and while he\nremembered them that were \"gone, gone, all gone,\" remembered also the\nEternal Justice that is never gone,--why the sight was sublime. It was\nnot an old patrician of Rome who had been consul, dictator, coming out\nof his honored retirement at the Senate's call, to stand in the forum to\nlevy new armies, marshal them to victory afresh, and gain thereby new\nlaurels for his brow;--but it was a plain citizen of America, who had\nheld an office far greater than that of consul, king, or dictator, his\nhand reddened by no man's blood, expecting no honors, but coming in the\nname of Justice to plead for the slave, for the poor barbarian negro of\nAfrica, for Cinque and Grabbo, for their deeds comparing them to\nHarmodius and Aristogeiton, whose classic memory made each bosom thrill.\nThat was worth all his honors,--it was worth while to live fourscore\nyears for that.\n\nWhen he stood in the House of Representatives, the champion of the\nrights of a minority, of the rights of man, he stood colossal. Frederick\nthe Great seems doubly so, when, single-handed, \"that son of the Dukes\nof Brandenburg\" contended against Austria, France, England, Russia, kept\nthem all at bay, divided by his skill, and conquered by his might.\nSurely he seems great, when measured merely by his deeds. But, in\ncomparison, Frederick the Great seems Frederick the little: for Adams\nfought not for a kingdom, nor for fame, but for Justice and the Eternal\nRight; fought, too, with weapons tempered in a heavenly stream![39]\n\nHe had his reward. Who ever missed it? From mythological Cain, who slew\nhis brother, down to Judas Iscariot, and Aaron Burr; from Jesus of\nNazareth, down to the least man that dies or lives--who ever lost his\nreward? None. No; not one. Within the wicked heart there dwells the\navenger, with unseen hands, to adjust the cord, to poison the fatal\nbowl. In the impenetrable citadel of a good man's consciousness, unseen\nby mortal eyes, there stands the palladium of justice, radiant with\ncelestial light; mortal hands may make and mar,--this they can mar not,\nno more than they can make. Things about the man can others build up or\ndestroy; but no foe, no tyrant, no assassin, can ever steal the man out\nof the man. Who would not have the consciousness of being right, even of\ntrying to be right, though affronted by a whole world, rather than\nconscious of being wrong, and hollow, and false, have all the honors of\na nation on his head? Of late years, no party stood up for Mr. Adams,\n\"The madman of Massachusetts,\" as they called him, on the floor of\nCongress; but he knew that he had, and in his old age, done one\nwork,--he had contended for the unalienable rights of man, done it\nfaithfully. The government of God is invisible, His justice the more\ncertain,--and by that Mr. Adams had his abundant reward.\n\nBut he had his poorer and outward rewards, negative and positive. For\nhis zeal in behalf of freedom he was called \"a monarchist in disguise,\"\n\"an alien to the true interests of his country,\" \"a traitor.\" A\nslaveholder from Kentucky published to his constituents that he \"was\nsincerely desirous to check that man, for if he could be removed from\nthe councils of the nation, or silenced upon the exasperating subject to\nwhich he had devoted himself, none other, I believe, could be found\nhardy enough or bad enough to fill his place.\" It was worth something to\nhave an enemy speak such praise as that: but the slaveholder was wrong\nin his conjecture; the North has yet other sons not less hardy, not more\nlikely to be silenced. Still more praise of a similar sort:--at a fourth\nof July dinner at Walterborough, in South Carolina, this sentiment was\nproposed and responded to with nine cheers: \"May we never want a\ndemocrat to trip up the heels of a federalist, or a hangman to prepare a\nhalter for John Quincy Adams.\" Considering what he had done and whence\nthose rewards proceeded, that was honor enough for a yet greater man.\n\nLet me turn to things more grateful. Mr. Adams, through lack of genial\nqualities, had few personal friends, yet from good men throughout the\nNorth there went up a hearty thanksgiving for his manly independence,\nand prayers for his success. Brave men forgot their old prejudices,\nforgot the \"Embargo,\" forgot the \"Hartford Convention,\" forgot all the\nhard things which he had ever said, forgot his words in the Senate,\nforgot their disappointments, and said--\"For this our hearts shall honor\nthee, thou brave old man!\" In 1843, when, for the first time, he visited\nthe West, to assist at the foundation of a scientific institution, all\nthe West rose up to do him reverence. He did not go out to seek honors,\nthey came to seek him. It was the movement of a noble people, feeling a\nnoble presence about them no less than within. When Cicero, the only\ngreat man whom Rome never feared, returned from his exile, all Italy\nrose up and went out to meet him; so did the North and the West welcome\nthis champion of freedom, this venerable old man. They came not to honor\none who had been a President, but one who was a man. That alone, said\nMr. Adams, with tears of joy and grief filling his eyes, was reward\nenough for all that he had done, suffered, or undertaken. Yes, it was\ntoo much; too much for one man as the reward of one life!\n\nYou all remember the last time he was at any public meeting in this\ncity. A man had been kidnapped in Boston, kidnapped at noon-day, \"on the\nhigh road between Faneuil Hall and old Quincy,\" and carried off to be a\nslave! New England hands had seized their brother, sold him into bondage\nfor ever, and his children after him. In the presence of slavery, as of\narms, the laws are silent,--not always men. Then it appears who are men,\nwho not! A meeting was called to talk the matter over, in a plain way,\nand look in one another's faces. Who was fit to preside in such a case?\nThat old man sat in the chair in Faneuil Hall; above him was the image\nof his father, and his own; around him were Hancock and the other\nAdams,--Washington, greatest of all; before him were the men and women\nof Boston, met to consider the wrongs done to a miserable negro slave;\nthe roof of the old Cradle of Liberty spanned over them all. Forty years\nbefore, a young man and a Senator, he had taken the chair at a meeting\ncalled to consult on the wrong done to American seamen, violently\nimpressed by the British from an American ship of war, the unlucky\nChesapeake; some of you remember that event. Now, an old man, clothed\nwith half a century of honors, he sits in the same hall, to preside over\na meeting to consider the outrage done to a single slave; a greater\noutrage--alas, not done by a hostile, not by an alien hand! One was the\nfirst meeting of citizens he ever presided over, the other was the last;\nboth for the same object--the defence of the Eternal Right.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut I would not weary you. His death was noble; fit ending for such a\nlife. He was an old man, the last that had held a diplomatic office\nunder Washington. He had uttered his oracles; had done his work. The\nhighest honors of the nation he had worthily worn; but, as his townsmen\ntell us,--caring little for the President, and much for the man,--that\nwas very little in comparison with his character. The good and ill of\nthe human cup he had tasted, and plentifully, too, as son, husband,\nfather. He had borne his testimony for freedom and the rights of\nmankind; he had stood in Congress almost alone; with a few gallant men\nhad gone down to the battlefield, and if victory escaped him, it was\nbecause night came on.\n\nHe saw others enter the field in good heart, to stand in the imminent\ndeadly breach; he lived long enough for his own welfare, for his own\nambition; long enough to see the seal broken,--and then, this aged\nSimeon, joyful in the consolation, bowed his head and went home in\npeace. His feet were not hurt with fetters; he died with his armor on;\ndied like a Senator in the capitol of the nation; died like an American,\nin the service of his country; died like a Christian, full of\nimmortality; died like a man, fearless and free!\n\nYou will ask, What was the secret of his strength? Whence did he gain\nsuch power to stand erect where others so often cringed and crouched low\nto the ground? It is plain to see: he looked beyond time, beyond men;\nlooked to the eternal God, and fearing Him forgot all other fear. Some\nof his failings he knew to be such, and struggled with them though he\ndid not overcome. A man, not over-modest, once asked him what he most of\nall lamented in his life, and he replied, \"My impetuous temper and\nvituperative speech; that I have not always returned good for evil, but\nin the madness of my blood have said things that I am ashamed of before\nmy God!\" As the world goes, it needed some greatness to say that.\n\nWhen he was a boy, his mother, a still woman, and capable, deep-hearted,\nand pious, took great pains with his culture; most of all with his\nreligious culture. When, at the age of ten, he was about to leave home\nfor years of absence in another land, she took him aside to warn him of\ntemptations which he could not then understand. She bade him remember\nreligion and his God--his secret, silent prayer. Often in his day there\ncame the earthquake of party strife; the fire, the storm, and the\nwhirlwind of passion; he listened--and God was not there; but there\ncame, too, the remembrance of his mother's whispered words; God came in\nthat memory, and earthquake and storm, the fire and the whirlwind were\npowerless, at last, before that still small voice. Beautifully did she\nwrite to her boy of ten, \"Great learning and superior abilities will be\nof little value ... unless virtue, honor, truth, and integrity, are\nadded to them. Remember that you are accountable to your Maker for all\nyour words and your actions.\" \"Dear as you are to me,\" says this more\nthan Spartan, this Christian mother, \"Dear as you are to me, I would\nmuch rather you should have found your grave in the ocean you have\ncrossed, or that any untimely death cross you in your infant years,\nthan see you an immoral, profligate, or graceless child. Let your\nobservations and comparisons produce in your mind an abhorrence of\ndomination and power--the parents of slavery, ignorance, and barbarism.\nMay you be led to an imitation of that disinterested patriotism and that\nnoble love of your country, which will teach you to despise wealth,\ntitles, pomp, and equipage, as mere external advantages, which cannot\nadd to the internal excellence of your mind, or compensate for the want\nof integrity and virtue.\" She tells him in a letter, that her father, a\nplain New England clergyman, of Braintree, who had just died, \"left you\na legacy more valuable than gold or silver; he left you his blessing,\nand his prayers that you might become a useful citizen, a guardian of\nthe laws, liberty, and religion of your country.... Lay this bequest up\nin your memory and practise upon it; believe me, you will find it a\ntreasure that neither moth nor rust can destroy.\"\n\nIf a child have such a mother, there is no wonder why he stood fearless,\nand bore a charmed life which no opposition could tame down. I wonder\nmore that one so born and by such a mother bred, could ever once bend a\nservile knee; could ever indulge that fierce and dreadful hate; could\never stoop to sully those hands which hers had joined in prayer. It ill\naccords with teachings like her own. I wonder that he could ever have\nrefused to \"deliberate.\" Religion is a quality that makes a man\nindependent; disappointment will not render such an one sour, nor\noppression drive him mad, nor elevation bewilder; power will not dazzle,\nnor gold corrupt; no threat can silence and no fear subdue.\n\nThere are men enough born with greater abilities than Mr. Adams, men\nenough in New England, in all the walks of man. But how many are there\nin political life who use their gifts so diligently, with such\nconscience, such fearless deference to God?--nay, tell us one. I have\nnot spared his faults; I am no eulogist, to paint a man with\nundiscriminating praise. Let his follies warn us, while his virtues\nguide. But look on all his faults, and then compare him with our famous\nmen of the North or the South; with the great whigs or the great\ndemocrats. Ask which was the purest man, the most patriotic, the most\nhonest; which did his nation the smallest harm and the greatest good;\nwhich for his country and his kind denied himself the most. Shall I\nexamine their lives, public and private, strip them bare and lay them\ndown beside his life, and ask which, after all, has the least of blemish\nand the most of beauty? Nay, that is not for me to do or to attempt.\n\nIn one thing he surpassed most men,--he grew more liberal the more he\ngrew old, ripening and mellowing, too, with age. After he was seventy\nyears old, he welcomed new ideas, kept his mind vigorous, and never\nfell into that crabbed admiration of past times and buried institutions,\nwhich is the palsy of so many a man, and which makes old age nothing but\na pity, and gray hairs provocative of tears. This is the more remarkable\nin a man of his habitual reverence for the past, in one who judged\noftener by the history than by the nature of man.\n\nTimes will come when men shall look to that vacant seat. But the thunder\nis silent, the lightning gone; other men must take his place and fill it\nas they can. Let us not mourn that he has gone from us; let us remember\nwhat was evil in him, but only to be warned of ambition, of party\nstrife, to love more that large charity which forgives an enemy, and,\nthrough good and ill, contends for mankind. Let us be thankful for the\ngood he has said and done, be guided by it and blessed. There is a\ncertain affluence of intellectual power granted to some men, which\nprovokes admiration for a time, let the man of myriad gifts use his\ntalent as he may. Such merely cubic greatness of mind is matter of\nastonishment rather than a fit subject for esteem and praise. Of that,\nMr. Adams had little, as so many of his contemporaries had more. In him\nwhat most commands respect is, his independence, his love of justice, of\nhis country and his kind. No son of New England has been ever so\ndistinguished in political life. But it is no great thing to be\nPresident of the United States; some men it only makes ridiculous. A\nworm on a steeple's top is nothing but a worm, no more able to fly than\nwhile creeping in congenial mud; a mountain needs no steeple to lift its\nhead and show the world what is great and high. The world obeys its\ngreat men, stand where they may.\n\nAfter all, this must be the greatest praise of Mr. Adams: In private he\ncorrupted no man nor woman; as a politician he never debauched the\npublic morals of his country, nor used public power for any private end;\nin public and private he lived clean and above board; he taught a\nfearless love of truth and the right, both by word and deed. I wish I\ncould add, that was a small praise. But as the times go, as our famous\nmen are, it is a very great fame, and there are few competitors for such\nrenown; I must leave him alone in that glory. Doubtless, as he looked\nback on his long career, his whole life, motives as well as actions,\nmust have seemed covered with imperfections. I will seek no further to\ndisclose his merits, or \"draw his frailties from their dead abode.\"\n\nHe has passed on, where superior gifts and opportunities avail not, nor\nhis long life, nor his high station, nor his wide spread fame; where\nenemies cease from troubling, and the flattering tongue also is still.\nWealth, honor, fame, forsake him at the grave's mouth. It is only the\nliving soul, sullied or clean, which the last angel bears off in his\narms to that world where many that seem first shall be last, and the\nlast first; but where justice shall be lovingly done to the great man\nfull of power and wisdom who rules the State, and the feeblest slave\nwhom oppression chains down in ignorance and vice--done by the\nall-seeing Father of both President and slave, who loves both with equal\nlove. The venerable man is gone home. He shall have his praise. But who\nshall speak it worthily? Mean men and little, who shrank from him in\nlife, who never shared what was manliest in the man, but mocked at his\nliving nobleness, shall they come forward and with mealy mouths, to sing\nhis requiem, forgetting that his eulogy is their own ban? Some will\nrejoice at his death; there is one man the less to fear, and they who\ntrembled at his life may well be glad when the earth has covered up the\nson she bore. Strange men will meet with mutual solace at his tomb,\nwondering that their common foe is dead, and they are met! The Herods\nand Pilates of contending parties may be made friends above his grave,\nand clasping hands may fancy that their union is safer than before; but\nthere will come a day after to-day! Let us leave him to his rest.\n\nThe slave has lost a champion who gained new ardor and new strength the\nlonger he fought; America has lost a man who loved her with his heart;\nReligion has lost a supporter; Freedom an unfailing friend, and Mankind\na noble vindicator of our unalienable rights.\n\nIt is not long since he was here in our own streets; three winter months\nhave scantly flown: he set out for his toil--but went home to his rest.\nHis labors are over. No man now threatens to assassinate; none to expel;\nnone even to censure. The theatrical thunder of Congress, noisy but\nharmless, has ended as it ought, in honest tears. South Carolina need\nask no more a halter for that one northern neck she could not bend nor\nbreak. The tears of his country are dropped upon his urn; the muse of\nhistory shall write thereon, in letters not to be effaced, THE ONE GREAT\nMAN SINCE WASHINGTON, WHOM AMERICA HAD NO CAUSE TO FEAR.\n\nTo-day that venerable form lies in the Capitol,--the disenchanted dust.\nAll is silent. But his undying soul, could we deem it still hovering\no'er its native soil, bound to take leave yet lingering still, and loath\nto part, that would bid us love our country, love man, love justice,\nfreedom, right, and above all, love God. To-morrow that venerable dust\nstarts once more to join the dear presence of father and mother, to\nmingle his ashes with their ashes, as their lives once mingled, and\ntheir souls again. Let his native State communicate her last sad\nsacrament, and give him now, it is all she can, a little earth for\ncharity.\n\nBut what shall we say as the dust returns?\n\n    \"Where slavery's minions cower\n    Before the servile power,\n      He bore their ban;\n    And like the aged oak,\n    That braved the lightning's stroke,\n    When thunders round it broke,\n      Stood up a man.\n\n    \"Nay, when they stormed aloud,\n    And round him like a cloud,\n      Came thick and black,--\n    He single-handed strove,\n    And like Olympian Jove,\n    With his own thunder drove\n      The phalanx back.\n\n    \"Not from the bloody field,\n    Borne on his battered shield,\n      By foes o'ercome;--\n    But from a sterner fight,\n    In the defence of Right,\n    Clothed with a conqueror's might,\n      We hail him home.\n\n    \"His life in labors spent,\n    That 'Old man eloquent'\n      Now rests for aye;--\n    His dust the tomb may claim;--\n    His spirit's quenchless flame,\n    His 'venerable name,'[40]\n      Pass not away.\"[41]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[12] See _Social Compact_, etc. Providence, 1848, p. 31, _et al._\n\n[13] See _Address at Washington_, 4th of July, 1821. Second Edition,\nCambridge, _passim_.\n\n[14] Reference is made to his _speech in the House of Representatives_,\nMay 8th and 9th, 1840. (Boston, 1840.) It is a little remarkable, that\nthe false principle of the common law, on which Mr. Adams was\ncommenting, as laid down by Blackstone, is corrected by a writer, M.\nPothier, who rests on the civil law for his authority. See pp. 6-8, and\n20, 21.\n\n[15] _Answer to Paine's Rights of Man_ (London, 1793), originally\npublished in the Columbian Centinel. The London Edition bears the name\nof _John Adams_ on the title-page.\n\n[16] Mr. Atherton.\n\n[17] See _Oration at Quincy_, 1831, p. 12, _et seq._ (Boston, 1831.)\n\n[18] The _Social Compact_, etc., etc. (Providence, 1842). p. 24.\n\n[19] See Pickering's _Letter to Governor Sullivan, on the Embargo_.\nBoston, 1808. John Quincy Adams's _Letter to the Hon. H. G. Otis_, etc.\nBoston, 1808. Pickering's _Interesting Correspondence_, 1808. _Review of\nthe Correspondence between the Hon. John Adams and the late William\nCunningham_, etc. 1824. But see, also, Mr. Adams's \"Appendix\" to the\nabove letter, published _sixteen_ years after the vote on the embargo.\nBaltimore, 1824. Mr. Pickering's _Brief Remarks on the Appendix_.\nAugust, 1824.\n\n[20] Reference is here made to British \"_Orders in Council_\" of Nov.\n22d, 1807. They were not officially made known to the American Congress\ntill Feb. 7th, 1808. They were, however, published in the National\nIntelligencer, the morning on which the Message was sent to the Senate,\nDec. 18th, 1807, but were not mentioned in that document, nor in the\ndebate.\n\n[21] I copy this from the first letter of Mr. Pickering. Mr. Adams wrote\na letter (to H. G. Otis) in reply to this of Mr. Pickering, but said\nnothing respecting the words charged upon him; but in 1824, in an\nappendix to that letter, he denies that he expressed the \"sentiment\"\nwhich Mr. Pickering charged him with. But he _does not deny the words\nthemselves_. They rest on the authority of Mr. Pickering, his colleague\nin the Senate, a strong party man, it is true, perhaps not much disposed\nto conciliation, but a man of most unquestionable veracity. The\n\"sentiment\" speaks for itself.\n\n[22] Adams's _Remarks in the House of Representatives_, Jan. 5, 1846.\n\n[23] _Correspondence between the Hon. John Adams and the late William\nCunningham, Esq._ Boston, 1823, Letter xliii. p. 150.\n\n[24] March 15th, 1826.\n\n[25] See Mr. Adams's _Message_, Dec. 2, 1828. The exact sum was\n$1,197,422.18.\n\n[26] See Mr. Clay's Letter to Mr. A. H. Everett, April 27th, 1825; to\nMr. Middleton, respecting the intervention of the Emperor of Russia, May\n10th, and Dec. 26th, 1825; to Mr. Gallatin, May 10th, and June 19th,\n1826, and Feb. 24th, 1827. _Executive Documents_, Second Session of the\n20th Congress, Vol. I.\n\n[27] Report of Mr. Adams's _Lecture on the Chinese War_, in the Boston\nAtlas, for Dec. 4th and 5th, 1841.\n\n[28] Genesis i. 26-28.\n\n[29] Psalms ii. 6-8.\n\n[30] See Mr. Adams's _Speech on Oregon_, Feb. 9th, 1846. Arguments\nsomewhat akin to this, may be found also in the oration delivered at\nNewburyport, before cited.\n\n[31] _Address on breaking ground for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal._\n\n[32] _Jubilee of the Constitution_, p. 99.\n\n[33] _Lecture on China._\n\n[34] See his defence of this in his _Address to his Constituents at\nBraintree_, Sept. 17th, 1842. Boston, 1842, p. 56, _et seq._\n\n[35] In a public address, Mr. Adams once quoted the well-known words of\nTacitus (Annal VI. 39), _Par negotiis neque supra_,--applying them to a\ndistinguished man lately deceased. A lady wrote to inquire whence they\ncame. Mr. Adams informed her, and added, they could not be adequately\ntranslated in less than seven words in English. The lady replied that\nthey might be well translated in five--_Equal to, not above, duty_, but\nbetter in three--JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.\n\n[36] _Remarks_ of Mr. Cambreleng.\n\n[37] Mr. Van Buren.\n\n[38] See the _Debates of the House_, January 23d and following, 1837; or\nMr. Adams's own account of the matter in his _Letters to his\nConstituents_, etc. (Boston, 1837.) See, too, his _Series of Speeches on\nthe Right of Petition and the Annexation of Texas_, January 14th and\nfollowing, 1838. (Printed in a pamphlet. Washington, 1838.)\n\n[39] \"Acer et indomitus, quo spes, quoque ira vocasset, Ferre manum, et\nnunquam temerando parcere ferro; Successus urgere suos; instare favori\nNuminis; impellens quiequid sibi summa petenti Obstaret, gaudensque viam\nfecisse ruina.\"\n\n[40] _Clarum et venerabile nomen._\n\n[41] The above lines are from the pen of the Rev. John Pierpont.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nSPEECH AT A MEETING OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, TO CELEBRATE\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY BY THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, APRIL 6, 1848.\n\n\nMR. CHAIRMAN,--The Gentleman before me[42] has made an allusion to Rome.\nLet me also turn to that same city. Underneath the Rome of the Emperors,\nthere was another Rome; not seen by the sun, known only to a few men.\nAbove, in the sunlight, stood Rome of the Caesars, with her markets and\nher armies, her theatres, her temples, and her palaces, glorious and of\nmarble. A million men went through her brazen gates. The imperial city,\nshe stood there, beautiful and admired, the queen of nations. But\nunderneath all that, in caverns of the earth, in the tombs of dead men,\nin quarries whence the upper city had been slowly hewn, there was\nanother population, another Rome, with other thoughts; yes, a devout\nbody of men, who swore not by the public altars; men whose prayers were\nforbidden; their worship disallowed, their ideas prohibited, their very\nlives illegal. Time passed on; and gradually Rome of the Pagans\ndisappeared, and Rome of the Christians sat there in her place, on the\nSeven Hills, and stretched out her sceptre over the nations.\n\nSo underneath the laws and the institutions of each modern nation,\nunderneath the monarchy and the republic, there is another and unseen\nState, with sentiments not yet become popular, and with ideas not yet\nconfirmed in actions, not organized into institutions, ideas scarcely\nlegal, certainly not respectable. Slowly from its depths comes up this\nideal State, the State of the Future; and slowly to the eternal deep\nsinks down the actual State, the State of the Present. But sometimes an\nearthquake of the nations degrades of a sudden the actual; and speedily\nstarts up the ideal Kingdom of the Future. Such a thing has just come to\npass. In France, within five-and-forty days, a new State has arisen from\nunderneath the old. Men, whose words were suppressed, and their ideas\nreckoned illegal but two months ago, now hold the sceptre of\nfive-and-thirty millions of grateful citizens, hold it in clean and\npowerful hands. A great revolution has taken place; one which will\nproduce effects that we cannot foresee. It is itself the greatest act of\nthis century. God only knows what it will lead to. We are here to\nexpress the sympathy of republicans for a new republic. We are here to\nrejoice over the rising hopes of a new State, not to exult over the\nfallen fortunes of the Bourbons. Louis Philippe has done much which we\nmay thank him for. He has kept mainly at peace the fiercest nation of\nthe world; has kept the peace of Europe for seventeen years. Let us\nthank him for that. He has consolidated the French nation, helped to\ngive them a new unity of thought and unity of action, which they had not\nbefore. Perhaps he did not intend all this. Since he has brought it\nabout, let us thank him for it, even if his conduct transcended his\nintention. But, most of all, I would thank this \"Citizen King\" for\nanother thing. His greatest lesson is his last. He has shown that\nfive-and-thirty millions of Frenchmen, in this nineteenth century, are\nonly to be ruled by Justice and the Eternal Law of Right. We have seen\nthis crafty king, often wise and always cunning, driven from his throne.\nHe was the richest man in Europe, and the embodiment of the idea of\nmodern wealth. He had an army the best disciplined, probably, in the\nworld, and, as he thought, completely in his power. He had a Chamber of\nPeers of his own appointment; a Chamber of Deputies almost of his own\nelection. He ruled a nation that contained three hundred thousand\noffice-holders, appointed by himself, and only two hundred and forty\nthousand voters! Who sat so safe as the citizen king on his throne,\nsurrounded by republican institutions! So confident was he, as the\njournals tell, that he bade a friend stop a day or two, \"and see how I\nwill put down the people!\" For once, this shrewd calculator reckoned\nwithout his host.\n\nWell, we have seen this man, this citizen monarch, who married his\nchildren only to kings, rush from his place; his peers and his deputies\nwere unavailing; his office-holders could not sustain him; his army\n\"fraternized with the people;\" and he, forgetful of his own children,\nignominiously is hustled out of the kingdom, in a street cab, with\nnothing but a five-franc piece in his pocket. For the lesson thus\ntaught, let us thank him most of all.\n\nMen tell us it is too soon to rejoice: \"Perhaps the Revolution will not\nhold;\" \"it will not last;\" \"the kings of Europe will put it down.\" When\na sound, healthy child is born, the friends of the family congratulate\nthe parents then; they do not wait till the child has grown up, and got\na beard. Now this is a live child; it is well born in both senses, come\nof good parentage, and gives signs of a good constitution. Let us\nrejoice at its birth, and not wait to see if it will grow up. Let us now\nbaptize it in the crystal fountain of our own Hope.\n\nIn a great revolution, there are always two things to be looked at,\nnamely, the actions, and the ideas which produce the actions. The\nactions I will say little of; you have all read of them in the\nnewspapers. Some of the actions were bad. It is not true that all at\nonce the French have become angels. There are low and base men, who\nswarm in the lanes and alleys of Paris; for that great city also is like\nall capitals, girt about with a belt of misery, of vice and of crime,\neating into her painful loins. It was a bad thing to sack the Tuileries;\nto burn bridges, and chateaux, and railroad stations. Property is under\nthe insurance of mankind, and the human race must pay in public for\nprivate depredations. It was a bad thing to kill men; the human race\ncannot make up that loss; only suffer and be penitent. I am sorry for\nthese bad actions; but I am not surprised at them. You cannot burn down\nthe poor dwelling of a widow in Boston, but some miserable man will\nsteal pot or pan, in the confusion of the fire. How much more should we\nexpect pillage and violence in the earthquake which throws down a king!\n\nI have said enough of the actions; but there was one deed too symbolical\nto be passed by. In the garden of the Tuileries, before the great gate\nof the palace, there stands a statue of Spartacus, a colossal bronze,\nhis broken chain in the left hand, his Roman sword in the right.\nSpartacus was a Roman gladiator. He broke his chains; gathered about him\nother gladiators, fugitive slaves, and assembled an army. He and his\ncomrades fought for freedom; they cut off four consular armies sent\nagainst them; at last the hero fell amid a heap of men, slain by his own\nwell-practised hand. When the people took the old and emblematic French\nthrone, and burned it solemnly with emblematic fire, they stripped off\nsome of the crimson trappings of the royal seat, made a tiara thereof,\nand bound it on the gladiator's brazen head! But red is the color of\nrevolution, the color of blood; the unconscious gladiator was an image\ntoo savage for new France. So they hid the Roman sword in his hand, and\nwreathed it all over with a chaplet of flowers!\n\nLet us say a word of the ideas. Three ideas filled the mind of the\nnation: the idea of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Three noble words.\nLiberty meant liberty of all. So, at one word, they set free the slaves,\nand, if my friend's ciphers are correct, at once three hundred thousand\nsouls rise up from the ground disenthralled, free men. That is a great\nact. A population as large as the whole family of our sober sister\nConnecticut, all at once find their chains drop off, and they are free:\nnot beasts, but men. This may not hold. Our Declaration of Independence\nwas not the Confederation of '78--still less was it the Constitution of\n'87. The French may be as false as the Americans to their idea of\nliberty. At any rate, it is a good beginning. Let us rejoice at that.\n\nEquality means that all are equal before the law; equal in rights,\nhowever unequal in mights. So all titles of nobility come at once to the\nground. The royal family is like the family of our Presidents. The\nChamber of Peers is abolished. Universal suffrage is decreed; all men\nover twenty-one are voters. Men here in America say, \"The French are not\nready for that.\" No doubt the king thought so. At any rate, he was not\nready for it. But it is not a thing altogether unknown in France. It has\nbeen tried several times before. The French Constitution was accepted by\nthe whole people in 1800; Napoleon was made Consul by the whole people;\nmade Emperor by the whole people. Even in 1815, the \"acte additionelle\"\nto the \"Charte\" was accepted by the whole people. To decree universal\nsuffrage was the most natural thing in the world. Those two ideas,\nliberty and equality, have long been American ideas; they were never\nAmerican facts. America sought liberty only for the whites. Our fathers\nthought not of universal suffrage.\n\nBut France has not only attempted to make our ideas into facts; she has\nadvanced an idea not hinted at in the American Declaration; the idea of\nFraternity. By this she means human brotherhood. This points not merely\nto a political, but to a social revolution. It is not easy for us to\nunderstand how a government can effect this. Here, all comes from the\npeople, and the people have to take care of the government, meaning\nthereby the men in official power; have to furnish them with ideas, and\ntell them what application to make thereof. There all comes from the\ngovernment. So the new provisional government of France must be one that\ncan lead the nation; have ideas in advance of the nation. Accordingly,\nit proposes many plans which with us could never have come from any\nparty in power. Here, the government is only the servant of the people.\nThere, it aims to be the father and teacher thereof; a patriarchal\ngovernment with Christian thoughts and feelings. But as an eloquent man\nis to come after me, whose special aim is to develop the idea of human\nbrotherhood into social institutions, I will not dwell on this, save to\nmention an act of the provisional authorities. They have abolished the\npunishment of death for all political offences. You remember the\nguillotine, the massacres of September, the drowning in the Loire and\nthe Seine, the dreadful butchery in the name of the law.\n\nPut this new decree side by side with the old, and you see why\nSpartacus, though crowned by a revolution, bears peaceful blossoms in\nhis hand.\n\nBut let us hasten on; time would fail me to speak of the cause or point\nout the effect of this movement of the people. Only a word concerning\nthe objections made to it. Some say, \"It is only an extempore affair.\nMen drunk with new power are telling their fancies, and trying in their\nheat to make laws thereof.\" It is not so. The ideas I have hinted at\nhave been long known and deeply cherished by the best minds in France.\nLast autumn, M. Lamartine, in his own newspaper, for the deputy for\nMacon is an editor, published the \"Programme and confession of his\npolitical faith.\"[43]\n\nOthers say, \"The whole thing seems rash.\" Well, so it does; so does any\ngood thing seem rash to all except the man who does it, and such as\nwould do it if he did not. What is rash to one is not to another. It is\ndangerous for an old man to run, fatal for him to leap, while his\ngrandson jumps over wall and ditch without hurt. The American Revolution\nwas a rash act; the English Revolution a rash act; the Protestant\nReformation was a rash act. Was it safe to withstand the Revolution? Did\nthe king of the French find it so? Yet others say, \"The leaders are\nunknown,\" \"Lamartine, you might as well put any man in the street at the\nhead of the nation.\" But when the American Revolution begun, who, in\nEngland, had ever heard of John Hancock, President of the Congress? To\nthe men who knew him, John Hancock was a country trader, the richest man\nin a town of ten thousand inhabitants: That did not sound very great at\nLondon. Samuel Adams, and John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, and all the\nother men, what did the world know of them? Only that they had been\nchristened with Hebrew names. Why, George Washington was only, as Gen.\nBraddock called him, \"A young Buckskin.\" But the world heard of these\nmen afterwards. Let us leave the French statesmen to make to the future\nwhat report of themselves they can! Let me tell a story of Dupont de\nl'Eure, the head of the government at this moment. He was one of the\nmovers of the Revolution of 1830. He dined with the citizen king, once,\nin some council. At the table, he and the king differed; the king\naffirmed, and Dupont denied. Said the king, \"Do you tell me I lie?\" Said\nDupont, \"When the king says yes, and Dupont de l'Eure replies no, France\nwill know which to believe!\" The king said, \"Yes, we will put the people\ndown;\" Dupont said, \"No, you shall not put the people down;\" and now\nFrance knows which to believe.\n\nAgain, say others yet, \"War may come; royalty may come back, despotism\nmay come back. Other kings will interpose, and put down a republic.\"\nOther kings interpose to put down the French! Perhaps they will. They\ntried it in 1793, but did not like the experiment very well. They will\nbe well off if they do not find it necessary to put down a republic a\nlittle nearer at hand; their anti-revolutionary work may begin at home.\nWar followed the American Revolution. It cost money, it cost men. But\nif we calculate the value of American ideas, they are worth what they\ncost. Even the French Revolution, with all its carnage, robbery and\nbutchery, is worth what it cost. But it is possible that war will not\ncome. From a foreign war, France has little to fear. There seems little\ndanger that it will come at all. What monarchy will dare fight\nrepublican France? Internal trouble may indeed come. It is to be\nexpected that the new republic will make many a misstep. But is it\nlikely that all the old tragedies will be enacted again? Surely not; the\nburnt child dreads the fire. Besides, the France of '48 is not the\nFrance of '89. There is no triple despotism weighing on the nation's\nneck, a trinity of despotic powers--the throne, the nobility, the\nchurch. The king has fled; the nobles have ceased to be; the church\nseems republican. There is no hatred between class and class, as before.\nThe men of '89 sought freedom for the middle class, not for all classes,\nneither for the high, nor for the low. Religion pervades the church and\nthe people, as never before. Better ideas prevail. It is not the gospel\nof Jean Jaques, and the scoffing negations of Voltaire, that are now\nproclaimed to the people; but the broad maxims of Christian men; the\nwords of human brotherhood. The men of terror knew no weapon but the\nsword; the provisional government casts the sword from its hands, and\nwill not shed blood for political crimes.\n\nStill, troubles may come; war may come from without, and, worse still,\nfrom within; the republic may end. But if it lasts only a day, let us\nrejoice in that day. Suppose it is only the dream of the nation; it is\nworth while to dream of liberty, of equality, of fraternity; and to\ndream that we are awake, and trying to make them all into institutions\nand common life. What is only a dream now, will be a fact at last.\n\nNext Sunday is the election day of France; six millions of voters are to\nchoose nine hundred representatives! Shall not the prayers of all\nChristian hearts go up with them on that day, a great deep prayer for\ntheir success? The other day, the birthday of Washington, the calm,\nnoiseless spirit of death came to release the soul of the patriarch of\nAmerican statesmen. While his sun was slowly sinking in the western sky,\nthe life-star of a new nation was visibly rising there, far off in the\neast. A pagan might be pardoned for the thought, that the intrepid soul\nof that old man foresaw the peril, and, slowly quitting its hold of the\nworn-out body, went thither to kindle anew the flames of liberty he\nfanned so often here. That is but a pagan thought. This is a Christian\nthought: The same God who formed the world for man's abode, presides\nalso in the movements of mankind, and directs their voluntary march.\nSee how this earth has been brought to her present firm and settled\nstate. By storm and earthquake, continent has been rent from continent;\noceans have swept over the mountains, and the scars of ancient war still\nmark our parent's venerable face. So is it in the growth of human\nSociety: it is the child of pain; revolutions have rocked its cradle,\nwar and violence rudely nursed it into hardy life. Good institutions,\nhow painfully, how slowly have they come!\n\n    \"Slowly as spreads the green of earth\n      O'er the receding ocean's bed,\n    Dim as the distant stars come forth,\n      Uncertain as a vision slow,\n    Has been the old world's toiling pace,\n    Ere she can give fair freedom place.\"\n\nLet us welcome the green spot, when it begins to spread; let us shout as\nthe sterile sea of barbarism goes back; let us rejoice in the vision of\ngood things to come; let us welcome the distant and rising orb, for it\nis the Bethlehem star of a great nation, and they who behold it may well\nsay--\"Peace on earth, and good-will to men.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[42] Mr. Wendell Phillips.\n\n[43] See the _Courier des Etats Unis_, for Nov. 24, 1847, which contains\npassages from M. Lamartine's programme, which set forth all the schemes\nthat the provisional government had afterwards tried to carry out.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\nSPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL, BEFORE THE NEW ENGLAND ANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTION,\nMAY 31, 1848.\n\n\nThe design of the Abolitionists is this,--to remove and destroy the\ninstitution of slavery. To accomplish this well, two things are needed,\nideas and actions. Of the ideas first, and then a word of the actions.\n\nWhat is the idea of the abolitionists? Only this, That all men are\ncreated free, endowed with unalienable rights; and in respect of those\nrights, that all men are equal. This is the idea of Christianity, of\nhuman nature. Of course, then, no man has a right to take away another's\nrights; of course, no man may use me for his good, and not my own good\nalso; of course, there can be no ownership of man by man; of course, no\nslavery in any form. Such is the idea, and some of the most obvious\ndoctrines that follow from it.\n\nNow, the abolitionists aim to put this idea into the minds of the\npeople, knowing that if it be there, actions will follow fast enough.\n\nIt seems a very easy matter to get it there. The idea is nothing new;\nall the world knows it. Talk with men, democrats and whigs, they will\nsay they like freedom in the abstract, they hate slavery in the\nabstract. But you find that somehow they like slavery in the concrete,\nand dislike abolitionism when it tries to set free the slave. Slavery is\nthe affair of the whole people; not Congress, but the nation, made\nslavery; made it national, constitutional. Not Congress, but the voters,\nmust unmake slavery; make it un-constitutional, un-national. They say\nCongress cannot do it. Well, perhaps it is so; but they that make can\nbreak. If the people made slavery, they can unmake it.\n\nYou talk with the people; the idea of freedom is there. They tell you\nthey believe the Declaration of Independence--that all men are created\nequal. But somehow they contrive to believe that negroes now in bondage\nare an exception to the rule, and so they tell us that slavery must not\nbe meddled with, that we must respect the compromises of the\nConstitution. So we see that respect for the Constitution overrides\nrespect for the inalienable rights of three millions of negro men.\n\nNow, to move men, it is necessary to know two things--first, What they\nthink, and next, Why they think it. Let us look a little at both.\n\nIn New England, men over twenty-one years old may be divided into two\nclasses. First, the men that vote, and secondly, the men that choose the\nGovernor. The voters in Massachusetts are some hundred and twenty\nthousand; the men that choose the Governor, who tell the people how to\nvote, whom to vote for, what laws to make, what to forbid, what policy\nto pursue--they are not very numerous. You may take one hundred men out\nof Boston, and fifty men from the other large towns in the State--and if\nyou could get them to be silent till next December, and give no counsel\non political affairs, the people would not know what to do. The\ndemocrats would not know what to do, nor the whigs. We are a very\ndemocratic people, and suffrage is almost universal; but it is a very\nfew men who tell us how to vote, who make all the most important laws.\nDo I err in estimating the number at one hundred and fifty? I do not\nlike to exaggerate--suppose there are six hundred men, three hundred in\neach party; that six hundred manage the political action of the State,\nin ordinary times.\n\nI need not stop to ask what the rest of the people think about freedom\nand slavery. What do the men who control our politics think thereof? I\nanswer, They are not opposed to slavery; to the slavery of three\nmillions of men. They may not like slavery in the abstract, or they may\nlike it, I do not pretend to judge; but slavery in the concrete, at the\nSouth, they do like; opposition to that slavery, in the mildest form,\nor the sternest, they do hate.\n\nThat is a serious charge to bring against the prominent rulers of the\nState. Let me call your attention to a few facts which prove it. Look at\nthe men we send to Congress. There are thirty-one New England men in\nCongress. By the most liberal construction you can only make out five\nanti-slavery men in the whole number. Who ever heard of an anti-slavery\nGovernor of Massachusetts in this century? Men know what they are about\nwhen they select candidates for election. Do the voters always know what\nthey are about when they choose them?\n\nThen these men always are in favor of a pro-slavery President. The\nPresident must be a slaveholder. There have been fifteen presidential\nelections. Men from the free States have filled the chair twelve years,\nor three terms; men from the slave States forty-four years, or eleven\nterms. During one term, the chair was filled by an amphibious\npresidency, by General Harrison, who was nothing but a concrete\navailability, and John Tyler, who was--John Tyler. They called him an\naccident; but there are no accidents in politics. A slaveholder presides\nover the United States forty-eight years out of sixty! Do those men who\ncontrol the politics of New England not like it? It is no such thing.\nThey love to have it so. We have just seen the democratic party, or\ntheir leaders, nominate General Cass for their candidate--and General\nCass is a northern man; but on that account is he any the less a\npro-slavery man? He did oppose the South once, but it was in pressing a\nwar with England. Everybody knows General Cass, and I need say no more\nabout him. But the northern whigs have their leaders--are they\nanti-slavery men? Not a whit more. Next week you will see them nominate,\nnot the great Eastern whig, though he is no opponent of slavery, only an\nExpounder and Defender of the Constitution; not the great Western whig,\nthe Compromiser, though steeped to the lips in slavery; no, they will\nnominate General Taylor, a man who lives a little further south, and is\nat this moment dyed a little more scarlet with the sin of slavery.\n\nBut go a step further as to the proof. Those men who control the\npolitics of Massachusetts, or New England, or the whole North, they have\nnever opposed the aggressive movements of the slave power. The\nannexation of Texas, did they oppose that? No, they were glad of it.\nTrue, some earnest men came up here in Faneuil Hall, and passed\nresolutions, which did no good whatever, because it was well known that\nthe real controllers of our politics thought the other way. Then\nfollowed the Mexican war. It was a war for slavery, and they knew it;\nthey like it now--that is, if a man's likings can be found out by his\ndoings, not his occasional and exceptional deeds, but his regular and\nconstant actions. They knew that there would be a war against the\ncurrency, a war against the tariff, or a war against Mexico. They chose\nthe latter. They knew what they were about.\n\nThe same thing is shown by the character of the Press. No \"respectable\"\npaper is opposed to slavery; no whig paper, no democratic paper. You\nwould as soon expect a Catholic newspaper to oppose the Pope and his\nchurch, for the slave power is the Pope of America, though not exactly a\npious Pope. The churches show the same thing; they also are in the main\npro-slavery, at least not anti-slavery. There are some forty\ndenominations or sects in New England. Mr. President, is one of these\nanti-slavery? Not one! The land is full of ministers, respectable men,\neducated men--are they opposed to slavery? I do not know a single man,\neminent in any sect, who is also eminent in his opposition to slavery.\nThere was one such man, Dr. Channing; but just as he became eminent in\nthe cause of freedom, he lost power in his own church, lost caste in his\nown little sect; and though men are now glad to make sectarian capital\nout of his reputation after he is dead, when he lived, they cursed him\nby their gods! Then, too, all the most prominent men of New England\nfraternize with slavery. Massachusetts received such an insult from\nSouth Carolina as no State ever before received from another State in\nthis Union; an affront which no nation would dare offer another, without\ngrinding its sword first. And what does Massachusetts do? She\ndoes--nothing. But her foremost man goes off there, \"The schoolmaster\nthat gives no lessons,\"[44] to accept the hospitality of the South, to\ntake the chivalry of South Carolina by the hand; the Defender of the\nConstitution fraternizes with the State which violates the Constitution,\nand imprisons his own constituents on account of the color of their\nskin.\n\nPut all these things together, and they show that the men who control\nthe politics of Massachusetts, of all New England, do not oppose or\ndislike slavery.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo much for what they think; and now for the Why they think so.\n\nFirst, there is the general indifference to what is absolutely right.\nMen think little of it. The Anglo-Saxon race, on both sides of the\nwater, have always felt the instinct of freedom, and often contended\nstoutly enough for their own rights. But they never cared much for the\nrights of other men. The slaves are at a distance from us, and so the\nwrong of this institution is not brought home to men's feelings as if it\nwere our own wrong.\n\nThen the pecuniary interests of the North are supposed to be connected\nwith slavery, so that the North would lose dollars if the South lost\nslaves. No doubt this is a mistake; still, it is an opinion currently\nheld. The North wants a market for its fabrics, freight for its ships.\nThe South affords it; and, as men think, better than if she had\nmanufactures and ships of her own, both of which she could have, were\nthere no slaves. All this seems to be a mistake. Freedom, I think, can\nbe shown to be the interest of both North and South.\n\nYet another reason is found in devotion to the interests of a party.\nTell a whig he could make whig capital out of anti-slavery, he would\nturn abolitionist in a moment, if he believed you. Tell a democrat that\nhe can make capital out of abolition, and he also will come over to your\nside. But the fact is, each party knows it would gain nothing for its\npolitical purposes by standing out for the rights of man. The time will\ncome, and sooner too than some men think, when it will be for the\ninterest of a party to favor abolition; but that time is not yet. It\ndoes seem strange, that while you can find men who will practise a good\ndeal of self-denial for their sect or their party, lending, and hoping\nnothing in return, you so rarely find a man who will compromise even his\npopularity for the sake of mankind.\n\nThen again, there is the fear of change. Men who control our politics\nseem to have little confidence in man, little in truth, little in\njustice, and the eternal right. Therefore, while it is never out of\nseason to do something for the tariff, for the moneyed interests of men,\nthey think it is never in time to do much for the great work of\nelevating mankind itself. They have no confidence in the people, and\ntake little pains to make the people worthy of confidence. So any change\nwhich gives a more liberal government to a people, which gives freedom\nto the slave, they look on with distrust, if not alarm. In 1830, when\nthe French expelled the despotic king who encumbered their throne, what\nsaid Massachusetts, what said New England, in honor of the deed?\nNothing. Your old men? Nothing. Your young men? Not a word. What did\nthey care for the freedom of thirty millions of men? They were looking\nat their imports and exports. In 1838, when England set free eight\nhundred thousand men in a day, what did Massachusetts say about that?\nWhat had New England to say? Not a word in its favor from these\npolitical leaders of the land. Nay, they thought the experiment was\ndangerous, and ever since that it is with great reluctance you can get\nthem to confess that the scheme works well. In 1848, when France again\nexpels her king, and all the royalty in the kingdom is carted off in a\none-horse cab--when the broadest principles of human government are laid\ndown, and a great nation sets about the difficult task of moving out of\nher old political house, and into a new one, without tearing down the\nold, without butchering men in the process of removal,--why, what has\nBoston to say to that? What have the political leaders of Massachusetts,\nof New England, to say? They have nothing to say for liberty; they are\nsorry the experiment was made; they are afraid the French will not want\nso much cotton; they have no confidence in man, and fear every change.\n\nSuch are their opinions, to judge by what they do; such the reasons\nthereof, judging by what they say.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut now how can we change this, and get the idea of freedom into men's\nminds? Something can be done by the gradual elevation of men, by schools\nand churches, by the press. The churches and colleges of New England\nhave not directly aided us in the work of abolishing slavery. No doubt\nby their direct action they have retarded that work, and that a good\ndeal. But indirectly they have done much to hasten the work. They have\nhelped educate men; helped make men moral, in a general way; and now\nthis moral power can be turned to this special business, though the\nchurches say, \"No, you shall not.\" I see before me a good and an earnest\nman,[45] who, not opening his mouth in public against slavery, has yet\ndone a great service in this way: he has educated the teachers of the\nCommonwealth, has taught them to love freedom, to love justice, to love\nman and God. That is what I call sowing the seeds of anti-slavery. The\nhonored and excellent Secretary of Education,[46] who has just gone to\nstand in the place of a famous man, and I hope to fill it nobly, has\ndone much in this way. I wish in his reports on education he had exposed\nthe wrong which is done here in Boston, by putting all the colored\nchildren in one school, by shutting them out of the Latin School and the\nEnglish High School. I wish he had done that duty, which plainly belongs\nto him to do. But without touching that, he has yet done, indirectly, a\ngreat work towards the abolition of slavery. He has sown the seeds of\neducation wide spread over the State. One day these seeds will come up;\ncome up men, men that will both vote and choose the Governor; men that\nwill love right and justice; will see the iniquity of American slavery,\nand sweep it off the continent, cost what it may cost, spite of all\ncompromises of the Constitution, and all compromisers. I look on that as\ncertain. But that is slow work, this waiting for a general morality to\ndo a special act. It is going without dinner till the wheat is grown for\nyour bread.\n\nSo we want direct and immediate action upon the people themselves. The\nidea must be set directly before them, with all its sanctions displayed,\nand its obligations made known. This can be done in part by the pulpit.\nDr. Channing shows how much one man can do, standing on that eminence.\nYou all know how much he did do. I am sorry that he came so late, sorry\nthat he did not do more, but thankful for what he did do. However, you\ncannot rely on the pulpit to do much. The pulpit represents the average\ngoodness and piety; not eminent goodness and piety. It is unfair to call\nordinary men to do extraordinary works. I do not concur in all the hard\nthings that are said about the clergy, perhaps it is because I am one of\nthem; but I do not expect a great deal from them. It is hard to call a\nclass of men all at once to rise above all other classes of men, and\nteach a degree of virtue which they do not understand. But you may call\nthem to be true to their own consciences.\n\nSo the pulpit is not to be relied on for much aid. If all the ministers\nof New England were abolitionists, with the same zeal that they are\nProtestants, Universalists, Methodists, Calvinists, or Unitarians, no\ndoubt the whole State would soon be an anti-slavery State, and the day\nof emancipation would be wonderfully hastened. But that we are not to\nlook for.\n\nMuch can be done by lecturers, who shall go to the people and address\nthem, not as whigs or democrats, not as sectarians, but as men, and in\nthe name of man and God present the actual condition of the slaves, and\nshow the duty of the North and the South, of the nation, in regard to\nthis matter. For this business, we want money and men, the two sinews of\nwar; money to pay the men, men to earn the money. They must appeal to\nthe people in their primary capacity, simply as men.\n\nMuch also may be done by the press. How much may be done by these two\nmeans, and that in a few years, these men[47] can tell; all the North\nand South can tell. Men of the most diverse modes of thought can work\ntogether in this cause. Here on my right is Mr. Phillips, an\nold-fashioned Calvinist, who believes all the five points of Calvinism.\nI am rather a new-fashioned Unitarian, and believe only one of the five\npoints, the one Mr. Phillips has proved--the perseverance of the saints;\nbut we get along without any quarrel by the way.\n\nSome men will try political action. The action of the people, of the\nnation, must be political action. It may be constitutional, it may be\nun-constitutional. I see not why men need quarrel about that. Let not\nhim that voteth, condemn him that voteth not; nor let not him that\nvoteth not, condemn him that voteth, but let every man be faithful to\nhis own convictions.\n\nIt is said, the abolitionists waste time and wind in denunciation. It is\npartly true. I make no doubt it inspires the slaveholder's heart to see\ndivision amongst his foes. I ought to say his friends, for such we are.\nHe thinks the day of justice is deferred, while the ministers thereof\ncontend. I do not believe a revolution is to be baptized with\nrose-water. I do not believe a great work is to be done without great\npassions. It is not to be supposed that the Leviathan of American\nSlavery will allow himself to be drawn out of the mire in which he has\nmade his nest, and grown fat and strong, without some violence and\nfloundering. When we have caught him fairly, he will put his feet into\nthe mud to hold on by; he will reach out and catch hold of every thing\nthat will hold him. He has caught hold of Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster. He\nwill catch hold of General Cass and General Taylor. He will die, though\nslowly, and die hard. Still it is a pity that men who essay to pull him\nout, should waste their strength in bickerings with one another, or in\nneedless denunciation of the leviathan's friends. Call slaveholding,\nslaveholding; let us tell all the evils which arise from it, if we can\nfind language terrible enough; let us show up the duplicity of the\nnation, the folly of our wise men, the littleness of our great men, the\nbaseness of our honorable men, if need be; but all that with no unkind\nfeelings toward any one. Virtue never appears so lovely as when\ndestroying sin, she loves the sinner, and seeks to save him. Absence of\nlove is absence of the strongest power. See how much Mr. Adams lost of\nhis influence, how much he wasted of his strength, by the violence with\nwhich he pursued persons. I am glad to acknowledge the great services he\nperformed. He wished to have every man stand on the right side of the\nanti-slavery line; but I believe there were some men whom he would like\nto have put there with a pitch-fork. On the other hand, Dr. Channing\nnever lost a moment by attacking a personal foe; and see what he gained\nby it! However, I must say this, that no great revolution of opinion and\npractice was ever brought about before with so little violence, waste of\nforce, and denunciation. Consider the greatness of the work: it is to\nrestore three millions to liberty; a work, in comparison with which the\nAmerican Revolution was a little thing. Yet consider the violence, the\ndenunciation, the persecution, and the long years of war, which that\nRevolution cost. I do not wonder that abolitionists are sometimes\nviolent; I only deplore it. Remembering the provocation, I wonder they\nare not more so and more often. The prize is to be run for, \"not without\ndust and heat.\"\n\nWorking in this way, we are sure to succeed. The idea is an eternal\ntruth. It will find its way into the public mind, for there is that\nsympathy between man and the truth, that he cannot live without it and\nbe blessed. What allies we have on our side! True, the cupidity, the\ntyranny, the fear and the atheism of the land are against us. But all\nthe nobleness, all the honor, all the morality, all the religion, are on\nour side. I was sorry to hear it said, that the religion of the land\nopposed us. It is not true. Religion never opposed any good work. I know\nwhat my friend meant, and I wish he had said it, calling things by their\nright names. It is the irreligion of the land that favors slavery; it is\nthe idolatry of gold; it is our atheism. Of speculative atheism there is\nnot much; you see how much of the practical!\n\nWe are certain of success; the spirit of the age is on our side. See how\nthe old nations shake their tyrants out of the land. See how every\nsteamer brings us good tidings of good things; and do you believe\nAmerica can keep her slaves? It is idle to think so. So all we want is\ntime. On our side are Truth, Justice, and the Eternal Right. Yes, on our\nside is religion, the religion of Christ; on our side are the hopes of\nmankind, and the great power of God.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[44] This was a sentiment offered at a public dinner given by the\ncitizens of Charleston, S. C., to Hon. Daniel Webster.\n\n[45] Rev. Cyrus Pierce, Teacher of the Normal School at Newton.\n\n[46] Hon. Horace Mann.\n\n[47] Messrs. Garrison, Phillips and Quincy.\n\n\n\n\nIX.\n\nSOME THOUGHTS ON THE FREE SOIL PARTY AND THE ELECTION OF GENERAL TAYLOR.\nDECEMBER, 1848.\n\n\nThe people of the United States have just chosen an officer, who, for\nthe next four years, will have more power than any monarch of Europe;\nyet three years ago he was scarcely known out of the army in Florida,\nand even now has appeared only in the character of a successful general.\nHis supporters at the North intend, by means of his election, to change\nthe entire commercial policy of the country, and perhaps, also, its\nfinancial policy; they contemplate, or profess to contemplate, a great\nchange. Yet the election has been effected without tumult or noise; not\na soldier has drawn his bayonet; scarcely has a constable needed his\nofficial rod to keep order withal. In Europe, at the same time, the\nbeginning of a change in the national dynasty or the national policy is\nonly attempted by violence, by soldiers with arms ready for fight, by\nbattle and murder. One day or another, men will be wise enough to see\nthe cause of this difference, and insular statesmen in England, who now\nsneer at the new government in America, may learn that democracy has at\nleast one quality--that of respecting law and order, and may live to see\nours the oldest government in the whole Caucasian race.\n\nSince the election is now over, it is worth while to look a moment at\nthe politics and political parties of the country, that we may gain\nwisdom for the future, and perhaps hope; at any rate, may see the actual\ncondition of things. Each political party is based on an Idea, which\ncorresponds to a Truth, or an Interest. It commonly happens that the\nidea is represented as an interest, and the interest as an idea, before\neither becomes the foundation of a large party. Now when a new idea is\nintroduced to any party, or applied to any institution, if it be only\nauxiliary to the old doctrines incarnated therein, a regular growth and\nnew development take place; but when the new idea is hostile to the old,\nthe development takes place under the form of a revolution, and that\nwill be greater or less in proportion to the difference between the new\nidea and the old doctrine; in proportion to their relative strength and\nvalue. As Aristotle said of seditions, a revolution comes on slight\noccasions, but not of slight causes;[48] the occasion may be obvious\nand obviously trivial, but the cause obscure and great. The occasion of\nthe French Revolution of 1848 was afforded by the attempt of the king to\nprevent a certain public dinner: he had a legal right to prevent it. The\ncause of the Revolution was a little different; but some men in America\nand England, at first, scarcely looked beyond the occasion, and, taking\nthat for the cause, thought the Frenchmen fools to make so much ado\nabout a trifle, and that they had better eat their _soupe maigre_ at\nhome, and let their victuals stop their mouths. The occasion of the\nAmerican Revolution may be found in the Stamp-Act, or the Sugar-Act, the\nWrits of Assistance, or the Boston Port-Bill; some men, even now, see no\nfurther, and logically conclude the colonists made a mistake, because\nfor a dozen years they were far worse off than before the \"Rebellion,\"\nand have never been so lightly taxed since. Such men do not see the\ncause of the Revolution, which was not an unwillingness to pay taxes,\nbut a determination to govern themselves.\n\nAt the present day it is plain that a revolution, neither slow nor\nsilent, is taking place in the political parties of America. The\noccasion thereof is the nomination of a man for the presidency who has\nno political or civil experience, but who has three qualities that are\nimportant in the eyes of the leading men who have supported and pushed\nhim forward: one is, that he is an eminent slaveholder, whose interests\nand accordingly whose ideas are identical with those of the\nslaveholders; the next, that he is not hostile to the doctrines of\nnorthern manufacturers respecting a protective tariff; and the third,\nthat he is an eminent and very successful military commander. The last\nis an accidental quality, and it is not to be supposed that the\nintelligent and influential men at the North and South who have promoted\nhis election, value him any more on that account, or think that mere\nmilitary success fits him for his high office, and enables him to settle\nthe complicated difficulties of a modern State. They must know better;\nbut they must have known that many men of little intelligence are so\ntaken with military glory that they will ask for no more in their hero;\nit was foreseen, also, that honest and intelligent men of all parties\nwould give him their vote because he had never been mixed up with the\nintrigues of political life. Thus \"far-sighted\" politicians of the North\nand South saw that he might be fairly elected, and then might serve the\npurposes of the slaveholder, or the manufacturer of the North. The\nmilitary success of General Taylor, an accidental merit, was only the\noccasion of his nomination by the whigs; his substantial merit was found\nin the fact, that he was supposed, or known, to be favorable to the\n\"peculiar institution\" of the South, and the protective policy of the\nmanufacturers at the North: this was the cause of his formal nomination\nby the Whig Convention of Philadelphia, and his real nomination by\nmembers of the whig party at Washington. The men of property at the\nSouth wanted an extension of slavery; the men of property at the North,\na high protective tariff; and it was thought General Taylor could serve\nboth purposes, and promote the interests of the North and South.\n\nSuch is the occasion of the revolution in political parties: the cause\nis the introduction of a new idea into these parties entirely hostile to\nsome of their former doctrines. In the electioneering contest, the new\nidea was represented by the words \"Free Soil.\" For present practice it\ntakes a negative form: \"No more Slave States, no more Slave Territory,\"\nis the motto. But these words and this motto do not adequately represent\nthe idea, only so much thereof as has been needful in the present\ncrisis.\n\nBefore now there has been much in the political history of America to\nprovoke the resentment of the North. England has been ruled by various\ndynasties; the American chair has been chiefly occupied by the Southern\nHouse, the Dynasty of Slaveholders: now and then a member of the\nNorthern House has sat on that seat, but commonly it has been a\n\"Northern man with Southern principles,\" never a man with mind to see\nthe great idea of America, and will to carry it out in action. Still the\nspirit of liberty has not died out of the North; the attempt to put an\neighth slaveholder in the chair of \"The model republic,\" gave occasion\nfor that spirit to act again.\n\nThe new idea is not hostile to the distinctive doctrine of either\npolitical party; neither to free trade, nor to protection; so it makes\nno revolution in respect to them: it is neutral, and leaves both as it\nfound them. It is not hostile to the general theory of the American\nState, so it makes no revolution there; this idea is assumed as\nself-evident, in the Declaration of Independence. It is not inimical to\nthe theory of the Constitution of the United States, as set forth in the\npreamble thereto, where the design of the Constitution is declared to be\n\"To form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic\ntranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general\nwelfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our\nposterity.\"\n\nThere are clauses in the Constitution, which are exceptions to this\ntheory, and hostile to the design mentioned above; to such, this idea\nwill one day prove itself utterly at variance, as it is now plainly\nhostile to one part of the practice of the American government, and that\nof both the parties.\n\nWe have had several political parties since the Revolution: the\nfederalists, and anti-federalists,--the latter shading off into\nrepublicans, democrats, and loco focos; the former tapering into modern\nwhigs, in which guise some of their fathers would scarcely recognize the\nfamily type. We have had a protective party and an anti-protective\nparty; once there was a free-trade party, which no longer appears in\npolitics. There has been a National Bank party, which seems to have gone\nto the realm of things lost on earth. In the rise and fall of these\nparties, several dramas, tragic and comic, have been performed on the\nAmerican boards, where \"One man in his time plays many parts,\" and stout\nrepresentatives of the Hartford Convention find themselves on the same\nside with worshippers of the Gerrymander, and shouting the same cry. It\nis kindly ordered that memory should be so short, and brass so common.\nNone of the old parties is likely to return; the living have buried the\ndead. \"We are all federalists,\" said Mr. Jefferson, \"we are all\ndemocrats,\" and truly, so far as old questions are concerned. It is well\nknown that the present representatives of the old federal party, have\nabjured the commercial theory of their predecessors; and the men who\nwere \"Jacobins\" at the beginning of the century, curse the new French\nRevolution by their gods. At the presidential election of 1840, there\nwere but two parties in the field--democrats and whigs. As they both\nsurvive, it is well to see what interests or what ideas they represent.\n\nThey differ accidentally in the possession and the desire of power; in\nthe fact that the former took the initiative, in annexing Texas, and in\nmaking the Mexican war, while the latter only pretended to oppose\neither, but zealously and continually cooperated in both. Then, again,\nthe democratic party sustains the sub-treasury system, insisting that\nthe government shall not interfere with banking, shall keep its own\ndeposits, and give and take only specie in its business with the people.\nThe whig party, if we understand it, has not of late developed any\ndistinctive doctrine, on the subject of money and financial operations,\nbut only complained of the action of the sub-treasury; yet, as it\nsustained the late Bank of the United States, and appropriately followed\nas chief mourner at the funeral thereof, uttering dreadful lamentations\nand prophecies which time has not seen fit to accomplish, it still keeps\nup a show of differing from the democrats on this matter. These are only\naccidental or historical differences, which do not practically affect\nthe politics of the nation to any great degree.\n\nThe substantial difference between the two is this: The whigs desire a\ntariff of duties which shall directly and intentionally protect American\nindustry, or, as we understand it, shall directly and intentionally\nprotect manufacturing industry, while the commercial and agricultural\ninterests are to be protected indirectly, not as if they were valuable\nin themselves, but were a collateral security to the manufacturing\ninterest: a special protection is desired for the great manufactures,\nwhich are usually conducted by large capitalists--such as the\nmanufacture of wool, iron, and cotton. On the other hand, the democrats\ndisclaim all direct protection of any special interest, but, by raising\nthe national revenue from the imports of the nation, actually afford a\nprotection to the articles of domestic origin to the extent of the\nnational revenue, and much more. That is the substantial difference\nbetween the two parties--one which has been much insisted on at the late\nelection, especially at the North.\n\nIs this difference of any practical importance at the present moment?\nThere are two methods of raising the revenue of a country: first, by\ndirect taxation,--a direct tax on the person, a direct tax on the\nproperty; second, by indirect taxation. To a simple-minded man direct\ntaxation seems the only just and equal mode of collecting the public\nrevenue: thereby, the rich man pays in proportion to his much, the poor\nto his little. This is so just and obvious, that it is the only method\nresorted to, in towns of the North, for raising their revenue. But while\nit requires very little common sense and virtue to appreciate this plan\nin a town, it seems to require a good deal to endure it in a nation. The\nfour direct taxes levied by the American government since 1787 have been\nimperfectly collected, and only with great difficulty and long delay. To\navoid this difficulty, the government resorts to various indirect modes\nof taxation, and collects the greater part of its revenue from the\nimports which reach our shores. In this way a man's national tax is not\ndirectly in proportion to his wealth, but directly in proportion to his\nconsumption of imported goods, or directly to that of domestic goods,\nwhose price is enhanced by the duties laid on the foreign article. So it\nmay happen that an Irish laborer, with a dozen children, pays a larger\nnational tax than a millionnaire who sees fit to live in a miserly\nstyle. Besides, no one knows when he pays or what. At first it seems as\nif the indirect mode of taxation made the burden light, but in the end\nit does not always prove so. The remote effect thereof is sometimes\nremarkable. The tax of one per cent, levied in Massachusetts on articles\nsold by auction, has produced some results not at all anticipated.\n\nNow since neither party ventures to suggest direct taxation, the actual\nquestion between the two is not between free trade and protection, but\nonly between a protective and a revenue tariff. So the real and\npractical question between them is this: Shall there be a high tariff or\na low one? At first sight a man not in favor of free trade might think\nthe present tariff gave sufficient protection to those great\nmanufactures of wool, cotton, and iron, and as much as was reasonable.\nBut the present duty is perhaps scarcely adequate to meet the expenses\nof the nation, for with new territory new expenses must come; there is a\nlarge debt to be discharged, its interest to be paid; large sums will be\ndemanded as pensions for the soldiers. Since these things are so, it is\nbut reasonable to conclude that, under the administration of the whigs\nor democrats, a pretty high tariff of duties will continue for some\nyears to come. So the great and substantial difference between the two\nparties ceases to be of any great and substantial importance.\n\nIn the mean time another party rises up, representing neither of these\ninterests; without developing any peculiar views relative to trade or\nfinance, it proclaims the doctrine that there must be no more slave\nterritory, and no more slave States. This doctrine is of great practical\nimportance, and one in which the free soil party differs substantially\nfrom both the other parties. The idea on which the party rests is not\nnew; it does not appear that the men who framed the Constitution, or the\npeople who accepted it, ever contemplated the extension of slavery\nbeyond the limits of the United States at that time; had such a\nproposition been then made, it would have been indignantly rejected by\nboth. The principle of the Wilmot Proviso boasts the same origin as the\nDeclaration of Independence. The state of feeling at the North\noccasioned by the Missouri Compromise is well known, but after that\nthere was no political party opposed to slavery. No President has been\nhostile to it; no Cabinet; no Congress. In 1805, Mr. Pickering, a\nSenator from Massachusetts, brought forward his bill for amending the\nConstitution, so that slaves should not form part of the basis of\nrepresentation; but it fell to the ground, not to be lifted up by his\nsuccessors for years to come. The refusal of John Quincy Adams, while\nPresident, to recognize the independence of Hayti, and his efforts to\nfavor the slave power, excited no remark. In 1844, for the first time\nthe anti-slavery votes began seriously to affect the presidential\nelection. At that time the whigs had nominated Mr. Clay as their\ncandidate, a man of great powers, of popular manners, the friend of\nnorthern industry, but still more the friend of southern slavery, and\nmore directly identified with that than any man in so high a latitude.\nThe result of the anti-slavery votes is well known. The bitterest\nreproaches have been heaped on the men who voted against him as the\nincarnation of the slave power; the annexation of Texas, though\naccomplished by a whig senate, and the Mexican war, though only sixteen\nmembers of Congress voted against it, have both been laid to their\ncharge; and some have even affected to wonder that men conscientiously\nopposed to slavery could not forget their principle for the sake of\ntheir party, and put a most decided slaveholder, who had treated not\nonly them but their cause with scorn and contempt, in the highest place\nof power.\n\nThe whig party renewed its attempt to place a slaveholder in the\nPresident's chair, at a time when all Europe was rising to end for ever\nthe tyranny of man. General Taylor was particularly obnoxious to the\nanti-slavery men. He is a slaveholder, holding one or two hundred men in\nbondage, and enlarging that number by recent purchases; he employs them\nin the worst kind of slave labor, the manufacture of sugar; he leaves\nthem to the mercy of overseers, the dregs and refuse of mankind; he has\njust returned from a war undertaken for the extension of slavery; he is\na southern man with southern interests, and opinions favorable to\nslavery, and is uniformly represented by his supporters at the South, as\ndecidedly opposed to the Wilmot Proviso, and in favor of the extension\nof slavery. We know this has been denied at the North; but the testimony\nof the South settles the question. The convention of democrats in South\nCarolina, when they also nominated him, said well, \"His interests are\nour interests:... we know that on this great, paramount, and leading\nquestion of the rights of the South [to extend slavery over the new\nterritory], he is for us and he is with us.\" Said a newspaper in his own\nState, \"General Taylor is from birth, association, and conviction,\nidentified with the South and her institutions, being one of the most\nextensive slaveholders in Louisiana, and supported by the slaveholding\ninterest; is opposed to the Wilmot Proviso, and in favor of procuring\nthe privilege to the owners of slaves to remove with them to newly\nacquired territory.\"\n\nThe southerners evidently thought the crisis an important one. The\nfollowing is from the distinguished whig senator, Mr. Berrien.\n\n     \"I consider it the most important Presidential election,\n     especially to southern men, which has occurred since the\n     foundation of the government.\n\n     \"We have great and important interests at stake. If we fail\n     to sustain them now, we may be forced too soon to decide\n     whether we will remain in the Union, at the mercy of a band\n     of fanatics or political jugglers, or reluctantly retire\n     from it for the preservation of our domestic institutions,\n     and all our rights as freemen. If we are united, we can\n     sustain them; if we divide on the old party issues, we must\n     be victims.\n\n     \"With a heart devoted to their interests on this great\n     question, and without respect to party, I implore my\n     fellow-citizens of Georgia, whig and democratic, to forget\n     for the time their party divisions: to know each other only\n     as southern men: to act upon the truism uttered by Mr.\n     Calhoun, that on this vital question,--the preservation of\n     our domestic institutions,--the southern man who is furthest\n     from us, is nearer to us than any northern man can be; that\n     General Taylor is identified with us, in feeling and\n     interest, was born in a slaveholding State, educated in a\n     slaveholding State, is himself a slaveholder; that his slave\n     property constitutes the means of support to himself and\n     family; that he cannot desert us without sacrificing his\n     interest, his principle, the habits and feelings of his\n     life; and that with him, therefore, our institutions are\n     safe. I beseech them, therefore, from the love which they\n     bear to our noble State, to rally under the banner of\n     Zachary Taylor, and, with one united voice, to send him by\n     acclamation to the executive chair.\"\n\nAll this has been carefully kept from the sight of the people at the\nNorth.\n\nThere have always been men in America, who were opposed to the extension\nand the very existence of slavery. In 1787, the best and the most\ncelebrated statesmen were publicly active on the side of freedom. Some\nthought slavery a sin, others a mistake, but nearly all in the\nConvention thought it an error. South Carolina and Georgia were the only\nStates thoroughly devoted to slavery at that time. They threatened to\nwithdraw from the Union, if it were not sufficiently respected in the\nnew Constitution. If the other States had said, \"You may go, soon as you\nlike, for hitherto you have been only a curse to us, and done little but\nbrag,\" it would have been better for us all. However, partly for the\nsake of keeping the peace, and still more for the purpose of making\nmoney by certain concessions of the South, the North granted the\nsouthern demands. After the adoption of the Constitution, the\nanti-slavery spirit cooled down; other matters occupied the public mind.\nThe long disasters of Europe; the alarm of the English party, who feared\ntheir sons should be \"conscripts in the armies of Napoleon,\" and the\nviolence of the French party, who were ready to compromise the dignity\nof the nation, and add new elements to the confusion in Europe; the\nsubsequent conflict with England, and then the efforts to restore the\nnational character, and improve our material condition,--these occupied\nthe thought of the nation, till the Missouri Compromise again disturbed\nthe public mind. But that was soon forgotten; little was said about\nslavery. In the eighteenth century, it was discussed in the colleges and\nnewspapers, even in the pulpits of the North; but, in the first quarter\nof the nineteenth, little was heard of it. Manufactures got established\nat the North, and protected by duties; at the South, cotton was\ncultivated with profit, and a heavy duty protected the slave-grown sugar\nof Louisiana. The pecuniary interests of North and South became closely\nconnected, and both seemed dependent on the peaceable continuance of\nslavery. Little was said against it, little thought, and nothing done.\nSouthern masters voluntarily brought their slaves to New England, and\ntook them back, no one offering the African the conventional shelter of\nthe law, not to speak of the natural shelter of justice. We well\nremember the complaint made somewhat later, when a Judge decided that a\nslave, brought here by his master's consent, became, from that moment,\nfree!\n\nBut where sin abounded, grace doth much more abound. There rose up one\nman who would not compromise, nor be silent,--who would be heard.[49] He\nspoke of the evil, spoke of the sin--for all true reforms are bottomed\non religion, and while they seem adverse to many interests, yet\nrepresent the idea of the Eternal. He found a few others, a very few,\nand began the anti-slavery movement. The \"platform\" of the new party was\nnot an interest, but an idea--that \"All men are created equal, and\nendowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.\" Every truth\nis also a fact; this was a fact of human consciousness, and a truth of\nnecessity.\n\nThe time has not come to write the history of the abolitionists,--other\ndeeds must come before words; but we cannot forbear quoting the\ntestimony of one witness, as to the state of anti-slavery feeling in New\nEngland in 1831. It is the late Hon. Harrison Gray Otis, a former mayor\nof Boston, who speaks in his recent letter.\n\n     \"The first information received by me, of a disposition to\n     agitate this subject in our State, was from the Governors of\n     Virginia and Georgia, severally remonstrating against an\n     incendiary newspaper, published in Boston, and, as they\n     alleged, thrown broadcast among their plantations, inciting\n     to insurrection and its horrid results. It appeared, on\n     inquiry, that no member of the city government [of Boston]\n     had ever heard of the publication. Some time afterwards it\n     was reported to me by the city officers, that they had\n     ferreted out the paper and its editor; that his office was\n     an obscure hole, his only visible auxiliary a negro boy, and\n     his supporters a very few insignificant persons of all\n     colors. This information.... I communicated to the\n     above-named governors, with an assurance of my belief that\n     the new fanaticism had not made, nor was likely to make,\n     proselytes among the respectable classes of our people.\"\n\nSuch was the state of things in 1831. Anti-slavery had \"an obscure\nhole\" for its head-quarters; the one agitator, who had filled the two\ndoughty Governors of Virginia and Georgia with uncomfortable\nforebodings, had a \"negro boy\" \"for his only visible auxiliary,\" and\nnone of the respectable men of Boston had heard of the hole, of the\nagitator, of the negro boy, or even of the agitation. One thing must be\ntrue: either the man and the boy were pretty vigorous, or else there was\na great truth in that obscure hole; for, in spite of the governors and\nthe mayors, spite of the many able men in the South and the North,\nspite, also, of the wealth and respectability of the whole land, it is a\nplain case that the abolitionists have shaken the nation, and their idea\nis the idea of the time; and the party which shall warmly welcome that\nis destined before long to override all the other parties.\n\nOne thing must be said of the leaders of the anti-slavery movement. They\nasked for nothing but justice; not justice for themselves--they were not\nSocratic enough to ask that,--but only justice for the slave; and to\nobtain that, they forsook all that human hearts most love. It is rather\na cheap courage that fought at Monterey and Palo Alto, a bravery that\ncan be bought for eight dollars a month; the patriotism which hurras for\n\"our side,\" which makes speeches at Faneuil Hall, nay, which carries\ntorch-lights in a procession, is not the very loftiest kind of\npatriotism; even the man who stands up at the stake, and in one brief\nhour of agony anticipates the long torment of disease, does not endure\nthe hardest, but only the most obvious kind of martyrdom. But when a\nman, for conscience' sake, leaves a calling that would insure him bread\nand respectability; when he abjures the opinions which give him the\nesteem of honorable men; when, for the sake of truth and justice, he\ndevotes himself to liberating the most abused and despised class of men,\nsolely because they are men and brothers; when he thus steps forth in\nfront of the world, and encounters poverty and neglect, the scorn, the\nloathing, and the contempt of mankind--why, there is something not very\ncommon in that. There was once a Man who had not where to lay his head,\nwho was born in \"an obscure hole,\" and had not even a negro boy for his\n\"auxiliary;\" who all his life lived with most obscure persons--eating\nand drinking with publicans and sinners; who found no favor with mayors\nor governors, and yet has had some influence on the history of the\nworld. When intelligent men mock at small beginnings, it is surprising\nthey cannot remember that the greatest institutions have had their times\nwhich tried men's souls, and that they who have done all the noblest and\nbest work of mankind, sometimes forgot self-interest in looking at a\ngreat truth; and though they had not always even a negro boy to help\nthem, or an obscure hole to lay their heads in, yet found the might of\nthe universe was on the side of right, and themselves workers with God!\n\nThe abolitionists did not aim to found a political party; they set forth\nan idea. If they had set up the interest of the whigs or the democrats,\nthe manufacturers or the merchants, they might have formed a party and\nhad a high place in it, with money, ease, social rank and a great name\nin the party--newspapers. Some of them had political talents, ideas more\nthan enough, the power of organizing men, the skill to manage them, and\na genius for eloquence. With such talents, it demands not a little\nmanliness to keep out of politics and in the truth.\n\nTo found a political party there is no need of a great moral idea: the\nwhig party has had none such this long time; the democratic party\npretends to none and acts on none; each represents an interest which can\nbe estimated in dollars; neither seems to see that behind questions of\npolitical economy there is a question of political morality, and the\nwelfare of the nation depends on the answer we shall give! So long as\nthe abolitionists had nothing but an idea, and but few men had that,\nthere was no inducement for the common run of politicians to join them;\nthey could make nothing by it, so nothing of it. The guardians of\neducation, the trustees of the popular religion, did not like to invest\nin such funds. But still the idea went on, spite of the most entire,\nthe most bitter, the most heartless and unrelenting opposition ever\nknown in America. No men were ever hated as the abolitionists; political\nparties have joined to despise, and sectarian churches to curse them.\nYet the idea has gone on, till now all that is most pious in the sects,\nmost patriotic in the parties, all that is most Christian in modern\nphilanthropy, is on its side. It has some representative in almost every\nfamily, save here and there one whose God is mammon alone, where the\nparents are antediluvian and the children born old and conservative,\nwith no faculty but memory to bind them to mankind. It has its spokesmen\nin the House and the Senate. The tide rises and swells, and the compact\nwall of the whig party, the tall ramparts of the democrats, are\nbeginning to \"cave in.\"\n\nAs the idea has gained ground, men have begun to see that an interest is\nconnected with it, and begun to look after that. One thing the North\nknows well--the art of calculation, and of ciphering. So it begins to\nask questions as to the positive and comparative influence of the slave\npower on the country. Who fought the Revolution? Why the North,\nfurnishing the money and the men, Massachusetts alone sending fourteen\nthousand soldiers more than all the present slave States. Who pays the\nnational taxes? The North, for the slaves pay but a trifle. Who owns the\ngreater part of the property, the mills, the shops, the ships? The\nNorth. Who writes the books--the histories, poems, philosophies, works\nof science, even the sermons and commentaries on the Bible? Still the\nNorth. Who sends their children to school and college? The North. Who\nbuilds the churches, who founds the Bible societies, Education\nsocieties, Missionary societies, the thousand-and-one institutions for\nmaking men better and better off? Why the North. In a word, who is it\nthat in seventy years has made the nation great, rich, and famous for\nher ideas and their success all over the world? The answer is, still the\nNorth, the North.\n\nWell, says the calculator, but who has the offices of the nation? The\nSouth. Who has filled the Presidential chair forty-eight years out of\nsixty? Nobody but slaveholders. Who has held the chief posts of honor?\nThe South. Who occupy the chief offices in the army and navy? The South.\nWho increases the cost of the post-office and pays so little of its\nexpense?[50] The South. Who is most blustering and disposed to quarrel?\nThe South. Who made the Mexican war? The South. Who sets at nought the\nConstitution? The South. Who would bring the greatest peril in case of\nwar with a strong enemy? Why the South, the South. But what is the South\nmost noted for abroad? For her three million slaves; and the North? for\nher wealth, freedom, education, religion!\n\nThen the calculator begins to remember past times--opens the\naccount-books and turns back to old charges: five slaves count the same\nas three freemen, and the three million slaves, which at home are\nnothing but property, entitle their owners to as many representatives in\nCongress as are now sent by all the one million eight hundred thousand\nfreemen who make the entire population of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,\nRhode Island, and Massachusetts, and have created a vast amount of\nproperty worth more than all the slave States put together! Then the\nNorth must deliver up the fugitive slaves, and Ohio must play the\ntraitor, the kidnapper, the bloodhound, for Kentucky! The South wanted\nto make two slave States out of Florida, and will out of Texas; she\nmakes slavery perpetual in both; she is always bragging as if she made\nthe Revolution, while she only laid the Embargo, and began the late war\nwith England,--but that is going further back than is needful. The South\nimprisons our colored sailors in her ports, contrary to justice, and\neven contrary to the Constitution. She drove our commissioners out of\nSouth Carolina and Louisiana, when they were sent to look into the\nmatter and legally seek for redress. She affronts the world with a most\nodious despotism, and tried to make the English return her runaway\nslaves, making the nation a reproach before the world; she insists on\nkidnapping men even in Boston; she declares that we shall not abolish\nslavery in the capital of the Union; that she will extend it in spite of\nus from sea to sea. She annexed Texas for a slave-pasture, and then made\nthe Mexican war to enlarge that pasture, but the North must pay for it;\nshe treads the Constitution under her feet, the North under her feet,\njustice and the unalienable rights of man under her feet.\n\nThe North has charged all these items and many more; now they are\nbrought up for settlement, and, if not cancelled, will not be forgot\ntill the Muse of History gives up the ghost; some Northern men have the\nAmerican sentiment, and the American idea, put the man before the\ndollar, counting man the substance, property the accident. The sentiment\nand idea of liberty are bottomed on Christianity, as that on human\nnature; they are quite sure to prevail; the spirit of the nation is on\ntheir side--the spirit of the age and the everlasting right.\n\nIt is instructive to see how the political parties have hitherto kept\nclear of anti-slavery. It is \"no part of the whig doctrine;\" the\ndemocrats abhor it. Mr. Webster, it is true, once claimed the Wilmot\nProviso as his thunder, but he cannot wield it, and so it slips out of\nhis hands, and runs round to the chair of his brother senator from New\nHampshire.[51] No leading politician in America has ever been a leader\nagainst slavery. Even Mr. Adams only went as he was pushed. True, among\nthe whigs there are Giddings, Palfrey, Tuck, Mann, Root, and Julian;\namong the democrats there is Hale--and a few others; but what are they\namong so many? The members of the family of Truth are unpopular, they\nmake excellent servants but hard masters, while the members of the\nfamily of Interest are all respectable, and are the best company in the\nworld; their livery is attractive; their motto, \"The almighty dollar,\"\nis a passport everywhere. Now it happens that some of the more advanced\nmembers of the family of Truth fight their way into \"good society,\" and\nmake matrimonial alliances with some of the poor relations of the family\nof Interest. Straightway they become respectable; the church publishes\nthe banns; the marriage is solemnized in the most Christian form; the\nattorney declares it legal. So the gospel and law are satisfied, Truth\nand Interest made one, and many persons after this alliance may be seen\nin the company of Truth who before knew not of her existence.\n\nThe free soil party has grown out of the anti-slavery movement. It will\nhave no more slave territory, but does not touch slavery in the States,\nor between them, and says nothing against the compromises of the\nConstitution; the time has not come for that. The party has been\norganized in haste, and is composed, as are all parties, of most\ndiscordant materials, some of its members seeming hardly familiar with\nthe idea; some are not yet emancipated from old prejudices, old methods\nof action, and old interests; but the greater part seem hostile to\nslavery in all its forms. The immediate triumph of this new party is not\nto be looked for; not desirable. In Massachusetts they have gained large\nnumbers in a very short period, and under every disadvantage. What their\nfuture history is to be, we will not now attempt to conjecture; but this\nis plain, that they cannot remain long in their present position; either\nthey will go back, and, after due penance, receive political absolution\nfrom the church of the whigs, or the democrats,--and this seems\nimpossible,--or else they must go forward where the idea of justice\nimpels them. One day the motto \"No more slave territory\" will give place\nto this, \"No slavery in America.\" The revolution in ideas is not over\ntill that is done, nor the corresponding revolution in deeds while a\nsingle slave remains in America. A man who studies the great movements\nof mankind feels sure that that day is not far off; that no combination\nof northern and southern interest, no declamation, no violence, no love\nof money, no party zeal, no fraud and no lies, no compromise, can long\nput off the time. Bad passions will ere long league with the holiest\nlove of right, and that wickedness may be put down with the strong hand\nwhich might easily be ended at little cost and without any violence,\neven of speech. One day the democratic party of the North will remember\nthe grievances which they have suffered from the South, and, if they\nembrace the idea of freedom, no constitutional scruple will long hold\nthem from destroying the \"peculiar institution.\" What slavery is in the\nmiddle of the nineteenth century is quite plain; what it will be at the\nbeginning of the twentieth it is not difficult to foresee. The slave\npower has gained a great victory: one more such will cost its life.\nSouth Carolina did not forget her usual craft in voting for a northern\nman that was devoted to slavery.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet us now speak briefly of the conduct of the election. It has been\nattended, at least in New England, with more intellectual action than\nany election that I remember, and with less violence, denunciation, and\nvulgar appeals to low passions and sordid interest. Massachusetts has\nshown herself worthy of her best days; the free soil vote may be looked\non with pride, by men who conscientiously cast their ballot the other\nway. Men of ability and integrity have been active on both sides, and\nable speeches have been made, while the vulgarity that marked the\n\"Harrison campaign\" has not been repeated.\n\nIn this contest the democratic party made a good confession, and \"owned\nup\" to the full extent of their conduct. They stated the question at\nissue, fairly, clearly, and entirely; the point could not be mistaken.\nThe Baltimore Convention dealt honestly in declaring the political\nopinions of the party; the opinions of their candidate on the great\nparty questions, and the subject of slavery, were made known with\nexemplary clearness and fidelity. The party did not fight in the dark;\nthey had no dislike to holding slaves, and they pretended none. In all\nparts of the land they went before the people with the same doctrines\nand the same arguments; everywhere they \"repudiated\" the Wilmot Proviso.\nThis gave them an advantage over a party with a different policy. They\nhad a platform of doctrines; they knew what it was; the party stood on\nthe platform; the candidate stood on it.\n\nThe whig party have conducted differently; they did not publish their\nconfession of faith. We know what was the whig platform in 1840 and in\n1844. But what is it in 1848? Particular men may publish their opinions,\nbut the doctrines of the party are \"not communicated to the public.\" For\nonce in the history of America there was a whig convention which passed\nno \"Resolutions;\" it was the Convention at Philadelphia. But on one\npoint, of the greatest importance too, it expressed the opinions of the\nwhigs: it rejected the Wilmot Proviso, and Mr. Webster's thunder, which\nhad fallen harmless and without lightning from his hands, was \"kicked\nout of the meeting!\" As the party had no platform, so their candidate\nhad no political opinions. \"What!\" says one, \"Choose a President who\ndoes not declare his opinions,--then it must be because they are\nperfectly well known!\" Not at all: General Taylor is raw in politics,\nand has not taken his first \"drill!\" \"Then he must be a man of such\ngreat political and moral ability, that his will may take the place of\nreason!\" Not at all: he is known only as a successful soldier, and his\nreputation is scarcely three years old. Mr. Webster declared his\nnomination \"not fit to be made,\" and nobody has any authentic statement\nof his political opinions; perhaps not even General Taylor himself.\n\nIn the electioneering campaign there has been a certain duplicity in the\nsupporters of General Taylor: at the North it was maintained that he was\nnot opposed to the Wilmot Proviso, while at the South quite uniformly\nthe opposite was maintained. This duplicity had the appearance of\ndishonesty. In New England the whigs did not meet the facts and\narguments of the free soil party; in the beginning of the campaign the\nattempt was made, but was afterwards comparatively abandoned; the\nmatter of slavery was left out of the case, and the old question of the\nsub-treasury and the tariff was brought up again, and a stranger would\nhave thought, from some whig newspapers, that that was the only question\nof any importance. Few men were prepared to see a man of the ability and\nexperience of Mr. Webster in his electioneering speeches pass wholly\nover the subject of slavery. The nation is presently to decide whether\nslavery is to extend over the new territory or not; even in a commercial\nand financial point of view, this is far more important than the\nquestion of banks and tariffs; but when its importance is estimated by\nits relation to freedom, right, human welfare in general,--we beg the\npardon of American politicians for speaking of such things,--one is\namazed to find the whig party of the opinion that it is more important\nto restore the tariff of 1842 than to prohibit slavery in a country as\nlarge as the thirteen States which fought the Revolution! It might have\nbeen expected of little, ephemeral men--minute politicians, who are the\npest of the State,--but when at such a crisis a great man rises,[52]\namid a sea of upturned faces, to instruct the lesser men, and forgets\nright, forgets freedom, forgets man, and forgets God, talking only of\nthe tariff and of banks, why a stranger is amazed, till he remembers\nthe peculiar relation of the great man to the moneyed men,--that he is\ntheir attorney, retained, paid, and pensioned to do the work of men\nwhose interest it is to keep the question of slavery out of sight. If\nGeneral Cavaignac had received a pension from the manufacturers of Lyons\nand of Lisle, to the amount of half a million of francs, should we be\nsurprised if he forgot the needy millions of the land? Nay, only if he\ndid not forget them!\n\nIt was a little hardy to ask the anti-slavery men to vote for General\nTaylor; it was like asking the members of a temperance society to choose\nan eminent distiller for president of their association. Still, we know\nthat honest anti-slavery men did honestly vote for him. We know nothing\nto impeach the political integrity of General Taylor; the simple fact\nthat he is a slaveholder, seems reason enough why he should not be\nPresident of a nation who believe that \"All men are created equal, and\nendowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.\" Men will be\nastonished in the next century to learn that the \"model republic,\" had\nsuch an affection for slaveholders. Here is a remarkable document, which\nwe think should be preserved:\n\n     DEED OF SALE.\n\n     \"JOHN HAGARD, SR. TO ZACHARIAH TAYLOR.\n\n     \"_Received for Record, 18th Feb., 1843._\n\n     \"_This Indenture_, made this twenty-first day of April,\n     eighteen hundred and forty-two, between John Hagard, Sr., of\n     the City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, of one part,\n     and Zachariah Taylor, of the other part, _Witnesseth_, that\n     the said John Hagard, Sr., for and in consideration of the\n     sum of _Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars_ to him in hand paid,\n     and secured to be paid, as hereafter stated by the said\n     Zachariah Taylor, at and before the sealing and delivering\n     of these presents, has this day bargained, sold, and\n     delivered, conveyed, and confirmed, and by these Presents\n     does bargain, sell, deliver, and confirm unto the said\n     Zachariah Taylor, his heirs and assigns, forever, all that\n     plantation and tract of land:...\n\n     \"ALSO, all the following Slaves--Nelson, Milley, Peldea,\n     Mason, Willis, Rachel, Caroline, Lucinda, Ramdall, Wirman,\n     Carson, Little Ann, Winna, Jane, Tom, Sally, Gracia, Big\n     Jane, Louisa, Maria, Charles, Barnard, Mira, Sally, Carson,\n     Paul, Sansford, Mansfield, Harry Oden, Harry Horley, Carter,\n     Henrietta, Ben, Charlotte, Wood, Dick, Harrietta, Clarissa,\n     Ben, Anthony, Jacob, Hamby, Jim, Gabriel, Emeline, Armstead,\n     George, Wilson, Cherry, Peggy, Walker, Jane, Wallace,\n     Bartlett, Martha, Letitia, Barbara, Matilda, Lucy, John,\n     Sarah, Bigg Ann, Allen, Tom, George, John, Dick, Fielding,\n     Nelson, or Isom, Winna, Shellod, Lidney, Little Cherry,\n     Puck, Sam, Hannah or Anna, Mary, Ellen, Henrietta, and two\n     small children:--Also, all the Horses, Mules, Cattle, Hogs,\n     Farming Utensils, and Tools, now on said\n     Plantation--together with all and singular, the\n     hereditaments, appurtenances, privileges, and advantages\n     unto the said Land and Slaves belonging or appertaining. _To\n     have and to hold_ the said Plantation and tract of Land and\n     Slaves, and other property above described, unto the said\n     Zachariah Taylor, his heirs and assigns, for ever, and to\n     his and to their only proper use, benefits, and behoof, for\n     ever. And the said John Hagard, Sr., for himself, his heirs,\n     executors, and administrators, does covenant, promise, and\n     agree to and with said Zachariah Taylor, his heirs and\n     assigns, that the aforesaid Plantation and tract of Land and\n     Slaves, and other property, with the appurtenances, unto the\n     said Zachariah Taylor, his heirs, and assigns against the\n     claim or claims of all persons whomsoever claiming or to\n     claim the same, or any part or parcel thereof, shall and\n     will warrant, and by these Presents for ever defend.\n\n     \"_In Testimony Whereof_, the said John Hagard, Sr., has\n     hereunto set his hand and seal, the day and year first above\n     written.\"\n\nIf this document had been discovered among some Egyptian papyri, with\nthe date 1848 before Christ, it would have been remarkable as a sign of\nthe times. In a republic, nearly four thousand years later, it has a\nmeaning which some future historian will appreciate.\n\nThe free soil party have been plain and explicit as the democrats; they\npublished their creed in the celebrated Buffalo platform. The questions\nof sub-treasury and tariff are set aside; \"No more slave territory\" is\nthe watchword. In part they represent an interest, for slavery is an\ninjury to the North in many ways, and to a certain extent puts the North\ninto the hands of the South; but chiefly an idea. Nobody thought they\nwould elect their candidate, whosoever he might be; they could only\narrest public attention and call men to the great questions at issue,\nand so, perhaps, prevent the evil which the South was bent on\naccomplishing. This they have done, and done well. The result has been\nhighly gratifying. It was pleasant and encouraging to see men ready to\nsacrifice their old party attachments and their private interests,\noftentimes, for the sake of a moral principle. I do not mean to say\nthat there was no moral principle in the other parties--I know better.\nBut it seems to me that the free soilers committed a great error in\nselecting Mr. Van Buren as their candidate. True, he is a man of\nability, who has held the highest offices and acquitted himself\nhonorably in all; but he had been the \"Northern man, with Southern\nprinciples;\" had shown a degree of subserviency to the South, which was\nremarkable, if not singular or strange: his promise, made and repeated\nin the most solemn manner, to veto any act of Congress, abolishing\nslavery in the capital, was an insult to the country, and a disgrace to\nhimself. He had a general reputation for instability, and want of\npolitical firmness. It is true, he had opposed the annexation of Texas,\nand lost his nomination in 1844 by that act; but it is also true that he\nadvised his party to vote for Mr. Polk, who was notoriously in favor of\nannexation. His nomination, I must confess, was unfortunate; the Buffalo\nConvention seems to have looked at his availability more than his\nfitness, and, in their contest for a principle, began by making a\ncompromise of that very principle itself. It was thought he could\n\"carry\" the State of New York; and so a man who was not a fair\nrepresentative of the idea, was set up. It was a bad beginning. It is\nbetter to be defeated a thousand times, rather than seem to succeed by a\ncompromise of the principle contended for. Still, enough has been done,\nto show the nation that the dollar is not almighty; that the South is\nnot always to insult the North, and rule the land, annexing, plundering,\nand making slaves when she will; that the North has men who will not\nabandon the great sentiment of freedom, which is the boast of the nation\nand the age.\n\nGeneral Taylor is elected by a large popular vote; some voted for him on\naccount of his splendid military success; some because he is a\nslaveholder, and true to the interests of the slave power; some because\nhe is a \"Good whig,\" and wants a high tariff of duties. But we think\nthere are men who gave him their support, because he has never been\nconcerned in the intrigues of a party, is indebted to none for past\nfavors, is pledged to none, bribed by none, and intimidated by none;\nbecause he seems to be an honest man, with a certain rustic\nintelligence; a plain blunt man, that loves his country and mankind. We\nhope this was a large class. If he is such a man, he will enter upon his\noffice under favorable auspices, and with the best wishes of all good\nmen.\n\nBut what shall the free soil party do next? they cannot go\nback,--conscience waves behind them her glittering wings and bids them\non; they cannot stand still, for as yet their measures and their\nwatchword do not fully represent their idea. They must go forward, as\nthe early abolitionists went, with this for their motto: \"No slavery in\nAmerica.\" \"He that would lead men, must walk but one step before them;\"\nsays somebody. Well, but he must think many steps before them, or they\nwill presently tread him under their feet. The present success of the\nidea is doubtful; the interests of the South will demand the extension\nof slavery;[53] the interests of the party now coming into power, will\ndemand their peculiar boon. So another compromise is to be feared, and\nthe extension of slavery yet further West. But the ultimate triumph of\nthe genius of freedom is certain. In Europe, it shakes the earth with\nmighty tread; thrones fall before its conquering feet. While in the\neastern continent, kings, armies, emperors, are impotent before that\npower, shall a hundred thousand slaveholders stay it here with a bit of\nparchment?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[48] [Greek: Greek: Gignontai men oun hai staseis ou peri mikron all' ek\nmikron, stasiazousi de peri megalon.]--Aristotle's _Polit._, Lib. V.\nChap. 4, Sec. 1.\n\n[49] William Lloyd Garrison.\n\n[50] The following table shows the facts of the case:--\n\nCost of post-office in slave States for\nthe year ending July 1st, 1847,              $1,318,541\n\nReceipts from post-office,                      624,380\n\nCost of post-office in free States for the\nyear ending July 1st, 1847,                  $1,038,219\n\nReceipts from post-office,                    1,459,631\n\nSo the Southern post-office cost the nation $694,161, and the Northern\npost-office paid the nation $421,412, making a difference of $1,115,573\nagainst the South.\n\n[51] Mr. John P. Hale.\n\n[52] Hon. Daniel Webster.\n\n[53] The following extract, from the _Charleston Mercury_, shows the\nfeeling of the South. \"Pursuant to a call, a meeting of the citizens of\nOrangeburg District was held to-day, 6th November, in the court-house,\nwhich was well filled on the occasion.... Gen. D. F. Jamison then rose,\nand moved the appointment of a committee of twenty-five, to take into\nconsideration the continued agitation by Congress of the question of\nslavery;... the committee, through their chairman, Gen. Jamison, made\nthe following report:--\n\n\"The time has arrived when the slaveholding States of the confederacy\nmust take decided action upon the continued attacks of the North against\ntheir domestic institutions, or submit in silence to that humiliating\nposition in the opinions of mankind, that longer acquiescence must\ninevitably reduce them to.... The agitation of the subject of slavery\ncommenced in the fanatical murmurings of a few scattered abolitionists,\nto whom it was a long time confined; but now it has swelled into a\ntorrent of popular opinion at the North; it has invaded the fireside and\nthe church, the press and the halls of legislation; it has seized upon\nthe deliberations of Congress, and at this moment is sapping the\nfoundations, and about to overthrow the fairest political structure that\nthe ingenuity of man has ever devised.\n\n\"The overt efforts of abolitionism were confined for a long period to\nannoying applications to Congress, under color of the pretended right of\npetition; it has since directed the whole weight of its malign influence\nagainst the annexation of Texas, and had wellnigh cost to the country\nthe loss of that important province; but emboldened by success and the\ninaction of the South, in an unjust and selfish spirit of national\nagrarianism it would now appropriate the whole public domain. It might\nwell have been supposed that the undisturbed possession of the whole of\nOregon Territory would have satisfied the non-slaveholding States. This\nthey now hold, by the incorporation of the ordinance of 1787 into the\nbill of the last session for establishing a territorial government for\nOregon. That provision, however, was not sustained by them from any\napprehension that the territory could ever be settled from the States of\nthe South, but it was intended as a gratuitous insult to the southern\npeople, and a malignant and unjustifiable attack upon the institution of\nslavery.\n\n\"We are called upon to give up the whole public domain to the fanatical\ncravings of abolitionism, and the unholy lust of political power. A\nterritory, acquired by the whole country for the use of all, where\ntreasure has been squandered like chaff, and southern blood poured out\nlike water, is sought to be appropriated by one section, because the\nother chooses to adhere to an institution held not only under the\nguaranties that brought this confederacy into existence, but under the\nhighest sanction of Heaven. Should we quietly fold our hands under this\nassumption on the part of the non-slaveholding States, the fate of the\nSouth is sealed, the institution of slavery is gone, and its existence\nis but a question of time.... Your committee are unwilling to anticipate\nwhat will be the result of the combined wisdom and joint action of the\nsouthern portion of the confederacy on this question; but as an\ninitiatory step to a concert of action on the part of the people of\nSouth Carolina, they respectfully recommend, for the adoption of this\nmeeting, the following resolutions:--\n\n\"_Resolved_, That the continued agitation of the question of slavery, by\nthe people of the non-slaveholding States, by their legislatures, and by\ntheir representatives in Congress, exhibits not only a want of national\ncourtesy, which should always exist between kindred States, but is a\npalpable violation of good faith towards the slaveholding States, who\nadopted the present Constitution 'in order to form a more perfect\nunion.'\n\n\"_Resolved_, That while we acquiesce in adopting the boundary between\nthe slaveholding and non-slaveholding States, known as the Missouri\nCompromise line, we will not submit to any further restriction upon the\nrights of any southern man to carry his property and his institutions\ninto territory acquired by southern treasure and by southern blood.\n\n\"_Resolved_, That should the Wilmot Proviso, or any other restriction,\nbe applied by Congress to the territories of the United States, south of\n36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, we recommend to our representative in\nCongress, as the decided opinion of this portion of his district, to\nleave his seat in that body, and return home.\n\n\"_Resolved_, That we respectfully suggest to both houses of the\nlegislature of South Carolina, to adopt a similar recommendation as to\nour senators in Congress from this State.\n\n\"_Resolved_, That upon the return home of our senators and\nrepresentatives in Congress, the legislature of South Carolina should be\nforthwith assembled to adopt such measures as the exigency may demand.\n\n\"The resolutions were then submitted, _seriatim_, and, together with the\nreport, were unanimously adopted.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Speeches, Addresses, and Occasional Sermons, Volume 2 (of 3)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":99673}