THE WORKS OF ORESTES A. BROWNSON. VOLUME XVIII

THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC-PREFACE,

I. INTRODUCTION,

II. GOVERNMENT,

III. ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT....1

IV. ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT-CONTINUED,

V. ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT-CONTINUED,

VI. ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT-CONCLUDED,

VII. CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT,

VIII. CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT-CONCLUDED, 88

IX. THE UNITED STATES. 100

X. CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, 113

XI. CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES-CONCLUDED, 126

XII. SECESSION, 143

XIII. RECONSTRUCTION,

XIV. POLITICAL TENDENCIES, 177

XV. DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS, 199

THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE, 223

CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES,

THE EXECUTIVE POWER,

THE NATIVE AMERICANS,

THE KNOW NOTHINGS-ARTICLE

• 246

269

281

I, 300

II, 338

"

III, 357

THE WOMAN QUESTION-ARTICLE I, 381

II, 398

THE ROMAN QUESTION, • 418

SARDINIA AND ROME, 431

SARDINIAAND THE HOLY FATHER, 445

RECENT EVENTS IN EUROPE, 466

THERECENT EVENTS IN FRANCE, 481

EUROPEAN POLITICS, 502

THE POLITICAL STATE OF THE COUNTRY, 520

AT HOME AND ABROAD, 535

THE POLITICAL OUTLOOK, 546

THE OUTLOOK AT HOME AND ABROAD, 562

HOME POLITICS, 57

CHAPTER XIV.-POLITICAL TENDENCIES.

THE most marked political tendency of the American people has been, since 1825, to interpret their government as apure and simple democracy, and to shift it from a ter- ritorial to a purely popular basis, or from the people as the state, inseparably united to the national territory or domain, to the people as simply population, either as individuals or as the race. Their tendency has unconsciously, therefore, been to change their constitution from a republican to a despotic, or from a civilized to a barbaric constitution.

The American constitution is democratic, in the sense that the people are sovereign ; that all laws and public acts run in their name; that the rulers are elected by them, and are responsible to them; but they are the people territori- ally constituted and fixed to the soil, constituting what Mr. Disraeli, with more propriety perhaps than he thinks, calls a " territorial democracy." To this territorial democracy, the real American democracy, stand opposed two other democracies-the one personal and the other humanitarian -each alike hostile to civilization, and tending to destroy the state, and capable of sustaining government only on principles common to all despotisms. 

In every man there is a natural craving for personal free- dom and unrestrained action-a strong desire to be himself, not another-to be his own master, to go when and where he pleases, to do what he chooses, to take what he wants, wherever he can find it, and to keep what he takes. It is strong in all nomadic tribes, who are at once pastoral and predatory, and is seldom weak in our bold frontier-men, too often real " border ruffians." It takes different forms in different stages of social development, but it everywhere identifies liberty with power. Restricted in its enjoyment to one man, it makes him chief, chief of the family, the tribe, or the nation ; extended in its enjoyment to the few, it founds an aristocracy, creates a nobility for nobleman meant originally only freeman, as it does still with the Magyars ; extended to the many, it founds personal democracy, a simple association of individuals, in which all are equally free and independent, and no restraint is imposed on any one's action, will, or inclination, without his own consent, express or constructive. This is the so-called Jeffersonian democracy, in which government has no powers but such as it derives from the consent of the governed, and is personal democracy or pure individualism-philosophically sidered, pure egoism, which says, " I am God." Under this sort of democracy, based on popular, or rather individual sovereignty, expressed bypoliticians when they call the elec- toral people, half seriously, half mockingly, "the sover- eigns," there obviously can be no state, no social rights or civil authority ; there can be only a voluntary association, league, alliance, or confederation, in which individuals may freely act together as long as they find it pleasant, conven- ient, or useful, but from which they may separate or secede whenever they find it for their interest or their pleasure to do so. State sovereignty and secession are based on the same democratic principle applied to the several states of the Union instead of individuals.

The tendency of this sort of democracy has been strong in large sections of the American people from the first, and has been greatly strengthened by the general acceptance of the theory that government originates in compact. The full realization of this tendency, which, happily is impracticable save in theory, would be to render every man independent alike of every other man and of society, with full right and power to make his own will prevail. This tendency was strongest in the slaveholding states, and especially, in those states, in the slaveholding class, which were the American imitation of the feudal nobility of medieval Europe; and on this side the war just ended was, in its most general expres- sion, a war in defence of personal democracy, or the sover- eignty of the people individually, against the humanitarian democracy, represented by the abolitionists, and the terri- torial democracy, represented by the government. This personal democracy has been signally defeated in the defeat of the late confederacy, and can hardly again become strong enough to be dangerous. 

But the humanitarian democracy, which scorns all geo- graphical lines, effaces all individualities, and professes to plant itself on humanity alone, has acquired by the war new strength, and is not without menace to our future. The solidarity of the race, which is the condition of all human life, founds, as we have seen, society, and creates what are called social rights, the rights alike of society in regard to individuals, and of individuals in regard to society. Terri- torial divisions or circumscriptions found particular socie- ties, states, or nations ; yet as the race is one, and all its members live by communion with God through it and by communion one with another, these particular states or na- tions are never absolutely independent of each other, but bound together by the solidarity of the race, so that there is a real solidarity of nations as well as of individuals the truth underlying Kossuth's famous declaration of " the solidarity of peoples." 

The solidarity of nations is the basis of international law, binding on every particular nation, and which every civil- ized nation recognizes, and enforces on its own subjects or citizens, through its own courts, as an integral part of its own municipal or national law. The personal or individual right is therefore restricted by the rights of society, and the rights of the particular society or nation are limited by in- ternational law, or the rights of universal society-the truth the ex-governor of Hungary overlooked. The grand error of gentilism was in denying the unity and therefore the solidarity of the race, involved inits denial or misconception of the unity of God. It therefore was never able to assign any solid basis to international law, and gave it only a con- ventional or customary authority, thus leaving the jus gen- tium, which it recognized indeed, without any real founda- tion in the constitution of things, or authority in the real world. Its real basis is in the solidarity of the race, which has its real basis in the unity of God, not the dead or abstract unity asserted by the old Eleatics, the Neo-Platonists, or the modern Unitarians, but the living unity consisting in the threefold relation in the divine essence, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as asserted by Christian revelation, and be- lieved, more or less intelligently, by all Christendom.

The tendency of the southern states has been to overlook the social basis of the state, or the rights of society founded on the solidarity of the race, and to make all rights and powers personal, or individual; and as only the white race has been able to assert and maintain its personal freedom, only men of that race are held to have the right to be free. Hence the people of those states felt no scruple inholding the black or colored race as slaves. Liberty, said they, is the right only of those who have the ability to assert and maintain it. Let the negro prove that he has this ability by asserting and maintaining his freedom, and he will prove his right to be free, and that it is a gross outrage, a manifest in- justice, to enslave him ; but, till then,let him be myservant, which is best for him and for me. Whyask me to free him ? I shall by doing so onlychange the form of his servitude. Why appeal to me ? AmI my brother's keeper ? Nay, is he my brother ? Is this negro, more like an ape or a baboon than ahuman being, of the same race with myself? I be- lieve it not. But in some instances at least, my dear slave- holder, your slave is literally your brother, and sometimes even your son, born of your own daughter. The tendency of the southern democrat was to deny the unity of the race, as well as all obligations of society to protect the weak and helpless, and therefore all true civil society. 

At the North there has been, and is even yet, an opposite tendency-a tendency to exaggerate the social element, to overlook the territorial basis of the state, and to disregard the rights of individuals. This tendency has been and is strong inthe people called abolitionists. The American ab- olitionist is so engrossed with the unity that he loses the solidarity of the race, which supposes unity of race and mul- tiplicity of individuals ; and fails to see any thing legitimate and authoritative in geographical divisions or territorial cir- cumscriptions. Back of these, back of individuals, he sees humanity, superior to individuals, superior to states, govern- ments, and laws, and holds that he maytrample on them all or give them to the winds at the call of humanity or " the high- er law." The principle on which he acts is as indefensible as the personal or egoistical democracy of the slaveholders and their sympathizers. Were his socialistic tendency to become exclusive and realized, it would found in the name of humanity a complete social despotism, which, proving impracticable from its very generality, would break up in anarchy, in which might makes right, as in the slaveholder's democracy. 

The abolitionists, in supporting themselves on humanity in its generality, regardless of individual and territorial rights, can recognize no state,no civil authority, and there- fore are as much out of the order of civilization, and as much in that of barbarism, as is the slaveholder himself. Wendell Phillips is as far removed from true Christian civ- ilization as was John C. Calhoun, and William Lloyd Gar- rison is as much of abarbarian and despot in principle and tendency as Jefferson Davis. Hence the great body of the people in the non-slaveholding states, wedded to American democracy as they were and are, could never, as much as they detested slavery, be induced to make common cause with the abolitionists, and their apparent union in the late civil warwas accidental, simply owing to the fact that for the time the social democracy and the territorial coincided, or had the same enemy. The great body of the loyal people instinctively felt that pure socialism is as incompatible with American democracy as pureindividualism ; and the aboli- tionists a well aware that slavery has been abolished, not for humanitarian or socialistic reasons, but really for reasons of state, in order to save the territorial democracy. The ter- ritorial democracywould not unite to eliminate even so bar- baric an element as slavery, till the rebellion gave them the constitutional right to abolish it; and even then so scrupu- lous were they, that they demanded a constitutional amend-ment, so as to be able to make clean work of it, without any blow to individual or state rights. 

The abolitionists were right in opposing slavery, but not in demanding its abolition on humanitarian or socialistic grounds. Slavery is really a barbaric element, and is in di- rect antagonism to American civilization. The whole force of the national life opposes it, and must finally eliminate it, or become itself extinct; and it is no mean proof of their ntter want of sympathy with all the living forces ofmodern civilization, that the leading men of the South and their prominent friends at the North really persuaded themselves that with cotton, rice, and tobacco, they could effectually re- sist the anti- slavery movement, and perpetuate their bar- baric democracy. They studied the classics, they admired Greece and Rome, and imagined that those nations became great by slavery, instead of being great even in spite of slavery. They failed to take into the account the fact that when Greece and Rome were in the zenith of their glory, all contemporary nations were also slaveholding nations, and that if they were the greatest and most highly civilized na- tions of their times, they were not fitted to be the greatest and most highly civilized nations of all times. They failed also to perceive that, if the Græco-Roman republic did not include the whole territorial people in the political people, it yet recognized both the social and the territorial founda- tion of the state, and never attempted to rest it on pure in- dividualism ; they forgot, too, that Greece and Rome both fell, and fell precisely through internal weakness caused by the barbarism within, not through the force of the barba- rism beyond their frontiers. The world has changed since the time when ten thousand of his slaves were sacrificed as a religious offering to the manes of a single Roman master. The infusion of the Christian dogma of the unity and soli- darity of the race into the belief, the life, the laws, the juris- prudence of all civilized nations, has doomed slavery and every species of barbarism; but this our slaveholding coun- trymen saw not. 

It rarely happens that in any controversy, individual or national, the real issue is distinctly presented, or the pre- cise question in debate is clearly and distinctly understood by either party. Slavery was only incidentally involved in the late war. The war was occasioned by the collision of two extreme parties ; but it was itself a war between civil- ization and barbarism, primarily between the territorial democracy and the personal democracy, and in reality, on the part of the nation, as muchawar against the socialism of the abolitionist as against the individualism ofthe slaveholder. Yet the victory, though complete over the former, is only half won over the latter, for it has left the humanitarian democracy standing, and perhaps for the moment stronger than ever. The socialistic democracy was enlisted by the territorial, not to strengthen the government at home, as it imagines, for that it did not do, and could not do, since the national instinct was even more opposed to it than to the per- sonal democracy; but under its anti-slavery aspect, to soften the hostility of foreign powers, and ward off foreign inter- vention, which was seriously threatened. The populations of Europe, especially of France and England, were decid- edly anti-slavery, and if the war here appeared to them a war, not solely for the unity of the nation and the integrity of its domain, as it really was, inwhich they took and could take no interest, but a war for the abolition of slavery, their governments would not venture to intervene. This was the only consideration that weighed with Mr. Lincoln, as he himself assured the author, and induced him to issue his emancipation proclamation ; and Europe rejoices in our victory over the rebellion only so far as it has liberated the slaves, and honors the late president only as their supposed liberator, not as the preserver of the unity and integrity of the nation. This is natural enough abroad, and proves the wisdom of the anti-slavery policy of the government, which had become absolutely necessary to save the republic long before it was adopted; yet it is not as the emancipator of some two or three millions of slaves that the American patriot cherishes the memory of Abraham Lincoln, but, aided by the loyal people, generals of rare merit, and troops of unsurpassed bravery and endurance, as the saviour of the American state, and the protector of modern civilization. His anti-slavery policy served this end, and therefore was wise, but he adopted it with the greatest possible reluctance. 

There were greater issues in the late war than negro sla- very or negro freedom. That was only an incidental issue, as the really great men of the confederacy felt, who to save their cause were willing themselves at last to free and arm their own negroes, and perhaps were willing to do it even at first. This fact alone proves that they had, or believed they had, a far more important cause than the preservation of negro slavery. They fought for personal democracy,under the form of state sovereignty, against social democ- racy ; for personal freedom and independence against so- cial or humanitarian despotism ; and so far their cause was as good as that against which they took up arms ; and if they had or could have fought against that, without fight- ing at the same time against the territorial, the real Amer- ican, the only civilized democracy, they would have suc- ceeded. It is not socialism nor abolitionism that has won ; nor is it the North that has conquered. The Union itself has won no victories over the South, and it is both histori- cally and legally false to say that the South has been sub- jugated. The Union has preserved itself and American civ- ilization, alike for North and South, East and West. The armies that so often met in the shock of battle were not drawn up respectively by the North and South, but by two rival democracies, to decide which of the two should rule the future. They were the armies of two mutually antag- onistic systems, and neither army was clearly and distinctly conscious of the cause for which it was shedding its blood ; each obeyed instinctively a power stronger than itself, and which at best it but dimly discerned. On both sides the cause was broader and deeper than negro slavery, and neither the pro-slavery men nor the abolitionists have won. territorial democracy alone has won, and won what will prove to be a final victory over the purely personal de- mocracy, which had its chief seat in the southern states, though by no means confined to them. The danger to American democracy from that quarter is forever removed, and democracy à la Rousseau has received a terrible de- feat throughout the world, though as yet it is far from be- ing aware of it. 

 But in this world victories are never complete. The socialistic democracy claims the victory whichhas been really won by the territorial democracy, as if it had been socialism, not patriotism, that fired the hearts and nerved the arms of the brave men led by McClellan, Grant, and Sherman. The humanitarians are more dangerous in principle than the ego- ists, for they have the appearance ofbuilding on abroader and deeper foundation, of being more Christian, more phil- osophic, more generous and philanthropic ; but Satan is never more successful than under the guise of an angel of light. His favorite guise in modern times is that of phi- lanthropy. He is a genuine humanitarian, and aims to per- suade the world that humanitarianism is Christianity, and that man is God; that the soft and charming sentiment of philanthropy is real Christian charity; and he dupes both individuals and nations, and makes them do his work, when they believe they are earnestly and most successfully doing the work of God. Your leading abolitionists are as much affected by satanophany as your leading confederates, nor are they one whit more philosophical or less sophistical. The one loses the race, the other the individual, and neither has learned to apply practically that fundamental truth that there is never the general without the particular, nor the particular without the general, the race without the indi- viduals, nor individuals without the race. The whole race was in Adam, and fell in him, as we are taught by the doctrine of original sin, or the sin of the race, and Adam was an individual, as we are taught in the fact that original sin was in him actual or personal sin. 

The humanitarian is carried away by a vague generality, and loses men in humanity, sacrifices the rights of men in a vain endeavor to secure the rights of man, as your Calvinist or his brother Jansenist sacrifices the rights of nature in order to secure the freedom of grace. Yesterday he agi- tated for the abolition of slavery, to-day he agitates for negro suffrage, negro equality, and announces that when he has secured that he will agitate for female suffrage and the equality of the sexes, forgetting or ignorant that the relation of equality subsists only between individuals of the same sex ; that God made the man the head of the woman, and the woman for the man, not the man for the woman. Having obliterated all distinction of sex in politics, in so- cial, industrial, and domestic arrangements, he must go further, and agitate for equality of property. But since property, if recognized at all, will be unequally acquired and distributed, he must go further still, and agitate for the total abolition of property, as an injustice, agrievous wrong, a theft, with M. Proudhon, or the Englishman Godwin. It is unjust that one should have what another wants, or even more than another. What right have you to ride in your coach or astride your spirited barb while I am forced to trudge on foot ? Norcan our humanitarian stop there. In- dividuals are, and as long as there are individuals will be, un- equal: some are handsomer and some are uglier, some wiser or sillier, more or less gifted, stronger or weaker, taller or shorter, stouter or thinner than others, and therefore some have natural advantages which others have not. There is inequality, therefore injustice, which can be remedied only by the abolition of all individualities, and the reduction of all individuals to the race, or humanity, man in general. He can find no limit to his agitation this side of vague gener- ality, which is no reality, but a pure nullity, for he respects no territorial or individual circumscriptions, and must re- gard creation itself as a blunder. This is not fancy, for he has gone very nearly as far as it is here shown, if logical, he must go. 

The danger now is that the Union victory will, at home and abroad, be interpreted as a victory won in the interest of social or humanitarian democracy. It was because they regarded the war waged on the side of the Union as waged in the interest of this terrible democracy, that our bishops and clergy sympathized so little with the government in prosecuting it; not, as some imagined, because they were disloyal, hostile to American or territorial democracy, or not heartily in favor of freedom for all men, whatever their race or complexion. They had no wish to see slavery pro- longed, the evils of which they, better than any other class ofmen, knew, and more deeply deplored ; none would have regretted more than they to have seen the Union broken up ; but they held the socialistic or humanitarian democracy represented by northern abolitionists as hostile alike to the church and to civilization. For the same reason that they were backward or reserved in their sympathy, all the hu- manitarian sects at home and abroad were forward and even ostentatious in theirs. The Catholics feared the war might result in encouraging la république démocratique et sociale; the humanitarian sects trusted that it would. If the victory of the Union should turn out to be a victory for the hu- manitarian democracy, the civilized world will have no rea- son to applaud it. 

That there is some danger that for a time the victory will be taken as a victory for humanitarianism or socialism, it would be idle to deny. It is so taken now, and the human- itarian party throughout the world are in ecstasies over it. The party claim it. The European socialists and red repub- licans applaud it, and the Mazzinis and the Garibaldis inflict on us the deep humiliation of their congratulations. Acause that can be approved by the revolutionary leaders of Euro- pean liberals must be strangely misunderstood, or have in it some infamous element. It is no compliment to a nation to receive the congratulations of men who assert not only people-king, but people-god ; and those Americans who are delighted with them are worse enemies to the American democracy than ever were Jefferson Davis and his fellow conspirators, and more contemptible, as the swindler is more contemptible than the highwayman. 

But it is probable the humanitarians have reckoned with- out their host. Not they are the real victors. When the smoke of battle has cleared away, the victory, it will be seen, has been won by the republic, and that that alone has tri- umphed. The abolitionists, in so far as they asserted the unity of the race and opposed slavery as adenial of that unity, have also won ; but in so far as they denied the reality or authority of territorial and individual circumscriptions, followed apurely socialistic tendency, and sought to dissolve patriotism into a watery sentimentality called philanthropy, have in reality been crushingly defeated, as they will find when the late insurrectionary states are fully reconstructed. The southern or egoistical democrats, so far as they denied the unity and solidarity of the race, the rights of society over individuals, and the equal rights of each and every in- dividual in face of the state, or the obligations of society to protect the weak and help the helpless, have been also de- feated ; but so far as they asserted personal or individual rights which society neither gives nor can take away, and so far as they asserted, not state sovereignty, but state rights, held independently of the general government, and which limit its authority and sphere of action, they share in the victory, as the future will prove. 

European Jacobins, revolutionists, conspiring openly or secretly against all legitimate authority, whether in church or state, have no lot or part in the victory of the American people: not for them nor for men with their nefarious de- signs or mad dreams, have our brave soldiers fought, suf- fered, and bled for four years of the most terrible war in modern times, and against troops as brave and as well led as themselves; not for them has the country sacrificed a mil- lion of lives, and contracted a debt of four thousand millions of dollars, besides the waste and destruction that it will take years of peaceful industry to repair. They and their bar- baricdemocracy have been defeated, and civilization has won its mostbrilliant victory in all history. TheAmericandemoc- racy has crushed, actually or potentially, every species of barbarism in the New World, asserted victoriously the state, and placed the government definitively on the side of legitimate authority, and made its natural association henceforth with all civilized governments-not with the revolutionary movements to overthrow them. The American people will always be progressive as well as conservative ; but they have learned a lesson, which they much needed, against false democracy : civil war has taught them that "the sacred right of insurrection" is as much out of place in a demo- cratic state as in an aristocratic ora monarchical state; and that the government should always be clothed with ample authori- ty to arrest and punish whoever plots its destruction. They must never be delighted again to have their government send anational ship to bring hither a noted traitor to his own sovereign as the nation's guest. The people of the northern states are hardlyless responsible for the late rebel- lion than the people of the southern states. Their press had taught them to call every government a tyranny that refused to remain quiet while the traitor was cutting its throat or assassinating the nation, and they had nothing but mad denunciations of the papal, the Austrian, and the Nea- politan governments for their severity against conspirators and traitors. But their own government has found it nec- essary for the public safety to be equally arbitrary, prompt, and severe, and they will most likely require it hereafter to coöperate with the governments of the Old World in ad- vancing civilization, instead of lending all its moral support, as heretofore, to the Jacobins, revolutionists, socialists, and humanitarians, to bring back the reign of barbarism. 

The tendency to individualism has been sufficiently check- edby the failure of the rebellion, and nodanger from the dis- integrating element, either in the particular state or in the United States, is henceforth to be apprehended. But the ten- dency in the opposite directionmaygive the American state some trouble. This tendency now is, as to the Union, consol- idation, and as to the particular state, humanitarianism, social- ism, or centralized democracy. Yet this tendency, though it may do much mischief, will hardly become exclusive. The states that seceded, when restored, will always, even in abandoning state sovereignty, resist it, and still assert state rights. When these states are restored to their normal posi- tion, they will always be able to protect themselves against any encroachments on their special rights by the general government. The constitution, in the distribution of the powers of government, provides the states severally with ample means to protect theirindividuality against the centraizing tendency of the general government, however strong itmaybe. 

The war has, no doubt, had a tendency to strengthen the general government, and to cause the people, to a great ex- tent, to look upon it as the supreme and exclusive national government, and to regard the several state governments as subordinate instead of coördinate governments. It is not improbable that the executive, since the outbreak of the re- bellion, has proceeded throughout on that supposition, and hence his extraordinary assumptions of power ; but when once peace is fully reëstablished, and the states have all re- sumed their normal position in the Union, every state will be found prompt enough to resist any attempt to encroach on its constitutional rights. Its instinct of self-preservation will lead it to resist, and it will be protected by both its own judiciary and that of the United States. 

The danger that the general government will usurp the rights of the states is far less than the danger that the exec- utive will usurp all the powers of congress and the judici- ary. Congress, during the rebellion, clothed the president, as far as it could, with dictatorial powers, and these powers the executive continues to exercise even after the rebellion is suppressed. They were given and held under the rights of war, and for war purposes only, and expired by natural lim- itation when the war ceased; but the executive forgets this, and, instead of calling congress together and submitting the work of reconstruction of the states that seceded to its wisdom and authority, undertakes to reconstruct them himself, as if he were an absolute sovereign; and the people seem to like it. He might and should, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, govern them as military departments, by his lieutenants, till congress could either create provis- ional civil governments for them or recognize them as self- governing states in the Union ; but he has no right, under the constitution nor under the war power, to appoint civil governors, permanent or provisional ; and every act he has done in regard to reconstruction is sheer usurpation, and done without authority and without the slightest plea of ne- cessity. His acts in this respect, even if wise and just in themselves, are inexcusable, because done by one who has no legal right to do them. Yet his usurpation is apparently sustained by public sentiment, and a deep wound is inflicted on the constitution, which will be long in healing. 

The danger in this respect is all the greater because it did not originate with the rebellion, but had manifested itself for a long time before. There is a growing disposition on the part of congress to throw as much of the business of government as possible into the hands of the executive. The patronage the executive wields, even in times of peace, is so large that he has indirectly an almost supreme control over the legislative branch ofthe government. Forthis,which is, and, if not checked will continue to be, a growing evil, there is no obvious remedy, unless the president is chosen for a longer term of office and made ineligible for a second term, and the mischievous doctrine of rotation in office is rejected as incompatible with the true interests of the public. Here is matter for the consideration of the Ameri- can statesman. But as to the usurpations of the executive in these unsettled times, they will be only temporary, and will cease when the states are all restored. They are abuses, but only temporary abuses, and the southern states, when restored to the Union, will resume their rights in their own sphere, as self-governing communities, and legalize or undo the unwarrantable acts of the federal executive. 

The socialistic and centralizing tendency in the bosom of the individual states is the most dangerous, but it will not be able to become predominant; for philanthropy, unlike charity, does not begin at home, and is powerless unless it operates at a distance. In the states in which the humani- tarian tendency is the strongest, the territorial democracy has its most effective organization. Prior to the outbreak of the rebellion the American people had asserted popular sovereignty, but had never rendered an account to them- selves in what sense the people are or are not sovereign. They had never distinguished the three sorts of democracy from one another, asked themselves which of the three is the distinctively American democracy. For them, democracy was democracy, and those who saw dangers ahead sought to avoid them either by exaggerating one or the other of the two exclusive tendencies, or else by restrain- ing democracy itself through restrictions on suffrage. The latter class began to distrust universal suffrage, to lose faith in the people, and to dream of modifying the American constitution so as to make it conform more nearly to the English model. The war has proved that they were wrong, for nothing is more certain than that the people have saved the national unity and integrity almost in spite of their gov- ernment. The general government either was not disposed or was afraid to take a decided stand against secession, till forced to do it by the people themselves. No wise American can henceforth distrust American democracy. The people may be trusted. So much is settled. But as the two ex- tremes were equally democratic, as the secessionists acted in the name of popular sovereignty, and as the humanitarians were not unwilling to allow separation, and would not and did not engage in the war against secession for the sake of the Union and the integrity ofthe national domain, the con- viction becomes irresistible that it was not democracy in the sense of either of the extremes that made the war and came out of it victorious ; and hence the real American democ- racy must differ from them both, and is neither a personal nor a humanitarian, but a territorial democracy. The true idea of American democracy thus comes out, for the first time, freed from the two extreme democracies which have been identified with it, and henceforth enters into the under- standings as well as the hearts of the people. The war has enlightened patriotism, and what was sentiment or in- stinct becomes reason a well-defined, a clearly understood constitutional conviction. 

In the several states themselves there are many things to prevent the socialistic tendency from becoming exclusive. In the states that seceded socialism has never had a foothold, and will not gain it, for it is resisted by all the sentiments, convictions, and habits of the southern people, and the southern people will not be exterminated nor swamped by migrations either from the North or from Europe. They are and always will be an agricultural people, and an agri- cultural people are and always will be opposed to socialistic dreams, unless unwittingly led for a moment to favor it in pursuit of some special object in which they take a pas- sionate interest. The worst of all policies is that ofhanging, exiling, or disfranchising the wealthy landholders of the South, in order to bring up the poor and depressed whites, shadowed forth in the executive proclamation of the 29th of May, 1865. Of course that policy will not be carried out, and if the negroes are enfranchised, they will always vote with the wealthy landholding class, and aid them in resist- ing all socialistic tendencies. The humanitarians will fail for the want of a good social grievance against which they can declaim. 

In the New-England states the humanitarian tendency is strong as a speculation, but only in relation to objects at a distance. It is aided much by the congregational constitu- tion of their religion ; yet it is weak at home, and is resisted practically by the territorial division of power. New Eng- land means Massachusetts, and nowhere is the subdivision of the powers of government carried further, or the constitu- tion of the territorial democracy more complete, than in that state. Philanthropy seldom works in private against private vices and evils : it is effective only against public grievances, and the further they are from home and the less its right to interfere with them, the more in earnest and the more effective for evil does it become. Its nature is to mind every one's business but its own. But now that slavery is abolished, there is nowhere in the United States a social griev- ance of magnitude enough to enlist any considerable number of the people, even of Massachusetts, in a movement to redress it. Negro enfranchisement is a question of which the humanitarians can make something, and they will make the most of it; but as it is a question that each state will soon settle for itself, it will not serve their purpose of pro- longed agitation. They could not and never did carry away the nation, even on the question of slavery itself, and aboli- tionism had comparatively little direct influence in abolishing slavery ; and the exclusion of negro suffrage can never be made to appear to the American people as any thing like so great a grievance as was slavery.

 Besides, in all the states that did not secede, Catholics are a numerous and an important portion of the population. Their increasing numbers, wealth, and education secure them, as much as the majority may dislike their religion, a con- stantly increasing influence, and it is idle to leave them out in counting the future of the country. They will, in a very few years, be the best and most thoroughly educated class of the American people; and, aside from their religion, or rather, in consequence of their religion, the most learned, enlightened, and intelligent portion of the American popu- lation ; and as much as they have disliked the abolitionists. they have, in the army and elsewhere, contributed their full share to the victory the nation has won. The best things written on the controversy have been written by Catholics, and Catholics are better fitted by their religion to compre- hend the real character of the American constitution than any other class ofAmericans, the moment they study it in the light of their own theology. TheAmerican constitution is based on that of natural society, on the solidarity of the race, and the difference between natural society and the church or Christian society is, that the one is initial and the other teleological. The law of both is the same ; Catholics, as such, must resist both extremes, because each is exclusive, and whatever is exclusive or one-sided is uncatholic. If theyhavebeen backward in their sympathy with the govern- ment, it has been through their dislike of the puritanic spirit and the humanitarian or socialistic elements they detected in the Republican party, joined with a prejudice against polit- ical and social negro equality. But their church every- where opposes the socialistic movements of the age, all movements in behalf of barbarism, and they may always be counted on to resist the advance of the socialistic democracy. If the country has had reason to complain of some of them in the late war, it will have, in the future, far stronger rea- son to be grateful ; not to them, indeed, for the citizen owes his life to his country, but to their religion, which has been and is the grand protectress of modern society and civilization.

From the origin of the government there has been a ten- dency to the extension of suffrage, and to exclude both birth and private property as bases of political rights or franchises. This tendency has often been justified on the ground that the elective franchise is a natural right; which is not true, because the elective franchise is a political power, and polit- ical power is always a civil trust, never a natural right, and the state judges for itself to whom it will or will not confide the trust; but there can be no doubt that it is a normal tendency, and in strict accordance with the constitution of American civil society, which rests on the unity of the race, and public instead of private property. All political dis- tinctions founded on birth, race, or private wealth are anom- alies in the American system, and are necessarily eliminated by its normal developments. To contend that none but property-holders may vote, or none but persons of a partic- ular race may be enfranchised, is un-American and contrary to the order of civilization the New World is developing. The only qualification for the elective franchise the Ameri- can system can logically insist on is that the elector belong to the territorial people that is, be a natural-born or a naturalized citizen, be a major in full possession of his natural faculties, and unconvicted of any infamous offence. The state is free to naturalize foreigners or not, and under such restrictions as it judges proper; but, having naturalized them, it must treat them as standing on the same footing with natural-born citizens. 

The naturalization question is one of great national im- portance. The migration of foreigners hither has added largely to the national population, and to the national wealth and resources, but less, perhaps, to the development of pa- triotism, the purity ofelections, or the wisdom and integrity of the government. It is impossible that there should be perfect harmony between the national territorial democracy and individuals born, brought up, and formed under a polit- ical order in many respects widely different from it; and there is no doubt that the democracy, in its objectionable sense, has been greatly strengthened by the large infusion of naturalized citizens. There can be no question that, if the laboring classes, in whom the national sentiment is usually the strongest, had been composed almost wholly of native Americans, instead of being, as they were, at least in the cities, large towns, and villages, composed almost exclu- sively of persons foreign born, the government would have found far less difficulty in filling up the depleted ranks of its armies. But to leave so large a portion of the actual population as the foreign-born residing in the country with- out the rights of citizens, would have been a far graver evil, and would, in the late struggle, have given the victory to secession. There are great national advantages derived from the migration hither of foreign labor, and if the migra- tion be encouraged or permitted, naturalization on easy and liberal terms is the wisest, the best, and only safe policy. The children of foreign-born parents are real Americans. 

Emigration has, also, a singular effect in developing the latent powers of the emigrant, and the children of emigrants are usually more active, more energetic than the children of the older inhabitants of the countryamong whomthey settle. Some of our first men in civil life have been sons of foreign- born parents, and so are not a few of our greatest and most successful generals. The most successful of our merchants have been foreign-born. The same thing has been noticed elsewhere, especially in the emigration of the FrenchHugue- nots to Holland, Germany, England, and Ireland. The im- migration of so many millions from the Old World has, no doubt, given to the American people much of their bold, energetic, and adventurous character, and made them a superior people on the whole to what they would otherwise have been. This has nothing to do with superiority or in feriority of race or blood, but is a natural effect of breaking men away from routine, and throwing them back on their own individual energies and personal resources. 

Resistance is offered to negro suffrage, and justly too, till the recently emancipated slaves have served an apprentice- ship to freedom; but that resistance cannot long stand before the onward progress of American democracy, which asserts equal rights for all, and not for a race or class only. Somewould confine suffrage to landholders, or, at least, to property-holders ; but that is inconsistent withthe American idea, and is a relic of the barbaric constitution which founds power on private instead of public wealth. Nor are proper- ty-owners awhit more likely to vote for the public good than are those who own no property but their own labor. The men of wealth, the business men, manufacturers and merchants, bankers and brokers, are the men who exert the worst influence on government in every country, for they always strive to use it as an instrument of advancing their own private interests. They act on the beautiful maxim, " Let government take care of the rich, and the rich will take care of the poor," instead of the far safer maxim, " Let gov- ernment take care of the weak, the strong can take care of themselves." Universal suffrage is better than restricted suffrage, but even universal suffrage is too weak to prevent private property from having undue political influence. 

The evils attributed to universal suffrage are not insepa- rable from it, and, after all, it is doubtful if it elevates men of an inferior class to those elevated by restricted suffrage. The congress of 1860, or of 1862, was a fair average of the wisdom, the talent, and the virtue of the country, and not inferior to that of 1776, or that of 1789 ; and the executive during the rebellion was at least as able and as efficient as it was during the war of 1812, far superior to that of Great Britain, and not inferior to that of France during the Cri- mean war. The Crimean war developed and placed in high command, either with the English orthe French, nogener- als equal to Halleck, Grant, and Sherman, to say nothing of others. The more aristocratic South proved itself, in both statesmanship and generalship, in no respect superior to the territorial democracy of the North and West. 

The great evil the country experiences is not from uni- versal suffrage, but from what may be called rotation in office. The number of political aspirants is so great that, in the northern and western states especially, the representatives in congress are changed every two or four years, and amember, as soon as he has acquired the experience neces- sary to qualify him for his position, is dropped, not through the fickleness of his constituency, but to give place to an- other whose aid had been necessary to his first or second election. Employés are " rotated," not because they are incapable or unfaithful, but because there are others who want their places. This is all bad, but it springs not from universal suffrage, but from a wrong public opinion, which might be corrected by the press, but which is mainly formed by it. There is, no doubt, a due share of official corrup- tion, but not more than elsewhere, and that would be much diminished by increasing the salaries of the public servants, especially in the higher offices of the government, both general and state. The pay to the lower officers and em- ployés of the government, and to the privates and non-com- missioned officers in the army, is liberal, and, in general, too liberal ; but the pay of the higher grades in both the civil and military service is too low, and relatively far lower than it was when the government was first organized. 

The worst tendency in the country, and which is not en- couraged at all by the territorial democracy, manifests itself in hostility to the military spirit and a standing army. The depreciation of the military spirit comes from the human- itarian or sentimental democracy, which, like all sentimen- talisms, defeats itself, and brings about the very evils it seeks to avoid. The hostility to standing armies is inher- ited from England, and originated in the quarrels between king and parliament, and is a striking evidence of the folly of that bundle of antagonistic forces called the British con- stitution. In feudal times most of the land was held by military service, and the reliance of government was on the feudal militia ; but no real progress was made in eliminating barbarism till the national authority got aregular army at its command, and became able to defend itself against its enemies. It is verydoubtful if English civilization has not, upon the whole, lost more than it has gained by substituting parliamentary for royal supremacy, and exchanging the Stuarts for the Guelfs. 

No nation is a living, prosperous nation that has lost the military spirit, orinwhichthe profession of the soldier is not held in honor and esteem; and a standing army of reason- able size is public economy. It absorbs in its ranks a class of men who are worth more there than anywhere else ; it creates honorable places for gentlemen or the sons of gentlemen without wealth, in which they can serve both themselves and their country. Under a democratic government the most serious embarrassment to the state is its gentlemen, or persons not disposed or not fitted to support themselves by their own hands, more necessary in a democratic govern- ment than in any other. The civil service, divinity, law, and medicine, together with literature, science, and art, cannot absorb the whole of this ever-increasing class, and the army andnavy would be an economy and a real service to the state were they maintained only for the sake of the rank and posi- tion they give to their officers, and the wholesome influence these officers would exert on society and the politics of the country-this even in case there were no wars or apprehen- sion of wars. They supply an element needed in all society, to sustain it in the chivalric and heroic spirit, perpetually en- dangered by the mercantile and political spirit, which has in it always something low and sordid. 

But wars are inevitable, and when a nation has no sur- rounding nations to fight, it will, as we have just proved, fight itself. When it can have no foreign war, it will get up a domestic war ; for the human animal, like all animals, must work off in some wayits fighting humor, and the only sure way of maintaining peace is always to be prepared for war. Aregular standing army of forty thousand men would have prevented the Mexican war, and anarmy of fifty thou- sand well-disciplined and efficient troops at the command of the president on his inauguration in March, 1861, would have prevented the rebellion, or have instantly suppressed it. The cost ofmaintaining a land army ofeven a hundred thou- sand men, and a naval force to correspond, would have been, in simple money value, only a tithe of what the rebellion has cost the nation, to say nothing of the valuable lives that have been sacrificed-for the losses on the rebel side, as well as those on the side of the government, are equally to be counted. The actual losses to the country have been not less than six or eight thousand millions of dollars, or nearly one-half the assessed value of the whole property of the Unit- ed States, according to the census returns of 1860, and which has only been partially cancelled by actual increase of proper- ty since. To meet the interest on the debt incurred will re- quire a heavier sum to be raised annually by taxation, twice over, without discharging a cent of the principal, than would have been necessary to maintain an arıny and navy adequateto the protection of peace and the prevention of the rebel- lion. 

The rebellion is now suppressed, and if the government does not blunder much more in its civil efforts at pacifica- tionthan it did in its military operations, before 1868 things will settle down to their normal order; but a regular army -not militia or volunteers, who are too expensive-of at least ahundred thousand menof all arms, anda navynearly as large as that of England or France, will be needed as a peace establishment. The army of a hundred thousand men must form a cadre of an army of three times that number, which will be necessary to place the army on a war footing. Less will answer neither for peace nor war, for the nation has, in spite of herself, to maintain henceforth the rank of a first-class military and maritime power, and take a leading part in political movements of the civilized world, and to a great extent, hold in her hand the peace of Europe. 

Canning boasted that he had raised upthe New World to redress the balance of the Old : a vain boast, for he simply weakened Spain and gave the hegemony of Europe to Rus- sia, which the emperor of the French is trying, by strength- ening Italy and Spain, and by a French protectorate in Mex- ico, to secure to France, both in the Old World and the New -a magnificent dream, but not to be realized. His uncle judged more wisely when he sold Louisiana, left the New World to itself, and sought only to secure to France the hegemony of the Old. But the hegemony of the New World henceforth belongs to the United States, and she will have apotent voice in adjusting the balance of power even in Europe. To maintain this position, which is imperative on her, she must always have a large armed force, either on foot or in reserve, which she can call out and put on a war footing at short notice. The United States must henceforth be a great military and naval power, and the old hostility to a standing army, and the old attempt to bring the military into disrepute must be abandoned, and the country yield to its destiny. 

Of the several tendencies mentioned, the humanitarian tendency, egoistical at the South, detaching the individual from the race, and socialistic at the North, absorbing the in- dividual in the race, is the most dangerous. The egoistical form is checked, sufficiently weakened by the defeat of the rebels ; but the social form believes that it has triumphed, and that individuals are effaced in society, and the states in the Union. Against this, more especially should public opinion and American statesmanship be now directed, and territorial democracy and the division of the powers of gov-- ernment be asserted and vigorously maintained. The dan- ger is that while this socialistic form of democracy is con- scious of itself, the territorial democracy has not yet arrived, as the Germans say, at self consciousness-Selbstbewusstseyn -and operates only instinctively. Allthe dominant theories and sentimentalities are against it, and it is only Providence that can sustain it.  

CHAPTER XV. DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.

It has been said in the Introduction to this essay that every living nation receives from Providence a special work or mission in the progress of society, to accomplish which is its destiny, or the end for which it exists ; and that the special mission of the United States is to continue and com- plete in the political order the Græco-Roman civilization. Of all the states or colonies on this continent, the Ameri- can republic alone has a destiny, or the ability to add any thing to the civilization of the race. Canada and the other British provinces, Mexico and Central America, Colom- bia and Brazil, and the rest of the South American states, might be absorbed in the United States without being missed by the civilized world. They represent no idea, and the work of civilization could go on without them as well as with them. If they keep up with the progress of civiliza- tion, it is all that can be expected of them. France, Eng- land, Germany, and Italy might absorb the rest of Europe, and all Asia and Africa, without withdrawing a single laborer from the work of advancing the civilization of the race ; and it is doubtful if these nations themselves can severally or jointly advance it much beyond the point reached by the Roman empire, except in abolishing slavery and including in the political people the whole territorial people. They can only develop and give a general application to the fun- damental principles of the Roman constitution. That in- deed is much, but it adds no new element nor new combina- tion of preëxisting elements. But nothing of this can be said of the United States. In the Græco-Roman civilization is found the state proper, and the great principle of the territorial constitution of power, instead of the personal or the genealogical, the patri- archal or the monarchical; and yet with true civil or political principles it mixed up nearly all the elements of the bar- baric constitution. The gentile system of Rome recalls the patriarchal, and the relation that subsisted between the patron and his clients has a striking resemblance to that which subsists between the feudal lord and his retainers, and mayhave had the same origin. The three tribes, Ramnes, Quirites, and Luceres, into which the Roman people were divided before the rise of the plebs, mayhave been, as Nie- buhr contends, local not genealogical, in their origin, but they were not strictly territorial distinctions, and the di- vision of each tribe into a hundred houses or gentes was not local, but personal, if not, as the name implies, genea- logical. Nodoubt the individuals or families composing the house or gens were not all of kindred blood, for the orient- al custom of adoption, so frequent with our North Ameri- can Indians, and with all people distributed into tribes, septs, or clans, obtained with the Romans. The adopted member was considered a child of the house, and took its name and inherited its goods. Whether, as Niebuhr maintains, all the free gentiles of the three tribes were called patres or patricians, or whether the term was restrict- ed to the heads of houses, it is certain that the head of the house represented it in the senate, and the vote in the curies was byhouses, not byindividuals en masse. After all, prac- tically the Roman senate was hardly less an estate than the English house of lords, for no one could sit in it unless a landed proprietor and of noble blood. The plebs, though outside of the political people proper, as not being included in the three tribes, when they came to be a power in the re- public under the emperors, and the old distinction of plebs and patricians was forgotten, were an estate, and not alocal or territorial people. The republican element wasin the fact that the land, which gave the right to participate in political power, was the domain of the state, and the tenant held it from the state. The domain was vested in the state, not in the senator nor the prince, and was therefore respublica, not private property-the first grand leap of the human race from bar- barism. In all other respects the Roman constitution was no more republican than the feudal. Athens went further than Rome, and introduced the principle of territorial democracy. The division into demes or wards, whence comes the word democracy, was a real territorial division, not personal non genealogical. And if the equality of all men was not recog- nized, all who were included in the political class stood on the same footing. Athens and other Greek cities, though conqueredby Rome, exerted after their conquest a power- ful influence on Roman civilization, which became far more democratic under the emperors than it had been under the patrician senate, which the assassins of Julius Cæsar, and the superannuated conservative party they represented, tried so hard to preserve. The senate and the consulship were opened to the representatives of the great plebeian houses, and the provincials were clothed with the rights of Roman citizens, and uniform laws were established throughout the empire. The grand error, as has already been said, of the Græco- Roman or gentile civilization, was in its denial or ignorance of the unity of the human race, as well as the unity of God, and in its including in the state only a particular class of the territorial people, while it held all the rest as slaves, though in different degrees of servitude. It recognized and sus- tained a privileged class, a ruling order; and if, as subse- quently did the Venetian aristocracy, it recognized demo- cratic equality within that order, it held all outside of it to be less than men and without political rights. Practically, power was an attribute of birth and of private wealth. Suffrage was almost universal among freemen, but down almost to the empire, the people voted by orders, and were counted, not numerically, but by the rank of the order, and the comitia curiata could always carry the election over the comitia centuriata, and thus power remained always in the hands of the rich and noble few. The Roman law, as digested by jurists under Justinian in the sixth century, indeed, recognizes the unity of the race, asserts the equality of all men bythe natural law, and under- takes to defend slavery onprinciples not incompatible with that equality. It represents it as a commutation of the punishment of death, which the emperor has the right to inflict on captives taken in war, to perpetual servitude ; and as servitude is less severe than death, slavery was really a proof of imperial clemency. But it has never yet been proved that the emperor has the right underthe natural law to put captives taken even in a just war to death, and the Romanpoet himself bids us " humble the proud, but spare the submissive." In a just war the emperor may kill on the battle-field those in arms against him, but the jus gentium, nation, does not allow him to put them to death after they have ceased resistance, have thrown down their arms, and surrendered. But even if it did, it gives him a right only over the persons captured, not over their innocent children, and therefore no right to establish hereditary slavery, for the child is not punishable for the offences of the parent. The law, indeed, assumed that the captive ceased to exist as a person and treated him as a thing, or mere property of the conqueror; and being property, he could beget only prop- erty, which would accrue only to his owner. But there is no power in heaven or earth that can make aperson a thing, amere piece of merchandise, and it is only by a clumsy fic- tion, or rather by a barefaced lie, that the law denies the slave his personality and treats him as athing. If the unity of the race and the brotherhood of all men had been clearly seen and vividly felt, the law would never have attempted to justify perpetual slavery on the ground of its penal char- acter, or indeed on any ground whatever. All men are born under the law of nature with equal rights, and the civil law can justly deprive no man of his liberty, but for a crime, committed by him personally, that justly forfeits his liberty to society. These defects of the Græco-Roman civilization the European nations have in part remedied, and may completely remedy. Theycancarry out practically the Christian dogma of the unity of the human race, abolish slavery in every form, make all men equal before the law, and the political people commensurate with the territorial people. Indeed, France has already done it. She has abolished slavery, vil- lenage, serfage, political aristocracy, asserted the equality of all men before the law, vindicated the sovereignty of the people, and established universal suffrage, complete social and territorial democracy. The other nations may do as much, but hardly can any of them do more or advance fur- ther. Yet in France, territorial democracy the most com- plete results only in establishing the mostcomplete imperial centralism, usually called cæsarism. The imperial constitution of France recognizes that the emperor reigns " by the grace of God and the will of the nation," and therefore, that by the grace of Godand the will of the nation he may cease to reign ; but while he reigns he is supreme, and his will is law. The constitution imposes no real or effective restraint on his power: whilehe sits upon the throne he is practically France, and the ministers are his clerks; the council of state, the senate, and the legislative body are merely his agents in governing the nation. This may, indeed, be changed, but only to substitute for imperial centralism democratic centralism, which were no improve- ment, or to go back to the system of antagonisms, checks, and balances, called constitutionalism, or parliamentary gov- ernment, of which Great Britain is the model, and which were a return toward barbarism, or mediæval feudalism. The human race has its life in God, and tends to realize in all orders the divine Word or Logos, which is logic itself, and the principle of all conciliation, of the dialectic union of all opposites or extremes. Mankind will be logical; and the worst of all tyrannies is that which forbids them to draw from their principles their last logical consequences, or that prohibits them the free explication and application of the divine idea, in which consists their life, their progress. Such tyranny strikes at the very existence of society, and wars against the reality of things. It is supremely sophisti- cal, and its success is death; for the universe in its con- stitution is supremely logical, and man, individually and so- cially, is rational. God is the author and type of all created things; and all creatures, each in its order, imitates or copies thedivine being, who is intrinsically Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, principle, medium, and end. The Son or Word is the medium, which unites the two extremes, whence God is living God-a real, active, living being-living, concrete, not abstract or dead unity, like the unity of oldXenophanes, Plotinus, and Proclus. In the holy Trinity is the principle and prototype of all society, and what is called the solidarity of the race is only the outward expression, or copy in the external order, of what theologians term the circumsession of the three divine persons of the Godhead. Now, human society, when it copies the divine essence and nature either in the distinction of persons alone, or in the unity alone, is sophistical, and wants the principle of all life and reality. It sins against God, and must fail of its end. The English system, which is based on antagonistic elements, on opposites, without the middle term that con- ciliates them, unites them, and makes them dialectically one, copies the divine model in its distinctions alone, which, considered alone, are opposites and contraries. It denies, if Englishmen could but see it, the unity of God. The French, or imperial system, which excludes the extremes, instead of uniting them, denies all opposites, instead of conciliating them-denies the distinctions in the model, and copies only the unity, which is the supreme sophism called pantheism. The English constitution has no middle term, and the French no extremes, and each in its way denies the divine Trinity, the original basis and type of the syllogism. The human race can be contented with neither, for neither allows it free scope for its inherent life and activity. The English system tends to pure individualism ; the French to pure so- cialism or despotism, each endeavoring to suppress an ele- ment of the one living and indissoluble TRUTH. This is not fancy, is not fine-spun speculation, orcold and lifeless abstraction, but the highest theological and philo- sophical truth, without which there were no reason, no man, no society ; for God is the first principle of all being, all existence, all science, all life, and it is in him that we live and move and have ourbeing. God is at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of all things-the universal prin- ciple, medium, and end; and no truth can be denied with- out his existence being directly or indirectly impugned. In a deeper sense than is commonly understood is it true that nisi Dominus ædificaverit domum, in vanum laboraverunt qui ædificant eam. The English constitution is composed of contradictory elements, incapable of reconciliation, and each element is perpetually struggling with the other for the mastery. For a long time the king labored, intrigued, and fought to free himself from the thraldom in which he was held by the feudal barons ; in 1688 the aristocracy and people united and humbled the crown; and nowthe people are at work seeking to sap both the crown and the nobles. The state is constituted to nobody's satisfaction ; and though all mayunite in boasting its excellences, all are at work trying to alter or amend it. The work of constituting the state with the English is ever beginning, never ending. Hence the eternal clamor for parliamentary reform. Great Britain and other European states may sweep away all that remains of feudalism, include the whole territorial people with the equal rights of all in the state or politi- cal people, concede to birth and wealth no political rights, buttheywill by so doing only establish either imperial cen- 'tralism, as has been done in France, or democratic central- ism, clamored for, conspired for, and fought for by the revo- lutionists of Europe. The special merit of the American system is not in its democracy alone, as too many at home and abroad imagine; but along with its democracy in the division of the powers of government, between a general government and particular state governments, which are not antagonistic governments, for they act on different mat- ters, and neither is nor can be subordinated to the other. Now, this division of power, which decentralizes the gov- ernment without creating mutually hostile forces, can hardly be introduced into any European state. There maybe a union of states in Great Britain, in Germany, in Italy, perhaps in Spain, and Austria is laboring hard to effect it in herhetero- geneous empire ; but the union possible in any of them is that of a Bund or confederation, like the Swiss or German Bund, similar to what the secessionists in the United States so recently attempted and have so signally failed to estab- lish. An intelligent confederate officer remarked that their confederacy had not been in operation three months before it became evident that the principle on which it was found- ed, if not rejected, would insure its defeat. It was that principle of state sovereignty, for which the states seceded, more than the superior resources and numbers of the govern- ment, that caused the collapse of the confederacy. The numbers were relatively about equal, and the military re- sources of the confederacy were relatively not much infe- rior to those of the government. So at least the confederate leaders thought, and they knew the material resources of the government as well as their own, and had calculated them with as much care and accuracy as any men could. Foreign powers also, friendly as well as unfriendly, felt cer- tain that the secessionists would gain their independence, and so did a large part of the people even of the loyal states. The failure is due to the disintegrating principle of state sovereignty, the very principle of the confederacy. The war has proved that united states are, other things being equal, an overmatch for confederated states. The European states must unite either as equals or as un- equals. As equals, the union can be only a confederacy, a sort of Zollverein, in which each state retains its individual sovereignty ; if as unequals, then some one among them will aspire to the hegemony, and you have over again the Athenian confederation, formed at the conclusion of the Persian war, and its fate. Aunion like the American can- not be created by a compact, or by the exercise of supreme power. The emperor of the French cannot erect the several departments of France into states, and divide the powers of government between them as individual and as united states. They would necessarily hold from the imperial government, which, though it might exercise a large part of its functions through them, would remain, as now, the supreme central government, from which all governinental powers emanate, as our president is apparently attempting, in his reconstruc- tion policy, to make the government of the United States: The elements of a state constituted like the American do not exist in any European nation, nor in the constitution ofEuropean society ; and the American constitution would have been impracticable even here had not Providence so ordered it that the nation was born with it, and has never known any other. Rome recognized the necessity of the federal principle, and applied it in the best way she could. At first it was a single tribe or people distributed into distinct gentes or houses ; after the Sabine war, a second tribe was added on terms of equality, and the state was dual, composed of two tribes, the Ramnes and the Tities or Quirites, and, afterward, in the time of Tullus Hostilius, were added the Lu- certes or Luceres, making the division into three ruling tribes, each divided into one hundred houses or gentes. Each house in each tribe was represented by its chief or decurion in the senate, making the number of senators ex- actly three hundred, at which number the senate was fixed. Subsequently was added, byAncus, the plebs, who remained without authority or share in the government of the city of Rome itself, though they might aspire to the first rank in the allied cities. The division into tribes, and the division of the tribes into gentes or houses, and the vote in the state by tribes, and in the tribes by houses, effectually excluded democratic centralism ; but the division was not a division of the powers of government between two coördinate gov- ernments, for the senate had supreme control, like the British parliament, over all matters, general and particular. The establishment, after the secession of the plebs, of the tribunitial veto, which gave the plebeians a negative power in the state, was an incipient division of the powers of gov- ernment ; but only a division between the positive and negative powers, not between the general and the particular. The power accorded to the plebs, or commons, as Niebuhr calls them-who is, perhaps, too fond of explaining the early constitution of Rome by analogies borrowed from feudalism, and especially from the constitution of his native Ditmarsch-was simply an obstructive power ; and when it, by development, became a positive power, it absorbed all the powers ofgovernment, and created the empire. There was, indeed, a nearer approach to the division of powers in the American system, between imperial Rome and her allied or confederated municipalities. These munici- palities, modelled chiefly after that of Rome, were elective, and had the management of their own local affairs ; but their local powers were not coördinate in their own sphere with those exercised by the Roman municipality, but sub- ordinate anddependent. The senate had the supreme power over them, and they held their rights subject to its will. They were formally, or virtually, subjugated states, to which the Roman senate, and afterward the Roman emperors, left the form of the state and the mere shadow of freedom. Rome owed much to her affecting to treat them as allies rather than as subjects, and at first these municipal organ- izations secured the progress of civilization in the provinces ; but at a later period, under the emperors, they served only the imperial treasury, and were crushed by the taxes im- posed and the contributions levied on them by the fiscal agents of the empire. So heavy were the fiscal burdens im- posed on the burgesses, if the term may be used, that it needed an imperial edict to compel them to enter the munic- ipal government ; and it became, under the later emperors, no uncommon thing for free citizens to sell themselves into slavery, to escape the fiscal burdens imposed. There are actually imperial edicts extant forbidding freemen to sell themselves as slaves. Thus ended the Roman federative system, and it is difficult to discover in Europe the elements of a federative system that could have a more favorable re- sult. Now, the political destiny or mission of the United States is, in common with the European nations, to eliminate the barbaric elements retained by the Roman constitution, and specially to realize that philosophical division of the powers ofgovernment which distinguishes it from both imperial and democratic centralism on the one hand, and, on the other, from the checks and balances or organized antagonisms which seek to preserve liberty by obstructing the exercise of power. No greater problem in statesmanship remains to be solved, and no greater contribution to civilization to be made. Nowhere else than in this New World, and in this New World only in the United States, can this problem be solved, or this contribution be made, and what the Græco- Roman republic began be completed. But the United States have a religious as well as a politi- cal destiny, for religion and politics go together. Church and state, as governments, are separate indeed, but the prin- ciples on which the state is founded have their origin and ground in the spiritual order-in the principles revealed or affirmed by religion and are inseparable from them. There is no state without God, any more than there is a church without Christ or the incarnation. An atheist may be a politician, but if there were no God there could be no politics. Theological principles are the basis of political principles. The created universe is a dialectic whole dis- tinct but inseparable from its Creator, and all its parts co- here and are essential to one another. All has its origin and prototype in the triune God, and throughout expresses unity in triplicity and triplicity in unity, without which there is no real being and no actual or possible life. Every thing has its principle, medium, and end. Natural society is initial, civil government is medial, the church is teleological, but the three are only distinctions in one indissoluble whole. Man, as we have seen, lives by communion with God through the divine creative act, and is perfected or com- pleted only through the incarnation, in Christ, the Word made flesh. True, he communes with God through his kind, and through external nature, society in which he is born and reared, and property through which he derives sustenance for his body ; but these are only media of his communion with God, the source of life-not either the be- ginning or the end of his communion. They have no life in themselves, since their being is in God, and, of them- selves can impart none. They are in the order of second causes, and second causes, without the first cause, are naught. Communion which stops with them, which takes them as a principle and end, instead of media, as they are, is the communion of death, not of life. As religion includes all that relates to communion with God, it must in some form be inseparable from every living act of man, both in- dividually and socially; and, in the long run, men must conform either their politics to their religion or their religion to their politics. Christianity is constantly at work, moulding political society in its own image and likeness, and every political system struggles to harmonize Christianity with itself. If, then, the United States have a politi- cal destiny, they have a religious destiny inseparable fromit. The political destiny of the United States is to conform the state to the order of reality, or, so to speak, to the divine idea increation. Their religious destiny is to render practicable and to realize the normal relations between church and state, religion and politics, as concreted in the life of the nation. In politics, the United States are not realizing a political theory of any sort whatever. They, on the contrary, are successfully refuting all political theories, making away with them, and establishing the state-not on a theory, not on an artificial basis or a foundation laid by human reason or will, but on reality, the eternal and immutable principles in relation to which man is created. They are doing the same in regard to religious theories. Religion is not atheory, a subjective view, an opinion, but is, objectively, at once a principle, a law, and a fact, and, subjectively, it is, by the aid ofGod's grace, practical conformity to what is universally true and real. The United States, in fulfilment of their destiny, are making as sad havoc with religious theories as with political theories, and are pressing on with irresistible force to the real or the divine order which is expressed in the Christian mysteries, which exists independent of man's understanding and will, and which man can neither make nor unmake. The religious destiny of the United States is not to create anew religion nor to found a new church. All real religion is catholic, and is neither new nor old, but is always and everywhere true. Even our Lord came neither to found a new church nor to create a new religion, but to do the things which had been foretold, and to fulfil in time what had been determined in eternity. Godhas himself founded the church on catholic principles, or principles always and everywhere real principles. His church is necessarily catholic, because founded on catholic dogmas, and the dogmas are catholic because they are universal and immutable principles, having their origin and ground in the divine Being himself, or in the creative act by which he produces and sustains all things. Founded on universal and immutable principles, the church can never grow old or obsolete, but is the church for all times andplaces, for all ranks and conditions of men. Man cannot change either the church or the dogmas of faith, for they are founded in the highest reality, which is above him, over hım, and independent of him. Religion is above and independent of the state, and the state has nothing to do with the church or her dogmas, but to accept and conform to them as it does to any of the facts or principles of science, to a mathematical truth, or to a physical law. But while the church, with her essential constitution, and her dogmas are founded in the divine order, and are catholic and unalterable, the relations between the civil and ecclesias- tical authorities maybe changed or modified by the changes of time and place. These relations have not been always the same, but have differed in different ages and countries. During the first three centuries of our era the church had no legal status, and was either connived at or persecuted by thestate. Underthe Christian emperors she was recognized by the civil law; her prelates had exclusive jurisdiction in mixed civil and ecclesiastical questions, and were made, in some sense, civil magistrates, and paid as such by the empire. Under feudalism, the prelates received investiture as princes and barons, and formed alone, or in connection with the temporal lords, an estate in thekingdom. The pope became a temporal prince and suzerain, at one time, of a large part ofEurope, and exercised the arbitratorship in all grave ques- tions between Christian sovereigns themselves, and between them and their subjects. Since the downfall of feudalism and the establishment of modern centralized monarchy, the church has been robbed of the greater part of her temporal possessions, and deprived, in most countries, of all civil func- tions, and treated by the state either as an enemy or as a slave. In all the sectarian and schismatic states of the Old World, the national church is held in strict subjection to the civil authority, as in Great Britain and Russia, and is the slave of the state ; in other states of Europe, as France, Austria, Spain, and Italy, she is treated with distrust by the civil gov- ernment, and allowed hardly a shadow of freedom and inde- pendence. In France, which has the proud title of eldest daughter of the church, Catholics, as such, are not freer than they are in Turkey. All religions are said to be free, and all are free, except the religion of the majority of French- men. The emperor, because nominally a Catholic, takes it upon himself to concede the church just as much and just J as little freedom in the empire as he judges expedient forhis own secular interests. In Italy, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, and the Central and South American states, the policy of the civil uthorities is the same, or worse. It may be safely asserted that, except in the United States, the church is either held by the civil power in subjection, or treated as an enemy. The relation is not that of union and harmony, but that of antagonism, to the grave detriment of both religion and civilization. It is impossible, even if it were desirable, to restore the mixture of civil and ecclesiastical governments which ob- tained in the middle ages ; and a total separation of church and state, even as corporations, would, in the present state ofmen's minds in Europe, be construed, if approved by the church, into a sanction by her of political atheism, or the right of civil power to govern according to its own will and pleasure in utter disregard of the law of God, the moral order, or the immutable distinction between right andwrong. It could only favor the absolutism of the state, and put the temporal in the place of the spiritual. Hence, the Holy Father includes the proposition of the entire separation of church and state in the syllabus of errors condemned in his encyclical, dated at Rome, December 8, 1864. Neither the state nor the people, elsewhere than in the United States, canunderstand practically such separation in any other sense than the complete emancipation of our entire secular life from the law of God, or the divine order, which is the real order. It is not the union of church and state-that is, the union, or identity rather, of religious and political principles -that it is desirable to get rid of, but the disunion or antag- onism of church and state. But this is nowhere possible out of the United States ; for nowhere else is the state organ- ized on catholic principles, or capable of acting, when act- ing from its own constitution, in harmony with a really catholic church, or the religious order really existing, in relation to which all things are created and governed. Nowhere else is it practicable, at present, to maintain be- tween the two powers their normal relations. But what is not practicable in the Old World is perfectly practicable in the New. The state here being organized in accordance with catholic principles, there can be no antag- onism between it and the church. Though operating in different spheres, both are, in their respective spheres, de- veloping and applying to practical life one and the same divine idea. The church can trust the state, and the state can trust the church. Both act from the same principle to one and the same end. Each by its own constitution coöperates with, aids, and completes the other. It is true the church is not formally established as the civil law of the land, nor is it necessary that she should be ; because there is nothing in the state that conflicts with her freedom and in- dependence, with her dogmas or her irreformable canons. The need of establishing the church by law, and protecting her by legal pains and penalties, as is still done in most countries, can exist only in a barbarous or semi-barbarous state of society, where the state is not organized on catholic principles, or the civilization is based on false principles, and in its development tends not to the real or divine order of things. When the state is constituted in harmony with that order, it is carried onward by the force of its own internal constitution in a catholic direction, and a church establish- ment, or what is called a state religion, would be an anomaly, or a superfluity. The true religion is in the heart of the state, as its informing principle and real interior life. The external establishment, by legal enactment of the church, would afford her no additional protection, add nothing to her power and efficacy, and effect nothing for faith or piety -neither of which can be forced, because both must, from their nature, be free-will offerings to God. In the United States, false religions are legally as free as the true religion; but all false religions being one-sided, so- phistical, and uncatholic, are opposed by the principles of the state, which tend, by their silent but effective workings, to eliminate them. The American state recognizes only the catholic religion. It eschews all sectarianism, and none of the sects have been able to get their peculiarities incorpor- ated into its constitution or its laws. The state conforms to what each holds that is catholic, that is always and every- where religion ; and whatever is not catholic it leaves, as outside of its province, to live or die, according to its own inherent vitality or want of vitality. The state conscience is catholic, not sectarian ; hence it is that the utmost freedom can be allowed to all religions, the false as well as the true ; for the state, being catholic in its constitution, can never suf- fer the adherents of the false to oppress the consciences of the adherents of the true. The church being free, and the state harmonizing with her, Catholicity has, in the freedom of both, all the protection it needs, all the security it can ask, and all the support it can, in the nature of the case, re- ceive from external institutions, or from social and political organizations.

This freedom maynot be universally wise or prudent, for all nations may not be prepared for it : all may not have at- tained their majority. The church, as well as the state, must deal with men and nations as they are, not as they are not. To deal with a child as with an adult, or with a barbarous nation as with a civilized nation, would be only act- ing a lie. The church cannot treat men as free men where they are not free men, nor appeal to reason in those in whom reason is undeveloped. She must adapt her discipline to the age, condition, and culture of individuals, and to the greater or less progress of nations in civilization. She her- self remains always the same in her constitution, her authori- ty, and her faith; but varies her discipline with the varia- tions of time and place. Many of her canons, very proper and necessary in one age, cease to be so in another, and many which are needed in the Old World would be out of place in the New World. Under the American system, she can deal with the people as freemen, and trust them as free- men, because free men they are. The freeman asks, why ? and the reason why must be given him, or his obedience fails to be secured. The simple reason that the church com- mands will rarely satisfy him ; he would know why she commands this or that. The full-grown free man revolts at blind obedience, and he regards all obedience as in some measure blind for which he sees only an extrinsic command. Blind obedience even to the authority of the church cannot be expected of people reared under the American system, not because they are filled with the spirit of disobedience, but because they insist that obedience shall be rationabile obsequium, an act of the understanding, not of the will or the affections alone. They are trained to demand the rea- son for the command given them, to distinguish between the law and the person of the magistrate. They can obey God, but not man, and they must see that the command given has its reason in the divine order, or the intrinsic catholic reason of things, or they will not yield it a full, en- tire, and hearty obedience. The reason that suffices for the child dces not suffice for the adult, and the reason that suffices for barbarians does not suffice for civilized men, or that suffices for nations in the infancy of their civilization does not suffice for them in its maturity. The appeal to ex- ternal authority was much less frequent under the Roman empire than in the barbarous ages that followed its downfall, when the church became mixed up with the state.

This trait of the American character is not uncatholic. An intelligent, free, willing obedience, yielded from personal conviction, after seeing its reasonableness, its justice, its logic in the divine order-the obedience of a freeman, not a slave-is far more consonant to the spirit of the church, and far more acceptable to God, than simple, blind obedi- ence; and people capable of yielding it stand far higher in thesca scale of civilization than the people that must be gov- erned as children or barbarians. It is possible that the peo- ple of the Old World are not prepared for the regimen of freedom in religion any more than they are prepared for freedom in politics ; for they have been trained only to obey external authority, and are not accustomed to look on relig- ion as having its reason in the real order, or in the reason of things. They understand no reason for obedience beyond the external command, and do not believe it possible to give or to understand the reason why the command itself is giv- en. They regard the authority of the church as a thing apart, and see no way by which faith and reason can be harmonized. They look upon them as antagonistic forces rather than as integral elements of one and the same whole. Concede them the regimen of freedom, and their religion has no support but intheir good-will, their affections, their associations, their habits, and their prejudices. It has no root in their rational convictions, and when theybegin to rea- son they begin to doubt. This is not the state of things that is desirable, but it cannot be remedied under the politi- cal régime established elsewhere than in the United States, In every state in the world, except the American, the civil constitution is sophistical, and violates, more or less, the logic of things ; and, therefore, in no one of them can the people receive a thoroughly dialectic training, or an educa- tion in strict conformity to the real order. Hence, in them all, the church is more or less obstructed in her operations, and prevented from carrying out in its fulness her own di- vine idea. She does the best she can in the circumstances and with the materials with which she is supplied, and ex- erts herself continually to bring individuals and nations into harmony with herdivine law ; but still her life in the midst of the nations is a struggle, a warfare. 

The United States being dialectically constituted, and founded on real catholic, not sectarian or sophistical princi- ples, presents none of these obstacles, and must, in theirpro- gressive development or realization of their political idea, put an end to this warfare, in so far as a warfare between church and state, and leave the church in her normal position in society, in which she can, without let or hindrance, exert her free spirit, and teach and govern menby the divine law as free men. She may encounter unbelief, misbelief, ignorance, and indifference in few, or in many; but these,de- riving no support from the state, which tends constantly to eliminate them, must gradually give way before her invinci- ble logic, her divine charity, the truth and reality of things, and the intelligence, activity, and zeal of her ministers. The American people are, on the surface, sectarians or indiffer- entists; but they are, in reality, less uncatholic than the peo- ple of any other country, because they are, in their intel- lectual and moral development, nearer to the real order, or, in the higher and broader sense of the word, more truly civilized. The multitude of sects that obtain may excite re- ligious compassion for those who are carried away by them, for mencan be saved or attain to their eternal destiny only by truth, or conformity to Him who said, " I am the way, the truth, and the life;" but in relation to the national des- tiny they need excite no aların, no uneasiness, for underly- ing them all is more or less of catholic truth, and the vital forces of the national life repel them, in so far as they are sectarian and not catholic, as substances that cannot be assimilated to the national life. The American state being catholic in its organic principles, as is all real religion, and the church being free, whatever is anticatholic, or uncatho- lic, is without any support in either, and having none, either in reality or in itself, it must necessarily fall and gradually disappear. The sects themselves have a half-unavowed conviction that they cannot subsist for ever as sects, if unsupported by the civil authority. They are free, but do not feel safe in the United States. They know the real church is catholic, and that they themselves are none of them catholic. The mostdaring among them even pretends to be no more than a " branch " of the catholic church. They know that only the catholic church can withstand the pressure of events and survive the shocks of time, and hence everywhere their movements to get rid of their sectarianism and to gain a catholic character. Theyhold conventions of delegates from the whole sectarian world, form " unions," " alliances," and " associations ; " but, unhappily for their success, the catholic church does not originate in convention, but is founded by the Word made flesh, and sustained bythe indwelling Holy Ghost. The most they can do, even with the best disposi- tions in the world, is to create a confederation, and confederated sects are something very different from a church inherently one and catholic. It is no more the catholic church than the late southern confederacy was the American state. The sectarian combinations may do some harm, may injure many souls, and retard, for a time, the progress of civilization ; but in a state organized in accordance with catholic principles, and left to themselves, they are power- less against the national destiny, and must soon wither and die as branches severed from the vine. Such being the case, no sensible Catholic can imagine that the church needs any physical force against the sects, except to repel actual violence and protect her in that freedom of speech and possession which is the right of all before the state. What are called religious establishments are needed only where either the state is barbarous or the religion is sectarian. Where the state, in its intrinsic constitution, is in accordance with catholic principles, as in the United States, the church has all she needs or can receive. The state can add nothing more to her power or her security in her moral and spiritual warfare with sectarianism, and any at- tempt to give her more would only weaken her as against the sects, place her in a false light, partially justify their hostility to her, render effective their declamations against her, mix her up unnecessarily with political changes, inter- ests, and passions, and distract the attention of her ministers from their proper work as churchmen, and impose on them the duties of politicians and statesmen. Where there is nothing in the state hostile to the church, where she is free to act according to her own constitution and laws, and exer- cise her own discipline on her own spiritual subjects, civil enactments in her favor or against the sects may embarrass or impede her operations, but cannot aid her, for she can advance no further than she wins the heart and convinces the understanding. Aspiritual work can, in the nature of things, be effected only by spiritual means. The church wants freedom in relation to the state-nothing more; for all her power comes immediately from God, without any intervention or mediation of the state. The United States, constituted in accordance with the real order of things, and founded on principles which have their origin and ground inthe principles on which the churchher self is founded, can never establish any one of the sects as the religion of the state, for that would violate their political constitution, and array all the other sects, as well as the church herself against the government. They cannot be called upon to establish the church by law, because she is already in their constitution as far as the state has in itself any relation with religion, and because to establish her in any other sense would be to make her one of the civil insti- tutions of the land, and to bring her under the control of the state, which were equally against her interest and her nature. The religious mission of the United States is not then to establish the church by external law, or to protect her by legal disabilities, pains, and penalties against the sects, how- ever uncatholic they may be; but to maintain catholic free- dom, neither absorbing the state in the church northe church in the state, but leaving each to move freely, accordingto its own nature, in the sphere assigned it in the eternal order of things. Their mission separates church and state as ex- ternal governing bodies, but unites them in the interior principles from which each derives its vitality and force. Theirunion is in the intrinsic unity of principle, and in the fact that, though moving in different spheres, each obeys one and the same divine law. With this the Catholic who knows what Catholicity means, is of course satisfied, for it gives the church all the advantage over the sects of the real over the unreal ; and with this the sects have no right to be dissatisfied, for it subjects them to ne disadvantage not in- herent in sectarianism itself in presence of Catholicity, and without any support from the civil authority. The effect of this mission of our country fully realized, would be to harmonize church and state, religion and poli- tics, not by absorbing either in the other, or by obliterating the natural distinction between them, but by conforming both to the real or divine order, which is supreme and im- mutable. It places the two powers in their normal relation, which has hitherto never been done, because hitherto there never has been a state normally constituted. The nearest approach made to the realization of the proper relations of church and state, prior to the birth of the American repub- lic, was in the Roman empire under the Christian emperors ; but the state had been perverted by paganism, and the em- perors, inheriting the old pontifical power, could never be made to understand their own incompetency in spirituals, and persisted to the last in treating the church as a civil in- stitution under their supervision and control, as does the emperor of the French in France, even yet. In the middle ages the state was so barbarously constituted that the church was obliged to supervise its administration, to mix herself up with the civil government, in order to infuse some intel- ligence into civil matters, and to preserve her own rightful freedom and independence. When the states broke away from feudalism, they revived the Roman constitution, and claimed the authority in ecclesiastical matters that had been exercised by the Roman Cæsars, and the states that adopted a sectarian religion gave the sect adopted a civil establish- ment, and subjected it to the civil government, to which the sect not unwillingly consented, on condition that the civil authority excluded the church and all other sects, and made it the exclusive religion of the state, as in England, Scot- land, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, and the states of northern Germany. Even yet the normal relations of church and state are nowhere practicable in the Old World ; for every- where either the state is more or less barbaric in its constitution, or the religion is sectarian, and the church as well as civilization is obliged to struggle with antagonistic forces, for self-preservation. There are formidable parties all over Europe at work to introduce what they take to be the American system ; but constitutions are generated, not made-providential, not conventional. Statesmen can only develop what is in the existing constitutions of their respective countries, and no European constitution contains all the elements of the Amer- ican. European liberals mistake the American system, and, were they to succeed in their efforts, would not introduce it, but something more hostile to it than the governments and institutions they are warring against. They start from narrow, sectarian, or infidel premises, and seek not freedom of worship, but freedom of denial. They suppress the free- dom of religion as the means of securing what they call re- ligious liberty-imagine that they secure freedom of thought by extinguishing the light without which no thought is pos- sible, and advance civilization by undermining its founda- tion. The condemnation of their views and movements by the Holy Father in the encyclical, which has excited so much hostility, may seem to superficial and unthinking Americans even, as a condemnation of our American sys- tem-indeed, as the condemnation of modern science, intelligence, and civilization itself ; but whoever looks below the surface, has some insight into the course of events, under- stands the propositions and movements censured, and the sense in which they are censured, is well assured that the Holy Father has simply exercised his pastoral and teaching authority to save religion, society, science, and civilization from utter corruption or destruction. The opinions, ten- dencies, and movements, directly orby implication censured, are the effect of narrow and superficial thinking, of partial and one-sided views, and are sectarian, sophistical, and hos- tile to all real progress, and tend, as far as they go, to throw society back into the barbarism from which, after centuries of toil and struggle, it is just beginning to emerge. The Holy Father has condemned nothing that real philosophy, real science does not also condemn; nothing, in fact, that is not at war with the American system itself. For the mass of the people, it were desirable that fuller explanations should be given of the sense in which the various proposi- tions censured are condemned, for some of them are not, in every sense, false; but the explanations needed were ex- pected by the Holy Father to be given by the bishops and prelates, to whom, not to the people, save through them, the encyclical was addressed. Little is to be hoped, and much is to be feared, for liberty, science, and civilization from European liberalism, which has no real affinity with Amer- ican territorial democracy and real civil and religious free- dom. But God and reality are present in the Old World as well as in the New, and it will never do to restrict their power or freedom. Whether the American people will prove faithful to their mission, and realize their destiny, or not, is known only to Him from whom nothing is hidden. Providence is free, and leaves always a space for human free-will. The Amer- ican people can fail, and will fail if they neglect the ap- pointed means and conditions of success ; but there is noth- ing in their present state or in their past history to render their failure probable. They have in their internal consti- tution what Rome wanted, and they are in no danger of be- ing crushed by exterior barbarism. Their success as feeble colonies of Great Britain in achieving their national inde- pendence, and especially in maintaining, unaided, and against the real hostility of Great Britain and France, their national unity and integrity against a rebellion which, probably, no other people could have survived, gives reasonable assurance for their future. Theleaders of the rebellion, thanwhomnone better knew or more nicely calculated the strength and re- sources of the Union, counted with certainty on success, and the ablest, the most experienced, and best-informed statesmen of the Old World felt sure that the republic was gone, and spoke of it as the late United States. Not a few, even in the loyal states, who had no sympathy with the rebellion, believed it idle to think of suppressing it by force, and advised peace on the best terms that could be obtained. But Ilium fuit was chanted too soon; the American people were equal to the emergency, and falsified the calculations and predictions of their enemies, and surpassed the expectations of their friends. The attitude of the real American people during the fear- ful struggle affords additional confidence in their destiny. With larger armies on foot than Napoleon ever commanded, with their line of battle stretching from ocean to ocean, across the whole breadth of the continent, they never, dur- ing four long years of alternate victories and defeats-and both unprecedentedly bloody-for a moment lost their equa- nimity, or appeared less calm, collected, tranquil, than in the ordinary times of peace. They not for a moment inter- rupted their ordinary routine of business or pleasure, or seemed conscious of being engaged in any serious struggle which required an effort. There was no hurry, no bustle, no excitement, no fear, no misgiving. They seemed to re- gard the war as a mere bagatelle, not worth being in earnest about. The on-looker was almost angry with their apparent indifference, apparent insensibility, and doubted if they moved at all. Yet move they did: guided by an unerring instinct, they moved quietly on with an elemental force, in spite of a timid and hesitating administration, in spite of in- experienced, over-cautious, incompetent, or blundering mil- itary cominanders, whom they gently brushed aside, and desisted not till their object was gained, and they saw the flag of the Union floating anew in the breeze from the cap- itol of every state that dared secede. No man could con- template them without feeling that there was in them a latent power vastly superior to any which they judged it necessary to put forth. Their success proves to all that what, prior to the war, was treated as American arrogance or self-conceit, was only the outspoken confidence in their destiny as a providential people, conscious that to them is re- served the hegemony of the world.

Count de Maistre predicted early in the century the failure of the United States, because they have no proper name; but his prediction assumed what is not the fact. The United States have a proper name by which all the world knows and calls them. The proper name of the country is America: that of the people is Americans. Speak of Americans simply, and nobody understands you tomean the people of Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Chili, Paraguay, but everybody understands you to mean the people of the United States. The fact is significant, and foretells for the people of the United States a continental des- tiny, as is also foreshadowed in the so-called " Monroe doc- trine," which France, during our domestic troubles, was per- mitted, on condition of not intervening in our civil war in favor of the rebellion, to violate. There was no statesmanship in proclaiming the " Monroe doctrine," forthe statesman keeps always, as far as possible,his government free to act according to the exigencies of the case when it comes up, unembarrassed by previous declara- tions of principles. Yet the doctrine only expresses the destiny of the American people, and which nothing but their own fault can prevent them from realizing in its own good time. Napoleon will not succeed in his Mexican policy, and Mexico will add some fifteen or twentynewstates to the American Union as soon as it is clearly for the inter- ests of all parties that it should be done, and it can be done by mutual consent, without war or violence. The Union will fight to maintain the integrity of her domain and the supremacy of her laws within it, but she can never, consist- ently with her principles or her interests, enter upon a career of war and conquest. Her system is violated, en- dangered, not extended, by subjugating her neighbors, for subjugation and liberty go not together. Annexation, when it takes place, must be on terms of perfect equality, and by the free act ofthe state annexed. The Union can admit of no inequality of rights and franchises between the states of which it is composed. The Canadian provinces and the Mexican and Central American states, when annexed, must be as free as the original states of the Union, sharing alike in the power and protection of the republic-alike in its authority, its freedom, its grandeur, and its glory, as one free, independent, self-governing people. They may gain much, but must lose nothing by annexation. The Emperor Napoleon and his very respectable protégé, Maximilian, an able man and a liberal-minded prince, can change nothing in the destiny of the United States, or of Mexico herself ; no imperial government can be permanent beside the American republic, no longer liable, since the abolition of slavery, to be distracted by sectional dissensions. The states that seceded will soon, in some way, be restored to their rights and franchises in the Union, forming not the least patriotic portion of the American people; the negro question will be settled, or settle itself, as is most likely, by the melting away of the negro population before the influx of white laborers ; all traces of the late contest in a very few years will be wiped out, the national debt paid, orgreat- ly reduced, and the prosperity and strength of the republic be greater than ever. Its moral force will sweep away every imperial throne on the continent, without any effort or action on the part of the government. There can be no stable government in Mexico till every trace of the ecclesi- astical policy established by the Council of the Indies is obliterated, and the church placed there on the same footing as in the United States ; and that canhardly be done with- out annexation. Maximilian cannot divest the church of her temporal possessions, and place Protestants and Catholics onthe same footing, without offending the present church party and deeply injuring religion, and that too without winning the confidence of the republican party. In all Spanish and Portuguese America the relations between the church and state are abnormal, and exceedingly hurtful to both. Religion is in a wretched condition, and politics in aworse condition still. There is no effectual remedy for either but in religious freedom, now impracticable, and to be rendered practicable by no European intervention, for that subjects religion to the state, the very source of the evils that now exist, instead of emancipating it from the state, and leaving it to act according to its own constitution and laws, as under the American system. But the American people need not trouble themselves about their exterior expansion. That will come of itself as fast as desirable. Let them devote their attention to their internal destiny, to the realization of their mission within, and they will gradually see the whole continent coming under their system, forming one grandnation, a really Cath- olic nation, great, glorious, and free.