The American Sentinel 1
July 1886
“National Reform and the Chinese” The American Sentinel 1, 7, pp. 50, 51.
EVER since Congress passed the Chinese Restriction Act, the Christian Statesman has been in great tribulation, because of the great wrong committed by the nation in that piece of legislation. Now in this article we propose no discussion of the righteousness or unrighteousness of that act of Congress, or whether it was just or unjust in itself. Our controversy is with the Christian Statesman, on its own published propositions, all of which are editorial utterances, and therefore stand as authoritative principles of National Reform. AMS July 1886, page 50.1
By act of Congress the importation, or emigration, of Chinese laborers was prohibited for a period of ten years. This act the Christian Statesman denounced at the time. In its issue of Sept. 25, 1884, among “the gravest of moral evils, evils which threaten the very life of the nation,” “injustice to the Chinese” is named. In its issue of Oct. 23, 1884, it says that “the un-christian Chinese policy of the two great parties is part of the indictment which the better conscience of the country is charging upon them.” Again, in its issue of Oct. 2, 1884, we read:— AMS July 1886, page 50.2
“The two leading political parties have vied with each other in displaying their readiness to exclude the Chinamen from our shores, and have declared for the policy of exclusion, in their respective platforms. This policy, on the other hand, is felt by large numbers of Christian men to be in violation of the natural rights of men, as well as contrary to the spirit and teachings of the religion of Jesus, and increases the dissatisfaction with which, on other grounds, these parties and their platforms are regarded.” AMS July 1886, page 50.3
But what do the Statesman and the National Reform Party propose instead of this? We read:— AMS July 1886, page 50.4
“We may not shut the door in the face of any one who wishes to come and dwell with us. No nation has the right to do this, even for the preservation of religious character.” “Make all men welcome to our shores, but give all men to understand that this is a Christian nation; and that believing that without Christianity we perish, we must maintain by all right means our Christian character. Inscribe this character on our Constitution... Enforce upon all that come among us the laws of Christian morality.” AMS July 1886, page 50.5
Let us analyze this position and see wherein it differs from the position of the political parties which it condemns. By the term “laws of Christian morality,” the Statesman means the ten commandments. With this definition then it says, “Enforce upon all that comes among us the ten commandments.” Now “enforce,” according to Webster, means “to force; to constrain; to compel; to execute with vigor.” Therefore the Statesman says: “Force, compel, all that come among us to keep the ten commandments.” “Execute with vigor the ten commandments upon all that come among us.” But the second commandment forbids men to make, to bow down to, or to serve, graven images; and this bears with particular force against the Chinese, for they do make and worship graven images; so that it may fairly be said that of all the Chinese who should ever desire to come to this country, they would be, without exception, idolaters. Now when, by constitutional amendment, this shall have been declared a Christian nation, and notice shall have thus been given that all who come here will be compelled to keep the ten commandments, will that be a sufficient argument to induce the Chinese to abandon their idols that they may come here? Allowing all the wondrous efficacy that has been ascribed to National Reform, such could hardly be expected of it, for the Chinese are just as sincere in their worship, idolatrous as it is, as are the National Reformers in theirs; and it certainly will require something more than an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to convince them that their worship is wrong. So it is easy enough to tell what the Chinese will do when the time comes that they shall have to choose whether they will abandon their worship or come to the United States. With such an alternative, they will never come to this country. Therefore the success of the National Reform policy will just as absolutely exclude the Chinese from this country as does the act of Congress which is now in force, and which is so unsparingly denounced by that party. AMS July 1886, page 50.6
Now to show that the force that is given to their expressions, by the definitions before given, is not more than they intend, we give some more of their words on this subject. In the San Francisco Chronicle of September 24, 1884, appeared an account of a Chinese procession in that city, in honor of their god How Wong in the Christian Statesman of October 30, 1884, under the caption, “Idolatry Publicly Tolerated,” the account is copied in full, and then commented on as follows:— AMS July 1886, page 50.7
“The remedy lies, not in the exclusion of the Chinese from our shores, where they have from God a perfect right to come, but in the legal prohibition of their public idolatry, which they have from God no right to practice, and which no Christian Government ought to tolerate on its soil.” “Odious it is, offensive to Christian sensibilities, provoking the auger of Heaven against the nation which tolerates it. But ... the American people generally would doubtless be shocked by the suggestion that such open idolatry should be suppressed by law. But if this is, as claimed, a Christian nation, and if Jehovah is our God, why should the suggestion be considered as strange or impracticable?” AMS July 1886, page 50.8
It is plain, therefore, by their own declarations, that the Chinese cannot come to this country and bring their worship with them, and that, as we have seen, works the exclusion of the Chinese as effectually as any other means that could be employed. And all this must be done, the Statesman says, to “maintain our Christian character;” and this, too, after stating explicitly, as above, that “no nation has the right to do this even for the preservation of religious character.” The Statesman may talk of the servility of political parties all it pleases, but if there ever was a political party that exceeded the National Reform Party in hollow pretense, or sham principle, we should like the Statesman to point it out. AMS July 1886, page 51.1
There is another phase of this question. Suppose that while the United States refuses to “tolerate” the worship of the Chinese, they should refuse to “tolerate,” in their country, the worship of the Christians. Suppose that when this nation has “suppressed by law” worship of the of the Chinese, they should retaliate and suppress by law the worship of the Christians. What could this nation do? Remonstrance would come with very poor grace from the nation that first committed the intolerance. And so the sword of National Reform would cut both ways; it would not only shut the Chinese out of this country, but would shut Christianity out of China. AMS July 1886, page 51.2
Now let us draw a comparison between the action of Congress which the Statesman condemns, and the action of the nation which it would approve. AMS July 1886, page 51.3
| IT CONDEMNS | IT APPROVES |
| An act of Congress which excludes the Chinese. | An Amendment to the Constitution, the effect of which will be the same. |
| An act which excludes the Chinese for ten years. | An act which would exclude them for all time. |
| An act of Congress which might be repeated by any subsequent Congress. | An act, the effect of which would be the same, and which could not possibly be effected by less than three-fourths of the whole nation. |
| An act which excludes only one class of Chinese—laborers. | An act which will exclude all classes of Chinese but one—Christian Chinese. |
| An act which excludes only one class of one nation for ten years. | An act which, with one exception—Christians—excludes all classes of all nations for all time. |
Therefore if the action of Congress and the political parties are by the National Reform Party to be condemned seven times, surely the National Reform Party itself must be condemned seventy times seven. AMS July 1886, page 51.4
A. T. J.
“The National Reform Movement an Absurdity” The American Sentinel 1, 7, pp. 53, 54.
IN the discussion of the National Reform theory of the personality of the State, in our June issue, we showed conclusively that the theory is absurd; and that in the endeavor to escape the absurd consequences of their position, the National Reform Party resort to a fallacy which involves them in the inconsistency of holding beings subject to that to which, according to the theory, they cannot be subject. But we say again that we see no ground for hope that that party will ever abandon either the fallacy or the absurdity. For, as the theory is absurd, and as they affirm that the theory is fundamental to this whole movement, it is evident that absurdity is inherent in the whole National Reform system. That is not only the logic of the question, but it is strictly in accordance with all the facts in the case. AMS July 1886, page 53.1
The absurdity of the view that the State is a person distinct from the individuals that compose it, is made more apparent when we consider the obligations of a nation, or State, as such. Doctor Sloane in a speech on this subject in the Cincinnati National Reform Convention, instanced the fact that “Great Britain, France, Italy, and our own country own enormous debts.” But we would inquire of the National Reform Party, Does this personality, which you call the State, of Great Britain, France, Italy, or the United States, own this debt distinct from the people? and will it pay it distinct from the people? When Germany laid upon France the war indemnity of five milliards of francs, was it laid upon a “personality” distinct from the individuals that compose the nation? and when it was paid was it paid by such a distinct personality? To the minds of all reasonable men, to ask these questions is to answer them. These National Reform religio-political economists know as well as anybody does, that of the war indemnity exacted from France by Germany, every franc came from the people who compose the State, and not from some hypothetical “individual personality” distinct from the people. They know full well that every dollar of the national debt of our own country that has ever been paid has been paid by the people of the United States, and not a cent of it by any such theoretical absurdity as the National Reform Party defines to be the State. AMS July 1886, page 53.2
Does the National Reform Party mean to say that, when it gets its iniquity framed by a law, and has thus perfected its idea of the personality of a State, it will have the State a personality so entirely distinct and separate from that of the people, that the State will pay the national debt without any help on the part of the people? No. That party itself, we do them the justice to suppose, would pronounce the idea preposterous. And so do we. But if it be so, where is the sense of all their argument about the personality of the State as distinct from the personality of the people who compose the State? If the State has a personality, an individuality of its own, and a soul of its own as distinct from that of any or all of the people who compose it, as is that of General Sherman or Mr. Blaine, then why can’t it pay its debts distinct from the people, as General Sherman or Mr. Blaine pays his? The very idea is absurd. AMS July 1886, page 53.3
Again, Prof. O. N. Stoddard, in the Cincinnati Convention, said:— AMS July 1886, page 53.4
“If the character and liabilities of the State are not distinct from those of its individual members, then the State is punished hereafter in the persons of its subjects.” AMS July 1886, page 53.5
We would like Professor Stoddard or any other of the National Reformers to show where a State has ever been or ever can be punished, either here or hereafter, except in the persons of its subjects. When France was punished for its ill-advised declaration of war upon Germany, did the punishment fall upon the State distinct from the persons of its subjects? When Rome was punished for the fearfulness of her iniquities—when from the Rhine and the Danube to the deserts of Africa, and from the Black Sea and the Hellespont to the wall of Antoninus and the Atlantic Ocean, the whole empire was swept by the successive and devastating waves of savage barbarism—did these terrors afflict some such figment of a State as is conjured up by the National Reform brain? Did they not rather fall upon every age, sex, and condition of the individuals that composed the State? Again we say that but to ask the question is to answer it. But it demonstrates to all reasonable men the wild absurdity of the National Reform theory of the personality of a State. There is not, and there cannot be, any such personality of a State. And we are certain that no such thing would ever be seriously advocated in this country, were it not essential to the success of a scheme of religious bigotry and priestly despotism, whose most perfect likeness is that of the papacy. AMS July 1886, page 53.6
Webster defines a State to be:— AMS July 1886, page 53.7
“A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one Government.” AMS July 1886, page 53.8
Chief Justice Chase defined a State as follows:— AMS July 1886, page 53.9
“It describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country or territorial region inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently it is applied to the Government under which the people live; at other times it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and Government. It is not difficult to see that in all these senses the primary conception is that of a people or community. The people in whatever territory dwelling.... constitute the State.”—Great Decisions by Great Judges, p. 641. AMS July 1886, page 53.10
Bouvier says that a State is,— AMS July 1886, page 53.11
“A sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defense of their rights and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense the State means the whole people united into one body-politic.” “As to the persons who compose the body-politic, or associate themselves, they take collectively the name of ‘people or nation.’”—Law Dictionary. AMS July 1886, page 53.12
A body-politic is:— AMS July 1886, page 53.13
“The collective body of a nation or State, as politically organized, or as exercising political functions; also a corporation.”—Webster. AMS July 1886, page 54.1
All this is in perfect harmony with the Scriptures. When God speaks of a nation he speaks of “the whole body of people” who form the nation. When he speaks to a State he speaks to “the people who constitute the State.” When he inflicts judgments upon a State, those judgments fall upon the people who compose the State. To prove this we need no better illustration than the text which, in this connection, is doubtless more used than any other by the National Reform Party. It is this: “At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” Jeremiah 18:7-10. AMS July 1886, page 54.2
Thus it is the people who do the evil, and it is “unto them” that God pronounces to do evil; and when they “turn from their evil,” then he turns from the evil he pronounced “to do unto them.” In this same connection the Lord makes his own application of the principle which he has just laid down. Immediately following the text quoted, he says: “Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” Verse 11. Here God “framed evil” against the house of Israel, against the nation of the Jews, against the State of Judah, and the way to avert it was for the “men of Judah,” and “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” “every one” to turn from his evil way. It would be impossible to more plainly show that, in the mind of God, and in the contemplation of the word of God, a State or nation is the people who compose it; that it is they individually who sin; and that it is to them individually, “every one,” to whom the Lord speaks. AMS July 1886, page 54.3
When the Lord pronounced judgment against Babylon, it was thus: “A sword is upon the Chaldeans, saith the Lord, and upon the inhabitants of Babylon, and upon her princes, and upon her wise men. A sword is upon the liars; and they shall dote; a sword is upon her mighty men and they shall be dismayed. A sword is upon their horses, and upon their chariots, and upon all the mingled people that are in the midst of her.” “The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitant of Zion say; and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say.” Jeremiah 50:35-37; 51:35. AMS July 1886, page 54.4
To present other instances from Scripture would only be superfluous; the whole Bible is consistent herewith, and but confirms the correctness of the definitions given, and the truth of the position which we maintain, that the idea of a State having a personality, a will, a soul, and a moral responsibility of its own distinct from the individuals that compose it, is absurd. If a nation be wicked it is because the individuals who compose it are wicked; if it be righteous it is because the people, in their own individual moral relation to God, are righteous. When God exclaimed, “Ah, sinful nation”! it was because the people were “laden with iniquity.” Isaiah 1:4. AMS July 1886, page 54.5
Thus it is clearly shown that the National Reform theory of a State is not only opposed to reason and common sense, but to established and authoritative definitions, and the word of God, as well. AMS July 1886, page 54.6
There is, however, in connection with a State, a body-politic, or a corporation, the merest shadow of that which the National Reform Party pushes to such absurd conclusions. It is this: All bodies-politic, whether they be States, banks, railroads, or corporations of whatever kind, are, by a legal fiction and “for the advancement of justice,” given a personality, but this personality “has no existence except in a figure.” The definition is this:— AMS July 1886, page 54.7
“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. In certain respects and for certain purposes, corporations are deemed ‘person.’ ... But a corporation cannot be deemed a moral agent, and, like a natural person, be subjected to personal suffering. Malice and willfulness cannot be predicated of a corporation, though they may be of its members.”—Boone’s Law Corporations. AMS July 1886, page 54.8
Such, and such only, is the true doctrine of the personality of a State. And yet this “invisible,” “intangible,” “artificial” thing, this legal fiction, is the fundamental proposition upon which rests the whole National Reform movement? It is this sheer abstraction which that Party proposes to push to such enormous conclusions—conclusions that are fatal to liberty, both civil and religious. Could anything possibly be more absurd? AMS July 1886, page 54.9
Professor Pomeroy, the eminent law writer, says:— AMS July 1886, page 54.10
“The State, as separated fro the individuals who compose it, has no existence except in a figure; and to predicate religious responsibility of this abstraction is an absurdity.” AMS July 1886, page 54.11
To predicate responsibility of this abstraction, is exactly what the National Reform Party does; therefore the demonstration is complete, by every principle of logic and of law, that the National Reform movement is an absurdity. AMS July 1886, page 54.12
And that all may understand precisely what this demonstration amounts to, we append Webster’s unabridged definition of an absurdity:— AMS July 1886, page 54.13
“ABSURDITY—The quality of being absurd or inconsistent with obvious truth, reason, or sound judgment.” “ABSURD—Opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with reason or the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory.” AMS July 1886, page 54.14
That is what we mean in this connection, and that is exactly what the National Reform movement is. AMS July 1886, page 54.15
A. T. J.