1. See especially Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962), which found the use of the New York Board of Regents' prayer Unconstitutional, and Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963), which found unconstituoinal the practice of Bible reading without comment, and the reciting of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of the school day.

2. In this regard it seems correct to maintain, as Professor Mead has, that the public school has taken over one of the basic tasks of an established church and thus that “in this sense” the public school is America's “established church.” Mead, Sidney E., The Lively Experiment (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 68.Google Scholar

3. Professor Mead has suggested that two religious traditions, that of the churches and that of the nation, have emerged in the U.S.A. If Mend is correct in his assessment of the historical situation, then the dilemma of the public school and the complexity of the constitutional issues are even greater than they would be if religion could be nicely confined to the churches. See Mead op. cit., pp. 66ff. and 135ff.; “The Post-Protestant Concept and America's Two Religions,” Religion in Life, XXXIII (Spring, 1964), 191–204Google Scholar; and “The ‘Nation with the Soul of a Church’,” Church History, XXXVI (09, 1967), 262–283.Google Scholar See also Michaelsen, Robert, “The Public Schools and ‘America's Two Religions,’” A Journal of Church and State, VIII (Autumn, 1966), 380–400Google Scholar; and “Moral and Spiritual Values Revisited,” Religious Education, LXIII (07-08, 1967), 344–351.Google Scholar

4. The description of Eighth and Plum is found in an editorial by Wise, Isaac Mayer in The American Israelite, 10 15, 1869.Google Scholar Other sources include Parton, James, “Cincinnati in The Atlantic Monthly, XX (08, 1867), 229–246Google Scholar; Ford, Henry A. and MrsFord, Kate B., History of Cincinnati, Ohio (Cincinnati, 1881), 168ff.Google Scholar; and the Directory of Cincinnati for 1869.

5. Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. XV, pp. 266–268.Google Scholar

6. “The Bible in the Schools,” a pamphlet containing the “Proceedings and Addresses at the Mass Meeting, Pike's music hall, Cincinnati, September 28, 1869, with a Sketch of the Anti-Bible Movement,” and published by the Committee in Charge (Cincinnati, 1869) p. 1.Google Scholar (Hereafter referred to as “The Bible in the Schools.”) Contemporary reports appear to agree that there were ten Catholics on the board. I have been able to identify clearly only three of the board members as Catholic. However, the identity of several is unknown to me.

7. Cincinnati Commercial, 08 27, 1869.Google Scholar (Hereafter referred to as Commercial.)

8. The board had once invited the Archbishop to examine books used in the schools for passages objectionable to Catholics (1842) and had also taken action permitting any student to be excluded from Bible reading or to read a different version than the King James if his parents requested this in writing (1852). (See “The Bible in the Schools”; Board of Education of Cincinnati v. Minor et al., 23 Ohio 211, 212 (1873); and Deye, Anthony H., Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati: Pre-Civil War Years [Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Notre Dame, 1959], pp. 197, 241, 362.Google Scholar)

9. August 27. Edited by “Deacon Dick” Smith, the Gazette maintained a consistent and shrill anti-Catholic tone throughout the dispute. It was often involved in exchanges of epithets with the Catholic Telegraph.

10. Commercial, August 28 and 29; Gazette, August 28.

11. Editorial “Don't Cry Before You're Hurt” in the Telegraph, September 1.

12. Bernard Mandel refers to Miller as “a Catholic member of the Board.” (“Religion and the Public Schools of Ohio,” Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, LVIII (1949), 191).Google Scholar But the Commercial states that Miller was not a Catholic (September 11, 1869), and a review of his opinions—his controversy with the Rev. Mr. Mayo and what biographical data is available—sustains this. Miller appears to have been either a nominal Protestant or a man with no religious affiliation. He was obviously “liberal” in outlook. Before his death in 1897 Miller requested that the Reverend Thomas Vickers, who was perhaps the most liberal clergyman in Cincinnati in the 19th century, have charge of his funeral service. (Obituary, Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, 12 19, 1897.Google Scholar For additional biographical information see The Biographical Encyclopedia of Ohio of the Nineteenth Century [Cincinnati & Philadelphia, 1876], p. 526.Google Scholar)

13. Full text in Board of Education v. Minor et al., Ohio 211 (1873). See also the Bible in the Public Schools (Cincinnati, 1870), pp. 6–7; reprinted in 1967 (New York: Da Capo Press) and cited hereafter as The Bible in the Public Schools, 1967.

14. Helfman, Harold H., “The Cincinnati ‘;Bible War,’ 1869–1870,” Ohio Historical Quarterly, LX (1951), 373.Google Scholar Helfman's article, pp. 369 386, is the most scholarly account I have encountered.

15. Headline, , Commercial, 09 13.Google Scholar

16. Resolutions were prepared by the Y.M.C.A., the American Protestant Association, the Reformed Presbyterian Church (which asked Miller and his supporters on the board to resign immediately), and two mass meetings. Petitions bearing a reported total of 8,713 names were presented to the board at the first meeting after the one in which Miller had made his motion. One mass meeting drew the largest crowd assembled in Cincinnati “since the War.” The stage was occupied “by some of our most prominent citizens, including State and United States officials, Judges of the Courts, members of the bar, and many well-known business men.” (Details, including quotations from newspaper coverage, can be found in “The Bible in the Schools.” See also the Commercial, September 14 and 20.)

17. On the makeup of the committee see the Gazette, September 14. The Archbishop's communications can be found in “The Bible in the Schools.” His position should not have been particularly surprising to the members of the committee. It was one which he had consistently maintained since 1853. (See Deye, op. cit., pp. 362ff, and the sections on education in the pastoral letters of the first and third provincial councils of Cincinnati, 1855 and 1861, excerpted in La Mott, John H., History of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 1821–1921 [New York and Cincinnati, 1921], 274ff.Google Scholar) Any reader of the Telegraph might also have been impressed with the determination of the editor to bring about tax support of the parochial schools. (See the issues of June 23, July 7, 14, 21 and 28, 1869.)

18. See “The Bible in the Schools,” especially the account of a speech delivered on September 28, 1869, by the well-known attorney Rufus King, and three lectures delivered by the Rev. A. D. Mayo in early October of 1869 and published in pamphlet form under the title “Religion in the Common Schools” (Cincinnati, 1869).

19. Miller articulated elements of this view in support of his resolutions before the board on September 13 and October 25. (Reports of these arguments can be found in a pamphlet entitled “Arguments Upon the Secularization of the Public Schools”) [Cincinnati, 1870], hereafter referred to as “Secularization of the Public Schools.” Miller supporters held public meetings on September 26 and October 15 at which elements of the civil view were presented by Herman Eckel, the Reverend Thomas Vickers, and the German born liberal philosopher and attorney, Judge Johann Bernard Stallo (Enquirer, September 27, and Commercial, October 16). Dr. Max Lilienthal, who had been a member of the board of education, publicly supported Miller's motion as “the best policy” in a letter to the Commercial, September 13. Rabbi Wise also endorsed Miller and set forth the civil view in an editorial on “The Bible in the Schools,” in the American Israelite, October 8.

20. Accounts of the decisive board meeting can be found in the Cincinnati newspapers of November 2. The split of the “Jewish vote” on the board blunted the edge of the argument that the Jews were opposed to the practice of Bible reading in the public schools. E. M. Johnson, a Jewish attorney, supported Miller while Henry Mack, a merchant and politician, voted with the minority. Although Mack was a member of Wise's congregation he apparently did not agree with his Rabbi on this issue. His vote might have been influenced by his political ambitions. (On Mack, , see the Biographical Encyclopedia of Ohio, p. 186.Google Scholar He is also treated in most of the standard histories of Cincinnati.) On Mayo, see the Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. XII, pp. 461f.Google Scholar and Parton on “Cincinnati,” op. cit., p. 238. There is considerable information on Vickers in MeGrane, Reginald C., The University of Cincinnati (New York, 1963), pp. 80–90, 96–108.Google Scholar

21. See the article on King in The Biographical Encyclopedia of Ohio and Rufus King in the Development of Cincinnati (Cincinnati, 1891),Google Scholar which is not critical but does contain some useful information.

22. Interesting contemporary descriptions of some of the participants in the trial, including Stallo, Mathews, Hoadly and the three judges of the Cincinnati Superior Court, can be found in Lilienthal's, Rabbi report to the Jewish Times of New York, dated 12 1, 1869,Google Scholar and reprinted in The Bible in the Public Schools: Opinions of Individuals, and of the Press, and Judicial Decisions (New York, 1870), pp. 62–71.Google Scholar Hereafter referred to as The Bible in the Public Schools, 1870. For biographical information on Stallo see the Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. XVII, pp. 496f.Google Scholar, and Easton, Lloyd D., Hegel's First American Followers (Athens, Ohio, 1966), chs. II & III.Google Scholar Brief biographical accounts of Mathews and Hoadly can be found in the Biographical Encyclopedia of Ohio. Hoadly is also treated in the Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. IX, pp. 84f.Google Scholar

23. Lilenthal in the Jewish Times as reprinted in The Bible in the Public Schools, 1870, p. 67.Google Scholar On Taft, see the Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. XVIII, pp. 264f.Google Scholar

24. The Bible in the Public Schools, 1967 contains a full account of the arguments of the attorneys and the opinions and decisions of the Court. The language of a portion of the seventh section of the Bill of Rights of Ohio became a focal point in the legal arguments: “That religion, morality and knowledge … being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass suitable laws, to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.” This contains many of the elements found in Article III of the Ordinance of 1787, the Northwest Ordinance.

25. For excerpts from both the religious and the secular press see The Bible in the Public Schools, 1870. See also the files of the New York Times. One account of the case appeared on the front page of the Times, December 3, 1869. The focal point of that story was the argument for the board made by the Presbyterian elder, Judge Stanley Mathews.

26. sermon, Beecher's was printed in The Christian Union (New York, 12 4Google Scholar), and reprinted in The Bible in the Public Schools, 1870, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar

27. Minor et al. v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al., as contained in The Bible in the Public Schools, 1967, pp. 371, 379, 391, and 415.Google Scholar Taft's dissenting opinion was quoted by MrClark, Justice, writing the decision in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374Google Scholar U. 8. 203, at 214 215 (1963). One of Taft's biographers points out that his dissent in this case “arose in his path several times later” and suggests that “probably” it “prevented his being governor of Ohio.” This conjecture is not documented, however (Leonard, Lewis Alexander, Life of Alphanso Taft [New York, 1920], p. 128).Google Scholar

28. The Court decision stirred up bitter reactions among the Miller supporters. Vickers publicly attacked the arguments of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. He accused them of seeking a return to the Puritan establishment and vowed that they would not succeed. (See the Commercial), February 21 and “The Bible in the Public Schools” containing addresses of Reverend A. D. Mayo and Reverend Thomas Vickers of Cincinnati, Library of Education [New York, 1870]. The Mayo lectures are the same as those published in “Religion in the Common Schools,” op. cit. For a hint of the angry mood of some of the board members see the account of the first meeting following the announcement of the court's decision in the Commercial, February 22.

29. Commercial, March 28.

30. Ibid., March 31.

31. Commercial, March 24 and April. Stallo's lecture on “Our State Gospel …” was later printed under the title, “State Creeds and their Modern Apostles,” (Cincinnati, 1872). Stallo appears to have relished his jousting with Mayo. He mentioned the Unitarian clergyman several times in his argument before the court, once referring to him as “that distinguished theological taxidermist, the Pontifex Maximus of minimal religion, who, of late, has been presaging the destinies of our republic from an examination of the visceral contents of his eventerated Christianity.” The Bible in the Public Schools, 1967, pp. 103–104.Google Scholar

32. For election results and interpretations see the April 5 and 6, 1870, editions of the Gazette and the Commercial, and Helfman, op. cit. Clues to Vickers' overwhelming defeat might be found in his refusal to accept the endorsement of a political party (letter to the Commercial, March 28) and in his growing reputation as a controversial figure. Within months after his arrival in Cincinnati in 1867 he had picked a fight with Archbishop Purcell (See “The Roman Catholic Church and Free Thought, A Controversy Between Archbishop Purcell and Thomas Vickers,” a pamphlet published for the First Congregational Church [Cincinnati, 1868]). The Enquirer referred to him in 1873 (November 23) as “a man surrounded with a pestilential odor of quarrelsomeness….” In any case, Vickers' defeat was not part of a general pattern of defeat for pro-Miller candidates. For example, Herman Eckel, a vigorous spokesman for the Miller resolutions, a consistent opponent of Mayo in board meetings, and an avowed freethinker, received the support of both political parties and won by an overwhelming majority.

33. Annual Report and Hand-Book, Common Schools of Cincinnati, 1870-1871, p. 19.Google Scholar

34. Board of Education of Cincinnati v. Minor et al. 23 Ohio St. 211.

35. Shotwell, John B., A History of the Schools of Cincinnati (Cincinnati, 1902), p. 446.Google Scholar

36. King's address to the anti-Miller assembly, September 29, 1869 (“The Bible in the Schools,” pp. 11–13), and his argument before the Superior Court (The Bible in the Public Schools), 1967, pp. 289–349, 310–11 and 341.Google Scholar

37. This summary is based largely on the three lectures which Mayo delivered in October of 1869, and which were published first under the title “Religion in the Common Schools,” op. cit., and later, together with Vickers' Spring, 1870 lectures, under the title “The Bible in the Public Schools,” op. cit., pp. 4, 26 and 46.

38. Life and Works of Horace Mann (Boston, 1801), Vol. IV, pp. 311, 325, 326, and 335.Google Scholar

39. On Mayo's admiration for Mann, see his address on “The Scholar's Vocation in the New Republic,” delivered before the Union Literary Society, Antioch College, June 30, 1863 (Cincinnati, 1863). For a more general statement of his religious views see “Liberal Christianity: The Religion for the South-West,” a sermon preached at the formation of the Ohio Valley Conference of Unitarian and other Christian Churches, February 22, 1867 (Louisville, 1867).

40. Commercial and Gazette, September 13, 1869, and Reverend Granville Moody, D.D.: A Life's Retrospect, an autobiography edited by Sylvester Weeks (Cincinnati and New York, 1890).Google Scholar

41. The Bible in the Public Schools, 1967, p. 371.Google Scholar

42. The evidence does not indicate that this view was stated by any articulate Roman Catholic directly involved in the case.

43. From Stallo's lecture on “Our State Gospel and Its Clerical Exponents,” reported in the Commercial, April 4, 1870, and his argument before the court, in The Bible in the Public Schools, 1967, pp. 59–105Google Scholar and esp. 102–104.

44. “The teachers in our public schools, by whom or under whose direction the Bible is read,” Stallo pointed out, “are not abstract, non-denominational Christians; they are or may be … Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Trinitarians, Unitarians, etc.” Ibid., p. 65

45. For Taft's views see Ibid., pp. 390–417, especially pp. 392, 411 and 415.

46. Mathews' argument before the Superior Court, The Bible in the Public Schools, 1967, pp. 207–287Google Scholar; and his address to a pre-election assembly as reported in the Commercial, March 31, 1870. Mathews' position in the “Bible War” subjected him to sufficient pressures that he offered to resign as elder of the First Presbyterian Church in Glendale, a suburb of Cincinnati (Helfman, op. cit., p. 382, note 45, referring to a letter dated November 18, 1869). Mathews began his statement before the court by reporting that he was regarded by many as a traitor to the Protestant cause. His argument was long and at times emotion packed. Shortly after its close the Reverend W. C. MeCune of the Lincoln Park Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati attempted to refute it from his pulpit (Enquirer, December 13, 1869).

47. American Israelite, October 8, 1869.

48. As reported in the Commercial, October 6, 1869.

49. From an address to an early pro-Miller assembly, as reported in the Enquirer, September 27, 1869. Eckel was referred to at that meeting as “the father of the movement” to exclude Bible reading from the public schools. The extent of his influence on Miller is not entirely clear, but it is clear that he articulated a definite secularistic position. He was described by a biographer as not being “a church member or a Christian in any sense of the word….” (“Bibliographical Encyclopedia of Ohio,” p. 114.) Supporters of the Miller resolutions, whether believers or not, were quite willing to use the word “secularization.” (See the pamphlet Arguments Upon the Secularization of the Public Schools, op. cit., and the letter addressed by Miller and his supporters on the board “To the Friends of the Secularization of the Common Schools…,” Commercial, March 31, 1870.)

50. The Bible in the Public Schools, 1967, p. 67.

51. “Arguments Upon the Secularization of the Public Schools,” pp. 10–11.

52. Resolution adopted by a meeting at Greenwood Hall as reported in the Enquirer, September 27, 1869. See also Wise, the American Israelite, October 8, 1869.

53. Commercial, March 31, 1870.

54. Ibid.

55. The Bible in the Public Schools, 1967, p. 240.Google Scholar

56. Ibid., pp. 395 and 415.

57. Ibid., p. 103.

58. In addition to Stallo materials previously cited, see also his lectures on Jefferson and on nativism in the public schools, delivered in German in 1855 and 1966 respectively and contained in Reden, , Abhandlungen und Briefe (New York, 1893), chs. I and VIII.Google Scholar