The American Sentinel 13
December 8, 1898
“Front Page” American Sentinel 13, 48, p. 757.
HE who dies to self, lives for all mankind. AMS December 8, 1898, page 757.1
IT has always been the tendency of nations to outgrow the principles of liberty and equality with which they started out,—to become intoxicated with the sense of great power and wealth, and to imagine they are still progressing when in reality they are going rapidly to decay. AMS December 8, 1898, page 757.2
EXPANSION may be due to a healthy growth, or it may be only a bloating which indicates that the system is diseased. AMS December 8, 1898, page 757.3
THAT which threatens the welfare of the individual, threatens equally the prosperity of the nation. AMS December 8, 1898, page 757.4
THE devil is not much disturbed by the spectalce [sic.] of sinners “rebuking sin” at the ballot box. AMS December 8, 1898, page 757.5
DESPOTISM means that one individual shall rule others; free government means that each individual shall rule himself. AMS December 8, 1898, page 757.6
RIGHT principles are stronger than armies and navies, and the latter cannot support a nation when the former are abandoned. AMS December 8, 1898, page 757.7
NATIONAL duty is not best perceived through the smoke and haze of the battle field, nor the voice of wisdom most clearly heard amidst the exultant shouts of victory. AMS December 8, 1898, page 757.8
THE politician is concerned for the success of his party; the true statesman desires only the prosperity of the nation. AMS December 8, 1898, page 757.9
THERE can be no more un-American form of government than that which would abolish the distinction between sin and crime. AMS December 8, 1898, page 757.10
[Inset.] IS THIS TYPE OF STATESMAN HENCEFORTH TO SHAPE THE DESTINY OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC? UNDER the guidance of the men who now stand at the nation’s head, the policy of government by the consent of the governed, which the nation has followed since its birth, has been exchanged for the policy of imperialism, which means government of people not by themselves but by others and against their will. The inhabitants of Hawaii are now ruled under the military authority of the United States, although they are not now, nor were ever, at war with this nation; and the inhabitants of the Philippines are to be brought under the same rule. But the Declaration of Independence expressly asserts that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and the national Constitution was made the embodiment of this principle of government. Hence they are squarely opposed to the imperial policy upon which the nation is now launched, and are by that policy relegated, virtually if not literally, to the political junk-shop. And this means a complete revolution, and the downfall of free government in the Western world. AMS December 8, 1898, page 757.11
“Free Government a Divine Institution” American Sentinel 13, 48, p. 758.
FREE government is a divine institution. It did not originate among men, but is the very government of heaven itself. It came down to earth as a gift from God. AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.1
The government of God has the appearance of a monarchy; yet it is not a monarchy, as monarchies are understood here. It is in reality “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Lincoln’s famous definition describes no government more perfectly than the divine government, and only in the divine government is his definition fully realized. AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.2
The incontrovertible proof of this is seen in the fact that the kingdom of God will include no individual who is not able perfectly to govern himself. Every individual who fails in this respect will be shut out of that kingdom, and solely for that reason. This power of perfect self-government being then a necessary qualification for each individual under the government of God, it can only be that each individual is to exercise this power, and so perfectly to govern himself, in that kingdom. AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.3
So thoroughly unlike God is everything that is arbitrary and despotic,—so far is he from desiring to be an autocratic ruler over his creatures—that he will tolerate nothing of this character in his universe. He will shut out of it everything that is contrary to free thought, free speech, and free action. AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.4
“Government of the people, by the people, and for the people” on this earth, is little more than a theory; it has never been realized in the past, and is not to-day. The Republic of the United States is based upon this theory of government; but in it the theory falls very far short of realization. The Republic is permeated with despotism in every part. The trouble is that so few of the people are able to govern themselves. No individual who cannot govern himself is fit to govern other people; and his participation in the government tends rather to infringe the rights and liberties of the people than to preserve them. Every slave of passion or ambition is a natural despot. AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.5
The purpose of the gospel in the earth is to restore, to all who will receive it, the power of self-government which was lost by the fall in Eden, and thus to prepare subjects for that real “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” which the Creator is ere long to set up. AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.6
“A Revolutionary Procedure” American Sentinel 13, 48, pp. 758, 759.
REFERRING further to the scheme for the governmental support of the Catholic Church and the priests and high church dignitaries in Cuba, which is being fastened upon the Government of the United States by Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland through President McKinley, it is worth while to consider the principles that are involved according to the views of the men who made this nation. AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.1
The contest which developed and established the governmental principle of total separation from religion, and from any recognition of it, as finally reflected in the Constitution of the United States, was focalized in “A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” which was brought before the General Assembly of Virginia in 1777 or 1778. AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.2
That bill proposed for that State the identical thing that is now being worked upon the national Government—the support of the clergy from the public treasury. AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.3
The men who made this nation as it was made declared that that “bill exceeds the functions of civil authority;” that “the enforced support of the Christian religion dishonors Christianity;” and that “to compel a person to furnish contributions of money in the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.4
These views prevailed throughout the whole country, and the principle was embodied in the national Constitution and the supreme law, in the provisions refusing governmental recognition of religion. And now when President McKinley has “determined that the Catholic churches [in Cuba] shall be kept open and that public worship shall be provided for; and that to this end sufficient money will be advanced by this Government to support the Catholic Church: it is perfectly plain that in this “determination” he is proceeding directly contrary to the fundamental and constitutional principle of the nation. AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.5
Again: Of that bill they said that “The same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only, of his property, for the support of one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever;” and that “Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other is the last, in the career of intolerance.” AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.6
Now the difference between levying a direct tax for the support of religion, and the appropriation to the support of religion of funds already raised by taxation is a difference only in form and not at all in principle; is merely a difference in method and not at all in fact. It is hardly possible that the President would determine to levy a direct tax for the support of the Catholic Church and clergy in Cuba: certainly he would say that such a thing would be unconstitutional. But whatever is forbidden to be done directly is equally forbidden to be done in directly. And as certainly as the levying of a direct ax for such a purpose would be unconstitutional and subversive of fundamental national principle, so certainly the advancing for such a purpose, of money already raised by the Government, is equally unconstitutional and subversive of fundamental national principle. AMS December 8, 1898, page 758.7
If the President can advance for the support of the Catholic Church threepence only of the money of all the people and oblige the people to submit to it, he can with equal right and authority oblige the people to conform to the wishes of that church in all cases whatsoever. Thus this thing that has been “determined” “differs from the Inquisition only in degree. “The one is the first step, the other is the last, in the career of intolerance.” AMS December 8, 1898, page 759.1
The Washington correspondent reported that this thing of the national Government supporting the Catholic Church in Cuba, is done in order that the Catholic clergy there may not be made “a dangerous set of enemies” by having “reason to regret the presence of the American flag on the island:” it is to avoid “the malign influence that is in the power of a hostile clergy to exercise.” This is nothing else than the employing of religion as an engine of civil policy. AMS December 8, 1898, page 759.2
The man who made this nation, said of that “Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” that it implied “either that the civil magistrate is a competent judge of religious truths, or that he may employ religion as an engine of civil policy.” And upon this they declared that “the first is an arrogant pretension, falsified by the contradictory opinions of rulers in all ages and throughout the world; the second [is] an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.” AMS December 8, 1898, page 759.3
They declared that the “fruits” of this thing, upon a trial of “almost fifteen centuries” had been “more or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both superstition, bigotry and persecution.” And that such has been precisely its fruits in the remaining one hundred and twenty years, unto this time, in Cuba is certain from the statement of this same Washington correspondent that though there is in Cuba a “vast number of priests and high church dignitaries” who “exercise complete control over their parishioners,” yet the “population is densely ignorant,” and “have never been taught to support their church and clergy by direct voluntary contributions;” and that this same clergy is of such a dangerous and malign disposition that unless the Government of the United States shall now continue the support that the Spanish government always gave, “it is easy to believe that the new American government in Cuba would have at its very inception built up a dangerous set of enemies” in this priesthood. AMS December 8, 1898, page 759.4
And to continue the old system of things which the makers of the nation repudiated, but which has been continued by Spain, is the very thing that this Washington correspondent says President McKinley has determined to do, as the consequence of “numerous conferences with Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland.” In other words, the President has espoused, and is committing the national Government to the very principles in toto, which the makers of the nation distinctly and in fullest detail repudiated, and fixed their repudiation of those principles in the national Constitution and the supreme law as they intended and supposed forever. AMS December 8, 1898, page 759.5
This is a complete revolution: silent it is true, but none the less a revolution; and a revolution backward at that. AMS December 8, 1898, page 759.6
A. T. J.
“The Church and State System in Utah” American Sentinel 13, 48, pp. 760, 761.
THE Mormon system has been from the first a system which united church and state; like the papacy, it has made the church supreme in both religious and civil affairs. And in this respect Mormonism remains to-day what it was in the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. AMS December 8, 1898, page 760.1
Under the control of this system, the territory of Utah was received into the Union as a sovereign state. The nation refused to receive polygamy, and compelled this (as it thought) to be thrown out; but it took in a union of church and state. And now it is discovering that this church-and-state system was the real evil of Mormonism, and the real argument against receiving the territory controlled buy it into the Union. For it is now seen that the Mormon Church rules in Utah, and that under its rule the baneful branch of polygamy which was lopped off from the parent tree by the sword of the civil power, is budding into new life, and bids fair to develop again as of old. Upon this point the New York Independent, under the heading “Mormonism Again a Foe,” speaks the following:— AMS December 8, 1898, page 760.2
“There has been a disposition among the Christian people of the nation not to judge the Mormon people too harshly since they professed humility and promised that the would abandon polygamy out of respect for American opinion and would never again countenance the union of church and state. Reports from Utah that they were breaking these pledges and that it was never intended to keep them have been received from time to time, but all have felt that the proof must be of the strongest before the nation would be justified in believing it must bring pressure to bear to compel good faith. The time seems to have come, however, when forbearance is no longer a virtue and when the Mormon problem must be faced without compromise and the Mormon people taught that Americans will not tolerate plural marriage within their country. AMS December 8, 1898, page 760.3
“The Mormons themselves have given us the convincing proof by sending to Congress an ardent polygamist, one who is thoroughly identified with Mormon interests, and who was elected after fair warning had been given that his triumph would be considered a notice that polygamy was to be forced ‘down the throats of Congress and the American people.’ He says he has taken no wives since the anti-polygamy manifesto, but was justified in maintaining his relations with those to whom he had been united before; and that the law against such association adopted by the Mormon legislature—like some Connecticut blue laws—is not enforced because there is no sentiment behind it. This contention, however, cannot be admitted, as the Mormon leaders and representatives pledged themselves again and again that the last vestige of the system had been wiped out before statehood was granted and that it should never rise again to plague the nation. AMS December 8, 1898, page 762.1
“What guaranty have we that the Mormons will obey one part of a statute more than another? If there is no public sentiment requiring the enforcement of a law against cohabitation with polygamous wives what sentiment will enforce one against the taking of more wives? When Mormon authorities and even the governor of Utah are engaged in flaunting the divinity of the ‘celestial marriage’ system, is it probable that they will long refrain from putting it into execution once more? AMS December 8, 1898, page 762.2
“It would be an affront to the American people and the Christian churches for Congress to allow Mr. Roberts to hold his seat in the House of Representatives in the face of his plain defiance of the national demands. It seems impossible that some means should not be found of unseating him without trouble under the former anti-polygamy laws, the amnesty proclamation of President Harrison and the enabling act of Utah, and this means should be taken without hesitation. The Mormon people should be shown that no polygamist will be seated in either house of Congress, as a warning that the nation is prepared to take stern measures against such a practice. Measure should be devised to punish those who do not heed the warning.” AMS December 8, 1898, page 762.3
Mormonism is not “again” a foe; it has been such all the time; and the mistake of the American people was in not recognizing it as such, without polygamy the same as with it. For that mistake they may yet pay dearly. Mistakes made upon such a point are always costly. AMS December 8, 1898, page 762.4
The nation required the Mormon Church to discontinue polygamy and promise that it would never be revived. But the promise of a church that maintains a union with the state is not to be trusted. The American people apparently begin to realize that the promise of discarding polygamy is not to be kept, and it will be well if they discern the real reason why Mormonism has proved itself irreconcilable with American government. AMS December 8, 1898, page 762.5