[Delivered at Troy,
New York, April 14, 1851.]
The legitimate action of Civil Government is very simple.
Its legitimate range is very narrow. Government owes nothing to its subjects
but protection. And this is a protection, not from competitions, but from
crimes. It owes them no protection from the foreign farmer, or foreign
manufacturer, or foreign navigator. As it owes them no other protection from
each other than from the crimes of each other, so it owes them no other
protection from foreigners, than from the crimes of foreigners. Nor is it from all
crimes, that Government is bound to protect its subjects. It is from such only,
as are committed against their persons and possessions. Ingratitude is a crime:
but, as it is not of this class of crimes, Government is not to be cognizant of
it.
No protection does Government owe to the morals of its
subjects. Still less is it bound to study to promote their morals. To call on
Government to increase the wealth of its subjects, or to help the progress of
religion among them, or, in short, to promote any of their interests, is to
call on it to do that, which it has no right to do, and which, it is probably
safe to add, it has no power to do. Were Government to aim to secure to its
subjects the free and inviolable control of their persons and property — of
life and of the means of sustaining life — it would be aiming at all, that it
should aim at. And its subjects, if they get this security, should feel that
they need nothing more at the hands of Government to enable them to work their
way well through the world. Government, in a word, is to say to its subjects: “You
must do for yourselves. My only part is to defend your right to do for
yourselves. You must do your own work. I will but protect you in that work.”
That, the world over, Government is depended on to instruct,
improve, guide, and enrich its subjects, proves, that, the world over, there is
little confidence in the democratic doctrine of the people’s ability to take
care of themselves: and that the opposite doctrine, that the many must be taken
care of by the aristocratic and select few, is well nigh universally
entertained. The people’s lack of confidence in themselves is not only proved,
but it is accounted for, by this dependence on Government. This dependence of
the people on the policy, providence, and guidance of Government, as well in
peace as in war, has necessarily begotten in them a distrust of their ability
to take care of themselves.
One of the consequences of this self-distrust on the part of
the people is, that Government is employed, for the most part, in doing what it
belongs to the people to do. And one of the consequences of this illegitimate
work of Government is, that Government has become too great, and the people too
little — that Government has risen into undue prominence, and the people sunk
into undue obscurity. This is evident, wherever we look. The British Government
overshadows the British people, and is their master, instead of their servant.
It is in France as in Britain. The French Government owns, instead of being
owned by, the French people.
The people of every nation are annoyed, enthralled, debased
by this meddling of Government with the people’s duties! And never will the
liberty, dignity, and happiness of the people be what they should be, until the
people shall have risen up, and driven back Government from this meddling. In
other words, the people will never be in their proper place, and Government
will never be in its proper place, until the work of the people is done by the
people.
Whenever the work of the people is taken out of their hands
by the Government — or, since the people are quite as ready to shirk their
work, as Government is to usurp it — I might as well say, whenever the people
devolve it on Government, it is, of course, badly done. This is true, because
every work to be well done must be done by its appropriate agent. Whenever
Government builds railroads and canals, it builds them injudiciously and
wastefully. So too, whenever Government meddles with schools, it proves, that
it is out of its place by the pernicious influence it exerts upon them. And to
whatever extent churches are controlled by Government, to that extent are they
corrupted by it.
That Government does the work of the people badly is not,
however, my chief objection to this meddling. There are two other objections to
it, on which I lay greater stress than on this. One of these is — that
Government, being allowed to do the work of others, fails, for this reason, to
do its own work — or, in other words, being allowed to do what it should not
do, it fails to do what it should do. The other of these objections is, that
the doing by Government of the work of the people has the effect to degrade and
dwarf the people.
I said, that Government has naught to do, but to protect its
subjects from crimes. The crimes, however, which it permits against them — and,
still more, the crimes, which it authorizes, and even perpetrates against them,
show how extensively it fails of its duty. We will glance at a few of these
crimes.
Slavery is one of them.
And who needs to be told, that slavery is a crime? ay, the highest crime
against both the body and the soul. Nevertheless, Government, not only permits
its subjects to be enslaved, but it actually enacts laws for their enslavement.
Land monopoly is another
of these crimes. The right of every man to his needed share of the soil, is
as inborn, inalienable, and absolute, as his right to life itself: and the
world has suffered more wrong and wretchedness from the violations of this
right than it has even from slavery. Indeed, the robbing of men of their
liberty is but a consequence of robbing them of their land. The poverty and
impotence of the landless masses make them an inviting and easy prey of
slavery. The masses, who fall under the yoke of slavery, fall under it because
they are poor. Well does the Bible say: “The destruction of the poor is their
poverty.” But were the equal right to the soil practically acknowledged, there
would be no masses of poverty: and, hence, there would be little or no slavery —
almost certainly no slavery. Stupendous, however, and everywhere-practised
robbery, as is land monopoly, Government, nevertheless, does not forbid it.
Nay, it positively and expressly permits it. Still worse, it does itself
practise it. Government is itself the great land monopolist.
The compelling of one
generation to pay the debts of another is among these crimes. Government
not only suffers its subjects to be robbed of their earnings, in order to pay
the debts of former generations, but it actually compels them to submit to such
robbery.
There are wrongs done
to woman, which fall in this class of crimes. Such is the wrong of denying
her the right to control her property. Such is the wrong of denying her the
right to participate in the choice of civil rulers. But Government, so far from
defending these rights, does itself rob her of them.
The violation of the
right to buy and sell freely, whenever and wherever we please, is another of
these crimes. Government does, by its Tariffs, annihilate this right.
Now, why is it, that Government is engaged in all this, and,
also, in a still greater, variety of nefarious work? It is, because having been
allowed to neglect, and go beyond, its own proper and good work, no effectual
limits can be set to its improper and bad work. And our answer to the question,
why Government fails to perform its appropriate work of protecting its subjects
from crimes, is that its meddling with the work, which is not its own, has
unfitted it to appreciate and perform the work, which is its own. Let the
lawyer dabble with merchandise, and he will be like to lose both his relish and
his competency for his law business. Let the doctor annex to his province that
of the lawyer, and, ten to one, he will be more interested in his briefs than
in his pills. And, so too, if Government shall intrude itself into the province
of the people, and usurp the work of the people, one consequence of such
intrusion and usurpation will be its growing indifference and infidelity to its
own duties — to its own proper work. “Ne sutor ultra crepidam” is an adage
quite as applicable to Civil Government, as to an individual.
I referred to two of my objections to the meddling by
Government with the work of the people. One of them I have now explained; and I
need say no more to show, that it is well founded, and that the misdoing and
no-doing of the proper work of Government are a necessary consequence of its
meddling with the work of the people. Equally well founded is the other objection.
The unhappy effect on the Government is a no more certain consequence of this
meddling, than is its unhappy effect on the people.. The character of the
people suffers as much from it, as does the character of the Government. The
people, who consent to have their proper duties meddled with, and usurped by,
Government, are shrivelled in self respect and manly spirit, and are fast
tending to impotence. They are the servants and hangers-on of Government. They
are swallowed up by it. To a great extent this is true of every people, who
crave the guiding and sustaining hand of Government in their farming and
manufacturing; in their road-building and canal-building; in their schools and
churches. When smarting under the effect of their own follies, they will,
instead of manfully undertaking to retrieve themselves, invoke the help of
Government. What right-minded person has forgotten the humiliating spectacle,
which the American people presented, some fourteen years ago, when they cried
out to Government to relieve them of the consequences of that haste to be rich,
which had then been prevailing throughout our country? The National Executive
was implored: —— a special session of Congress was called for: — and all this,
because so many thousands had got swamped in corner-lot and other speculations!
There are several points, on which an explanation may,
perhaps, be desired of me.
1st. Do I mean, that
Government shall invariably and absolutely forbid slavery? Yes — as
invariably and absolutely, as it forbids murder. God no more creates men to be
enslaved than to be murdered. And that does not deserve the name of Civil
Government, which permits its subjects to be enslaved. And he is a pirate,
instead of a Civil Ruler, who lays his hand on men to enslave them. And that is
not law, but anti-law, which is enacted to reduce men to slavery, or to hold
them in slavery. Hence, they are pirates, mobocrats, and anarchists, who are
for the “Fugitive Slave law;” and they are law-abiding, who trample it under
foot.
Law is for the protection of rights. And they, who believe,
that enactments for the destruction of rights are law, know not what are the
elements of true law. The American people in their folly, and madness, and
devilishness, are busied, under their Fugitive Slave Law, in trying the
questions, whether this man and that man are slaves — whether this being and
that being, “made in the image of God,” are chattels and commodities. As well,
(and not one whit more blasphemously,) might they try the question, whether God
is entitled to His throne, or whether God shall be permitted to live. The
American people proudly imagine, that theirs is the highest style of Christian
civilization. And, yet, where shall we look for ranker atheism, or more revolting
features of barbarism?
2d. Do I mean, that
men have an equal right to the soil?
Yes — as equal as to the light and the air: and Government
should, without delay, prescribe the maximum quantity of land, which each
family may possess. In our country, as its population is so sparse, this
quantity might go as high as a couple of hundred acres. A century hence,
however, and the population may have increased so far, as to make it the duty
of Government to reduce this quantity to a hundred acres. Two centuries hence,
and it may, for a similar reason, be necessary to bring it as low as fifty acres.
The population in Ireland is already so dense, that not more than some ten or
twenty acres should be allowed to each family in that island.
To the question, whether I would have the landless claim
improved land, I answer — not until the stores of wild land are exhausted. The
people of Ireland should be put in immediate possession of the soil of Ireland,
“vested rights” to the contrary notwithstanding. In our country, such rights
may be spared, for a while longer. But the day is not distant, when, if they have
not been previously and peacefully disposed of by Homestead Exemption and Land
Limitation laws, they will be compelled to give way before that paramount
natural right to the soil, which inheres as fully in every man, as does his
right to himself.
3d. Do I mean, that a
People may repudiate their national debt? I do. The debt of Great Britain
is an average burden on each of her families of, say, one thousand dollars.
That of Holland imposes a greater burden. These debts are crushing. The masses
groan, and despair, and perish under them. All obligation to pay them should be
promptly disavowed. So far is the present generation from being morally bound
to lie under this burden, it is morally bound not to lie under it. No
generation is bound to begin its career under burdens. No generation is bound
to enter upon the race of life, incumbered with the dead weights of debt, which
former generations have entailed upon it. On the contrary, if it would fill its
page in the world’s history with usefulness and honor, (and no less than this
does God require of it,) it must insist on having a free and a fair start.
But we are told, that a national debt is incurred in
carrying on patriotic wars. To this we reply, that wars, which the people, who
are carrying them on, believe to be just, they are willing to pay for: and
that, therefore, every generation may, reasonably, be expected, and required,
to pay for its own wars. Far fewer would be wars, if they, who wage them, had
to pay for them. Had President Polk sent round the hat for contributions to
carry on the Mexican war, the sum total would have been insufficient to pay for
one volley. His noisiest partizans and the most bloated patriots would have
cast in not more than Sixpence apiece. They loved the war; but they would have
others pay for it. They delighted in the entertainment; since it was to be left
to others to bear the expense of it. Right glad were they of a chance to dance;
if others could be compelled to pay the fiddler.
What, however, it is asked, if the national debt has been
created, or increased, by expenditures on “internal improvements” — such as
railroads and canals? We answer, that each generation must be left free to
choose what wars it will engage in, and, also, what canals and roads it will
build: — with the proviso, nevertheless, as well in the one case, as in the
other, that it shall pay, as it goes — or, to say the least, that if it makes
debts, it shall pay them. But, it may be said, that a single generation, could
not build and pay for, an Erie Canal. Then, let one generation build it as far
West as Utica ; and the next extend it to Rochester; and the next to Buffalo.
But, whether it shall be built by one, or by several, generations, let
Government have no part in building it — let not Government be the owner of it,
or of any canal, or of any railroad. Were there no other objection to such
ownership, it is sufficient, that it puts into the hands of Government a power
and a patronage of corrupting influence on both the Government and the people.
No small objection to such ownership is, that it occasions so much legislation,
and consumes so much of the time of our public councils. (Let it not be
inferred from what I have here said, that I would not have our State finish its
canals. It should finish them with the least possible delay, or sell them. It
has no moral right to keep them unfinished any longer than is necessary.)
Pennsylvania owes forty millions of dollars for her State
works. They cannot be sold for one-third of that sum. Now, to compel the
payment of the remaining two-thirds from any other generation than the one, which
had the fingering of the moneys, that these works cost — than the one, whose
demagogues and log-rollers contrived and carried forward these works—is
downright robbery. Nevertheless, these demagogues and logrollers were regarded,
in their day, as the benefactors of posterity. Pretty benefactions to posterity
are those, which posterity has to pay for! and which are generally worth less
than half their cost!
A conclusive objection to national debts is the vast
increase of Governmental power, which they occasion. Without reflection, one
might say, that Government is weak in proportion to the amount of debt, which
the nation owes. But, with reflection, he will say, that Government is strong
in proportion to such amount. It is true, that the nation is weak in proportion
to the extent of the national debt — but it does not follow, that the Government
is. The debt due from a nation is a mortgage upon all its wealth and industry.
Now, the collecting of this debt is in the hands of the Government. All the
persons employed in collecting it are servants of Government. All the power
wielded in collecting it is power of the Government — as much so, as if the
Government were the creditor, as well as the collector. If, then, the power of
Government is to be kept within due limits, the nation must be kept out of
debt.
4th. Do I mean to be
understood condemning all Tariffs? I do. I would not have a Custom-House on
the face of the earth. But, what if our nation should grow rich with a Tariff,
and poor without it? Then, let it grow poor. Whatever may be the effect on its
wealth, every nation is to cultivate the freest, fullest, friendliest
intercourse with every other nation. The nations of the earth constitute, and
should feel, that they constitute, a brotherhood. But, restrictions on trade
build up frowning barriers across this brotherhood, and are fruitful sources of
estrangement and war. In the words of the poet, they
“Make enemies of
nations, who had else
Like kindred drops
been mingled into one.”
Great, very great, is the crime of Government in imposing
these restrictions. Would I send a barrel of flour to the starving family of my
Canadian brother? Would he send a roll of cloth to my freezing family? The
arresting, by an individual, of this mutual beneficence would be held by all to
be very criminal. But the arresting of it by Government is surely no less
criminal. The case here supposed is one, which fairly illustrates the
inhumanity and irreligion of Tariffs.
But the profit, the profit, of Tariffs is still urged upon
our regards. We deny the fact of such profit. We believe, that, even in a
pecuniary point of view, truth and justice and benevolence are gain. What,
however, were we convinced of such profit? We must not suffer ourselves to be
influenced by it. Even to look upon it, is to expose ourselves to be seduced
from our opposition to the inhumanity and sin of Tariffs. We must not go so far
into the way of temptation, as even to contemplate a motive for doing wrong.
The bare contemplation of the motive may bring us to yield to its power, and to
do the wrong.
What can be more unjust than Tariff-taxation? Instead of
taxing the rich, in proportion to their riches, it taxes the poor, in
proportion to their poverty. That they are thus taxed is obvious. For the poor
man is poor, in proportion to the number of children he has to bring up; and,
in that proportion, is the amount of Tariff-taxed supplies, which he needs for
their subsistence. It often occurs, that a poor man pays, under
Tariff-taxation, a greater amount of taxes than a rich man pays under it. One-quarter
of the wealth of the nation pays a greater amount of Tariff-taxes than do the
other three-quarters.
In addition to what we have said, is the consideration, that
Tariff-taxes are so much greater than would be the direct taxes in their stead.
We now pay, even in time of peace, thirty millions a year to defray the
expenses of the General Government. Let its expenses, however, be defrayed by
direct taxes, and the thirty millions would be brought down to three:—and,
moreover, the South would pay, far more nearly than now, her full proportion of
the nation’s taxes. We have spoken of the reduction of taxes in time of peace.
What would be the reduction in time of war we scarcely need estimate: for when
direct taxes shall have come into the place of Tariff-taxes, and the expenses
of war shall, as well as other national expenses, have to be met by direct
taxes, there will, probably, be no war.
Never, never, will there be an honest or frugal Government,
until it is sustained by direct taxation: — for never, never, will the people
be duly watchful of the conduct of Government, until the cost of Government
shall be directly felt by them.
The Government, which taxes the poor, as this Government
taxes them, is a robber of the poor, instead of discharging the Governmental
duty of protecting the poor.
And I would not be content with the mode of taxation, which
the free-trade men propose. They ask, that the people shall be taxed according
to their property. But I ask for a still further concession to justice and
humanity. I ask, that they shall be taxed according to their ability. Now, his
ability to pay taxes, who has ten times as much property as his poor neighbor,
is not but ten fold as great. It is infinitely greater. The poor man, Who has
but two hundred dollars a year, on which to subsist his family, pays his taxes
from the little store, every copper of which is urgently negded for their
subsistence. But, the rich man by his side, whose income is two thousand
dollars a year, pays his taxes from his superfluity. Equity and fraternity do,
therefore, claim, that this rich man should pay taxes both for himself and his
poor neighbor.
I close my argument with regard to Tariffs by remarking,
that if Government will, at all events, sustain and enrich the manufacturers
against foreign competition, it should do so by giving them bounties. These
bounties I would, of course, have produced by assessments on property, or
rather on ability, instead of taxes on consumption.
5th. Do I meant, that
Government shall have nothing to do with Schools? I do. In this country,
nearly every person admits, that Government should not have aught to do with
churches. Why, then, should it have aught to do with schools? Because, says the
answerer, schools are the places, in which to get education, whilst churches
are the places, in which to get religion. But, in the esteem of many of us,
there is great danger, that the education will prove worthless, nay positively
and frightfully pernicious, which does not include religion; which is not, at
every step of its progress, blended with religion, and identical with religion,
and designed to promote religion. Moreover, in the esteem of many of us, the
school, in its legitimate use, is, quite as emphatically as even the church
itself, the place to get religion. Our school-years constitute that impressible
period of life, which is far more hopeful than any or all after years to the
plastic hand of the religious teacher. How important, then, that the
school-teacher — that every schoolteacher — be also a religious teacher! Is it
said, that religion can be taught during our school-years, and yet not in
school?
We admit, that it can: — but it will be with comparatively
little hope of success, unless it be taught in school also. Is it said, that
religion may be gotten, after our school-years are ended? But, not to say, that
the heart may, by that time, be imperviously and forever closed against
religion, there is but too much reason to fear, that the religion, which is
gotten after our school-years are ended, will, in general, be found to be a
picked-up, superficial, and easily-parted-with religion, contrasting very
widely, in this respect, with the religion of childhood — with the religion,
which incorporates itself with, and becomes an inseparable part of, the very
being of its possessor. Certain it is, as a general truth, that the religion,
which we would fasten in the heart,
must be put there in childhood. Do we wonder, that the Roman Catholic is so
tenacious of his religion? We will not, if we reflect, that he imbibed it in
his childhood. Do we wonder, that Roman Catholics are so strenuously opposed to
our common school system? We will not, if we reflect, how deeply they believe
in their religion, and how determined they are to imbue everything with it, and
how conscientiously opposed they are, therefore, to excluding school-hours, or
any portion of school-hours, from the influence of religion. And, in all this,
Roman Catholics are right. And, in compelling them to uphold a system of
education, which is an infidel system, or which, to say the least, is, to
whatever extent it is religious, opposed to their religion, they are cruelly
wronged. We call it an infidel system: — and such it virtually is. For, at the
most, it contemplates but the toleration, instead of the inculcation, of
religion: — and, what is more, it will not even tolerate any other than a
conventional and nominal religion. What positive and earnest religion there is
among the people of a school district must, so far as the school is concerned,
be held in abeyance. Were such a religion allowed to enter our district
schools, it would break them up. The doctrine, that “a man’s a man,” whatever
his condition, or color, is an essential, fundamental religious doctrine: — and
I add, that the current religion of our country is spurious, because it lacks
the practical recognition of this doctrine. Now, the honest and hearty attempt
to teach this doctrine in our district schools would be resisted to the last
degree. It would be held to be a gross and unendurable violation of that
religious neutrality, which is a confessed part — nay, the very corner-stone — of
the common school structure. The instance has occurred in my own county, where
the presence of an antislavery book in the school-library produced great
commotion. It was voted out. I have heard of warm indignation in an adjoining
county at the discovery in a school-library of William Jay’s history of the
Mexican war. The proslavery histories of that war are welcome to our school-libraries.
But William Jay’s is an antislavery history. The common school compromise in
regard to religion tolerates proslavery, but not antislavery. The common school
neutrality in regard to religion permits the praising, but not the condemning,
of our war against Mexico.
A popular argument for Government or district schools is,
that they are a cheap police. I admit, that good schools are. And so are good
churches. Why, then, should not Government take upon itself the care of the
churches, as well as of the schools? And since good family-government is, also,
a cheap police, and a thousand fold more important to this end than either
schools or churches, or both put together, why should not Government take under
its supervision our family affairs also? In this cheap-police plea for
Government schools, there is, at least, one thing taken for granted, which
should not be. It is, that without the help of Government, there would not be
schools, or, at least, not so many: whereas the probability is, that, were
there no interference of Government, our schools would not only be better than
they now are, but quite as numerous also.
It is asked — what will the poor do to get their children
educated, in case Government aid is withdrawn? We answer, let them do anything
rather than hang upon Government for an education — for an education, which,
because it is Governmental, is emasculated of all positive, earnest, hearty
religion — for an education, in which, because it is Governmental, the
substance of morality is exchanged for the show of morality — and in which what
is honest and uncompromising and robust and manly in character is made to give
place to pusillanimity, effeminacy, calculation, baseness.
The Government of Prussia sees to it, that the children of
Prussia are educated. Nevertheless, it forbids them, when educated, to exercise
their education on certain proscribed topics. But, how much worse is this than
the system of education, which shuts out vital topics, and the stern demands of
principle from the process of education? If my child may not, whilst in the
course of his education, be freely instructed in the most radical political and
moral truths, and in the duty of their most faithful application, the chances
are a hundred to one, that he will not relish such instruction in after years.
And, if he has not, whilst in school, been permitted and encouraged to be true
to his convictions, the strong probability is, that he will be false to them in
subsequent life. Not having been allowed to be a true boy, he will not prove to
be a true man. Why is it, that the great mass of the people in this land are
ready to make, and uphold laws for chasing down and enslaving the poor? It is
because they were taught no better in their childhood. It is because they were
cursed with a compromising education. New England boasts much of her common
schools. But, what have her people learned in them? To spell, read, write, and
cipher, is the answer. But have they learned in them to respect and uphold
human rights? They have not. On the contrary, they have learned in them to use
their spelling, reading, writing and ciphering, against human rights. It is but
a day or two since, that an innocent man was sent publicly from the very
capital of New England to the doom of perpetual slavery. This single fact is a
sufficient reply to all the beasts of New England schools. The people, who can
perpetrate such a crime, are badly educated, and their schools — not to say
churches also — are worse than worthless. Is it said, that they consented to
this most atrocious sacrifice of their fellow man out of their respect to law?
This apology for their case only makes it worse. The people, who can respect as
law, who can even know as law, that, which calls for the most horrible form of
murder, are, beyond all doubt, educated more into folly than into wisdom, more
into falsehood than into truth, more into demons than into men, more into
fitness for the society of the under than the upper world. I will not believe
all this of our New England brethren. Hence, I will not accept the apology for
them, to which I have here referred.
I think it was the mighty John Knox of Scotland, who
inscribed over his door: “Love God with all thine heart and thy neighbor as
thyself.” Ah, how much better off would New England be, though without so much
as one Government school, but with this inscription over her every door and
upon her every heart, than she is with all her fulness of learning, and her
equal fulness of moral cowardice and of treachery to God and man! But this
universal inscription she will never have, so long as her schools are founded
on an accommodating policy in respect to fundamental morality, and on that compromise
between righteousness and wickedness, which “splits the difference ” between
God and the Devil.
Do not suppose from what I have said, that I believe New
England to be worse than other parts of our country. I believe her to be quite
as good, as any other part of our country.
I have, now, given one answer to the question — what will
the poor do to get their children educated, in case Government aid is
withdrawn? I have another to give to it. It is, that if Government will protect
its subjects in their natural and absolute right to personal liberty, and to
the soil, and to buy and sell where they please, and to choose their civil
rulers — there will be but few poor.
What, however, if these few poor should be tenfold as
numerous, as I suppose they would be — nay, even as numerous as the present
poor? — private benevolence would, nevertheless, make abundant educational
provision for them. The voluntary principle is found to be sufficient in the
case of churches. Why should it be distrusted in the case of schools? But, it
has proved itself worthy of reliance in the case of schools. The free gifts
made in New England and New York to aid the cause of education would not
compare unfavorably in amount with what the laws extort for this object.
If there are poor to be helped, it is voluntary, and not
compelled help, that they need. Compelled help is of little worth either to the
helper or the helped. Such help is not the twice blessed mercy, of which the
great poet speaks:—
“It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”
Whether, however, our schools, if left, as are our churches,
to the voluntary principle, would be sustained or not, I, nevertheless, protest
against the doctrine of compelling men to sustain them. Compulsion to this end
is, as I view schools, and as ten thousand others view them, a no less
invasion, and a no less offensive invasion, of the rights of conscience and of
the liberty of religion, than is the compelled support of churches. In our
esteem, the school is, in its true character, as fully identified with
religion, as is the church: and, hence, when Government interferes with the
school, it makes itself, in our esteem, as obnoxious to the charge of meddling
with religion, as when it interferes with the church.
My concern respecting the compelled support of schools is
not for the religious man only. It is for the infidel also. If I would not have
the Roman Catholic compelled to support schools, whose religion is repugnant to
his own, neither would I have the infidel compelled to support schools of any
religion. The rights of the infidel are to be held as sacred, as the rights of
the christian: and Government is to leave both infidels and christians at full
liberty to build up such schools, as they may respectively prefer.
But, it is said, that our schools will be as diversified and
sectarian, as our churches, if Government, instead of insisting on running them
all into the Government-mold, and making them all after one pattern, shall
allow its subjects to have whatever variety of schools they will. In the name
of consistency then, why not set Government at work to purge our churches of
sectarianism? Now, I admit, that sectarianism, whether in schools or in
churches, is a very pernicious error. But I deny, that it is an error, which
Government is either to correct, or prevent. Government has nothing at all to
do with it.
I do not object to charity — though, I confess, that I do
not think there would be much occasion for it, were Government to do its part
toward a right construction of society. Charity does not cure the ills, which
spring from our false social state. It is but a present, and a very superficial
palliation of them. Our eleemosynary institutions are busy with the leaves,
instead of striking at the roots, of our multiform disorders.
But, though I do not object to all charity, I am totally
opposed to charity at the hands of Government. It is justice, and not charity,
which the people need at the hands of Government. Let Government restore to
them their land, and what other rights they have been robbed of, and they will,
then, be able to pay for themselves — to pay their schoolmasters as well as
their parsons. The best way to defend Government for undertaking to educate the
children of the poor is on the ground, that this is a slight return for its
robberies of the poor. The highwayman does, sometimes, compound with his
conscience by giving back enough of the spoil to furnish his victim with a
supper, or a night’s lodging. But better than all such generosity of the
Government and the highwayman would be their ceasing from their robberies.
I said, it is justice, and not charity, which the people
need at the hands of Government. Ay, one crumb of justice is worth more than a
whole loaf of charity. I would have the people delivered from all necessity of
begging. But, so long as they must beg, let them beg, not of Government, but of
one another. Let them never consent to gather into groups of mendicants around
the almsgiving hand of Government. It is the of Government, which bribe the
people into acquiescence in the loss of their rights — of the very rights,
which Government is bound to maintain, but of which it has robbed them — or
suffered others to rob them. What is worse, these gifts to the people have the
power to blind the people to their loss. They are robbed, without knoowing,
that they are robbed.
The last thing, which I have to say on the subject of
schools, is to refer to the fact, that the American people are ever and deeply
deprecating the union of Church and State. I admit, that they cannot deprecate
it too earnestly, or too constantly. It is among the greatest of all evils.
But, let me here say, that every admitted interference of Government with the
duties and business of the people, is a step toward its union with the church,
since every such interference prepares the way for another. I add, that the
union of Government with the common school is a step, which lacks but one more
step of bringing the Government into union with the church: and I add, that this
lacking step would soon be taken, if the people had a common religious faith.
It is the intolerant diversity of their religious belief — or, in other words,
their division into sects — which saves the people of this nation from the
union of Church and State. The common impression, that there is an invincible
repugnance among us to the union of Church and State — to the thing itself — is
not founded in truth. The man, who is willing to have Government sustain, and
take care of the schools, can easily be made willing to have it sustain and
take care of the churches also; provided only, that the churches are of his
faith. Were this a Catholic, or Presbyterian, or Baptist, or Methodist, or an
Episcopalian nation — that is to say, were the mass of the people of one religious
creed — and were the present false views of the office of Government still to
obtain — the nation would speedily be cursed with a union of Church and State.
Let it not be inferred, from what I have here said, that I regard sectarianism,
in any case, as a good. I have before condemned it. I now add, that it is an
unmixed evil. It is “only evil continually.” A crime against Christ and the
christian brotherhood is it to go into any sect whatever. By Divine
arrangement, the christians of a place are the church of such place. Very
presumptuous and guilty therefore are they, who would supplant this with a
human arrangement. All, that can be said in favor of sectarianism in the
present instance is, that it is one evil counteracting another — one disease
preventing another.
The truth is, that Government has got into the sanctuary of
the people’s business and interests; and, that, whilst it is suffered to be
there, no limits can be set to its meddling and mischief. To-day, it lays its
hand upon the school. To-morrow, it lays it on the church. The only safety
consists in expelling the intruder from this sanctuary, and in keeping him
outside of it, where he may stand sentinel to it, and so fulfil the only office
of Civil Government.
I said, that the only province of Government is to protect
from crimes the persons and possessions of its subjects. Some of you may think,
that this is making the province of Government too narrow to include all its
duties. But, which of its duties would be left outside of these limits?
Perhaps, it will be asked, if the duty of abolishing the traffic in
intoxicating drinks would not be. I answer, that it would not. I ask Government
to abolish this traffic, not because I would have Government enact sumptuary
laws — for I would not. Nay, I go so far, as to say, that if the drinkers of
intoxicating liquors would do no more than kill themselves, I would not have
Government interfere with their indulgence. It is murder, not suicide, that I
would have Government concern itself with. Nor do I ask Government to abolish
this traffic, because I hold, that Government is charged with the care of the
public morals. As I have already shown you, I hold to no such thing. Why I ask
Government to abolish this traffic is because it is fraught directly,
immensely, necessarily, with wide and awful peril to person and property.
Neither property, nor life, is safe from the presumption, the blindness, and
the fury of the drunken maniac. The drunken driver upsets the stage. The drunken
engineer blows up the steamboat. It is a drunkard, who has ravished our wife,
or daughter, or sister. It is a drunkard, who has burned our dwelling. It is a
drunkard, who has murdered our family.
What is a crime then, if the traffic in intoxicating drinks is
not one? And what crime is there, from which Government should be more prompt
to shelter the persons and possessions of its subjects?
Perhaps, it will be asked, whether Government, under my
definition of its province, would be at liberty to carry the mail; build
asylums; improve harbors; and build light-houses? I answer, that nothing of all
this is, necessarily, the work of Government. The mail can be carried, as well
without, as with, the help of Government. Some of the best and most extensive
asylums in our country are those with which Government has nothing to do. And
the interest and humanity of individuals and communities might be relied on to
improve harbors and build light-houses, as well as to keep bridges and roads in
repair. I admit, that harbors and light-houses are an indispensable protection
to life and property, and that the failure to supply them is a crime against
mankind, and a crime, of which Government should be cognizant. But Government
would, probably, never have to compel the merchants of Portland and Boston and
New Bedford &c., to supply the New England coast with harbors and
light-houses. It certainly would not, were it to allow them the privilege of
imposing a reasonable tax for these securities on the vessels, that enjoy them.
And, here, let me add, that, inasmuch as Government has undertaken their care
and improvement, and supplied itself, at the people’s expense, with the means
therefor, the neglected condition of the harbors upon our lakes is among the
evidences, that ours is a faithless and dishonest Government.
I close with saying, that the work of Civil Government is
not so much to take care of its subjects, as to leave them in circumstances, in
which they may take care of themselves: — and not so much to govern its
subjects, as to leave them free to govern themselves. Civil Government is to
hold a shield over the heads of its subjects, beneath which they may, in safety
from one another, and from all others, pursue their respective callings, and
discharge their respective duties. Whilst confining itself to this employment,
it is a blessing above all praise — above all price. But, when it forsakes its
own work to usurp that of the people; and, especially, when, as it has been
recently known to do, it arrays itself against the great and holy God, who
ordained Civil Government, and blasphemously enacts laws, which are opposed to
His laws, then is it a curse and a monster, which deserves to be hated with all
our hatred, and resisted at every hazard.
SOURCES: Gerrit Smith, The True Office of Civil Government:
A Speech in the City of Troy, p. 5-30; Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit
Smith: A Biography, p. 181-4
