|
Panic of 1857 |
|
Return to Roy Thomas Page Click Here
|
Economy and Culture -- Readings, 1800-1845:
Economy and Culture page 5 Samuel Rezneck, Business Depressions and Financial Panics: Collected Essays in American Business and Economic History (1971) National Character page 6 William Jay, An Address Delivered Before the American Peace Society (1845) Edwin Hubbell Chapin, True Patriotism (1847) Joel Giles, Practical Liberty (1848) George R. Russell, The Merchant: An Oration (1849) Tayler Lewis, Nature, Progress, Ideas: A Discourse on Naturalism (1850) David Hunter Riddle, Our Country for the Sake of the World (1851) Thomas H. Skinner, Love of Country (1851) James Strong, Freedom of Thought: the True Mean (1851) Rollin H. Neale, Religious Liberty (1852) John Henry Hopkins, Relations of Science and Religion (1856) F. W. Kremer, Education: Its Relation to Morality and Freedom (1856) William Rounseville Alger, The Genius and Posture of America (1857) James Walker, The Spirit Proper to the Times (1861) William B. Sprague, Raising the National Flag Upon the . . . Church (1861) William Rounseville Alger, Public Morals . . . True Glory of a State (1862) Charles J. Stille, How a Free People Conduct a Long War (1862) Amasa Walker, The Suicidal Folly of the War-System (1863) Enterprise, Insolvency, and Social Justice page 40 Hubbell Thatcher Greene, New York, to Crawford Allen & Co., Providence, R.I., re: credit terms (1846) Report of the Select Committee [to the Pennsylvania Legislature] in Relation to the Sunbury and Erie Railroad (1851) William M. Meredith, Philadelphia and the Lakes: Address to the Citizens of Pennsylvania, in Favor of a Railroad to Connect Philadelphia with the Lakes (1852) Bank of Owego NY, Circular, January 2, 1854 "Dupee, Perkins, & Sayles—Stock & Bill Brokers" (1856) John Whipple, The Usury Laws (1836; 1857)
Delaware, Lackawanna, & Western Railroad Co., Report of the Committee Appointed by the Stockholders & Bondholders (1857) John Knox, MD letters re: debts, 1857 and 1859. Correspondence between John Brodhead and Coleman Fisher, re: Investment in the stock of The New Jersey Paint Company and John Broadhead’s Response (1858) James Sloan Gibbons, The Banks of New York, Their Dealers, the Clearing House, and the Panic of 1857 (1859) Henry Beadman Bryant, Henry Dwight Stratton, and Silas Sadler Packard, National Book-Keeping: An Analytical and Progressive Treatise on the Science of Accounts and Its Collateral Branches (1860) Thrift, Widows, and Philanthropy page 79 John W. Colton, The First Century of the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company (from 1846) Benjamin F. Stevens, Reminiscences of the Past Half-Century (from 1847) The Philadelphia Society for the Establishment and Support of Charity Schools, Annual Report for 1847 Hartford County CT Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Report of the Committee Appointed to Investigate the Concerns (1848) Girard College for Orphans, Second Annual Report . . . for the Year 1849 Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Mutual Benefit Association of Worcester, Mass, “Certificate of Membership” (1851) Benevolent Fraternity of Churches (Boston MA), Seventeenth Annual Report of the Executive Committee (1851) Episcopalian Clergy Daughters’ Fund, Report, &c. (1852) A.W. Mitchell, Address of the Corporation for Relief of Poor and Distressed Presbyterian Ministers, and the Poor and Distressed Widows and Children of Presbyterian Ministers (1852) "Hamilton Insurance Company, Salem, Mass.: A Dividend Paying Company" (1852) Retreat for the Insane at Hartford CT, The Twenty-eighth Annual Report (1852) Carol Green Wilson, A History of The Heritage (from 1853) New York City Children’s Aid Society To the Public (1853) Philadelphia Society for the Employment and Instruction of the Poor, Annual Report . . . 1854 Philadelphia Society for the Employment and Instruction of the Poor, Annual Report . . . 1855 Merchants Fund (Philadelphia PA), Anniversary, with the Report of the Board of Managers, and the Address of Henry A. Boardman, D.D. (1855) Preached at St. James’s Church, Westminster . . . 1855 100 Years of Being Ready When or, The Life and Times of Brewer & Lord, Insurance (from 1859) A Consumers’ Republic page 101 Mary Ide Torrey, City and Country Life (1854; fiction) Daniel C. Eddy, The Young Man’s Friend (1855) Thomas M. Clark, Early Discipline and Culture: A Series of Lectures to Young Men and Women (1855) G.S. Weaver, Aims and Aids for Girls and Young Women (1856) G.S. Weaver, Hopes and Helps for the Young of Both Sexes (1856) William G. Eliott, Jr., Lectures to Young Women (1853; 1860) Samuel Rezneck, in Business Depressions and Financial Panics: Collected Essays in American Business and Economic History (Westport CT: Greenwood, 1971, 201 pp.), presented six essays that had originally appeared in historical and economic journals between 1930 and 1960. He wrote about the effects upon social cohesion in the United States of the hard times that occurred after financial crises in the nineteenth century: 1819-22, 1837-43, 1857-59, 1873-78, 1882-86, and 1893-97. He also included two previously unpublished essays: “The Sociology of American Depressions . . .” and “The Rise and Early Development of Industrial Consciousness . . . 1760-1830.” In his Preface, Rezneck observed: “As more and more people were drawn into the intricate interdependence of a modern industrial and market economy, its pulsations and swings became universal phenomena, affecting not only the level of business but equally social and political conditions, and particularly the state of mind and spirit of people, whether in a buoyant or depressed direction.” [v.] In the opinion of those whose views are expressed in these samples of the “state of mind and spirit of people,” the low point of the business cycle was an aberration that required more than an economic explanation and response. None considered financial panics to be unpleasant but necessary purges of unsuccessful business models. They slighted or ignored the virtue and benefits to society of risk taking and the accompanying possibility of failure. Instead, they concentrated on what they perceived to be the moral and spiritual lapses that contributed to economic decline. They believed they could ameliorate its consequences or even prevent its recurrence by educating individual citizens to their duties to God and country. There is a geographical bias in this array, since most of these publications originated in New England, the Middle Atlantic States, or Washington DC. Except for two held by the Library Company of Philadelphia, all were selected from recent acquisitions of the Special Collections Department, Sheridan Libraries, Johns Hopkins University. National CharacterWilliam Jay, An Address Delivered Before the American Peace Society at Its Annual Meeting, May 26, 1845 (Boston: American Peace Society, 1845), 31 pp. “For the last thirty years, [since the defeat of Napoleon], the world has been blessed with a general peace, interrupted only by a few brief and partial struggles. Never, probably, within an equal time, have the arts which minister human comfort advanced with such rapidity, or been so extensively diffused. In vain shall we search the annals of our race to find a period in which the [4] necessities of life and the elements of learning were so generously enjoyed, and in which there was less violence, cruelty and oppression, than at the present day. . . . Various causes have contributed to the existing pacific state of the world. The extension of commerce, and the consequent distribution of private property in foreign lands; the rapidity and facility of intercourse between distant countries through the agency of steam; the growing intelligence and influence of the popular masses; together with the power of the press in modeling and directing public opinion, have all united in checking a belligerent spirit. But beyond all question, the labors of peace societies in Great Britain and the United States in spreading before the public facts and arguments illustrating the cost, folly, and sinfulness of war, have exerted a most salutary influence. . . . But although these societies have effected much, it must not be supposed that either their principles or their object are universally approved. War still has its champions, and peace societies their opponents. Not a few who profess to be learned in human nature, speak of us as amiable but silly enthusiasts, for thinking that the career of rapine and ambition may be checked by appeals to the conscience and the understanding. . . . [5] From a far different quarter comes an unfriendly voice, warning us that voluntary associations like ours, are in contempt of the authority and in derogation of the moral influence of the Christian church. This solemn annunciation is founded on the assumption that the church is the grand instrument, ordained by God, for the regeneration of the world, and of course she alone is authorized to devise and control agencies which might be employed for the promotion of morality and religion.” [3-5]
Edwin Hubbell Chapin, True Patriotism: A Discourse Delivered on Fast Day, in the Second Universalist Church (Boston: A Tompkins, 1847), 19 pp. “Christ came to reform principles, and not mere facts. Therefore, he did not pause to combat every false institution, or to catalogue every sin and denounce it by name. If so, he would have entangled himself in endless controversy, perhaps without producing one radical result. [3] . . . The true Patriot I define to be the one who acts for his Country from the highest moral convictions, and in consistency with all his obligations. . . . Love of country is one of the most beautiful sentiments of our nature. . . . We may talk as we will of the cords that bind us to other men—the family-bond is dearest, the home most sacred. We may urge with eloquent justice the brotherhood of the race, but especially precious and venerable to us is the land by whose name we are called. . . . He who attains to the highest patriotism, and considers ‘the world as his country,’ has first embraced his native land with a peculiar attachment. . . . But what are the obligations? What must we render to our country? . . . [8] He will rejoice in and support every institution of intellectual culture, of moral and spiritual good. . . . He will patronize art, and encourage literature, and honor talent, as among the highest interests of his native land. And whatever may be his religious views, . . . he will venerate those institutions of Religion which surely bless the land that honors them, which consecrate the duties and the trials of life, and plant in the individual heart those moral sanctions which alone can preserve or advance a nation. Moreover, the true patriot will maintain the rights of his country. He knows that there can be no liberty, and consequently no prosperity, where these are encroached upon—that for national as for individual action, there must be a certain unrestricted orbit which no foreign body shall violate. . . . [9] While he avoids an unjust or quarrelsome spirit, he will with frank and determined energy demand his country’s rights. It may be, that, in self-defense, he will see cause to draw the sword, and to fall on his home-soil a martyr to patriotism. It may be he will discover some wiser means of defending the right. But, in either case, his country will find him at the post of duty. [3-9] . . . ‘Our country, right or wrong.’ the sentiment springs from that false idea which has almost tainted the name of patriotism, and converted it into a symbol of the local, the selfish, and the narrow.” [15]
Joel Giles, Practical Liberty: An Oration Delivered Before the City authorities of Boston in the Tremont temple, July 4, 1848 (Boston: Eastburn’s Press, 1848), 24 pp. “Our fathers founded this beloved Republic. It is ours—a labor no less god-like—to exercise and preserve it. What, then, are the great problems before us as a nation? That [Mexican] War has ended, which ought never to have begun. By it, we have won more glory than we deserve, and acquired more territory than we want. For monopoly is against divine intent, and cannot prosper in the long run. It is not for one man, or one nation, to do every thing. The same law, which makes individuals, families, tribes, tongues, and races, divides among them the regions of the earth, and the labor to be done therein. We occupy a central position, fronting on two seas. Of land and water we have our share, and enough. Our boundaries at last, are fixed by treaties of peace; and cursed be he who again disturbs our landmarks. Our military position cannot be improved. With a neutral nation on either wing, our Atlantic and Pacific fleets on either front, and a nation of freemen in the center, we shall ever be invincible to all foreign foes; and in case of war upon this continent, the center commands the wings. Let us therefore be content. We have thirty States already, and territory enough for forty more as large; and beyond them, the boundless commerce of the Pacific, with China and Japan—a glorious and sufficient field for all the peaceful energies of our Liberty, mighty as they are. And into this Union those States [23] will surely come. Shall they be free? Yes, they shall be free. Let peace abroad and union at home be our policy, and our watchwords of Freedom; and Slavery shall vanish from our land, like night before the sun. . . . The charms of that Liberty which we enjoy, so grateful to the aspirations of all men; the unexampled success of our political and social organizations; the space which we fill in the affairs of the world, and the influence of rising power, have assigned us a conspicuous position among the nations of the earth. We cannot, if we would, avoid the responsibility of [24] affecting the welfare of millions of our fellow men. The commands of Heaven are upon us. . . . The duty is great, but the promise is greater; for the Redeemer of our race, whose gospel is the foundation and guaranty of all our liberties, has said, that if ye continue my word, then yee shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” [22-24]
George R. Russell, The Merchant: An Oration . . . Phi Beta Kappa Society at Providence, Rhode Island, September 4, 1849 (Boston: Ticknor, Reed, and Fields, 1849), 60 pp.
I propose to speak to you of the Merchant, or the influence of Commerce. If, in the selection of this subject, I may seem to have departed from ordinary usage, which requires a more immediate connection with what may be presumed to be the tastes and inclinations of the greater part of those [intellectuals] who assemble on an occasion like this, it is because I have not perceived its unfitness of place, or irrelevancy to intellectual and literary occupations. The scholar may feel some interest for the pursuit, which has contributed so largely to the facilities for his own calling; and, by extending its thousand hands to every region of the earth, has collected whatever is curious in science, or desirable in art. . . . [4] In the halls of colleges hang the portraits of benefactors, who trafficked in the busy world that they might endow professorships, fill the shelves of libraries, and place at the command of the student, whatever is recorded of the genius, intelligence, and industry of man. . . . The man of books may pause, before he disdains companionship with the man of business, or arrogates to himself exclusive property in the field of literature. The young merchant, in these days, treads hard on the track of the professed scholar. Even in his early novitiate, he is not now, content with the accomplishments which are deemed requisite in his initiation; and which, by no means ignoble, do not call for strong mental exertion, nor require, for perfectibility, the length of time often devoted to these mysteries. He seeks more than can be found in his routine of duties. He is not satisfied with proficiency [5] in sweeping store, making fires, and trimming lamps; in being an errand boy, or a copying machine; and his higher aspirations are aided by the opportunities for acquiring acknowledge, which have, within a few years, been most bountifully multiplied. There are lectures, libraries, and reading-rooms for those who crave, for their leisure hours, something more than mere amusement. . . . Mercantile associations have been formed, whose object is to encourage improvement, promote a taste for science and art, stimulate an attention to intellectual culture, and induce a devotion to qualifications which may give a wider range for future usefulness. Knowledge is sought for itself alone; no academic honors are expected; no diploma is to reward a periodical regard to prescribed tasks. . . . [6] A sketch of the history of commerce may not be inappropriate, as embodying much that illustrates its connection with civilization. Doubtless it originated in the first wants of man, which he was unable to gratify without recourse to others.” [3-6] . . . “Sit not with folded hands, calling on Hercules. Thine own arm is the demigod. It was given to thee to help thyself. Go forth into the world trustful, but fearless. Exalt thine adopted profession, nor vainly hope that its name alone will exalt thee. Look on labor as honorable, and dignify the task before thee, whether it be in the study, office, counting-room, workshop, or furrowed field. There is equality in all, and the resolute will and pure heart may ennoble either. But no duty requires thee to shut out beauty, or neglect the influences that may unite thee with Heaven. The wonders of art will humanize thy calling. The true poet may make thee a better man, and unknown feelings will well up within thee, when the painter’s soul glows on canvass, and the almost breathing marble stands a glorious monument of the statuary’s skill. . . .” [59]
Tayler Lewis, Nature, Progress, Ideas: A Discourse on Naturalism, in Its Various Phases, as Opposed to the True Spiritual Doctrine of the Divine Imperium . . . (Schenectady NY: G.Y. Van Debogert, 1850), 56 pp. “Providence, Nature, Ideas, Progress, Art. These are preeminently the words of the age. We propose to examine cursorily some of their main aspects, to ascertain their general significance, to present some of their principal abuses, and to point out a few of the more striking characteristics of the schools by which they are most frequently employed. . . . Three years ago a discourse was delivered from this place, and on a similar anniversary of this [New York Alpha, Phi Beta Kappa] society, which was listened to with profoundest interest. The aim . . . on that occasion, was to refute those insidious views which would exclude from the material universe, every distinct recognition of a personal energizing deity, or of any distinct creative, or [4] miraculous or supernatural power. The great tendency of the naturalistic spirit, it was clearly and powerfully shown, is so to bring all physical movements under one unyielding chain of cause and effect in natural sequence . . . [7] We contend, however, that call them whatever name he will, there is a large class of facts which our philosophic historian cannot directly link into his chain of visible causation, and yet they must be regarded as furnishing influences that enter largely into the sequence of events. In other words, there must be acknowledged a class of agencies which must be viewed as occupying a mid-region between the simply natural, on the one hand, and the miraculous on the other, and to which we have given the name providential—using the term rather in its ordinary sense of intervention, than in its strict etymological import.” [3-7]
David Hunter Riddle, Our Country for the Sake of the World: A Sermon . . . Home Missionary Society . . . May 1851 (New York: Baker, Godwin, 1851), 31 pp. “Rev. David H. Riddle, D.D., Pittsburgh PA.; Preached in New York and Brooklyn” [cover and title page] “We should seek the blessing of God on our country, and labor for its spiritual prosperity, and the universal establishment, in all our borders, of Christian institutions and their collateral and consequent influences. And he is not a Christian, in deed and in truth, who does not do this to the full extent of his ability and opportunity, by his wealth, example, and influence. But Oh! What an increment of motive and energy will be added to all, if we do this, as the willing instruments and conscious [7] trustees of the great God, for the speedy and universal evangelization of our race. On this high ground, we desire to place the enterprise, and obligations, and glory of Home Missions. We plead and labor for the establishment and extension of a sound ministry, and the evangelical influences which invariably cluster around it, beneficent to man and conservative of his interests in all his relations. By the enlargement of Home Missions, correspondently with our unparalleled enlargement of territory, and increase in population, we desire to secure the prevalence of true piety and Christian principles at home; but in so doing, we are pleading and laboring for the world’s redemption, for the good of a race for which Christ died, and over which he is set to reign; and thus, indirectly, indeed, but effectually and practically, we are fulfilling the injunction of the Master, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.’ . . . Let our whole land be leavened, our country thoroughly evangelized—let all our institutions be brought under the sanctifying influences of Christian principles; let all our population, high and low, rich and poor, learned and rude, from the President who occupies the people’s house, to the peasant who inhabits the lowliest hamlet or hovel of our Western wilds, be baptized with the spirit of Jesus Christ; let Christianity of a pure apostolic [8] type, reign without a rival in all our councils, modify all our legislation, be the inspiring genius of all our commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing interests; let its precepts direct the application of our increasing and superfluous wealth, and the grace of its author guide us in projecting and prosecuting our schemes of philanthropy; let America, in a word, as the result of God’s blessing on her institutions of religion and organs of benevolent action, once fully realize her responsibility to God, and see aright her mission to mankind, and the way of God would soon be known on earth, and his saving health would soon be experienced among all nations. Right institutions, civil and religious—the common heritage of man, and which appertain equally and inalienably to all nations, and which we hold in trust for the rest of the race, would soon be enjoyed by this dark and troubled world, tossed so long by tempests on the surges of unavailing change. The prayer of the great American church of all denominations, caught from the ancient oracle, should be, ‘God be merciful unto us, and bless us, and cause his face to shine upon us, that thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations.’ And every one who has a heart to love God, his country, and his kind, should say, Amen! For it is the prayer and response of enlightened patriotism, enlarged philanthropy, and true Christianity. This position of Home Missions is based on the assumption of the immense influence of our country, for good or evil, on the other nations of the earth—a postulate which we presume will be questioned by no intelligent Christian or citizen who has allowed his mind at all, or intelligently at least, to dwell upon the subject. The providence and past dealings of God seem to say to our country, ‘ Who knoweth whether thou art come [9] to the kingdom for such a time as this?’ . . . We have come to a position of peculiar, at least, if we cannot say peerless eminence, amongst existing nations; to the possession of extensive, if not incomparable influence, giving us incalculable power over the rest of the world. With a gladness of gratitude, not unmingled with solicitude for the fearful responsibilities, we gather evidences of this, alike from the acknowledgment of friends, and the unwilling but not less unequivocal admissions of our enemies; from the hopes of the struggling masses, and the fears of the dominant and oppressive minorities of the earth. And was there ever ‘such a time as this,’ when so many elements derived from the intimations of prophecy and [concurrent] events, combines to constitute and justify the expectations of a crisis, and when the possession of power involved such mighty responsibilities? . . . [10] If nations could have seen their dispensation, as we now see it—could our light have been thrown back on their path, or the issues thundered in trumpet tones, how different would have been their consciousness of their mission, and possibly, the course of their conduct. . . . [11] There is a great temptation, also, to exaggeration among Americans. But aside from all these self-exalting exaggerations, in the sober and solemn light of facts and statistics, and the deep responsibilities they involve, we can hardly adequately measure the present, and especially the prospective greatness and consequent influence of our country. This impression is deepened by every view we can take of our country. . . .” [6-11] “In addition to all we have said, you are aware that systematic overtures are making to bring our country, though the predominating power of the West, and thus our world, under Roman Catholic influence; to fight in that arena the battle of Popish or Protestant supremacy! On this point we are not and have never been alarmists. We do not blame the Roman Catholics for their zeal. We honor them, on the contrary, for their consistency. They believe there is no salvation out of the church—meaning the Romish church; that the best temporal and civil interests of man are identified with possession and prevalence of the true religion; and that every interest must be subordinated to the establishment and extension of God’s kingdom on earth. With these principles, what else could we expect than the most vigorous and well-directed exertions to gain preponderance of power in our country, whose institutions are destined ultimately to spread over the world? . . . [24] It will not do for us to be forever quarreling with the Catholics, calling them bad names, accusing them of ambition, conspiracies, and what not, while we are doing nothing to establish Protestant institutions. It is pitiable to be groaning perpetually over Catholic progress and encroachments, while we lavish our wealth in schemes of self-glorification, without equaling, or at least emulating the zeal and benevolence of those whom we dread. We must rear better schools, give better education to youth of both sexes, found libraries, sustain a learned and orthodox ministry so liberally, that they can cope successfully with the Jesuit. . . . Yea, we must personally labor in our respective posts, learn the luxury of making money to give away in large-hearted schemes of benevolence, if we would not see another generation, seduced by the gorgeous ceremonies and splendid pageants of Popery, forsaking the religion of their forefathers, and surrendering the institutions of America to the power of the Antichrist. . . .” [23-24]
Thomas H. Skinner, Love of Country: A Discourse . . . December 12th, 1850 (New York: E. French, 1851), 30 pp. [The Fugitive Slave Act had been approved September 18, 1850.] “Delivered on Thanksgiving Day in the Bleecker Street Church by Thomas H. Skinner, Professor in the Union Theological Seminary.” [title page] “Rev. Thomas H. Skinner, D.D. Dear Sir—The undersigned . . . who had the pleasure of listening to your discourse, . . . believing it well adapted to promote the best interests of the Country, respectfully request a copy for publication. [Names of seven members of the congregation], New York, December 13, 1850. Gentlemen. Although the discourse to which you refer, was written some years ago, I trust that its teaching is sufficiently suitable to the times, to justify my consenting to it publication. . . . A few paragraphs have been added to it since its delivery, but I do not think they would have varied your opinion as to its character on the whole. Thomas H. Skinner, January 9, 1851.” [3] “It has been said that Christianity is against Patriotism. It removes the walls of partition between the different nations; makes the world one brotherhood; and thus leaves no place for the love of country, which is a sectarian and selfish sentiment, and is consistent with enmity to mankind. . . . This, I shall, in the first place, show to be an error, or prove that Patriotism is a Christian virtue. Then, secondly, I shall specify the prominent duties of Christian patriotism; and finally, I shall consider how love to our country, guided by the Gospel, will show itself in reference to two or three subjects of national moment, now exciting special interest, and one of them no small solicitude, amongst us. . . . [7] The Gospel indeed proclaims peace and goodwill to the [8] world. It seeks to make all men in reference to earth, pilgrims and strangers, to unite them in one holy and happy fellowship, and to subject them to new and celestial relationships, strong and lasting as eternity, and embracing in their wide scope, the entire universe of the good, both on earth and in heaven. But the reasoning which would hence infer any inconsistency in the spirit of the Gospel, with the highest degrees of devotion to the welfare of our country, would make Christianity subversive of the foundations of society, and opposed not to nationality only, but to the continuance of the human race. For if love of country be excluded by the predominance of that heavenly mindedness which the Gospel inculcates, so are the love of neighborhood, and the love of domestic relations, and all endearments of friendship, and all local attachments, and the pursuits of business, and labors for a household provision, and whatever else is necessary to the continued existence of man in this world. . . . [9] There is a species of patriotism, so called, which the Gospel does not approve. It was the maxim . . . that whatever is advantageous to one’s country is just. But as that self-love is criminal which pursues its purpose in violation of another’s rights, so is that love of country, if it must be so termed, which wantonly interferes with the peace and independence of other nations. . . . A plundering army is in the sight of God, but an association of robbers and murderers, whose individual liabilities will not be alleviated in the day of judgment, because they were banded together and headed by a brave and skillful chief. . . . The religion of Christ is also opposed to the vaunted patriotism of the spirit of party. The Gospel obliges us to seek the Country’s good; not the success of one portion of the community in opposition to another. It may be that the interests of the party and of the Country are identical; in which case, while Christianity requires us to pursue those interests, it forbids our doing so with the feelings of rivalry. And if we disregard the prohibition, however successful we may be, it denies us the praise of love to the nation. . . . [10] I proceed to specify the leading Duties embraced in the Love of Country. It has been questioned whether Christians, and especially Ministers of the Gospel, should not stand aloof from all political contests, and either not vote at elections, or conceal their votes, so that their preference among rival candidates for office shall not be known. But is it not a purely selfish and time-serving prudence which ordinarily suggests this course? There may be rare occasions when reserve may be demanded; and our moderation and equanimity in political affairs should always be exemplary. But the cause of our Country is in all respects too important, and especially too closely connected with the interests of religion, to permit anyone who is controlled by principle and the spirit of the Gospel, to be in common cases, either negative or unknown in the influence which he exerts. Shall the interests of the nation be abandoned to the blind and headlong action of partisan zeal? . . . A Patriotism governed by the precepts of the Gospel cannot be revolutionary, so long as the government is [11] administered according to legitimate authority, or the commission granted by laws. We may frankly express our opinions of cabinet measures and legislative enactments. Under our responsibility to God, we should examine and judge whether the executive Head of the nation and all subordinate officers, act in their respective stations with or without authority; and if the limits of power are transgressed by them, we are not bound to silent submission. Circumstances may make it certain that resistance would be unavailing, in which case it would be unjustifiable. But to maintain that non-resistance is universally our duty, is to place God on the side of absolute tyranny, and to deny the permanent obligation of Patriotism, unless it be the invariable fact, that magistrates, do what they may, should be left unmolested. But so long as the government which is administered, is that which has been established, and so long as the administration is constitutional on the whole, however imperfect in some particulars, the spirit and the proceedings of Christian patriotism will be anti-revolutionary. . . . Nevertheless, Patriotism, as I have intended to assert, may possibly not only consist with, but be active and prominent in promoting Resistance. The noblest manifestations of the love of country have been made in revolutionary conflicts. When magistrates, for their own aggrandizement, maltreat [12] and oppress the people in the exercise of usurped authority, they are the greatest of criminals, and if there be no appointed means for displacing them, other effectual means, if there be such, should be taken. . . . [13] It is said that Christianity forbids the use of arms and every form of war, so that martial courage is no form of true Patriotism. This, which is manifestly inconsistent with which we have just been propounding, is not the true teaching of Christianity. Though the Gospel would beat swords into ploughshares, and spears into pruning hooks, and keep the world in perfect peace, and though it employs a tone and emphasis of teaching against wars and fighting, which makes the responsibility for them fearful, yet it gives no ground to the conclusion, that it is unlawful to serve one’s Country in the camp or the battlefield. . . . [14] Great as are the horrors of war, the same principle which vindicates the Divine Government in permitting these and greater evils, namely—that the highest good of the whole must be maintained against all opposition, at whatever hazards or consequences, vindicates the use of weapons of war in support of the government legally administered, against all assailants from without or within. . . . [15] Finally, though the Church in this land be separate from the State, there is no power which can be brought into action in favor of the nation’s happiness, equal to that of the Pulpit. . . . If it receive no support, it is under no specific obligations. If it stands alone, it stands independent and free. While there is no place near or remote, no person high or low, no subject [16] whether politics, legislation, morals, religion, science, or art, to which it may not boldly apply its appropriate influence, under the protection of the government, so long as it violates no one’s civil rights. This privilege has the American Pulpit. . . . [17] We now turn our attention to the more particular topics we promised to remark upon. 1. Popular Education. . . . [18] It is well . . . for our Republic, that the work of educating the common people is engaging so much thought. It is an auspicious omen that all our political parties think and speak alike on this point. No party seems to regard popular ignorance as necessary to its success. . . . [19] The question is under discussion, whether the Word of God should be read in our Common Schools? It is strenuously urged against this, that our Government being nonsectarian, cannot constitutionally interfere with anyone’s preferences or opinions on this point. The argument would restrain our legislatures from allowing any connection whatever, of religion, with their proceedings. Were there heathens amongst us, they might complain. Atheists themselves might complain of any legislative measure which was against their convictions and consciences, as to matters of religion. Is it so, that our civil authorities must stand as much aloof from all recognition of God and Christ in the exercise of their functions, as this argument supposes? If it be, with what fearful interest should we examine on what foundation our institutions are resting, and whether our destiny as a nation is not that which awaits all nations which refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of Christ. . . . [20] 2. Romanism. This is an element in our social State, which does not combine well with our peculiar institutions. Its ascendancy would be our overthrow as an independent people. It would subject us [21] to the sway of the Pope, whose kingdom is of this world—not spiritual only. The priests of this superstition are under an oath of allegiance to the Roman pontiff, which binds them to him in such a manner, that they could not, without perjury, stand for our country’s independence. . . . This religion is becoming quite prominent and zealous in our political operations, and would make the impression that in some districts it already holds the balance of power. . . . What is to be done? . . . [22] The favor of God would be forfeited by closing our door against any portion of suffering mankind. Nor should we receive them otherwise than with kindness, nor deal with them otherwise than as brethren. They come to us with a religion which we cannot look upon with favor, but they come to improve their condition. . . . [23] The Protestant population is gaining on the Catholic at the rate of more than four hundred thousand a year. . . .The converts from Romanism are many times more than the converts to it. These facts show no cause for fear. . . . 3. Slavery. This is becoming a subject of extreme interest in this country. . . . As Christian patriots, we cannot be justified in holding toward it the position of neutrality or indifference. It is not probable that the excitement which has been created will subside without some result of importance to the nation. What course does true patriotism require us to take in regard to it? . . . [24] Slavery as a system, should find advocates everywhere throughout the whole earth sooner than in this land of freedom. It should, and we hope soon will be, the universal desire that the institution utterly cease. . . . American slavery, whatever evils it includes or propagates, has law on its side, and that, if we are not to renounce Christianity, is a serious fact, neither to be overlooked nor simply condemned and denounced. Christianity, as taught by Christ and his apostles, does not permit its disciples, either individually or in their synods, to resist directly the civil power, except where that power forbids the exercise of true religion; and that authorizing slavery simply does not amount to this, the sacred records must attest. . . . [25] If the State interposed no obstacle; if it was convinced of the impolicy [sic] of Slavery, and desirous of bringing it to an end, and ready to enter upon prudent and feasible measures for it abolition at once, would there be no obstructions to be surmounted, no provisions against incidental evils to be devised, nothing to be done to prepare the slave population for a condition of independence? [26] . . . A tide of opinion and feeling is rising against it, which, if things proceed as they are now doing, will at length become too powerful to be resisted. If, however, it be undone, with advantage to the slaves, and without hazard to the peace of the nation, the result must be effected, not by an impetuous driving home of abstract right and truth, but by the meekness of wisdom operating in the indirect, gentle and [persuasive] methods of primitive evangelicalism. In this age, and especially in this free land, the discussion of the subject should, as it will, be prosecuted; but this should be done thoroughly. The subject should be looked at on all sides; all the difficulties connected with it should be admitted and considered. Allowances should be made for circumstances tending to mitigate the country’s responsibility, as having the evil entailed upon it; and the proceedings in regard to it should be marked by exemplary meekness, taking note of the glaring fact that the materials and causes for excitement in this affair are peculiarly abundant, both in the actors and those acted upon. . . . These, so far as we can see, are the general principles by which our love of country should direct its way in relation to this subject. [27] [These principles] are, I think, the proper directory of our patriotism in reference to the excitement now prevailing about the restoration of fugitives from slavery. The immediate occasion of this excitement is a legislative measure for the maintenance of principles of order, which were settled, when the compact was formed, on which the American Union is based. The States originally composing this Union bound themselves by a sacred compact to observe these principles, and the other States also are under the same obligation. These foundations of the Union had been disturbed, and our national Council, after serious and long deliberation, enacted this law as a measure for securing them against further molestation. That it would produce excitement could not but have been foreseen from the existing state of feeling in the country in regard to Slavery; but its justification is, that this, or some other not less efficacious measure, was necessary to prevent a worse evil—the violation of the national compact, tending to the disruption of the bonds of Union, and the overthrow of the great American Republic. The law has given dissatisfaction on various grounds. It has been thought by some to be unconstitutional, by others to be at least inexpedient, and not a few have denounced it as positively immoral, or against the law of God. Without attempting to examine its character, or interfering with any one’s judgment of it in any point of view, the path of Patriotism is manifest. Be the just estimate of the law in question what it may, if such a country as this is any longer an object to be loved or desired, if American Patriotism has not become an unlawful and vicious sentiment, violent resistance [28] to the authorities of the land is one of the highest crimes that man can commit. It is universally felt that the restoration of fugitives from bondage is, in itself or apart from civil relations and affinities, a work of simple injustice and inhumanity; but where such fugitives themselves are violators of civil order, and where those who oppose their restoration are violators of the same order, and of their own sacred covenant, whereby they have bound themselves not to violate it, no true humanity, or justice, or virtue, in any form, will forcibly resist the execution of a law requiring their restoration. The alternative now is, either let the law have its course, or to overthrow if possible the government of the country—and the office of casuistry here, is to judge which of these two will prove the greater evil. If the destruction of the government would be for the advantage of the slaves, would this compensate the evil in which it would involve the interests of the nation and of mankind? There is no difference as to the course to be taken, whether the law be immoral or not, so far as resisting the government is concerned. Those who think it immoral should not violate conscience, by doing what to them would be wrong, but let them not violate social order and resist the ordinance of God, by refusing to suffer patiently what obedience to conscience may cost them. They have in this country the right of remonstrance and petition, and of using whatever means they may think best, consistently with keeping the public peace, for obtaining the regular appeal of a law. . . . [29] To resist the authorities in the regular administration of a law, simply because it is supposed to be unjust, is the part, not of loyalty to God, but of rebellion against both God and State. . . .” [6-29]
James Strong, Freedom of Thought: the True Mean, an Address Delivered before the Philomathean Society of Troy Conference Academy, West Poultney VT, . . July, 15, 1851 (New York: John F. Trow, 1851), 31 pp. “Here . . . is the true standard for an intelligent being: we would simply bid him, BE FREE; let him think for himself, and so act. The blind adherent of established usage, surrenders his opinion to the habits that others have fixed. The admirer of whatever is new, is a captive to the capricious inventions of others. The tame conservative merges his identity in the mass of his fellows. He alone is known and appreciated in his proper individuality, who has the searching spirit to detect, and the manliness to pursue, what ought to be true for him. But this liberty must not be mistaken for license; it is not free-thinking in this sense that we advocate. That so-called freedom of thought which throws off restraints imposed by the laws of sound reason, is really a vassalage to some external bias upon the mind; yet even this can only be counteracted by a recurrence to one’s native judgment. The truly wise man, therefore, is in all cases he whose mind acts freely. He alone brings into harmonious avail all the powers and propensities of his nature, however contrary their direction; and like the low-pressure engine, whose exhausted cylinder makes each arm alternately assist the other, so his power of creating within his own breast a [14] vacuum from all prepossession, converts the opposing forces into positive helps, and he moves forward in might once secure and equable.” [13-14] Rollin H. Neale, Religious Liberty: A Sermon Delivered Before His Excellency George S. Boutwell, Governor, His Honor Henry W. Cushman, Lieutenant Governor, the Honorable Council, and the Legislature of Massachusetts at the Annual Election, January 8, 1852 (Boston: Dutton & Wentworth, 1852), 48 pp. “Pastor of the First Baptist church, Boston” [title page] “The bearing of religious liberty on our own National Prosperity, is the topic, which may occupy, not unprofitably, the present hour. By religious liberty we mean the privilege of worshiping God according to the dictates of our own conscience. Its principle is, that while we are under obligation to be good and peaceable citizens, to obey magistrates, and submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, no human authority may interfere with our relations to the Creator; that for our faith and practice, so long as we do not trench upon the legitimate sphere of civil government, we are responsible only to Him who has exclusive domain of the soul; that in those thoughts and feelings and actions which we regard as essential to the enjoyment of the divine favor and attainment of eternal life, no human eye may watch us, no human arm control us, no human tribunal summon us to account. It must be so from the very nature of the case. Religion is strictly an individual affair. Every man must here think and feel, act and answer, for himself. Neither guilt nor holiness is communicable by bargain, barter, or descent. Neither magistrate nor priest, minister nor layman, can stand before the [7] Creator as the spiritual representative of another. The sphere of our religious emotions is a sacred enclosure, where each individual is to be left alone with God. . . . [8] Such is the religious liberty enjoyed in these United States. It is derived directly from the King in Zion. It is not regarded as a matter of toleration, but a heaven-descended and inalienable right. . . . [9] Persecution may indeed exist without brandishing deadly weapons over the head of the supposed errorist [sic]. It may follow its victim with suspicion and scorn. It may turn upon him the demoniac glare of anger, and breathe venom from its lips. But this spirit, we have reason to hope, is fast disappearing from among us; or, if it lingers in some quarters and occasionally lifts up its horrid form, it is looked upon with general disgust as a base outrage upon humanity, and the grossest violation of the laws of God. Such is our liberty. . . . [10] What then is the practical bearing of religious liberty upon our happiness and prosperity as a nation? In the first place, it is the parent and guardian of mental liberty. Independence of thought on one subject leads to independence of thought on others. . . . There have been times in the history of nations, nor have these times entirely passed away, when religious restrictions were laid upon the intellect as well as upon the conscience. . . . [11] Preachers and authors wrote with the fear of censorship, or the index of prohibited books, before their eyes.” [6-11] . . . “The influence of this freedom is not confined to the study of the scholar. It is something practical. We all share of its blessings. It is felt in every department of society, and changes the entire character and destiny of nations. [13] . . . Dangers indeed are to be apprehended from these awakened energies. The practical effect of liberty, depending as it does upon the manner in which it is employed, is diversified in its character, like the vegetation of the earth. . . . A strange progeny is sometimes born even of American freedom. . . . Under its excited influence a thousand uncouth notions and inventions are obtruded upon the public eye. Strange and suspicious theories in science, government, and religion, are broached and propagated through the community. . . . [16] Views adverse to the church and ministry, and to all organized governments, are freely expressed; yea, attacks are made on the Bible and Christianity itself. But do we, on this account, wish any other restraints upon the soul than those which Heaven imposes?” . . . [17] [Secondly], religious liberty has a direct and strong bearing upon our national stability. Prophecies of failure respecting the republic have been uttered from its origin. The cry of disunion is nothing new or strange. There are doubtless some circumstances which may justly occasion alarm. . . . [18] That this nation, in its prosperity and pride, is exposed to danger, it were hypocrisy and falsehood to deny.” [15-19] . . . “What then, in these circumstances, are our means of safety? Shall we rely solely on government? Will you put this population, fired with the spirit of freedom, into a strait jacket of civil statutes, and compass them about with constabulary force? . . . [22] Our Free-School System also, owes its prosperity, and indeed its existence, to the spirit of religious liberty. . . . Sectarianism is, as it ought to be, excluded from our schools. Teachers are selected indiscriminately from the whole community, and the question asked is, whether they are qualified to instruct our children in the usual branches of a popular education, and not to what church they belong, nor [23] what are the peculiarities of their religious creed. . . . [Thirdly], religious liberty secures most fully and most effectively to our nation, the influence of the [24] pulpit. . . . The truth is, that free, republican institutions tend to strip off the pomp and glare of official dignity, and accord respect and honor to men for what they are in themselves.” [21-24] . . . “America is called upon, by the providence of God, to put forth the impulses of a generous humanity. Hers is no ordinary mission. The [40] Indian and the African have yet unfulfilled claims upon her justice. The down-trodden of her own land . . . are now crying for relief. She cannot be heedless of these appeals. She would be unfaithful to her character and past history, if indifferent to oppression and suffering in any part of the world.” [39-40] John Henry Hopkins, Relations of Science and Religion: Discourse Delivered in Albany During the Session of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Albany NY: Van Bentyuysen, 1856), 30 pp. Rt. Rev. Hopkins, “Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the Diocese of Vermont,” was speaking about three years before the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. “. . . The whole may be disposed of more satisfactorily by a simple recurrence to principles, which no candid reasoner [sic] can refuse to sanction. 1. First, then, let us remember that the term ‘Science’ can never be justly applied to matters of which it is impossible for men in our age to know any thing, save what the original record of inspiration has communicated. For Science, as I have shown, signifies knowledge, and this knowledge, moreover, must be founded upon clear, certain, and self-evident principles, and be reduced to a regular system. But the [27] mode in which the Creator thought fit to do His wondrous work is totally beyond human conception. . . . 2. In the second place, these philosophers [scientists] are wantonly traveling out of their proper track, and have no right to publish speculations which can do no possible good, but must, on the contrary, do more or less evil. The Bible was given for the moral and spiritual instruction of mankind. What can they gain by opposing its received interpretation? Suppose they succeed in shaking the faith of Christians, what substitute have they to offer? Religion is the only regulator of the conscience and the heart—the only foundation of law, justice, order, and government. And no man who is a real philanthropist, and will pause to reflect upon the tendency of such assaults, can feel justified for a moment in encouraging them. [Rev. Hopkins then pointed out that scientists disagree among themselves regarding their theories.] F. W. Kremer, Education: Its Relation to Morality and Freedom, An Address (Lancaster PA: Theo. Penn, 1856), 16 pp. “Delivered before the Goethean Literary Society of Franklin & Marshall College, at the Laying of the Corner Stone, of Their Second Hall, July 22, 1856.” “Having now taken a brief view of the general subject of education, and noticed the relation of mental culture to a pure morality and true personal freedom, I shall proceed to notice the relation of mental discipline to morality and civil freedom. From what has already been said of mere intellectual training aside from proper attention to the heart, it is easy to infer [11] that not mere education, not a general diffusion of knowledge can be regarded as the basis of free institutions, but the prevalence of a sound, evangelical morality. Not indeed that such morality, or religion can, or should exist alone, divorced from education, but that it constitutes the only reliable and proper guaranty for civil freedom.” [10-11]
William Rounseville Alger, The Genius and Posture of America: An Oration . . . Boston, July 4, 1857 (Boston: Daily Bee, 1857), 60 pp. “. . . The first duty, therefore, of every American, is to cleanse his country from wrong, and to establish impartial righteousness at home. He must lend his aid in every proper method to those reforms which aim to remove human bondage, intemperance, the gallows, and every other legal crime and shameful custom [26] fastened on us in the pagan night of the past; that no more manacled hands and streaming eyes may be upturned, pleading to us for pity and to heaven for justice; that no more corpses, swinging in the gibbets of our jail yards, may curdle the blood of Christianized humanity in its veins; that the matted and seething masses of licentiousness and pauperism, abated from their degrading dens, may no more infect and upbraid our civilization. . . . For, the second emphatic obligation resulting from the American posture is to preserve national fraternity in its relations abroad. . . . In the first place, we cannot help sympathizing profoundly with the victims of oppression in Italy, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Ireland, and elsewhere. . . . [27] But this sympathizing reception of the spurned laborers and flying refugees of other lands does not bind our country to be made the common sewer and receptacle for the offscourings [sic] of the old world, the emptyings [sic] of its jails, hulks, almshouses, and hospitals. This indecent outrage has been deliberately [28] inflicted upon us too long. Have we not a right to protect ourselves against the ravenous dregs of anarchy and crime, the tainted swarms of pauperism and vice Europe shakes on our shores from her diseased robes? When this naked mass of unkempt and priest-ridden degradation, bruised with abuse, festering with ignorance, inflamed with rancor, elated with blind expectations, has sprung on our continent, and turning round, shakes its offcast [sic] fetters and rags in one hand, brandishes sword and torch in the other, its eyeballs glaring vindictive rage upon the governments which have expatriated it—shall we, without the slightest regard to its preparedness, our own safety, or the peace of the world, give this monstrous multitude instantaneous possession of every political prerogative, letting it storm our ballot boxes with its drift of mad votes, and fill half our offices with its unnaturalized [sic] fanatics? . . . [29] Not only are we to give a friendly reception to those deprived of what we enjoy, considering them as good as ourselves, and entitled to all our privileges just in the degree that that they become a part of our nationality; we may, furthermore, utter the earnest expostulation of our public sentiment against the injustice under which they groan in their native countries. But we ought, before doing this, to clear our skirts of the glaring inconsistencies which will provoke retort and rob our appeals of their divine point. . . . Set before the rulers and their people the example of our exuberant and diffused natural wealth, the rapidity of our unrivaled growth, the self-directing quietude of our prodigious power, our enthusiastic popular patriotism—set this in significant contrast with their starving poverty, overshadowing alarms, revolutionary outbreaks, compulsory standing armies, general disaffection, and retrogression or paralysis. Let that contrast be seen and felt, and it must work far more mightily than any other agency we can devise.” [26-29] . . . “The next palpable danger of our country is from the prevalence of egotistic demagogues, who crave notoriety and spoils, but care not for principle, the honor of the nation, or the good of the world. Such [34] a style of character is apt to appear in leaders and aspirants among a constituency whose ignorance and coarseness, taken with low qualities, make idols of the mere declaimer and braggadocio. This evil is fearfully rife in many parts of the land, and thoughtful men must put forth strenuous efforts against it; for when the voters, through crudeness of mind and degradation of feeling, select for their offices the showy sophists and rough champions who cater to their prejudices and wheedle their simplicity, then peril is imminent. . . . [35] For the healthy state and administration of affairs in a democratic country, it should be found that the common sentiment is formed and guided by the wisest [36] and best, from above the level—not by the most conceited and unprincipled, from below it. Scholars, divines, civilians, statesmen, authors—the most competent students of subjects—those whose lives are devoted to moral and intellectual pursuits, in their several spheres, should try to correct and lead, not echo and flatter, public opinion. . . . Another danger to which we are exposed, is, from the craft and ambition, the stealthy plots and cruel oppressiveness, of the priestly spirit, claiming that its ritual holds the exclusive means of salvation, and that its head is vested with supreme authority. We have among us, powerless at present, but diligent, unscrupulous, selfish and arrogant as ever behind its feigned meekness, sleeplessly biding the time when it may unsheathe its claws, and assume total supervision of school, pulpit and press, and make the State its supple instrument—that priesthood, which, wherever it may roam, still preserves its denationalized unity, paying fealty to one celibate old man; remaining always a separate body in the midst of the people; seeking its own corporate ends at the expense of everything else. Romanism is as much a grasping political, as it is an irresponsible spiritual, power. Flourishing best among a people characterized by superstitious puerility of thought and abject dependence of condition, it establishes eternal ignorance and beggardom that it may possess eternal dominion. Its unearthly pretensions and persecuting mind necessarily make it an enemy to the genius of republican institutions; and it must at any cost be kept from seizing here those coveted privileges which it so tyrannically exercises in Catholic countries.” [34-37] . . . “The fierce clamor of the slaveholding interest for more room, fresh prey, new chains and whips, and a longer lease of power, drowns the voices of the Revolutionary Fathers, vilifies the Declaration of Independence, incenses the country, disgraces the age, and insults the world. The madness of these retrograde fanatics, facing directly into barbaric night, seriously threatens the disruption of our Union, the extinguishment of the world’s latest, brightest expectations. This is no exaggeration. The infinite wrong the institution of slavery is in itself; the inexpressible wrongs it inflicts on its victims; the insulting arrogance it breeds, the deteriorating sloth it pampers, the loathsome lust it inflames and feeds, in the master; the generous sympathies and moral sentiments it outrages in the contemplator—all these facts are necessarily fraught with the combustible elements of strife. . . . The North and the West, by their comparative enlightenment, liberty, and progressive [41] thrift, are girding the South as with a ring of sacred fire. She must either get new life and land Nebraska, Cuba, South America, or else die of inanition. The ruffian clutch on this resource by the Slave States is not more tenacious than the opposition by the Free States to such a profane seizure, is resolved. The contest between the obstinacy and aristocratic passions on one side, the firm convictions and clear lights on the other, is grave already, and more ominous ahead.” [40-41]
James Walker, The Spirit Proper to the Times: A Sermon . . . King’s Chapel, Boston, Sunday, May 12, 1861 (Boston: George C. Rand & Avery, 1861), 12 pp. “Printed at the request of the Wardens of the Society.” [cover and title page] “I am to speak of public spirit, as manifested in a willingness to make sacrifices for the public good. The necessity for making sacrifices would seem to be founded in this: as we cannot have everything, we must be willing to sacrifice some things in order to obtain or secure others. Wicked men recognize and act upon this principle. Can you not recall more than one person in your own circle of acquaintances who is sacrificing his health, his good name, his domestic comfort, to vicious indulgences. Worldly people recognize and act upon this principle. Look at that miser. He is hoarding up his thousands and his tens of thousands, but in order to do so, is he not sacrificing everything which makes life worth having? It is a mistake to suppose that religion, or morality, or the public necessities, ever call upon us to make greater sacrifices than those which men are continually making to sin and the world, to fashion and fame, to ‘the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.’ In times of ease, abundance, and tranquility, the public takes care of itself. There are few sacrifices on the part of individuals for the public good, because there are few occasions for such sacrifices. They are not made because not called for, because not needed. . . . [4] This state of things is seized upon by those who are eager to put the worst possible construction on human nature and human conduct, as evidence of extreme degeneracy. How often are we told that our present troubles are sent upon us in order to lift the whole community out of the mire of money-getting propensities, where everything like public spirit was in danger of being swallowed up and lost? I protest against this wholesale abuse of what has been—at best, a gross exaggeration. The whole truth in this matter is told in a few words. By constitution, by habit, by circumstances, our people are intensely active; and this activity, for want of other objects, has been turned into channels of material prosperity. If, therefore, you merely affirm their excessive eagerness in acquisition, I grant it; but if, not content with this, you go on to charge them with being niggards in expending what they have acquired, I deny it, emphatically, utterly. Read the history of what has been done in this commonwealth, in this city, during the last twenty-five years for humanity, for education, for science and the arts, for every form of public use or human need, and then say, if you can, that public spirit has been dying out. Our people have never been otherwise than public spirited, and hence the promptness and unanimity of their response to this new call to public duty. . . . [5] Not a little of what passes for loyalty or patriotism in other countries is blind impulse, growing out of mere attachment to the soil, or the power of custom, or a helpless feeling of dependence on things as they are. . . . Of such loyalty, of such patriotism, there never has been much in this country, and there never will be. The loyal and patriotic States have risen up as one man to maintain the government, because the government represents the ideas of order and liberty. . . . I suppose some are full of concern as to the effect which trial and sacrifice will really have on this new outbreak of public spirit. They fear that suffering for our principles will abate our confidence in them, or at least our interest in them, and so the ardor will die away. So doubtless [6] it will I some cases, for every community has its representatives of ‘seed that was sown on stony ground’; but it will be the exception and not the rule. . . . The sacrifices which the country asks for in time of war are those of property, labor, and life; she does not ask in vain. We are continually reminded that this rebellion has taken place at a moment of great prosperity, to blast it all. . . . [8] I doubt whether it is common for rich men to think any better of themselves merely because they are rich; but if they can make their riches and their financial skill, available to save the State, they will think better of themselves, and they will have a right to do so. There is a natural jealousy of wealth, especially when it takes the form of a passion for accumulation, which demagogues and fanatics know how to use for bad ends. . . . Others are manifesting their public spirit by sacrifices of time and labor. And here I wish I could find fit terms in which to acknowledge the services and sufferings of women. You have heard of the Spartan mother equipping her son for battle, and giving him, last of all, the shield, with the brief and stern farewell, ‘With it or on it.’ We expect no such stoicism now, but we expect what is better. We expect that Christian mothers, with hearts bleeding for their country, and bleeding for their children, will say, ‘It is the will of God that they shall go,’ and, furthermore, that they will go, having always been taught at home that there are many things worse than death. . . . [9] But will our men fight? There is no denying that this word sounds disagreeably in a Christian discourse. . . . The Bible contains no express and unqualified prohibition of war. . . . Undoubtedly it is the legitimate and certain tendency of the spirit of the gospel, as it is more and more diffused in the world, to introduce universal peace; but the spirit of the gospel acts within outwardly, and not from without inwardly. Thus the stop to be put to war is to be expected, not so much be chaining down those irrepressible instincts which lead men to resist wrong, as by eradicating the disposition to do wrong. Wars will cease when all men are Christians; but this will not be today or tomorrow..” [3-9]
William B. Sprague, An Address Delivered on Occasion of Raising the National Flag Upon the Second Presbyterian Church, Albany (Albany NY: C. Van Benthuysen, 1861), 8 pp.
“The raising of our national flag is an every day matter—the displaying of it from a church, not quite so common. But I should certainly think it a very dubious sort of patriotism, that should even suggest a doubt as to the propriety of what we are doing; though, if such a doubt were to be put forth, I should expect it would be on one of two grounds—either that such a banner, displayed in such a place, would seem to betoken some sympathy with that theory which brings the Church into a relation of dependence on the State; or else that it looks too much, at this time, like making peaceable, benevolent Christianity the patroness of war. . . . As to the union of Church and State, in the common acceptance of that phrase, the flag, now waving above us, does not even look towards its vindication. It does indeed recognize the existence of a certain relation between the civil and the ecclesiastical; but it repudiates that relation that subordinates the Church to the world—robbing it of that liberty wherewith Christ makes his disciples free. It acknowledges the right and duty of the civil magistracy to throw a protecting wing over the rights and interests of all denominations, but it forbids the singling out of any one as the object of special favor; while, on the other hand, it makes it incumbent on the Church to exert herself in every legitimate way in aid of the well being of civil society. Those who make the flag, which we have just unfurled, deliver a higher Church and State doctrine than this, only pervert her utterances and cast a shad upon her honor. . . . [4] With the government under which we have been reared has been identified the largest measure of religious liberty that any people has ever enjoyed; and, under the influence of this matchless boon, has been developed an amount of Christian intelligence and activity, and I may add, heroic self-denial and endurance, that forms the subject of one of the brightest pages in our national history. In prosecuting the contest, then, in which we are now engaged, for the maintenance of our Government, we are carrying forward a struggle for peace in a two-fold sense; not only to drive the demon of war into the Gulf, but to give a fresh impulse to that blessed religion whose very motto is ‘Peace on earth and goodwill to men.’ We confidently expect this storm, like other storms, will purify our atmosphere, and prepare us for a higher degree of national prosperity; while we feel no less assured that the heart and the arm of the Church, instead of being paralyzed in the tempest, will emerge from it, nerved with fresh strength for spreading the Gospel of Peace, wherever there are human beings to see its light or to feel its power. If I am asked then what is the peculiar significance of causing this splendid ensign of our nation’s liberty to float here above this place where we come every Sunday to worship God, I answer, it is because we regard our country’s cause as the cause of God—and never more so than now in this hour of her tribulation. . . . [5] We have the fullest confidence that our cause is a righteous cause; and that God whom we worship in this temple will make it his own, and that we shall have the evidence of this in its being finally triumphant. . . . But we must guard against the temptation to a malevolent and vindictive spirit. We must make all due allowance for the influences adverse to the formation of correct judgment, under which our Southern brethren are now acting; and we must inquire whether, if our souls were in their souls’ stead, we might not be borne along by the same current that is sweeping them away. Among them are many whom some of us have long felt it is a privilege to reckon among our most valued friends; and much as we lament the sad mistake into which they have fallen, let it not be our fault if they are not our friends still; and let us hope that, when a brighter day shall be ushered in, there shall be nothing to prevent the return of the kindly intercourse of other days.” [3-5]
William Rounseville Alger, Public Morals, or the True Glory of a State . . . January 1, 1862 (Boston: William White, 1862), 55 pp. “A Discourse delivered before the Executive and Legislative Departments of the Government of Massachusetts, at the Annual Election, Wednesday, January 1, 1862.” [cover] “. . . I herewith, in accordance with your request, submit a copy of my discourse for the press. I have only to add that several passages of the discourse, which when it was pronounced, were omitted, on account of its length and the lateness of the hour, are retained in it now.” [3] “. . . When the will of God baffles our direct perusal we may try to trace it by the intermediate clue of universal interest, since the fruition of this interest is the immediate obedience to that will. When the most abstruse factor in the problem of duty is unknown, a skilful treatment of the simpler, known factors may elicit the secret element and establish the correct solution. Taking utility as an index to the right rule for our conduct, it will be obvious, is a very different thing from using it as a direct test or measure of conduct. But this, at best, is a very delicate and dangerous apparatus to manipulate. The difficulties attendant on our ignorance, and the disturbances originating in our selfishness, tend to pervert the process and vitiate the result. Nevertheless there are instances in which it is our only resource, and if we are but honest and careful, we stand justified, under our moral limitations, even should we make mistakes. The next lower level on the scale of obligations . . . is the good of the nation. The authority of his country must in the estimation of a good citizen, as a general rule, take precedence of any claims of sect, party, or community, because it is the sacred impersonation of all these and [23] more. The nation gathers in one lovely and venerable form, the treasures, hopes, fears, destinies, of a people; and by their glorified unity, gives them new significance and a heightened sanction. In those dread crises when she needs such a sacrifice, it is the acknowledged duty of the patriot to die for his country. The honorable man, therefore, holds his life, with all its temporal privileges, in fealty to his country; always willingly devoting any selfish interest to her service, never knowingly doing anything to her injury. Sinking still another degree on that standard by which his duties are measured, the individual comes under obligations to the special community to which he belongs. He is protected by that community in the enjoyment of many of his rights, indebted to it for the countless comforts and privileges of social life. In return, he is bound to refrain from trespassing on its common prerogatives by any private indulgence, to hold his honor sacred, revere its rightful will, contribute his portion to the supply of its wants, regarding its collective authority and welfare as much above his own cravings as its corporate existence is greater and more lasting than his personal existence. Lastly, we come to the bottom of the scale, to the mere good of the individual. Every man has a right to gratify his faculties so far as he does not contravene or limit the same gratification on the part of others. Nay, more, since God made him for the fruition of his constitutional functions, he is properly obligated to [24] seek that end for himself, so be he seek its methods and degrees accordant with universal order, under conditions conformable to the fruition of all. . . . This is pure morality, according to the theory of pure science. Of course in carrying it into practice, in this world of imperfections, frictions, and conflicts, there must occur a thousand limitations and exceptions. But science deals with ideal truth in its unobstructed perfection; it is art that takes cognizance of hindering conditions and compromising adaptations. The true succession of authority, then, on the scale of moral obligations, is first, the law of absolute right; second, the interest of mankind; third, the interest of the nation; fourth, the interest of the community; last, the interest of the individual. Unhappily, in practice, this order of grades is too often precisely reversed, the individual caring most of all for his own pleasure, not so much for the prosperity of the community about him, still less for the honor of his country, and even less for the happiness of the world, and least of all for the creative and overruling will of God. Now the lower we drop on the scale, to [25] take the standard for our conduct, the larger is the probability of a corrupt adjudication, leading to fatal troubles; because, as we descend, the selfish propensities grow thicker and fiercer; and because the interest of a person are so much more capable of serving themselves at the expense of universal right than those of society are, those of a society than those of a nation, and those of a single nation than those of the whole world. In aiming to subserve [sic] the welfare of all men, we are most likely to hit on the conduct coincident with truth and justice.” [22-25] . . . “No one can compute the details of anguish, of widespread poverty and woe, to result from this present war of ours. It will all be due virtually to the unhallowed willfulness of a party of slave-masters who forced the issue on us and would not suffer it to be prevented. In its origin, then, there was no glory, but boundless disgrace. It was an eruption of evil actions from a pit of evil passions. And in the war itself, so far, I can see only incidental cause for exultation, much greater cause for sorrow. Were it a war prosecuted by the aroused spirit of freedom and justice to vindicate the rights of all, rescue the down-trodden victims of wrong, cleanse our national banner, adjust our constitution to the principles of [40] true democracy and religion, there would be a redeeming glory in its cause and motive which might call on our pulses to dance for joy. But it does not seem to be such a conflict. It appears much more like the pride of the country leaping up to avenge an insult, the interest of the country rallying to support its authority and immunities. . . . The Christian patriot who sees this war aiming simply to place things as they were before, returning fugitive slaves to their masters, decreeing no act for the enlargement of the freedom of the people, must feel oppressed with grief rather electrified with gratitude. He can only cling to the hope that as the panorama rolls on, to the lurid accompaniments of battle, by and by, the dismal scenes will burst asunder and suddenly reveal an act of compensating good, an act of sublime splendor—millions of men going free, with broken fetters, tears of joy, and hymns to God. . . .” [39-40] “What is needed to enhance the glory of our country is a new vigor and elevation imparted to the virtues of its citizens. Four hundred percent added to our population, our army and navy, our wealth and ostentation, would be as nothing in comparison with ten degrees of advancement given to our wisdom, justice, love, and common cooperation, with a corresponding diminution of error, wrong, and jealousy. Prosperity cannot insure virtue; virtue can insure [47] prosperity. I believe the personal and public morals of our people are at least as good now as ever before. It is the standard fallacy of all ages to fancy the past a halcyon era of goodness and harmony, the present a degenerate time of littleness and discord. The sophistry of the senses overpowers those who are not on their guard to detect and neutralize it with the antidote of fresh and vigorous perceptions and comparisons. The evil of the past, unfelt by us, hoisted into relief, fastens an exaggerating attention. . . . Nevertheless the need of a higher and firmer tone of morality, the need of more competent and consecrated leaders, is sore enough. Party spirit runs too fast and too far among us, as it has in other countries before. Whig and Tory at one time, Democrat and Republican at another, inflict dire injuries on their country by hating each other more than they love her. They should ever recollect that they owe a common homage and service, differing only in their opinions as to methods. . . . [48] Another fault very prevalent among us, fertile in its pernicious effects, is, undue deference to external standards of judgment, obsequious submission to the ruling sentiment and opinion of the general public. Tyrant majority is so intolerant of dissent that genuine originality and independence are much rarer than they should be. The raciness and boldness of honest individuality are melted down, broken and polished down, into insipid and monotonous conformity. . . . [49] Furthermore, there is the greatest necessity in our country for a more profound sense on the part of its citizens of their duty at the ballot box. There seems to be among those persons who have no obvious and immediate interest at stake, a growing disinclination to submit to the trouble of aiding in the selection of proper candidates for elective offices, and then depositing a vote for them. Consequently the control of all this, the final control of the country, falls into the hands of those not the most worthy of trust and honor—the ambitious and their tools.” [47-49] Charles J. Stille, How a Free People Conduct a Long War: A Chapter from English History (Philadelphia: Collins, 1862), 39 pp. “We have known hitherto in this country so little of the actual realities of war on a grand scale, that many are beginning to look upon the violent opposition to the government, and the slowness of the progress of our arms, as signs of hopelessness discouragement. History, however, shows us that these are the inevitable incidents of all wars waged by a free people. This might be abundantly illustrated by many remarkable events in English history, from the days of the Great Rebellion down through the campaigns of the Prince of Orange, and of Marlborough, to the wars which grew out of the events of the French Revolution. War is always entered upon amidst a vast deal of popular enthusiasm, which is utterly unreasoning. It is the universal voice of history, that such enthusiasm is wholly unreliable in supporting the prolonged and manifold burdens which are inseparable from every war waged on an extensive scale, and for a long period. The popular idea of war is a speedy and decisive victory, and an immediate occupation of [4] the enemy’s capital, followed by a treaty of peace by which the objects of the war are permanently secured. Nothing is revealed to the excited passions of the multitude, but dazzling visions of national glory, purchased by small privations, and the early and complete subjugation of their enemies. It is, therefore, not unnatural that at the first reverse they should yield at once to an unmanly depression and, giving up all for lost, they should vent upon the government for its conduct of the war, and upon the army and its generals for their failure to make their dreams of victory realities, an abuse of unreasoning as was their original enthusiasm. Experience has taught the English people that the progress of a war never fulfils the popular expectations; that although victory may be assured at last to patient and untiring vigor and energy in its prosecution, yet during the continuance of a long war there can be no well-founded hope of a uniform and constant series of brilliant triumphs in the field, illustrating the profound wisdom of the policy of the Cabinet; that, on the contrary, all war, even that which is most successful in the end, consists rather in checkered fortunes, of alternations of victory and disaster, and that its conduct is generally marked by what were evidently, when viewed in the light of experience, blunders so glaring in the policy adopted by the government, or in the strategy of its generals, that the wonder is success was achieved at all. The [5] English have thus been taught that the true characteristic of public opinion in its judgment of a war should be, not hopefulness or impatience of immediate results, but rather a stern endurance—that King-quality of heroic constancy which, rooted deep in a profound conviction of the justice of the cause, supports a lofty public spirit equally well in the midst of temporary disaster and in the hour of assured triumph. We have had no such experience here. Our people are perhaps more easily excited by success, and more readily depressed by reverses, than the English, and it is, therefore, worthwhile to consider how they carried on the war on a grand scale and for a protracted period. It will be found, if we mistake not, that the denunciations of the government, so common among us of late, and the complaints of the inactivity of the army, have their exact counterpart in the history of the progress of all the wars in which England has been engaged since the days of the Great Rebellion. He who draws consolation from the lessons of the past, will not, we think, seek comfort in vain when he discovers that in all those wars in which the government and the army have been so bitterly assailed (except that of the American Revolution), England has at last been triumphant. It is worthwhile then to look into English history to understand how war is successfully carried on notwithstanding the obstacles which, owing to a perverted public opinion, exist within the nation itself. These difficulties, although [6] they inhere in the very nature of a free government, often prove, as we shall see, more fruitful of embarrassment to the favorable prosecution of a war thus the active operations of the enemy. We propose to illustrate the propositions which we have advanced by a study of the series of campaigns known in English history as the Peninsular War. We select this particular war because we think that in many of its events and in the policy which sustained it, there are to be observed many important, almost startling, parallelisms with out present struggle. We have, of course, no reference to any similarity existing in the principle which produced the two wars, but rather to the striking resemblance in the modes adopted by the two people for prosecuting war on a grand scale, and for the vindication of a principle regarded as of vital importance by them.” [3-6] . . . “Let us bend, then, |