The practical question here is not that of abolishing castes but of securing just and kindly relations between them， of reconciling the fact of caste with ideals of freedom and right. This is difficult but not evidently impossible， and a right spirit， together with a government firmly repressive of the lower passions of both races， should go far to achieve it. There seems to be no reason in the nature of things why divergent races， like divergent individuals， should not unite in a common service of the ideals to which all human nature bears allegiance桰 mean ideals of kindness， fair play and so on. And the white man， in claiming superiority， assumes the chief responsibility for bringing this state of things to pass.
When peoples of the same race mingle by migration， the effect， as regards classes， depends chiefly on their (221) states of civilization and the character of the migration as hostile or friendly. The peaceful advent of kindred settlers， like the English immigrants to the United States， creates no class divisions. If they differ in language and customs， like tho Germans， or are extremely poor and ignorant， like many of the Irish， they are held apart for a time and looked down upon， but as they establish themselves and gradually prove their substantial equality with the natives， they may become indistinguishable from the latter.
Of recent years， however， the arrival by millions of peoples somewhat more divergent especially Italians， Slavs and Jews梙as introduced distinctions in which race as well as culture plays an appreciable part.
Much depends， of course， upon the special character of the institutions and traditions that thus come into contact. Some societies are rigid and repellent in their structure， while others， like the United States， are almost ideally constituted to invite and hasten assimilation.
Conquest has been one of the main sources of caste the world over. The hostile tradition it leaves may continue indefinitely； servile functions are commonly forced upon the conquered， and the consciousness of superiority leads the conquerors to regard intermarriage as shameful. A servile caste， strictly hereditary， existed even among the primitive German tribes from which most of us are descended， and intermarriage with freemen was severely punished. " The Lombard，" says Mr. Gummere， "killed a serf who ventured to marry a free woman， . . . West Goths and Burgundians scourged and burnt them both， (222) while the Saxons punished an unequal marriage of any sort with death of man and wife." [1]
The unlikeness out of which caste grows may not be l original， as in the case of race difference or conquest but may arise gradually by the differentiation of a homogeneous people. Any distinct social group， having its special group sympathies and traditions， has some tendency to pass on its functions and ideas to the children of its members， promoting association and intermarriage among them， and thus taking on a caste character.
Accordingly， any increase in the complexity of social functions梡olitical， religious， military or industrial？such as necessarily accompanies the enlargement of a social system， may have a caste tendency， because it separates the population into groups corresponding to the several functions； and this alone may without doubt produce caste if the conditions are otherwise favorable.
Something of this sort seems to have followed upon the conquest by the Germanic tribes of Roman territory， and the consequent necessity of administering a more complex system than their own. As the new order took shape it showed a tendency toward more definite inheritance of rank and function than existed in the tribal society. This was due partly， no doubt， to the influence of Roman traditions， but the very nature of the civilization required it.
That is， functions became more diverse and of such a character as to separate the citizens into distinct classes， the principal ones being warriors of various degrees (combining military functions with the control of land)， clergy， (223) artisans and peasants. The military and landholding class， uniting the force of arms with that of wealth， naturally dominated the others；the artisans， especially in the towns， maintained a free status which served later as the nucleus of a democratic tendency； the peasants became serfs.
As the conditions did not permit organization on any free or open principle梩here being little facility of travel， diffusion of knowledge or unfixed wealth梩he hereditary principle naturally prevailed. Only the clergy， monopolizing most of the knowledge and communication of the time and fortified by celibacy against inheritance， maintained a comparatively open organization. It is well known that lands， and the local rule that went with them， held at first as a personal trust， gradually became a family property， and we are told that when the Emperor Conrad， in 1037， issued his edict making chiefs hereditary in Italy， he only did for the south "by a single stroke what gradual custom and policy had slowly procured for the north." [2] Offices， armorial devices and other privileges generally followed the same course， and the servile status of serfs was also transmitted to children.