THE PRESIDENT’S SPEECH AT DES MOINES.
The utterances of any person occupying so lofty a station as that of President of the United States demand attention and respect, by reason of the source from whence they emanate. The deliberate judgments of such a man as President Grant have in themselves a special claim to the consideration of his fellow-citizens. He has had opportunities to study the length and breadth of the land. His private convictions have matured amidst the most varied experience of all classes and sections of our people—first in a profession affording ample leisure and abundant means of observation from an independent stand-point, and afterwards in commercial life, which placed him in the midst of daily events, no longer as a theorist, but as one actively concerned in their course and development. His position in military affairs has been that of one of the most celebrated commanders of the age, and his political career has been that of an independent statesman, always wielding supreme influence, and quite beyond the need of vulgar trickery, in order to maintain its power. Having almost completed an illustrious public life, he is now able to express the results of his observations, and no one can lightly question the validity of his conclusions. The country is prepared to receive anything he may have to say to it, with solicitous, intelligent, and earnest consideration.
Those who may differ from him in political convictions, or who may retain a partiality for some of his less successful competitors for the highest prize of military glory, and even those who go so far as to question his greatness—all must admit that he is a true American, formed and moulded by the events in which he has moved, and truly representing the country and the times.
We are disposed, therefore, to attach the fullest importance to his words, whether spoken officially or from the convictions of his heart, and to ponder them respectfully and thoughtfully.
On the 29th of September last His Excellency attended, at Des Moines, the capital city of Iowa, a convention of the “Army of the Tennessee,” one of those military organizations composed of veterans of the late war. The nature of these and kindred associations is not political. Their aim is to keep up a brotherly spirit among those who formerly stood shoulder to shoulder on the battle-field. Nevertheless, the gallant men, who thus risked life and limb for the integrity of the national government, are supposed to retain their patriotism, and to look with pride and zeal upon the continuance and healthy growth of those institutions, which are vitally connected with the nation’s greatness.
In the midst of such an assembly, composed of men of all creeds, our chief magistrate felt called upon to utter a prophetic warning, which has excited much comment at home, and has been extensively published abroad. We print his speech, delivered at the evening session of the “Army of the Tennessee,” as currently reported in the daily press. President Grant, being called for, came forward and said:
“Comrades: It always affords me much gratification to meet my comrades in arms of ten and fourteen years ago, and to tell over again from memory the trials and hardships of those days—of hardships imposed for the preservation and perpetuation of our free institutions. We believed then, and we believe now, that we have a government worth fighting for, and, if need be, dying for. How many of our comrades paid the latter price for our preserved Union! Let their heroism and sacrifice be ever green in our memory. Let not the result of their sacrifices be destroyed. The Union and the free institutions for which they died should be held more dear for their sacrifices. We will not deny to any of those who fought against us any privilege under the government which we claim for ourselves. On the contrary, we welcome all such who come forward in good faith to help build up the waste places, and to perpetuate our institutions against all enemies, as brothers in full interest with us in a common heritage; but we are not prepared to apologize for the part we took in the war.
“It is to be hoped that like trials will never again befall our country. In this sentiment no class of people can more heartily join than the soldier who submitted to the dangers, trials, and hardships of the camp and the battle-field, on whichever side he fought. No class of people are more interested in guarding against a recurrence of those days. Let us, then, begin by guarding against every enemy threatening the prosperity of free republican institutions. I do not bring into this assemblage politics, certainly not partisan politics; but it is a fair subject for the soldiers, in their deliberations, to consider what maybe necessary to secure the prize for which they battled. In a republic like ours, where the citizen is the sovereign and the official the servant, where no power is exercised except by the will of the people, it is important that the sovereign, the people, should foster intelligence—that intelligence which is to preserve us as a free nation. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.
“Now, the centennial year of our national existence, I believe, is a good time to begin the work of strengthening the foundations of the structure commenced by our patriotic forefathers one hundred years ago at Lexington. Let us all labor to add all needful guarantees for the security of free thought, free speech, a free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion. Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar appropriated for their support shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian schools. Resolve that neither the State nor nation, nor both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common-school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical dogmas. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state for ever separate. With these safeguards, I believe the battles which created the Army of the Tennessee will not have been fought in vain.”
Taking all things into consideration, the speech is fully equal to any written production of the President. It is direct. It is plain. It is manly and vigorous, and far superior to any other oration which we have heard of from the same distinguished quarter. Beyond all things it expresses, better than many imagine, the common sentiments of the American people.
We have not been surprised at the general applause with which it has been greeted; and we think that all our readers will agree in the judgments which we are about to express with regard to it.
An impression has been spread abroad that the views of President Grant are hostile to the Catholic Church, and that the speech was fulminated by his zeal against it. It has been averred that he was talked into making a public manifestation of his feelings by the mayor of the city of Des Moines, who called his attention to the political campaign in Ohio, where Catholics were vainly struggling for equal rights in the matter of the public schools. His Excellency is said to have been strongly moved, and hastened home from his ride, in order to prepare his speech for the evening. We have no means of definitely ascertaining the motives of the President’s speech. If he meant to hurl a thunderbolt at us, we honor him for using language, in the main, so just and courteous. But if his friends have sought to make use of him to stir up feeling against us, they must be sadly disappointed at his words; for, if they now repeat them too freely, for the purpose of injuring us, they will find themselves “hoist by” their “own petard.”
Trying as hard as we can to lash ourselves into fury; trying to fancy ourselves insulted, by representing to ourselves that the head of this nation has gone out of his way and abased his dignity, in order to cast an aspersion at a large and respectable class of the community, we are forced to give it up, and to lay down our pen; for we find nothing in the oration with which we are in the least disposed to take issue. On the contrary, we are prepared to join our tribute to the burst of applause which echoes through the land. We are convinced that, if it meets with the attention which it merits, the country at large, and Catholics in particular, will treasure the “Des Moines speech” among the “Sayings of the Fathers.” Like Washington’s Farewell, and Webster’s mighty peroration, and Lincoln’s noble and pathetic Inaugural, it will pass from the vulgar atmosphere of party strife into the pure and serene empyrean of immortality.
We have given the speech at length. We now propose to explain our decision with regard to it, and to examine at greater length those portions of it which seem to us most true, most wise, and most remarkable.
“Encourage free schools,” the President says, “AND RESOLVE THAT NOT ONE DOLLAR APPROPRIATED FOR THEIR SUPPORT SHALL BE APPROPRIATED FOR THE SUPPORT OF ANY SECTARIAN SCHOOLS.”
Do we hear aright? Does the President of the United States maintain the proposition which has brought us so much contempt and derision?
What is a free school? A free school is one in which every scholar can obtain an education without violating the honest convictions of conscience, or—to use the words of the President—a free school is one where education can be obtained “unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical dogmas.”
Are our so-called common schools free? Let us glance at the general history of the controversy concerning them. As soon as the public schools had ceased to be purely charitable institutions, a new policy was inaugurated by our people. The government assumed that it was bound to ensure an intelligent use of the franchise, by encouraging the mental activity of its citizens. To this all Catholics agreed, and still agree. But our Protestant fellow-citizens, rightly desiring that some religious instruction should be given their children, wrongly insisted upon having the Bible read in the schools. The government might have permitted such a custom to continue, when no protest was made against it. But it soon became evident that the schools were essentially Protestant institutions, and served as an instrument to prevent the growth of “Popery.” This was no secret. It was openly preached.
About this time Catholics began to see what everybody else was rejoicing over, and were, naturally, alarmed. They had assisted to found and build up the republic, or they had immigrated under the assurance of equal rights. To find it proclaimed a Protestant country was news to them. They insisted that the Government was bound to deny this imputation, and they registered an universal protest against the design of the falsely so-called “common” schools.
We have demanded either that we be relieved from taxation for these sectarian schools, or that such arrangement be devised as shall render them equally desirable for Catholics and non-Catholics.
We were not called upon to explain why we so earnestly desired this. It was nobody’s business but our own. The public schools are not held to be eleemosynary institutions. They are ostensibly for the benefit of all. And even if they were places for the confinement of criminals, or almshouses, both criminals and paupers have consciences, however dull or uninformed. What, then, is the objection to our having a right to direct the policy on which public institutions are to be conducted? None. But if we were to have taken such a position as this, we should, at once, have been indicted, for an insidious and damnable conspiracy.
Therefore we have openly stated the grounds of our convictions, relying on the inherent force of truth to secure our rights. We regard morality as inseparable from religion. In this we merely echo the sentiments of the greatest American statesmen, and notably, of the Father of our republic. We say that, if we are to pay for the education of our children, we should like to have the worth of our money. What fairer demand can a Yankee make? We ask nothing to which every citizen has not a right. We have never met a fair reply to our demands, or a fair discussion of their merits. First we were greeted with silent scorn. The practical operation of the laws was found to force our children into Protestant schools. We proclaimed claimed them to be Protestant schools. It was unblushingly denied. We put the question to the test, by endeavoring to stop the Protestant Bible from being read in them. There was not enough power in our voice, nor enough fairness in our opponents, to enforce even an appearance of consistency. The schools were pronounced “un-sectarian,” a Protestant service was daily carried out, and we were bidden to hold our tongues, and to be thankful. And, now, that we are not willing, either to hold our peace, or to be grateful to those who deny us our equal rights, a loud outcry is raised, and every manner of evil is predicted, unless we are forcibly restrained. The party of malevolence seeks to create an issue where none exists, and to force us into a strife, in which it can avail itself of superior numbers to strike us a cruel and unjust blow. Now, neither this design nor the clamor with which it is urged, can be defended by any true or just plea. And we venture to predict that there is too much intelligence and love of fair play in the American people, to allow it to succeed in its sinister purpose.
What is our position once more? Here we stand, on the same basis with all other American citizens. Is it not so? Where, then, is any legal disability proved against us? We ask for nothing which we are not willing to concede to all our fellow-citizens—viz., the natural right to have their children brought up according to their parents’ conscientious convictions. We want, and we will have, our children brought up Catholics. It can be done in various ways. The state can pay the salaries of our teachers, and the cost of our buildings, and other expenses, securing proper guarantees that the money will be honestly laid out, and the children receive their due amount of secular instruction. Again, the state may pay a pro rata, and allow teachers to compete for scholars. This is done in Protestant England and Prussia, as well as in Catholic France and Austria, and is, obviously, most in harmony with democratic principles. Other ways may be devised which will secure justice to all parties. There is no practical difficulty, except in the smallest country school districts. These are always settled by the citizens themselves. Or, we can educate our children, without the state. The state may let us alone, and may do away entirely with public education, except for those who are utterly without means—in other words, change the common schools into charitable institutions, and let parents provide. But this, we are persuaded, is full of practical difficulties.
But the plan actually adopted has been to tax all alike for the common good, and yet maintain a system, which perfectly suits Protestants, but to which Catholics cannot honestly or conscientiously agree. Our so-called common schools are not free. Millions of the people rise up and proclaim it. Let those who like them send their children to them. Let those support them who like them by their “private contributions.” Then all honor to President Grant when he says “that not one dollar should be appropriated to the support of any sectarian schools.”
The President further says:
“Resolve that neither State nor Nation, nor both combined, shall support Institutions of Learning other than those sufficient to afford every Child growing up in the Land the opportunity of a good Common-school Education, unmixed with Sectarian, Pagan, or Atheistical Dogmas.”
Now, what is it that Catholics complain of, except that the state has supported, and does support, “institutions of learning” mixed “with sectarian, pagan, and atheistical dogmas”?
There is no doubt about this fact. Protestants insist upon having the Bible read in the public schools, lest they become irreligious. Catholics maintain that the version used is garbled, and that, even if it were not, no one has a right to teach it, except those who have compiled it, and are to-day the only responsible witnesses to its true meaning. The Jews maintain that the New Testament part of it is not true. Infidels deny it altogether. What right has any school board, or any other purely human institution to decide this controversy; and what right has any man under the Constitution to enforce his religious views or his denial of religion upon others? It is an outrage. It is an inconsistency, which cannot be stated in any terms without transparently manifesting its absurdity. Under the Constitution, and according to the spirit of our government, all men are equal. Under the present system of common schools, and, according to the spirit of those who uphold them, men are not equal, and there is no such thing as regard for conscience; but every majority has a right to enforce upon any minority, no matter how large, its peculiar ideas of instruction, involving, as this always does, the question of religion itself. We have repeated our protest, until we are almost sick and tired of hearing the outrage mentioned; we have never seen our position manfully approached within beat of drum; and, yet, we have constantly been forced to ask ourselves, “Will the American people never see this? Can it be that our enemies are, as some of them hold themselves to be, totally depraved?”
Some time ago, after considerable agitation, the Chicago School Board prohibited the reading of the Sacred Scriptures in the public schools of that city.
Undoubtedly the protest of Catholics had something to do with this. But the action of the board was certainly based upon the idea, that the reading of the Protestant Bible made the schools Protestant, “sectarian” institutions, and therefore unjust towards all other religious bodies. Let it be thoroughly understood, that we fully appreciate the desire of our Protestant fellow-citizens, to hallow secular instruction. But the reading of the Scriptures as a public ceremony is as distinctive to them, as the celebration of Mass would be to Catholics. No one can evade the argument which forces this conclusion. “Such schemes are glass; the very sun shines through them.” And yet it is not a little remarkable, how slowly the light breaks in upon the seat of the delusion.
It is a satisfaction, however, to note the few acknowledgments, tardy and incomplete as they are, of the principle which we have always maintained. Prof. Swing, alluding to the action of the Chicago School Board to which we have referred, gives voice to the following observations of common sense:
“The government has no more right to teach the Bible than it has to teach the Koran. My idea is that the government did, in its earlier life, run according to a sort of Christian common law; but now the number of Jews, Catholics, and infidels has become so greatly increased, the government has to base itself squarely upon its constitutional idea that all men are religiously equal. Even if the genius of the country permitted the teaching of the Bible, I should doubt the propriety of continuing the custom, because no valuable moral results can ever come from reading a few verses hurriedly in a school-house, and social strifes will be continually springing up out of the practice.”
The government, then, according to the professor, has no rights in the spiritual domain—a proposition which we have been condemned to universal derision for maintaining, and yet one that is self-evident to any person who will pause for a moment to consider our institutions.
An ardent advocate of what are called liberal principles, commenting upon the position of Prof. Swing, very properly styles it the only one defensible. The purpose of the Liberal League is, unquestionably, to procure the complete secularization of our public schools, which would, of course, be as unjust towards Catholic tax-payers as any other system. This class is no less hostile to justice and true liberty than any other set of meddlers. Nevertheless, it is not a little amusing to see the unmistakable fear with which it regards the issue of the present anti-Catholic policy. It waves, as its flag of hostility to the Catholics, the threadbare pretext, that we are secretly opposed to all education. It is not necessary for us to repeat the indignant denial and protest, with which we have ever met this gratuitous calumny. We quote from the Boston Index of Oct. 28:
“The public-school system is to-day in the greatest danger, not so much from the fact that it is openly attacked from without by the Catholics, as from the fact that a great inherent injustice to all non-Protestants is made part and parcel of it by its distinctively Protestant character. What is built on wrong is built on the sand; and our school system will certainly fall in ruins by and by, unless it can be grounded on equal justice to all.”
When the avowed heathen, who reap the fullest harvest, fear for the destruction of our present unjust system of education, on the ground that it is too iniquitous to last, is it not time, for people who call themselves Christians, to give a moment’s heed to the petition, which we have for years addressed to them, as most advantageous to all of us, and as doing injustice to none?
It appears, however, that this idea has infiltrated into other minds. Zion’s Herald, a Methodist journal, quoted by the liberal paper to which we have referred, says:
“The state deals only with temporal affairs, and does not attempt to usurp spiritual functions. Therefore the objects and methods of public education are wholly secular, but by no means necessarily, or at all, immoral or irreligious. On the contrary, they are decidedly favorable to piety and morality. But composed denominationally as the American people is, the state ought not to impart religious education. The moment such an attempt should be made, the community would be in conflict as to what form it should take. It may be conceded, without danger perhaps, that the state should not teach ethics, except so far as the great fundamental principles of morals and politics, as to which all Americans are agreed, are concerned. The religious education of children may and should be remitted to the family, the Sabbath-school, and the church—the natural and divinely-appointed guardians of religion and ethics.”
In the face of this growing acknowledgment of the “sectarian” character of our public schools, and knowing that they must give religious instruction or else be “pagan and atheistical,” we are pleased to hear the demand that “neither the State nor nation, nor both combined,” shall support such schools.
The fact is, that a people cannot wholly escape from its national traditions, without forgetting its language, or undergoing some violent revolution. If our fellow-citizens will study the meaning of the terms which they habitually use, they will not lose their traditions of freedom and equal rights, nor will they throw themselves into a violent, perilous departure from them. But we hasten to comment upon another sentence, which is frequently quoted from the President’s oration:
“Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school supported by private contributions.”
Precisely so. If it must come to this; if no arrangement can be made, by which religion and morality can be taught in the public schools, then, leave the matter to the family altar and the church, and allow it to be done by private contributions.
In other words, either furnish the people with that which you pretend to tax them for—viz., a fair and equitable system of public schools—or allow them to provide for themselves. But, whatever you do, keep your hands off the sacredness of the “family altar.” Do not set foot into the hallowed precincts of the domestic sanctuary. The family, though subordinate, is not to be violated by the state. Parents have rights, which no government can usurp. You have no more right to force the education of their children out of their hands, than to define the number of offspring by law. You have no more right to establish a system, to which you will endeavor to secure their conformity by violent measures, than you have to establish public wet-nurseries, or, require that voters shall be brought up on government pap and be fed out of a government spoon.
Keep from meddling with religion; you have no authority to teach it.
What a bitter rebuke these words of the President contain for that party, small and contemptible in itself, but powerful by reason of the times, which has ever sought to widen the gulf between us and our true-hearted countrymen! It is not enough that we should be estranged by the traditions of three hundred years. It is not enough to whisper into the popular ear every stale and loathed calumny. It is not enough to bring our holiest rites and beliefs into the obscene literature now circulating amongst the depraved youth of our country. It is not enough to drown with a thousand noisy, insolent tongues, every attempt we make at explanation. It is not enough for this malignant, persecuting power to drop its poison into every crevice of our social and religious system, from the parlor to the sewer, from the temple to the lupanar; but the nation must be organized against us. Our religion must, in some way or other, be dragged into politics. For shame! we cry, with the President. In a country of such varied religious beliefs as ours, there is but one way to order and peace—“Keep the church and the state for ever separate.”
To sum up: We agree with the President:
1st. No “sectarianism” in our common schools; and, therefore, “not one dollar” to our present system of schools, because they are sectarian.
2d. “Not one dollar” to “pagan” schools, in which God is ignored.
3d. “Not one dollar” to “atheistical” schools, in which God is denied in the name of “science falsely so-called.”
We now turn to consider the prophecy in which the President warns the American people of its future dangers:
“If we are to have another Contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the Dividing Line will not be Mason and Dixon’s, but between Patriotism and Intelligence on the one side, and Superstition, Ambition, and Ignorance On the other.”
What is meant by superstition?
Formerly it meant seeking for power or knowledge, by dealing with the impure spirits.
Does the President mean to warn us against the delusions and uncleanness of modern spiritism? If so, we are agreed.
But we do not really suppose that the President means any such thing. What does he mean?
We find in the dictionary four other meanings of the word which he has used. Superstition means “an excessive reverence or fear of that which is unknown or mysterious.” But, we observe no such phenomenon among our people; if anything, rather the reverse. Or it means “The worship of false gods.” We see no signs of this except in the “Joss Houses” of San Francisco. Nor do we behold any great belief “in the agency of superior powers in certain extraordinary or singular events, or in omens, or prognostics.” Nor, further, do we behold any “excessive nicety or scrupulous exactness,” as an alarming feature of our present moral condition. There remains but one meaning (and this, we are persuaded, is the sense which the President intended to convey): “Especially, an ignorant or irrational worship of the supreme Deity.”
An ignorant worship of God is one which knows not what to believe concerning him, or one which is unable to state what it does believe; or, further, one which can give no conclusive reason for believing anything. But, outside the Catholic Church, there is no religious body which can tell precisely what it ought to believe, or precisely what it does believe, or precisely why it ought to believe anything. Again, an irrational belief in God is one which recognizes his existence, and, at the same time, denies his attributes. For instance, it is an irrational belief in God, which denies his wisdom; which asserts, that he has not chosen means adequate to accomplish his ends; which represents him, when he has made a revelation to man, as leaving his divine truth in scattered and mysterious writings in an obscure language, requiring men to find them, collect them, and believe their true meaning in order to be saved; or which fancies that reading daily a few pages from these writings, to little children, will be sufficient to prepare them for the duties of life. It is an irrational belief in God which represents him as immoral, as creating man simply to damn him, or, which denies his justice, by wickedly imagining that he will not punish oppression and calumny and those who sow discord in the midst of a free and happy people.
Here again we agree with the President in denouncing such impiety, and in predicting that, if the liberties and institutions of this republic are soon to be jeopardized, it will be by irreverence towards God and the contempt of charity and justice towards men, ever practised by this “ignorant and irrational worship of the supreme Deity.”
Another item of danger which the President foresees in the near future is “ignorance.” Here, again we find him sounding the note of warning, to which we have always given voice. His Excellency says: “In a republic like ours, … where no power is exercised except by the will of the people, it is important that the sovereign, the people, should foster intelligence—that intelligence which is to preserve us as a free nation.” The liberties of this republic will not be maintained, we say, by an ignorant, debauched, and corrupted generation. Our common people must be educated. They must possess “that intelligence which is to preserve us as a free nation.” They must know something more than simply how to read and write and “cipher.” Nor will it be sufficient, to add to this a knowledge of music. They must have a sound and thorough moral training. Their conscientious convictions must be grounded on truth daily taught and daily enforced. They must be daily taught to control their passions; they must be taught honesty, and be required to give back that which is unjustly gotten. They must be taught the true purpose of life.
But this training, as the President affirms, belongs not to the state, but to the “family altar and the church.” Either assist all families and all churches, or else encourage them to help themselves. These are our sentiments. But when sectarian bigotry has gotten hold of a system of the falsely so-called “common schools,” and with obstinate purpose, and clamorous intensity and ever-swelling declamation, manifests its resolve to maintain this system, even though it conflicts with the conscientious rights of millions of the people of our country; when, further, it is determined to force a large minority to accept this state of things, or to go without instruction, we, as American citizens, denounce the system as tyrannous; in the full sense of the word, as a reckless and immoral oppression. We assert that those who uphold it, do not desire intelligence, but prefer ignorance; that their aim is not to promote knowledge, but to destroy the religious convictions of our children, and to keep us from growing in the land. We affirm that such self-delusion originates in ignorance, is perpetuated by ignorance, tends to still deeper degradation of ignorance; and we predict that it will bring forth the fruits of ignorance, not only in morality, but in the lower sciences.
We, for our part, will never relax our efforts to show up the dishonesty of this party; we will never withdraw our protest, until justice has been done; and knowing to what lengths men can go when they start without principle, we fully share in the alarm of our chief magistrate, as to the danger of “ignorance.” Have we not, therefore, reason to hope that, in the midst of the struggle, which his sagacious mind perceives to be at hand, we shall find him on the side of patriotism and intelligence, with all true Americans, against that “superstition” and “ignorance,” whose aim is to destroy the “security of unfettered religious sentiments and equal rights” of his fellow-citizens?
There is another item of the future contest, which, according to our President, is
“Ambition.” What is ambition?
A man has been elected to the highest office in the gift of a free people, the limits of which have been fixed by a custom handed down by the fathers of the nation, and which, to the minds of true patriots, has the force of law. When such a trust does not satisfy the honored recipient, and he, yielding to personal motives, strains every nerve, and seeks by every means at his command, to break down all barriers to continuation of power, thereby abusing the dignity of his post and the confidence of the people—that is ambition.
We do not fully share the apprehension with which the President foresees this threat to the “near future” of our national welfare. But if it be true, we fully agree with him when he says: “Now, the centennial year of our national existence, I believe, is a good time to begin the work of strengthening the foundations of the structure commenced by our patriotic forefathers one hundred years ago at Lexington.”
“Language,” according to a great diplomatist, “was given to man, in order that he might conceal his ideas.” But this maxim has never been accepted by honorable men. In examining, thus briefly, the “Des Moines speech,” we have followed that other canon of criticism, which requires that words shall be interpreted in their literal sense, as far as possible. Submitted to this just criticism, the language appears to us immortal, and worthy of the high place which is even now being prepared for it. Some may marvel, and may wonder how the President came to be filled with so high a degree of the prophetic spirit. Like Balaam, the son of Beor, he was expected to curse us; unlike Balaam, he was not stayed, but rather urged on by the faithful servant with whom he previously conversed. But there is no mystery about it. He has grown up with the instincts of a true American, and he has spoken accordingly. Not only are the words on which we have commented true, but they are in accordance with sound Catholic principles. We are ready to take him at his word, and his words in their true meaning. To those who will join us we say, without disguise or reserve: “Gentlemen, you will never regret having trusted us, and dealt fairly with us, according to the laws and Constitution of this country.” We believe with the President, that, if the only honest meaning of his language be as honestly carried out, “the battles which created the Army of the Tennessee” (which, by the way, a Catholic general once commanded and in whose ranks hundreds of Catholic hearts bled)—we believe, we say, that these battles “will not have been fought in vain.” The children of the soldiers of the Union will at least be the peers of those whom their fathers overcame. The nations’ heroes will not look down, to see their heirs defrauded of equal rights in “the Union and the free institutions for which they died.” The President will yield to his comrades in arms, at least as much as he is so ready to accord to his late opponents. And as for our countrymen throughout the Union, we are prepared to wait, trusting that when fully enlightened, they will agree to our obtaining, independently of all political agitations or party organizations, our just and equal rights as American citizens.