THE AMERICAN SCHOOL CONTROVERSY
AMONG THE NORWEGIAN-AMERICANS,
1845-1881

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
FRANK C. NELSEN
1.968

Hams

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE AMERICAN SCHOOL CONTROVERSY AMONG
THE NORWEGIAN-AMERICANS, 1845—1881

presented bg

Frank C. Nelsen

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for
Secondary Education and

PhoDo degree in CUI‘I’ICulum

W

Major professor

 

Dam. November 22, I968

 

0-169

 

  

BINBING BY ‘3'
NOAH 8 SUNS. I
BOUT? wnmv me.
{'ng y' RY‘IDERS
V ; ICIIISAI

 
         
    

—-—-—....._..'.__.
.
“hm.-. _____....-

 

 

(9 Frank Charles Nelsen 1969

 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ABSTRACT

THE AMERICAN SCHOOL CONTROVERSY AMONG THE
NORWEGIAN‘AMERICANS, 1845-1881

BY

Frank C. Nelsen

The purpose of this dissertation was to trace the
controversy over the American school among the Norwegian-
Americans, primarily the Lutherans of the NOrwegian Evan-
gelical Lutheran Synod and the lay leadership associated
with it.

Although the primary purpose of the dissertation was
to examine the controversy over the schools, an attempt was
made to show that opposition to the American common school
was not confined to the NOrwegian immigrants alone. There
were native born Americans who opposed the common school for
various reasons. In addition to looking briefly at the oppo-
sition of some Americans to the common school, four ethnic
immigrant groups were traced: the Germans, Irish, Dutch,
and Swedes. These were examined with regard to their atti-
tude toward the American school and their efforts to es-
tablish their own schools. Like the Norwegians the four

ethnic groups feared "Americanization" and advocated and

Frank C. Nelsen

practiced perpetuation of their culture, language, and faith,
becoming increasingly nationalistic in the last quarter of
the nineteenth century.

Although the native American believed in the “melt-
ing pot" myth, the immigrants did not. The immigrant ap—
preciated greatly new economic opportunity in America, but
he did not reject his culture or nation of origin and accept
rapid assimilation into American society.

When it came to the question of the role of the Ameri-
can school, the leadership of the Nbrwegian Synod opposed the
common school and the attempt of the lay leadership to pro-
mote "true popular education" among the Norwegian-American
immigrants and to place Scandinavian Lutheran professors in
secular American colleges and universities. The plan of the
Scandinavian Lutheran Educational Society was opposed by the
Synod so that assimilation would be slowed and the Lutheran
children saved from a loss of orthodox Lutheran faith in the
secular American colleges and universities.

Although the majority of NOrwegian Lutheran groups
supported the American school, the Nbrwegian Synod did not.
At the Synod meeting at Manitowoc, Wisconsin, in 1866 the
American school was labeled as "heathen" and "religionless,"
and the Synod was called upon to build its own religious
schools so that it would not be necessary for NOrwegians to

send their children to the American public school.

Frank C. Nelsen

The plan of the Synod was strongly opposed by capable
lay leaders, such as, John A. Johnson, Knud Langeland, and
Rasmus B._Anderson who repeatedly pointed out that it would
be an expensive undertaking. However, opposition was not
purely financial, for men like Anderson saw the American
common school as the "chief cornerstone of the Republic,"
and thought it treason not to support the American school.

To Anderson and others of the lay leadership the
real issue was the question of avoiding among the Nbrwegians
a cultural isolation which would prevent the NOrwegians from
entering fully into American society.

The laymen contended that there could be a cultural
pluralism which would allow the Nerwegian to attend the
American school, share in American social life, and still ap-
preciate his NOrwegian heritage.

The American school has not always appreciated the
culture of ethnic minorities, and it was no different for
the Norwegian immigrant, for he, too, often felt the censure
of the native American. However, the NOrwegian, in spite of
the limitations of the American school, rejected the Nor—
wegian Synod's plan for a religious school system and ac-

cepted and supported the American school.

THE AMERICAN SCHOOL CONTROVERSY AMONG THE

NORWEGIAN‘AMERICANS, 1845-1881

BY

Frank Ci Nelsen

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum

1968

COpyright by
FRANK CHARLES NELSON

I968

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this study would not have been
possible without the help of a number of people who assisted
me in both my graduate work and in the writing of this
dissertation. I wish to express my thanks particularly to
my major advisor, Dr. Carl H. Gross, whose example as a pro-
fessor has been an inspiration to me. Also I wish to thank
Dr. Gilman Ostrander of the Department of History under whom
I took most of my work in American Intellectual History and
Dr. Russell B. Nye of the Department of English who con-
sented to serve on my Committee during completion of the
writing of this dissertation. I also wish to thank Dr. J.
Geoffrey Moore of the College of Education and Dr. Edward B.
Blackman of the University College for their helpful com-
ments during the writing of the dissertation.

In addition to my doctoral committee I would like to
express my appreciation to Mr. Oivind M. Hovde, librarian of
the Kbren Library at Luther College, Decorah, Iowa, who gave
invaluable aid when I was doing research from the NOrwegian
newspapers in December of 1966. I wish to express my thanks

to Dr. Lloyd Hustvedt, professor of Norwegian at St. Olaf
College, Northfield, Minnesota, and director of the

NOrwegian-American Historical Association. Dr. Hustvedt, in

ii

addition to his helpful comments, also aided in the disser-
tation proposal. While at Northfield, Miss Buelah Folkedahl,
Archivist of the Nbrwegian—American Historical Association,
gave me daily help and suggestions of materials.

I wish also to thank the staff of the Michigan State
University library for their assistance on many occasions
and also the staff of the University of Wisconsin and the
Wisconsin Historical Society, both at Madison, Wisconsin.

A special word of appreciation must go to my sister,
Mrs. Gustav F. Johnson of Rochester, New York, who spent
countless hours in translating the documents from Nbrwegian
to English. Without her help this dissertation would not
have been possible.

I would also like to thank Lakeside Chapel of Park
Lake, Michigan, for permitting me while their pastor to
pursue graduate work. They were an understanding and patient
congregation.

Expressions of appreciation would be incomplete with-
out an expression of gratitude to my wife, Lois, who en-
couraged me from the beginning of my graduate study. Not
only was she a wife and mother but taught school during the
time of dissertation research. Her comments and criticism
of the manuscript have been of invaluable help.

Acknowledgments of those who have made this disser-
tation possible would also be incomplete without mention of

my children, Brent, 9, and Karen, 7, who have been among the

iii

most interested in the progress of this dissertation. To

both of them a father's heartfelt thanks.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . 1
Personal Interest in the Problem 1
The Problem 2
A Review of the Literature 3
Method of Procedure 5
II. FOUR ETHNIC IMMIGRANT GROUPS AND THEIR EDU-
CATIONAL THOUGHT AND PRACTICE . . . . . 8
The Opposition of Native Americans to
the Non-sectarian School . . . . . . . . 8
The German Forty-eighters . . . . . . . . 13
The German Roman Catholics . . . . . . . . 22
The German Saxon Lutherans . . . . 23
Conservative Roman Catholics, Largely
Irish . . . . . . 37
The Opposition of Conservative Irish
Catholics to the American Common
School . . . . . 41
The Support of the Public School by ~
Liberal Roman Catholics . . . . . . . . 43
The Support Given to Progressive
Catholics by Apostolic Delegate
Satolli . . . . 46
The Dutch Kblonie of Holland, Michigan . . 50
The Reasons for Increased Dutch
Nationalism . . . . . . . . . . 51
The Dutch Reformed Church . . . . . . . . 55
The Christian Reformed Church . . . . 56
The Christian Schools of the Christian
Reformed Church . . . . . 58
The Effect of World War I on the Dutch
Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chapter Page

The Rapid Americanization of Liberal

Swedes . . . . . . 67
The Desire of Conservative Swedes for

Slow Acculturation . . . . 68
The Opposition of the Religious Swedes

to the American Public School . . . . . 69
The Position of the Augustana Synod on

the Public School . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Swedish Summer Schools . . . . 72
The Support Given to the American Public

School by Swedish Americans . . . . . . 75

III. REASONS FOR EMIGRATION, THE SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL CONDITIONS AND THEOLOGICAL
CONTROVERSIES IN THE NORWEGIAN-AMERICAN

SETTLEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Social Conditions in Norway . . . . . . . 77
Political Conditions in Norway . . . . . . 79
Hans Nielsen Hauge--Religious and

Political Leader . . . . . . 79
The Principal Cause of NOrwegian Emi-

gration--Economic . . . . . . . . 84
The Role of the "America Letters" . . . . 87
NOrwegian Opposition to Emigration . . . . 88
The First Immigrants to America--"The

Sloopers" . . . . 90
The First Settlement--Orleans County,

New York . . . . . . 91
The Settlement at Fox River, Illinois . . 92
The Settlement at Muskego, Wisconsin . . . 92
Immigrant Views of America . . . . . . . . 93
Economic and WOrk Conditions . . . . . . . 95
Sickness on the Frontier . . . . . 99
The Nbrwegian' 3 Opinion of the American . 101
The NOrwegians and the American Sabbath . 104
The Practice of "Bundling" . . . . . . - . 104
The Problem of Intoxication . . . . . . 105
The Practice of Moderation by Most .

Immigrants . . . . 108
The Increasing Influence of Prohibition . 109
Boston Morals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
The English Language . . . . . . . . 113
Whldemar Ager' s View of the American

"Melting Pot" . . . . . 117
The Visit of Bjornstjerne .Bjornson . . . . 119
The Attack on the Orthodox Lutheran

Faith by Bjornson . . . . . . . . . . . 119

vi

Chapter Page

 

The Bjornson Controversy . . . . . . 120
The Attack on Literary Realism by
Rasmus B. Anderson . . . . . 122
O. E. Rolvaag and Cultural Pluralism . . . 123
The NOrwegian Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America . . . . 125
The Influence of the Missouri Lutheran
Synod on Norwegians . . . . 127
P. A Rasmussen and the Lay Controversy . 129
The Slavery Question in the NOrwegian
Synod . . . . . . . 131
The Election Controversy in the Nor-
wegian Synod . . . . . 142
The Debate over the Election "Forms" . . . 145
The Secession of the Anti-Missouri
Brotherhood from the Nbrwegian Synod . . 146
A Summary of the Nbrwegian Lutheran
Church in America . . . . . . . . . . . 147
IV. THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE AMERICAN SCHOOL
AMONG THE NORWEGIAN AMERICANS . . . . . . . 151
The Acceptance of the American Common
School by the Early Immigrants . . . . . 151
The Support of Omgangsskolen by Some
Early Clergy . . . . 152
The NOrwegian Lutheran Synod and Their
Philosophy of Education . . . 153
The Synod' s Stress on the Importance of
Education . . . . 155
The Synod' s View on the Importance of
the Home . . . . . 157
The View of Parental Respons1b1l1ty for
the Child . . . . . . . 158
The "Two Kingdoms"--God and. Caesar' s . . . 159
The Manitowoc Declarations of 1866 . . . . 161
The Debate on How the American Common
School was to be Labeled . . . . 165
The Synod‘s Five Points in Objection to
the American School . . . 166
The View that Nbrwegian Lutheran Teachers
Should Be Employed in American Schools . 168
The View that Christians Should Make
Their Homes Near Christian Schools . . . 168
Editor Knud Langeland' 3 Opposition to
the Manitowoc Declarations . . . . . . 170
The Reverend A. C Preus' Answer to
Langeland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

vii

Chapter Page

 

 

 

 

John A. Johnson's View on Education . . . 173
The New Stress on Popular Education

Among the Nbrwegians . . . . . . 175
The Reverend C. L. Clausen' 3 Stress on

Vocational Education . . . . . . . 177
The Meeting of the Scandinavian Edu-

cational Society, March 4,1869 . . . . 178
The Aims of the Scandinavian Edu-

cational Society . . . . . . 179
The "Counter-meeting" Headed by the

Reverend H. A. Preus . . . . . . 181
The Reverend H. A. Preus' View on "True

People's Enlightenment" . . . . . . . . 181
J. A. Johnson's Criticism of Preus and

the Synod's Position . . . . . . . . . . 189
R. B. Anderson's Views . . . . . . . . . . 192
The Reverend B. J. Muus' Educational

Views . . . . . . . 192
J. A. Johnson' 5 Answer to Reverend Muus . 194

The Answer Given to Reverend Muus by

Superintendent of Schools, H. B.

Wilson . . . . . . . 198
A. J. Berdahl' 3 Description of the

District School in a Norwegian

Community . . . . . . . . 200
Berdahl' s Criticism of Nerwegians for

Not Sending Their Children to School

until After Confirmation . . . . . 201
Low School Attendance in the Norwegian

Settlements . . . . . . . . . 202
A Description of Common School Con-

ditions in 1873 . . . . . . . . . . . 204
The Desire to Control the District

School in Nbrwegian Settlements . . . . 205
A Six Point Plan to Control the Dis-

trict School . . . . . . . 206
Six Reasons Why the Religious School -

Was Not Progressing . . 207
The Synod's Meeting in Holden, Minnesota,

1874 . . . . . . 208
J. A. Johnson' 3 Response to the Synod's

Views Expressed at Holden . . . . 208

R. B. Anderson' 3 Opposition to the Plan
of the Synod for a Religious School in

Decorah, Iowa . . . 209
R. B. Anderson's Strong Call for Support
of the American Common School . . . . 211

viii

Chapter Page

J. A. Johnson' 3 Review of the School

Controversy in 1877 . . . . 212
The American Common School Called the

"Gates of Hell“ by Professor F. A.

Schmidt . . . . . . . . 212
R. B. Anderson' s View on the Incon-

sistency and Illogical Position of

the Synod on the Slavery and School

Question . . . . . 214
Professor Schmidt's Defense of His Po-

sition on the "Gates of Hell"

Statement . . . . . . . 218
An Anonymous Writer' 5 Opposition to

Anderson and Support of the Synod' 5

Religious Schools . . . . . . 218
The Criticism of the American Teacher

but Support of the Common School by

Anonymous Writer, "Mere" . . . 220
The Opposition to the American School .by

Anonymous Writer, "Lader" . . . . 223
"Lader' 8" Plan for Getting State Funds

for All Parochial Schools . . . . 224
"Lader' s" Intense Hatred of the American

Common School . . . . 225
C. Lillisund' 5 Moderate Position on the

School Question . . . . 226
Lillisund' s Criticism of Low Standards

for Teachers in Public Schools . . . . . 228
Lillisund' s Support of NOn—sectarianism

in the Public School . . . . . . 228

A Norwegian Religious School Teacher' 5
Evaluation of the Synod' s Schools in
1877 . . . . . . 229
A Religious Teacher' 5 Claim that There
Is Little Local Interest in Religious

Schools . . . . 229
The Irregular Attendance in the Religious

Schools . . . . . . . . 229
The Unfair Treatment of Religious

Teachers . . . . . . . . . 230
Poorly Paid Religious Teachers . . . . . . 231
The Rapid Turnover of Teachers in Re-

ligious Schools . . . . 231
J. A. Johnson' 3 Evaluation of the School

Situation in 1877 . . . . . . 232
Some Improvement in Educational Equip-

ment Cited by Johnson . . . . . . . . . 232

ix

Chapter Page

The Need for Mere Competent Permanent

Teachers Cited by Johnson . . . . . 232
R. B. Anderson' s Criticism of the Nor—

wegians for Neglecting the Common

School in Many of Their Settlements . . 233
Anderson's Claim that Common Schools

Are Much Better Than the Religious

Schools . . . . . . . 235
Anderson' s Criticism of Some Synod

Pastors for Sending Their Children

to the Common School . . . . . . . 236
Anderson's Call for All Norwegians to

Attend and Support the American Com-

mon School . . . . . . 236
Anderson' 3 Call fOr the Avoidance of
Cultural Isolation . . . . 236

A Layman' 3 Call for the NOrwegian Synod
to Build Schools on the Missouri

Synod Plan . . . . . 237
Poor Religious Schools Cited by P. Oplo
and Steps Suggested for Improvement . . 238
The Low Attendance at the Synod's Re-
ligious Schools . . . . . 239
The NOrwegian Synod' s Failure to Build
a Lasting Parochial School System . . . 240
V. AN EVALUATION OF NORWEGIANHAMERICAN CULTURE
AND THE AMERICAN SCHOOL PROBLEM . . . . . . 242
The Increase after the Civil War of
Immigrant Criticism of the Schools . . . 242
The Resignation of Early Norwegian Immi-
grants to Becoming Americanized . . . . 243
The Resistance of the Four Ethnic Groups
to Acculturation . . . . . . . . 243
Leaders Who Favored Acculturation . . . . 243
Increased Ethnocentrism Among Third
Generation Immigrants . . . . . . . . . 244
The "Melting Pot Myth" . . . . . . . . . . 244
Emma Lazarus' Sonnet, "The New Colossus" . 244
The Refusal of the Lutheran State Church
in Nerway to Send Pastors to America . . 246
The Influence of C. F. W. Walther on
the Nerwegian Synod . . . . 247

The Oslo Theological Faculty' 3 View of
the Slavery Question as a Socio-
historical One . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Chapter Page

The Nbrwegian Synod's Acceptance of the

Missouri Synod's Views on Election . . . 247
The Failure of the Norwegian Synod's

Leadership to Understand the NOrwegian

Immigrant . . . . . . 248
The Desire of the NOrwegian Synod' s

Pastors to Culturally Isolate the

Nerwegian Immigrant . . . . . . 250
Why the Synod Opposed Lutheran Pro-

fessors in American Schools . . . . . . 251
The American School Controversy . . . . . 251

The Semantic Debate: Was the American
School to be Labeled "Heathen" or

"Religionless"? . . . . . 252
The Inconsistencies of the Nerwegian

Synod Leaders . . . . . . . 252
The Nbrwegian Synod' 5 Model for

Parochial Schools——the Missouri Synod . 253
John A. Johnson's Call for More Vo—

cational Education . . . . . . 254
R. B. Anderson's View of the American

School as Egalitarian and Jacksonian . 255
The Common School's Weaknesses Admitted

by the Laymen . . . . 255
The Belief in "Cultural Pluralism" by

Lay Leaders . . . . . . 256
Cultural Pluralism Today . . . . . 257
Kenneth Boulding' 5 Concept of a "Mosaic"

Society . . . . . 257

The Failure of American Public Schools
to Recognize Ethnic and Cultural

Diversity . . . 258
The Model of St. John de Crevecoeur Ac-
cepted by Americans . . . . 258
Nerwegian Immigrant Opposition to Ameri-
can Schools in 1925 . . . . . . 259
The Nerwegian-American' 8 Support of the
American School . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

xi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

For some time the study of Nerwegian immigration,
language, and culture has been of special interest to me.
As a young boy I emigrated with the other members of my
family from a small coastal town in the Southeastern region
of NOrway to a Yankee community in Massachusetts. It was in
this Massachusetts community that I came to know the meaning
and feelings that go with "acculturation“ and the struggle
of trying to learn a new language in a strange land. Learn-
ing in the rural two room schoolhouse was not an easy task
for a boy being reared in a bilingual environment. It would
seem now, from the vantage point of many years, that the
school teachers and administrators had little understanding
of a child struggling with a second language and a second
culture. In this sense, my experience was not too unlike
the Nerwegian child in the American school of some sixty
years before.

It is because of my immigrant past, my continued
interest in Nbrwegian immigrant history, and a knowledge of

the language that I became interested in the problem of the

nature of the relationship between the Nerwegian immigrant

and the American public school system.
The Problem

The NOrwegians were similar to the other ethnic groups
who came to America in the nineteenth century. An attempt
has been made in Chapter Two to show that all ethnic groups
faced common problems of acculturation. For the most part
the various nationalities were not too ready to take on the
ways and values of the dominant American society. This
dissertation has traced four ethnic groups and related
briefly the attitudes and actions taken regarding the public
school by immigrant Irish, Germans, Dutch, and Swedes. The
problems faced by these groups were similar to those of the
Norwegians. However, the struggle over the role of the
American school seemed the most intense among the Norwegians.

Although the majority of Nerwegians supported the
American common school, there was an influential minority
largely within the powerful Nbrwegian Evangelical Lutheran
Synod who opposed the local district school and the entire
American school system from the common school to the uni-
versity. The Norwegian Synod came to formulate a philosophy
of education and established their own parochial school
system. However, these plans were strongly opposed by a
group of capable and intelligent lay leaders who insisted

that the Nbrwegians make use of the public school, and by

doing so, could be good Nbrwegians and also loyal citizens
of their adopted country.
This dissertation will trace and interpret the Ameri—
can school controversy during a thirty-six year period in
the middle of the nineteenth century in primarily four
states, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. The
controversy is restricted to these four states because mi-
gration had not reached the Dakota Territory to any signifi-
cant extent when the school question was a crucial one in
the communities of the Norwegian-Americans. The focus of the
dissertation is in Chapter Four, "The Controversy over the
American School among the Norwegian Americans," which traces
the internal struggle between the ministerial leadership of
the Norwegian Synod and the opposition of the lay leadership.
It must also be stated that although other questions
such as slavery and election were debated during the time of
the school controversy, there can be little question but
that the latter was an important issue in the Norwegian-

American communities.
A Review of the Literature

This dissertation includes in both Chapter Two, “Four
Ethnic Immigrant Groups and Their Educational Thought and
Practice," and Chapter Three, "Reasons for Emigration, the
Social and Cultural Conditions, and the Theological Contro-

versies in the NerwegianéAmerican Communities," a large

number of secondary sources as well as articles from the
Nbrwegian—American Studies and Records of the Norwegian-
American Historical Association. In addition, new primary
sources were used in both of these chapters.

In a review of the literature on the American school
controversy itself there are two sources which deal with it
in chapters in books. Laurence Larson's chapter entitled,
"Professor Anderson and the Yankee School," in his book, The

Changing West, was the first comprehensive study and still

 

an excellent review of the American school controversy.
Larson's book was published in 1937. Theodore Blegen, the
dean of Norwegian-American historians, has a comprehensive
chapter entitled, "The Common School," in his book, Nerwegian
Migration to America; The American Transition. Blegen's

book was published in 1940. Recently, Walter H. Beck has
included in his book, Lutheran Elementary Schools in the
United States, a fine chapter, "Education in the Scandinavian
Synods," first published in 1939 with a second edition ap-
pearing in 1965. This chapter includes to some degree the
school controversy among the Norwegian—American Lutherans.

In addition, there is Nicholas Tavuchis' book, Pastors and
Immigrants: The Role of a Religious Elite in the Absorption
of Nerwegian Immigrants. Tavuchis' work, appearing in 1965,
is perceptive and is essentially an examination of the role

of the elitist clergy of the NOrwegian Synod. He has used a

sociological model to examine this elite. Tavuchis has used

for his sources, for the most part, Larson and Blegen.

Method of Procedure

 

As already mentioned work has been done on the Ameri-
can school controversy among the NOrwegian—Americans, and
this dissertation has drawn upon the work of both Larson and
Blegen. However, much new primary source material has been
used. Although Larson and Blegen often mentioned a par-
ticular source, space did not permit them to deal with it in
detail. In addition, documents not used by either one of
these investigators have been used in Chapter Four. Some of
these documents have been given a more detailed examination.

The documentary-historical method was used for
sources in all chapters of the dissertation with the ex-
ception of Chapter One, "Introduction," and Chapter Five,
"An Evaluation of Nbrwegian—American Culture and the American
School Problem." These documents were secured in the
Norwegian-American Historical Association library at St.
Olaf College, NOrthfield, Minnesota, and at the Koran
Library on the campus of Luther College, Decorah, Iowa. At
the NOrwegian—American Historical Association materials from
both the Synodalberetning and the Kirkelig maanedstidende
were copied using the Xerox process. At the Koran Library
both the Skandinaven and the Fadrelandet oggemigranten

which had recently been placed on microfilm were first

scanned on a reader, and then the articles dealing with the
school question and related materials were copied by the use
of the 3M Electro-conductive process. By this method and

the Xerox method it was possible to duplicate a large number
of documents for study which could not have been done by

hand copying. By the copying process it was feasible to
duplicate a large number of documents on both the cultural
life of the Nerwegians and on the American School controversy
from both the Skandinaven and Faadrelandet og emigranten,

two of the leading Norwegian newspapers of the time.

Some eighty-three Skandinaven articles, July, 1866-

 

January, 1880, and forty-four Faedrelandet og emigranten,
February, 1869-May, 1882, were translated in their entirety
from Dano-NOrwegian to English first on recording tape and
then transcribed. In addition, pertinent sections from
Synodalberetning, October, 1859-June, 1877, and Kirkelig
maanedstidende, December, 1876-October, 1881, were trans-
lated. The documents were then coded and indexed topically.
The result was that there was much more material translated
than could be used in this study. However, the articles
varied from excellent to the mediocre.

It should be pointed out that the Decorah Republican,
May, l860-May, 1877, was read for background information
from the American point of view of the Norwegians in the

Decorah, Iowa, settlement and also the location of Luther

College. Much of the primary material from the Decorah Re-

 

publican was used in Chapter Three.

In summary, it is hoped that these primary documents
will add to the knowledge already discussed by other investi-
gators and will add to and supplement work already done in

the field of Norwegian-American history.

CHAPTER II

FOUR ETHNIC IMMIGRANT GROUPS AND THEIR

EDUCATIONAL THOUGHT AND PRACTICE

The controversy over the place of the American
common school among the Norwegian-Americans was largely
within the old Norwegian Lutheran Synod. There were many
NOrwegian immigrants, however, who did not agree with the
opposition View taken by the leaders of the Nerwegian
Lutheran Synod on the common school question. As the edu—
cational history of the nineteenth century indicates, the
NOrwegians were by no means the only ethnic immigrant group
to debate the common school question. Nor can the contro-
versy over the worth of the common school be relegated only
to the immigrant minorities, for many of the old stock
Americans also opposed the Common School Movement. Religious
leaders like Matthew Hale Smith, for example, opposed Horace
Mann for promoting a state law in Massachusetts which would
forbid the teaching of sectarian religion in the public
schools. Although Mann believed that the Bible should be
read daily in the schools without comment,he was denounced
by The Reverend Smith in a sermon entitled, "The Ark of God

on a New Cart." In this sermon he accused Mann of promoting

nonsectarian religious instruction which was "godless" and
"corrupting" to the minds of children. According to Smith,
education could have meaning only if orthodox Protestant
doctrines were taught in the schools.1

Horace Mann's experience in leading the fight for
free public schools was perhaps to a lesser degree true of
all the leaders of the Common School Movement. In the light
of the hostile attitudes toward the common school by a large
segment of the American public it is of little wonder that
ethnic groups from Europe should have some rather definite
ideas and attitudes about the worth of American public edu-
cation. The American opponents of the common school had
been reared in an atmosphere of democracy and political free-
dom which was often not the case in the immigrant who came
to America not only to seek a better standard of living for
himself, but for his children as well.

To the student of this period of American educational
history it is clear that the arguments of the "Yankees" for
and against the common school were given considerable at—
tention in the new immigrant settlements, and these same

arguments were hotly debated in their churches, societies,

 

1For an interesting account of this controversy see
Louise Hall'Tharp, until Victory: Horace Mann and Mary
Peabody (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1953), pp. 205,
206. For a more detailed account of this period of Horace
Mann's life see B. A. Hinsdale's chapter entitled, "The
Controversy with Religious Sectaries," in his book, Horace
Mann and the Common School Revival in the United States (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900), pp. 210—232.

lO

newspapers, and other publications. The immigrant often
rationalized these sometimes bitter disputes by pointing out
that if the Americans had not resolved the conflict over the
common schools, the newly arrived immigrant could hardly be
expected to have done so.

In this chapter there will be an examination of four
ethnic groups: the Germans, Irish, Dutch, and Swedes.l The
question may be raised as to the necessity of giving a de-
scription of the culture of the immigrant. It must be re-
membered that the immigrant who came to America did so with
established attitudes about himself, his homeland, his re-
ligion, and his culture. He was an individual deeply con—
cerned about his total value system and whether or not it
would be possible to maintain these values in the United
States. In the nineteenth century the fear of "Americani—
zation" haunted the immigrant, and the popular opinion that
the immigrant came fully expecting to be assimilated into
American society is a myth and not supported by historical
evidence. Because of the fear of losing his identity in
America, he often labored with almost fanatical zeal against

the American common school and sought to perpetuate his

 

1A brief survey has been made of four ethnic groups.
They have been examined as to the following: their European
origin, political situation, religion, causes for immigration,
degree of nationalism, view of culture and language, process
of acculturation, views on the American common school, and
whether or not they institutionalized their educational
philosophy and practice.

ll

manner of life by a system of education, language, culture,
and religion. Therefore, to divorce the immigrant's cultur-
al views from the kind of school system he established might

be descriptive but not interpretive.

The Germans

 

The Germans came to America in the early Colonial
period and settled in such great numbers in Pennsylvania
that Benjamin Franklin feared that the Germans would so domi—
nate the colony that the English language and English culture
would be lost. .Franklin wrote on one occasion, "Unless the
stream of importation could be turned from this to other
colonies . . . they will soon (so) outnumber us that all the
advantages we will have, will in my opinion, not be able to
preserve our language."1 Franklin's pessimism, however,
proved to be unfounded as the English language became firmly
established in Pennsylvania and in the other colonies as
well.

Most of the Germans who came to the United States
prior to the Civil War did so for economic reasons. -As with
other immigrant groups the promise of a higher standard of

living in the United States was always attractive. In

 

lJared Sparks, The WOrks of Benjamin Franklin
(Chicago: T. MacConn, 1882), Vol. VIII, pp. 71—73, as cited
in Carl H. Gross and Charles C. Chandler, The History of
American Education Through Readings (Boston: D. C. Heath
and Company, 1964), p. 19.

12

addition, the political situation in Germany provided
impetus for emigration. The conservative reaction against
liberalism and the spirit of the French Revolution that set
in after Napoleon's defeat was felt throughout Europe. With
the end of Napoleon came the age of Metternich, and during
this period "every effort was made to stamp out the last
sparks of liberalism and democracy."1

The numerous revolutions which flared in Europe
during 1848 and 1849 were repressed and the dream of the
German liberal for a unified, democratic Germany was not to
be realized. With the failure of the abortive revolution in
Germany many of the leaders fled to America, "many became
distinguished German-Americans, providing an intellectual
and political leadership for the German-American farming and
working classes. . . . Many a German farmer in the West was
a 'latin farmer', who was more familiar with Virgil than
with guiding a plow through a furrow in prairie soil."2

There were without question many of this type of
German immigrant, but there were also many who emigrated for
religious and economic reasons as well. The Germans were
one of the largest ethnic groups to emigrate and America

still feels the impact of the Forty—eighters, German

 

1Carl Wittke,_We Who Built America (2d ed. rev.;
Cleveland: The Press of Western Reserve University, 1964),
p. 188.

2Ibid., p. 188.

13

Catholics, and the Saxons or Lutherans. All of these groups
within the German immigrant community shared in the support
of "das Deutschtum" or German culture, but each of them had
their particular interpretation of it and its importance to
them as a group. Almost without exception the German who
came as an immigrant believed that German culture was far
superior to American culture. The Forty-eighters in par-
ticular looked upon German culture as being enriched by a
thousand years of intellectual achievement, and this culture
which had produced a Goethe, Schiller, and Hegel was not to
be compared with a youthful, immature American society. They
were quite certain that "German ways and culture . . . would
in any case find acceptance in America because of their
marked superiority over all others."1 It was not enough for
the German to simply bring his spade, ax, and ploughshare to
America, for in addition to these he must bring his German
culture. Theodor Lemke expressed the View that

. . . during the first stages of the German emigration,

the leading urge was for the emigrant to throw off as

soon as tmacould his racial consciousness and in the

course of time to undergo a complete transformation.

But now he came to realize the worth and the influence

of Deutschtum, and not only has he ceased to deny his

origin, but this influence has unmistakably begun to
mould the nature of the American people.2

 

 

1John A. Hawgood, The Tragedy of German-America (New
York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1940), p. 270.

ZIbid., p. 273.

14

The process of acculturation, if not scientifically
defined as we know it today, was a process which the Germans
realized and feared. There was general agreement among all
German groups that isolation was the key to a thwarting of
the acculturational process. In retrospect one must admit
that they were remarkably successful for a long time in
avoiding what they termed, "Americanization." But the price
of being a hyphenated German-American was also to be costly.
They had to face repeatedly the attacks of the nativists who
did not take kindly to their desire to maintain their German
customs and folkways.

The German immigrant had a different view of what he
and other Germans could do in America. Most ethnic groups
saw America in terms of freedom from various kinds of op-
pression in the land of their origin. Germans, on the other
hand, who came to America "between 1855 and 1915 lived not in
the United States, but in German America, and lived and wrote
for German America, in very many cases, rather than for the
United States of America."1 The Germans seemed to have had
a pan-German view and saw the United States not as a separate
nation state. If the Germans did recognize the sovereignty
of America, they did so intellectually but rejected it emo-
tionally. All Germans of the nineteenth century coming to

America insisted on separation which would make possible the

 

lIbid., p. xviii.

15

creation of “German communities as islands in a sea of
Americanism."1

This intense desire to preserve German culture was
to be found in a mixture of reasons. "In some the political
desire for German colonies was uppermost; in others the
social need for the free exercise of German habits and
thought; in yet others the economic advantage that would be
given to Germany by providing her with fresh avenues of
foreign trade."2

Perhaps the desire to preserve German culture was
due in part to American society in the nineteenth century.
For one thing, the German found the American Sabbath com-
pletely incomprehensible. The deep strand of puritanism in
the Yankee seemed antithetical to his professed love of free-
dom and liberty. The German saw no love of freedom in the
legalism of the American Sabbath. Consequently, the German
could not understand the nativist's desire for legislation
that would prohibit the use of Sunday as they had been ac-
customed to it in Germany. The frequent clashes between
Germans and Americans on Sundays after the Germans had cele-
brated in their traditional manner with drinking, singing,
and dancing was reported in great detail by the newspapers.

Furthermore, the emphasis of the American nativist on

 

1Ibid., p. xiv.

2Ibid., p. xv.

16

prohibition caused friction between the German and American.
The establishment of German beer gardens where they could
drink their beer and enjoy the "fruit of the vine" was
looked upon by Yankee mothers with horror and fear. Between
1853 and 1855 the native born American fought hard to put
prohibition laws on the Statute books of every state in the
Union. The Germans resisted the "Maine Laws" and the prohi—
bition movement along with the folk style of the Americans
who were so boorish that they celebrated the Fourth of July
with parades, patriotic speeches, and lemonade. The native
American did not take kindly to the German's criticism of
their principal patriotic holiday nor of their culture.
Before the Civil War an astute observer, F. L.
Olmstead, noted the difference between the Germans and Ameri-
cans, "The manners and ideals of the Texans and the Germans
are hopelessly divergent. They make little acquaintance, ob-
serving one another partly with unfeigned curiosity, often
tempered with mutual contempt."l Here were a people caught
in the conflict of having an intense desire to preserve
their style of life in a nation which had its own developing
culture. It must be remembered that this was a period of
time when Americans were swept by an intense national spirit
after the victory of General Andrew Jackson over the British

at New Orleans in 1815. The rising spirit of American

 

lIbid., pp. 41-42.

l7

nationalism looked with disdain upon the German who sought
by every possible means to maintain German social life in the
United States.

For their struggle against acculturation the Germans
had an arsenal of weapons. The habit of settling in iso-
lated settlements of their own creation in both rural and
urban areas was one of these. Another formidable weapon was
the German language. The use of German inhibited social
interaction between the German and the American and between
other ethnic groups for that matter. The use of German as
an isolator was remarkably successful not only for the first
generation German immigrant but for several generations. In
fact, at the end of the nineteenth century "the German
language was still as extensively used as ever in the churches
and schools of German communities, and many of these communi-
ties, especially when comparatively isolated, still preserved
a remarkably German appearance in an American world."1

.All of the major German groups who came to the
United States in the nineteenth century had their own reason
for preserving "das Deutschtum" and particularly the German
language. The Forty-eighters and the editors of the German—

American press sought to preserve the German culture and

German language in America. The Roman Catholics saw the

function of the language as that of "preserving the faith."

The German religious leaders understood this well.

 

1Ibid., p. 283.

18

The German emigrant to the United States had been

brought up . . . on the tradition that 'there is no

better or higher culture than German, and the '

practice of religion by a German must be the best

of the world.‘ German priests understood this and

knew that many of the German emigrants felt that if

they could not practice their faith in the German

way when they came to America, than they would not

practice their faith at all. This was why the

mother tongue was stressed, the vareins encouraged,

and the traditions fostered. All were kept together

by the mother tongue.1

From the very first the Germans who came to America

established their own churches and parishes. This had been
the practice of the Catholic missionary priest from the
earliest times, and these churches were strong defenders of
the German language and traditions. The reason for doing so
was the fear that "loss of language meant loss of faith, and
traditions. . . . The German did not claim that German was
the language of his faith, but that it was the best means
for keeping the faith."2 The Catholic church leaders be-
lieved that the German Catholic would be protected from the
zealous Methodist or Baptist who sought to convert him to
his religious belief. As long as the German knew no English
he would remain a faithful Catholic. Thus the German
Catholic leadership held more and more to the View "that

language saves faith." This view of language and coupled

with prohibitions against marrying outside of the Catholic

 

lColman J. Barry, The Catholic Church and German
Americans (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1952), p. 9.

21bid., p. 9.

 

19

Church and marrying a non-German, were also effective means
of maintaining the faith and language.

One of the most ambitious schemes for the preser-
vation of German culture in America during the nineteenth
century was the vision of many Germans of building a "New
Germany" or possibly "New Germanies" in the United States.
In 1847, F. LBher expressed this idea when he wrote,

Germans can remain German in America: they will

mingle and intermarry with non-Germans and adopt

their ways, but they can still remain essentially

German. They can plant the vine on the hills and

drink its wine with happy song and dance, they can

have German schools and Universities, German

literature and art, German science and philosophy,

German courts and assemblies--in short, they can

form a German state in which the German language is

as much the popular and official language as the

English is now, and in which the German spirit

rules.
A beginning of this vision was attempted in Texas in the
middle 1840's when thousands of Germans immigrated, invading
the Indian country of the South-western part of the terri-
tory. Other of these New Germanies were St. Haziana, Wis—
consin, Frankenmuth, Michigan, and Hermann, Missouri.
Hermann remained a completely German city until World War I
which "served to hasten the process of disintegration, though
not to complete it by any means."2

While the Germans were by every means possible

struggling to maintain their culture in a strange land, the

 

lHawqood, p. 101.

2Ibid., p. 121.

20

nativist American was not idle in his reaction to the German
immigrant's attempt to establish islands of German culture
throughout the land. The Native American Party and later
the American Protective Association were organizations of
native born Americans who opposed the plans of the Germans.
The Native American Party, popularly known as the "Know
Nothings" was active in 1835 and was formally established in
St. Louis by 1840. The newspapers of the 1840's and 1850's
were filled with the native born's criticism of the immi-
grant. This criticism was not, however, confined to the
Germans,for all immigrants felt the hostility of the nativist
to a greater or lesser degree. To the nativist the immigrant

. . . was impoverished, worked for less, drove down

wages, and lowered the standard of living. He came

from the lowest class of society; he was a jailbird.

He continued to speak "Dutch" and was clannish.

Still worse, however, he sometimes voted illegally;

and when he voted, legally or otherwise, he somehow

seemed to vote the wrong way, that is, against the

"Natives," with surprising regularity. In fact, he

was an undemocratic individual, unsuited for ab-

sorption into the United States, incapable of under-

standing American politics, and certainly unfit to

hold public office.1 *
It was the contention of the nativist that the European who
had received his education in a down—trodden country could
not assume responsibility in a free nation like America. In
addition, the German was an immigrant and often a Roman
Catholic, and this compounded the evil making for a hellish
combination.

lWalter O. Forster, Zion on the Mississippi (St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), p. 274.

21

The nativists organized a number of societies which

produced a prolific number of publications.

These societies and their publications, focusing at—

tention as they did on foreign immigration and its

dangers, played a prominent part in creating the

anti-Catholic, anti-foreign sentiment upon which the

Know-Nothing party was nurtured. They convinced many

workingmen that their prosperity depended on re-

stricted immigration.
Furthermore, the Know-thhing Party called for lengthened
residence in the United States before the immigrant could
vote. Some called for a period of twenty-one years ostensi-
bly because this was thought to be the minimum time necessary
for the immigrant to learn about American political insti—
tutions and to correct the abuse of making a citizen of the
immigrant the same day as he landed. There were many immi-
grants who disembarked in the morning and who were United
States citizens by nightfall.

It was largely the Forty-eighters who defended the

Germans against the attacks of the nativists. These "refu-
gees from the revolutions" of 1848 and 1849 were a mixed
multitude of atheists, humanists, deists, and pantheists,
but almost all of them agreed that German culture was su-
perior to American culture and must be maintained. On most
issues the Germans and the Americans were in total disagree-

ment. There was one issue they agreed upon, however, and

that was the lowly status of the Irish whom they saw as,

 

1Ray Allen Billington, The Protestant Crusade (New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1938), p. 338.

22

"Consumers of potatoes, promiscuous begetters of children,
'splay-footed bog trotters', and willing tools of priests

and corrupt politicians."l There were numerous occasions

when the nativists promoted fighting between the Irish and
the Germans.

At the turn of the century there was every indication
that the German was winning the battle for his language and
culture. However, what he did not see was the possibility
of international conflict between the United States and
Germany. With the coming of Werld War I every vestige of a
New Germany within the United States was shattered.

All three German groups institutionalized their edu-
cational thought and practice within their school systems.
Among the German Roman Catholics education was supremely im—
portant. From the predominantly German city of Milwaukee a
German Catholic priest wrote in 1852 to the archbishop of
Vienna, Austria, "The German Catholic schools are the crying
need in this country, because German children, if Anglicised,
by some strange fate, generally become alienated from
Catholic life."2 However, church leaders did not allow much

"anglicising" to go on as the first elementary school had

been established in 1844.

 

lCarl Wittke, Refugees of Revolution (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1952), p. 182.

2Hawgood, p. 40.

23

Although the native born Roman Catholic did not like
the “image“ the Roman Catholic Church was receiving because
of the European Catholic's strange ways and manners, it
seemed to the liberal American Catholic that all the careful
work that had gone into making the Church respectable to the
Protestant majority was eroded by each shipload of European
Catholics who landed in East Coast ports. However, not all
native born Roman Catholic leaders felt this way about the
immigrant. Bishop Edmund Dunne of Peoria, Illinois, was an
exception. He expressed a love for the German parish school.

I especially rejoice at the good parochial schools

in German parishes. I cannot encourage you Germans
enough to teach your children as much German as
possible; for a German who values his language light-
ly, as a rule abandons his religion without thinking.
Hold to your language, and I will make it a point to
see that there will be instruction in German conver-
sation in the parish schools.

The Roman Catholic German sided with the conservative wing
of the nineteenth century American Catholic Church and con-
tinued to build German speaking parochial schools with the
blessing of the First Plenary Council in 1852.

The Lutheran Saxons who settled in Missouri were al-
so instrumental in establishing schools. These Lutherans
emigrated from Saxony in 1835 under the leadership of the
Reverend Martin Stephen. The Saxons, as they were called,

settled first in Perry County one hundred miles south of St.

Louis.

 

1Barry, p. 252.

24

Soon after arriving Stephen organized the Gesellschaft

 

into an episcopacy which resulted for a time in a virtual
dictatorship in both the secular and spiritual areas. How-
ever, on May 30, 1839, Stephen was expelled from the colony
because of "sins of fornication and adultery . . . and of
prodigal maladministration of the property of others."1
Stephen was ferried across the river to Illinois and re-
mained there for the rest of his life.

Stephen's expulsion left the Colony in a state of
confusion. C. F. W. walther, who was to become the outstand—
ing leader of this group of immigrant Germans, asked the
crucial question in a letter to his brother-in—law in St.
Louis, "Are our congregations Christian, Lutheran congre-
gations, or are they mobs or sects? Do they have authority
to issue a call or to excommunicate? Are we pastors or are
we not? Are our calls valid? Should we not be back in Ger-
many?"2 The debate as to their spiritual status raged for

two years and finally the issue was resolved in a debate be—

tween Marbach and Walther April 15-20, 1841. Walther won the

 

lForster, "Sentence of Deposition Pronounced upon
Stephen," p. 418. Stellhorn takes somewhat of a different
view when he gives the reason for Stephen's expulsion to be
for "misconduct and mismanagement." He adds, "There is
still much in this sad episode that needs to be explained.
Perhaps the full truth of the matter will never be known."
August C. Stellhorn, Schools of the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod (St. Louis: Coficordia Publishing House, 1963), pp. 45—
46.

2Stellhorn, p. 46.

25

day with the clarity of his theological arguments. Walther's
case was built on the Word of God, Luther's writings, and

the Lutheran Confessions. The Missouri Synod of the Lutheran
Church to this day has not departed from the basic position
stated by Walther during the debates in April of 1841.

From its very conception the Missouri Synod had es—
tablished parish schools. The Missouri Synod's reason for
doing so was that "they had unusually strong doctrinal con-
victions to perpetuate through the youth and the generations
to come."1 Perhaps it was due in part to the confusion and
uncertainty which characterized the early history of the
Missouri Synod that orthodoxy and education became so im-
portant to the Saxon Lutherans. A church could only be
organized if the immigrants would agree to establish a
parish school at the same time. In the early years, the
pastor had sole responsibility for the instruction in the
parish school four days a week, preaching, and carrying on
his pastoral care the remainder of the week. He was later
replaced by a teacher who became also the church organiét
and choirmaster.

The question of the German language was crucial with
the Missouri Synod Lutherans as with other immigrant groups.
The early leaders believed that the German language must be
continued in the home, school, and church. The German-

American Lutheran believed that the German "had such a rich

 

1Ibid., p. 66.

26

treasure of religious literature in the German language, and,
because of the ongoing German immigration, such a large
mission field among German Americans, that it was for them a
sacred obligation to see that the transition would be
gradual."l But the Lutherans like the other ethnic groups
were to find that the transition to American culture and the
English language was not to be gradual, despite their in-
tentions otherwise.

In the state of Wisconsin the German Lutherans, as
well as other ethnic groups, were faced with the Bennett Law
which was enacted in the spring of 1889 and called for com-
pulsory education. However, the heart of the Bennett Law
was section 5 which stated: "No school shall be regarded as
a school under this act unless there shall be taught therein,
as part of the elementary education of children, reading,
writing, arithmetic, and United States history in the English
language."2 When the Missouri Synod met in their Triennial
session in 1890 the official declaration of the Synod made
it clear that they were opposed to the Bennett Law and a
similar law in Illinois and were "therefore conscience bound

to combat each and every law which is directed, or may be

 

1Stellhorn, p. 111.

2Laws of Wisconsin Related to Common Schools In—
cluding Free High Schools; Also Those Relating—to’NOrmal
SChOOlS and the University: Under the direction of Jesse B.
Thayer, Madison, Wisconsin, 1890, Chapter 519, p. 74.

 

 

27

used, to the detriment and damage of Lutheran parochial
schools, which are effective means of extending and perpetu-
ating the Kingdom of God."1
In the spring elections of 1891 the NOrwegians joined
Germans in leaving the ranks of the Republican Party and
voting for the Democratic candidates who had promised repeal
if elected. "The legislature immediately repealed the ob-
noxious law and thereby started another campaign on the part
of Republicans to have it reenacted."2 The Republican
papers of the State retaliated with vehement attacks on
Germans and other groups who had worked for repeal. The
editor of The Wausau Torch of Liberty called the German
Lutheran church leaders "enemies of free schools; enemies to
them because they are a menace to any system of schools not
free . . .,"3 The Appleton Post's editor wrote, "The issues
involved in the campaign just closed touch too closely the
life of this nation to quietly submit to the pressure upon

its throat of alien ecclesiastics."4 The editor of the

Spencer Tribune writing about the defeat of the Republican

 

Party to keep the Bennett Law stated, "The defeat of this

 

1Walter H. Beck, Lutheran Elementary Schools in the
United States (2d ed. rev.; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1965), p. 236.

 

2Ibid., p. 243.
3Ibid., p. 243.
4

Ibid., p. 243.

28

campaign is but temporary; for the principle upon which the
victory was won is false to the very spirit of Americanism,
and the bulldozing, domineering interferences of any Church
will not long be tolerated in this or any other State by the
voters."1

The Germans and their allies were remarkably success-
ful in prohibiting laws similar to the Bennett Law from being
enacted for the remainder of the nineteenth century and the
early twentieth century. However, with the entrance of the
United States into WOrld war I came a change of direction in
the German speaking communities which no law backed by the
strongest nativist sentiment could enforce. When America en-
tered the war against Germany it meant the end of the German
language in the schools of the Missouri Synod and, in some
cases, actual persecution of German-Lutherans.2

The Forty-eighters also institutionalized their edu—

cational thought and practice. These Germans were refugees

from orthodox theology as well as refugees from revolution

 

lIbid., p. 244.
2

"The Lutheran School at Lincoln, Mo., was burned to
the ground on Oct. 4, 1918. The one at Schumm, Ohio, was
blown up with dynamite on Oct. 20. Some pastors and teachers
had to flee for their lives. To protect themselves against
assault by a mob of a neighboring town, the men of the
Lutheran church at Steeleville, Ill., brought their shotguns
and rifles along to church services and stacked them in the

back of the church auditorium. . . . At Bremen, Ill., a
pastor of the General Council and his wife were severely
beaten by a mob which had come in 18 cars." Stellhorn, p.

314.

29

and because they were liberals they supported the American
common school, a school they considered "uncontaminated by
theology or sectarianism.“l The Turnverein or popularly
known as Turner schools were a distinct contribution of the
Forty-eighters. These schools developed in Germany during
the dark days of Napoleon's domination of Prussia and
stressed physical education. For many years these schools
provided the physical education instructors for public
schools.

The works of Pestalozzi were largely introduced to
America through the schools established by the Forty-
eighters. They also developed textbooks and instructional
methods based on this new theory of education. In addition,
Mrs. Carl Schurz, the wife of the most famous of the Forty-
eighters, established the first kindergarten in Watertown,
Wisconsin, in 1856.

A contrast can be made among the schools of the
Forty-eighters, the German Catholic, and Lutherans. "German
schools established by Forty-eighters after the middle of the
last century had a cosmopolitan character and objective that
went far beyond a desire to perpetuate a national German
culture in the United States."2 On the other hand, the Ger-

man religious schools by their nature were doctrinaire.

k

lWittke,__Refugees of Revolution, p. 304.

2Ibid., p. 301.

30

Two of the best known schools of the Forty—eighters
were F. Knapp's "German and English Institute" founded in

Baltimore in 1853 and Peter Engelmann's Schulverein in

 

Milwaukee. These were excellent schools. Engelmann's school
in Milwaukee had a widespread influence. "Its pedagogical
methods influenced the Milwaukee public schools, and its
curriculum included physical education and manual training,
singing and drawing, and emphasized rational methods of peda-
gogy instead of mere learning by rote."l

Of all the Germans the Forty-eighters saw more clear-
ly than other German groups that "Americanization" of the
German-American would eventually come. Also they saw the
contribution they as Germans could make to American society.
Their lack of opposition to the American common school made
acculturation into American society easier for them than it

was for the other German groups.
The Irish

The Irish came to America during colonial times and
this westward movement of the Irish was not to cease until
America received a generous infusion of Gaelic culture. Be-
tween 1714 and 1720, according to one estimate, fifty-four
ships arrived in Boston laden with Irish immigrants. The

Irish had by 1720 become so profuse in Boston that the

 

1Ibid., p. 303.

31

Massachusetts General Court ordered that "certain Irish
families recently arrived from Ireland be warned to move
off."1 The Irish showed a strong desire to leave the green
shores of Ireland for the United States which they often con-
sidered an extension of the Emerald Isle. The only com-
parison the Irish made was that America had greater physical
blessings than Ireland. The Atlantic Ocean that separated
the two nations did not hinder the Irish immigrant from
nurturing his strong clan ties. He regularly sent money to
his family of origin, and in many cases it was the regular
contribution of the immigrant Irish son or daughter that
paid the rent and provided the food for those remaining in
Ireland. In addition, the Irish immigrant was not content
leaving his family in Ireland, but made every effort to
bring his clan to the United States.

The story of the Irish immigrant would be incomplete
without reference to the Great Famine which gripped Ireland
from 1845 to 1851. Although the Irish have been associated
with the potato famine, it should be remembered that the
famine affected a number of European countries and was a
principal factor in motivating emigration in all of the '
countries. The potato disease, now known as_ghytophthora

infestans, a fungus infection, had been noticed in the Bel-

 

gian province of Liege in 1843 but did not receive much

 

1A. J. Reilly as quoted in F. J. Brown and J. S.
Roucek, One America (New York: Prentice Hall, 1946), p. 45.

 

32

attention because the damage was slight. This was but an
ominous sign of what was ahead. The springs and summers of
the potato famine were unusually wet and the fungus spread
from France eastward to Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany,
England, and finally to Ireland. The people driven by the
pangs of hunger walked the roads eating whatever the human
body could tolerate. th uncommon during the worst of the
famine was the eating of dogs and mustard weed. It is little
wonder that with this kind of diet starvation took its toll
and over one million died, many by starvation and others by
malnutrition and related diseases.

The hope of the Irish was in America and boatload
after boatload of Irish came to the large cities of the
United States settling in shanty towns in Boston, Phila—
delphia, Chicago, St. Louis, New York, and Brooklyn. In
leaving Ireland a radical change developed in the habit of
the Irish. A people who had lived so close to the earth did
not choose an agricultural life in the United States. Only
some 20% of the immigrant Irish became engaged in agriculture.
There were probably some good reasons why the Irish did not
settle on the land. In the first place, the Irish were
poverty stricken when they landed in eastern ports and un-
like other immigrant groups they could not afford the trans—
portation costs to other parts of the country.

Prisoners of poverty, they were confined to the

cities in which they landed or to those of the
interior, on rivers, canals, and railways, where

33

work was available. They had not been prepared by

the potato culture of Ireland for the hard ways of

the frontier; nor had it provided them with the

capital and skills with which to take over the land

the Yankees left behind.1
Archbishop John Hughes has often been blamed for the Irish
settling in the large cities in shanty ghettos. Without
question Hughes did express the desire that the Irish should
settle in the cities, but it must also be said that

the idea of lonely forests and prairies was not al-

ways attractive to a people of so sociable a dispo-

sition, and it is not to be wondered that Irish

priests felt little inclination to live in parts of

the country where farms were usually far apart.

Therefore, not much pressure on the part of ecclesi-

astical authorities was needed to urbanize the Irish

immigrant.
The Irish, who had suffered such privation in the Great
Famine, could not easily forget what they had experienced on
the land in Ireland and they were determined not to allow it
to happen again in America.

An attempt was made to persuade the Irish to leave
the Irish shanty towns of the urban areas for the farms of
the West. Bishop John Lancaster Spalding, a progressive,
and one of the outstanding Catholic leaders of his day led

the crusade in 1878 to relocate the Irish in colonies in the

Middle West.

 

1Thomas N. Brown, Irish-American Nationalism, 1870-
1890 (Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Company, 1966), p. 18.

2Theodore Maynard, The Catholic Church and the
American Idea (New York: Appeltoanemtury-Crofts, Inc.,
1953), p. 119.

 

34

With unflagging enthusiasm he traveled over the East
and West and by inspiring lectures aroused interest
and support; he wrote a volume to popularize the
movement, and took an active part in the work of
organization and administration. Eastern bishops,“
however, were not easily convinced that it was a
mistake to keep Irish immigrants in urban centers.1

A few Irish colonies were started in Nebraska, Minnesota,
and Arkansas but without much success.
The Irish did not find a ready acceptance by the
native born American or by other immigrant groups for that
matter. Although the majority could speak English, many
"were illiterate and thousands knew no English."2 But for
those who knew English it did not always work in their be-
half, as one might think it would.
Their possession of the English language gave them
advantages, denied other immigrants, but at the same
time it brought them more directly and abrasively
into contact with American culture. Out of the con-
tact would emerge that fierce nationalism which
would in the 1880's send Irish-American dynamiters,
land reformers, and political agitators moving
stormily across the Atlantic in the hope of changing
the face and mind of Ireland.3

The Yankee came to know the Irish quite well, and the more

he saw and heard "Paddy" the more he disliked him. The

nativist American, particularly before the Civil War,

dreamed of a country freed from the evils of alcohol but

lMerle Curti, The Social Ideas of American Educators
(Revised edition; Patterson, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams,
and Company, 1961), p. 362.

2Carl Wittke, We Who Built America, p. 131.

3Brown, p. 19.

35

soon realized that "Paddy“ would not be his ally in the
struggle against the demon rum. "Unfortunately, the drink
evil, already acute in Ireland, became a positive menace in
‘America. Large numbers of Irish rushed into the saloon
business. Whiskey often was a part of the contract by which
Irish laborers were employed in construction gangs.Ill An
Irish immigrant wrote to his family in Ireland, "Give my

very kind love to Father, and tell him if he was here he
could soon kill himself by drinking, if he thought proper."2
The American disliked, in addition to Irish intemperance,

the brawling and the adroitness with which the Irish learned
to play the American game of politics. The Irish made little
effort to conform to the mores of American society for they
realized that they were viewed with a great deal of sus-
picion anyway. Therefore, they were not quick to surrender
their manner of life. The Irish played power politics in

the shanty towns in the big cities and their love of power
did not hasten the acculturational process, nor endear them
to the Yankees. "NOthing strikes the historian of the Ameri-
can Irish so forcibly as their desire to wield power. As

churchmen, nationalists, and politicians, they were possessed

 

'lWittke, We Who Built America, p. 135.
2Quoted in Marcus L. Hansen, "Immigration and
Puritanism," in Nbrwegian-American Studies and Records, Vol.

IX (Northfield: Nbrwegian—American Historical Association,
1936), p. 11.

36

by the need to bend others to their will."1 Perhaps this is
not so difficult to understand in the light of England's long
history of oppression of the Irish. But what seems incongru-
ous to the power politics of the Irish is the symbol of
Ireland which was a weeping woman and a broken harp. In the
Democratic Party the-Irish found a haven and Tammany Hall
and Irish became synonymous. Irish political power in 1880
was sufficient to elect William R. Grace, the first Irish
mayor of New York.

_A characteristic, not only of the newly arrived
Irish but of several generations of Irishmen, was their in-
tense loyalty to Irish nationalism. The Irish did not lose
their intense concern with the nationalistic aspiration of
the Emerald Isle nor did they lose their hatred of the
English by crossing the Atlantic. If anything their ani—
mosity grew more bitter. These sentiments were expressed in
numerous organizations like the Fenians, the Clan na Gael or
United Brotherhood, and the Irish National League. These
organizations planned grandiose invasions of Canada and Ire—
land from the United States. Most of their plans were
abortive and most of their fighting was among themselves.

As a by-product of this Irish sense of nationalism
came a concomitant interest in the Irish language. In the

1870's Phil-Celtic societies were founded in many parts of

 

lBrown, p. 133.

37

the country. "Enthusiasts were delighted to discover that
the scattered Irish were learning in the United States the
language they had the 'misfortune not to have learned at
home'."1 The Pan-Celtic society advanced the cause of the
Irish language and insisted that the Celtic language and
the publication of Celtic literature was to "vindicate the
character of the Irish as a race from the foul slanders
heaped upon them for centuries by English or Anglo—Saxon
writers."2 The Irish in America used the "Celtic Myth" to
create a sense of pride of Irish origin which in turn would
fire the spark of nationalism.

More important than the revival of the Irish language
was Irish Catholicism. Irish immigrants were almost entirely
Catholic, and the term "Irish Catholic" was to become an ex-
pression of disdain by the majority of native Americans.

The Know Nothing Party directed its most bitter and hostile
attacks against the Irish. American Catholics not of Irish
origins found it difficult to resist the ready identification
of Catholic with Irish. Many of them were distressed by the
appearance of the ragged Irish as were the nativists.3 But
Irish nationalism and Irish Catholicism were inextricably

tied together.

 

lBrown, p. 33.

alrish Nation (New York), April 15, 1882, as cited
in Brown, p. 34.

 

3Brown, p. 35.

38

To the Catholic mind the fabled troubles of Ireland
were part of a great religious drama, a long martyr-
dom permitted by God in order to spread His WOrd.
Aware that the emigrating Irish were carrying
Catholicism everywhere throughout the English speak-
ing world, many churchmen saw in that tattered
figure an arm of the Lord and in the famines that
sent him forth the 'mysterious logic of God'.
To the nativist the invasion of America by the Irish was
anything but the logic of God. It was the illogical immi-
gration laws which encouraged rather than restricted
immigration.

The American Roman Catholic church in the nineteenth
century saw an emergence of progressive Catholicism in the
United States. For the most part the Irish Catholic gave
his allegiance to the conservative wing of the Church. The
leadership of the conservatives was to a large extent domi-
nated by the Irish hierarchy of the state of New York, such
men as John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop Michael Corrigan,
and Bishop Bernard McQuaid of Rochester. The leadership of
the progressive or liberal wing were for the most part
native born Americans, such leaders as James Cardinal Gibbons
of Baltimore, Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul, and
Father Isaac Hecker. Gibbon had been a bishop in North
Carolina, and as bishop of Baltimore Gibbons was the recog-
nized leader of American Catholicism. Although John Ireland

was born in Ireland he came to the United States as a small

boy and fell immediately in love with America. Ireland

 

1Ibid., p. 36.

39

served as a chaplain in the Union Army and became a staunch
and faithful Republican and prohibitionist. Perhaps these
facts alone account for his acceptance by many native Ameri-
cans in a day when Roman Catholicism was unpopular. Father
Isaac Hecker, founder of the Missionary Society of St. Paul
the Apostle, had been converted to Catholicism and spent the
rest of his life in attempting to convert his fellow Ameri-
cans to the Roman Catholic faith. Father Hecker, as a pro-
gressive, became an issue of the progressive conservative
debate both in the United States and France.

To a remarkable degree the conservative wing of the
American Catholic Church was identified with the Irish. It
has already been noted that the New York hierarchy was both
conservative and Irish, and it remains essentially so to the
present time. It was in New York that the conservatives
first won control, and they have never relinquished it.

The progressive-conservative debate in the latter
half of the nineteenth century could not be kept from the
public, and it was reported faithfully in the Protestant
papers. The conservatives criticized Cardinal Gibbons on
one occasion for praising President Grover Cleveland for
proclaiming a Thanksgiving Day. The conservatives took the
position that Thanksgiving was nothing but "a damnable Puri-

tanical substitution for Christmas."1 Gibbons' liberal

 

1John Tracy Ellis, The Life of James Cardinal Gibbons
(2 vols.; Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1952), Vol. 11,
p. 6.

4O

leanings led him to support the Knights of Labor, and other
liberal movements.

The Third Plenary Council began in Cardinal Gibbons'
diocese of Baltimore on Nevember 10, 1884. This was to be
the first meeting of its kind in twenty years, and Roman
Catholic clergy were to attend from the North and South to
discuss problems of the Church. It was not of little sig-
nificance that progressive Gibbons' diocese should have been
chosen by the Holy See for this important Council thus
recognizing the liberal wing of the American Catholic Church.
Cardinal Gibbons had invited Bishop Ireland to address the
Council and Ireland spoke on the topic, "A Catholic Church
and Civil Society." The main thrust of his address was that
he could see no conflict between the ideals of America and
the Church who had been the guardian of political and person-
al liberties through history.

The most important discussion however that took
place at the Third Plenary Council was the school question.
At The First Plenary Council in 1852 the BishOps had been ex-
horted "to see that schools be established in connection
with all churches in their dioceses."l In 1864 Pope Pius IX
had issued a promulgation which made it impossible for

Catholics to be absolved in the Sacrament of Penance if they

 

1William E. Drake, The American School in Transition
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955), pp.
269-270. '

 

41

did not make use of the local parochial school and continued
to send them to the public school. It was the work of the
Third Plenary Council of Baltimore to clarify whatever doubt
the Catholics had on the school question. The result was
that "at this time, an explicit obligation was imposed upon
all Catholic parishes to provide parochial schools.“1

To a significant degree it was the question of the
role of the common school which divided the progressive and
conservative wings of the Catholic Church. The conservative
Irish clergy strongly opposed the American custom of having
laymen as trustees of church property, Protestant Bible read—
ing in the common school, and favored public funds for their
parochial schools. These kinds of attitudes and activities
were countered by the nativists who opposed "Catholic at—
tempts to drive the Bible from the schoolroom or secure a
share of educational funds."2 To the nativist the Roman
Catholic attack on these basic institutions of American
culture were viewed as a Romanish plot to destroy Protestant—
ism and make America a Catholic nation. Bishop John Hughes
preached an inflammatory sermon in St. Patrick's Cathedral
in November, 1850, which was widely reported in the news-
papers. Bishop Hughes in this sermon, entitled, "The De-

cline of Protestantism and Its Causes," said that "Pagan and

 

1Ibid., p. 270.

2Billington, p. 294.

42

Protestant nations were both crumbling before the force of
Rome . . . and would continue to do so until all the world
was under the spiritual rule of the Holy Mother Church."1
It is of little wonder that this kind of preaching fanned the
fires of anti-Catholicism in many parts of the country and
did harm to the acculturation of the Irish-Catholics into
American society.

The conservative Irish clergy opposed the common
school and its basic principle that fundamental education
was necessary for the citizens in a democracy like America.
Father James Conway was representative of the Irish clergy
when he wrote, "We do not plead for illiteracy . . . but we
are unable to perceive any great ignominy or serious incon-
venience to a State in the fact that some of its colliers
and ploughmen and cowboys and dairymaids are not able to
read the morning paper."2 This sentiment was in direct
opposition to the common school philosophy and resented by
the nativists.

By the end of the nineteenth century Roman Catholic
parents were finding the tax supported common school very
attractive, and in spite of the declaration of the Third

Plenary Council in 1884 Catholic parents were still sending

 

1Ibid., pp. 290, 291.

2"The Rights and Duties of Family and State," ACQ ,
9 (January, 1884), pp. 121-125, as cited in Robert D. Cross,
The Emergence of Liberal Catholicism in America (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 131.

43

their children to the public school. The leaders of the pro-
gressive wing of the Church continued to support the common
school. Of these leaders Bishop Ireland was the most out—
spoken. “Ireland shocked Catholic supporters of Catholic
education by granting the right and obligation of the State
to educate and suggesting that parochial school was an un—
necessary burden and should be abolished."1 This kind of
nativistic talk was opposed strongly by the Irish conserva—
tive wing. The charge was often made that the public
schools were "godless" and not a fit place to educate Catho-
lic children. Zachariah Montgomery using rather poignant
language said that the public school certainly did not pre-
vent immoral behavior but rather would mix the innocent
Catholic child with the "crime-steeped progeny of the low
and vile . . . children whose infant eyes have already grown
familiar with obscene signs, lewd pictures and lecherous be-
havior; children whose ears hear vile oaths, blasphemous
language and words revolting to modesty are as ordinary
habits of speech."2 Montgomery continued to attack the

common school by showing by the means of statistics that

since the beginning of the common school all types of social

 

1Thomas T. McAvoy, The Great Crisis in American
Catholic History, 1895-1900 (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company,
1957)) p0 71.

2"Contemplated Educational Alliance Between Church
and State," AER, 7 (Nevember, 1892), 349, as cited in Cross,
p. 136.

44

ills such as syphilis, insanity, and poverty had increased
in proportion to the growth of the common school. Father
Conway implied that communists and socialists could only
come out of a school which did not have religious teaching.1
The general consensus was that the graduates of the common
school would be "educated black guards, rotten to the core,
and capable of refined criminality of every kind."2

The progressiVes within the Catholic Church did not
remain idle while the Irish conservatives attacked the Ameri-
can common school. ArchbiShop Ireland was invited to speak
before the National Educational Association on July 10, 1890.
In an emotional, enthusiastic speech he exclaimed, "Free
schools! Blessed indeed is the nation whose values and hill-
sides they adorn, and blessed the generations upon whose

3 Although the Third

souls are poured their treasures!"
Plenary Council had insisted that the parochial school be
used by all Catholics, it would seem that Bishop Ireland did
not fully accept the declaration of the Council. What is

needed, said Ireland, "is to make the State School satis-

4
factory to Catholic consciences, and use it." To those who

 

1Cross, p. 136.
2Ibid., p. 136.

3John Tracy Ellis (ed.), Documents of American
Catholic History (Milwaukee: The Bruce PubliShing Company,

1965). Pp. 493:294.

41bid., p. 493.

 

 

45

had in fanatical language attacked the common school Ireland
raised several questions about their charges,

Besides, have not bishops and priests gone too far

in their denunciation of the State Schools? Have

they not in their desire to protect the parish school,

often belied, in their exaggerations of the evil, the

State School? Have they not gone beyond the 'Apos-

tolic Instruction' of 1875? Have they not needlessly

brought upon us the odium of the country? Indeed,

since our own schools are neither numerous enough

nor efficient enough for our children, and many of

these must attend the public school, have we not done

immense harm to souls by our anathemas?
He goes on to refute those who criticized the public schools
for their immorality, "They are not hot beds of vice;
neither do they teach unbelief or Protestantism."2

Bishop Ireland, in spite of his love for the common

school, nevertheless, had to contend with the rather clear
directive of the Council. Bishop Ireland and his fellow pro—
gressives advocated a compromise known as the Poughkeepsie
Plan. This Plan was developed by Father Patrick McSweeney
who in 1873 rented out his parochial school to the local
school board who paid him one dollar a year for its use.
The Catholic religion was then to be taught after hours. It
was this Plan which Bishop Ireland instituted under the di—
rection of Father James Conry in Faribault, Minnesota. In a

memorial in 1892 Ireland did not deny the decision of the

Third Plenary Council nor of the necessity of providing

 

1Ibid., p. 494.

2Ibid., p. 494.

46

Catholic education. One of Bishop Ireland's principal argu-
ments, however, was that in frontier areas there had to be
some accommodation to circumstances, and, "since it was
physically impossible to create overnight an adequate
parochial system, Catholics should not be deprived of the
benefits of arrangements like that at Faribault."l

There was a great deal of opposition to the Faribault
Plan by both Protestants and Catholics. The Protestants were
concerned that it might "romanize" the common school. Bishop
McQuaid of Rochester said that this type of arrangement would
make the classroom less Catholic. In spite of adverse
opinion Bishop Ireland labored,on for his plan which he be-
lieved was generally acceptable in most Protestant areas.
Bishop Ireland felt that Catholics, instead of alienating the
Protestants, should cultivate their friendship.

The debate raged on with the Irish and often the
German clergy opposing the position of Bishop Ireland and
his fellow progressives. An appeal by the conservatives was
made to Rome and in the summer of 1892 Leo XIII appointed as
Apostolic Delegate Francesco Satolli, and one of his prime
responsibilities was to settle the "school question" which
was bitterly dividing the American hierarchy. There was no
question from the very beginning, however, that Satolli was

on the side of Bishop Ireland and the progressives. Satolli

 

lCross, p. 141.

47

addressed the Catholic Columbian Congress, September 4-9,
1893, with Bishop Ireland translating from Italian to
English. The Apostolic Delegate sounded like an American
progressive when he said warmly, "Go forward, in one hand
bearing the book of Christian truth and in the other the
Constitution of the United States."1 Throughout Satolli's
stay in America, the Apostolic Delegate, to the disappoint-
ment of the conservatives, repeatedly vindicated the pro-
gressive position. Bishop McQuaid and Archbishop Corrigan
were particularly bitter over this, believing that Satolli
was nothing but a tool of Bishop Ireland and the progres-
sives. This was especially true after the Apostolic Delegate
submitted his two proposals. The first dealt with the
parochial school question and modified the decision of the
Third Plenary Council and,
. seemed to carry out the principles set forth
by Archbishop Ireland, insisting that Catholic
schools be as good as public schools . . . for-
bidding pastors to refuse the sacraments to parents
who did not send their children to Catholic schools,
and allowing compromises such as Ireland had used,
while insisting on education in the Catholic religion
according to the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.
There is little question but that the progressive
party won all the battles with the Irish-led conservatives

over the school question. American Catholics could be good

Catholics without engaging in bitter attacks against the

 

lMcAvoy, p. 114.

2Ibid., p. 110.

48

public schools. Yet one must admit that by-in—large the
conservatives continued to build parochial and other types
of Catholic educational institutions quite separate from
American public education which makes the progressive

victories of the nineteenth century somewhat hollow.

The Dutch

 

The Dutch settled early in America as colonial
settlers who established themselves on the Island of Man-
hattan, the Hudson, and Delaware River valleys. These early
colonists firmly imprinted their culture on these areas. So
well had they preserved the Dutch language that when the
immigrants came in the early nineteenth century they could
communicate with the descendants of the original colonists
although it was not without some degree of difficulty.

The motivating factor for Dutch emigration to
America was, primarily, like other emigrant groups, eco-
nomic. The devastating potato famine was also present in
the Netherlands in 1845-1846. The lowly potato had become
the main staple in the diet of the Hollanders in the years
preceeding the Famine, and it was not uncommon for the poor
not to eat pork or beef from one year to another. With
the loss of the potato the food situation became grave, and
starvation threatened the land.

The Netherlands had not shared in the Industrial

Revolution which was taking place in neighboring countries.

49

"Economic stagnation characterized the life of the Dutch,
and the burdensome taxation made conditions especially
severe for the lower classes."1 There was hardly an item
which had not been taxed, including the basics of life such
as fuel, meat, and grain. Without taxable industries as in
neighboring nations the taxes fell heavily on the shoulders
of the poor.

.For many Hollanders the economic situation was in-
tolerable, but for the religious Hollanders it was com-
pounded by the attitude of the Dutch government toward those
who opposed the prevailing views of the Dutch Reformed
Church. Many of the emigrating Dutch were Seceders who took
issue with the rationalistic clergy of the State Church. The
Orthodox Reformed were subject to much oppressive legis-
lation in the early nineteenth century. This legislation
was passed to compel the Seceders to comply with the ac-
cepted religious practice of the Dutch Reformed Church. The
Seceders, pietistic and orthodox as they were, viewed the
State Church as having forsaken the standards of Reformed
theology, the Belgic and Heidelberg Confessions, and the
Canons of the Synod of Dordrecht.

The religious Dutch emigrants bound for America were
fortunate to have, in the person of the Reverend Albertus C.

Van Raalte, an outstanding leader. Van Raalte was largely

 

1Henry 8. Lucas, Netherlanders in America (Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan Press, 1955), p. 471.

50

responsible for establishing the Dutch colony in the Black
Lake area of Western Michigan. Although he considered land
for the establishment of the colony further west, he settled
in Michigan and believed that the State had a great future.
The first immigrants came February 9, 1848, in the dead of
winter through much snow to what is now the city of Holland.
The first winter was extremely hard, food was scarce, and
the Yankees of the area made huge profits by selling
potatoes for the inflated price of a dollar a bushel until
the Hollander's money ran out.

But in spite of hardships the Kblonie made progress.
The first immigrants who had come in the winter of 1848 were
"followed by a later stream of immigrants . . . and within
two years founded the Kolonie and its various communities-—
Holland, Graafschap, Groningen, Drenthe, Vriesland, Zeeland,
Overisel, Nerth Holland, and a settlement which was soon to
be called Noordeloos."1

Nationalism, among the Dutch who came to America in
the early 1840's was at a low ebb. Perhaps the situation in
the Netherlands at the time of their emigration accounted for
the low degree of national identity. The still fresh memory
of crop failure, oppressive taxation, and religious in-
tolerance on the part of the government gave little reason

for loyalty to the Fatherland. This lack of nationalism was

 

11bid., p. 89.

51

noted by a number of travelers. One of these was the

Reverend F. W. H. Hugenholtze who wrote,
One of my first and saddest discoveries in the New
World is that there are Netherlanders here who act
as if they were not Netherlanders at all, or at
least would like to give the impression they could
act as if they were not Netherlanders, people who
speak as if they no longer understand Dutch,land
regard it as a kind of disgrace to speak it.

Although nationalism was admittedly weak among the
early Dutch immigrants, it was to become increasingly
stronger as the nineteenth century advanced. There were
several factors which revived Dutch nationalism and a
deeper affection for the Netherlands. In 1898 Wilhelmina
was crowned queen and the events surrounding her coronation
were eagerly followed in the Dutch language press. In ad-
dition, there was the person and work of Abraham Kuyper, a
man who was to have a profound effect on Dutch national life
as well as the Dutch immigrant in the United States.

Abraham Kuyper was perhaps the greatest Dutch theologian,
statesman, and scholar of the nineteenth century. According
to Kuyper all of life should be undergirded by Pan-Calvinistic
theology. Reformed theology was the key to a unifying sys—
tem.which sought to permeate politics, literature, science,

law, theology, philosophy, and medicine. Out of Kuyper's

thinking many attempts have been made by particularly the

 

1Stemmen uit de Vrije Hollandsche Grmeente to Grand
Rapids, Michigan, Jaargang 1886 (Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1887), p. 33 as cited in Lucas, p. 594.

52

Christian Reformed to apply Calvin's principles to social
problems.

The Dutch became increasingly nationalistic in the
latter part of the nineteenth century. In addition to a
sense of identity with the Netherland's new queen and the
work of Kuyper was the emotional appeal of the Boer War.
During the war leaders like Paul Kruger and C. H. Wessel
toured the United States speaking to Dutch immigrants. On
one occasion President Wessel of the Orange Free State
visited Alton, Iowa. His mastery of the Dutch language and
the power of his speech so excited two Dutch immigrant young
men that they sailed for South Africa and enlisted in the
Boer Army serving until the end of the War. In every Dutch
community Dutch and Boer anthems were sung and large sums of
money were raised for Boer refugees and for those imprisoned
in British concentration camps.

By the end of the century the Hollander was more of
a nationalist than those who first came as immigrants to the
United States. He now considered his language, not as some-
thing to rid himself of as soon as he could; but rather as a
tongue that must be preserved and maintained. The Dutchman
at this time could hardly imagine listening to a Calvinistic
sermon or discussing some fine point of Reformed theology in
any language but that of Dutch. The English language could
never be the proper vehicle for the expression of his faith.

His Reformed faith and the Dutch language were both necessary,

53

for if he did not have the use of the language, there was
the danger that the Hollander who had enjoyed the deep
truths of the Reformed faith might embrace the shallow
theology of the numerous Methodist or Baptist churches.

The fear of becoming Americanized and acculturated
into American society was always present in the minds and
conversations of the Dutch. One way to prevent this was to
continue to use and teach the Dutch language. The Dutch
press, although numerically small, promoted the Dutch
language by stressing its importance and by printing long,
widely read theological debates. Reverend Van Raalte had
not taken this view when first coming to Michigan, for he in-
sisted that the immigrant must come to learn English. Never-
theless, Van Raalte maintained, the new immigrant would do
better if he can live in a Dutch settlement and study
English. The Reverend Henrick Peter Scholte, an outstanding
Dutch theologian, newspaper editor, and civic leader who
founded the colony in Pella, Iowa, held the View that the,
"Dutch immigrant should participate fully in American life,
but he was equally insistent that they should not forget
their origins."1

The Dutch were eager to become citizens of the United
States. However, this did not mean that they wished to be-

come Americanized, but they simply wanted to protect their

 

lPella Gazette, Feb. 1, 1855, as cited in Lucas,

p. 589.

54

political interests. The Democratic Party was considered
their best protection because of its more liberal views on
immigration and shorter residency for citizenship. They
mistrusted other parties including the newly formed Republi-
can Party because of the element of "Know Nothingism" in it.
But, during the Civil War the Republican Party received
their full support largely because of the Republican's

stand on the slavery issue.

The nativist had little love for the Dutch whom he
described as a people content with "a small patch of ground
planted with potatoes, a pot of beer, cowbarns attached to
their houses, a pair of wooden shoes, and a pipe to smoke--
that is all they desire. Let us do justice in our own right
by cutting off as soon as possible all immigration to our
country. .America is only for the Americans."1 But on other
issues the nativist and the Dutch were not as far apart as
was the nativist with other immigrant groups. For one thing
the Dutch were Sabbatarians and believed that Sunday or the
Lord's Day should be devoted to attending church and medi-
tation. This view of the Sabbath was popular with most
Americans and therefore there was total agreement on this
issue. The nativist also was active in promoting prohibition
during the period of Dutch immigration. The Hollander was

temperate, and intoxication was very uncommon indeed in

 

{De Hollander, May 23, 1855, quoting the Cincinnati
Times, as cited in Lucas, p. 547.

 

55

their settlements. These people who delighted in theological
debate and church attendance were outstanding examples of
sobriety, and the saloon with all of its evils was not found
among them. They did not, however, agree with the nativist
that prohibition was the answer,
they had little faith in prohibition as a pana-
cea for such ills as crime and immorality. According-
ly, De Hollander favored the measure only insofar as
it might discourage drunkenness and did not conflict
with Biblical teaching, a reservation arising from the
fact that wine for sacramental purposes could not be
sold under the terms of the proposed law.1
.Although they did not support the prohibition movement, they
did practice temperance and observed the Sabbath, and at
least on these two issues the nativist could find little
fault with the Dutch.

The Dutch Reformed Church had been established with
the first colonists from the Netherlands in the early seven-
teenth century. The older eastern church provided the
immigrant with great assistance during the time they found it
necessary to remain in the East before traveling to the
settlements. It was not without good reason that Van Raalte
promoted union between the eastern and western Reformed
churches for "from the eastern churches came financial and
other help which enabled the settlers on the prairies of the
Midwest to survive in spite of grasshoppers, hail, wind-

storms, and drought."2 The western Dutch also received aid

 

1Lucas, p. 544.

21bid., p. 510.

56

to build churches, parsonages, and help in establishing
Holland Academy, Hope College, and Western Theological
Seminary.

But in spite of the generous assistance received
from the union with the eastern church, not all was well in
the Dutch community,for many Hollanders did not approve of
union with the eastern Dutch Reformed Church. A minority
group began seceding in 1857 and established the True Dutch
Reformed Church which in 1890 changed its name to the
Christian Reformed Church. Although relations have in
latter years been cordial between the Reformed and Christian
Reformed Churches, there is little indication that these two
groups will reunite in the near future.

As already mentioned the language question particular-
ly in the churches was a crucial one. There were many who
believed that the only way the Reformed faith could be
transmitted was through the Dutch language. One answer was
to teach Dutch in the common school. Hermanus Doesburg, the

editor of De Hollander suggested that in the Holland communi-

 

ties there be a combination of Dutch and English. He also
felt that in a local school of this type not only would the
Dutch language be taught but this kind of school "would
prove beneficial by promoting the reading of the Bible and
singing from the Psalter, and would be desirable from the

standpoint of the state and society in general, as well as

57

of religion."1 But Doesburg also recognized that the re-
sponse of the Know Nothings to a school arrangement of this
type would be hostile but was willing to risk the disap-
proval of this group for the sake of preserving the language.
The Dutch clergy were the most anxious to have the
Dutch language and religion taught in the common schools.
Dominie Wilhelmus H. Leeuwen wrote in 1880, “It is unfortun-
ate that there are not more such schools in which our youth
may be instructed in our mother tongue, which is indispensa-
ble for living among Dutch people, and that Dutch parents do
not take a greater interest in such instruction."2 In some
of these schools both English and Dutch were used together.
In other schools English was used during the regular school
year and the Dutch language was used exclusively in the
summer months. Most of the learning was done from black-
board exercises, but Borstius'_guestion Book was used by the
younger children and the Heidelberg Catechism with the older.
The Dutch language was used to teach reading, writing,
arithmetic, and vocal music. These Dutch common schools had
a particular problem in getting qualified teachers capable
of teaching equally well the Dutch and the English language.
Nevertheless, "in 1880 instruction in Dutch was given in the

district schools at Holland, Zeeland, Vriesland, Graafschap,

 

1Ibid., p. 589.

2De Grondwet, Nov. 18, 1880, as cited in Lucas, p.
590.

58

Collendoorn, Muskegon, and Grand Haven."1 There seems to be
little condemnation of the public schools as was often the
case in other ethnic communities. Perhaps the reason for
this is that the Dutch settlements were colonies cut out of
the forest where few Americans lived, if any. Therefore,
from the beginning they had full control of the common school.
Yet in spite of the Hollanders' control of the dis-
trict school which allowed them to teach their language and
religion, the Christian Reformed determined to build
Christian schools from its inception. The schools of the
Christian Reformed, however, are not parochial schools but
are controlled by the parents whose children attend these
schools. Although the Dutch Reformed church traditionally
supported the public school, Reverend Van Raalte early in
the history of the Kblonie in Holland supported the establish—
ment of congregational schools. On one occasion he wrote,
"Whenever there is an overwhelming influence of unbelief and
superstition it is emphatically a duty to establish congre-
gational schools."2 A congregational school was organized
in Van Raalte's church in Holland in 1857 where he taught
both girls and boys. Apparently the "Dominie" considered
Holland as a place of overwhelming unbelief and superstition.

But the congregation must have thought otherwise because he

lLucas, p. 590.

2Lucas, p. 601.

59

could not persuade them that there was a need for a school
of this type, and it ceased operating in 1862.

In establishing Christian schools there is little
doubt but that the Christian Reformed wished to teach their
children the doctrines of their Church. Nevertheless, this
is not the only reason for establishing these schools. There
is some evidence to support the view that the main function
of these schools was to perpetuate the Dutch language. "It
is difficult to determinefl'says one writer, "just how far
the desire to perpetuate the Dutch language entered into the
support of the Christian schools. It was generally true,
however, that the individuals most zealous in preserving the
Dutch language and culture were also the most ardent
supporters of the Christian schools."1 But the Christian
Reformed believed that isolation by the use of Dutch would
preserve their faith and that the Hollander should not be
ashamed of the language because it was also useful and
necessary.

Although the teaching of religion and the language
were important, these factors alone do not account for the
establishment of these schools. The basic question raised
by the Christian Reformed was, "Can the public schools be
Christian?" The answer was that the public school even with

a Christian influence including Bible reading and prayer

 

1John Kromminga, The Christian Reformed Church
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), p. 94.

60

would not be Calvinistic. One writer asked the question of
how far the Christian Reformed could go in cooperating with
other Christians. He concluded, "May we never co-operate
with them to the extent of giving up the Calvinistic interpre-
tation of life that our Christian school founders sought so
vigorously to impart to their children."1

The Christian Reformed membership found much lacking
in the common school. In the first place there was the
wrong kind of pedagogy being practiced in the public school.
But in addition to this there was the philosophical problem
of teaching “mere ethical idealism"2 which promoted a
non-Theistic outlook on life. Later the specific criticism
was to be that the public schools taught Darwinian evolution
contrary to the Genesis account of creation.

However, not all Hollanders agreed that the public
school was as bad as the Christian Reformed members thought
it to be. The Mayor of Holland, Michigan, G. J. Diekema in
1895 spoke to a large group on the subject of the Christian
school and implied that the Christian school movement was
un-American in spirit. Mayor Diekema said, "The American
flag flies over the public school. In the public school the

child learns patriotism. The child does not remain German,

 

1John Van Bruggen, "At the Crossroads," in the
Christian Home and School Magazine, Vol. XXVI (July-August,
1947), p. 7, as cited in Kromminga, p. 139.

2Kromminga, p. 140.

61

Dutch, or Italian. They all become American."1 The editor
of De Grondwet insisted that the Christian schools in
Western Michigan were of little value. He conceded that

the parents had kept the public school as Christian in spirit
as they could have done, but this was not the fault of the
state which made little attempt to control education in the
area but was the sole responsibility of the parents.

The turning point for Dutch culture in America as
with other ethnic groups was the entrance of the United
States in WOrld War I. The transition to the English
language was very rapid during and after the World War. In
Iowa there was violence directed toward the Christian Re-
formed Church which continued to use the Dutch language in
its services. The violence against the Dutch came after the
governor of the state in a proclamation asked for the use of
English exclusively in all public meetings. The result of
the proclamation caused a number of attacks against the Dutch
which brought English into the Christian school in a force-
ful manner. The Dutch were to learn that their faith could
be expressed and practiced equally as well in English as in

the Dutch language.

 

lIbid., p. 139.

62

The Swedes

 

Following the Dutch to the New World and to the
Delaware River Valley, the Swedes founded a rival commercial
company. This company had been chartered in 1626 by the
great Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus, but because of his
tragic death the first colonists did not sail for America
until 1638. The Swedes build a fort near the present city
of Wilmington, called it Fort Christina, and named their en-
tire colony New Sweden. But for many reasons, the principal
one being the rivalry with the more powerful Dutch, the
colony was not successful.

Like other ethnic groups the great Swedish emigration
took place in the nineteenth century and the motivating
cause was economic. The potato famine did not by—pass
Sweden, and in 1845 it was not uncommon to see farmers in
rural areas take to the country roads walking with their
families into more prosperous districts of the country to
beg for food. The attitude of the Swedish government toward
the suffering of the people was largely indifferent. It
would take a great wave of emigration from Sweden before the
conscience of the government was moved to remedy the situ-
ation which sent so many Swedes westward to America. Because
of the exodus of Swedes from Sweden the nation was to make
some major changes in the social and political life of the

country.

63

One of the more serious social evils of the nine-
teenth century in Sweden was the large amount of alcohol dis-
tilled and consumed by the Swedes, "Drunkenness had become a
national curse in Sweden. In 1830 there were over 170,000
distilleries in the country, not counting stills that pro—
duced for home consumption. It was estimatedthat the per
capita consumption of intoxicating liquor was thirty-four
quarts."l Everyone drank including the clergy who often
were intemperate. One rather frank peasant from Dolsland is
supposed to have said to his minister after a forceful
Sunday morning sermon, "I thank you, Jerk, for the good
sermon and it is the truth, that you always preach like a
man; but it is too bad that sometimes you take a drop too
much."2 There were many Swedish immigrants who considered
the clergy of the State Church of Sweden to be immoderate in
their drinking habits. Moreover, the more pious Swedish
immigrant viewed the upper class State Church minister as
lacking true religion, proud, class conscious and arrogant,
their sermons filled with rationalism rather than the simple
Gospel.

It was largely the social and religious conditions

which promoted the growth of the "Lasare" or "Readers"

 

1Florence E. Janson, The Background of Swedish Immi-
gration (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931),
p. 175.

 

21bid., p. 175.

64

movement in Sweden. The "Readers" were groups of people of
the lower classes who came together in homes for the secret
reading of the Bible. Revivalism in Sweden has been an im-
portant part of the religious life of the Swedish people,
and those who favored revivalism opposed the rationalism of
the State Church.
The reaction of the fundamentalists among the common
people of Sweden asserted itself in sporadic re-
ligious revivals, influenced by pietism which had
never been stamped out, in spite of the rigorous
'Conventicle placate'. In the early part of the
nineteenth century numerous revival preachers ap—
peared in various parts of the Kingdom.
Most of these preachers were ordinary men who were affected
by a "preaching sickness" which they said compelled them to
preach and conduct religious meetings wherever they could
gather a group together.

These revivalist preachers, fundamentalist and
pietistic in their religious convictions, stressed the need
for personal salvation in opposition to the State Church
which received its members through baptism and confirmation.
In addition, they preached a puritanism which called for
total abstinence from alcohol, dancing, and the theater.
The clergy and those who went into the ministry in America
were largely revivalists and pietists. However, relatively
few of them left the Lutheran faith but rather placed the

mark of pietism on the Swedish Lutheran Church in the United

States.

 

1Ibid., p. 170.

65

The Swedish State Church did not look with favor on
the sects which developed out of the Lasare Movement, and
in response the State Church began a policy of intolerance
toward these religious minority groups. Although the eco-
nomic factor was perhaps the principal motivation for emi-
gration, the persecution of the State Church was an important
one to many of the immigrants. The Baptists, for example,
were singled out for persecution largely because of their
views on infant baptism. One Provincial governor in 1850
forced a Baptist to baptize his newly born infant. The
governor, reporting to the government, wrote, "Because he be-
lieved in baptism of adults only, but the child was upon my

1 One of

command properly baptized, by the parish pastor."
the best known Baptists, F. O. Nilson, was imprisoned and
exiled in 1851 for preaching and practicing immersion in
Sweden.

America became the hope for the pietistic as well as
the nominally religious Swede. Thousands of "America
Letters" came back to Sweden telling of a "New Canaan" where
there was political and religious freedom. Wages, said the
letters, were high, prices low, and free land was available
in abundance” Some of these letters did not quite claim
that money grew on trees in America but many Swedes came to

almost believe it did. The "America Letters" in spite of

frequent exaggeration were effective and a major cause in

 

1_I_b_i_d., p. 194.

66

motivating more than one Swede to seek a better life in
America.

The Swedes who emigrated in the early and middle of
the nineteenth century arrived in the United States without
a strong sense of Swedish nationalism. For the most part,
the immigrants were farmers and common laborers from the
poorer districts in Sweden who had received a meager edu-
cation and lived in Sweden when the spirit of nationalism
was low and when it was the custom to place value on things
foreign and to criticize everything Swedish.l

It is a curious fact that the children of a country

with an honorable history and a high standing among

the nations of the world should take little pride

in their heritage and consider it an honor to be

mistaken for Englishmen or Scotchmen. It is amusing,

to say the least, to find men whose 'speech be-

trayeth' them anxious to disclaim their origin and

to pretend that they have forgotten their native

tongue.2
Perhaps it is not so strange that people who knew the mean-
ing of crop failure, hunger, and religious persecution would
reject the old and give their allegiance to a new nation
which gave them economic and religious freedom. It was the
uneducated Swede who emigrated leaving Sweden and Swedish
culture behind him. Furthermore, the clergy who came were

of the revivalist type who saw no reason to perpetuate

Swedish society and culture, which they considered "worldly";

 

1George M. Stephenson, The Religious ASpects of
Swedish Immigration (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota
Press, 1932), p. 406.

2Ibid., p. 416.

 

67

but they did prize the Lutheran or Baptist faith and the
Swedish language. The rest they were content to leave be-
hind in Sweden.

The more secular minded Swede sought to become accul-
turated to American society as soon as possible. The sooner
the Swede forgot Sweden and became American the better it
would be for him.

At no time did the radicals among the immigrants take

an interest in their countrymen from the cultural

standpoint. They advised them to become Americanized

at once, probably because things in Swedish in the

new country were associated with a conservative, and,

from their p01nt of View, intolerant church.
Many Swedes followed the liberal notion of quick Americani-
zation. They often took American names and disappeared into
the mainstream of American society. It is generally agreed
that no other foreign speaking immigrant became Americanized
as quickly as did the Swedes. This is illustrated by the
ambitious Swede who wrote in 1841, "I have read the biogra—
phies of Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Quincy
Adams, Webster, John Hancock and others, and of Henry Clay,
too, one of America's greatest speakers and at the present
time a senator from Virginia."2 Although this much-read

Swede had Clay from Virginia rather than Kentucky, neverthe-

less it was a considerable accomplishment for an immigrant.

 

1Ibid., p. 417.

2Wittke, we Who Built America, p. 266.

 

68

The Yankee was continually amazed at the Swede's
ability to learn to speak a form of English. The Swede had
not been in America long before he changed the name of his
homeland from "Sverige“ to "Sveden," and he began to mix
freely his Swedish with liberal doses of English. One of
the amusing characteristics of the Swedish immigrant is that
many of them after a few months in America claimed that they
had forgotten how to speak and write the Swedish language.
In Sweden the postal authorities could not deliver letters
in so-called English, and the postmaster of Kristdala found

it necessary to write to the Swedish newspaper_Hemlandent in

 

America asking the editor to advise his readers to use the
Swedish language in addressing letters to people in Sweden.
In spite of the rapid Americanization of the more
liberal minded Swedes, not all agreed that Swedes should be—
come acculturated to American life so rapidly, nor did they
see this as a beneficial development for the Swedish—American
immigrant. The conservative minded clergy played a pre-
dominant role in stressing the value of retaining the
Swedish language. One of the pastors wrote, "If we are go-
ing to maintain our identity we must above all preserve our
language."1 There were many who firmly believed that
Swedish should continue to be spoken and taught for many
years in America. This was a different attitude from that

held by the clergy before the Civil War. In the ante-bellum

 

1Stephenson, p. 424.

69

period the ministers felt that the use of Swedish was a
temporary phase which would not last beyond the time of the
original immigrants. However, with the heavy immigration
which came after the War the language question became a
crucial one in the Swedish settlements and was the subject
of a great deal of debate.

The clergy, conservative by nature, believed that the
continued use of the Swedish language would save the Lutheran
faith. There was fear on the part of the clergy that the
Swedish immigrant would be lost to the American churches
which "regarded the Swedish immigrants as semi-Catholics and
therefore felt that they could proselyte with good con-

. 1
sc1ence."

The clergy reasoned that cultural isolation in
Swedish settlements using the Swedish language would prevent
this from taking place. The means for accomplishing these
ends was the establishment of a parochial school system. It
was believed that the American common school promoted rapid
Americanization and thus a difference between the parents
and their children who attended the public school. The con-
servative Swedes felt that the American teacher did not take
into consideration the background of the Swedish children

and stressed that the United States was the greatest nation

on earth.2 Although nativistic Know NOthingism did not

 

1Ibid., p. 196.

21bid., p. 425.

70

single out the Swedes for their most hostile attacks, there
were nevertheless expressions of prejudice against the
Swedes. The immigrant Swedish boy was inevitably called
"Swede" and was considered a "greenhorn" by the Yankees.

The religious Swedes often characterized the common
school as "godless" and "religionless." After all, the
public school was without the familiar catechism of the
schools in Sweden and purposely non-sectarian. The Swedish
Augustana Lutheran Synod criticized the public schools for
their lack of teaching religion. The Synod was criticized
for their attacks on the public school and did not take
lightly the criticism which was leveled against them for not
supporting the common school and establishing their own
parochial system. In a long letter to the editor of the
St. Paul Press a leader of the Augustana Synod, the Reverend
Erik Nerelius, defended the Synod against an attack by an
anonymous writer who would have people believe "that the
Swedish Lutheran Church of America is an enemy to our public
schools."1 Nerelius argued that the writer had taken the
Theses discussed in a recent conference meeting held in Rock
Island, Illinois, out of context. The position of the
Augustana Synod, said NOrelius, was the Ninth Thesis which

said,

 

1Erik Norelius, "The Swedish Lutheran Church and Our
Public Schools," Skandinaven, May 14, 1874.

71

Church members can with a good conscience send their
children to the public schools in order to receive
instruction in secular branches as long as the '
Christian View of the world and Christian morals are
acknowledged and maintained, but as soon as they know
that there is taught contrary to such view and morals,
and that the Bible is denied, they cannot send their
children to such schools without committing a great
sin.l
Nerelius contended that this “view as you will.
readily perceive is not materially different from that which
is held by other Protestant bodies, unless it be a little
more strongly stated."2 As for the Synod, Norelius main-
tained, they did not expect nor would they wish that the
public schools be anything but secular institutions. There
could be improvement in instruction, for from a "pedagogic
point of view there is certainly much room for improvement."
On the other hand, NOrelius pointed out that "there is no
reason why any person or any church on this account should
become enemies to the public schools."4 But after making a
statement of this nature, he goes on to say that Christians
should be deeply concerned ”with the degeneracy that

threatens it in the present time."5 NOrelius confessed that

he saw little hope for the American common school.

 

lIbid.

“

21bid.

31bid.

42113-

5Ibid.

72

I for one confess that I am not prepared to believe

in the possibility of educating children in any

proper sense of the word, according to a common pro—

gramme in which the Christian and anti-Christian

theories are united. Such a system would have the

effect to convert our race into natural machines.
Therefore, argued Nerelius, it was absolutely necessary for
the Augustana Synod to "establish parish schools as fast as
we can in order to meet a want which is not and cannot be
met in the public schools."2 However, he is careful to point
out that the Synod schools should not be looked upon as being
inimical to the public schools, but that the nature of the
public school was that of non-sectarianism and this was not
a proper place to educate Lutheran children.

The religious minded Swedes did establish their own
schools. "Every congregation aspired to conduct a parochial
school. Some of the larger congregations for a time com-
peted with the public schools by employing a teacher for
about nine months of the year, but these schools were few
and were discontinued after a few years."3 The pattern for
these "Swede" schools as they came to be called was that of
a school held in a church basement during the summer months
when the public school was not in session. As was expected

most boys and girls did not appreciate these "schools" as

. many boys and girls raised in Swedish-American
communities regretted that fate had endowed their

 

lIbid.

21bid.

3Stephenson, pp. 330, 331.

73

parents with a bilingual speech when, shortly after

the close of the public schools for the summer, the

'student' from Augustana or Gustavus Adolphus ar-

rived on the scene to conduct parochial school.

The curriculum of these schools included catechism,
Bible history, and reading, but the real purpose of the
school was not only to teach religion but to teach Swedish
to "Swede" boys and girls who were rapidly becoming American-
ized. This was seen as a grave danger by the Swedish
Augustana Lutheran Synod clergy who sincerely believed that
a loss of language would soon result in non-church at-
tendance, thus resulting in loss of faith or at least the
Lutheran faith. This attitude of stressing Swedish and
teaching the children of immigrant parents the Swedish
language is quite different from the period before the Civil
War in which it was fashionable to become Americanized as
soon as possible. In 1854 the Immanuel Congregation in
Chicago where Reverend Erik Nerelius was pastor established
a parish school where "English, United States history, and
geography were taught."2 The church leaders found out, how-
ever, that Swedish children learned English quickly enough,
and that it was Swedish which needed to be taught and not
English.
Needless to say, the Swedish school conducted on

Saturdays and during the summer vacation months was anything

1Ibid., p. 409.

2Ibid., p. 410.

74

but popular with Swedish children, and too often the children
attending received little meaningful religious knowledge from
these sessions in the Swedish schools.
Many Americanized children confessed in later years
that their early training in memorization of Bible
passages, folk songs, and Luther's Catechism in the
Swedish language left them without any real under-
standing of the great doctrinal truths held by the
Lutheran Church, nor indeed, with any deep appreci-
ation for the Swedish they were compelled to learn.
Too often the leaders failed to realize that they were teach-
ing a static Swedish filled with half century old cliches
and cut off from the cultural life of Sweden which they had
rejected. The Swedish child of pietistic parents often re-
ceived a distorted picture of Sweden and Swedish cultural
life. To the Swedish child English was the language of the
playground and everyday life, Swedish was the "language of
their prayers and other-worldly aspirations. Swedish was
the language of salvation."2 This divorced religion from
everyday affairs and relegated it to Sunday morning church.
Many an immigrant's son or daughter returning to Sweden was

amazed to learn that not everyone in Sweden was a pietistic

Christian as they had expected them to be.3 Nevertheless,

 

1Everett Arden, Augustana Heritage: A History of the
Augustana Lutheran Church (Rock Island, Illinois: The
Augustana Press, 1963), p. 107.

2Stephenson, p. 424.

3This has been the experience of the writer of this
dissertation with regard to the Norwegians.

75

in spite of some deleterious experiences with Swedish there
often grew in the immigrant's sons and daughters a love for
things Swedish. It is not uncommon at the present time for
churches with a Swedish background to sing on occasions
hymns in the Swedish language.

In spite of the strong support of the Lutheran clergy
for a parochial system of schools in the Augustana Synod, it
was not to last, chiefly because the Swedish layman was
never convinced that the American public schools were as
"godless" and "religionless" as their ministers had insisted.
He was never willing to appropriate the large sums of money
necessary to support parochial schools. It was not that the
immigrant Swede could not afford to do so; he could do at
least as well as if not better than most ethnic groups. But
the Swede was never fully convinced that the parochial school
was the answer to the school question. The demise of the
Augustana Synod's school experiment is ample proof that his

allegiance was to the American common school.

CHAPTER III

REASONS FOR EMIGRATION, THE SOCIAL AND CUL-
TURAL CONDITIONS AND THEOLOGICAL CONTRO-
VERSIES IN THE NORWEGIAN-AMERICAN

SET TLEME NT S

The purpose of this chapter is to trace the con-
ditions which motivated large numbers of Norwegians to leave
Norway for America and to examine the social and cultural
Conditions and theological controversies which formed the
backdrop for the common school controversy among the Nor—
wegians. In this chapter the writer will attempt to show
that the school controversy was only one of the many issues
which divided the Norwegian-American community; there were
0there. The genesis of some of these issues that caused
division can be traced to Norway; others find their origin
in America and the conditions that existed on the Frontier.

The causes of Nbrwegian emigration in the nineteenth
Celitury were not unlike the forces which motivated other
pec>E>le from Europe to sail westward to America. Although
there are similarities to other nationalities there are also
differences. The Hollander, for example, from the lowlands

of Europe, came from quite a different type of physical

76

77

environment than did the Nerwegian from the mountains of
Nerway. The Nerwegian who came from the central valleys and
deep fjords of Western Nerway had lived in mountain shadows,
and knew the meaning of social isolation. Some writers have
commented on the melancholy nature of the Norwegian. If
this is so, mountain shadows and social isolation would be a
partial reason for this characteristic of personality.

For centuries Norwegian social structure had not
changed. The bgnder was the large land owner who had several
husmaend or cotters living on his farm. Each of the cotters
had a small plot of ground leased to him by the bénder. Al-
though the cotters were generally well treated, hours were
long and the work hard. In 1850 the cotters asked to have
their hours of work reduced to eleven hours a day and the
work week reduced to five days. Under the old system of
working for the bénder six days a week, the cotter was forced
to spend his Sunday working his own land. His wages from
the bénder was a mere pittance; "the value of services be—
yond the stipulated arrangements might be placed as high as
twelve pennies a day in summer, less than half that in
winter."1

Traditionally, the relationship of the bégggr to the

husmaend was paternal in nature. This had been changing,

 

1Theodore C. Blegen, Nerwegian Migration to America,
1825-1860 (NOrthfield: The NOrwegian—American Historical

 

Association, 1931), p. 7.

78

hovveaver, and the cotter began more and more to resent the de-
rmatitis upon his time and services. He could not become a
liirlci owner as the practice of primogeniture had been in ef-
feaczt: since the Viking Age and there was little indication

With the coming of the nineteenth century that these con-

ditions would change-

Nbrway of the early nineteenth century was a country
C>f5 isolated districts or bygders. Before the time of rail-
1TC>ads and a road system each district developed its own
<2llllture, speech patterns, and traditions. The population
Vvéass distributed unevenly throughout the rugged land, with
111163 majority living on the coast and in the interior valleys,

Eirlci approximately ten percent in the mountain districts.

Nerway enjoyed a period of power during the romantic
‘7jL]<ing Age, but her population was decimated,

when in the fourteenth century the Black Plague re-
duced her population to a few thousand. The Viking
nation which had been feared and hated could no
longer compete with the stronger states of Sweden and
Denmark . . . finally losing what little independence
she had feebly clung to, Nerway became a province of

Denmark. Until 1814 she was the Cinderella of the
NOrth.1

1363hmark had the misfortune of having been an ally of France
<3L11:ing the Napoleonic Wars, and Denmark was forced to sever
its ties with Norway. When the news reached Norway that she
had been given to Sweden as a prize at the Treaty of Kiel,

the Danish Prince Christian'Frederick called for a
\

1Leola N. Bergmann, Americans From Nerway (Phila-

delphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1950), p. 33.

79

<2c>nstitutional Convention. The Convention met at Eidsvold
jL11 April, 1814, for the express purpose of writing a Consti—
t:L1tion--a highly dangerous venture for a country just sur-
Ireandered into the hands of a powerful neighbor. Neverthe—
J_eass, on May 17, 1814, the generally liberal Constitution
vvaas signed. Although Norway was unsuccessful in preventing
t1r1ion with Sweden, the Constitution was saved and Sweden
EDITOVed to be reasonable, demanding only that the Swedish
:ECLag fly from Nbrwegian ships, and that Sweden manage the
15c>reign affairs of the two countries.

This new political freedom in NOrway was to affect
tlfle Norwegian who had been traditionally a lover of freedom
j_r1 the bygders cf Nbrway. He now saw selfegovernment on a
Ileational scale. "The nationalism, which found new values in
tztie culture that had been preserved by the bénder through
(zeanturies of foreign domination and which fanned into flame
‘tlle genius of poets and artists, undoubtedly left its deep
marks upon the spirit of the Norwegian immigrants of the
Ilirieteenth century."1

But it was not only the poet and artist who was to
Place an indelible stamp upon the national character of the
ninEi'teenth century Nbrwegian, for one of the most remarkable
meri <3f the century was not a political leader but a lay
preacher by the name of Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771-1824) .

Mbs’tl Protestant nations have had their share of lay preachers,
\

lBlegen, p. 16.

80

ir>L1t Hauge was no ordinary lay preacher. Blegen has written
Eilbout the Haugean movement, "This influencial movement
riaad.far-reaching ramifications in Nerwegian life, not only
zaJLong religious, but also along economic and political lines,
zar1d.its marks appear to be stamped upon the Norwegian ele-
me nt in the United States today."1

Hans Nielsen Hauge had little formal education but
czaame from a devout home. At an early age he read pietistic
V01ritings and experienced a profound religious conversion.
JEri 1796 Hauge began his preaching against the "rationalism"
Eirld "dead orthodoxy" of the NOrwegian State Church. However,
fiaauge never broke from the Church and claimed to the end to
13GB faithful to the doctrine and historic creeds of the
ILLitheran Church. For eight years he traveled to all parts
C>1E the country preaching principally to rural audiences in
farm houses where often people used ladders and listened
‘tlirough windows to hear Hauge call for personal conversion
and the necessity of a holy life.

Soon there were throughout the country "friends of
Hauge." These were people who had been awakened through his
revivalistic preaching and were to change the religious life
of lbhorway and the NbrwegianeAmericans as well. The Haugean

moVement "did not question the validity of traditional

LUtheranism. It accepted Lutheran teaching, creeds, and
\

lIbid., pp. 17, 18.

_._—-—

81

rituals. It spoke warmly of the 'pure word,‘ but urged that
it must be living and not mechanical. The heart must em-
brace the truth, and the power of the Werd must be exempli-
fied in a God—controlled life. . . . Functionally, Pietism
represented a reaction against the standardized scholastic
and philosophical orthodoxy of Lutheranism."l

The pietism which was to touch all of Europe came
after the ruination and devastation of the Thirty Years War.
The Peace of Westphalia, 1648, settled by military means the
questions raised by the Protestant Reformation and the Roman
Catholic Counter Reformation. It was under these conditions
that pietism in Europe was to flourish.

In the midst of a social order sensitive to defeat
and despair, it turned many toward an inwardness of
emotionalism in religious experience. It placed
special emphasis on purity of life, inward saint-
liness, prayers and missionary zeal. . . . The church
must be a living church. It must insist that its
members be 'born again..

Although Hans Nielsen Hauge's revivalistic preaching
and the awakening which followed were profound, it would be
a grave error to limit his influence to the religious sphere.
Hauge effected a change in the very social structure of

Nerway. It must be remembered that "for something near 300

years up to 1814 Norway had been governed from Copenhagen

 

lMagnus Nodtvedt, Rebirth of NOrway's Peasantry
(Tacoma, Washington: Pacific Lutheran University Press,

1965). p. 64.

2Ibid., p. 64.

82

virtually as a Danish colony."1

The government was in the
hands of the Danish official class who had been educated at
the University of Copenhagen. However, there were some Ner-
wegians who went to Denmark for their education and returned
home to NOrway more Danish than NOrwegian. It was only in
1811 that the Nbrwegians were given permission to establish
a university in Christiania.
Nerway at the time of Hauge was a class conscious

country;

. . . judges, bishops, and parochial clergy, medical

officers of health (who in vast tracts of the country

were the only available doctors), professors, head

masters and teachers of secondary schools were all

civil servants. Even the cabinet ministers of the

new kingdom, owing their appointment and continuance

in office to the Crown and, until 1884, to the Crown

alone, having no seat in Parliament, were in effect

the permanent secretaries of their respective

departments.
Thus the country was ruled by a powerful bureaucracy which
received little opposition until Hans Nielsen Hauge began
his work of arousing the bénder to oppose the oppression of
the Establishment.

He became the champion and spokesman for Nerway's

'bondestand' against the well ordered and class

conscious bourgeoisie. He was first and foremost

an evangelistic reformer, but in the course of his
labors he easily became a political, social, and

 

1Brian W. Downs, Modern Nerwegian Literature, 1860-
1918 (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 2.

2Ibid., p. 3.

83
economic innovator in the highest and best sense of
the term.1
Everywhere Hauge and his fellow lay preachers

challenged the "bénder to rebuild their spiritual foundations
and the result was an aroused and awakened people, a resur-
rection of the ancient passion for individual and social
freedom dominant among the Nbrseman of the illustrious Viking
Age."2 The common man in Norway responded to Hauge's3
challenge and thus the Bgnde was to become the subject of
novels and poems and made him the hero of a romantic litera-
ture that was to play an important role both in Norway and
in America. In addition, the ancient language of the béndg
was discovered by men like Aasmund Olafsen Vinje and Ivar
Andreas Aasen who discovered "landsmaal," a dialect "based
on the parlances of the countryside, those of Western NOrway
in particular, eliminating such words and forms as had crept

in from cultivated speech and reinforced by adaptations from

 

1NOdtvedt, p. 217.
21bid., p. 219.

3Hauge was imprisoned in 1804 for violation of the
Conventicle Acts of 1741 which forbad lay preaching. He was
released for a time during the Napoleonic Wars when the Bri—
tish blockade of the Nerwegian coast caused a severe salt
shortage. Hauge had developed a process for making salt from
sea water and was released to manufacture salt. He was re-
turned, however, to prison for a long trial in which he was
found guilty. He was released in 1814 broken in health.
However, after his release from prison, he came to be ac-
cepted by many of his former enemies. The Haugeans who emi-
grated to America stressed lay activity and promoted the
American common school.

84

medieval writings."l This was the beginning of the struggle
over the language question. Should NOrway's language be
"Riksmaal," a Danish-Nbrwegian, or “Landsmaal”? The language
question raged for more than a century and the echo of the
controversy was to be heard in America as well.

It is apparent in a study of the causes for Nerwegian
emigration that the principal cause was economic. In 1870 a
Swedish Nerwegian Charge'_§' affairs wrote, "It is impossible
to travel in the West without reaching the conviction that
the principal motive for immigration is fundamentally the
hope of bettering the conditions of life."2 There were
other causes as well, and these have been cited by an histori-
an of Nerwegian immigration.3 The truth is that there were
many who were hungry. Ole Munch Raeder was a jurist who was

sent by the Nbrwegian government to study the legal system

 

——_——

lDowns, p. 7.

2A. Lewenhaupt, "An Official Report on Nbrwegian and
Swedish Immigration, 1870," Studies and Records, Vol. XIII
(NOrthfield: NerwegianeAmerican Historical Association,
1943), p. 59.

3J. Magnus Rohne has written, "Dr. Flom summarizes
the influences that have promoted Scandinavian emigration to
the United States in the nineteenth century. The order of
their importance is as follows: First, the prospect of ma-
terial betterment and the love of a freer and more inde-
pendent life. Secondly, letters from relatives and friends
who had emigrated to the United States and visits of these
again to their native country; fourth, religious persecution
at home; fifth, church proselyting; sixth, political oppres-
sion; seventh, military service; and eight, the desire for
adventure." J. Magnus Rohne, Norwegian American Lutheranism
up to 1872 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1926), p. 18.

 

85

in America, not unlike Alexis de Tocqueville who was studying
the prison system a decade before. Raeder described hunger
in Nerway,

Hunger is an enemy from which many of our highlanders

in Norway never feel safe. . . . Just think what an

impression it would make on a poor highlander's imagi-

nation to be told that some day he might eat wheat

bread everyday and pork at least three times a week.1
There was also a surplus of population which "throughout the
Century was, no doubt, one of the major causes for the push
to America."2 It is an interesting fact that "at its peak
the Norwegian emigration was exceeded in percentage of total
population only by that from Ireland among all the European
countries."3 The Irish immigrant too knew the meaning of
hunger and emigrated to America primarily for economic
betterment. The Norwegian was, in addition to being hungry
a good part of the time, also debt-ridden without hope of
ever having enough land to feed himself and his children an

adequate diet. One writer has summed up the immigrants'

motives as follows:

 

1Gunner J. Malmin, America in the Forties: The
Igtters o£_01e Munch Raeder (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press for N.A.H.A., 1929), p. 64.

2Bergmann, p. 42.

3Blegen, p. 22. Blegen continues, "In the years
from 1881 to 1885 the Irish emigration totaled, per one
thousand of population, 15.83, whereas the Norwegians totaled
11.05. The German was 3.82 and the English 5.71. In general
Nbrway appears to have had, next to Ireland, the greatest
emigration of the nineteenth century in proportion to its
population." p. 22.

86

They left mainly because their life ration of land,
bread, and meat was, compared with America's gener-
ous measure, too scant to satisfy them. But a va-
riety of influences, coming from all directions,
acted upon the potential emigrant. In most instances
he himself was not aware of the larger forces. Some-
times these stimuli fused in him so that no single
motive stood out; sometimes one particular thing, a
letter from America or a crop failure might have set
him in motion; but, psychologically, years of eco-
nomic and social oppression had been preparing him
for the break. It is hard to describe the tangle of
motives and emotions that attended the momentous de-
cision to turn one's back upon family, friends, and
country, and to face a strange continent, a new life,
and an unknown language.

Net only were physical conditions extremely difficult
but there were social grievances. Many Nbrwegian emigrants
left Nerway with a great deal of bitterness in their hearts
toward a government that would continue to allow an official
class to prosper at the expense of the lower class. The
poor were inferior, and the upper class delighted in remind-
ing them of their status. Knud Langeland2 described his ex-

perience before leaving for America:

 

lBergmann, p. 42.

2Knud Langeland was (1813-1888) an important leader
of the Nerwegian community. He was born in Norway in 1813
and in 1843 emigrated to the United States. He settled on a
farm in Racine County, Wisconsin. He bought the first Ner—
wegian language paper in America Nordlyset in 1849 and re-
named it Democraten and edited this paper from 1849-1850.
In 1866 Skandinaven was founded in Chicago. Langeland was
editor of this paper from 1866-1872. He then edited Amerika
from 1872-1873, and then was editor of Skandinaven again in
1873-1881. He was an early supporter of the Free Soil Party
and later became an ardent Republican and a strong opponent
of slavery. In addition, he took issue with the Norwegian
Synod on their anti-common school stand and did all in his
power to advance the American common school among the
Nerwegian-Americans.

87

What. have I done, and what have these done, that
there should be so great a difference between us?
And when they then mocked me for my tattered clothes
and laughingly pointed their fingers at me and cried,
'Look at him,‘ bowed under a heavy load, I walked
with nose toward the ground. I was offended; I
cried and swore.

The so-called "America Letters" played a predominant
role in the history of NOrwegian emigration. When the Ameri-
ca Letters began to arrive in cities and in the rural areas
of NOrway from the vanguard of Nerwegians who had journeyed
Westward to America, it caused "America fever" which swept
not unlike a disease throughout the hamlets and valleys of
NOrway.

It is difficult to exaggerate the intensity of early
Norwegian interest in letters from immigrants in the
New WOrld. These 'America Letters' often were passed
from family to family and community to community.
Everywhere they spread information about America and
stirred interest in the prospects of emigration.
Often these letters contained money or tickets for the trip
to America, and this was tangible proof that the glowing re—
ports from America were not all idle talk.

It is from these America letters that we learn of

the immigrant's thinking and feeling about America--travel,

conditions, prices, and a multitude of other information and

often misinformation. But underneath all of the content of

lKnud Langeland,_Nprdmaendene in Amerika (Chicago:
John Anderson & Company, 1888).

2Theodore C. Blegen (ed.), Land of Their Choice
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955), p. 18.

88

these letters there
. . was an awareness that emigration was a choice

between two worlds. In the letters immigrants wrote
home, they told, from its initial chapters, the story
of a decision and its consequences. For most of them
there was no going home again, and this they knew.
They wrote about the land of their choice. They re—
ported a changed and changing way of life that would
shape the lives of their children.

As the mass emigration movement began, although many
in Nerway saw no reason to oppose it, there were many who
viewed it as a positive evil. Those who opposed were pri-
marily the official class, "The movement was popular and un-
organized, and was met by a general distrust among the
cultured classes, who regarded it as a species of insanity
and usually sought to discourage it."2 The clergy were also
in opposition and Bishop John Neumann in 1837 published a
pamphlet entitled, "A Word of Admonition to the Peasants in
the Dioceses of Bergen Who Desire to Emigrate." The Bishop
of Bergen made clear the position of the clergy when he
wrote, "Yes, the 'emigration frenzy,’ that is precisely the
word for this desire to emigrate to America which like a

general epidemic has swept over large parts of our country.

It is the most dangerous disease of our time, a bleeding of

 

1Ibid., p. 4.

2Einar Haugen, "Language and Immigration," Studies
and Records, Vol. X; 1938, p. 5.

89

our fatherland."l The Bishop of Bergen goes on to analyze

the emigrant's thinking and explains that it is

truly a frenzy because those whom it dominates
will be guided neither by their own nor by other
people's common sense. They ignore reasoning and ex-
amples and give up their present status for a still
more ominous, uncertain, and dark future. They per-
mit themselves to be driven by this frenzy into a
whirlpool of unknown suffering.

In addition to the opposition of the official class
and the clergy there was also the opposition from great
literary and patriotic figures such as, Henrik Wergeland and
Bjornstjerne Bj¢rnson. "Some of Nerway's greatest poets
adopted the view that emigration was dangerous to the
country; that they wrote plays, novels, and articles to
check the stream of immigrants; and that with emigration as
a background they made the home parish and the fatherland
seem exceptionally dear to all Nerwegians."3

The Nerwegian emigrant read the anti-emigration
literature and many of the fainthearted decided against the

move. The America Letters stressed the hardship and dangers

and told of wrong decisions they had made. Many of these

 

1Bishop John Neumann, For Arbeidsklasseni, February
6, 1843. Cf. Blegen, The "America Letters," (Oslo, 1928),
as cited in Arne Odd Johnsen, "Bj¢rnson's Reaction to Emi-
gration," Studies and Records, Vol. VI; 1931, p. 134.

21bid., pp. 134, 135.

3Ibid., p. 137.

90

letters were published in the newspapers.1 But like a giant
magnet America drew the immigrant, regardless of what was
spoken or written against the evils of emigrating. Most of

them had read and reread Ole Rynning's book, True Account of

 

America, until it literally was worn out. Rynning was one
of the early well educated pioneers to go to America where
he died. Rynning's account is remarkably objective, and "so
important an influence did Rynning's book have upon Nor-
wegian emigration that an analysis of its contents is neces-
sary to an understanding of the movement."2

The first large group of Norwegians to emigrate to
America were from the city of Stavenger. Although there was
a mixture of religious faiths abroad, the majority were
Quakers under the leadership of Lars Larsen who had been con-
verted to the Quaker faith while a prisoner aboard a British
prison ship during the Napoleonic Wars. The Quakers had
been mildly persecuted for their faith and in 1825 purchased
a sloop called the Restoration. The trip across the Atlantic

took fourteen weeks. When the tiny ship docked in New York

harbor, the welcome by American port officials was anything

 

1A letter to Bishop Neumann from Sjur J. Haaneim
written at Middle Point, Illinois, April 22, 1839 . . . "I
could tell a great deal about the Nerwegians here, but I do
not have enough space. I therefore request that you, Reverend
Sir, instruct all my fellow brothers in Christ never to plan
on coming over here. I assure them that they will regret
it." Blegen, Land of Their Choice, pp. 50, 51.
ggilled-Magazin, 1:94, as cited in Blegen, NCrwegian
Migration to America, p. 95. a

91

but friendly. The ship's owners were charged with violating
a Federal law which allowed a ratio of two passengers to
each five tons of ship. An enormous fine of $13,150 was
placed on the owners for this violation about which they
were unaware. After much legal harassment President John
Quincy Adams pardoned the "Sloopers," as they became af-
fectionately known to NOrwegian-Americans. Under the leader-
ship of Cleng Peerson the Sloopers traveled to Kendall town-
ship, then called Murray, in Orleans County on the shores of
Lake Ontario not far from the present city of Rochester, New
York. In Orleans County a Yankee by the name of Joseph
Fellows sold them land for five dollars an acre. They had
no funds to pay for the land so Mr. Fellows agreed to ten
annual installments. The land was heavily wooded, and the
Sloopers grew discouraged to think that they had to clear
for each family forty acres of timber before it could be

farmed.1

 

1An interesting aspect of the Kendall settlement is
that it might have been "communitarian." There was a
financial need in the community and a letter was written to
the Rappites community of Economy, eighteen miles below
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on the Ohio River asking for a loan
of $1,600 to buy 400 acres of land on or before the beginning
of 1828. See Mario S. De Pillis, "Still More Light on the
Kendall Colony: A Unique Slooper Letter," Studies and Re—
cords, Vol. XX; 1959, pp. 24—31. Ole Rynning had made the
comment in 1838 that it was Peerson's dream of uniting all
Nerwegians into a community and having property in common.
Rynning wrote, "His endeavor was then, and is still, to unite
all Nerwegians into one community owning all its property in
common." Blegen, Land of Their Choice, p. 42.

92

It was not long before Cleng Peerson was back from
Illinois spreading the good news that the Norwegian's para-
dise was on the prairies of the Middle West.1 Several fami-
lies moved west to the Fox River Valley in 1834. This was
to become the first Nbrwegian settlement in the Midwest,
thus a vanguard of thousands of Nbrwegians who were to make
NOrtheranllinois, eastern Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota
their home in the New Werld. It was not until the latter
part of the nineteenth century that Nbrwegians settled in
the Dakota Territory.

The second NOrwegian settlement of even more im-
portance than the somewhat factious and unstable settlement
in the Fox River Valley was the settlement at Muskego Lake,
Wisconsin, just southwest of the present city of Milwaukee.
This became a "mother" settlement for a large number of
settlements in the southern part of Wisconsin. The settle-
ments were largely made by people from the same bygdelags

or districts as in NOrway. The immigrants represented a wide

 

1Cleng Peerson was one of the most interesting of
early Nbrwegian immigrants. "He has been described as a
dreamer and dubbed the 'Peer Gynt on the Praires'--mainly on
the basis of his fabled dream of Illinois as an Eden for
NOrwegian settlers. One day in Illinois, Peerson lay down
under a tree, and, falling asleep, beheld the wild prairie
transformed into a great fruitful garden with herds of fat
cattle peacefully grazing between splendid fields of waving
grain. This vision he took as a sign from God that the Fox
River Valley was to be the Nbrwegian Land of Promise and he
its Moses." Mario 8. De Pillis, "Cleng Peerson and the Com-
munitarian Background of NOrwegian Immigration," Studies and
Records, Vol. XXI; 1962, pp. 136, 137.

 

.lt :~
1 5»; $.- «HM
S t .
NU.
e
AU
t

co;

ATE
”bl

luau hUL

93

range of cultural life.1 Although the Americans considered
everyone from Norway a Nerwegian, the Norwegian, however,
would not really feel at home unless he was with the people
from his home district.

The Nbrwegian immigrant, as expected, had some de-
finite views about the "land of his choice"--America. These
views were often modified when he reached the United States;
nevertheless he developed an image of America which was ex-
pressed in diaries, pamphlets, and books, but most often in
the "America Letters." Addressed to family and friends in
Nbrway they more often than not expressed openly the Nor-
wegian's love for America. John Reinert Reiersen wrote, "I
have learned to love the country to which I emigrated more
sincerely than my old fatherland, of which I can never think

with any heartfelt longings."2 Reiersen goes on to point

 

1Peter A. Munch, a sociologist, has written, "We know
that the Nerwegian nationality group was far from a homogene-
ous body. There were social differentiations and tensions,
even conflicts, which sometimes split the group wide-open but
mostly served to vitalize it in its struggle for status and
social recognition within the American society. We know that
there were loyalties within loyalties, sometimes conflicting,
in half-joking, half-earnest combats; for example, the loyal-
ty to the home valley or bygd, which produced differentiations
that crystallized in the formation of the various bygdelags
(societies). We know that there were class differences,
carried over from NOrway, but sometimes brought into acute
conflicts in this country because they collided with the
American belief in a classless society." Peter A. Munch,
"History and Sociology," Studies and Records, Vol. XX; 1959,
p. 52.

2J. R. Reiersen, At Four-Mile Prairie, Texas, To T.
A. Gjestvang July 27, 1852. Blegen, Land of Their Choice,
p. 364.

94

out that American institutions are the best. "I feel free

and independent among a free people who are not chained down
by any old class or caste systems; and I am very proud of be—
longing to a mighty nation, whose institutions will and must

in time come to dominate the entire civilized world.“l

Gjert
G. Hovland from Illinois had a large number of his letters
published in the newspapers in Norway. His impression of
America was expressed in picturesque language, “NOrway cannot
be compared to America any more than a desert can be compared
with a garden in full bloom."2 The people from the district
of Voss, Nbrway, founded a correspondence society to en-
courage emigration and in one of their communications they
wrote, "We recall with gladness the day we left the chill
cliffs of Nbrway and praise the Lord whose wisdom guided us
so that our lot has been to dwell in a land where liberty and
freedom prevail, for here we can enjoy all the privileges to

which men are rightfully entitled."3

Hans Barlien, a highly
idealistic immigrant, saw America as a land of freedom of
religion, "At last I can breathe freely. No one is here

persecuted on account of his religious belief; anyone is per-

mitted to worship God in his own way, as his conscience

 

1Ibid., p. 364.

 

2Gjert G. Hovland, At Middle Point, Illinois, To a
friend July 6, 1838, Blegen, Land of Their Choice, p. 45.

3From The Voss Correspondence Society of Chicago to
"Friends in the Fatherland," May 1, 1849, Blegen, Land of
Their Choice, p. 203.

 

95

dictates."1 Barlien goes on to say that America is virtually
free from crime. “Pickpockets, lawyers, unscrupulous credi—
tors, a corrupt government, and vagabonds have lost all
power to harm the people."2

But it would seem that above all of these consider-
ations the one that stands out in all of their letters is
that America is a land of opportunity. One America letter
expressed this opportunity in the following words, "Every
poor person who will work diligently and faithfully can be-
come a well-to-do man here in a short time, and the rich man,
on the other hand, has even better prospects, for he can work
out his career with less drudgery and fewer burdens and thus
have a much more peaceful life here than in NOrway."3

If there was one reoccurring theme throughout the
letters to Nbrway it was the immigrant's concern with land.
America was the land of almost unlimited land. One can only
imagine the thoughts that must have passed through the mind
of the NOrwegian cotter who saw for the first time the vast-
ness of the prairies. The rich black soil of the Midwest
prairie never ceased to impress him. In the early period of

immigration prior to the Civil War he avoided the treeless

 

1D. G. Ristad, "A Doctrinaire Idealist: Hans
Barlien," Studies and Records, Vol. III; 1928, p. 17.

21bid., p. 17.

3Ole Knudsen Trovatten, At Vernon, Wisconsin, To
Tollef Olsen Juve, June 28, 1842, Blegen, Land of Their
Choice, p. 181.

96

prairies but later came to realize that prairie soil was not
only fertile but did not need to be laboriously cleared;

thus he could farm it after the sod-breaking teams of oxen
had plowed the land. Land, whether it was high ground or
marshy, was a tOpic the immigrants discussed constantly in
the diaries and America letters. This is not strange when
the right choice of land could mean either success or failure
in the American venture.

Farmland had to be purchased, but too often the newly
arrived immigrant did not have the money to buy land. S¢ren
Bache wrote,

Apparently many of them set out for America with
very little money, thinking that their troubles
would be over as soon as they reached Havre or New
York. But it turned out quite otherwise. Then
their difficulty began in earnest, and those who
still had some cash left when they reached the end
of the journey had to support those poor creatures
who were entirely penniless. Thus upon their ar-
rival in America those who had some money were re—
duced to the same level as those who needed help.

Lars Larsen, the leader of the Sloopers, who lived
in Rochester, New York, and who with his longsuffering wife
provided generous aid to Norwegian immigrants wrote to a

friend in Nbrway, "We, of course, do what we can for them

all. I have gone around town looking for work for them, and

 

Iv '

1Clarence A, Clausen and Andreas Elviken (trans—
lators and editors), A Chronicle of Old Muskego: The Diary

of S¢ren Bache, 1839-1847 (Nbrthfield: N.A.H.A., 1951),
p. 103. '

97

Lars has taken many of them out into the country. We spare
no pains to make them satisfied."l

Conditions, no doubt, in the first half of the nine-
teenth century were difficult for the immigrants as the
numerous America letters indicate, but conditions improved
with the passing of time. Their correspondence was filled
with a description of the food they had to eat and often
with the waste they saw in America. One young woman wrote,
"My greatest regret here is to see the super-abundance of
food, much of which has to be thrown to the chickens and the
swine, when I think of my dear ones in Bergen, who like so
many others must at this time lack the necessities of
life."2

Pork was the most abundant meat. Ole Munch Raader
commented, "There are no respectable homes out here in the
west where pork is not served at least three times a day--
morning, noon, and night. As with everything else that is
typically American, this fondness for pork is most noticeable

3

in the West." Raader comments that pigs are not only found

in the West, but when he arrived in New York he saw pigs

 

1Martha Larsen, At Rochester, New York, To Elias
Tastad October 11, 1837, Belgen, Land of Their Choice, p. 30.

2Jannicke Soehle to Johannes Soehle, September 28,
1847, as cited in Theodore C. Blegen (translator and editor),
"Immigrant Women and the American Frontier," Studies and
Records, Vol. V; 1930, p. 21.

3Malmin, p. 78.

98

walking down Broadway. With the addition of more meat and
other improvement in basic foods the Norwegian continued to
cook much as he did in Nerway. "The food was all prepared
in NOrwegian style, and Nerwegian dishes and manners pre-
vailed for many years."1

General economic conditions, comments on panics, the
buying and selling of land, and operating costs and profits
compared with Nbrway were of primary interest to the Ner-
wegian immigrant farmer. The America letters describe in
considerable detail the amount of wages for the type of work
done. A maid working in a hotel wrote, "I have received a
dollar a week for the first five weeks, and hereafter shall
have $1.25, and if I can stand it through the whole winter I
shall get a dollar and a half a week."2 It was often men-
tioned that a child could make more in America than a grown
man in NOrway. Usually the immigrant found it necessary to
work for a time before he had the cash or credit to purchase
his own farm. More often than not he was successful. As one
immigrant wrote to a friend in candid language, "Despite the
fact that I came here empty-handed and have also been sick,
I have nevertheless acquired the following property: one

cow, a year—old pig, one calf, two two-year~old oxen (which

 

 

lCarlton C. Qualey, "A Typical Nerwegian Settlement:
Spring Grove, Minnesota," Studies and Records, Vol. IX;
1936, p. 61.

2Theodore C. Blegen (translator and editor), "Immi-
grant WOmen and the American Frontier," Studies and Records,
Vol. V; 1930, p. 21.

99

are necessary to everyone for work), and forty acres of land,
though I owe eighteen days of work on this land."1

The immigrant was impressed with the amount of work
expected for a day's wages in America. Wages were high, it
was true, but a person was expected to produce an "honest
day's work." One immigrant wrote, "Very likely there are
many who set out in the belief that they will find here both
wealth and ideal conditions, but alas, how bitterly are they
disappointed in their expectations, here one must work, for
here nothing may be had for nothing."2 Another wrote,

What would be done in a week in NOrway can be ac-
complished here in one day, with the same number of
laborers. Furthermore, what in Norway would take a
year can be done here in two months. You ask how
.this can be. We worked both hard and rapidly in
Nbrway. Yes, but what is good and quick enough in
NOrway is not good and quick enough here.

The Quaker, Lars Larsen, had predicted that the immi—
grant would face problems of staggering magnitude when he
reached America. The correctness of this prediction is borne
out by the written accounts of the immigrants' experience.

One of the most severe problems the immigrant faced was that

of sickness. Epidemics of cholera, typhus, typhoid fever,

 

lOle Knudsen Trovatten, At Vernon, Wisconsin, To
Tellef Olsen Juve, Blegen, Land of Their Choice, p. 181.

2Brynjolf J. Hovde (translator and editor), "Chicago
as Viewed by a Nerwegian Immigrant in 1864," Studies and
Records, Vol. III; 1928, p. 68.

3Carlton C. Qualey (translator and editor), "Seven
America Letters to Valdres," Studies and Records, Vol. XXII;
1965, p. 150.

 

100

pneumonia, tuberculosis, and influenza took the lives of
hundreds of immigrants. Many immigrants, weakened by a long
voyage across the Atlantic in diseased ships, died soon
after their arrival in America. Not only did many die soon
after they came to one of the Nerwegian settlements, but
they brought with them disease which soon infected others in
the region. An example of this is Muskego Lake, Wisconsin,
which soon after it was settled became known as the "region
of death." One of the settlers, John Everson Molee describes
the summer of 1849 as "the awfulest summer I have ever ex-
perienced in my life."1 An American home missionary, the
Reverend Milton Wells, described the suffering of the NOr-

wegians in the Fox River Valley.2 According to the Reverend

 

lKnut Gjerset and Ludvig Hektoen, "Health Conditions
and the Practice of Medicine among the Early Nerwegian
Settlers, 1825-1865," Studies and Records, Vol. 1;
Minneapolis: 1926, p. 17.

2According to Reverend Wells the conditions were

horrendous. "The amount of wretchedness and suffering which
prevailed among them last winter, was such as absolutely to
mock all description. One family I visited in which I found
every individual, eight in number, prostrated with disease.
Two of them, the father and a daughter of some 16 years of
age, were then shaking violently with a fit of the ague.
The daughter shoeless, and both nearly destitute of all
clothing stood hovering over a few live coals, by the side
of which stood an old filthy looking copper tea kettle, from
the spout of which they would take their turns in drinking.

. . In another family which Mrs. W. visited in connection
with the physician, she found the sick mother in bed with
her dying husband, with no one to administer to their neces-
sities, or even to speak a word of consolation to them save
two little girls of some seven and nine years of age." W.
W. Sweet, Religion on theggmerican Frontier, The Congre-
gationalist (Vol. III; Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1939), pp. 390, 391.

 

101

Wells, "The wakeful and sympathetic ear of Samaritan kinda
ness was at length arrested by the sad tale of misery, and
forth sped the messengers of mercy without stint or
grudging.“l Barrels of flour and meat were sent by the
Americans to the needy Norwegians, and this act of kindness
was deeply appreciated by the destitute immigrants.

The "American" or "Yankee" as he was called both in
admiration and damnation was of perpetual interest to the
NOrwegian immigrants. Their opinion of him was often sharply
divided. Many Nerwegians perceived him as strict, moralistic,
and devoted to New England religion. Wrote one immigrant,
"The Americans also have a very strict sense of morality.

The Sabbath is observed with an almost pharisaical severity."2
To others the Yankees were difficult to evaluate,
From the little insight I have acquired, I really do
not know what to say about these people. I am much
inclined to believe that many of them are 'whited
sepulchres'--if there were not a few tares among the
wheat, it would be almost too good to be true.3
But to many pietistical NOrwegians the Yankee Sabbath was the
reason for America's greatness. "In America the Sabbath is
observed very rigorously, that is to say, among the native

Americans; and I therefore believe that God has blessed

America and ordained it to become the biggest, wealthiest,

 

lIbid., p. 392.
2An Immigrant Living in Beloit, Wisconsin, To Friends
Nevember 29, 1851, Blegen, Land of Their Choice, p. 272.

31bid., p. 272.

102

l The Yankee was to

most powerful country on the earth."
some NOrwegians a generous individual and this was expressed
in a bit of doggerel:

When the Yankees perceived how we struggled,

They were ready at once with their praise;

And they shared with us many a tidbit;

NOW may God bless their generous ways.

The ethnocentric attitude on the part of the Nor—
wegian immigrant shows through in the often expressed notion
that somehow the Yankees loved the Scandinavians best of all
the immigrants. Hans Barlien, the Utopian, wrote in 1842,
"The Americans despise all Europeans, except the Scandina-
vians, most of all the Irish; but they are hopeful for the
NOrwegians, Swedes, and Danes."3 However, there were many
Norwegians who resented the unscrupulous Americans who had
cheated them on their arrival in America when they were
"green" and trusting. A writer in 1858 said a Yankee "is a
cunning businessman and knows how to get the better of you
in a bargain."4 A clergyman Olaus Fredrik Duus in an Ameri—

ca letter wrote in sarcastic tones, "I really do not know

how long I can endure living under these beautiful republican

 

lCarl Thorsteinsen, In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, To His
Father, July 19, 1853, Blegen, Land of Their Choice, p. 275.

2Einar Haugen, "A NOrwegian American Pioneer Ballad,"
Studies and Records, Vol. XV; 1949, p. 5.

3D. G. Ristad, "A Doctrinaire Idealist: Hans
Barlien," Studies and Records, Vol. III; 1928, p. 20.

 

4Frithjof Meidell, Springfield, Illinois, August 10,
1856, Blegen, Land of Their Choice, p. 314.

103

conditions where the American god.KMoney' holds the scepter
of righteousness and where law and order are held in lowest

esteem."l

The Reverend Duus did not live long under a re-
publican government but went back to Nbrway. He complained
about the Yankees engaging in land speculation, but his
diary is filled with the details of buying and selling land
as a speculator.

The truth is that the American did not always pro-
fess the love for the Nerwegian that Hans Barlien had in—
sisted they had. In fact the Yankees on occasions called
the NOrsemen "Nbrwegian Indians.” The reason for this, says
one writer, was because "they were as yet unacquainted with
the English language and American life and because they were
generally ignorant of the subject (politics)--an ignorance
that had led Americans to call them the 'NOrwegian
Indians.'"2 To rub salt into the wounded pride of the Ner-
wegians a man with a very Yankee name of Marshall M. Strong
declared that Negroes were "as deserving of a vote and [the]

privilege of freemen as are many of the whites, and more so

as a class in this territory than are the NOrwegians."

 

lFrontier Parsonage: The Letters of Olaus Fredrik
Duus, NOrwegian Pastor in Wisconsin, 1855-1858. Translated
by the Verdandi Study Club of Minneapolis and edited by
Theodore C. Blegen (Northfield: N.A.H.A., 1947), p. 17.

2Bayrd Still, "Norwegian-Americans and Wisconsin
Politics in the Forties," Studies and Records, Vol. VIII;
1934, p. 59.

31bid., p. 58.

 

104

The Americans also found other things about the Ner-
wegians of which they did not approve; this was the manner
in which they sometimes used the Sabbath as a day for recre-
ation. In Madison, Wisconsin, in July of 1857, some fifty
or sixty Scandinavians

rowed across the lake and enjoyed a picnic afternoon

and evening--eating, probably drinking, singing and

perhaps engaging in country dances. The event was

observed by many, but the picnickers were not pre-

pared for the barrage of criticism that appeared in

the local paper, warning them to behave like re-

spectable Americans if they wanted to enjoy the

privileges of the country.
Not only were the Americans critical of their Sabbath be—
havior, but so was their pastor as well who severely re-
buked them for their picnicking. This they could not under-
stand for such Sunday activity was permitted in Nbrway. The
minister replied that this was not a question of whether it
was sin or not, but that they had to be concerned about the
"image" of the Lutheran Church in America.

Another social custom which was practiced particu-
larly by the people from the mountainous areas of Nerway was
the practice of "bundling," not unlike the "courting"
practice of the Pennsylvania Dutch. This practice was justi-
fied in Norway as a necessity because of the isolation and

vast distances the suitor had to travel in courting. But

when this questionable practice was coupled with drunkenness,

 

lMarcus Lee Hansen, The Immigrant in_American His-
tory (Cambridge: The Harvard University Press, 1942), p.
117 O

105

as was often the case, the Americans severely criticized the

Norwegians. Nina Draxten comments that Kristofer Janson

observed,
The immigrants' worst troubles were those they
brought with them: drunkenness and immoral customs,
in particular one he designated as 'night courtship'
. [which] Janson traced to customs immigrants
had brought with them from rural communities in Ner-
way. He maintained that Americans looked upon this
with great repugnance, and consequently regarded
Norwegians as morally loose people.

There were many NOrwegians, however, who came to
fully share the Yankee's pietism which he did not find too
different from the Haugean influence he had already experi—
enced. The Norwegians may have on occasions desecrated the
Yankee Sabbath, but as a group they came more and more to ac-
cept the American Sabbath values. There was a gradual move-
ment on the part of NOrwegian-American Lutheranism towards a
puritanism; however, "it was less characteristic of pastors
and congregations of the Nerwegian Synod than of other
bodies."2 For the most part the pastors of the Nerwegian
Synod drank alcoholic beverages but stressed moderation.
Intoxication, however, was a problem among the Norwegian

immigrants as it was among other immigrant groups. Drinking

was a problem in the old Muskego settlement. The aristocratic

 

1Nina Draxten, "Kristofer Janson's Lecture Tour,
1879-80," Studies and Records, Vol. XXII; 1965, p. 52.

2Gerhard Lee Belgum, "The Old NOrwegian Synod in
America, 1853-1890" (unpublished thesis, Yale University,
1957), p. 147.

106

and lordly minister, J. W. C. Dietrichson, who returned to
NOrway because he could not adjust to the egalitarian spirit
of the Frontier had to combat this in the early years of the
Muskego settlement. "One of the open immoralities combatted
by Dietrichson was drunkenness, a sin so common that American
neighbors regarded it as characteristic of the Nerwegians."l
Dietrichson, himself, said that it was not something they
had picked up in America, "I am sorry to say that as is the
old, bad Nerwegian custom, the deplorable desire for drink—
ing and rioting has held sway in the congregation, especially
during Christmas but also at other times."2 Indeed the
Reverend Dietrichson had his problems with excessive drinking
in his Muskego congregation. Seren Bache tells the amusing
story of the aristocratic pastor being chased by two drunks
who were drunk in the Sunday morning service. After the
service they began to fight outside of the church building.
"Pastor Dietrichson," said Bache,

went over to separate them. But when he got there,

the fellow on top jumped up and started to chase

Dietrichson, who ran yelling that he should not beat

the pastor. When the race was over, the man pulled a

dollar from his pocket and said to Dietrichson, 'This

one I would have given you if you had been a nice

boy, but now I will go and spend it for some good
liquor.‘

 

lE. Clifford Nelson and Eugene L. Fevold, The Lutheran
Church Among Nbrwegigg—Americans (Minneapolis: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1960), Vol. I, p. 109.

2J. W. C. Dietrichson, Koshkonong, Wisconsin, January
29, 1847, Blegen, Land of Their Choice, p. 148.

 

3S¢ren Bache, A Chronicle of Old Muskego, p. 160.

107

As humiliating as this experience must have been for
the pastor and congregation it was compounded by the events
of a few days later when the pastor sent two of his elders
to bring the church members who had humbled the pastor be—
fore the entire congregation to him for discipline. Bache
continues, "But when they got there, the transgressor treated
them so liberally to the bottle that the elders were quite
drunk before they left—-and that was the end of the story."1

In spite of this problem, the Nerwegian Synod was
opposed to Temperance Societies. According to an anonymous
Nerwegian school teacher, who was somewhat hostile to the
NOrwegian Synod, the Synod condemns

every organization or affiliation of secular or
moral import insofar as these do not exactly coin-
cide with their own so-called orthodox formulas and
theories. Under this sweeping condemnation come
Bible societies, mission societies, other church de—
nominations, temperance unions, insurance companies,
interest charges, life insurance, etc.2
But regardless of the Synod's position, Norwegian Temperance
Societies were organized in the various settlements not ex-
cluding the small town of Decorah, Iowa, the center of the

Nerwegian Synod's influence. The Decorah Republican reported,

"The Nbrwegian Temperance Society has become a fixed fact in

 

Decorah. They have organized a society . . . Quite a few
1 .
Mo) p0 161.
2

C. A. Clausen (translator and editor), "A Nerwegian
Schoolmaster Looks at America,"_§tudies and Records, Vol.
XIII; 1943, p. 83.

108

have signed the pledge and the work goes bravely on. They
meet at the Court House every Saturday evening." The re-
porter gives the interesting purpose of the society, “They
propose to see whether sobriety is not just as good for one
born in the north country as it is for one born in a more
southern climate."1 The paper fails to report what was the
conclusion of this Temperance Society's findings. But if
the Society prospered among the Norwegians of Iowa, it was a
failure among the NOrwegians in Texas. If the Norwegians
were for temperance, this did not necessarily mean that they
did not drink beer, wine, and ale. Even Elsie Amalie
Waarenskjold a crusader against strong drink, tells of
having "brewed ale for Christmas, and it has never tasted so
good to me as now. I haven't tasted a glass of wine in four
years. If I could get fruit, I would certainly have wine
and [fruit] juice too."2 Another immigrant wrote to rela-
tives in NOrway about a Christmas in Illinois, "We had a
cozy Christmas, drank beer and punch, thought of rice
porridge, and talked of the old days."3

The clergy of the Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran
Synod enjoyed a glass of beverage on occasion. The Reverend

Duus tells of receiving twelve bottles of wine from a German

 

lDecorah Republican, February 8, 1866.

2Blegen, Land of Their Choice, p. 323.

3Written at Springfield,Illinois, January 11, 1857,
Blegen, Land of Their Choice, p. 316.

109

friend. The clergyman's comment is interesting. "He stayed
with me overnight . . . a couple of days later he sent me
twelve bottles of St. Julien as good as any I ever drank in
Norway; so now I can offer you a glass of wine if you will
visit me."1 Professor Laur. Larsen, a leader of the Nor-
wegian Synod,"saw nothing wrong in his earlier years with a
festive glass of wine or an occasional glass of beer."2
When Ole Bull, the violinist, visited Luther College in
March of 1872, the newspaper in the town reported that fol-
lowing the concert a banquet was given in the honor of Bull.

The hospitality of the groaning table was then ex-

tended to the Americans who were present as the

guests of the Nbrwegians. . . . This was followed by

a succession of toasts by the Nerwegians and Ameri-

can guests. At an early hour in the morning the as-

semblage adjourned each one glad to have been there.3
One might be tempted to comment that this was quite a cele-
bration for a very orthodox college which was known as the
"preachers' school."

But as the century advanced the American drive for
prohibition influenced the Nerwegians, even those who at-
tempted moderation.

The process of Puritanization can be followed by any-

one who studies the records of a congregation or the
minutes of a synod. Discipline became more and more

 

lFrontier Parsonage, p. 103.

2Gerhard Lee Belgum, "The Old Norwegian Synod in
America, 1853-1890" (unpublished thesis, Yale University,
1957), pp. 145, 146.

3Decorah Republican, March 22, 1872.

110

strict. One after the other, social pleasures that

were brought from the Old Wbrld fell under the

ban . . . By the last quarter of the nineteenth

century the Protestant immigrant churches had

adopted so much of the 'New England atmosphere'

that clergymen who came from European seminaries of

the various denominations were strangers in theology

and ecclesiastical practice.
Knut Hamsun, a Nobel prize winning Norwegian novelist, who
visited America in the latter part of the nineteenth century
was surprised that pastors were not discussing theological
questions but were rather interested in the so-called
"Boston morals."2

The pietistic influence both coming from the Eielsen

Synod and later from the Haugean Synod slowly gained ground
in the churches. Eielsen himself, had called Dietrichson a
drunkard for stopping at a country tavern on a hot day to
refresh himself with a glass of beer. This attitude of
total abstinence became stronger, not weaker, as the century
progressed. In this the pietistic element found a ready
ally in the American who was working for the enactment of the

"Maine laws" in every State in the Union. On one occasion

R- B. Anderson3 "sought support from the pietistic and

 

lMarcus Lee Hansen, pp. 120, 121.

2Ibid., p. 121.

3Rasmus Bj¢rn Anderson (1846-1936) was one of the
most controversial leaders of the Norwegian—Americans. No
treatment of NOrwegians in America would be complete without
reference to Anderson. Although born in Wisconsin his
identification throughout his long life was with the Ner-
wegian immigrant community. He entered the Norwegian Synod's
temporary school at Half-way Creek, Wisconsin, not far from

lll

puritan factions among NOrwegian—American Lutherans, but
that uneasy alliance ended abruptly when he brazenly con-
fessed his liking for beery wine, and whiskey.1

Regardless of how much discussion and how intensely
the emigrant read the "America letters," nothing he could do
in Nerway could quite prepare him for the day he would set
foot on American soil. What was to be his relationship to
the new culture and strange new language he would hear as a
babel all around him? When he landed in America, the immi—
grant knew that it would be only a matter of time before he

would sail up the Hudson River to Albany. In the early

 

the present city of LaCross in 1861. He moved with the col-
lege when it moved to Decorah, Iowa. On the day of the dedi-
cation of the new building on the campus he lead a student
revolt protesting the harsh discipline and poor living con-
ditions for the students in the new building. For a time he
taught at the Albion Academy and in 1866 became the first
professor of Scandinavian languages at the University of
Wisconsin. During his time at the University he collected
some 1500 volumes of Scandinavian literature. The violinist,
Ole Bull, gave concerts for this book fund. In 1885 Presi-
dent Cleveland appointed him minister to Denmark, and when
he returned to this country he became a cod-liver oil sales—
man for a Danish concern. R. B. Anderson was a prolific
writer and championed NOrwegian culture in America. In his
early life he was a strong supporter of the American common
school. Lloyd Hustvedt who has written the most thorough
biography on Anderson has said, "Rasmus B. Anderson was some-
thing more than professor, author, statesman, and journalist.
For the Norwegians he became a symbol--he exemplified a way
of life. He and many with him believed that he pointed the
way, as it were, for each NOrwegian immigrant who was reach-
ing out for confidence, moral dignity, and something vague
and undefined--how to become a good American." Lloyd
Hustvedt, Rasmus Bj¢rn Anderson (Nbrthfield: N.A.H.A.,
1966), p. 4.

1Paul Knaplund, "Rasmus B. Anderson, Pioneer and Cru-
sader," Studies and Records, Vol. XVIII; 1954, p. 40.

112

years he took the Erie Canal and after the coming of the
railroad the train to Buffalo. From Buffalo he boarded a
lake steamer which took him around the straits of Mackinac
to Milwaukee. Soon he was in one of the Nerwegian settle-
ments where again he heard the familiar dialect to which he
was accustomed in Norway. Carlton C. Qualey has written,
"The Norwegian settlers naturally preferred to establish
themselves as near as possible to people who spoke their own
language and who were of the Lutheran faith. In such a com-
munity, a 'Yankee' was almost an alien."1 Not only did the
immigrant want to live in a NOrwegian settlement, he in-
tended to settle with people from his own bygdal or district
from which he came in Norway. (An example of settlement by
district is the pioneer Muskego settlement. Raeder wrote,
"truehearted and simple, just as we find our countrymen here
and there up among the mountains in Norway, they had pre—
served their customs, dress, and general arrangement of the
house unchanged, as well as their language."2 When Kristofer
Janson visited Scandinavia, Wisconsin, in 1880, "he was
struck by Scandinavia's close resemblance to a Norwegian com-
munity. On the streets, in stores, one heard only NOrwegian.

The church was a replica of those at home; the minister wore

 

1Carlton C. Qualey, "A Typical Norwegian Settlement:
Spring Grove, Minnesota," Studies and Records, Vol. IX;
1936, p. 157.

2Malmin, p. 16.

113

the vestments of the state church; the hymnbooks were the
same as those used in NOrway."l

Although the vast majority of Nerwegian immigrants
isolated themselves from the mainstream of American life,
and increasingly so as the nineteenth century wore on, not
all Norwegians believed that this was the best approach.
Particularly in the early years of immigration there was an
earnest attempt to learn the English language. One immi-
grant in 1842 wrote, "I have not learned very much of the
language, but I can manage when occasions arise and my wife
also."2 Ole Munch Raeder commented on how rapidly Nerwegians
learned the English language. "The ease with which the Nor-
wegians learn the English language has attracted the at-
tention of the Americans, all the more because of the fact
that they are altogether too ready to consider them entirely
raw when they come here."3 Raeder also commented on a
linguistic phenomenon which has not ceased to amaze linguists
to the present time. He‘wrote, "They (the Norwegians) do
not bother about keeping the two languages separate, so that
they may speak NOrwegian to their countrymen and English to

others; instead they eliminate one word after the other from

 

lNina Draxten, "Kristofer Janson's Lecture Tour,
1879-80," Studies and Records, Vol. XXII; 1965, p. 38.

2Ole Knudsen Trovatten, At Vernon, Wisconsin, To
Tollef Olson Juve, Blegen, Land of Their Choice, p. 181.

3Ole Munch Raeder in Wisconsin Territory, September-
October 1897, Blegen, Land of Their Choice, p. 209.

114

their NOrwegian and substitute English words in such a way
that the Nbrwegian will soon be completely forgotten."1
Raeder went on to comment that "such a practice, to be sure,
is rather common among uneducated people who emigrate to a
foreign country, but the Nerwegians seem to have a special
knack at it."2

The Nerwegians who emigrated prior to the Civil War
could not foresee the tremendous influx of fellow countrymen
who would come after the War Between the States. Because it
was generally believed by the Norwegians that they must
learn English, one of the early Lutheran pastors, Elling
Eielsen, "walked from Illinois to New York just to have
printed an English translation of Luther's catechism."3
Individual Norwegians wanted to learn English. S¢ren Bache
wrote in 1840, "Early in December I began rooming with an
American because I wished to attend a school in that neighbor-
hood which was to last until the end of February. I wanted
to learn English so as to associate with the people here."4

But as the nineteenth century progressed the Ner-

wegian immigrant was encouraged by a great increase of

 

1Ibid., p. 209.

2Ibid., p. 209.

3Einar Haugen, "The Struggle over Nerwegian,"
Studies and Records, Vol. XVII, 1952, p. 9.

4S¢ren Bache, A Chronicle of Old Muskego, p. 44.

115

Nbrwegian immigration, and thus was to change his views of
the English language and the process of Americanization.
Some claimed that acculturation was proceeding too rapidly.
For example, Laur. Larsen wrote in 1860, that Norwegians
ought "not be too quick to mimic everything American before
we have tested whether it is better than our own."1 In 1898
Thrond Bothne wrote, "New the question no longer is how
shall we learn English so that we may take part in the social
life of America and partake of her benefits; the big question
is how can we preserve the language of our ancestors here in
a strange environment, and pass on to our descendants the
treasures which it contains."2 But social isolation was not
to work well when surrounded by an English speaking culture.
Haugen has written,

Wherever contact with English speaking children was

active, as in an urban community, the children

brought home with them a keen desire to speak

English. Only by the establishment of ironclad

rules, by which English was banned from the home,

could the parents resist this invasion.3

The NOrwegian believed that "language saves faith,"

and the church was one of the most vocative segments of the
NOrwegian immigrant society to oppose English and retain

Norwegian. The Nbrwegian Synod was the strongest opponent

of English.

 

1Einar Haugen, "The Struggle over NOrwegian,“
Studies and Records, Vol. XVII, 1952, p. 13.

2Ibid., p. l.

31bid., p. 2.

116

The Synod, in particular, feared that American
doctrinal errors would be absorbed along with the
adoption of the English language and consequently
resisted too rapid a transition. On the other
hand, certain elements of the Nerwegian Augusiana
Synod were most ready to make the transition.

But there is little question in examining this era of Ner-
wegian-American immigrant life that the period between 1870
and 1890 was "definitely a NOrwegian period. Nearly all

congregational work was carried on in Norwegian prior to

1890."2

But not all Nerwegians agreed that social isolation
was the wisest policy for the Norwegian-Americans to follow
in America. Paul Hjelm—Hansen warned against any type of
political separation from American culture.

I do not wish to say that the Scandinavians should
form a power all to themselves or be a state within
the state. No, that is by no means my desire.

On the contrary, I believe that it is the sacred
duty of the emigrants who wish to make this country
their future home and who have taken the oath of a1-
1egiance to this society, to become united and as-
similated with the native population of the country,
the Americans, to learn the English language and
familiarize themselves with and uphold the spirit
and institutions of the Republic. The sooner this
comes about, the better.3

These progressive words, however, were not to find

receptive hearers among the Norwegians who were now

 

1Nelson and Fevold, p. 300.

2Ibid., p. 300.

3From a Farewell Speech by Paul Hjelm-Hansen, At
Alexandria, Minnesota, September 4, 1869. Blegen, Land of
Their Choice, p. 446.

117

experiencing increased immigration. Secular and clerical

leaders began to call for a new expression of NOrwegian

culture.

In the early part of the twentieth century a strong
reaction set in against the great American "melting pot."
Waldemar Ager made it plain that the native Americans seemed

to think that the immigrants would be happy to be melted

doWn

into something greater and better than they were be-
fore. . . . Out of the melting pot there is supposed
gto come a new man, a supercitizen, a superman with
all the best features from the various races and none
of the bad ones. But the so-called American does not
himself wish to be assimilated with the foreigners;
he does not wish either to assimilate or take up in

himself the Russian, the Pole, or the Jewi but he
wants these to be absorbed in each other.
No, there need not be a "melting pot." The problem, said

Bernt Askevold, was that Norwegians had tried to become
Americanized too quickly and in doing so they had forgotten
their motherland and had become altogether too familiar with
the native born American. He saw, however, that the church
was preserving the language, and he was also encouraged by
the new Norwegian societies which were being organized.

Askevold wrote, "This NOrwegianess, which evidently is a

 

1Waldemar Ager, "Smeltedigelen," in Kwartolskrift,
12:33-42 (April, 1916), as cited in Einar Haugen, "The
Struggle over Nbrwegian," Studies and Records, Vol. XVII,
1952, p. 23.

 

118

lively development, is also an affair of considerable future
significance; it causes me to believe that here is a possi-
bility for a Nbrwegian—American literature in the Norwegian
language.“l

Askevold and others called for a Norwegian litera-
ture and their call was not in vain for "during the 1870's a
distinct Norwegian-American literature had its beginning.
Like the American literature of the period, it told the
story of the common man; in ballads, poetry, and fiction the
settlers wrote about themselves."2

The two Nerwegian-Americans who were to assume the
role of literary critics were Rasmus B. Anderson and Hjalmer
H. Boyesen.3 Anderson made his home in Madison, Wisconsin,
the center of the NOrwegian—American settlements. But Boye-
sen was from the East. "In the East, too, they had their

critic; and curiously enough he was closely associated with

 

1Haugen, p. 23.

2Gerald H. Thorson, "First Sagas in a New WOrld: A
Study of the Beginnings of NOrwegian-American Literature,"
Studies and Records, Vol. XVII, 1952, p. 109.

3Hjalmer Hjorth Boyesen (1849-1895) was born in Nor—
way and became the most successful Norwegian-American writer
in the nineteenth century. He wrote a novel entitled Gunner.
This novel of Norwegian peasant life so impressed William
Dean Howells that he published it in serial form in the
Atlantic Monthly in 1873. He wrote several other novels
while a professor at Cornell and Columbia Universities. In
the latter part of his life he questioned the wisdom of his
emigration to America.

119

the dean of American letters, his development closely re-
sembling that of William Dean Howells."1
The plan for the cultural development of the immi-
grant Americans was to have leading literary figures from
NOrway visit the NOrwegian settlements and give lectures.
Without question the most popular figure in the middle of
the nineteenth century was Bjornstjerne Bjornson (1832-1910).
One need not wonder why this was so. The early Bj¢rnson
wrote in a romantic style about the NOrway the immigrants
had known as children or in their youth. These immigrants
"began to look back upon Norway as representing an almost
unapproachable perfection."2 It was this Bj¢rnson that the
immigrant Norwegian loved. "In Bjornson's bondenoveller and
early poems the immigrant saw Nbrway pictured with just
enough idealism to fit in with his rose-colored recollections
of the land of his birth."3
But it was a different Bjornson who came to America
for a tour of the NOrwegian settlements in 1880. His re-
ligious views had undergone a radical change, and he at once

began to question the doctrines of the Nbrwegian Lutheran

church in America. Bj¢rnson was heretic enough for the

 

1Thorson, p. 109.

2Arthur C. Paulson, "Bjornson and the Nbrwegian—
Americans, 1880—81," Studies and Records, Vol. V, 1930,
p. 84.

31bid., p. 84.

120

conservative clergy,for he made it clear that he accepted
the doctrine of the great Danish scholar and theologian,
N. F. S. Grundtvig. But his acceptance of Grundtvig was
"nothing compared with the second step, which he took in
1876 when he declared that Christians must interpret the
Bible in accordance with the growing power of the human mind
and that if Christianity did not heed the dictates of culture
and intellect, it would find itself submerged, 'a little
forsaken, homeless waif, frightened, impotent, driver hither
and thither'."l This was followed by a denial of eternal
punishment, a personal devil, and the rite of baptism.

But in spite of Bjornson's apostasy the Norwegian-
Americans were anxious to hear him. The NOrwegian Synod at-

tacked him in their church organ, Kirketidende, and "branded
2

 

him as an apostate and a heretic." At first Bj¢rnson did
not intend to go to the NOrwegian settlements in the West.
He was busy with literary celebrities in the East and even
spoke for General Grant in his reelection campaign.3 But
Bjornson had a change of mind, and with R. B. Anderson as

his business manager he began his tour of the west with a

lecture on the "Prophets." In this lecture he attacked the

 

lAagot D. Hoidahl, "Nbrwegian—American Fiction, 1880-
1928," Studies and Records, VOl.‘V, 1930, p. 86.

21bid., p. 86.

3Ibid., p. 87.

 

121

orthodox view of the Bible, and suggested that the patri-
archs were really heathen gods.

An attack of this nature was not to go unchallenged
by the clergy of all the Norwegian Lutheran Synods. The
Reverend H. Halvorsen, a pastor at Coon Prairie, Wisconsin,
wrote about Bjornson, "Had he himself been truthful he would
have severed his relations with the Norwegian State Church
and would have said both in Norway and in America: 'I am no
longer a Christian; I believe in neither God nor Devil; I
believe only in the progress and evolution of the race; I am

'"1 Halvorsen also criticized the

an out and out Darwinist.
laity who attended Bj¢rnson's lectures. In scathing language
Halvorsen said, "But you--in frivolity you sit and applaud
and laugh at a most bitter and shameless attack on our
Christian faith. There is no name for such an act, it is

the profoundest¢treason."2 The Reverend Sven Oftendal, an

able leader of the Conference3 joined the Nbrwegian Synod in

attacking Bj¢rnson. In the church paper Folkebladent, of

 

which Oftendal was editor, he wrote,

Bjornson lectured last Thursday at the Pence Opera
House, giving the same address he delivered in

 

1Arthur C. Paulson, "Bj¢rnson and the Norwegian—
Americans, 1880-81," Studies and Recordsz Vol. V, 1930,
p. 97.

21bid., p. 98.

3What was popularly known as the "Conference" had the
cumbersome name of The Conference for the NOrwegian-Danish
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

122

Chicago. The house was packed. The anticipation
had been keen, but the general feeling after the
lecture was that of disappointment . . . He would
scarcely deliver such an address in the smallest
seaport town in Norway . . . At the circus one
looks for the clown. Is it not the same with
Bjo’rnson?l

Luth Jaeger of the paper, Budstikken, defends

 

Bj¢rnson and attacked Oftendal saying that "he could never
open his mouth without having a toad jump out."2 But what
editor Jaeger and his friends wanted to know was what
Oftendal meant by the phrase, "At the circus one looks for
the clown."3

The fight raged on in the Norwegian newspapers and
periodicals between the liberal friends of Bj¢rnson and the
conservative clergy. Some accused him of being much more
interested in the lecture fees than improving the cultural
life of the NOrwegianFimmigrants in the West. Bj¢rnson is
reported to have reveled in the cultured atmosphere of Nor—
way when he returned. Rather strange behavior for a poet
and novelist who had identified so closely with the people.

R. B. Anderson opposed "realism," the new literary
trend both in Nbrway and America. This fight was to intensi—
fy when he became the editor of the newspaper Amerika. He

continued to campaign for a literature which was romantic

 

and for a rejection of realism. "His crusade was built on
1 . ‘
Ibid., p. 100.
'2

Ibid., p. 100.

3 V
Ibid., p. 101.

123

the premise that Scandinavian literature after 1880 was for
the greater part anti-Christian. Hence his attack had mainly
a religious and ethical approach."l He believed that the new
school of realism was atheistic and often "swinish" and a
genuine threat to morals and religion. Anderson attacked the
writers of realism, such as, Sigbjorn Obstfelder, Gunner
Heilberg, Knut Hamsun, and Henrik Ibsen, as well as Bjornson.
During the time Anderson was the puritanical editor of
Amerika he prized himself for not printing sensational news
in his paper. However, he allowed himself one lapse-—"the
editor permitted only one suicide story: this exceptional
case concerned a New York woman who reportedly took her life
because she had read Ibsen."2

In much of Anderson's campaign against "realism" in
literature the Nbrwegian Synod was largely in his corner for
they had not forgotten Bj¢rnson. But in spite of his camp-
paign Anderson never did receive the full support of the
NOrwegian Synod, much to his disappointment. His mighty
"crusade against modern literature ended in a whimper."3

O. E. R¢lvaag, the most famous Nbrwegian—American
novelist, was also criticized by the clergy for his realism.

Indeed Rdlvaag was a realist as he describes the struggle of

 

1Lloyd Hustvedt, Rasmus Bj¢rn Anderson (NOrthfield:
N.A.H.A., 1966), p. 250.

2Ibid., p. 238.

3Hustvedt, p. 273.

124

immigrant prairie life in his best known work, Giants in the

 

_§§£EQ. Although R¢lvaag was theologically conservative and
a long time professor of English at St. Olaf College, he
still felt the hostility of the clergy toward his literary
works. It was R¢lvaag's concept of cultural pluralism which
was also noticed by the Norwegian-American community. "In
brief, he advocated a cultural pluralism for Americans,
based on a devotion to the heritage of their fathers; a
knowledge of NOrwegian was an 'ethical duty' resting on
every descendant of Norwegians."l R¢lvaag maintained that
the Norwegians could do both--that is, promote American
social interests as well as Nbrwegian. Yet in spite of all
that this school could do there was an ominous feeling in
the early twentieth century that this was a vision which was
not grounded in reality. However, it must be also noted
that R¢lvaag was one of the original founders of the
NOrwegian-American Historical Association, and much of his
vision has been realized in this organization which has done
a great deal to preserve NOrwegian cultural contributions in
the United States.

Although the sects, particularly the Mormons, in the
early days of immigration made inroads into the Lutheran
Church and took away members, the majority of NOrwegian

Lutherans remained faithful to their childhood faith. But

 

1Einar Haugen, "The Struggle Over Norwegian," Studies
and Records, Vol. XVII, 1952, p. 34.

125

there were many kinds of NCrwegian Lutherans, each accusing
the other of incomplete Lutheran orthodoxy. However, in con—
trast to the Swedes who did not have diversity within the
Lutheran church in their settlements, the NOrwegians had
several synods with different emphases from which to choose.

The first synod was the Eielsen Synod, organized in
1846, under the leadership of pietist Elling Eielsen. The
Franchean Synod had been organized in 1837 but was primarily
located in New York and out of the area of heavy Norwegian
immigrant settlement. It was also influenced by pietism but
was considered liberal by Nbrwegian Lutherans in the West.
In 1851 Paul Anderson and Ole Andreason, disciples of Eielsen,
left his synod to join with the Swedes in the Synod of
NOrthern Illinois. The union with the Swedes, however, was
short-lived,‘existing only to 1860 when the NOrwegians with-
drew, largely because of the language problem. In 1870 the
Conference for the NOrwegian-Danish Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America was organized. The Eielsen Synod split
into the "old" and "new" tendency in 1876 and the "new" be-
came the Hauge Synod.

This sketch of Norwegian Lutheran church life would
be incomplete without the inclusion of the NOrwegian Evan—
gelical Lutheran Church in America which came to be called

the Norwegian Synod, or simply, the Synod.1

 

1The NOrwegian Synod is of particular interest to
this dissertation because it was this synod which opposed so
vehemently the American common school. The Synod was the

126

The Nbrwegian Synod had its beginning at Luther
Valley, Wisconsin, in January of 1851 with C. L. Clausen as
"superintendent" and J. W. C. Dietrichson as theologian and
constitution writer. However, with the coming of several
young pastors fresh out of the Theological Faculty at the
National University in Christiania this early constitution
was to be rejected because the young theologians detected a
"Grundvigian" influence, and in this they saw the hand of
Dietrichson who tended to place the baptismal confession and
the Apostle's Creed above the Scriptures as the rule of
practice for the Church.1 Newly arrived H. A. Preus, Nils
Brandt, and C. F. Dietrichson, all of whom had so recently
sat under the anti—Grundvigian professor, C. P. Caspari, in
the University, were to act almost immediately in reorganizing
this Synod and eliminating the obnoxious Grundvigian section
from the constitution. This was done in February, 1852. In
October of 1853 the Nbrwegian Synod was formally organized
in Luther Valley, Wisconsin.

It was a high, creedal church the young pastors
organized. They were concerned with liturgical practices,
chanting of the collects, and the wearing of the "black

cossack, stole, and white fluted collar."2 The Eielsen

 

largest of the Nbrwegian-American church bodies before the
secession of 1890.

1Nelson and Fevold, p. 154.

2Ibid., pp. 189-190.

127

Synod, which was low church, was intensely opposed to the
high church tendencies and delighted to comment about the
ministers in white collars and wearing women‘s clothes.
There can be little question that this new Synod was indeed
an extremely orthodox body.

Through all of its history, the Norwegian Synod was

considered by many to be exasperatingly inflexible

and dogmatic; and Preus was, as its president for

more than three exciting decades, always on the

firing line. 'Gegraptai' (It is written), the

Synod's motto and its expression of the formal

principle of the Reformation, was Preus' constant

point of reference.

This orthodoxy was continually strengthened by the

Synod's affiliation with the German Missouri Synod. Early
after its reorganization the pastors of the Synod were con-
cerned with the training of ministers, and, realizing that
they did not have the resources to establish a seminary nor
could they recruit enough pastors from NOrway, Pastors Brandt
and Ottesen were sent by the Synod to investigate possible
schools already in existence where their young men could at-
tend. After visiting several seminaries in 1855, they were
tremendously impressed with Concordia Seminary in St. Louis.
The Synod accepted the recommendation made in 1857 that Con-
cordia be used by Nbrwegian young men to train for the minis-

try. But this recommendation was not unanimously accepted

by the Nbrwegians as well as other Scandinavians who resented

 

lBelgum, p. 302.

128

at this time Prussian pressures in Slesvig. Therefore, an
association with Germans at this time was not particularly
inviting.
In 1859 Professor Laur. Larsen was appointed by the
Synod to assume the responsibility for the NOrwegian stu—
dents after an attempt made to secure a professor from Nor—
way had failed.
For the next several decades, the fortunes .
and the theology . . . of the two Synods were to
be closely related. One hundred twenty-six of the
pastors of the Norwegian Synod were given their
complete theological training at Concordia Seminary.l
There were many of the pastors of the Synod who in
later years expressed their gratitude to the Missouri Synod.
U. V. Kbren, who was one of the theologians, although always
a parish minister, "once noted casually that his indoctri-
nation in Lutheran orthodoxy at the University had been
theoretical; only in the midst of actual church life had it
come alive and been tested, and only when fortified by the
German orthodoxy of the Saxon immigrants in Missouri had it
been molded into a systematic theology."2
The most powerful theologian in St. Louis was C. F.

W. Walther, and his influence on the Norwegian Synod was con-

siderable.3 Belgum has written,

 

1Belgum, p. 191.
2Ibid., p. 73.

3For a thorough treatment of the relationship of
Walther and the Missouri Synod to the Norwegian Synod, see
Belgum.

129

While frequently disavowing his right to instruct
the Norwegians, and sometimes striking an attitude
of excessively modest self-deprecation, Walther
nevertheless leaves no room for doubt that he is
their master and arbiter in all matters of doctrine

and church life. In his conviction that he writes
his every word on the basis of God's Word, Walther‘s
certainty of his position is complete. Kindliness

and piety are blended with an assumption of virtual
infallibility.1

In a voluminous correspondence Walther encouraged the Nor-
wegian Synod leaders that in spite of intense opposition they
must remain true. Walther once wrote,

Let men despise us outwardly ever so much, yet in
their conscience they fear your synod and our synod
as the rightful heirs of the great Reformer, who
alone have the genuine Successio_doctrinitotis.
Sinners we are, that is true; but we have not sinned
against our opponents and have no apology to offer.

 

It was this uncompromising attitude amd dogmatism
of Walther that was to be seen in the controversies which
rent the Synod during its existence, including the debate of
the role of the laity in the church, the controversy over
slavery, election, and the American common school.

The question of lay activity disrupted early the
unity of the NOrwegian Synod. Eielsen and his fellow
Haugeans stressed as had Hauge in NOrway that laymen had a
right to preach. The Reverend P. A. Rasmussen, who in spite
of Haugean leanings had joined the Norwegian Synod, took the

position that limiting the role of the layman weakened the

 

lBelgum, p. 348.

21bid., p. 366.

130

historic Lutheran position of the priesthood of the believer.
Rasmussen was of the opinion that

Laymen should certainly not be denied the right of
public prayer or edification by mutual teaching of
the WOrd of God. In accordance with Article XIV of
the Augsburg Confession formal preaching should,
Rasmussen and others agreed, be left to especially
trained and ordained men; but public leadership in
prayer and the right of assembly for mutual edifi-
cation were outside the intention of Article XIV.

Rasmussen soon discovered that his fellow pastors
were not all going to agree to this Haugean position on lay
activity. One of the pastors who dissented from Rasmussen's
views was J. A. Ottesen, one of the most conservative theo-
logians of the Norwegian Synod. But Rasmussen was not to

struggle alone, for

. at a meeting held in Chicago, August 28—31,
1860, to settle the two year-old controversy, he
joined with H. A. Preus, Laur. Larsen, Nils Brandt,
V. Kbren, and C. F. Magelssen to holding to a strict
interpretation of Article XIV. Ottesen had written
several articles for publication in Kirkeliq
Maanedstidende in its issue of 1859.

In 1862 he drew up a set of theses setting forth the con—

servative interpretation of Article XIV.3

1Ibid., p. 345.

21bid., pp. 345, 346.

3Blegen has written, "These theses, which constituted
a synodical decision, may be summed up briefly: the office
of the public ministry is instituted by God, who has not
instituted any other order for the 'public edification' of
Christians; the act of leading public edification is an exer-
cise of the public ministry; it is 'sin when anyone without
a call or in the absence of need undertakes this'; in the
case of real need, however, anyone who can exercise the
office of public ministry in prOper Christian order has both

131

Rasmussen, however, was not without his supporters
xMho did not view the role of the laity in this manner and
.also saw the hand of Walther behind the position of Ottesen
emnd those who held to his View. The Reverend B. J. Muusl

‘nas one of the leaders of the Synod

who proceeded to charge his colleagues with
too much formalism at this point. After much study
of Article XIV, he had to admit that he was unable
to understand it. It was clear to him that the
article specified a public ministry not shared by
the laymen, but the line of demarcation between the

spheres of the pastor and the laymen, he had never
been able to trace.2

The laymen of the Norwegian Synod did not accept
‘Nithout resentment this stress on the position of the clergy
and the somewhat inferior position of the laity. However,
it was the controversy over slavery which was to excite them
to a much greater degree than did the laity debate. In some
‘Ways it is rather strange that an issue of this nature should

have arisen among a people so passionately in love with

~

the right and the duty to do so. The Synod defined this
need, or emergency, as the absence of a pastor; or the pre-
sence of a falsely teaching pastor or a pastor who could not
serve the people 'sufficiently.'" Theodore C. Blegen,_NgE-
jgegian Migration to America: The American Transition (North-
field: N.A.H.A., 1940), p. 165.

lBernt J. Muus (1832-1900) attended the University
in NOrway and was a teacher there for two years before emi-
grating to America. He was an energetic pastor and estab-
lished an academy in the parsonage in Holden, Minnesota. He
was one of the founders of St. Olaf College in NOrthfield.
.Muus enjoyed the rough-and-tumble of controversy and was one
Of the principal spokesmen of the NOrwegian Synod against
the American common school.

2Nelson and Fevold, p. 166.

132

freedom as were the Nbrwegians. The Eielsen Synod, deeply
affected by the egalitarian philosophy of Hans Nielsen Hauge,
as early as 1846 incorporated into their constitution, "We,
standing united, wholly repudiate the fearful sin of giving
our approval to the slave traffic: rather shall we employ
all possible diligence to promoting and supporting opposition
to it, with a View to the freeing of the Negroes."l The

first Nbrwegian-American newspaper, Nordlyset, established

 

in Muskego in 1847, was anti-slave and pro-Freesoil Party.

When Knud Langeland became editor of the Democraten in 1850

 

he "accused the South of extending slavery into the terri-

tories and predicted a dissolution of the Union unless pre-
. . . 2

ventive measures were taken against slavery extens1on." In

1866 Langeland and John Anderson founded the Skandinaven,

 

and Langeland was concerned with the slavery issue before
and during the Civil War and also after the War was con—
cluded. "The slavery system was legally dead; nevertheless
many were apprehensive of its restoration as a result of
President Andrew Johnson's states' right tendencies."3 How-
ever, Langeland was perhaps more concerned with what was de-
veloping in the NOrwegian Synod--the notion that slavery was

theologically sound.

 

lBlegen, Norwegian Migration to America: The Ameri-
Qan Transition, p. 419.

2Arlow W. Andersen, "Knud Langeland: Pioneer Edi-
tor," _§tudies and Records, Vol. XIV, 1944, p. 125.

3Ibid., p. 125.

 

133

The controversy over slavery in the NOrwegian Synod
in the 1860's was connected with the Concordia Seminary in
St. Louis where they had been sending their students since
1859. There had been rumors for some time in the NOrwegian
settlements that the Concordia faculty and NOrwegian Pro-
fessor Larsen sympathized with the South. Laur. Larsen had

published a short notice in Emigranten to the effect that

 

the Seminary in St. Louis had closed and that the students had
been sent home. After the publication of the notice by
Larsen, editor C. F. Solberg asked for a statement as to the
loyalty or lack of loyalty of the faculty at St. Louis and
also the personal views of Larsen on the question. It had
been rumored that the Confederacy flag flew daily over the
Seminary building in St. Louis "and that it was not lowered
until the energetic commander of the Northern trOOpS aimed a
cannon at the Seminary tower."l

Laur. Larsen did not appreciate this demand that he
make known his personal views on the slavery issue. He felt
that as a clergyman he did not have to reveal his political
views. A month later Solberg again challenged him to make
his views known on his position on the "Rebellion." Finally,
with the aid of Preus and Ottesen, he drafted a statement

which appeared in_§migranten June 17.

 

It marshaled Scriptural authority from both the Old
and the New Testament in support of the view that
slavery is not sin, took the position that rebellion

1Nelson and Fevold, p. 173.

134

invariably is sin, but expressed some doubt that se-
cession constituted rebellion. In fact, Larsen said,
he had heard some good reasons why a state has a
right to secede, but he did not consider himself suf—
ficiently familiar with the constitution, laws, and
history of the United States to pass judgment on that
question.
It was true, however, that the Missouri Synod sympathized
with the South. The Missouri Compromise had brought Missouri
in as a slave state, "Thus, the German Lutherans in St.
Louis found themselves in a generally pro-slavery environ-
ment."2 In addition, Walther and other leaders of the Synod,
"had no sympathies with the newly organized Republican
party."3 But perhaps even more important was Walther's po-
sition based on the Scriptures, and his position was not too
different from that held by the Southern clergy who were
apologists for the "Peculiar Institution."

The stage was now set for a debate on slavery at the
NOrwegian Synod meeting to begin on June 26, 1861, at Rock
Prairie in the Luther Valley Church. As pastors and lay
delegates gathered there was an undercurrent of expectation
and the slavery question was on everyone's mind. There was

no question where the vast majority of laymen stood on this

issue for they were "intensely patriotic and filled with

 

lBlegen, Norwegian Migration to America: The Ameri-
can Transition, p. 424.

 

2Nelson and Fevold, p. 169.

3Ibid., p. 169.

135

abhorrence of slavery and secession."l They were soon to
learn, however, that their pastors were to have quite an-
other point of view on the question. The pastors took the
position that
this was not a question of politics, natural rights,
or even emotion. It was a question of the authority
of the Bible. But recognizing the threat to the
churches inherent in the situation, they were re-
luctant to press their convictions.

But if the clergy could see theological implications
in the slavery question, the laity saw it simply as a moral
issue. The majority of the laymen wanted to end the associ-
ation with the Concordia Seminary and to establish their own
theological school. This was the mood prevailing for the
first few days of the meeting. It was on the fourth day of
the Synod meeting that the debate began in earnest. "Larsen
and his supporters took Walther's position and insisted that
the debate be limited to 'slavery in itself' apart from its
social, political, and historical associations. When viewed
in this 'ideal' or abstract manner, slavery could not be

III3

demonstrated Scripturally to be 'sin in itself. The lay-

Inen, although they may not have been acquainted with the
Sophist philosophers of ancient Greece, considered the

pastors' arguments as pure sophism. Erik Ellefsen, a farmer

1Nelson and Fevold, p. 173.

2Ibid., p. 173.

3I19_i_c_i_~. p. 174.

136

from Iowa, said that one could not solve this problem by
arguments of this nature, and he insisted that slavery had
to be considered as it then existed. It was no time for
sophisticated arguments when at that very moment the "Re-
bellion" was compelling their sons and neighbors to take up
arms, and the Norwegians were to contribute their share.1
To the laymen the blood letting could only be justified if
slavery was declared to be an unjust, immoral institution
which must be abolished from the soil of America.

The laymen, however, were not completely alone in
their stand. At least three pastors agreed with the laymen.
These were J. N. Fjeld, B. J. Muus, and C. L. Clausen. The
pro—slavery pastors, particularly H. A. Preus and J. A.
Ottesen, believed that the anti-slavery faction could be
silenced by an authoritarian statement,for they were fearful
that a split was developing in the Synod over the issue. In
some rather strange maneuvering

Clausen and the other pastors who had not supported
Larsen's central thesis were persuaded to affix

their signatures to the following resolution. 'Al-
though according to the Word of God, it is not in and

by itself a sin to keep slaves, nevertheless it is
itself an evil and a punishment from God. We condemn

 

lThe NOrwegian settlers responded to President

Lincoln's call. In Wisconsin the Fifteenth Wisconsin was
organized under Colonel Hans Christian Heg who was later
killed at the battle of Chickamauga. "One Scandinavian-
American historian believes that one in every six Norwegians
in the NOrthwestern states served in the Civil War; another
has placed the total between six and seven thousand, in-
cluding four thousand from Wisconsin." Blegen, Norwegian Mi-
gration to America: The American Transition, p. 389.

 

 

137

all abuses and sins connected therewith, and further—

more, when official duties require it and when

Christian love and wisdom demand it, we will work

for its abolition.'"
The anti-slavery pastors signed reluctantly and the pro-
slavery faction believed that they had prevented a division
in the Synod.2 But even more important for the Synod leaders,
it was a victory for the teaching of the Word of God.

The peace was short-lived, however, for a few weeks
later C. L. Clausen shocked the Nbrwegian Synod by writing
to Larsen and Ottesen that he no longer accepted the pastors'
declaration and that he considered his signature to that docu-
ment to have been given under pressure. Clausen asked that
his name be stricken from the document and that it was an ex-
pedient measure to silence the laymen present. He had come
to believe "that slavery was in direct opposition to the
spirit of Christianity, particularly the injunction to 'love
thy neighbor as thyself’; and in this retraction he described
the pastors' declaration as a web of sophistry.”3 Soon after
Clausen joined Heg's Fifteenth Regiment as Chaplain.
The Civil War after years of bitterness and blood

ended with the Nbrth victorious over the secession of the

Southern Confederacy. The war among the NOrwegians was not

 

1Nelson and Fevold, p. 175.

2The vote on the resolution is interesting. "Only
twenty-eight out of sixty-six indicated approval. Ten voted
an out-right 'No' and twenty-eight declined to vote." Blegen,

Nbrwegian Migration to America: The American Transition,
p. 425.

3Ibid., p. 431.

138

over, however, for the conservatives were still insisting
that Walther's theological position was correct, that slavery
"in and by itself is not sin."

The Norwegian Lutheran College meanwhile had moved
from a parsonage in Wisconsin to a building on the Northwest
corner of Winnebago and Main Streets in Decorah, Iowa, during

1 For sometime the rumor circulated

the summer of 1862.
around town and through the NOrwegian settlements that the
Norwegian school at Decorah was a den of "copperheads”--
slavery defenders who sought to ”spread their poison among
the liberty-loving, promising young generation of our people
in America."2
R. B. Anderson was a student at the school at the

time and tells an interesting story about the evening the
news came to Decorah that the Nbrth had won the War:

On the 9th or 10th of April, 1865, a report came to

Decorah that General Lee had surrendered and that

the rebellion had collapsed. The report set the

whole town wild. In the evening all Decorah was il—

luminated. Every tallow dip and every kerosene lamp

was shining in the windows. All the people were out
and making all the noise they possibly could. When

 

1It is interesting to note that this building is
still standing in downtown Decorah. However, the buildings
on the campus in West Decorah have not been so durable.
"The present 'Main' building is the third 'Main' to stand on
the same site; the two preceeding have been destroyed by
fire." Bulletin of Luther College Catalog 1966-1968, Vol.

XLVI, p. 9.

2C. A. Clausen (translator and editor), "A NOrwegian
Schoolmaster Looks at America," Studies and Records, Vol.
XIII, 1943, p. 87.

139

people met they embraced each other. The saloons
were filled and everybody was treating the crowd.

I saw one man sitting on his horse in front of the
bar inside of a saloon hurrahing for General Grant
and the Union and for Abraham Lincoln and asking
everybody to drink at his expense. It was the most
exciting demonstration that I ever witnessed.1

Then Anderson contrasts the wild jubilation on the night of

victory with what was taking place at the College on the

corner of Winnebago and Main Streets.

At Luther College, still located downtown, all was
noiseless and perfectly dark. The College did not
in any way take part in the general rejoicing. The
professors were busy looking for students in the
crowds and sending them home. This gloom of the
College made a deep impression on the citizens and
revived talk about "copperheads." The day after
some citizens called a mass meeting at the court-
house and sent a demand to the professors to appear

before this mass meeting and declare their attitude.

Anderson goes on to describe the events of the next day

in

front of the courthouse in Decorah as people massed around

to view this no doubt questionable procedure:

Professor Larsen, Professor Schmidt and Professor
Siewers were escorted to the courthouse where

questions were put to them and each one had to state

his position on the great subject that for four

years had cost the country so much blood and treasure.

They arose in their places and replied that they
meant to be perfectly loyal to the American govern—
ment and were pleased to know that the north had
conquered. They did not wish that their conduct on
the evening above described should be interpreted
as want of loyalty or as sympathy with secession.
The replies were considered satisfactory. Had not
such a meeting been held and the proper assurance

 

lRasmus B. Anderson, Life Story (Madison: Private

 

Printing, 1917, sec. ed.), pp. 69-70.

21bid., p. 70.

140
been given there is no telling what might have
happened to the school and its professors.l

There is probably some truth in this account by
Anderson, but then there were occasions when he would alter
the circumstances for his own purposes.

The interesting aspect of the slavery controversy
was that it became so intense after the Civil War. The
pastors continued to believe that Walther's position was cor-
rect, and therefore a military or political decision could
not make it theologically sound. An appeal was made to the
Theological Faculty Christiania to get their opinion on the
question. Professors Gisle Johnson and C. P. Caspari re-
plied to the Synod that, "Slavery . . . was no divine
institution, but a fruit of sin intruding upon the world
against God's will. Slavery pertains to the heathen world

and Christianity must seek its abolition."3 This

 

1Ibid., p. 70.

2The Decorah Republican does not report this inci—
dent. In fact for several decades this American weekly had
relatively little to say about the Nbrwegians or Luther
College. There were, however, from time to time small news
items or announcements of coming events. There was no evi-
dence of a "Know-Nothing" spirit. An illustration of this
rather positive attitude of the native American toward the
NOrwegians in this area can be seen in the following item in
the paper on July 9, 1869, "About two hundred NOrwegian emi-
grants passed up the railroad on the night train, July 5th.
They were enroute to Minnesota. The NOrwegian people make
good citizens, and we say, Come and welcome, to the broad
prairies of Iowa and Minnesota."

3Blegen, Norwegian Migration: The American Tran-
sition, p. 440.

141

communication stating the position of the faculty on slavery
was received in 1863 but was not published by the Synod
leaders primarily because it supported the position of
Clausen and not Walther and the pro-slavery faction.

Finally in 1866 the correspondence was published. Clausen
was encouraged, but, nevertheless both H. A. Preus and
Clausen went to NOrway in 1867 to confer with Professor
Gisle Johnson. Although both men claimed that Johnson sided
with him, "one comment by Johnson was significant. He said
that he considered the question to be a matter to be settled
by history rather than by the Scriptures."1 Here then was
the basic difference between the followers of Walther and
Clausen and his supporters. The slavery question could not
be decided on Scripture alone; God's progressive revelation
could not be ignored.

The NOrwegian Synod's leadership, however, did not
change their opinion and when the Synod met in Chicago in
1868, Clausen was asked to sign a series of ten theses which
in essence amounted to a surrender of his principles and all
that he had so gallantly fought for. The result was that
Clausen and about a dozen other pastors and congregations
left the Norwegian Synod.

In conclusion it would seem that the Norwegian Synod

had won the victory over the humanitarian feelings of Clausen

 

1Nelson and Fevold, p. 177.

142

and those who followed his thinking on the slavery question.
There was just too much of the spirit of the Jacksonian era
in Clausen to feel at home with the elitism of the leaders
of the Nbrwegian Synod. Blegen has written:

Notwithstanding his ministerial rank, he was es-

sentially a lay leader. Some historians reject the

idea that the struggle was in any sense one between

the common people and a clerical aristocracy--a

transfer to American soil of the antipathy of Nor-

wegian commoners for an entrenched officialdom; but

in a wide-ranging controversy, many elements crowd

about the central issues, and there undoubtedly was

some contemporary interpretation of the controversy

in terms of such a class division, especially during

its later stages.1

Before we turn to the common school controversy we
see another illustration of "uncompromising orthodoxy" and
the struggle for the truth in the Norwegian Synod in the
"Election" controversy. The slavery controversy had cost
the Synod a number of churches but was little in comparison
to what would be lost in the election split. U. V. Kbren
once wrote, "The slavery question was child's play compared
with this: I don't know whether we can survive."
The NOrwegian Synod had always prided itself in its

"doctrinal purity" and that it was united on all important
questions, but it soon became evident that the unity was to

be seriously divided on the question of election. As with

the slavery question it is indeed strange that a controversy

 

1Blegen,__I\_IOrwegian Migration: The American Tran-
sition, p. 452.

2Belgum. p. 388.

143

of this nature should have been raised in a Lutheran Synod.
Historically, this kind of theological argumentation was
found generally in the Reformed churches which stressed
Calvinistic theology. An important difference between the
two divisions of Protestantism has been that "the doctrine
of predestination, or God's election of men to salvation, is
not a central doctrine in Lutheran theology, and predesti-
nation to damnation (reprobation) is completely alien
since Lutheran theology has its point of departure in the
love of God rather than in the sovereignty of God, in con-
trast to Calvinism, it emphasizes the redemption of all
men."1

At the heart of this theological question was the
place that man plays in his conversion. Does man have a
part, or is man incapable of responding unless God draws him
by His sovereign Will? This then was an old question, but
one which was to be debated anew within the NOrwegian Synod.

In 1876 the NOrwegian Synod had established its own
seminary in Madison, Wisconsin. Friedrich Augustus Schmidt
(1837-1928) had been a professor at Concordia Seminary for
several years where he had been highly regarded by Walther
and the other faculty members. When it became known that

the Nbrwegians intended to take Schmidt to their new Seminary,

Walther pleaded with the leaders of the Synod not to take

 

1Nelson and Fevold, p. 254.

144

him. However, Schmidt left Concordia and it was not long
before he lost his high status with Walther and other theo-
logians in St. Louis. The Missouri Synod had its own debate
on election and in 1877 set forth its official position.
"In this statement, Schmidt believed that he detected a
Calvinistic tendency. He soon came to agree fully with the
repudiated asperheim."l Schmidt went on to accuse the Mis-
sourians with a "crypto-Calvinism" which was contrary to the
historic Lutheran creeds.

This charge by Schmidt came as a shock to Walther
and to the theologians of the Norwegian Synod. Walther did
not reply to the charge made by Schmidt for over a year.
But all knew that it was only a matter of time before the
able theologian Schmidt had to be answered. Meanwhile the
tiny faculty in Madison was divided on the question. Fellow
teachers, Stub and Ylvisaker, lectured against Schmidt.
Schmidt, however, found ready allies in the Norwegian press
who were always interested in feuds in the NOrwegian Synod:
often these controversies were means of increasing circu-
lation, andtflmnr"usually presented Schmidt's 'anti-Missourian'
viewpoint."2 The pro-Missourians were, with few exceptions

the older Nbrwegian Synod pastors. Schmidt was accused of

 

1Ibid., p. 382.

2Belgum, p. 383.

145

"adherence to the synergistic and semi-Pelagian doctrine
that man somehow cooperates in the salvation of his soul."1

As the controversy wore on, debated in Synod meetings,
church periodicals, and the secular press, the debate seemed
to revolve around the "Forms." It was on the first form
that Walther based his theology. This was found in Article
XI of the Formula of Concord which was essentially the
Calvinistic Reformed View that God elects "solely because of
God's grace and mercy."2 Not all Lutherans agreed that this
was the correct "form" as many accepted Aegidius Hunnius
(1550-1603) a German Lutheran theologian who said, "Election
is that act of God from eternity which before the foundation
of the world was laid, determined to glorify all those whom
He foresaw would come to faith in Christ until the end."3

U. V. Koren was the "Missourian" leader among the
Norwegians in the Election Controversy who claimed that the
first ”form" was correct, that this was the View that had
been taught him at the Theological Faculty, and he had
lecture notes to prove it. However, the Norwegian State
Church had accepted the second form and it is highly im-
probable that he received this view at Christiania. His view

was basically that of Walther who had a great influence on

Kbren's thinking.

 

1Ibid., p. 383.

2Ibid., p. 385.

3Ibid., p. 385.

146

What had begun as a theological debate ended in
personality conflict. Schmidt was attacked by his former
admirer, Walther, who said that "Schmidt was motivated by
personal animus, by thwarted ambitions, and by growing intel-
lectual conceit rather than by concern for the truth."1
Walther's influence on the Synod continued to increase during
the Election Controversy. Belgum who is sympathetic to the
NOrwegian Synod wrote,

Ianrief, there is no room for doubt that C. F. W.
Walther was the unseen force behind the Norwegian
Synod from 1858 until 1866. Whether that force was
a blessing or a curse upon NOrwegian-American
Lutheranism is still a controverted question. Cer-
tainly, the encounter with Walther was fateful.2

The actual schism took place in October, 1882, at
the Synodical Conference. Professor Schmidt was an official
delegate from the Minnesota district. However, when he ar-
rived he was refused a seat as a delegate.

The anti—Missouri faction in the Spring of 1883 had
been successful in having the president of the Synod, H. A.
Preus, and his son removed from their church in Norway Grove,
Wisconsin. In 1886 the anti-Missourians opened a Theologi-
cal Seminary at Northfield on the campus of St. Olaf College.
The next year the NOrwegian Synod by a vote of 203 to 98

voted that this act was disruptive and those responsible

were disloyal to the Norwegian Synod. For the anti-Missouri

 

lIbid., pp. 410, 411.

21bid., p. 411.

147

faction to be restored to fellowship there must be confession
of wrong doing. To this demand, "Thirty pastors and twenty-
seven lay delegates answered formally that they could not
close the Lutheran Seminary in NOrthfield as long as the
'Missouri” doctrine of election and conversion was taught at
the schools of the Synod."1

The break was now final and in 1887 and 1888 congre-
gation after congregation withdrew from the Norwegian Synod
and joined the "Anti—Missourian Brotherhood." Approximately
one—third of the churches joined the Brotherhood. However,
that Brotherhood was never organized into a synod as the
leadership was looking forward to union with other NOrwegian
Lutheran Synods rather than to form another. There had been
talk of union in the air for years, but it was the anti-
Missouri group under the leadership of Pastor J. H. Kildahl
who brought together the Conference and the Norwegian
Augustana Synod in a merger which became the United Nor-
wegian Lutheran Church in America. This union took place in
1890.

After a View of the controversies which rent the
NOrwegian Synod one must conclude that the Norwegians en-
joyed debate and argumentation, but it can also be concluded
that the elitist leaders of the Norwegian Synod were not

sufficiently sensitive to the spirit of their own
people. Nor were they sufficiently able to realize

 

lBelgum, p. 414.

148

that they tended toward a rigorous and logical
purism which these people were unable to share or
appreciate. Their spirit has often been in-
terpreted by such words, 'doctrinaire,’ 'arrogant,‘
and 'exclusivistic.' More charitably, their weak-
ness may be seen as a failure to realize that their
spiritual children could be given more freedom with-
out compromise of fundamental doctrine or deep
Christian convictions.

In summarizing the religious situation at the time
of the American school controversy there can be little
question but that, when it came to religion, the Norwegian
immigrant was factious and seemed to enjoy religious debate
and controversy. The Norwegian immigrant had some fourteen
separate Lutheran Synods to choose from in addition to NOr-
wegian Baptist and Methodist churches. Furthermore, the
Mormon church proved appealing to many Norwegians.

Before the Civil War the Norwegian immigrants found
themselves in principally one of three Lutheran groups.
First, there was the Synod of Elling Eielsen. This was the
"low" church among the Lutherans, the heirs of Hans Nielsen
Hauge, and it stressed the right of laymen to preach, congre-
gational autonomy, and personal piety. It supported the
American common school. However, although it was certainly
influential, it was never a major force among the Norwegians

and was further weakened by the withdrawal of a number of

its members who in 1875 formed the Hauge Synod.

 

lBelgum, p. 425.

149

Secondly, there was the "middle way" in Lutheranism
represented by the Nbrwegian—Danish Augustana Synod, the
Conference of the NOrwegian-Danish Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America, and the Synod of Northern Illinois. This
I‘middle way" which took a position between "low" and "high"
church tendencies supported the American common school.

Thirdly, there was the "Synod" as it was popularly
known in the NOrwegian—American communities. The simplicity
of its name indicates something of the size, influence,
prestige, and power of the Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran
Church of America. It was led by university trained
Ininisters who considered themselves to be the counterpart of
the NOrwegian State Church. It was traditional, formalistic,
23nd stressed above all the necessity of "pure doctrine."

{The Nbrwegian Synod served the majority of Norwegians for
snaveral years. This Synod is of particular interest to this
ciiAssertation because of its opposition to the American school
System and the long controversy with the lay leadership who
Supported the American school and opposed the plan of the
syunodfs ministers to build their own parochial school system.

We are now prepared to examine the controversy which

iis 'the principal interest of this dissertation--that common
SC&1C301 controversy which was concomitant with the other
C01'l‘tlroversies of the Synod. One might suppose that with the
halrdi work.required of pioneer immigrants that there would be

lititlle time for controversy, but this was not the case.

150

Perhaps controversy played a psychological function on a
frontier which was often for the immigrant a most difficult

and lonely existence.

CHAPTER IV

THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE AMERICAN SCHOOL

AMONG THE NORWEGIAN AMERICANS

It seems strange indeed, in the light of the contro-
versy over the American school which was to rage in the
Nbrwegian settlements some years later, that the early Nor-
wegian immigrants did not oppose the American common school
but sent their children to them. Even the high churchly
pastor, J. W. C. Dietrichson, when he arrived in Muskego in
1844 supported the American school and helped to establish
a district school for the immigrants in the area. In ad—
dition to aiding the establishment of a district school he
also founded a church school and employed a teacher using
his own funds. Blegen has written, "In the parochial school
instruction was restricted to religion and choral singing,
‘With the understanding that the common school would furnish
.instruction in English and other studies."

However, as the university trained anti-Grundtvigian

ENastors arrived one by one from NOrway they were critical,

 

 

lTheodore C. Blegen, NOrwegian Migration to America:
EIH§_American Transition (NOrthfield: The Norwegian-American
Association, 1940), p. 245.

151

152

not only of Dietrichson's theology, but also of the American
common school. Dietrichson, however, found no fault with
the American school as long as adequate religious teaching
was given in the church school. One of the early critics of
the American school system was the Reverend H. A. Stub who
saw little good in a school where NOrwegian was not taught
and where students would eventually be lost to the Lutheran
faith. Stub believed that not only would the faith be lost
but the Nbrwegian language and heritage as well.

The somber clergyman, Olauleredrik Duus, expressed
freely his dislike of the American common school. He wrote
to relatives in Norway:

Under such circumstances one cannot expect things to
be different here. When I say in 'the schools' I
mean the public schools, because in private schools
one naturally may give instruction in whatever one
chooses. We Norwegian Lutherans take turns in having
school in our homes just as we did in NOrway. But we
are, so far as I know, the only sect that follows
this practice.1
The schools in the homes of the immigrants were not unlike
the omgangsskolen which were peripatetic and moved from one
farm to another in Nbrway. Duus made some harsh comments

about the American school teachers, charges which would be

made repeatedly in the next twenty-five years in the

 

1Frontier Parsonage: The Letters of Olaus Fredrik
Duus, NOrwegian Pastor in Wisconsin, 1855-1858, Translated

 

by the Verdandi Study Club of Minneapolis and edited by
Theodore C. Blegen (NOrthfield: Nbrwegian—American Histori-
cal Association, 1947), p. 95.

153

Nbrwegian_Lutheran Synod. Duus said on another occasion,
describing a meeting with an American school teacher:

I have talked with teachers in these common schools,
which are supported by public funds, fairly well
educated men, who have never been baptized and who'
had to admit to me that they do not know the Lord's
Prayer. The answer to my question, 'Do you belong

to any church?‘ is usually, 'No sir.' 'But you are
baptized, I suppose?’ 'No, sir; what is that good
for?‘

After the Nbrwegian Synod was reorganized in 1853
the Synod and its leaders began to make its position clear.
This was done in synod meetings, synod minutes, and official
publications and a large number of articles and letters to
the editors of Nbrwegian newspapers. In a day with limited
means of communication these sources for expression of the
Synod's position were extremely important.

Although a formal philosophy of education was never
attempted by the leadership of the Synod, it is clear that
they possessed one, and it was blended with their theological
views. From the many references in their written work they
were greatly concerned with the child, and, particularly,
the Norwegian Lutheran children who were being reared in a
strange land. Repeatedly we read statements, such as, "As
Christians we hold that our children's secular good must al—

ways be secondary to the eternal."2 Although they admitted

 

11bido: p. 95.

2Synodalberetning, Manitowoc, Wisconsin: June 20-28,
1866, p. 23.

154

that the state did have some claims on the individual, the
Synod agreed with St. Augustine that there were indeed two
cities--the City of God and the City of man. The "worldly"
or secular person is one who "believes that worldly affairs

1 But the Christian

are considered to be the most important."
child "must first and foremost be educated to be a citizen
of heaven."2 The Synod, however, also realized that the
Christian, although a citizen of heaven, was also very much
a part of the present world. This world was material and
heathen and the Christian must live in it, but he need not
be a part of this world. Even if people in America "live
like Lot in Sodom," this does not mean that you must go and
sit with him in the gate.

American society was viewed as dangerous by the
Synod's pastors. They often compared conditions in America
with the plight of the early Christians in Rome who also
found themselves amid heathen people. These were civilized
heathen, true, but the Christian did not send his children
to their schools but taught them God's Word in the family
circle, and conditions in America were not much different.
The Synod's ministers, at least, viewed the Americans much
like heathen. On one occasion a writer asked the question,

"How do we look at the person who has not been baptized?

‘When we were in Nbrway we looked at them as gypsies or as

 

1Ibid., p. 33.

w

21bid., p. 33.

155

tramps. Here we do not need to go outside our door before
we see these unbaptized people."l NOt only was the American
viewed as a heathen, but even as church members they were
considered inconsistent. "They remain in the church and
give their service to Christ, but in their business they are
crafty people of the world."2

Perhaps American society had been Christian during
the Colonial period, the Synod admitted, but since the state
had taken over the schools, the result had been that the
greatest number of people received little or no Christian
teaching, and most people were strangers to the Christian
faith and remained outside the church. It was in this kind
of society that the NOrwegian Lutheran feared to rear his
children.

The Christian child, even though he was fallen and
was completely depraved in a state of sin, no amount of edu-
cation or instruction could get him to heaven. However,
when the child was baptized, the Holy Spirit caused him to
be "born again."3 The baptized child now must be reared and

nurtured in a Christian educational environment. Education,

therefore, to the Nbrwegian Synod became a matter of deep

 

lIbid., p. 33.

#

2Evangelisk Lutherske Kirketidende, December 8, 1876,
p. 769.

3Synodalberetning, LaCross, Wisconsin: June 21-29,
1873. p. 25.

156

concern, and considerable Space was devoted to the topic of
“what constitutes good education." The purposes of education
interested the Synod. They asked questions like, "How does
one look at life?" "What kind of character is to be de-
veloped?“ "Is this life and this world the only consider-
ation?" or "Should the aim of education.lxamainly the con-
sideration of the heavenly?" The answer of the Synod was
clear and it was repeated often, "The aim of the school
should be to help the parents give their children an edu-
cation and rearing both for their eternal and secular call-
ing."l It became quite clear that the Lutheran Christians
who established themselves in the United States were people
of the Book--the Bible--as much as any Puritan had been. The
Bible was referred to repeatedly as "God's Word" and was
central in their thinking, their church, and in their edu-
cational system. This vieWpoint which described the curricu-
lum of the religious school was clearly stated in 1873:

"The main point is what God said, what the church always
practices must be the main consideration in getting
knowledge." To understand the Word of God such secular sub-
jects as "writing, arithmetic, language, mathematics, history,
geography, and the natural science can give a greater under-

standing of the Word of God."2

 

1Ibid., p. 26.

m

2Ibid., p. 27.

157

Education then was very important to the leaders of
the Synod and to those who sympathized with their point of
view. A child learned what would be the direction of his
life by the kind of nurture and instruction which he received
in the school, an education which would not only prepare him
for this life but also for the life to come. The Synod out-
lined somewhat its philosophy of education in the following
statement:

1. The family, the church, and the state. All three

of these institutions must be interested in the

child and take an interest in him.

2. God has given to the parents the child to be

reared to learn. They, the parents, have the

power to give the foundational teaching about

God and His WOrd. So that the foundations can

be laid . . . the parents must bring their

children to baptism to Christ.

3. It is the parents' duty to see to it that the

new spiritual powers which are created in the

child at baptism be maintained and strengthened

so that the new light, influence, and power can

be strengthened by the Spirit.1

The Synod consistently maintained that the child was
the parent's responsibility, the church and the school could
help, but the ultimate responsibility remained with the
parent. The parents, they insisted, "must show this concern
for their children by prayers, instruction, by instilling

the fear of God, and by showing a good example."2 The

parents must be Christians themselves and bring up their

 

1Ibid., p. 26.

2Ibid., p. 26.

158

children by the teaching of God's word. In addition to home
teaching they must also bring their children to the services
of the church and provide spiritual reading for the family
and lead the family in the discussion of spiritual matters.1
The parents were not to neglect the physical comforts of
their children, and above all, they were to see to it that
the children were properly disciplined and must not spare the
rod when it was needed. The Synod was careful to point out
in numerous places that the church did not have primary re-
sponsibility for the child. The Synod's position was that
"The church has no right to take away from the parents power
over the child and to punish them. It has no right to take
and baptize the child and teach the child nor to force the
parents to do these things."2 But the Synod did claim the
right to warn the parents who were members of the church and
to use church discipline when it was deemed necessary.3

The question was raised as to the relationship of
the state to the parent with regard to authority over the
child. The position of the Synod was that neither the church
nor the state was above the parents. If there was conflict
between the state and the parent, the final decision must

rest with the parent. They said, If God did not give the

 

1Ibid., p. 26.

2Ibid., p. 28.

3Ibid., p. 29.

159

responsibility to the parents, and gave it to the state,
then the parents would be free. When the school takes over
this responsibility which God has given to the parents

then the parents have no obligation to obey the state's de—
mands. The Scriptures make it very plain that it is the
parents' responsibility.“1 The debate ranged over the whole
area of the citizen-state responsibility, and it was agreed
that the state must have the authority in the temporal order.
The Synod insisted that the Bible taught that there are two
kingdoms, God's kingdom and Caesar's kingdom, and, as Christ
said, they should honor both of them. The Synod warned that
they must be careful that they did not set up another king-
dom where the state had no authority. NOr could parents
rear their children as they please but must bring them up in
the fear of God and the Bible.2 The position of the Synod
was that the state indeed could expect something from the
parents in the temporal realm. These men had great respect
for law and order, and anarchy was foreign to their thinking.
On the other hand, the state must not violate the conscience
of the Christian nor "violate the spiritual, or violate the
WOrd of God. . . . No one should work against their con-

science, 'we must obey God rather than man.'"3 If conditions

 

1

Ibid., p. 29.
2Ibid., p. 29.
3

Ibid., p. 30.

fl

160

in a country became intolerable, they would "find it neces-
sary to move out of the country rather than to obey unfair
laws."l
Although Wisconsin had not as yet passed a Compulsory
School attendance law,2 the Synod knew that it was only a
matter of time before the State enacted one. There was also
the fear, apparently, that the State might not permit re-
ligious private schools. These fears were unfounded, but
there can be no doubt that the Norwegians felt that many
Americans were nativistic inloutlook as the Bennett Law
which prohibited the teaching of a foreign language in the
common school was to illustrate in the 1890's. The objective
of the Synod was that the Norwegian Lutherans need not at—
tend the American common school even if they helped to sup-
port them through taxation. The fact that the common school

was available did not mean that the Norwegian Lutherans

should use them.

 

1Ibid., p. 30.

2Wisconsin passed a compulsory school act in 1889
not long after the controversy over the schools had come to
an end. The law read in part, "Every parent or other person
having under his control a child between the ages of seven
and fourteen years, shall annually cause such a child to at-
tend some public or private day school in the city or district
in which he resides for a period not less than twelve weeks
in each year, which number of weeks shall be fixed prior to
the first day of September in each year by the board of edu-
cation or board of directors of the city, town, or district."
Laws of Wisconsin Related to Common Schools Including Free
High Schools; Also Those Relating to NOrmal Schools and the
University: Under the direction of Jesse B. Thayer, Madison,
Wisconsin, 1890, p. 73.

 

161

Shortly after the Civil War came to a close, the
Norwegian Synod received a proposal from Professor F. A.
Schmidt and Pastor U. V. Kbren suggesting that a study be
made of the school question. The subject of the common
school and the religious school had been discussed before
the War, but during the war little was said about the school
issue. However, all this was to change when the Nbrwegian
Synod met for their annual meeting in Manitowoc, Wisconsin,
in June of 1866. Although only eight of the twenty-seven
articles were acted upon, these statements, by-in-large, ex-
pressed the vieWpoint of the Synod on the school question.
At the previous Synod meeting the Reverend Brandt had been
elected chairman and Professor Schmidt and Professor Larsen
were members of the committee. They reported on June 8,
1866. After a detailed report the following points of what
came to be called the "Manitowoc Declarations" were presented
for both friend and foe of the Synod to see. They were:

1. It is natural for Christians to want Christian
schools for their children.

2. It must be the desire of Christian people in this
country to establish Christian schools in which
it will be possible to learn about the same as
what is learned in the so-called common school, so
we need not make use of them.

3. As state institutions these American common schools
deserve all praise and our support, even if for
our own children we do not make use of them.

4. These schools are the greatest help to that part
of the people who are not Christians and who do
not enjoy Christian teaching.

10.

11.

12.

13.

162

In these schools they do not teach religion which
is a necessary condition of the religious freedom
which we praise, and do enjoy under this country's
administration. But it is also a very sorrowful
testimony about our times, which indicates a fall-
ing away from Christianity into sects.

When you look at the cost to build or add on to
church schools, which is mentioned in paragraph
two, this should not keep Christians from doing
what their child's spiritual needs demand, and
thus save the child from worldliness.

We give our fellow citizens the very best example
when on religious grounds we do not use the common
school. But we should do all we can to aid them.

we work with the best methods to promote unity and
fellowship amongst the people when we obtain for
our children the best Christian education.

All that we have mentioned will work out for us
Lutherans in the United States.

we would not want to put aside the English language
as it is so very important for the growing gener-
ation to learn. But although it is important it
must be accepted as earthly wisdom and must not
hinder the soul's development.

We would also like to become acquainted with the
American school situation, and what we learn there
apply to our own school that which we would find
beneficial.

We must keep out of our schools the spirit of
liberty of which the common school is the nursery.
This is all the more reason not to make use of
these schools for our children.

All of what has been written before is important
even when our common schools are what they ought
to be, but much more important when we know the
conditions in the common schools. They have in—
competent teachers. Some are atheists or openly
immoral. Discipline is very weak in some schools,
in others there are depraved children, and they
(Lutheran children) might come under the in-
fluence of some other faith than ours.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

163

The American common school takes the best time
away from the religious school, and makes it very
difficult to get good religious teachers.

It will be necessary for us to build these re—
ligious church schools so that we will not need to
use the American common school, as well as other
Christians, and those peOple who speak a foreign
language.

It would be much easier to get teachers for such
schools (religious schools), as we could use
religious teachers.

Christian youth who have the potential should
gladly give themselves as Christian school teachers
and the congregations ought to support them in
their preparation.

Where these ideas which have been written about can
be developed, the church members should obtain as
much influence as possible over the district school
by appointment of teachers and setting the time of
the school term.

Where this is not possible and the district school
is operated so that it is a clear danger to the
children's faith or morality, it is the duty of
the parents to keep their children away and to
work for the development of church schools.

Where there is no other alternative, then the
children should attend the English school, after
they are confirmed, to learn English.

A good NOrwegian reading book suitable for this
school should be prepared.

Where it is possible the church must build their
own school houses.

Parents do not have the right to excuse themselves
by saying that their children do not have the time
to attend school because they must work on the
farm.

The children can easily learn two languages, but
should not, as now begin with both languages. The
natural order is to have them learn to read Nor-
wegian fairly well before beginning English.

164

25. Christian zeal and eagerness to see this work ac-
complished is a holy duty and thus we must give
our children Christian education. This can be ac—
complished by sermons, guidance, and by various
other kinds of activities.

26. Christian Sunday Schools are recommended in all
churches but the sects Sunday Schools must we as
Lutherans avoid.

27. Any work with the district school and the church
school will not work because of the existing
laws.

The Manitowoc Declarations on the school issue clear-
ly outlined the Synod's major criticism of the American
common school and their plan to build schools of their own.
This statement on the schools was widely published; thus it
could be studied by both the members and foes of the Nor-
wegian Synod. At the Manitowoc meeting the nature of the
common school in America was debated. A question that was
raised on the floor of the meeting was whether the American
common school could be called a Christian school. "Is the
American common or district school Christian?" The answer
was given, "Not They forbid Christian teaching."2 It was
pointed out that the Bible could be read in the common

school in Iowa but only if the parents did not object to the

practice. But a number argued that the reading of the Bible

 

1Synodalberetning, Manitowoc, Wisconsin: June 20-
28, 1866, pp. 30—32.

21bido , pp. 34-35 0

165

did not make the common school a "Christian school any more
than the Latin schools of Cicero's time were Christian."l

At the Manitowoc meeting members of the Synod de-
bated for a considerable time as to how the American common
school should be characterized, "Many agreed that they had
to be characterized as 'heathen'."2 A common school teacher
spoke at the meeting saying that his job was completely
secular. He describes it in this manner:

I do not have the right to speak to any of the
school's children about religion. I do not have the
right to give Christian guidance or help. A heathen
is not the same as filthy speech, barbarism, or wild.
They are much more civilized 'polished heathen' and
some have better manners than Christians.

Although the majority of the Synod agreed that the
Americans were as "baptized heathen," not all agreed that
the wording was in the best taste. One delegate said that
”their schools were built and established in a Christian
land and by a Christian people and that the state institutions
were Christian, and that he knew of many good Christian
people who were school superintendents and that we should be
careful of what was said about these schools and especially

not use these special names."4 Another speaker took the

view that the American school was a combination of "Christian

 

Ibid , p 35.
{lbid., p. 35.
3;bid., p 35.
elpig., p 35.

166

and heathen. They, the Americans, had denied the teaching
of religion because they did not want to destroy religious
freedom in America." He suggested that "secular" be substi-
tuted for "heathen." He said, “The school was built by the
worldly government and could not be called Christian or
heathen."l

The Synod's leadership responded to these objections
with five points:

1. Schools in this country are not built and main-
tained by Christian people. How then can we call
these people Christian, when the state and govern-
ment through the Constitution and laws does not
confess any Christian religion? And when the
majority of people do not profess Christianity?

2. If a school superintendent is a good Christian,
he can not exhibit his Christianity through the
school. He cannot get religion introduced into
the school as a subject. If he could, religious
freedom would be violated. It is not the person
but the law that rules. If a superintendent
breaks the law then he is not a good citizen but
commits sin.' Since it is a 'sin to do wrong that
we may do good' most of the superintendents have
a false faith. This attitude would permeate the
entire school. They would not only be false in
this or that, but the principle would be false.

3. If anyone was offended by the word 'heathen' there
was no reason to be upset about it when it was the
truth. It is difficult to understand that some do
not want the truth. Some peOple just talk about
fine people and good morals and this is the reason
some people were offended when they were called
'heathen.' But should we not call things by their
right name? We don't feel bad when people call us
Christians. An honest heathen would not feel
shame that they are given the right name. The
word heathen is not so degrading in the eyes of

 

1Ibid., p. 35.

167

people. Socrates was a heathen. He had honor as
a great person and had great knowledge.

4. But just the same we appreciate that the state as-
sumes the responsibility for the popular education,
and that we have complete religious freedom. The
state establishes schools for all their citizens,
and these are of different faiths; then the state
cannot do anything different. To have religion in
the schools would destroy religious freedom.
Therefore, we do honor the schools as a govern-
mental institution. The state's citizens are much
more enlightened and educated, and here they learn
to behave so that they do not act wild and un-
couth. We must take this vieWpoint that we must
look at them as they are and not as we wish them
to be.

5. When it comes to calling these schools 'worldly'
this is their name. The question is not if they
are Christian or not Christian for Christians can
establish worldly schools. They do this when they
teach only secular subjects. But when there is a
Christian attitude and discipline then they are
Christian secular schools. On the other hand,
there are 'heathen—worldly' schools . . . When a
school is held three to six months a year, and
the teacher teaches all subjects then the school
takes so much time in a person's life that it
makes a great impression on a child's soul, heart
and on his whole spiritual life. . . . A Christian
spirit must permeate the school, if not, it is
heathen. The moralistic stories they tell are
without Christ, and a morality without Christ is
against Christ and is heathen. These schools are
without religion, without all Christian elements
because of the law. Schools are substitutes for
the parents' instruction and rearing. Christian
elements are necessary for our children, and
schools must have religion. Therefore a school
without religion is a 'heathen' one for us.

However, in spite of the desire of many to continue
to use the word heathen to describe the American common

school, it was finally decided to use "religionless" as it

 

1Ibid., pp. 35-36.

168

was thought that this would not sound so bad in the ears of
the Americans.1

The Synod also stressed that where the Norwegian
Lutherans were in the majority attempts could be made to get
Lutheran teachers into the common school. "In this way,"
said the report, "the schools could lose most of their
poison."2 They agreed, however, that "for Christ's sake we
cannot use anything but Christian schools, because the
common school by its principle is religionless and not
Christian. Because of this we must agree that in this
country Christians must build their own schools."3 In these
religious schools "they will learn just about the same as
they learn in the so-called common school, and in this way
need not make use of them."4

The question was raised on the floor of the Synod
meeting as to what should be done if there was no religious
school or when there were no qualified religious teachers.
The advice given was that NOrwegian Lutherans ought to
"Think it over for a long time before you send your child to

the district school, for children can be harmed in these

5 0
schools." However, in some cases the parents could make

 

1112.19: p. 37.
2£Ql§-: p. 38.
32218“, p. 39.
{Ibid., p. 39.

SIbid., p. 39.

169

the decision as to how bad an influence the local district
school was. The Synod would not say that the parents must
not send their children to the common school. However, in
any case the dangers ought to be recognized, "In our life in
this heathen world we must be in the world but not a part of
the world. The Christian people in this country are like
'Lot in Sodom'. It is necessary for a father to send his
son to sea, and another to the blacksmith's shop, and there
is always the possibility that the child might be harmed."1
But if this is necessary then we must inform the children to
be on guard and be sure that they have been properly grounded
in the truth. Also a consideration for the Norwegian
Lutheran was that they must be "very careful, and think over
whether it is necessary to live in a locality where there

are no Christian schools for their children."2 If there are
no religious schools then perhaps they should remain where
they are.

This then was the basic position of the NOrwegian
Lutheran Synod's view of the American common school, and
their intention of building their own religious schools so
that it would not be necessary for them to make use of the

American school. This position was to be expressed by both

clergy and laymen through the Norwegian newspapers which

 

1Ibid., p. 39.

21bid., p. 39.

170

served as a public forum for the widely scattered Nbrwegian
settlements. After the Manitowoc Declarations were announced
by the Synod in 1866 Knud Langeland, editor of the recently
established weekly, the Skandinaven, took up the school
question. Editor Langeland "took sharp issue with the theses
adopted by the church body, declared that the clergy evi—
dently intended salvation to be the reward of 'ignorance and
superstition', and called upon the common people to speak

out on the issue."1 Both laymen and clergy did speak out on
the school question and Langeland faithfully printed both
sides of the question. He responded to the Manitowoc Declar-
ations and said that many Norwegians were angry over the
Synod's declarations on the school question, that it perhaps
would be best not to write much until tempers had cooled.2

As for the charge that the American common school was "re-
ligionless," the fact was that "the children read a chapter
from the New Testament and with a short prayer they begin

the school day each morning." "What?" asked Langeland, "Do
we want the district school to become a Lutheran school? Do
we want the wrath of the citizens of this country on the

newly arrived Norwegians?"3 "The Americans," said Langeland,

lBlegen, Nbrwegian Migration to America: The Ameri—
can Transition, p. 257.
2Knud Langeland, Skandinaven, September 6, 1866.

3Ibid.

171

"want to treat all with kindness and love. They have been
pouring out liberty generously . . . They have given much
land to be used for schools. Education is free for every
child whether rich or poor and the result is that we have a
very good school system."1 "No,“ said Langeland, "it would
seem that there is a crumb of unthankfulness on our part
when we characterize our public schools as 'heathen,‘ 'un—
christian,'and 'religionless'."2 Langeland said furthermore
that it was not the Synod's business to tell parents to what
schools they could send their children. If the ministers
want to have religious schools they may have them, but these
schools should not be held when the common school was in
session. Editor Langeland freely admitted that not every-
thing about the public school was ideal. But what was wrong
with the nation's schools was human failure and that fault
can be found with any institution. From the very beginning
Langeland placed his finger on the problem of finances which
was going to hinder the Synod in their attempts to build a
school system. Langeland wrote, "But we must take food from
our mouths in order to establish a parochial school. In
American newspapers we are looked upon along with the
Catholics as an ignorant, superstitious people to which the

priest's will is law."3

 

11bid.

21bid.

3Ibid.

172

Charges of this nature were not to go unchallenged
by the NOrwegian Synod. They were soon answered by Reverend

A. C. Preus, president of the Synod. In the Skandinaven he

 

wrote that it would be difficult indeed to find a more in-
accurate incident of newspaper reporting. Preus said, "The
American schools are ‘religionless' since the school is and
ought to be what the law says it should be, and no teacher
has a right to do anything else. The law forbids religious

1

teaching." Preus pointed out that "when we use this word
(religionless) we are not criticizing the school, or the
school law which makes it religionless. Just the contrary,
we say that this is absolutely correct. It cannot be other-
wise. Only by being religionless could they fulfill what
they were created for—-to be the educational means for all
people . . . we would not wish or say or make these schools
religious."2

A. C. Preus said that Editor Langeland had criticized
the Synod for not being thankful for religious freedom. He
warned the editor of the Skandinaven that he had better not

write so hastily about the Synod because the manner in which

he had written was "libelous."3 Again Preus made the point

 

1A. c. Preus, "The Nbrwegian Synod and the American
Common School," Skandinaven, September 27, 1866.

2.1.1219-
3

Ibid.

173

that the Synod did not wish to do away with the common
school and that they have no enmity against the nation's
schools. He wrote:

. we do not want to lose this (the common school)

as a state institution. We don't want to do this un-
reasonable thing by making them into religious
schools. But we wish that our own schools were so
complete that it would not be necessary for parents
to send their children to these kinds of schools
which are often administered by unbelievers and un—
godly teachers. What right does the editor have to
see 'harm' in these declarations?

NOt only was Editor Langeland to see "harm" in the
Manitowoc Declarations for the Norwegian Americans but so
was John A. Johnson,2 one of the most able laymen, to oppose
the Synod position and support the American school system.
Johnson believed that one of the "most important happenings
in Nbrwegian culture in America was the question of how or
in what manner our children are going to be educated in this
country." He pointed out that there were two different ways

of looking at the problem in 1866, "The one which is held by

most of the Nbrwegian pastors is that the American district

 

lIbid.

2John A. Johnson (1832-1901) was an inventor and
founder of the Gisholt Manufacturing Company in Madison,
Wisconsin. Lloyd Hustvedt has written about Johnson that he
was "perhaps the most influential layman among the early
Nbrwegian Americans. He was a conservative in politics,
liberal in religion, cautious and sound in business, frank
in speech, simple and modest in manner, careful but generous
with his money, honest and moral in all his dealings, gentle,
but not free from stubborness and pride of opinion." Lloyd
Hustvedt, Rasmus Bj¢rn Anderson (Northfield: The Norwegian—
American Historical Association, 1966), p. 55.

174

school is 'heathen,' 'unchristian,‘ and 'religionless' and
therefore is not good for our children who need a Christian
education and we should not use the common school but es-
tablish private schools where children could get both re-
ligious and secular instruction."1 The other view stated by
Johnson was held by the majority of Nbrwegians and that was
that the American district school was not opposed to the
Christian faith, that they could send their children to them
to get the necessary secular education, and that they did
not need private schools which were unnecessary and
impractical.2

Like Langeland, Johnson saw that one of the principal
problems was that of finances. The Norwegians would be
forced into a position of supporting two school systems, the
public school from taxation and the church school by do-
nations. The first position, Johnson pointed out, had the
support of the laity, the second position had the support of
the pastors of the Synod. The solution to the problem was
not to undermine the district school, which admittedly had
its problems, but to work together to make the district
school what it could and ought to be. Johnson showed an

understanding of the thinking of the pastors of the Synod

 

1John A. Johnson, "The School Issue," Skandinaven,
November 22, 1866.

2Ibid.

175

when he wrote, "But we must also remember that our pastors
have gotten their education in NOrway where both the re—
ligious and secular education for citizenship is all in one
school, and because of this kind of education it is difficult
for them to give impartial judgment about the schools and
about a new educational system."1

Cultural forces were at work in the Norwegian Ameri-
can community in the post Civil War period and lay intel-
lectual leaders were becoming increasingly interested in
what was called "true people's enlightenment" or popular
education. A growing awareness of the need for raising the
educational and cultural level of the NOrwegian immigrants
became the concern of many of their leaders during this
time. R. B. Anderson was one of the principal spokesmen for
popular education. In 1868 he had appeared before the Synod
in its annual meeting in Chicago in June of 1868 and called
for a reconsideration of the position they had taken on the
American school at Manitowoc in 1866. _Anderson gives the
details of this meeting in his autobiography. The meeting
was held in Our Saviour's Lutheran church on Chicago's west
side. Although the main question on the agenda was the
slavery question, Anderson presented some resolutions on edu-
cation which were entered in the minutes of the Synod.

Anderson wrote:

 

lIbid.

176

I took the position that the Synod should secure the
appointment of orthodox Lutheran teachers at as many
American academies and colleges as possible, that the
Norwegian youths should be sent to these schools so
that our common schools where they are controlled by
NOrwegian Lutherans could be supplied with teachers
belonging to the Lutheran church and the children at-
tending these common schools not be subject to any
irreligious or non-Lutheran influence.

Anderson tells of his first meeting withthe Reverend B. J. Muss

who was to become his principal antagonist in the American

common school controversy.

The plan for securing Scandinavian professors for
American colleges and universities was to occupy the at-
tention of the entire lay leadership of the NOrwegian settle-
ments for a number of years. The laymen were concerned with
"genuine public education" among the Nbrwegians in America.

When the resolutions on slavery were adopted by the Synod in

Chicago in 1868, the Reverend C. L. Clausen and R. B. Anderson

 

1Rasmus B. Anderson, Life Story (Madison: Private
Printing, 1917, sec. ed.), p. 99.

 

2Anderson tells the humorous story of one day after
the Synod meeting when "Mr. J. O. Kaasa invited a few, mainly
ministers, to take dinner with Mr. Clausen and me. Among
the guests were Rev. B. J. Muus of Goodhue County, Minnesota,
considered one of the profoundest theologians and ablest de-
baters in the whole Synod body. He knew me by sight, but at
dinner table he asked, 'Mr. Kaasa, who is that gentleman
pointing at me?‘ Mr. Kaasa said, 'That is professor Anderson
of Albion Academy: I supposed you knew him?‘ Whereupon Rev.
Muus in his deep, bass voice remarked, 'It surprises me that
an old congregation like East Kbshkonong has so little ap-
preciation of the properties as to send Rasmus Anderson as
its representative.'" However, the next day Anderson tells
how Muus came to his aid when he was threatened with censure
by the Synod. Ibid., p. 99.

177

walked out. Soon after, Clausen and Anderson joined men
like Knud Langeland, Iver Lawson, Halle Steensland, Erik
Ellefsen, and J. A. Johnson in an organization for promoting

"popular education" (sand folkeoplysing) among the Norwegian

 

Americans and placing Scandinavian professors in American
higher education.
G. L. Clausen became the leader of the movement. In

N0vember of 1868 there appeared in the Skandinaven a letter

 

by Clausen in which he regretted that there was controversy
among the Norwegian Lutherans and a division among them, and
that he did not intend to get involved with the question of
which faction was right or wrong. He made it clear that he
was not opposed to the education of ministers and the prepar-
ation of Christian teachers for religious schools as was then
being done at the college in Decorah.l However, Clausen
pointed out that Decorah College did not meet the needs of

NOrwegian youth. Especially was this true if they wished

 

1David T. Nelson has written about the teacher train-
ing program at Decorah College, "In 1865 a two year teacher
training department was organized. Steps toward this end
had already been taken by the faculty the preceding year.
In 1868 the Synod requested expanded instruction in English.
This was provided and the teacher's course lengthened to
three years so that students completing it could teach in
American common schools. The first graduates of the three-
year normal course went out in 1871. Considerable effort
was expended on the Teacher Training department and it pro-
duced some excellent men. But it was never popular. At—
tendance lanquished, and finally in 1886 the department was
discontinued. In 1889 the church made other provisions for
this field by opening Luther Normal School in Sioux Falls,
South Dakota." David T. Nelson, Luther College 1861-1961
(Decorah, Iowa: Luther College Press, 1961), p. 100.

178

education for a vocation. He raised the question as to
"where could a person go to get a higher education than what
the common school could give? Yes, if he wants to become a
minister or a school teacher then the Synod has their edu-
cational institution. But if he does not want to be a
minister or a school teacher, but feels a call to one or the
other, such as, politics or some other civic responsibility,
where then can he get a higher education? He must look else-
where since none of the Synod's high schools can give him
this."1 Clausen pointed out that the answer to this problem
of providing a wide range of educational opportunities for
NOrwegian youth was in the plan for providing Scandinavian
professorships in American secular colleges.

A meeting of the Society for the promotion of popular
education and Scandinavian professorships met on March 4,
1869, at the courthouse in Madison, Wisconsin. The meeting
opened at 10 a.m. and about 300 were in attendance, a most
encouraging turnout, for such a meeting. Pastor Clausen an-
nounced a hymn and led in an invocation prayer. He then an—
nounced that before anyone could become a voting member it
was necessary to sign a statement saying that "we undersigned
do so organize a society which aim or purpose is to establish

more education (true enlightenment) among our people who are

 

1C. L. Clausen, "Scandinavian Lutheran Professors in
American Colleges," Skandinaven, NOvember 11, 1868.

179

the Scandinavians here in this country,1 and we want to es—
tablish Scandinavian Lutheran professorships in American

universities. we have here met to work to this end."2

 

1Generally speaking "Scandinavian" meant the Nor-
wegians and Danes. Although on a few occasions the Nbrwegians
and Swedes tried to work together they were not successful.

2The Society met again on March 17, 1869, at McGregor,
Iowa for further organization and there the aims and ob-
jectives of the Society were outlined in greater detail.
The following are the most important sections:
Section 1 The name of this association shall be "The Scandi—

 

navian LEtheran Educational Society."
Section II It shall be the aim of this association to promote

 

substantial education amongst the Scandinavians in America.
Section III This association recognizes that a more compre-
hensive education can in no manner be in opposition to the
Christian doctrines of faith and morality in the spirit of
the evangelical Lutheran confession, but is in full harmony
and agreement with the same, and it is only such an edu-
cation which it is the aim of this association to educate.
Section IV While this association fully appreciates the ef-

 

 

forts that hitherto have been made in preparing religious
teachers at the different seminaries, its aim is to supply a
long and deeply felt desire to provide for a more compre-
hensive education, in accordance with the obligations ime
posed upon the citizens of this country.

Section V As a means to reach this end, the association will

 

principally devote its efforts to secure the establishment of
an independent Scandinavian university, and meanwhile ap-
propriate a part of the funds to be collected for this
purpose in establishing Scandinavian Lutheran professorships
at the American Colleges. In establishing these professor-
ships, preference will be given to such colleges at which

the American training is not in the interest of an anti-
Lutheran church government, but where its aim is to provide
the students with a higher education than in matters of con-
fession. In establishing these professorships the design is:

1. To educate teachers for the common school able to
teach in English as well as NOrwegian.

2. To give the Scandinavian youth an opportunity to
acquire a comprehensive education fitting them for
the different spheres of civil life.

3. To preserve and extend their familiarity with their
native tongue and their knowledge of Northern history
and literature. It is also intended that these

180

There was also the hope of establishing a Scandinavian
university.

If the friends of this plan for popular education
were present at the Madison meeting so were the opposition,
and these were mainly from the NOrwegian Synod. Pastor H.
A. Preus, the president of the Synod, and other leaders such
as J. A. Ottesen, C. F. Magelsson, and Chr. Hvistendahl were
the chief representatives of the Synod. When Clausen looked
over the audience that morning, he probably knew that
trouble was brewing. Pastor Preus "asked for the floor and
said that many who had come to the meeting were in full
agreement with the goal of promoting true enlightenment."

He said, however, that there were many who did not agree

with "the means proposed to secure the desired end."l

 

teachers should superintend the students, and render

them all necessary assistance and encouragement, and

doctrine, catechism, etc. of the Lutheran persuasion.
Section VII As a further means to the attainment of this aim,
the association intends also gradually, as its means will
permit, to distribute useful and instructive popular writings,
and extend itself for the establishment of good libraries in
the different sections of the country.

The meeting elected the following officers: Presi-
dent Rev. C. L. Clausen of St. Ansgar, Iowa, Vice president
Chas. B. Solberg of La Crosse, Wis., Secretary F. S. Winslow
of Chicago, Ill., Treasurer J. A. Johnson of Madison, Wis.
Elected to the auditing Committee were Halle Steensland and
H. Borchsenius both of Madison, Wis. _ggnstitution of the
Scandinavian Lutheran Educational Socieiy March 17, 1869 at
McGregor, Iowa meeting in the N.A.H.A. Collection at NOrth-
field, Minn.

lLloyd Hustvedt, Rasmus Bj¢rn Anderson (Northfield:
NOrwegian—American Historical Association, 1966), p. 70.

 

181

Preus made a complete report to the Synod about the
events of the next day when the pastors and their sympa-
thizers organized their own meeting. Pastor Preus objected
to the restriction that only those who signed the statement
in support of the Scandinavian Lutheran Educational Society
could vote. He objected that two thirds of the members were
told they could not vote because their consciences would not
allow them to sign the statement.

The counter meeting met on March 5th at 8:30 a.m.
and opened with a psalm and a prayer, the first session of
what was to be a long day. The second session lasted from
after dinner to 6 p.m. Pastor Preus spoke on three questions:

1. What is 'people's true enlightenment?’ and why
should we work to this end?

2. Why could we not work for people's true en-

lightenment? And why can we nOt work together
with the Scandinavian Lutheran Educationai

Society?

3. How can we to the best of our ability plan for
a 'people's true enlightenment' among our
countrymen?
Preus argued that they were not opposed to secular
knowledge, but that it must be illuminated by God's WOrd.
The secular world, on the other hand, exalted and praised

itself for talents and knowledge and the ability to learn.

Preus said that this attitude was not anything else but

 

1Beretningomet M¢de Til Fremmelsé of Folke—oplysning
blandt Skandinaverne i Amerika avholdt i Madisons NOrske
Lutherske Kirke- i Madison den 5te Marts, 1869 (From the O.
M. Norlie Collection, N.A.H.A., NOrthfield) preface page.

182

darkness. All knowledge must be illuminated by the WOrd of
God. Preus said that Christian people historically have not
been opposed to education. It must be remembered that
Christians established schools in Alexandria, Antioch,
Caesarea and these schools survived in spite of bloody oppo-
sition. As for Lutherans and education everyone knew what
were Luther's and Melanchthan's views on education. The
American school was necessary for the "country's citizens
need to know how to vote, and that is something we should do
both for ourselves and also for our adopted land."1 The
NOrwegians who have come to this country also need education.
"They need to know the country's language and institutions

or we will be able only to do the heavy, menial work
and this has been the practice until now."2 Not only so,
but education was necessary so that "educated Lutherans
could be elected to political office" and "so the church
with its pure word and sacraments would become better known
and respected and its great influence spread among the
people as 'leaven' in this country which has been flooded
with false teaching, fanaticism, and sectarianism."3

After recognizing the need for more education among

the Nbrwegian people and especially the role that the

 

1

Ibid., p. 6.
2Ibid., p. 6.
3

Ibid., p. 6.

183

Lutheran was expected to play in society Pastor Preus came
to the second point which were his objections to the
Scandinavian Lutheran Educational Society and why it was
necessary for them to oppose it. The reason for their lack
of support was not that they felt self-righteous but rather
for the "unparliamentary" manner in which the whole thing
was done the previous day.1 In addition, Preus said they
could not support this organization because of the following
reasons:

The American High School (colleges and universities)

are either 'religionless' or sectarian, or ad-

ministered by atheists and the spirit of anti-Christ.

What real Lutheran would send their children at an

immature age to a high school where the Christian in-

fluence and education was not recognized? It would

be at the time of confirmation (between 15-20) years

of age that the young people would seek such edu—

cation and just at that stage they need to be es-

tablished in the knowledge of Christian truth and

faith. And furthermore, they need to be under

discipline.
Preus pointed out that students would attend these schools
and get the notion that Christianity as a way of life need
not be the foundation of true education. Lutherans would
not send their children to Roman Catholic high schools.
Then Preus asked the question,

Is it better to send them to various Reformed sects,

Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc? We

could not work with Papists in the various high

schools because God's Word warns that we be very
aware of false prophets. These denominational high

 

1Ibid., p. 8.

2Ibid., p. 8.

184

schools could not be used by the Norwegians because

of the 'liberalism.' These schools would seek to

proselyte the Lutheran young people sent to them.

In addition, the nativistic churches would argue

that the Lutheran teaching is out—dated. The Ameri-

cans would tell the Norwegian students that 'These

Lutherans are so old fashioned that it would be good

for them to leave the Lutheran Church, and not be a

member of an immigrant church, and that it would be

better if they joined a church which was endorsed

by the native born American.”l

But not only would the Americans seek to draw away
NOrwegian students from their church but they would also
question the authority of scripture, and argue, "The Bible
is not clear and it is impossible to come to an absolute con-
clusion about what it means, and this attitude is followed
by skeptism which would with Pilate ask, 'What is truth?'"2
The kind of education supported by the Scandinavian

Lutheran Educational Society would complicate the position
of the NOrwegian Lutheran Church in America. Granted that
the students who would go to these institutions would re-
ceive an education. But of what value would an education be
which filled the minds of young people with liberal notions?
ESpecially would there be problems when these young people

returned to the Nbrwegian settlements. "Would not our

churches then be undermined instead of growing in godliness?"3

 

lIbidO, pp. 8-9.

#

2Ibid., p. 9.

3Ibid., p. 9.

185

Preus next took up the argument of the leaders of
the Society for placing Nbrwegian Lutheran professors in
American colleges and universities. The intention of the
leaders of the Society was to keep the Lutheran spirit and
faith alive in the NOrwegian students who attend American
institutions. Preus said that a basic question that these
leaders must ask was how they would know that these edu-
cational institutions would accept a good Lutheran as a pro—
fessor? After all, it was the responsibility of the trustees
of these schools and not an outside society to make these
decisions. Preus noticed that some of the leaders of the
Society were not good Lutherans. He said, "Many of the So-
ciety's members are people who have turned their backs on
our church."1 These people would not be too interested in
how orthodox these professors would be. The Society, it was
true, talked about promoting the evangelical Lutheran faith
in paragraph three but they believed one of two things,
either they didn't understand what genuine Lutheranism
really was, or they would use their beloved Lutheran faith
as a shield just to confuse those people who were already
confused.2 Preus said it was their duty to warn their
people about these dangers. Even if a true Lutheran pro-

fessor could be found, having a Norwegian element in an

 

lIbid., pp. 9-10.

2Ibid., p. 10.

186

American school from an administrative point of view would
destroy the harmony and unity of the school.1 Preus said
that if a more liberal Lutheran professor were chosen it
would be even more dangerous, "because the parents believed
that it was a Lutheran professor who would teach, advise,
and counsel the students. But when all is said and done the
students will not be in a genuinely Lutheran atmosphere, but
rather in a very dangerous place."2

Preus next dealt with the third point which was the
reason for their meeting. The question was raised, "How can
we to our best ability plan for 'true popular education'
among our countrymen?" Preus said that it was essential to
promote religious elementary schools. This was essential
because it was the foundation for higher education. But in
this endeavor there were indeed some hindrances to overcome.
One of the chief obstacles to the progress of the religious
elementary school was the English district school. There
had been conflict between NOrwegians who were building re-
ligious schools and the common school, particularly in dis—
tricts where Nbrwegians were in the minority. On the other
hand, Preus said that where the Nbrwegian Lutherans were in
the majority they should work to have Lutheran teachers take

over both of these schools. Where this could not be

 

1Ibid., p. 10.

21bid., p. 10.

187

arranged, religious schools should be established so that in
addition to the religious teaching all the subjects taught
in the common school would be taught in the parochial school.
This dual system would be expensive, but Preus said,
"Christian parents would never be sorry because they had
taken this special burden so that they could get a good
Christian education for their children where they could be
taught the Christian faith and at the same time get the
other educational subjects all in a Christian atmosphere and
with Christian discipline."l

Preus admitted that it was true that there was a
shortage of teachers able to teach in both schools, but a
new professor who could teach English had been appointed in
the department of education last year at the college in
Decorah. These students of education would attend the Col-
lege for three years and after this time would be "com-
pletely capable to be able to take over the English school."2

Pastor Preus continued to describe the Synod's plan
for higher education which was to build academies3 in various
places. "we shall work to build academies which would be

suitable for young people in the districts around, in both

 

lIbid., p. 12.
2Ibid., p. 12.
3For the best treatment of academies and the Synod

see B. H. Narveson, "The NOrwegian Lutheran Academies,"
Studies and Records, Vol. XIV, 1944.

 

188

the newer and the older Nbrwegian settlements, for example,
Koshkonong (Wisconsin) and in Goodhue County, Minnesota,
etc."1 Preus also felt that the time had come for giving
the women more educational opportunity. The curriculum
would be like the American college with religious teaching
as well. These schools would have their year regulated "so
that the students in the busy seasons of the year could get
home and help their parents."2 These academies would also
make it possible for the less privileged to attend. The
benefit from these local institutions would be great. Preus
said, "What a spiritual lift these schools would give our
people! It is so great that it cannot be imagined. The
parents would find that the money they had used for their
children's education was very well used and the children
would be more appreciative of their parents because of
this."3

The plan then of the Synod was to have elementary
religious schools in place of the American common school,
and a system of academies. The students' education would

then be concluded at the College in Decorah. This was one

aspect of "true people's enlightenment"; another was a plan

 

lBeretning omet M¢de TiiFremmelse of Folketgplysning,
p. 12.

2Ibid., p. 13.

31bid., p. 13.

189

for a periodical which would be without political articles
or writings of a polemic nature. Preus said, "This paper
should be devoted to needful educational subjects

articles on world and church history, culture, and nature

1 All of the subjects in the paper would be

studies."
written in the light of the werd of God but would also be
entertaining and educational. The periodical would avoid
“romantic" stories and stories about robberies, both of which
are detrimental to youth, and they must not be given a taste
for this kind of reading material. Preus said that local
libraries could be set up, "even if it is a small collection
of books, they would be of great help."2

In concluding the long day Pastor Preus said that, in
contrast to the meeting of the previous day, the meeting of
the Synod's leadership was in the spirit of harmony and unity.
A committee was appointed, consisting of A. H. Preus,
Ottesen, and Jacobson to look further into the school
question.3

One could almost predict that when the details of
the counter meeting were held on March 5th that there would

be a reply in the Skandinaven. The reply to the Synod's

leadership came from the pen of J. A. Johnson who wrote an

 

1_I_b_j_._d_., p. 14.

2M“: P- 14-

3mg” p. 14.

190

article, "A Report of the Madison Meeting." He commended
the pastors for bringing up the subject of "middle schools"
(academies) which was a good idea but something ought to be
done about it. Johnson wrote that he and his friends had
talked for some time of the need for these schools, "so if
the meeting of March 4th has no other fruit than the pastors
considering these questions seriously, then the meeting was
not in vain. But then again the pastors have talked about
these schools before and nothing has become of it."1
Reasons for their slowness to put a plan in action was that
the pastors knew how expensive these schools were and there-
fore did not go through with their plans. In addition, the
pastors found out that they simply did not have qualified
teachers to teach in these academies. Johnson thought that
it would be better to get Scandinavian professors in American
colleges.2

Johnson also wanted to correct a misunderstanding
that "Clausen called the meeting in opposition to the
pastors. There is no truth in it. Clausen has added a great
deal to the Madison meeting."3 Clausen had made his views
known in the previous Fall when he had written in the

Skandinaven. He said that he did not want to underestimate

 

 

1J. A. Johnson, "A Report of the Madison Meeting,"
Skandinaven, March, 1869.

2.11019. p- 14.

3Ibid., p. 14.

191

the necessary education for the education of ministers and
teachers. But he continued to see a problem of not having
an adequate educational institution which would prepare them
for a vocation other than a church related one. He asked,
"Where can a young person go to get a higher education than
what the common school can give? Yes, if he wishes to be-
come a minister or a school teacher, then the Synod has
their educational institution. But if he does not want to
be a minister or a school teacher, but feels called to one
or the other--political or some other civic responsibility—-
where can he get a higher education? He must look elsewhere

1 The answer,

since Synod's school cannot give him this."
Clausen had said, was to place NOrwegian professors in Ameri-
can colleges and universities, and perhaps someday the
Scandinavians would have their own university.

The position of the Synod was now clear. The Synod

had begun with the Manitowoc Declarations on the school

issue and the counter proposals to the Scandinavian Lutheran

 

_Educational Society with its plan to place NOrwegian pro-
fessors in American institutions of higher learning. The
year 1870 was to see a great deal of writing both for and
against the position of the Norwegian Lutheran Synod on the

school question.

 

1C. L. Clausen, "Scandinavian Lutheran Professors in
American Colleges," Skandinaven, Nevember 11, 1868.

 

192

R. B. Anderson opened the attack in January of that

year in the pages of the Skandinaven. Anderson expressed
surprise that, in spite of the strong stand of the Synod and
its pastors on the American common school, some of them were
sending their children to these schools. Anderson said,
"I do not know what plan the pastors have for the education
of our fellow NOrwegians when they do not allow them to at-
tend the American school since they naturally would not and
I hope do not want them to sink down in ignorance without

1 As for the church schools many did not have

education."
the necessary text books and only a relative few could at-
tend the College in Decorah. It seemed to Anderson that it
would take a "whole generation" to get the kinds of schools
that were needed.

The focus of the battle now moved somewhat from what
the Synod had been saying to individuals who strongly sup-
ported the Synod's position on the American school. The
Reverend B. J. Muus of Goodhue County in Minnesota was an
able defender of the Synod's point of View. In March of
1870 an article appeared in the Faedrelandet og emigranten
entitled, "Schools and Good Schools." Muus first pointed

out that America was filled with "different sects all the

way from Universalists to Quakers who admit openly that they

 

1R. B. Anderson, "The American School," Skandinaven,
February 16, 1870.

193

do not believe in the Holy Scriptures."1 Muus continued,
“If they teach in school one religion which I do not like,
then I can go back to the school with the constitution in my
hand and forbid them."2 Muus said that some say that in the
American common school no religion was being taught, but it
would be more accurate to say that some religion was being
taught. Muus said that the basic question which must be
asked was whether good Lutherans could support the common
school. He made his position clear in the following:

1. Should we not first and foremost seek the king-
dom of God and His righteousness? Naturally, all
of us want to teach our children to do this. If
we have a school, we have faith in it so that we
can send our children to it to be educated. It
ought to be clear that when we do the opposite
we teach them to seek other things during the
week and go against God's commandment that we
first 'seek the Kingdom of God and His
Righteousnessfi

2. If the school teaches the children love of God
and neighbor, it is just a false self-righteousness.
If we do this, we cheat our children and teach
them to do wrong. If the school should instill
these attitudes in children, that of the love of
God and his fellowman, then the school teaches a
part of the Christian faith. This is just what
is forbidden in the American common school and
every man 'with the constitution in his hand' can
go to the school and forbid them and deny them to
teach in this manner because it is against the
law. The Americans say, 'You Christians send your
Children safely to school, we shall not harm your
"particular notions" when it comes to spiritual
matters.'

 

1B. J. Muus, "Schools and Good Schools," Faedrelandet
og emigranten, March 10, 1870.

21bid.

 

31bid.

194

Muus goes on to illustrate what a good school really is,

and

he has, of course, the American common school in mind which

is "religionless." He wrote:

If you don't have any good ideas about what a good
school is, to use a poor illustration, they tell us
that the pick pockets in London also are very

interested in giving their children a good education.

They hang clothes in a room and hand little bells
that ring at the least motion. If the children can
pick a pocket book out of a pocket without the bells
ringing, it is alright. But if the bell rings, the
children receive a beating. This is their idea of a
'good education.‘

To Muus the religionless American school was not a great

deal better than the pick pocket schools of London. But he

had other charges against the American common school:

When a pupil goes to school for several winters, he
does not learn anything but to read a little, learn
a little arithmetic, and when he is lucky, learn a

little geography of the most primitive kind; and per-

haps read a romance with the title of 'United States
History.' Then I think it is but little for all the
time and money spent. For a NOrwegian it will per-
haps look as if there was something to learn as a
foreign language always gives the instruction a cer—
tain glamour.

It was not long before J. A. Johnson answered Pastor

Muus. He said that he had read the Pastor's article in

Faedrelandet og emigranten. Johnson admitted that Muus was

 

an important person in the NOrwegian Synod and wished that

someone more able than himself could answer. However,

Johnson said that he had been in the country for twenty-five

.

lIbid.

2.139.19-

195

years and had been a teacher in the common school and there-
fore knew something about the subject. In addition, Johnson
tells of the intense interest the laymen have in the schools.
"I want also to say to the Pastors that the laymen are deeply
interested in this question."1 The reason for this was that
they wish the very best for their children. The conclusion
that Pastor Muus came to was, "that the common school be-
cause of the principle upon which it is founded must work
against the Kingdom of God. For us who have gotten our edu-
cation in the common school," said Johnson, "it is certainly
unpleasant for us to hear such a judgment."2 If the charges
of the pastor were true, then the Lutherans had better
take a good look at the situation and determine "if we are
working against the 'Kingdom of God' and work to remedy the
situation."3
Johnson said that perhaps one of the foremost ques-
tions was, "What is being taught in the district school? If
one looks he will see that subjects like reading, writing,
arithmetic, geography, grammar, and in every good school
some higher mathematics and also one finds perhaps physiology

and science are being taught."4 Then Johnson asks the

 

1J. A. Johnson, "The Common School," Skandinaven,
April 13, 1870.

21bid.

31bid.

4Ibid.

196

question, “Are these subjects sinful and are they really un-
christian, and is it a sin to study them? These are the
subjects taught in the common school and these are the sub-
jects who according to Pastor Muus' meaning are enemies of
the Kingdom of God. To Pastor Muus these subjects are sin
to study."1 Johnson did not agree but considered them as
God's gifts. He pointed out that the knowledge gotten in
the schools made it possible to develOp the nation by the
building of great buildings, roads, and bridges.2 "Pastor
Muus," said Johnson, "will reply that he never said that
these subjects were not important. Why is he then so op-
posed to the common school where you learn these things?"3
Johnson said that many oppose the common school because they
believe that it is difficult for children to learn both re—
ligious and secular subjects and therefore believe that of
the two, the religious school is much more important.
Johnson wrote in reply to this, "Here I answer that God's
will is that we use both our secular and spiritual gifts.

It is not God's will that we concern ourselves only with the
religious. People must learn to use their hands and minds
or both, if need be, and so take an important part in the

life of the community, and be an asset to the community."4

 

lIbid.

21bid.

3Ibid.

41bid.

197

Johnson pointed out that the religious American was
not aware that he was working against the Kingdom of God as
Muus claimed. The American children who attended the common
school did learn to read, write a little, learn a little
arithmetic, and, if fortunate, a little bit more as pastor
Muus had said. From Johnson's point of view this simply was
not so, for "the knowledge that I have gotten I have the
district school to thank for. And if this is not very much,
in the Pastor's eyes, I think that I am very privileged to
have this much."1 He went on to relate how that this limited
education had given him many hours of joy and that it had
showed him that he was a "debtor both to God and man."2
Johnson said that Pastor Muus had talked about his willing-
ness to support the free public school system, but he had
also talked about the hindrance which inhibited the develop—
ment of the religious school. But what did the Pastor mean
by "hindrances"? Johnson replied, "I suppose he means that
it is a hindrance for those who support the private school
to be forced to pay taxes for the common school. As far as
I know this is the only hindrance. If you can call that a

hindrance."3 th only so, but Pastor Muus had said that the

 

lIbid.

21bid.

3Ibid.

198

Americans themselves were observing the schools themselves

and were finding much fault with them.1 Johnson admitted

 

1Although this dissertation is primarily concerned
with the controversy over the American school among the Nbr-
wegian immigrants, the Americans were not totally ignorant
of what was being debated so vehemently in the Norwegian
settlements. A good illustration of this was Pastor Muus'
controversy with superintendent of schools for Goodhue
County, H. B. Wilson. On May 25, 1870, an article appeared
in English, which had originally been printed in the Goodhue
County Republican entitled, "Our Public Schools Versus Sec-
tarian Schools in a Foreign Language." In this article
Wilson said that he called attention in his Annual Report to
the State Superintendent of Public Instruction that there
was an element among the clergy "that was hostile to the suc—
cess of our common schools." In this article he singled out
Rev. B. J. Muus as the leader of these Norwegians who oppose
the common school in his county. Wilson said, "In the
article above referred to (Muus' article "Schools and Good
Schools") which a friend of mine has kindly translated and
sent to me, the reverend gentleman exhibits a spirit of the
most narrow-minded bigotry and intolerance it has ever been
my fortune to read, and I thank him for writing it. It
shows for itself his intensely bitter hostility to American
institutions, better than I can represent in words." Wilson
acknowledged that there were many NOrwegians who did not
agree with Muus but Muus claimed to speak for them. He
thanked Muus for writing the article "because the Americans
can see what kind of sentiments are entertained and expressed
by those among them in reference to institutions which they
regard as the most sacred because it will show the Scandi-
navians themselves that they have among them those who are
opposing their true interests by trying to perpetuate in this
land of their adoption, a foreign language, and foreign
sentiment, and foreign institutions, thereby fostering
sectional and national prejudice on the part of a portion of
our people against another." Wilson continued, "It would
seem that Mr. Muus has got into the wrong longitude for his
sentiments. Although in free America, he is an aristocrat
with the same ideas of superior deference that is due the
clergymen, as much that is entertained in monarchial Europe.
Let me say to him that it is the free, enlightened spirit of
our common schools that makes the United States superior to
the priest ridden people of the Pope's dominions of Italy,
or the inhabitants of Mexico or South America." Superin-
tendent Wilson's closing remarks were interesting. "In
closing this article which is already longer than I had

199

that they were by no means perfect. But to allow children
to be reared in ignorance was not the answer. Johnson wrote
that what needed to be done was "to take good care of our
children and send them to the district school so that they
can be educated. Build good commodious schoolhouses and
find good teachers even if you do not always like the
teacher. This is no reason to take them out of the school."1

Johnson pleaded that parents ought to attend the school meet-

ings. He said, "Please don't save on getting an attractive

 

intended, I disclaim all feelings of hostility or prejudice
toward the Rev. Mr. Muus." Wilson's criticisms were perhaps
justified but Wilson's nativistic spirit permeates the
article. Skandinaven, May 25, 1870. In June of 1877 R. B.
Anderson sent to the Skandinaven a letter from a medical
doctor from Goodhue County, Minnesota. Anderson wrote, "I
am sending these to you so that the Scandinavians will have
the opportunity to see with what kind of eyes the American
citizens view us and our ministers. The letter comes from a
doctor who lived some seven miles from Pastor Muus: 'He and
his friends have had the people here under their immediate
control, and are doing the very worst thing for them they
can. . . . We have organized an English debating society,
but it was a difficult matter to get it on a firm basis.

The priest forbid the young to come, and he also refused to
let them attend our evening spelling schools. This was a
hard blow to us who are trying with might and main to edu-
cate and elevate those who the priest is trying to rob of
their rights as American citizens and keep them down on the
level with the beast that roams over these broad prairies.
We are going to help those people if they will be helped,
all that is necessary is to show them the difference betwixt
those who are ground down under the iron hands of priest-
craft and those who are free to go forth and get knowledge
and become the first citizens of a free and enlightened

 

country.'" Anderson added, "So you can see how Pastor Muus
is doing in his campaign against the common school." Skandi-
naven, June 5, 1877.

l

J. A. Johnson, "The Common School,"_§kandinaven,
April 13, 1870.

200

schoolhouse and a good teacher. It will return in double
blessings to our children when the time comes."1 As to
wages, the teacher who can teach in both English and Nor—
wegian could ask for a salary in the district school from
thirty to forty dollars a month."2

As the controversy continued in the press and in the
Norwegian Lutheran Synod, men like H. A. Preus, B. J. Muus,
J. A. Johnson, and R. B. Anderson were the principal spokes-
men for their respective views. However, a review of the
newspapers of the period indicate that laymen were intensely
concerned with the school question. A. J. Berdahl has given
a good description of the everyday operation of schools in
the numerous NOrwegian communities. Berdahl wrote on one
occasion that the school district had been recently divided,
and that a "commodious schoolhouse" that would bring the
district honor had been recently completed.3 He complained,
however, that it was very difficult to "get those Norwegians
to see the need to learn some English. But the problem is
that there is also a church school which is the only school
some children attend. And in this school all that the
children learn is catechism, interpretation, and the New

Testament, and the children sit and 'chew hard on it' without

 

1Ibid.

3
3, 1871.

A. J. Berdahl,_§aadrelandet og_emigranten, August

201

understanding what they are learning."1 Berdahl claimed
that it was not his intention to do away with the NOrwegian
religious school, but he would like to see the American and
religious schools cooperate and work together. One way that
this could be done was to arrange the terms of the two
schools so that they would not be in session at the same
time. For example, in the Norwegian school it would only be
necessary to teach reading, writing, and religion. All the
other subjects could be learned in the American common school.
Berdahl said that one of the principal objections of
the NOrwegians to the American school was the belief that
children should learn good Nbrwegian "before they come to the
English school and are confirmed."2 This was not good
reasoning because by this attitude parents rationalized
their children's absence from all schools. Berdahl bemoaned
the fact that "instead of learning something, to read books
and have a faithful teacher who would help them along, they
stay home where they lose their interest in reading, and be-
come lazy, and are good for nothing."3 Parents claimed that
the English4 school ruined their children and therefore they

must stay away from the common school until the age of

 

lIbid.

2Ibid.

3Ibid.

4The NCrwegian immigrant often used "English" when
he meant American school.

202

confirmation. But Berdahl said this was impractical think-
ing because, when the child was confirmed, he was no longer
considered a child, and so on "a beautiful day in the next
school year he goes off to school to learn his 'a' 'b' 'c's.
He learns the letters' names and the next day to spell a few
words, but in a short time school becomes difficult for him
and so he thinks of all kinds of mischief to get into."1

The end result was that he dropped out of school and went to
a distant town to dance and drink. Berdahl also made the
observation, as many did, that school attendance in the NOr-
wegian settlements was irregular.2 His figures were interest-
ing. "In this district there are over one hundred school age
children (Fillmore County, Minnesota) and when we look at the
teacher's daily register, we find about forty enrolled, and
when you investigate further you get very disappointed. The
daily average attendance is about ten students."3 Of course,
in the summer, Berdahl pointed out, it was not possible for
the older children to attend because the farmers had much
work to do. But, he added, it would be possible for the

younger ones to attend as they were not needed at home.

 

lIbid.

2Superintendent of schools John W. Wedgwood reported
on the district schools in Nerwegian settlements of NOrth-
eastern Iowa. Superintendent Wedgwood wrote, "The pupils
are very irregular in their attendance coming one day and
staying home the next." Decorah Republican, February 7, 1869.

3Ibid.

203

However, the parents were careless and indifferent, and com-
plained that they would not send their children to the com-
mon school before they were confirmed "because the immorality
of the schools will harm them."1 In addition, the parents
complained that the English schools made their children

"loud mouths and disobedient."2 To this criticism Berdahl
replied, "Dear parents who keep your children away from
school on these grounds. Answer me the following question,
'Where can you find children who have regularly attended the
English school who are less moral, loudmouth and disobedient?‘
Just consider for a moment the NOrwegian youth who attends
the NCrwegian religious school for two or three months a
year. Then the child is allowed to remain home all the rest
of the year without the slightest school instruction. It is
no wonder they lose interest in reading and their lessons."3
As for the common school being immoral, the fact was that
the English school was as moral as the Norwegian. Berdahl
said that it was true that the American school did not teach
religion, but you could not show from the textbooks they use

that there was anything immoral or unchristian in them. "Do

we want to remain as ignorant as we were on the first day in

 

204

this country? We are now in a country where we are the law
givers and we should work hard to learn the language."1
Berdahl said that the language must be learned and they must
be educated so that they might have a voice in the affairs
of government. But he warned, “As long as the children grow
up in ignorance of all that which is American, and as long
as the American school is opposed whether directly or in-
directly, and as long as we work against them we can never
be on the same level with our fellow American citizens."2
There appeared in the summer of 1873 a pro-church
school article entitled, "The School System Among the NOr-
wegian Americansfl'probably written by one of the leaders of
the Synod. The writer pointed out that in "all the United
States children between the ages of 5-21 can be educated;
only in Michigan is there a compulsory school law."3 As for
the public schools they were without religious teaching so
that all faiths and churches could make use of them.4 As to
the cirriculum the subjects were the common ones, spelling,

reading,xnriting, etc. The English language was the main

language although some states permitted the German and

 

11bid.

21bid.

3The writer was in error; Massachusetts passed a com-
pulsory attendance law as early as 1852.

4"The School System among the Nbrwegian—Americans,"
Skandinaven, July 29, 1873.

205

NOrwegian language to be taught as was the law in Wisconsin.
There were two terms of school, one in the summer and the
other in winter, and school must be in session at least five
months a year. It was the prerogative of the school board
of the district to set the time and also to decide what the
teacher's salary would be for the year. The district voted
men to the school board and then the secretary and clerk were
responsible to choose a teacher who was nonsectarian. The
teachers were hired for one year and this made the turnover
of teachers high. The writer said that for the summer
session young girls were usually employed. He seemed to get
to the point when he wrote, "This school (the common school)
is established for non-Christians, for those who look down
on Christian principles, for people who will not build

1 The answer to the

Christian schools for their children."
problem would be to get teachers qualified to teach in both
schools. He wrote, "It would then be possible for him to
stay longer and have a decent salary."2 Now the way to get
control of the schools would come about in the Nbrwegian
settlements where they were in the majority. However, the

writer said that they had discovered from "experience that

Americans do not like NOrwegian teachers for their children,

 

1Ibid.

“

21bid.

206

and most of them are opposed to the Norwegian religious

school."

schools
1.

2.

1

The writer now discussed his plan for control of the
in the Nbrwegian settlements:
Get full control over the school system.

Employ a Christian teacher and in this way get a
fully religious school for our children.

Make certain that the children will not be in—
fluenced by a dangerous atmosphere which is now
the case with those who attend the common school.

Children will not meet discouragement and disap-
pointment as they do now in the irreligious
schools.

If this plan were carried out, it would make it
possible for our children to have a good, well
rounded education in a shorter school year.

With God's help there would be a greater harvest
for the good in the daily lives of their children
and for eternity.

Although the NOrwegian Lutheran Synod was opposed to

the common school, it could be used under certain circum-

stances.

The writer said, "We Lutherans could send our

children to the common school, especially when we are not

able to

goes on

build religious schools ourselves."3 The article

to say that the position of the Synod had not changed

since Manitowoc, "but as long as the teachers are not

Christians and the other children are unruly and disobedient,

 

lIbid.

21bid.

31bid.

207

and the text books are not good for our small children to
read, we Lutherans cannot send our children. we are re—
sponsible to God for their upbringing.“1 He admitted that
the common school was a necessity and that they ought to be
supported, but so were the religious schools necessary be-
cause religion could not be taught in the common school. But
the task of establishing these religious schools was not pro-
gressing well. He stated his reasons for this:

1. The common school takes from five to seven of the
best months of the year.

2. The religious school teachers must teach in many
districts to have enough work for the year.

3. When the common school is in session the religious
school suffers because the children cannot attend.

4. It is difficult to find good teachers and keep
them because it is hard to travel from one place
to another. Usually the teacher has a family but
is poorly paid by the settlement for his work;
yet the teacher feels called to this work.

5. It is up to the church to give and to support
this work.

6. There are few young people who want to become
educated so that they can teach in the Christian
religious schools.

Again the writer, who probably represented the Synod, thought
that the best arrangement would be to get positions for
their religious teachers in the common schools. Such an ar-

rangement was considered successful if a teacher could be

found who could do both well.

 

lIbid.

#

21bid.

208

In 1874 the feud between Rev. B. J. Muus and J. A.
Johnson was to flare again when at the annual Synod meeting
held at Pastor Muus' church in Holden, Minnesota, Muus dis-
covered Johnson in the audience. Muus jumped to his feet
and said that such an ungodly paper as_§kandinaven had no
business to have a reporter attending the Synod meeting and

that the Skandinaven was worse than the Dagslyst, a liberal

 

paper. However, Professor Schmidt came to Johnson's rescue
and told them that for the sake of social grace the reporter

from the Skandinaven should be allowed to remain. Pastor

 

Ottesen agreed with Schmidt, and Pastor Muus was greatly
disappointed that they would let an enemy of the Synod re-
main in the meeting. Johnson pointed out sarcastically that
if he had been opposed to the common school and had supported
slavery, he would have been "invited to have the best seat in

1 As for the American common school,

the church that day."
it was supported by all the leading American statesmen, and
the Protestant majority considered the schools as the Re-
public's chief cornerstone. On the other hand, parochial
schools were unAmerican, because "children are impressionable
and get the idea that all other churches are false, have no

truth, and have the wrong kind of faith, and that they alone

are correct."2 With this narrow biased education it was

 

1John A. Johnson, Skandinaven, December 15, 1874.

 

2Ibid.

209

little wonder that these children grew up to engage in strife
and argumentation, and it could even go so far that blood
was shed. On the other hand, Johnson said, "If children go
together to the same common school they get to know each
other.“1 He said that even the German, Carl Schurz, who was
a leading German immigrant supported the common school. In
one of his latest speeches Schurz had expressed his deep
feelings and thoughts about the American school.2

As for getting a seat in church that day when Pastor
Muus would have barred him Johnson said that he thought the
Pastor would have been happy to have an unbeliever in church.
"Has he no love for us unbelievers?"3 Johnson wrote regard-
ing Muus, "I don't want to talk about his Christian be-
havior, but he feels that he is qualified to judge other
people's Christianity."4

R. B. Anderson, a life-long friend of J. A. Johnson

now reentered the controversy over the American public

 

lIbid.

21bid.
3Ibid.

4But Johnson did judge Muus' Christianity by relating
how Muus had established a theater group in his church at
Holden to raise money for the Swedish people who were suffer-
ing from famine. The scenery and costumes were beautiful,
according to Johnson, but Muus' church would not let him con-
tinue because, "they had heard from childhood that drama was
sin." After one performance the congregation forced him to
stop his theatrical production. Ibid. Some years later Rev.
Muus was involved in a divorce case. The Skandinaven covered
it in depth. Pastor Muus returned to NOrway shortly after.

210

schools. The event which triggered his resentment was a
notice in the Evangelical Lutheran Church Times, the official
organ of the Norwegian Synod, that they had decided to build
a church school in Decorah, Iowa, so that Nbrwegian Lutheran
children need not attend the American school. Anderson re—
plied, "This can only be taken as a declaration of war
against the American common school. It is surprising that
the intelligent Norwegians of Decorah would go ahead and
make these plans which is a war against the Republic. The
common school is our country's cornerstone, and the building
of these religious schools is nothing less than treason to
this country."1 He went on to say that the school system in
Decorah would probably survive without the sixty-nine Nor-
wegian students which would now go to the religious school.
Decorah had ten denominations; it would be a strange situ-
ation if these churches would not permit their children to
go with other students to school. Anderson said that the
Nbrwegians in Decorah had criticized the subjects taught in
the public schools and the methods of instruction, but, said
Anderson, "I want to say here that I have never seen common
schools as bad as church schools. Just recently a layman
‘wrote to the church paper saying that he could give the
church school twenty dollars a year in Decorah to keep it

operating. It is also expected that he will give to the

 

1R. B. Anderson, "Against the Common School," Skandi—
naven, October 17, 1876.

211

church and to Luther College for professors' salaries, and
also to Madison (the seminary) and missionary work. The
average NOrwegian farmer cannot afford this expense."1
Furthermore, Anderson said that a religious school

in Decorah would not be necessary if the Norwegians would
stop criticizing the American school and work for its im-
provement. The ten or twelve professors in Decorah could
have a great influence on the school system there. "But
when they establish religious schools they work together
with the Pope."2 Anderson called on the NOrwegians to de-
fend the American common school, "I ask everyone to put on
all their weapons and be in his place . . . the common
school must be protected!" In forceful, emotional tones
Anderson wrote,

If our language will not last for a couple of gener-

ations without taking our children away from the

common schools, very well, so let the Nbrwegian pass.

If the Lutheran church cannot make progress among us

without taking our children out of the common school,

very well, let the Lutheran church fall, and I will

say peace on its dust. It does not deserve to stand

if it cannot stand beside the common school.

Again in emotional language Anderson made his appeal

to the Nbrwegian people:

Norwegian people in cottages all over America,

shelter the American common school, protect it as
if it were your own eyes. If they come to you and

 

lIbid.

2Ibid.
3

 

Ibid.

 

212

ask you to join the NOrwegian church school flee
from them as you would flee from priest domination.
The common school must be preserved.

There was, of course, much reaction to this plea by
Anderson for the common school. Letters in the press both
supported and criticized his position on the Nbrwegian
language, the NOrwegian Lutheran Synod, and the American
common school. In the early part of 1877 there appeared an
article by J. A. Johnson. In this lengthy article Johnson
gave a review of the American school controversy. He said
that the common school had been harshly criticized by some
Norwegian people. "At the Synod meeting at Manitowoc,
Wisconsin, it said, (look it up for yourself), that the
American schools were 'heathen'. Pastor Muus has said that
the school 'must after its principle work against the King-
dom of God' (see his piece 'Schools and Good Schools').
Pastor H. A. Preus has said that the common school is for
those who reject Christianity. See his writings."2

After this brief review of the school controversy,
Johnson drew attention to the latest development, and this
was a speech given by the theology professor Schmidt. John—
son said that the speech appeared in the Madison Democrat,
and he quoted Schmidt who was to have said, "Schools where

the~Word of God is not the authority are the 'gates of

 

1Ibid.

2J. A. Johnson, "The Tree Is Known by Its Fruit,"
Skandinaven, January 9, 1877.

213

hell'."l

With this statement Johnson, as one might expect,
didn't agree and said that he did not believe that the common
school had this damning effect that Schmidt said it had.
Johnson then asked some questions about morality. "What
about alcohol and drunkenness? WOuld the people who hold
this view say that the Americans are greater drinkers than
other nationalities?"2 Johnson doubted that in the American
communities there were more children born out of wedlock and
more arrests for burglaries and robberies. He said that

when it came to statistics, the Americans did very well.

They kept the law better than other nationalities, and if
this was so, the credit must go to the American common
school. If the schools were as dangerous as the Synod had
said they were, they must also be dangerous to American
Christians. To this Johnson said, "I don't have the sta-
tistical tables on hand, but the American Protestant denomi—
nations have several million members. These gentlemen will
not admit that these millions hate the Christian faith."3
The Americans in the religious denominations supported the

common school because it was the foundation of a free govern-

ment, but education could also make a person religious by

 

1

Q;

i

6‘

 

2

E.
0.;

 

E

 

214

helping the person's mind to develop so that he would be
able to accept the truths of Christianity.1

Johnson said that the Americans were always seeking
to improve their educational system. When Americans traveled
in other countries they sought what was of value in the edu—
cational systems of these nations. On the other hand, those
who opposed the common school had been raised in a country
where there was less liberty and therefore they were in—
capable of judging the American system.

At the same time that J. A. Johnson was writing about
the kind of fruit the Synod and the common school were pro—

ducing, R. B. Anderson wrote an article in the Skandinaven.

 

Anderson said, first, that he was not interested in bringing
up the slavery question again but hoped by doing so that it
might work as an illustration and perhaps, he said caustical—
ly, "There might be a learned philosopher among us who could
aid us by pointing out the heavenly harmony on these
considerations:

"Slavery is not a sin in itself."

"Slavery is an evil."

"Slavery is a God sent institution."

"No Christian can be a pro-slavery man."

"Slavery was raised up by God."
"We will work for its destruction."2

 

lIbid.

2R. B. Anderson, "Loose Screws in the Schools,"
Skandinaven, January 2, 1877.

 

215

Anderson wondered how the institution of slavery
could be both an evil and yet not a "sin in itself." He
pressed confusion also about the other contradictions in

statement of the Synod. He used the slavery question to

ex—
the

get

to the illogical position of the Synod on the common school.

Next, Anderson took quotations from the writings of Rev.

J. Muus:

I look at the common school which after its principle

must work against the Kingdom of God.

The common school draws the children away from the
only Saviour's way.

These subjects which the district school gives in—
struction in is necessary knowledge and deserves our
honor, and credit, and as state institutions for the
citizens they must be supported.1

B.

To these statements of Muus Anderson gave the following com-

mentary and raised several questions:

How can we support an institution which 'after its
principle must work against the Kingdom of God, and

which draws the children away from the only Saviour's

way?‘ This goes beyond my understanding. Pastor
Muus is supposed to know logic, a subject I have not

learned at the College at Decorah. When I was there

we were given no instruction in that subject and
therefore I beg your forgiveness.

Now Anderson turned his guns on the Synod and quoted from a

report of the Synod:

 

lIbid.

2Philos0phy was not taught at Luther College for

several years. The early leaders of the Synod distrusted

philosophy. See Belgum page 101.

31bid.

216

The American teachers are without religion and can
not be otherwise. The youth learn in them those
things which belong to this life which seems to be
the only thing to learn, as if this were the inly
worthwhile thing to think about and work for.

A quotation from the Evangelical Lutheran Church Times was

given by Anderson:

It was pointed out in the church meeting in Decorah
that we do not have the right to tear down the common
school but rather thank God also for this gift.2

To this Anderson replied:

Thank God for this gift? How can we thank God for
the places of learning where the youth learn the
things which belong to this life as the only im-
portant thing and that which alone is the only thing
to think about and work for. WOuld it not be better
to say that this gift came from the devil?3

Anderson then turned to Professor F. A. Schmidt in building

his

But

case:

I dare to say as one who seeks this country's best,
and therefore I do not want to speak against the
common school. It is necessary and it is helpful.
We could not get along without it in my opinion.

Anderson said that Schmidt also made this statement:
This kind of school, which gives a full education

both intellectual and moral instruction without God's
Word, and without Christ are the 'Gates of Hell.‘5

 

lIbid.

 

2Ibid.

 

 

 

217

Anderson admitted that in the American school no in—
struction was given in religion although the Bible could be
read each morning without comment. In America religious in-
struction belonged to the parents and to the church's Sunday
School. He then challenged Schmidt to show him a favor by
enlightening his reason as to why he did not want to speak
against the necessary and essential American common school
which he had called the "Gates of Hell." "I believe," said
Anderson, "that the terrible things which have been said
about our school system does great harm to our people. Many
of them do not want to send their children to the 'Gates of
Hell' or to these schools which are established for those
who are against Christianity."l

Anderson lamented that his charges against the Synod
did not answer his argument in defense of the American school,
but they would rather "scream loudly that I am trying to
destroy the Norwegian Synod."2 However, he said that the
friends of the common school should not be afraid of their
cries and to remember that there are some very good friends
of the American school in the Nbrwegian Synod. Anderson
also felt that those who opposed the common school were the

Synod's most dangerous enemies.3

 

 

218

Before Anderson had sent in his article to the
Skandinaven, Schmidt had made a reply in a paper called
Northwestern and attempted to clarify what he meant by call-
ing the American common school "the Gates of Hell." Pro—
fessor Schmidt said, "In my English speech I did not mention
either the 'common school' or any other educational institu-
tion. Although I will not deny that people who do not listen
carefully what one really says can misunderstand, but one
who listens carefully and understands the speaker will re—
member what he has said and written before. They may judge

the speaker and his ideas."1

Schmidt gave a lengthy but
evasive answer. To this Anderson remarked, "You should note
that the Professor in his explanations is very unclear about
the common school. He does not deny that he used the words
'Gates of Hell' in describing the schools. I assume the Pro-
fessor was talking about 'real' not 'ethereal' schools."2
Anderson charged that Schmidt talked in such general and
evasive language about schools that he actually said nothing.
But Anderson insisted that Schmidt "must have had his eyes on
some existing schools when he spoke about the state schools
which were the 'Gates of Hell.'"3

An anonymous writer wrote an article entitled, "Pro-

fessor Anderson and the Common School," in which the writer

 

lIbid.

21bid.

31bid.

219

said that ”Professor Anderson is really the one who has put
the 'yeast in the ale' and now it flows in all directions.

His writings in the Skandinaven were as blasphemous as that

 

of a boy."1 As for the common school the writer said, "Any-
one who wishes to make use of the wonderful English school
can do as he pleases; as far as I am concerned, my children
have never made use of that school and will never attend
that school. I guess I will not be like other people then."2
The writer complained that a NOrwegian girl learned a little
English and then she was promoted to a teaching position in
the American school even if she could barely write the alpha—
bet, and her salary was twenty-five to thirty dollars a
month. On the other hand, a Nbrwegian religious school
teacher must be satisfied with half that amount. In addition,
the Norwegian school must be plain and simple.3 But, he con—
tinued that in spite of these limitations he would continue
to send his children to the religious school.

Many laymen at this time wrote on the school ques-
tion. In one letter entitled, "A Layman's Viewpoint On the
School Question," the writer, again anonymous and a supporter

of the Synod's position, said that the pastors were correct

in their enthusiasm for religion, "but this zeal in the

 

l"Professor Anderson and the Common School," Skandi-
naven, February 13, 1877.

2Ibid.

31bid.

 

220

pursuit of their calling made the ministers opinionated."l
He said that it would be unwise to combine the secular and
religious schools. The ministers tended to give "all sub—
jects a religious emphasis, so that the secular part of the
curriculum becomes very poor."2 This writer did not favor
giving ministers the responsibility for secular education
and thus "place it in the narrow confines of the religious
schools which would be clergy dominated."3 However, he was
quick to point out that he held "the ministers in high es-
teem as any other Lutheran" and recognized their worth, "but
if you mix citizen education and religion, it will be harm-
ful and a hindrance."4

Another layman who called himself, "Mere," wrote in
a letter to the editor, "Professor Anderson praises the com-
mon school to the sky, Mr. Askevold brings it down below
ground, and Mr. Lillisund is moderate and gives the schools
a place on the earth."5 "Mere" pointed out that Professor
Anderson said that he had never seen the common school as

despicable as the religious schools. But the Professor did

 

l"A Layman's VieWpoint On the School Question,"
Skandinaven, January 2, 1877.

21bid.

3Ibid.

41bid.

5"Something Added to the School Question," Skandi-
naven, January 2, 1877.

221

not know about the common schools in the Nbrwegian settle-
ments and "this he (Anderson) knows if he will think about
it. The teachers are the very worst as a rule. They are
inferior in their knowledge and in their teaching ability
and could not teach in the American community."1 Further—
more, Professor Anderson knew that the English language was
a dead language among the Nerwegian Americans. When the
children began their schooling they could say only a few
words in the English language, such as, "stoven," "pailen,"
"fielden."2 He asked what could be expected from a "Yankee
teacher who is not very good as a teacher? The children sit
around as if they were deaf and dumb. They act like
parrots."3 "Mere" then went on to describe the teachers'
methods. "The teacher says a few words. The parrots say
them over and over again until they are somewhat correct.
They learn the sound of the words, but what it means is some-
thing else. It is a mechanical and not a fruitful education.
No real teaching or learning is going on in these schools."4
Then the writer commented that there were some people who

think these schools are the very best. The parents should

realize that they must get "teachers who could give the

 

lIbid.

21bid.

31bid.

41bid.

222

thoughts with the words."1 As for the religious schools

they have a right to function and they ought to work to—
gether with the common school. "The common school and the
religious school are two educators which reach out their
hands in this great work to make mankind enlightened.“2 As
for the religious school, "When we tell ourselves how fortu-
nate we are that the false state church is dead and buried
in this country why do we then wish that it should rear its

head in the common school?"3

The writer continued, "The
kind of thinking that goes through Askevold's writings is
this, 'those in the common school do not learn Christian
teaching,‘ therefore it is heathen. Because it is heathen,
it is immoral; therefore Christian parents with a clear

4 The writer said this

conscience cannot make use of them."
kind of thinking was false, because it rested on a false
premise. It was true that religious education was very im-
portant, "but this does not mean that Christianity should be
the main subject in the common school. Religious instruction

5

can and should be in the church." The common school should

not be classified as unchristian and heathen because it does

 

1Ibid.

2Ibid.

31bid.

41bid.

51bid.

223

not teach Christian dogmas. It is wrong "that NOrwegians
with the deepest hatred speak about the Americans 'as a big
herd of unbaptized heathen' whose schools are heathen schools,
pick pocket institutions, where Christian people must not set
their foot."1
The Synod's position was reiterated by a writer who
called himself "Lader," supposedly a layman farmer. He first
praised the ministers for their efforts in establishing
Christian schools where there would be instruction in English
"so that we do not need to send our children to the common
school which breaks down the Christian faith."2 It was true,
Farmer Lader pointed out, that they had many commitments.
"We farmers have many obligations, religious schools, high
schools, churches, ministers, foreign missions, and home
missions, but if we have a 'good will we can pull a great
load.'"3 It was true, he admitted, that it would be ex-
pensive to establish religious schools which were comparable
to the district schools.4 Perhaps the only way that this

could be done was for the richer districts to assist the

poorer. Of particular concern to him were the "big

 

lIbid.

2"Also an Ides," Skandinaven, July 3, 1877.

31bid.

41bid.

224

grasshopper districts in the west where people do not have
food or clothing."1

But the writer said that the extreme financial hard-
ship of establishing these schools was only for a short time.
He now wished to give the Skandinaven "a bit of secret infor-
mation,"2 and the plan was that the Nbrwegian Synod and the
Missouri Synod would form a mighty union, "and when we have
gotten our Christian schools in good running order we will
do the same as the Catholics have done and demand our part
of the state money for our schools."3 The writer said the
argument they would use was that the Lutheran church schools
taught, besides religion, all the secular subjects, and
therefore, as tax paying citizens they had a right to have

some of these funds for the education of their children.

These Lutherans could not attend the common school because

 

l . . . . . .

The writer gives some 1nterest1ng information on
school finances of the period: "Now every district has
three to four months of religious school. The religious
school teacher's salary is twenty-five dollars a month and
his board is in addition to his salary. The most a religious
teacher can receive is almost one hundred dollars. But if
we now wish to establish congregational schools where be-
sides religious training there will be instruction in
langlish, we will need to have at least eight months of school:
VVhen you double the school year you must double the teacher's
zpay from one hundred dollars to two hundred dollars. The
Ininimum salary we could offer him would be forty dollars a
nuonth board included, 40 x 8 = $320.00. The teacher's salary
‘Will.go to over $300.00 a year. But this is not all; we will

ruaed a good school house and supplies." Ibid.
2Ibid.
3

Ibid.

225

their conscience would not permit them to send their children
to the religionless common school. Then in the colleges of
the denominations the students would be told that the
Lutherans had the "only pure doctrine,"1 and when they had
gotten their diplomas and had gone back to their settlements,
they would be sent to the legislature where together with
the Catholics they would receive state funds for their
congregational schools. This plan called for the large de-
nominations to ask for state funds first and after this the
smallest groups would ask for their share.2 Then followed
these apocalyptic words:

When these churches will get their share, the un—

godly common school will be no more. The word will

be striken from the earth. When that happens we

that remain will organize a feast of jubilation and

sing the_T§ Deum three times. Because the common

school, that mighty bulwark and obnoxious hoax is

leveled to the ground.3

As for knowledge, said the eloquent farmer Lader, it

was dangerous because it tended to make people conceited.
Their ministers did not wish to deny them education and

knowledge, but, after all, "it is not so much quantity as

quality that counts."4

 

1Ibid.

21bid.

3Ibid.

4Ibid.

226

One would expect the defenders of the common school
to answer this scathing attack on the American common school.
R. B. Anderson replied that if the Synod got this plan across
"it would be the last step. We could then say farewell to
the common school."l Should the Synod's viewpoint be ac—
cepted by the majority of Norwegian people, said Anderson,
and be carried out in the future by their children, "then it
could easily happen that our grandchildren with the Catholics
could celebrate over the ruins of the common school."2
Anderson exclaimed, "Oh, God! Don't let this take place!"3

However, not all those who favored the Synod's po-
sition were quite as radical as "Lader," or whoever he
might have been. C. Lillisund was a Norwegian school teacher
who took a more moderate position. Lillisund believed that
the widespread discussion of the school question in the
Scandinavian newspapers had been profitable. He wished to
clarify his position as not being the same as Bernt
Askevold's. Rather, "I want the common school, I respect
it, I will seek to build it up. A man from McFarland,
Wisconsin, wrote in the Skandinaven that I want to tear down
both the Skandinaven and the common school. What kind of

words are these? Have I ever said that I want to tear down

 

1R. B. Anderson, Skandinaven, August, 1877.

zIbid.

31bid.

227

the Skandinaven? I like the paper, and I don't think he

should have said that."1

Lillisund went on to express his
views on the common school. "Now listen," he wrote, "and
don't misunderstand me again! I love and respect the common
school, the school of the people, the United States system,
and the NOrwegian common school system. I like them as edu-
cational institutions for all. The common school is free.
It has been established for a free people. I love the school
because it is religionless. In this way the people have the
right to attend school irregardless of what sect they belong
to."2

However, after Lillisund had said some complimentary
things about the American common school he then began his
criticism. He wrote, "Because the schools are religionless
does not mean that these schools should be without order and
lacking morality."3 Take, for example, the so called "spell-
ing school." "Who in the world has seen greater monkey play,
or parrot squealing."4 He said that any Christian ought to
get angry over these conditions. The problem with the common

school was the careless, indifferent attitude which permeated

it. .Lillisund said the fault was with the parents themselves

 

1"The Common School," Skandinaven, April 17, 1877.

21bid.

31bid.

4Ibid.

228

who ought to manage the schools better. And often the
problem was with the teachers in the common school. ‘All
that many of them knew was "a little United States history,
geography, and arithmetic, etc."1 But even the poor teachers
were really the fault of the people who failed to get the
right kind of school superintendents who gave school teach-
ing credentials to just about anyone. Lillisund wrote that
the superintendents should choose good teachers, both men
and women, not "flighty boys and girls who are often wilder
than the school children themselves."2

When it came to the charge, however, that the common
school was religionless, Lillisund said that this was what
it must be in America. "Just think if someone would get one
sect, one kind of faith in the common school. The school
here in America must be without religion because of the laws
of the land."3 He said it was the duty of all to keep the
common school free of religion and have no part with those
who would follow the example of the Catholics and some Nor—
wegians who "are sailing in their wake and are doing all
possible to get their religion introduced into the common

school . . . but we can see that this would be very dangerous

 

lIbid.

21bid.

31bid.

229

because there is the possibility that a large church could
destroy it for everyone else."1

Although the Synod continued to slowly and painfully
build their own school system, things were not going well in
the late 1870's. This was illustrated by a letter appearing
in the Faedrelandet og emigranten written by a Norwegian re-
ligious school teacher. He admitted that the religious
school was needed in America but that conditions in the
church schools were not good. He raised the question as to
why the conditions of the religious schools were so poor.

His first reason for their lowly condition was that so little
consideration was given to them. "For example," he wrote,
"in the school district meetings where the religious school
is to be discussed we see few of the people who ought to be
present."2 This was true, he pointed out, even if the meet—
ings were held on time. The people excused themselves by
saying that they did not have the time to attend.

Another reason, said the discouraged religious school
teacher, for the poor condition of the Nbrwegian religious
school was the irregular attendance of the students. Even
in the older settlements where there was some organization
they only had two or three months of NOrwegian School a year.

This was good, he pointed out, but much more could be done.

 

11bid.

2"Again A WOrd about the School," Faedrelandet og
emigranten, October 24, 1877.

 

 

230

The real problem was the irregular attendance of the stu-
dents. The teacher wrote, "Everyone can think for them-
selves; what fruit and what future can we expect from this
school when the children come for one or two days and then
are absent for three or four? You cannot, naturally, talk
about progress under these conditions. The problem again is
the parental carelessness and irresponsibility."l

The third reason why the religious schools were in
the condition they were in was due, in part, to the manner
in which they treated the religious teacher. He said that
ministers received a call from a congregation; the teacher
also had a calling, but he was treated quite differently
from the minister. He wrote, "It is this way when a dis-
trict votes for a school; they hire a teacher if there is
someone at hand who will take the job. Then they speak to
him as if they had just hired someone who was going to labor
for them for a few days . . . They do not seem to care about
his qualifications and education. In this manner the teacher
is looked upon as a day laborer, or as a month laborer."2

But there were other serious problems in the re-
ligious school as well. One of the major problems had to do

with the common school that took the best time of the year

for their terms. This left the inconvenient times for the

 

lIbid.

21bid.

231

religious school and when the teacher was finished teaching,
"He takes his hat and goes; often he has gotten only half of

l The

the salary that the common school teacher receives.“
religious teacher must then seek other work where he could
get it; often he must be satisfied with teaching only two or
three months of the year.2 This teacher complained, "Under
these circumstances one need not wonder that a teacher gets
discouraged, nervous, and careless, and it is a weary kind
of life."3 The attitude of the layman was often expressed
in the fall of the year when the question of getting a
teacher for the religious school was talked about. The dia-
logue often went like this, "What will we do for a teacher
this year?" "Oh," replied the man, "someone will show up."4
This attitude of the layman made the teacher feel "strange"
and "unwanted."

Another problem of the religious school was the
rapid turn-over of teachers. The writer said that the
teacher would leave as he came to know the ability of the

children. There could not be good education under these

conditions.5

 

lIbid.

21bid.

31bid.

41bid.

5For another treatment of the same problem see 0. S.
Stoutlund's article, "Again A WOrd about Our Religious

232

Although J. A. Johnson was a staunch supporter of the
American common school, he was not blind to its faults any
more than the religious teacher already referred to was to
the Synod's religious schools. Johnson was much encouraged
by the great interest in the school question, "Good papers
are now filled with long articles about universal education
and the proper rearing of youth. Twenty years ago it was a
task to get it into the papers."1

Johnson understood the opponents of the common
school, and, therefore, the friends of popular education
must band together to oppose those who Oppose the common
school. The friends of public education knew that the com—
mon school needed improvement. Questions ought to be asked
of this nature, "Does the school live up to its purpose? Is
it fulfilling its duties?"2 There had been, however, im—
provement in school facilities, Johnson said, for example,
"Most of the schools are now equipped with quite good wall
maps and globes."3 He said the need now was for competent

teachers. Better facilities were important, but teachers

 

School." Stoutlund calls attention to the heavy load the
teachers must carry and the unpleasant conditions of teach-
ing. Faedrelandet og emigranten, January 16, 1876.

1J. A. Johnson, "The Common School Will Not Measure
Up to Its Aims Until It Has Permanent Teachers," Skandinaven,
July 3, 1877.

21bid.

31bid.

233

were teaching poorly because they knew little about the sub-
ject matter themselves. Therefore.the students had not
learned to think for themselves. These teachers had been
taught by old-fashioned methods and this was what they
taught the students.

R. B. Anderson in an article for the Skandinaven

 

seemed to complete a year of tremendous controversy over the
American school among the Norwegian—Americans. Anderson
said that the question was not really whether or not the
common school should be eliminated. True there were those
extremists who in their less rational moments made state—
ments about destroying the common school, but this was un-
usual. Anderson wrote that the real question, "is whether
the Norwegians in America shall make use of them or not."1
The Synod's ministers had said that the common school should
be maintained for "other citizens or other immigrant
children."2 But the Synod would continue to establish their
own schools so that their children need not use the common
school. Anderson said that their position had been that the
common school would be used as a temporary measure. He was

concerned that if the attitude of the ministers was adopted,

"it is not difficult to see that the entire American school

 

1R. B. Anderson, "The School Issue," Skandinaven,
August 21, 1877.

2Ibid.

234

system would be forced into a most dangerous position."l

Anderson maintained that the friends of American education
”take the viewpoint that the common school is for all the
country's children."2 It was the duty of every citizen to
see to it that the best men were elected to serve on the
school board, and if this was done they would see to it that
good teachers were selected. He wrote, "If you have a good
teacher, then you have a good school. The school is just
what the voters in the school district make it. Therefore
the school is always like a mirror where each can see them-
selves."3 In districts where people were concerned with the
school they had a good school, according to Anderson, and
where there was apathy a poor school. And what of the dis-
tricts where large numbers of Nerwegians were found? He
wrote, "In the great Nbrwegian settlements where our fellow
Norwegians are in charge of the common school the school
must 'sail its own boat'; where there are congregational
schools the parents must take them out of the common school
and send them to their own schools."4 Anderson expressed
some strong feelings about this practice, "I must say that

this is not fair, and it is not fair to the Republic. They

 

1Ibid.

—

2Ibid.

3Ibid.

4Ibid.

235

are forsaking the greatest cause which the Republic has laid
in their hands."1 He went on to complain that the Synod had
established congregational schools in both Madison, Wisconsin,
and Decorah, Iowa, but he said, "The common school is a
thousand times better than these 'side—shows' which have been
established."2

When the question was asked about the value of re-
ligious education, Anderson said that it was indeed important
but it must not come into conflict with the common school.
He wrote, "Give the children as much religious teaching as
you can, but never take them out of the common school. You
can teach them religion at home, you can send them to the
Sunday School, and you can establish church schools if they
are not in session when the common school is in session.
YOu can, if you ask, get the common school building to use
to run your religious school after the common school term is
over."3

Anderson now took Halle Steensland, his early ally
in the fight for the common school, to task for swinging
over to the Synod's position on the common school. "When he

lived in the country," wrote Anderson, "he sent his children

to the common school. But now he lives in the city and sends

 

1Ibid.

21bid.

31bid.

236

them to the church school."1 But Anderson said that he was

not alone in this practice, for many of the Synod's pastors
send their children to the common school. To Anderson
Steensland's2 position was just like the Synod's when he
"uses high sounding words that he is in favor of the common
school. Then naturally, his words have the same impact as
H. A. Preus or Pastor Muus' words when they preach their long
sermons and use such beautiful language about the necessity
of the common school."3 Anderson could hardly imagine what
it would be like in the United States if Steensland's and
the Synod's views would be accepted. It would be anarchy.
He wrote, "I do call on the Nbrwegian people once more to be
careful and stand in their places. The practice of not using
the common school and separating themselves by building their
own is a dangerous thing and must not develOp. The common
school must be supported and attended by our children at all
times."4

The reason for this vieWpoint on the part of Anderson

was based on the conviction that, if the Nerwegian remained

 

lIbid.

2Halle Steensland defended his actions of taking his
children out of the public school, and when he moved to

 

Madison placed them in the religious school. "Declaration
from Consul Halle Steensland," Skandinaven, August 7, 1877.
3

R. B. Anderson, "The School Issue," Skandinaven,
August 21, 1877.

4Ibid.

237

culturally isolated, they would have no influence on the
American people or American society. For it was the American
school where the culture was learned and where the English
language was taught. "The doors are open to this country's
schools. The high schools, academies, and universities
The American does not make a difference, but invites the im—
migrant child to the school desk, to sit together with their
own. Why not accept this generous invitation?"l Anderson
said that if they would allow them to go to the common
school, they were "saving their future generations from iso-
lation and doing the work of a slave; but if you do not do
this, the sins of the parents will follow the parents for
many generations."2

A layman wrote of his concern with the shortage of
teachers in 1878. He noted that the Synod in their June
meeting would consider the school question again. This lay-
man called for a couple of seminaries (teachers' training
schools) on both sides of the Mississippi. He wrote, "If we
cannot build large stone buildings costing twenty to thirty
thousand dollars, let us be satisfied with wood buildings.
The luxury of just getting prestige is not necessary in our

3

time." He went on to say, "The generations who follow us

 

1Skandinaven, August, 1877.
2Ibid.

3"School Teacher's Seminaries,"_Faedrelandet og emi-
granten, May 15, 1878.

238

will inherit our hard work and build beautiful buildings if
they wish to."1 He proposed that the small districts which
could not build congregational schools could follow the ex-
ample of the Missouri Synod. The smaller churches could use
their ministers as both teacher of the religious school and
minister of the church. The pastor could then hold school
five or six months of the year and preach God's Word on Sun-
day."2 He would indeed be a hard working pastor if this
plan were adopted. The minister, it was pointed out, would
then be available at all times to tend to the congregation
in sickness and in health. He would also teach the confir—
mation class and help in the organization of various youth
groups. The plan the writer admitted was the "practice of
the Missouri Synod and it is working and this is the reason
they have a strength which so many value and praise."
Writing in 1881 a "P. Oplo" commented on the poor
conditions of the religious schools and his plan for im—
proving them. "First, there must be a humbling on the part
of all who have been indifferent before God about Christian
education."4 In most places religious school was kept one

or two months of the year and then the children attended

 

lIbid.

21bid.

 

3Ibid.

 

4P- OplO. Faedrelandet og emigranten September 8.

1881.

239

only half the time. And when the children did go to the re-
ligious school you could not "pour it into the children's

1 According to Oplo,

hearts, No, it must fall as fine rain."
teaching conditions were poor in the religious school and
teachers' salaries worse. If teachers could be assured of a
salary, there would not be such a high turn-over of teachers
in the religious schools.

The writer was a teacher with twenty years experi-
ence who became so discouraged by the poor administration
of the schools that he was forced to stop teaching.

It would seem that as the decade of the 1870's came
to a close the Nbrwegian Lutheran Synod itself was not too
satisfied with the progress of the religious elementary
schools.2 "Even in settlements where congregational schools
had been in existence for several years they seldom build new
school buildings. The reason for this is because they (the
parents) do not want to be bothered and give money for the

support of the schools, and therefore do not put their hands

to the work in Christ's name."3

 

1Ibid.

2Only about 1800 students were attending the Synod
schools in 1879. .A writer for the Synod comments, "This
number is much too low when you think that only 1800 get a
good foundation and generous religious teaching. And who
knows how many of these are those who the parents send only
a few months and not the entire school year?" Kirkelig
maanedstidende, May 16, 1879.

 

3Ibid.

240

It became quite clear that by the end of the 1870's
the controversy died a natural death.1 The majority of NOr-
wegians continued to send their children to the American
common school, and the NOrwegian Lutheran Synod could never
accomplish what they set out to do in Manitowoc in 1866,
that of building a solid parochial system after the model
provided for them by the Missouri Lutheran Synod.

The American school controversy within the NOrwegian-
American community has been traced in this chapter. It was
a controversy not without its share of complexity and ranging
from moments when the defenders of their views did so with
reason and Christian charity to moments of personal vin—
dictiveness and acrimony. The debate over the American school
in the Nbrwegian settlements was particularly extensive and
heated because of the opposition of the largest and most
powerful religious body among the Nbrwegian—Americans, the
Nbrwegian Lutheran Synod. The Synod Opposed the American
school and sought to establish its own school system
patterned after that of the Missouri Lutheran Synod.

The plan of the Synod for its own school and its re-
jection of the American school system generated a counter
force led by a group of capable and articulate laymen, some

within the Synod, others without. These laymen were

 

1Laurence M. Larson,_The Changing West and Other
Essays (NOrthfield: N.A.H.A., 1937), p. 146.

241

democratic in sentiment and opposed the elitist views of the
Synod on the school question. They supported and defended

the American school system, particularly the common school.

CHAPTER V

AN EVALUATION OF NORWEGIANFAMERICAN CULTURE

AND THE AMERICAN SCHOOL PROBLEM

The controversy over the worth and role of the Ameri-
can school to the immigrant was by no means confined to the
Nbrwegian—American communities during the latter half of the
nineteenth century, nor can it be said that all native born
Americans saw the common school as an unmitigated blessing.
Many Americans born of old native stock viewed the school as
a nonsectarian institution which no longer taught the true
Protestant orthodox faith, and thus the common school of
Horace Mann could never fulfill its function. Many felt
that education without religion neither could nor would suc-
ceed. This criticism was not without some historical merit
for up to the nineteenth century there had never been edu-
cation without a religious emphasis of some kind. If many
Americans could not accept the nonsectarian American school,
it is little wonder that the immigrants often found it more
difficult to do so and therefore raised some questions about
the school's purpose and worth.

The immigrants' criticism of the American schools

‘was more vocal in the period after the close of the Civil

242

243

War and extended into the twentieth century. In the ante-
bellum period when immigration of Nbrwegians was relatively
small there was generally an acceptance of the American
School and an acknowledgment of the need to learn the English
language and to become "Americanized." This was not because
the immigrants had a great love for the American common
school and American society generally, but apparently because
they sensed a feeling of insignificance and futility in try—
ing to perpetuate their culture in a strange land when sur-
vival alone was foremost in their minds. However, this atti—
tude of resignation to the inevitability of losing their
culture and language gave way after the Civil War to the be-
lief that the ethnic life style could be and indeed must be
preserved in America.

Like the Norwegians, the four ethnic groups examined
in Chapter Two feared "Americanization" and advocated by
resolute determination the perpetuation of their culture,
language, and faith, and the establishment of their own
school systems. There were exceptions, of course, to the
prevailing attitude of the immigrants. Outstanding men like
the German, Carl Schurz, the Hollander, the Reverend Henrich
Peter Scholte, and among the Nbrwegians, John A. Johnson and
Rasmus B. Anderson, were but a few of the immigrant leaders
who accepted acculturation but still remained faithful to

their ethnic group.

244

It is an interesting social phenomenon that the
ethnic groups studied became more nationalistic and ethno—
centric in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The
second and third generation immigrants were often more
nationalistic than were their fathers and grandfathers who
disembarked to make their new home in America. It was this
"clannishness" or the immigrant's desire to perpetuate his
culture that the native American often resented. But the
immigrant in return resented the Yankee Sabbath, Boston
morals, and prohibition-values that the American considered
important. In addition, the native American's dislike of any
foreign language also embittered the immigrant. The Bennett
Law in Wisconsin was an attempt to prohibit the use of
foreign languages in the public school by the native Ameri-
cans and was bitterly opposed by all immigrant groups and
successfully repealed. Even the most liberal leaders of the
ethnic groups branded this law as nativistic in character.

A popular myth in America has been the notion that
the native American and the immigrant viewed America as some
kind of "melting pot." This concept of America was latent
in the sentimental sonnet written by Emma Lazarus (1843-1887)

and inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty:

245

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, . .

Send these, the hOmeless, tempest—tossed, to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Lazarus seemed to express the prevailing attitude of the
native American in the lines, "The wretched refuse of your
teeming shore." Perhaps this was the attitude of the Ameri-
can who gladly used the cheap labor of the immigrant in the
development of a nation. But the immigrant, although poor,
disliked being labeled as "wretched refuse," and, although
things might have been bad in the nation of their origin,
they looked back in love not anger. As Waldemar Ager pointed
out, the native American wanted the immigrants from Europe
to be melted in the pot with other ethnic groups, but the
native American saw no need of getting into the pot with the
"Russian, the Pole, or the Jew." The European was a cheap
source of labor but not a social equal to the American. It
is of little wonder that the immigrant resented this atti-
tude and sought cultural isolation rather than acculturation
into the dominant society.

As a rule the ethnic immigrant groups opposed the
American public school which was viewed as an institution

that would destroy their ethnic solidarity or their religious

 

lEmma Lazarus, "The New Colossus," Poetry for

Pleasure (Garden City, New YOrk: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1960), p. 290.

 

246

faith.1 The obvious solution then was to establish their
own schools where the process and aims of education could be
controlled.

The major focus of the dissertation was on the
controversy over the American schools among the Nbrwegian—
Americans. When we look in depth at this struggle, we see
that a major issue was the relationship between the NOrwegian
Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Missouri Lutheran Synod.
Part of the blame for forcing the NOrwegian Synod, the
largest of the Norwegian church bodies, to seek fraternal
and educational opportunities with the Missouri Synod must
be placed on the Norwegian Lutheran Church in NOrway for not
sending the pastors the Synod repeatedly asked for and so
desperately needed for the churches on the frontier. The
theological faculty and leaders of the State Church in Nor-
way questioned the affiliation between the Nbrwegian Synod
and Missouri but did little or nothing to alleviate the

critical shortage of pastors.

 

1Theodore Blegen has written that the Swedes did not
seem to have debated the value of the American school as did
the Nbrwegians. He says that the controversy over the Ameri-
can school "was wholly lacking among the Swedish American
Lutherans." Theodore C. Blegen, Nbrwegian Migration to
America 1825-1860 (Nbrthfield: Nbrwegian-American Histori-
cal Association, 1931), pp. 243—244. Although it is true
that it never reached the proportions of the struggle of the
Nbrwegians, the Swedes were not free of controversy. Leaders
of the Swedish Lutherans like Erik Norelius took a position
not too unlike the leadership of the Norwegian Synod.

247

After the NOrwegian Synod began sending their young
men to the Seminary in St. Louis just prior to the Civil War,
they came under the charismatic spell of C. F. W; walther who
was to mentor the NOrwegian Synod leadership and reshape
their theology and social thinking. The leadership of the
NOrwegian Synod never ceased to refer to the excellent theo-
logical education they received under professors Gisle
Johnson and C. P. Caspari; but clearly the influence of these
men declined as the pastors came more and more under the in-
fluence of walther. An illustration of Walther's increased
power over men like J. A. Ottesen and U. V. Kbren can be
seen in the slavery question. The position of Walther and
the Missouri Synod was that "slavery in itself is not sin"
and this became the position of the leadership of the Norr
wegian Synod. When the position of the Oslo Theological
Faculty was sought, the faculty replied that this was
basically a socio-historical question and not a theological
one and therefore could not be decided solely on the basis
of Scripture.

Not only did the locus of influence and authority
shift from Oslo, Norway, to St. Louis, Missouri, but with
the transition came a change in the theological position of
the NOrwegian Synod's pastors. It would appear that U. V.
Kbren was influenced by Walther to the extent that he re—
jected the "Second Form" on election which was the one held

by the Lutheran State Church in Norway. Over the years

248

Kbren became so impressed with the Calvinistic views of
Walther that he claimed that this was the View taught by
Professor Gisle Johnson at the University and had class
notes to prove it. Koren was possibly correct in saying
that he had notes on the "First Form" because Professor
Johnson, probably in his lectures, presented the Calvinistic
view as well as the Lutheran "Second Form."

As in the controversy over the place of the layman
in the life of the church, as well as in the slavery and
election debates, it can be clearly seen that the pastors of
the Norwegian Synod were following the rather elitist views
of the leadership of the Missouri Synod--views which the
majority of democratic—minded, and independent-minded Nor—
'wegians would resent and eventually revolt against.

The alliance with the Germans of Missouri was dis—
astrous because it blinded the eyes of the leadership of the
Norwegian Synod to the historical and social differences be-
tween the Germans and the Nbrwegians. It should have been
clear to the pastors of the Synod that the Nbrwegians were
not the homogeneous followers of Martin Stephen who had
organized the Gesellschaft which settled in Missouri, a
slave state and later a member of the confederacy. With the
exception of the NOrwegians in Texas very few NOrwegians
settled south of the Mason Dixon line. Both those who came
before the Civil War and those after had no sympathy for

slavery, the South, or the Democratic Party. The NOrwegians

249

became ardent Republicans. The Saxons in Missouri continued
to support State Rights and the Democrats prior to and during
the Civil war. Probably the reason that they did so was
that they wanted to develop their colony and religion with
the least amount of opposition from outside influences.
Another reason for the Nbrwegians' opposition to the
Missouri affiliations and the oft heard cry, "that is
Missouri," in the Synod meetings was the Missouri Synod's ap-
proach to church and social problems. The Missouri Synod
model was used by the leadership of the Nbrwegian Synod who
failed to see that, although it was a workable one for the
Germans, it did not work with the Norwegians. What the NOr-
wegian leadership did not understand was that the Nbrwegian
had come out of a different cultural and social milieu in
NOrway. The Norwegian immigrant had left NOrway primarily
for economic reasons, but he was still influenced by the new
intellectual and political events taking place in Nbrway.
Historically, the Nbrwegian had always had a love of freedom
which had been nurtured for centuries in the bygders of home
valleys. Freedom had been revived in NOrway after the
generally liberal Constitution of May 17, 1814. This spirit
of liberty was promoted and romanticized in poetry and
literature; political leaders like Hans Nielsen Hauge pro-
moted in the NOrwegian people opposition to the Danish ap-
pointed officials who were often oppressive and always~

arrogant and class conscious.

250

It would seem that the Norwegian Synod's leadership
who came from the ruling class of Norway found it rather
easy to identify with the exclusive and aristocratic white
gentlemen of the Southern States. Many of the Nbrwegian lay-
men within the Norwegian Synod resented this stress on po-
sition of the clergy and the assigning of inferior status to
the laymen. It is no wonder that the egalitarian editor,
Knud Langland, despised the class consciousness of the Nor-
wegian clergy in Norway as a young man and disliked these
same elements in the aristocratic leadership of the NOrwegian
Synod. He often expressed his dislike of these anti-
democratic tendencies in the pages of the Skandinaven. In
addition, the Eielsen Synod, the heirs of Hans Nielsen Hauge,
were egalitarian and seemed best to express the philosophy
and thinking of so many of the laymen of the NOrwegian Synod.
However, many of these same laymen disagreed with the church
practices of the Eielsen Synod, but they did not disapprove
of the Synod's opposition to slavery and their support of the
American common school.

There was in the minds of the pastors of the NOr-
wegian Synod a desire to isolate the Norwegians from the
dominant American society. Some realized that at best it
was a holding action, but nevertheless they were committed
to it. Acculturation could be stalled by stressing Nbrwegian
as a spoken language in the home, school, and church. Thus

it would not only save the language, "the language of the

251

home and prayer," but it would save the Nbrwegians for the
Lutheran church as well and keep them away from the Yankee
churches. Perhaps this was one of the reasons for the in—
tense opposition of the Synod's pastors to the Scandinavian
Lutheran Educationai Socieiy whose principal aim was to
place Scandinavian Lutheran professors in American colleges
and universities. The President of the Synod, the Reverend
1H. A. Preus, pointed out that the Synod was not opposed to
education, libraries, and good literature, but that it was
highly dangerous to send immature Nbrwegian young people to
.American schools. Here they would come in contact with
.American young people who might question the religion of
these "backward and dogmatic" Lutheran students. The simple
fact was that youth educated in sectarian schools simply
‘would not believe any longer in a conservative Lutheran
faith such as the Nbrwegian Synod and the Missouri Synod.
The Norwegian Synod's views on the American school
system has been dealt with at some length and has traced the
internal struggle within the Nbrwegian-American community.
There was controversy over the public school in other ethnic
groups, but in the Nbrwegian community the opposition was
perhaps more apparent, at least from the Norwegian's point
of view, because the largest religious group in opposition
to the American school system was the Norwegian Lutheran
Synod. The other Nbrwegian Lutheran groups supported, by—in—

large, the American school.

252

Although there had been opposition to the American
school before the Civil War, the position of the Norwegian
Synod was not made clear until the Synod met at Manitowoc,
Wisconsin, in the summer of 1866. It was here that they
clarified their position and argued over the best word to de—
scribe the American common school. On the surface it would
seem to be a question of semantics. At first, the adjective
"heathen" was used to describe American schools. One might
ascribe the poor choice of words to the ignorance of immi-
grants who simply did not know the English language very
well. There might be some measure of truth in this ex-
planation; however, it must be pointed out that they knew
enough ancient history to assert that Socrates was a "heathen"
who commanded great respect, and therefore the native Ameri-
can should not feel too badly about being identified with
Socrates. However, before the meeting was over the word "re—
ligionless" was substituted for "heathen." They concluded
that this word would not sound so badly in the ears of the
native Americans. "Religionless" was used widely and re-
peatedly during the controversy tociescribe the American
common school.

In a study of the old Norwegian Synod one soon
realizes that these were strong men not given to compromise
but given to polarization of ideas and attitudes. As with
the slavery question so with the common school. But if it

was not compromise, then it was a strange inconsistency.

253

They said that slavery was both ” good and evil" and that
the common school was also good and evil.1 It would seem
that they could at times argue from whatever set of as-
sumptions best suited the occasion.

The NOrwegian Synod's model for a school system was
that of the Missouri Synod which worked very well indeed for
the Saxon Lutherans. It was not that the leadership of the
Synod opposed education, for they were educated men them-
selves and knew its value. Pastors like H. A. Preus realized
that the Norwegian without education would be forever rele-
gated to doing lowly menial tasks. Preus outlined a complete
educational system which included the elementary, middle,
academy, and finally the college. The students then would
not return to the NOrwegian settlements with their heads full
of American, sectarian, and liberal notions. The plan of
the Scandinavian Lutheran Educational Society for Scandi-

navian Lutheran professors would not work. The only way

 

Belgum claims that pastors like KOren and Ottesen
were logicians. ‘He has written " . . . whether because of
formal training in Aristotelian logic or through informal
practice in dialectic, such pastors as KOren and Ottesen were
formidably logical. Many an Opponent in theological strife
during their half-century of labor in the transplanted church
must have become ruefully aware of their superiority in
argumentation." Gerhard Lee Belgum, "The Old NOrwegian Synod
in America, 1853-1890" (unpublished thesis, Yale University,
1957), p. 101. Belgum cites C. L. Clausen's experience with
Ottesen, H. A. Preus, and Laurence Larsen in the slavery
controversy. It might be added that it would not be much Of
a task to defeat a pastor with no formal university education
in any kind of debate. R. B. Anderson could see no logic in
their position on slavery and on the common school. He could
see only inconsistency.

254

t:hat Lutheran orthodoxy could be preserved is for the Synod
‘to do the complete task of education. But laymen like John
1%. Johnson called for more vocational and practical education.
IIf NOrwegians were to have a part in building America,
aargued Johnson, they must be educated to design and build
loridges, buildings, and highways. (As Johnson pointed out,
'the Synod could not nor would not supply this kind of edu-
‘cation. This contention Of Johnson was born out, for the
curriculum of Luther College remained narrowly philological
long after the school controversy had ended. It became quite
clear as the century progressed that the large majority of
NOrwegian-Americans would not follow the leadership Of the
pastors on the school question. This was especially true as
the pastors became more and more enchanted by the Missouri
Synod.

However, other laymen besides John A. Johnson op—
posed the Synod's plans to build their own school system.
ILeaders of the NOrwegian-American communities such as Knud
ZLangeland, Rasmus B. Anderson, and others pointed out re-
peatedly that the Synod did not have the funds necessary to
Tbuild their own educational system, for it seemed to them to
'be a matter of finances as much as will and determination.
These laymen pointed out that will and determination were ad—
‘mirable virtues, but it took money to erect buildings and

pay the salaries of teachers.

H

 

 

 

255

The opposition Of the laymen was not purely on
financial grounds. .Men like Rasmus B. Anderson saw the
.American common school as the "chief cornerstone Of the Re—
jpublic." TO Anderson the American school was egalitarian
and Jacksonian in spirit. The NOrwegian immigrant could
still become enraged to think of the humiliation received
from the class conscious clergy in NOrway, and they were de-
termined that it would not happen in America. They opposed
the pastors in the Norwegian press and did it effectively.
Some native Americans also opposed the plans of the Synod
pastors and accused them of "priestcraft" and of being
"monarchists," concepts they considered foreign to America,
and there were many NOrwegians who conceded that the nativists
were right at this point. The laymen came to believe that
you could not be a good American and be Opposed to the demo—
cratic American common school.

The laymen, however, were not blind to the short-
comings of the American school. They admitted the weak-
nesses of these schools for terms were short, buildings
poorly constructed, and teachers too Often poorly educated
and always poorly paid. But while they fully recognized the
shortcomings of the American public schools, they called for
the support of all Christian citizens to help make it the
kind Of institution it ought to be. This line Of attack

often disarmed the Opposition, at least to some degree.

256

Rasmus B. Anderson acknowledged that there were
those individuals who would destroy the American common
school if they could. But Anderson did not believe this was
the crucial issue. The real issue was, rather, whether the
NOrwegian immigrants should attend American schools. The
Synod had for years talked about developing a parochial
system so complete and with such quality that the Norwegians
would not need the American schools. Such a plan and such
an attitude could only isolate the NOrwegian immigrant from
the mainstream of American social life. Anderson contended
during his long and stormy life that the Norwegians had some—
thing tO Offer the American people and the developing nation.
Although Anderson, the NOrwegian sage on Carroll Street in
Madison, had enemies both in the American and NOrwegian com-
munity, few would deny that he believed that the Norwegian
need not hang his head in shame but could be proud of NOrway
and Norwegian culture. Furthermore, the NOrwegian did not
need to renounce his Norwegian culture to be a loyal Ameri—
can. Anderson's entire life was spent in promoting the
merits of Scandinavian culture, and he Opposed the native
American's desire to cut off the immigrant from his cultural
roots.

Anderson was joined in this crusade by men like
Langeland, Johnson, and later, R¢lvaag, who insisted that
there need not be a melting pot at all--that the NOrwegian

could at the same time be a good American and still maintain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

257

and cherish his NOrwegian culture and heritage. The average
American, however, saw little good in a cultural pluralism
but a great deal of value in the concept of America as a
melting pot for this would promote the spirit of national
unity and loyalty to America alone.

Interestingly enough the question Of "cultural
pluralismf'which troubled the immigrants, has been raised
again in our society. Today the Negro in America is seeking
an "identity" and a concomitant stress on his racial and
cultural heritage from Africa. Thus we hear of the I'black"
Americans and "Afro-Americans." This raises the question of
whether American society can be totally integrated, using
the "melting pot" concept, or whether the social situation
demands a "cultural pluralism." On this question Kenneth
Boulding has written:

Stressing the "melting pot" idea, American society
has sought to create through public education a uni-
form culture. With increased affluence and in-
creased political skill, this ideal can now be
called into question. Can we now invent a "mosaic"
society, composed of many small subcultures, each of
which gives to its participants a sense of community
and identity so desperately needed in a mass world,
and which can at the same time remain at peace with
its neighbors and not threaten to pull the society
apart?l

These leaders of the Norwegians, although they could

not articulate it as well as modern observers, believed that

 

1Kenneth E. Boulding, "Expecting the Unexpected:
The Uncertain Future of Knowledge and Technology," Designing
_Education for the Future, Vol. I, ed. Edgar L. MOrphet and
Charles 0. Ryan (New York: Citation Press, 1967), p. 212.

258

the native American or the dominant society had never fully
recognized or appreciated the ethnic and cultural diversity
of American society. Little sympathy had been shown in
their schools for people of different and distinct life
patterns. To the nativist in particular it was inconceivable
that one could be a "good American" and not have the same
tastes and values of the New England Yankee. What men like
Anderson and R¢lvaag said was that one could indeed be a
good American and at the same time not deny but recognize
and participate in things Norwegian. To them the public
school ought to be a place where Norwegians could learn
about America and still appreciate NOrwegian culture and
heritage. Regretfully, few Yankee teachers in Norwegian
communities knew or cared much for NOrway or NOrwegian
culture. To them "the melting pot" filled with immigrants
and seasoned with a generous amount of dominant values would
produce the kind of man envisioned by Hector St. John de
Crevecoeur in the late 18th century, "The American is a new
man, who acts upon new principles; he must therefore enter-
tain new ideas, and form new opinions. From involuntary
idleness, servile dependence, penury, and useless labour, he
has passed to toils of a very different nature, rewarded by

ample subsistence--This is an American."1 It was this model

 

1Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, "Letters from an
American Farmer," Literature of the Early Republic, ed.
Edwin H. Cady (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1950),
p. 289.

 

 

 

 

259

and not that of cultural pluralism which was adopted by
American educators.1

With the demise of the NOrwegian Lutheran Synod as a
power in the NOrwegian communities after 1890 its membership
dropped from 144,000 to 94,000 members. This came about when
the anti-Missourian element left the Synod to form the
Brotherhood.

Although the Old Norwegian Lutheran Synod was
weakened by the secession of the anti-Missouri element, the
old "Decorah Ring" continued to lead what was left of the
once powerful Synod. After the death of the leaders such as
KOren and Preus, the Synod joined with several other Nor-
wegian Lutheran bodies in a merger in 1917. However, a very
small minority refused to join this new alignment and as
late as 1925 there was still opposition to the American
school. O.M. NOrlie, professor at Luther College, wrote in
1925, "The secular schools by their very secular nature, not

to speak of their anti-christian spirit in many places, are

 

. lCalvin Stowe expressed the same sentiment when in a
speech he said, "It is altogether essential to our national
existence that the foreigners who settle on our soil should
cease to be Europeans and become Americans; and as our
manners and our institutions are Of English origin, and the
whole foundation of our society English, it is necessary that
they become substantially Anglo-Americans." Transactions of
the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Western Literary Institute
and College of Professional Teachers (Cincinnati: Executive
Committee, 1836), pp. 65-66, as quoted in David B. Tyack
(ed.),_Turning Pgints in American Educational History
(Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing Company, 1967), p.
149.

260

de-christianizing the land, no matter how much some of them
try not to do so."1 The dogmatic voices and spirit of KOren,
Ottesen, Preus, and Muus echo through these words, but the
American school controversy was over and had been for many
years. The NOrwegian immigrant had made his decision. Not
only was America as a country his home but the American
school, in spite of its weaknesses, was to be his school, an
institution of American society which he supported and

valued.

 

10. M. NOrlie, History of the NOrwegian People in

America (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1925),
p. 377.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Church Periodicals

Beretning omet Mode Til Fremmelse of Folke-oplysning blandt
Skgndinaverne i Amerika avholdt i Madisons Norskg
Lutherske Kirke i Madison den 5te Marts, 1869.
(From the O. M. Norlie Collection, Northfield:
NOrwegian-American Historical Association) Preface
Page.

 

Evangelisk Lutherske Kirketidende. December 8, 1876.
Kirkelig magnedstidende. May 16, 1879.
Synodalberetning. LaCross, Wisconsin: June 21-29, 1873.

Synodalberetning. Manitowoc, Wisconsin: June 20-28, 1866.

Newspapers

"Again a WOrd about the School," Faedrelandet og emigranten.
October 24, 1877.

"A Layman's VieWpOint on the School Question," Skandinaven.
January 2, 1877.

 

"Also an Idea," Skandinaven. July 3, 1877.

 

Anderson, R. B. "Against the Common School," Skandinaven.
October 17, 1876.

 

Anderson, R. B. "Loose Screws in the Schools," Skandinaven.
January 2, 1877.

Anderson, R. B. Skandinaven. August, 1877.

 

Anderson, R. B. Skandinaven. June 5, 1877.

261

262

Anderson, R. B. "The American School," Skandinaven.
February 16, 1870.

 

Anderson, R. B. "The School Issue," Skandinaven. August
21, 1877.

 

Berdahl, A. J. Faedrelandet og emigranten. August 3, 1871.

Clausen, C. L. "Scandinavian Lutheran Professors in American
Colleges," Skandinaven. NOvember 11, 1868.

 

Decorah Republican. February 7, 1869.
Decorah Republican. February 8, 1866.

Decorah Republican. March 22, 1872.

 

Johnson, J. A. "A Report of the Madison Meeting," Skandi-
naven. March, 1869.

Johnson, J. A. Skandinaven. December 15, 1874.

Johnson, J. A. "The Common School," Skandinaven. April 13,
1870.

 

Johnson, J. A. "The Common School Will Not Measure Up to
Its Aims Until It Has Permanent Teachers," Skandi-
naven. July 3, 1877.

Johnson, J. A. "The School Issue," Skandinaven. November
22, 1866.

Johnson, J. A. "The Tree Is Known by Its Fruit," Skandinaven.
January 9, 1877.

Langeland, Knud. Skandinaven. September 6, 1866.

Muus, B. J. "Schools and Good Schools," Faedrelandet og
emigranten. »March 10, 1870.

NOrelius, Erik. "The Swedish Lutheran Church and Our Public
Schools," Skandinaven. May 14, 1874.

Oplo, P. Faedrelandet ogpemigrgnten. September 8, 1881.

Preus, A. C. ”The NOrwegian Synod and the American Common
School," Skandinaven. September 27, 1866.

"Professor Anderson and the Common School,‘I Skandinaven.
February 13, 1877.

263

"School Teacher's Seminaries," Faedrelandet ogiemigranten.
May 15, 1878.

 

"Something Added to the School Question," Skandinaven.
January 2, 1877.

 

Steensland, Halle. "Declaration from Consul Halle Steens—
land," Skandinaven. August 7, 1877.

Stoutland, O. S. "Again a WOrd about Our Religious School,"
_Faedrelandet og emigranten. January 16, 1876.

"The Common School," Skandinaven. April 17, 1877.

"The School System among the Norwegian-Americans," Skandi-
naven. July 29, 1873.

Wilson, H. B. "Our Public Schools Versus Sectarian Schools
in a Foreign Language," Skandinaven. May 25, 1870.

 

Secondary Sources

Books

Adams, William F. Ireland and Irish Emigration to the_New
WOrld. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932.

Anderson, Rasmus B. Life Story. Madison: Private Printing,
1917, sec. ed.

Anderson, Rasmus B. The First Chapter Of Norwegian Immi-
gration. Madison, Wisconsin: Private Printing,
1906.

Arden, Everett. Augustanngeritage: A History of the
Augustana Lutheran Church. Rock Island, Illinois:
The Augustana Press, 1963.

 

Arden, Everett (translator and editor). The Journals of
Erik NOrelius. Philadelphia: Frontier Fortress
Press, 1967.

 

Babcock, Kendric Charles. The Scandinavian Element in the
UnitedfiStates. University of Illinois, 1914.

Barry, Colman J. The Catholic Church and German Americans.
Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1952.

264

Beck, Walter H. Lutheran Eiementary §chools in the United
States. second edition. St. Louis, Missouri:
Concordia Publishing House, 1965.

Bergmann, Leola N. Americans from NOrway. Philadelphia:
J. B. Lippincott Company, 1950.

Billington, Ray Allen. The Protestant Crusade. New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1938.

 

Blegen, Theodore C. (ed.). Land of Their Choice. Minne-
apolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955.

 

Blegen, Theodore C. NOrwegian Migration to America: The
American_Transition. NOrthfield: NOrwegian-
American Historical Association, 1940.

 

Blegen, Theodore C. NOrwegian Migration to America; 1825-
1860. NOrthfield: NOrwegian-American Historical
Association, 1931.

Blegen, Theodore C. (translator and editor). Ole Rynningflg
True Account of America. Vol. I. Minneapolis:
NOrwegian-American Historical Association, 1926.

 

Brown, F. J. and Roucek, J. S. _Qne America. New York:
Prentice Hall, 1946.

Brown, Thomas N. Irish-American Nationalism, 1870-1890.
Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Company, 1966.

 

Clausen, Clarence A. and Elviken, Andreas (translators and
editors). A Chronicle Of Old Muskego: The Diary of
S¢ren_nghe, 1839-1847. NOrthfield: NOrwegian-
American Historical Association, 1951.

 

Commager, Henry Steele (ed.). Immigration and American
History;» Essgys in Honor Of Theodore C. Blegen.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1961.

Cross, Robert D. The Emergence Of Liberal Catholicism in
America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1958.

Curti, Merle. -The Social Ideas of American Educators. Re-
vised edition. Paterson, New Jersey: Littlefield,
Adams, and Company, 1961.

de Crevecoeur, Hector St. John. "Letters from an American
Farmer," Cady, Edwin H. (ed.). Literature of the
Early Republic. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1950.

 

 

265

Dowie, J. Iverne and Espelie, Ernest M. (ed.). The Swedish
Immigrant COmmunity in Transition. Rock Island,
Illinois: Augustana Historical Society, 1963.

Downs, Brian W; MOdern NOrwegian Literature, 1860-1918.
Cambridge: The University Press, 1966.

Drake, William E. _The American School in Transition. Engle-
wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955.

Ellis, John Tracy (ed.). _rouments of Ameriggn Catholic
History. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company,
1965.

Ellis, John Tracy. Perspectives in American Catholicism.
Baltimore: Helicon, 1963.

Ellis, John Tracy. The Life Of James Cardinal Gibbons. 2
vols. Vol. II. MilWaukee: Bruce Publishing Company,
1952.

Flom, George T. A History of NOrwegian Immigration to the
United States. Privately printed, 1909.

Forster, walter O. Zion on the Mississippi. St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1953.

Frontier Parsonage: The Egtters oijlggs Fredrik Duus, NOr-
wegian Pastor in Wisconsin, 1855-1858. Translated
by the Verdandi Study Club Of Minneapolis and edited
by Theodore C. Blegen. NOrthfield: NOrwegian-
American Historical Association, 1947.

Gross, Carl H. and Chandler, Charles C. The History Of Ameri-
can Education Through Readings. Boston: D. C.
Heath and Company, 1964.

Hansen, Marcus Lee. _The Immigrant in American History. Cam-
bridge: The Harvard University Press, 1942.

Hawgood, John A. The Tragedy of German-America. New York:
G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1940.

Hinsdale, B. A. _Horace Mann and the Common School Revival
in the United States. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1900.

 

Huebener, Theodore. ‘The Germans in America. Philadelphia:
Chilton Company, Book Division, 1962.

266

Hustvedt, Lloyd. Rasmus Bj¢rn Anderson. NOrthfield:

Janson,

NOrwegian-American Historical Association, 1966.

Florence E. The Background of Swedish Immigration.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931.

Jorgenson, Lloyd P. The Founding of Public Education in

Kennedy,

Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin: Madison State
Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1956.

 

John F. IA Nation of Immigrants. New York: Harper
& Row Publishers, 1964.

Kromminga, John. The Christian Reformed Church. Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949.

Langeland, Knud. NOrdmaendene i Amerika. Chicago: John

Larsen,

Larson,

Laws of

Lazarus,

Lucas,

Malmin,

Marden,

 

Anderson Company, 1888T7

Karen. Laur. pgrsen: Pioneer College President.

NOrthfield: NOrwegian-American Historical Associ-
ation, 1936.

Laurence M, The Changing West and Other Essays.
NOrthfield: Norwegian—American Historical Associ-
ation, 1937 ..

Wisconsin Related to Common Schools Including Frag
High Schools Also Those Relatinggto Normal Schools
and the University. Under the direction of Jesse B.
Thayer, Madison, Wisconsin, 1890.

Emma. "The New Colossus,"_goetry for Pleasure.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1960.

Henry S. Netherlanders in America. Ann Arbor: The

University of Michigan Press, 1955.

Gunner J. America in the Forties: The Letters of
Ole Munch Raeder.. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota PresE—for the Norwegian—American Historical
Association, 1929.

Charles F. Minorities in American Social Life. New
York: American Book Company, 1952.

Maynard, Theodore. The Catholic Church and the American

Idea. New York: Appelton—Century-Crofts, Inc.,
1953. .

 

 

267

McAvoy, Thomas T. The Great Crisis in American Catholic
Historng1895-l900. Chicago: Henry Regnery
Company, 1957.

Morphet, Edgar L. and Ryan, Charles 0. (ed.). Designing
Education for the Future. Vol. I. New York:
Citation Press, 1967.

 

Nelson, David T. Luther College, 1861-1961. Decorah, Iowa:
Luther College Press, 1961.

Nelson, E. Clifford and Fevold, Eugene L. The Lutheran Church
Among NOrwegian-Americans. Vol. I. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1960.

 

NOdtvedt, Magnus. Rebirth of NOrway's Peasantry. Tacoma,
Washington: Pacific Lutheran University Press, 1965.

Norlie, O. M. History of the Norwegian People in America.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1925.

Perkinson, Henry J. The Imperfect Panggea: American Faith
in Education, 1865-1965. New York: Random House,
1968.

Rohne, J. Magnus. NOrwegian American Lutheranism Up to 1872.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1926.

Schneider, Carl E. The German Church on the American
Frontier. St. Louis, Missouri: Eden Publishing
House, 1939.

 

Schrier, Arnold. Ireland and the American Emigrationy 1850—
1900. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1958.

Shannon, William V. _The American Irish. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1963.

Sparks, Jared. The WOrks of Benjamin Franklin. Vol. VIII.
Chicago: T. MacConn, 1882.

 

Stellhorn, August C. _Schools of the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963.

Stephenson, George M. The Religious Aspects of Swedish Immi-

gration. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota
Press, 1932.

 

268

Sweet, w. W. Religion on the American Frontier, The Congre-
gationalist. Vol. III. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1939.

Tharp,Lpuise Hall. ‘Until Victory: Horace Mann and Many
Peabody. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1953.

 

Thayer, V. T. The Attack on the American Secular School.
Boston: The Beacon Press, 1951.

 

Tyack, David B. (ed.). Turning Points in American Education-
al History. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing
Company, 1967.

Wittke, Carl. We Who Built Americg. 2d ed. rev. Cleveland:
The Press Of Western Reserve University, 1964.

 

Wittke, Carl. Refugees of Revolution. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity Of Pennsylvania Press, 1952.

Articles, Bulletinsy Disseitations,
Periodicalsy and Reports

"An Early NOrse Settlement in Iowa," Iowa Journal of History
and Politics. Vol. 39, 1941.

 

 

Belgum, Gerhard Lee. "The Old Norwegian Synod in America,
1853-1890." Unpublished thesis, Yale University,
1957.

Bulletin Ofgputher College Catalog 1966-68. Vol..XLVI.

L¢venskjold, Adam. "An Account of the NOrwegian Settlers in
NOrth America,“ Wisconsin Magazine of History. Vol.
8, 1924.

Munch, Peter A. "Social Adjustment among Wisconsin NOr-
wegians," American Sociological Review. 14:780-87
(December, 1949).

Nattestad, Ole. "Description of a Journey to NOrth America,"
(translated by R. B. Anderson) Wisconsin Magazine
of History. Vol. I. (December, 1917).

 

NOrwegian-American Studies and Records. NOrthfield:
NOrwegianeAmerican Historical Association.

Andersen, Arlow w. "Knud Langeland: Pioneer Editor,"
Vol. XIV, 1944.

 

269

Blegen, Theodore C. (translator and editor). “Immi-
grant WOmen and the American Frontier," Vol.
V, 19300

Clausen, C. A. (translator and editor). "A Nor-
wegian Schoolmaster Looks at America,“ Vol.
XIII, 1943.

DePillis, Mario S. "Cleng Peerson and the Communi-

tarian Background of Norwegian Immigration,"
Vol. XXI, 1962.

DePillis, Mario S. "Still More Light on the Kendall
Colony: A Unique Slooper.Letter," Vol. XX,
1959.

Draxten, Nina. "Kristofer Janson's Lecture Tour,

1879-80," V010 XXII) 1965.

Gjerset, Knut and Hektoen, Ludvig. "Health Con-
ditions and the Practice of Medicine among
the Early NOrwegian Settlers, 1825-1865,"
Vol. I, Minneapolis: 1926.

Glasrud, Clarence A. “Boyesen and the Norwegian
Immigration," Vol. XIX, 1956.

Hansen, Marcus L. "Immigration and Puritanism," Vol.
IX. 1936.

Haugen, Einar. "A NOrwegian American Pioneer Ballad,"
Vol. XV, 1949.

Haugen, Einar. "Language and Immigration," Vol. X,
1938.

Haugen, Einar. "The Struggle over NOrwegian," Vol.
XVII, 1952.

Hoidahl, Aagot D. "NOrwegian-American Fiction, 1880-
1928," Vol. V, 1930.

Hovde, Brynjolf J. (translator and editor). "Chicago
As Viewed by a NOrwegian Immigrant in 1864,"
Vol. III, 1928.

Johnsen, Arne Odd. "Bj¢rnson's Reaction no Emi-
gration," Vol. VI, 1931.

Knaplund, Paul. "Rasmus B. Anderson, Pioneer and
Crusader," Vol. XVIII, 1954.

 

270

Lewenhaupt, A. "An Official Report on NOrwegian
and Swedish Immigration, 1870," Vol. XIII,

1943.

Munch, Peter A. "History and Sociology,“ Vol. XX,
1959.

Narveson, B. H. "The NOrwegian Lutheran Academies,"

Vol. XIV, 1944.

Paulson, Arthur C. "Bj¢rnson and the NOrwegian—
Americans, 1880—81," Vol. V, 1930.

Ristad, D. G. "A Doctrinaire Idealist: Hans
Barlien," Vol. III, 1928.

Still, Bayrd. "NOrwegian-Americans and Wisconsin
Politics in the Forties," Vol. VIII, 1934.

Thorson, Gerald H. "First Sagas in a New WOrld: A
Study of the Beginnings of NOrwegian-American
Literature," Vol. XVII, 1952.

Qualey, Carlton C. "A Typical NOrwegian Settlement:
Spring Grove, Minnesota," Vol. IX, 1936.

Qualey, Carlton C. (translator and editor). "Seven
America Letters to Valdres," Vol. XXII, 1965.

Stephenson, George M. "When America Was the Land of Canaan,"

Minnesota Histopy. 10:246 (September, 1929).

 

 

Mlli
M“
all
L"
W“
M
u
H
u

1

11141111qu

3 03145 7702

129