Charlemagne fought the Saxons for thirty-three years.  Though he never lost a battle, they still held out.  At first he was generous and forgiving, for he was more magnanimous than Caesar; but they could not be won by kindness.  He was obliged to change his course, and at last was as summary as Oliver Cromwell in Ireland.  He is even accused of cruelties.  But war in the hands of masters has no quarter to give, and no tears to shed.  It was necessary to conquer the Saxons, and Charlemagne used the requisite means.  Sometimes the harshest measures will most speedily effect the end.  Did our fathers ever dream of compromise with treacherous and hostile Indians?  War has a horrid maxim,—­that “nothing is so successful as success.”  Charlemagne, at last, was successful.  The Saxons were so completely subdued at the end of thirty-three years, that they never molested civilized Europe again.  They became civilized, like the once invading Celts and Goths; and they even embraced the religion of the conquerors.  They became ultimately the best people in Europe,—­earnest, honest, and brave.  They formed great kingdoms and states, and became new barriers against fresh inundations from the North and East.  The Saxons formed the nucleus of the great German Empire (or were incorporated with it) which arose in the Middle Ages, and which to-day is the most powerful in Europe, and the least corrupted by the vices of a luxurious life.  The descendants of those Saxons are among the most industrious and useful settlers in the New World.

There was one mistake which Charlemagne made in reference to them.  He forced their conversion to a nominal Christianity.  He immersed them in the rivers of Saxony, whether they would or no.  He would make them Christians in his way.  But then, who does not seek to make converts in his way, whether enlightened or not?  When have the principles of religious toleration been understood?  Did the Puritans understand them, with all their professions?  Do we tolerate, in our hearts, those who differ from us?  Do not men look daggers, though they dare not use them?  If we had the power, would we not seek to produce conformity with our notions, like Queen Elizabeth, or Oliver Cromwell, or Archbishop Laud?  There is not perhaps a village in America where a true catholicism reigns.  There is not a spot upon the globe where there is not some form of religious persecution.  Nor is there anything more sincere than religious bigotry.  And when people have not fundamental principles to fight about, they will fight about technicalities and matters of no account, and all the more bitterly sometimes when the objects of contention are not worth fighting about at all,—­as in forms of worship, or baptism.  Such is the weakness of human nature.  Charlemagne was no exception to the race.  But if he wished to make Christians in his way, he was, on the whole, enlightened.  He caused the young Saxons, whom he baptized and marked with the sign of the Cross, to be educated.  He built monasteries and churches in the conquered territories.  He recognized this,—­that Christianity, whatever it be, is the mightiest power of the world; and he bore his testimony in behalf of the intellectual dignity of the clergy in comparison with other classes.  He encouraged missions as well as schools.