these and some other particulars, the views of the whigs, if not altogether opposed to, are at least very remote from those of their adversaries.

As these points have already been discussed in their proper places, another examination of them here would be superfluous; still I should not omit to mention that many whigs said to me, "All these things are in truth of slight importance; but they are rendered artificially prominent by the excitement of the election." There is no doubt, that party spirit represents and judges of every thing in a harsher light; but I cannot persuade myself that those circumstances are of no great importance in themselves. They are the gravest that now remain to be decided; or if not important, why is there any dispute about them? Clay said: "The whigs now stand where the republicans of 1798 stood, battling for liberty, for the people, for free institutions; against power, against corruption, against executive encroachments, against monarchy."* But at the moment of making these accusations, was he not himself possessed of the same party spirit which he condemns so bitterly and with so much justice in others? "In the back-ground, behind those disputed points," observed the whigs above mentioned, "lie hidden many greater dangers, which without constant attention and ceaseless effort on our part would burst forth and involve us all in ruin. The locofocos might finally subject all laws to popular license, invert the order of society, and abolish the right of property. We whigs are the conservative class; our opponents, the destructive."

Here we may repeat: It is possible that there are individuals in the democratic party, who go beyond all reasonable bounds, and who would introduce by force or fraud their absurd fancies as new revelations essential to the well-being of mankind; -as there may be individual whigs who would fall into similar follies in the opposite direction. Never has a democrat of note, or a creditable newspaper organ of the party, advocated or given currency to the doctrines complained of. The rights of the people in America are as great as they can be: and therefore it is wholly unnecessary to invert the order of things, neither is there any sufficient ground for considering the people as the populace, and the populace as the people. When monopolies, excessive imposts, and unjust banking privileges, are esteemed as unassailable species of property, the democrats are certainly opponents of this kind of property; but it is for the very reason that they hold property sacred in a higher and more general sense. The fear that any great American party would or could at any time abolish the rights of property, is wholly groundless. Attacks upon these rights have been far more violent and dangerous in Europe, *Speeches, ii. 432.

and the absurdities of St. Simon, Fourier, and the Communists did not spring from the American democracy. In general, property is a relation so entirely natural and necessary, that it will be able to maintain itself through its own inherent, indestructible strength; and even if violated in particular instances, it can never be overthrown as a general principle. To attach civil rights and their exercise to the person and not to a certain amount of property, does not destroy the latter in any of its other relations; indeed, in most countries of the world, private property is wholly disconnected from political rights. By what right the whigs call themselves conservative par excellence, it is not easy to perceive; because they wish to alter the constitution in some important particulars, which the democrats wish to preserve: for example, in reference to the election of president, the veto, the proceeds of the land-sales, &c. If however it should be asserted, that alteration is in a higher sense a conservative measure, it would require much stronger proofs than any that have hitherto been given.

In May, 1844, about the time of the great convention in Baltimore, the whigs had apparently so much the advantage and displayed such confidence, that even the leaders of the democratic party gave up the election for lost. Instead however of despairing and idly folding their hands upon their breasts, the democrats, having discovered their weak point, set aside the different candidates, and united on Polk. By this means and by the withdrawal of President Tyler, harmony was restored to their ranks; and what was represented as the resort of weakness or the result of unworthy artifice, was the work of genuine sagacity and commendable patriotism. The victory of the democrats was in reality the result of the most open and searching examination, to which for six months the principles and views of both parties were subjected, and of the conviction thus arrived at that they had the majority. I have already shown how untrue and ridiculous the assertion is, that the important decision was brought about by the votes of a handful of immigrants. It certainly ought not to be made a subject of reproach to the latter, that after examining the systems of both parties, they chose the best according to their judgment,* and ranged themselves on the side where most of the native Americans already stood. If the answer be, "The question is, not of the immigrants of the last few years, but of the five millions of American citizens of German descent;" the declaration is too silly and odious to deserve the slightest attention.

Polk's moderate, conciliatory, and sensible declaration, that while he would maintain in their integrity the great principles of democracy, he would not remove officers for holding different

*Immigrant Germans very naturally failed to perceive the attractions of paper money, high duties, and the like.

opinions; and that he would not be the president of a party only, but keep in view the good of the whole,-will and must soften the bitterness of opposition, and bring parties to a better understanding.

The voluntary or compulsory indifference and apathy of many inhabitants of European states in respect to public affairs, cannot be recommended to free American citizens; they can only smile at the fears of the timid, and despise the rancor of the disaffected. But perhaps they should give more heed to the remarks of sincere friends, that people may busy themselves too much and too zealously with politics, especially when innumerable meetings and speeches as well as the constant reading of newspapers leave neither time, strength, nor inclination for other things. There is a deal of political parade to be gone through, as well as of hard service to be done; which contract the mental horizon, and repress more general culture. There is also a race of political dillettanti, who indeed stand sufficiently high in their own estimation, but are of as little benefit to the state as pretenders of the same class are to the fine arts. Sometimes such amateurs are drilled into real artists, by entering Congress and ranging themselves under more eminent men; sometimes they think this too much trouble, and it is well if they grow tired of politics, and return to other business at home.

The oft repeated assertion that in our day individuality has lost all its importance, is untrue in America as well as in Europe. There also, in spite of the power of the people, a few distinguished men only take the lead; and it is delightful to observe, how well this people understand the art of uniting a due respect for their own position with enthusiastic regard for the highly gifted. The path lies open to all; but only a few prejudiced travellers sigh for distinction of castes, as a means of putting the ablest at the head. The views of the leaders influence the people, and public opinion acts upon the leaders; both deserve more praise than blame. We can also approve of the endeavor to prevent, by means of a friendly understanding, collisions of the two parties in meetings, processions, caucuses, speeches, &c.; that is to say, in so far as such precautions do not widen the breach between the parties, and render their views more onesided still. After all, parties in America approach much nearer to each other, and an understanding between them is much more practicable, than it is among the directly opposing principles of European politics.*

May good sense and reverence for pure, simple truth not be annihilated by party excesses; nor the laws and magistrates be disregarded through popular excitement; nor any bad means be

* What if in Europe all questions on the internal affairs of a country were connected with the election of a king?

resorted to for securing ostensibly good ends! Such a respect for truth, justice, moderation, and harmony, is infinitely more to be prized than the glittering rhetorical flourishes so often inconsiderately admired, which stir up unholy passions, while they dazzle the understanding.

CHAPTER XXXII.

SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES.

Schools and Universities-Governments and Schools-Principles of EducationAmerica and Europe-Praise and Blame of Schools-Germans-Public Schools, Colleges, Universities-Negro Schools-Religious Instruction-Female Teachers-Labor in Schools-Alabama--North and South Carolina-District of Columbia-College of Jesuits-Connecticut, Yale College-New HampshireIllinois-Kentucky-Louisiana-Maine--Maryland-Michigan-Missouri-Ohio -Pennsylvania-Vermont, Burlington-Virginia, Charlotteville-New YorkMassachusetts, Boston, Cambridge School and University-Medical Institutions, Physicians-Summary, Remarks--District Libraries.

I HAVE several times alluded to the reproach, that the thoughts and actions of the Americans are directed solely to the material, the palpable, and the immediately useful; that in these things they have certainly made great progress, but have done nothing, given nothing, and spent no time or exertions, for advancing the more general cause of mental development. These censures made by Europeans are confirmed, as it appears, by many Americans for they complain, in reference to education and schooling, of the indifference of parents; the incapacity, too frequent changes, or extreme youthfulness of the teachers; the short period allotted to schooling; negligent attendance; defective school-books; bad methods of instruction; lax discipline; improper efforts to gain popularity; dependence on contributions; squandering of money; useless architectural display in buildings; appeals to false ambition; the erroneous importance attached to mere outward worldly objects; the excessive variety of subjects of instruction, and consequent superficial treatment; the injurious influence of political parties, &c. &c.*

These bitter complaints undoubtedly prove on the one hand the existence of considerable defects; but on the other, they evince great interest in the subject, and serious efforts at improvement on all sides. In fact the distinction or opposition between materialism and spiritualism, between light and shade, is in gene

*Mann's Reports. Potter and Emerson, The School, p. 187.

ral wholly erroneous: for as on the material side, of which we have until now been treating, we have found that wonderful improvements were accompanied by errors and defects (e. g. in the case of the banks, repudiation, slavery, the tariff, &c.); so too on turning to the spiritual side, we discover principles, exertions, and advances, that deserve our highest praise. The interests of schools and education, for example, have been earnestly promoted, especially in the northern states, ever since the first settlement of the country. And since the independence of the Union, Washington and Jefferson's loudly expressed convictions have met with general acceptance: That in proportion as a free country grants greater rights to its citizens, it must attend to their education and mental culture. Washington in his very first message to Congress said: "You will no doubt agree with me in opinion, that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the sense of the community as in ours, it is proportionably essential. The people themselves must be taught to know and value their own rights; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burdens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience, and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness, cherishing the first, avoiding the last, and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments with an inviolable respect to the laws."* In like manner De Witt Clinton declared: "Knowledge is as much the cause as the effect of good government."-And in a School Report for New York (1840, Doc. 40) it is stated: "The rising generation is destined to rule the country at a future period; therefore it must be formed and educated, that it may be secured against the wiles of dema gogues, and so exercise its invaluable rights as not to lose them through abuse."

According to the laws and the prevalent feeling, the general government cannot directly conduct the system of education: hence there is no ministry of public instruction, no general plan for schools, no general school fund; on the contrary all movements attended by great results proceed from the separate states and from individuals. One-sided interference and compulsory uniformity are much more dreaded than occasional defects of judgment and system. The teachers usually have the assistance of trustees, who are elected by the community to manage the †The Schoolmaster, p. 111.

*Messages of the Presidents, p. 22.