ATJ
OF all the forms of government that stability of the republican form depends most upon the integrity of the individual. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.1
Abraham Lincoln’s definition of a republic is the best that can ever be given: “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.2
A republic is a government “of the people;” because the people only compose the government. The people then are governed “by the people;” that is, they are governed by themselves. The people are governed “by the people” “for the people;” that is, by themselves for themselves. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.3
Such a government in the nature of things is only self-government. Each citizen governs himself. He does this by himself—by his own powers of self-restraint. And he does this for himself, that is, for his own good, for his own best interests: knowing at the same time that this is also for the good and for the best interests of his fellow-citizen. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.4
Only in the proportion that this conception is fulfilled, is it possible for a republic to flourish. In the proportion that the people lose the power to govern themselves, in just that proportion the true idea of a republic must, and surely will, fail of realization. And in a republic, just as soon as a majority of the people have ceased to govern themselves by their own individual powers, the republic has in principle and in fact passed away. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.5
And so surely as a republic passes away, a despotism takes its place. It may be an elective despotism, but it is none the less a despotism. It may, indeed, be a despotism of the many—of the majority; but it is none the less a despotism. In fact, in such cases, it always is at first a despotism of the many. Shortly after this it becomes a despotism of a few. And at last, ere long too, it becomes a despotism of one. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.6
Any person, therefore, who allows himself to engage in anything that deprives him of the full and free government of himself, thereby enters upon a course that is contrary to free government. Whatever weakens or absorbs the individuality of the citizen, undermines the republic. It matters not what it may be, what form it may take, or what pretensions may be made in its behalf, to whatever extent it weakens or swallows up the individuality of the individual man—just to that extent it undermines the republic. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.7
Party organization may be perfectly proper, but when it become so “straight” that the citizen cannot act upon his own individual preferences or convictions, without being ostracised or “read out;” or when it is turned to “the machine;” however much certain men may gain by it, the people are only the losers and the republic is weakened. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.8
Business partnerships and corporations may be perfectly proper; but when they are employed to crush out competition or to swallow up the individuality of owners, they violate the first principle of free government, and therefore are a menace to the republic. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.9
Labor organizations may be beneficial; but when they are used to deprive the individual of the privilege of entering into any engagement that he may see fit to make; or so as to absorb the individuality of any member that he is not free to be employed under whatever circumstances that seem to him satisfactory, or that he is not free to come and go at his own pleasure without interference on the part of anybody; they invade the right of the individual to govern himself, and in so doing repudiate government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and are a menace to the republic. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.10
Church organization is not only proper, it is divine; but when church organization is so managed and manipulated by men as to become in their hands a weapon to be held menacingly before politicians, business men and all others, by threats or whatever other means shall prove most effective, to deprive them of the freedom of individual action, according to their own individual conviction,—then such church organizations, become only a menace to the republic itself. They cease to be divine and become earthly, sensual, devilish, and thus the greatest possible menace to the republic. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.11
Hon. Henry Watterson, in an interview for the press of this city, only a few days ago, made the following statement:— AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.12
In 1800 we were a few millions of people and we loved liberty. In 1900 we are nearly a hundred millions of people and we love money. Moreover, individually and collectively, we have a great deal of money. Most of this money is invested in what are called corporations. From a handful of individuals we have become a national of institutions. The individual counts for less and less, organizations for more and more. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.13
In remarking upon this statement the New York Journal, of December 2, said:— AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.14
There is no disputing the truth of that.... What he feels as to the dangers of concentrating wealth, the diminution of the importance of the individual, and the dominance of the purse, an increasing minority of men of thought and masculine instincts feel. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.15
Every organization, every influence, that diminishes the importance of the individual, is in antagonism to government of the people, and just so far as it does so, is inimical to the republic. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.16
Yet no man can deny that all the forms of organization which we have referred to, are diligently working in all the ways pointed out, and in other ways besides, to diminish the importance of the individual. The practice of each one is therefore in direct antagonism to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Any one of them, then, to be continued and to “grow by that it feeds on,” could end in nothing else than the subversion of the republic: this to be followed by the inevitable despotism, first of the many, then of a few, and finally of one. And when such only can be the tendency and end of any one of these, how much more, and how much more swiftly, must this be the end, with all of them working at the same time and only to that end. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.17
What, then, is the remedy? Cultivate the individual. Restore the integrity, the manliness, the manly independence, the individuality, of the individual. This is the only remedy. Nothing else can possibly avail. AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.18
Thus again is strongly illustrated the importance of that scripture that was written for this time: “The Lord spake thus unto me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.” AMS December 10, 1896, page 385.19
ATJ
IT has been said of the early Romans that “they possessed the faculty of self-government beyond any people of whom we have historical knowledge,” with the sole exception of the Anglo-Saxons. By virtue of this faculty, in the very nature of things, they became the most powerful nation of all ancient times. AMS December 10, 1896, page 386.1
But their extensive conquests filled Rome with gold. “Money poured in upon them in rolling streams of gold.” With wealth came luxury. “Wealth poured in more and more, and luxury grew more unbounded. Palaces sprang up in the city, castles in the country, villas at pleasant places by the sea, and parks, and fish-ponds, and game preserves, and gardens, and vast retinues of servants” everywhere. AMS December 10, 1896, page 386.2
To get money by any means lawful or unlawful, became the universal passion. “Money was the one thought form the highest senator to the poorest wretch who sold his vote in the Comitia. For money Judges gave unjust decrees, and juries gave corrupt verdicts.” “The elections were managed by clubs and coteries; and, except on occasions of national danger or political excitement, those who spent most freely were most certain of success. Under these conditions the chief powers in the commonwealth necessarily centered in the rich. The door of promotion was open to all who had the golden key. The highest offices of State were open in theory to the meanest citizen; they were confined in fact to those who had the longest purses, or the most ready use of the tongue on popular platforms. Distinctions of birth had been exchanged for distinctions of wealth. The struggle between plebeians and patricians for equality of privilege was over, and a new division had been formed between the party of property and a party who desired a change in the structure of society.” AMS December 10, 1896, page 386.3
As the power which wealth gave was used only to increase the wealth of those who had it, the sure result was the growth of envy on the part of the populace, and presently a demand which grew louder and still more urgent that there should be a more equable distribution of the plenty that was monopolized by the few. “All orders in a society may be wise and virtuous, but all cannot be rich. Wealth which is used only for idle luxury is always envied, and envy soon curdles into hate. It is easy to persuade the masses that the good things of this world are unjustly divided, especially when it happens to be the exact truth.” AMS December 10, 1896, page 386.4
As these two classes were constantly growing farther apart—the rich growing richer and the poor poorer—there ceased to be any middle class to maintain order in government and society by holding the balance of power. There remained then only the two classes, the rich and the poor, and of these the rich despised the poor, and the poor envied the rich. And there were not wanting men to stir up the discontent of the masses, and present schemes for the reorganization of government and society. AMS December 10, 1896, page 386.5
Some of these were well-meaning men, men who really had in view the good of their fellowmen and the bettering of society and government; but the far greater number were mere demagogues—ambitious schemers who used the discontent of the populace only to lift themselves into positions of wealth and power which they envied others, and which, when they had secured, they employed as selfishly and oppressively as had any of those against whom they clamored. But whether they were well-meaning men or only demagogues, in order to hold the populace against the persuasions and bribes of the wealthy, they were compelled to make promises and concessions, which were only in the nature of larger bribes, and which in the end were as destructive of free government and the republic as were the worst acts of the aristocracy of wealth itself. AMS December 10, 1896, page 386.6
After considerable see-sawing between the two parties for the possession of the governmental power, it was taken from both by the First Triumvirate—Pompey, Crassus and Cesar. These three men covenanted together “that no proceedings should be allowed to take place in the commonwealth without the consent of each of the three contracting parties.” In eleven years the sole power fell to Cesar alone. In four years more, pretended patriots assassinated Cesar “to save the republic” from what they supposed was threatened in him, and thereby made only the more certain the very thing that they professed to fear from him, and which in fact was realized shortly from those who were worse than he. AMS December 10, 1896, page 386.7
Affairs had reached the point in the republic where a Cesar was inevitable, and though in the attempt to escape it they had killed the greatest Roman who ever lived, it was only hastened by the very means which they had employed to avoid it. This they themselves realized as soon as they awoke from the dream in which they had done the desperate deed. Cicero exactly defined the situation, and gave a perfect outline of the whole history of the times when he exclaimed, “We have killed the king; but the kingdom is with us still. We have taken away the tyrant; the tyranny survives.” That tyranny survived in the breast of every man in Rome. And in just thirteen and a half years from that time, the State having gone again over precisely the same course, came again to the same point where the sole power was in the hands of a Cesar where it remained until both the monarchy and the empire of Rome perished forever. AMS December 10, 1896, page 386.8
Thus in the Roman republic, by the inseparable train of wealth, luxury, and vice, self-restraint was broken down, the power of self-government was lost, and that republic failed. And so every other republic must fail when the faculty of self-government fails by virtue of which alone a republic is possible. The Romans ceased to govern themselves, and they had to be governed. They lost the faculty of self-government. With that vanished the republic, and its place was supplied by a one-man power, an imperial tyranny supported by a military despotism. AMS December 10, 1896, page 386.9
We have thus sketched the history of the Roman republic. To sketch the history of the first French republic would be but to repeat the story almost point by point. No man can fail to see that up to a certain point the parallel is complete between that and the republic of the United States of America to-day. Is it at all strange then, indeed is it not the most natural thing in the world, that disinterested thinkers should raise the query whether the United States, in one hundred and fifty years, is really going to pass “through all the stages to be found in the history of Rome”? And further ask, “Are the Americans in quest of a Napoleon? Are they moving in the direction of a dictatorship, the precursor of demagogic, or military despotism?” AMS December 10, 1896, page 386.10
We are not alarmists. We do not propose to be alarmists. We simply ask for sober thinking. It is our duty to present facts, and to call attention to the things which those facts with unfailing certainty indicate. And there can be no possible room for question that from the facts which are patent to-day to every one who will look about, it is time for every person in the United States to engage in the sober thinking to which we simply invite him. AMS December 10, 1896, page 386.11
ATJ
A COMMON accusation made by Protestants against the Catholic Church, is that the latter adheres to the principle of the union of Church and State. It appears, however, that the Catholic position upon this point is, in this country at least, quite in harmony with that now maintained by the leading Protestant bodies. What the papal church would insist upon here is not a union of Church and State, but of religion and the State. This was authoritatively stated by the “Right Rev.” Bishop Montgomery, of Los Angeles, Cal., in a recent lecture on the “Basis of American Citizenship,” reported in the Catholic News (New York) of November 22. AMS December 10, 1896, page 387.1
“The trouble is,” he said, “that people have come to believe that citizenship is wholly and altogether secular; particularly in these last few years the question has been put in the shape of the separation of Church and State. That hobby, ridden so faithfully and so earnestly by so many, has come to mean, in the minds of a great number, that the separation of Church and State means the separation of religion and State. And though in this country we are under such circumstances that there must ever be a separation of Church and State in the ordinary acceptance of the words, there is not and cannot be a separation of religion and State, if we remain the republic that our forefathers left us.” AMS December 10, 1896, page 387.2
The Protestant churches do not favor a union of Church and State “in the ordinary acceptance of the words;” but they do advocate a union of religion with the State, and the papal church says that there must be no “separation of religion and State” if the republic is to be preserved. The papal church therefore takes fully as “enlightened” a stand in this important matter as do the Protestants. Her attitude to-day is no less “liberal” than is theirs. AMS December 10, 1896, page 387.3
But the truth is that the papal church never advocated anything more than a union of religion with the State; so that the position stated by the Catholic News, and endorsed by the leading Protestant bodies to-day, is the same that Rome has always held. For back in the days of papal supremacy, the clashing religious sects of the present day were not in existence, and “religion” meant, to the State, only the religion held by the papacy. United with that religion, the State was in the truest sense united with the papacy. Bearing in mind now that the papal religion is the only religion recognized by the papal church as being the true religion—Christianity—the identity of her present position with that held by her in former times is perfectly plain. Rome advocates a union of religion with the State, but her religion, she says, is the only true religion. Of course no false religion ought to be united with the State; hence a union of religion with the State, from the papal standpoint, means nothing more nor less than a union of the civil power with the papacy. AMS December 10, 1896, page 387.4
And from the standpoint of any Protestant church which maintains this same principle, the conclusion reached must be similar. For though the various Protestant sects count each other as branches of the great Christian Church, and even recognize the papacy as such a branch, each one believes that she holds more Christian truth than any of the others, and hence that she is, in a fuller sense, Christian, than are the others. Therefore, of course, she is better entitled than the others to a union with the State; since the State ought not to be joined with religious error. So, from the Protestant standpoint no less than from the Catholic, a union of religion with the State means, in its last analysis, a union of Church and State, in the fullest sense. And this meaning will take on a very practical and tangible character when the principle upon which it stands is sought to be carried into effect. The movement to unite religion with the State, once started, will speedily develop into a controversy over a union of Church and State, even “in the ordinary acceptance of the words.” It cannot possibly lead to anything else. AMS December 10, 1896, page 387.5
Then is we would avoid a union of Church and State, it is absolutely necessary that the State should be kept separate from religion,—not separate from justice, from honesty, from integrity—but separate from religion, as the Christian men who established it ordained that it should be. There can be nothing more essential than this to our country’s welfare. AMS December 10, 1896, page 387.1
ATJ
SO speaks the Christian Endeavorer to its readers in its issue for the present month. “We suggest to Christian Citizenship committees,” it says, “that they look up the laws of the several States and make a list of the laws on the books that are continuously broken. For example, most of the States of the Union have laws against swearing on the streets. In Chicago there are a few arrests every year under this law, but it is not generally known that there is such a law. There is also a law making it a special offense to deface buildings used for public worship. In some States this law embraces whispering, shuffling of feet and any loud noise during services. This law can be used to prevent playing of music as processions pass churches, etc.” AMS December 10, 1896, page 388.1
This suggestion omits mention of the “sabbath laws” which are upon the statute books of nearly all the States; but there is no danger that they will be overlooked in the search for unenforced laws. They stand out too prominently for that. Then there are some other unenforced “laws” that might be mentioned, as for instance that among the statutes of the District of Columbia, enacted in 1723, which provides that any person who should “wittingly, maliciously, and advisedly, by writing or speaking,” “deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God,” or “deny the Holy Trinity,” “or the Godhead of any of the three persons, or the unity of the Godhead,” “and shall be thereof convicted by verdict, or confession, shall for the first offense be bored through the tongue and fined twenty pounds sterling;” and for the second offense “shall be stigmatized by burning in the forehead with the letter B, and fined forty pounds sterling;” and for the third offense, “suffer death without the benefit of the clergy.” There are still others that ;might be mentioned, but it can safely be left to the vigilance of the Christian Citizenship committees to rescue them from their oblivion and see that they are duly enforced. AMS December 10, 1896, page 388.2
Yes; hunt up all the obsolete laws on the statute books of all the States and have them enforced. That will be truly “Christian” work! The very fact that they have lapsed into “innocuous desuetude” is evidence of their prime importance! Doubtless a little patient research in this line will be rewarded by rich discoveries. AMS December 10, 1896, page 388.3
ATJ
FOR more than a year the professed Protestantism of England and America, in their cry for the blotting out of the Turkish power, have repeatedly cited the Crusaders of the Middle Ages as an example worthy of imitation by the “Christian” powers of the world. Some have even called for the stirring up of a crusade to-day as those of the Middle Ages were stirred up. And now the Catholic press is using all this in her own favor, as “the strongest vindication of the Crusades of the Middle Ages.” A writer in the Forum, for November, wants to see a new crusade raised from among the people as were the former ones; and he wants the Knights Templars and other such orders to be to-day the champions of the movement as they were of old. AMS December 10, 1896, page 388.1
Upon all this the Catholic Standard remarks that “whether or not the suggestion be put into practice, the very conception of it as a remedy for the American troubles, is the best answer to the modern vilifiers of the Crusades, and shows that those wonderful uprisings of the Christian masses in the Middle Ages were not the wild visionary and fanatical movements which the nineteenth century materialist would persuade us they were; but that they had their rise in solid reason and intense humanity as well as in lofty chivalry and deep religious fervor.” AMS December 10, 1896, page 388.2
If such a thing as this proposed new crusade should occur, it would simply show that people to-day are as wild, visionary, and fanatical as those of the Middle Ages undoubtedly were; instead of showing that the Crusaders of the Middle Ages were the contrary. It could be no proof that the Crusaders of the Middle Ages were sober and sensible, to see a lot of people to-day acting as wildly and foolishly, and murderously, as did they. AMS December 10, 1896, page 388.3
As for the Crusades of old time having their rise in solid reason and intense humanity, the truth is that they had no connection whatever with any sort of solid reason; and it would be difficult to find in all history a more inhuman horde gathered from any people making any pretensions to being but few degrees removed from sheer savagery. It is not necessary here to cite instances: the reader can review his history for these. But it is only the truth to say that in the whole contest distinguished by the Crusades of the Middles Ages the advantage in both humanity and chivalry undoubtedly lay with the Saracens and the Turks. AMS December 10, 1896, page 388.4
If this new crusade should start for the East and by any possibility should reach there, we should expect some of them at least to be attacked by the Syrian fever. And if perchance it were the chief in command, who should be found consuming in his tent with that dreadful disease, we should expect to hear that the Sultan had sent into the camp of the Crusaders, camels laden with snow to cool the parched lips and quench the burning fever of their stricken commander, as did Sultan Saladin to Richard the Lion-hearted in the Crusades of old. And if the expedition should really come to a war, we might expect to hear at last that on the eve of battle, in the presence of both armies, and over the broken truce of the “Christians” the Turkish commander had openly appealed to Jesus Christ for the justice of his cause, and then had wiped them off the earth, as was done, all of it, by the Turks once before. AMS December 10, 1896, page 388.5