The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1886-02-19
The Denominationsl Colleges vs. the South
Carolina College.

uer oiscussion, anu tne controversy wakes
warmer. AS patriot and friend, if no,
only higher, but of the highest educa,
tiou, we regard with solicitude the agita.
tiou Of tho subject. 1t is just one of tn ose
questions Of State policy on which it is
so easy matter to array the prejudices OF
the Ignorant against the cause of truth and
justice, that the temptation to do so is ex-
ceedingly strong. Even the most enlight-
ened, patriotic and pious, who are directly
interested in promoting the special interests
ofthe various dcnominational institutions
are in great danger of allowing themselves to
be carried away into selfish and narrow
minded views of what pertains to the best
interest of the whole Commonwealth. And,
on the other haud, it is quite probable that
some who are most jealous in their advocac
of the State institutions, are at heart enc.
mics to all religious training, and therefore
disparage and fout the sectarian colleges
from feeling they would shrink from
avowiug
We hold that religious training of the
young is indispensable to sound progress
and high civilization, aud the :,euomina-
tional colleges constitute, in our opinion
the engineer corps of the militant Chris
tian Church. We would, therefore, rejoice
in seeing them all more heartily cherished
and more literally sustained.
| So far, the discussion of tho question
before US seems to have been conducted by
special partisans of the respective iussitu-
tions. But there is third party deeply
concerned in tho issue, and our object in
writing this article is to indicate that fact,
and to express succinctly our individual
views-for what little they may be worth
in regard to tho momentous subject. For
though we are er curia, In the multitude
Of counselors there is safety
We are, though, an humble yet q sincere
friend of both the South Carolina College
and of the UNCONVENTIONAL colleges. Aud
We are SO because We are true aud jealous
friend to popular education. We most
ardently wish to sec the whole mass of our
people morally and intellectually enlight>
ened and refined, and we know that this
can never be accomplished by any mere
common school system, however we'll de-
vised and lavishly prosecuted. There must
be higher institutions Of learning in the
land to illustrate the great advantages and
exalted power Of education, aud to inspire the
minds and hearts Of our people with due
appreciation Of intellectual culture and with
the disposition to make all necessary sacri-
icos to educate their children. To this end
there cannot be too many colleges among us /.
Each acts as lighthouse beacon, radiating
beams Of attractive and beniguant splendor
over its own vicinage, dispelliug the gloom
of ignorance and guiding aspiring youth
into the sure ways Of honorable effort and
eminent usefulness. Common schools, of
themselves, can never beget desire for
knowledge that rises abov, petty purposes
and immediate rccuniary results. The
desire-the burning desire-for glorious
knowledge must always precede the nobler
achievements Of scholarship. A little
learning is not only dangerous but a
positively evil thing, unless those who arc but
little learned are saved from arrogance and
presumption by the near view of greater
degree of education that keeps them aware
Of their own ignorance. Nor will men
generally and voluntarily avail themselves
Of such advantages as the common schools
offer, unless they have beforehand been
duly impressed with lofty desire for scho-
lastic knowledge by some institution far
above the common school in the character
of its work. Tho success Of any system of
common schools most certainly depends on
the maintenance ofa college somewhere in
point-blank view. Men are moved to &C.
ton much more by their sentiments than
by their opportunities, and mental educa-
ton is essentially a matter of voluntary ex-
ertion. 1t cannot be forcel on any on
Therefore common schools are the prog eny
not the parents, Of colleges.
But why is it that the special friends OF
the denominational colleges object to free
tuition in the South Carolina College? Do
they suppose that their pets could compete
successfully with the State institution if i,
charged for tuition as they are obliged to
do? 1t would seem that such is their view
Of the case; but surely that is a mistaken
notion. No part of thing can be equal tc
the whole. And no more does the mos,
numerous and wealthy and religious de-