rests upon most objectionable
grounds. In Europe--in Protestant countries--the education of youth was
held to belong to the church. But as the Protestant prince was also the
chief bishop of his church, he had the care of schools, as well as the
administration of other religious matters. According to this principle
of the _State-church_, all the schools were _State-schools_. At the
present day, Protestant princes and princesses are not looked upon as
chief bishops, but the consequence of this objectionable system does
still remain, and has gained a foothold even in this free country.

The French Revolution, among other things, diffused communistic and
socialistic theories. Nay, communism and socialism seemed to have, for a
moment, the fullest sway in those revolutionary proceedings. It is from
such socialistic revolutionists that came the idea, or rather principle,
which was made a law, that the State should educate the children of its
subjects. Accordingly the school-system was arranged, which Napoleon I.
highly welcomed and retained, as he saw in it a welcome instrument of
his despotism. In fact, nothing pleases State-absolutism or despotism so
much as the complete control of education through the system of
State-schools. As the result of impartial history, then, we see that the
foundation of the State-school system is nothing else than the
objectionable Protestant State-church, and especially revolutionary
socialism.

But most absurd did the State-school system appear after it had been
transplanted into free America. Here this "State system of education"
was at first applied to the poor, and other unprovided-for "waifs of
society." But not long after, the State claimed to have a paramount
interest in the children of all classes; it made no distinction, it knew
not the rich from the poor, but opened its scholastic treasures alike,
and it was thought to be all right.

What an absurdity! The State, as I have remarked, must scrupulously
abstain from violating any of those rights which it was organized to
protect. It must not paralyze or take away the industry of the
individual, family, or private institutions by substituting for it its
own industry. The State should rather protect and promote the industry
of its subjects, as well as other rights and liberties. Let me speak
more plainly: the State, for instance, should protect trade, but it
should not be itself a tradesman; the State should encourage
agriculture, but i