Newspaper Page Text
4
KEY. A. J. RYAN, Editor-
AUGUSTA, GA., AUGUST 22, 1868-
RELIGiO ET PATRIA.
Religion and Country, which figure on
our frontispiece, bring up from the deep
well of the soul emotions varied and last
iug. Without Religion, no country can
long maintain her morals uncorrupted,
and without morality to infuse life and
efficacy into the law, the Country declines
and falls, and then vanishes from the
geographical map, as a distant nationality.
With Country lost, Religion only can buoy
us up, render expansive the heart, and
teach us the brotherhood of man. And,
wherever we drag the “lengthened chain”
of exile, still we worship the same God,
who made us all, and are warmed by the
same sun, and consoled by the same
belief.
After the late war, when all save honor
was lost, Religion alone came to our
rescue, and poured its sacramental balm
over the still fresh wound. No home, no
country —to Brazil, Honduras, or any
spot on this once fair, habitable Globe,
would be better thau the ever continued
sight of our own degradation; four slaves
as guards, in hated blue uniforms, with
the rag of blood colored stripes waving
over our heads, like the sword of
Damocles. What kept us here quiet,
then ?—made us turn our thoughts upon
ourselves, and retrace our steps
Country! wc had hone. No, in that
dreary, trying moment—that dark mid
night of our woe, when Country was lost,
friends dead, worldly possessions gone—
what was the still, small voice, th-.tcame
like a mother’s soothing lullaby, remem
bered in gone by infancy ? Religion.
It taught us resignation without humilia
tion, and, in due time, promised the
rainbow of Hope. Without Religion—
for that, alone, teaches resignation, pa
tience, duty, and sacrifice—many an ill
starred Confederate had left the home of
his fathers. With Religion, he bore
patiently bis civil disabilities, tilled his
patch, and ministered to t' e wants of his
aged and helpless parents ; without it, he
would have been a prey to every evil
passion—left the Country, had he not
done something worse.
The possibility of a country of infidels
has been imagined by a few charlatan
Philosophers, but such a country has
never existed. When the atheistical
philosophy of France began denying all
authority, except natural reason; bore its
blossoms and fruits of negation; taught
that the savage was the primitive state
of man; and, with old Lucretius, held
that “fear made their Gods,” and all the
other vagaries taught in the schools
where Religion is divorced from Philoso
phy, France became, temporarily, a peo
ple of infidels, and the horrors, orgies,
hecatombs, and Saturnalia of blood, of’92,
followed. There was a Country, which
on the map of the world was as much a
Country as it ever was; yet, a Country
without Religion—a Country, where
regicide, murder, guillotine, and divorce,
were common; for the human mind,
puffed with the pride of intellect, is
terribly logical, and where Religion is not
ever present to furnish first principles,
and to keep the ever fomenting mind in
the right channel, the inexorable logic of
Fassion will always carry false principles
to their last logical conclusion. Many
good, conservative people believe if there
were no Religion, we would have to
invent one, particularly for the old women
and children. Now, the greatest minds
ot ancient times have exercised transcend
ent intellectual faculties on this question.
Wc say tranecendant intellectual faculties,
Ipr on all other questions, in the natural
order, their works, to-day, challenge our
admiration, as much for the depth of
views, as for the elegant precision and
brilliant fulness of their periods; in fact,
these works are used in our Colleges as
models of style. No Country will ever
play her prominent part in the passing
panorama of history, however great her
men, if Religion is not free to exercise
her moral and restraining influence, or
where the literature and thought of the
Country is not mellowed by the Christian
izing power of Religion.
The divine Plato, who was reared in
the Groves of Attica, and not in a forest
of ignorant savages, and upon whose
brow fell a stray, broken, and fragmentary
ray of light from the effulgence of primi
tive Revelation, wrote a work on the
immortality of the soul, which, for style,
is unsurpassed in any language. And,
his great admirer, Cicero, says, whilst
reading the work, he believes in the
immortality of the soul; but as soon as he
lays it down, and commences to think,
and weigh the arguments, he does not
know whether the soul is immortal or not.
And for this Plato, v?ho said one should
follow his reason alone, God was a round
figure, for the sphere was the most beau
tiful and perfect of figures. But, for
the witty disciple, who believed the
conical, cylindrical, pyramidal, or square,
the most perfect and beautiful figure, and
followed his reason, God was the dia
grams in Geometry, b’oerates, sending
his game-cock to be offered as a sacrifice
to Esculapius, Plato and Cicero talking
beautifully about the soul and God, yet
worshipping in the temples of false gods,
in Athens and Rome, received a proper
rebuke from him, who was a Philosopher
before he was an Apostle. St. Paul, in
his Epistle to the Romans, chap. Ist, ver.
22dand 23d, says: “For professing them
selves to be wise, they became fools.
And they changed the glory of the incor
ruptible God into the likeness of the
image of a corruptible man, and of birds,
and of four footed beasts, and of creeping
things.”
Thales held that God was that intelli
gence who made everything out of water,
admitting two eternal principles, or
dualism. Anaximander thought that
God, at different intervals, came into ex
istence, and died like men ; that is, was
mortal and immortal, at the same time.
Remember, after he was dead, he could
not come back, for what is not, cannot
act. Anaximines believed the air was
God, for it is immense, and without end.
Pythagoras was a Pantheist, of the most
ignoble and earthy kind. Empedocles
made four Gods from the four elements,
out of which everything is composed.
Protagoras acknowledged lie knew little
definite about the Gods, whether there be
one or not, or what he could be, and then
leaves you under the comfortable im
pression that there is no Divinity. And
thus on to the end of the chapter ; and, if
these great minds could do no better in
making a God, or Gods, they would suc
ceed less in making a Religion, even if
the aforesaid Religion was for old women
and children. For the moral notions of
all the great lights of antiquity, who had
a Country, but no Religion to instruct,
guide, and protect them against the
shoals of passion and vice, except unaided
reason, wc find Tlieophrastes,-placing the
Sovereign Good in riches ; Teno, in indif
ference ; Calisthenes, in the absence of
pain; Aristippus, in the possession of all
pleasures; Aristotle, in the pleasures of
the mind ; Epicurus, in the passions and
enjoyments of the body. And, though
Plato and Cicero placed the Sovereign
Good in virtue and honesty, we can
imagine how elastic the meaning of these
words was with them, when there was
no doctrine too extravagant for their
acceptance, nor vice too degrading for
their approval. Cicero approves of ven
geance ; Teno, of suicide; Seneca, of
prostitution; and others, of assassination
and adultery. But, oh ! we had nearly
fergotten that boasted model, that Pagan
Saint, the virtuous Cato. What was his
Sovereign Good, think you ? Drunken
ness; for even his admiring panegyrist,
Horace, says: Narratur et prise i Catonis
MBSSa ©I fll ®©lfl=-
scejm mero calluisse virtus. These men
were giauts, the intellectual gladiators of
their day, whose mighty intellects
poured an even smoothness over poetry,
and whose crude, philosophical ideas
were delivered in a style that made their
literature so nearly perfect, that while we
enjoy it, we feel our inability to equal it.
Rut, after all, ideas wdl control ; and the
doctrines taught by these men were un
dermining the foundations of their politi
cal fabric. Wo must have something more
than intellect, wealth, and power, to per
petuate our Government, for all these
Athens and Rome had, but they had not
God’s Religion. Mere geographical
limits, called Country, is nothing; its
record is temporary and evanescent. We
want that which will consolidate and
unify us like the diamond, than which
nothing is more compact, brilliant, and
precious; something that brings the Past,
Present, and Future together, arid, amidst
all changes, will remain unchangeable ;
which makes us all, all, look to one com
mon end, and fills up the harrassing void
of our aspirations.
The vignette of our paper, Beligio el
Patria, shows what we want—Country- -
and, what is necessary to its preservation—
Religion. The grave, and weeping
woman connect the present with our past
history—where one living mourns for one
gone. With Religion, she weeps not in
vain, but will again be united to the lost
one. The Cross, that symbol of our
redemption, whose rays illumine the
darkness of our pathway, and gives us
the light of Faith, where tottering, feeble
Reason fails; with Religion, lifts the veil
of the dim, shadowy Future, and shows a
distant Country, far beyond the remote
vista, where we will have a Country,
those sleeping in their graves, and those
now weeping over their tombs. But we
must unite Religion with Country here,
in order to possess that Country hereafter.
From the Itish Citizen, Aug. 10.
THE LATE GEN. HALPINE,
We shortly announced, last week, the
sudden death of this rarely gifted Irish
man, from congestion of the brain, as the
coroner’s inquest ascertained.
Ori Saturday, his mortal remains were
carried in most imposing procession to
their last resting place in Cypress Hill
Cemetery. The qualities of intellect,
heart, and character, which distinguished
General Halpine, were all most intensely
Irish. Although his family had been
Protestant for two or three generations,
and his father was a clergyman of the
Anglican Established Church, yet it was
impossible for him to repress or conceal
his ardent sympathy with the mass of his
fellow-countrymen. He had their rich,
full, genial nature to the backbone—im
pulsiveness, versatility, kindly humor,
gallantry, impetuosity, generosity—all
these he possessed in very amazing per
fection. The writer of these lines was
(technically) his enemy for four years;
but, in fact and truth, Charles Halpine
left no enemy—and, that he possessed
hosts of friends, is evident both from the
important public position to which he was
elected, but also from the vast sorrowing
multitude that followed him to his
grave.
From the memoir and character of him
published in his own weekly paper, the
New York Citizen , we extract some pas
sages :
Charles G. Halpine was boru near the
town of Oldcastle, in the County of Meath,
Ireland, in the year 1829. His father,
the Rev. Nicholas J. Halpine, was an
Episcopal Clergyman of the Established
Church, and a man of extraordinary
abilities. A remarkable aptitude for
literature, and especially that peculiar
branch of it connected with the life of a
journalist, existed in the family. The
father was editor of the Dublin Evening
Mail , and au uncle, Win. Henry Halpine,
was proprietor and editor of the Chelten
ham Mail. Charles G. Halpine was the
favorite son of his father, and early gave
evidences of those abilities which brought
him such distinguished honor in later
years. At as early an age as the rules of
the College allowed, he was admitted to
Trinity, from which he subsequently
graduated with distinction, having won
the affection of his fellow-students, and
the respect of his instructors. .Subse
quently, he commenced the study ol
medicine, and obtained a superficial but
not thorough knowledge of this science,
when he surrendered it for the more con
genial pursuit of journalism He con
tributed to the Irish, and subsequently to
the English press, spending several years
in London; but feeling that his talents
were kept down by the want of a proper
opportunity’, he determined upon emigra
tion to this country.
After giving an account of his connec
tion with various journals and parties, his
devotion to the cause of the Union during
the war, and his later life in New York,
the writer feelingly concludes:
We have endeavored to give a slight
insight into the character of the deceased
from the point, of view of one who knew
him intimately, who understood him
thoroughly, and with whom he was in
perfect sympathy; but the pen is feeble
that attempts this last act of friendship.
No power can bring the bright glance
into the eye that is dull forever; the smile
to the lip that is silent and closed; the
glow to the cheek that is cold as marble.
No words can express the fascination of
his presence, nothing explain the force of
his persuasive eloquence, more powerful
in conversation than in declamation. His
individuality has gone from us forever,
leaving a void, never to be filled. The
death of no single individual in this com
munity would have reached so far,
touched so many hearts, and affected so
many interests. His activity had ramified
into a thousand directions, and allied
him with hundreds of public matters. No
one can take his place. The chair must
stand vacant till it moulders away.
The public miss him, as they arc de
prived of a pleasure, a convenience, an
advantage. His friends miss him through
a dull numbness at the heart. The
public will forget the brilliant writer, and
only regard his productions as existing
facts : but, to his associates, a thousand
little mementoes will recall the departed
individuality. The simple jewelry he
wore; the letters upon his desk; the pen
lie used ; bring back the image of one
who will Jong be loved, of one whose
memory will ever be kept green in the
hearts of those who were bound to him
by tics of amity or affection. The best
tribute to his memory is the devotion of his
friends, a devot ion which can henceforth re
ceive no reward. The politician forgets his
self interest; the man of business lays aside
his occupation; the lawyer drops his
briefs ; and the idler assumes unwonted
exertion to pay a tribute to his memory,
or to do a favor to his family. His very
goodness seems to have made human
nature better, and there arc no enemies
over the grave of Charles G. Halpine.
The obsequies, which took place on the
Saturday following, were of a very im
posing character, and were participated in
by the military, civic societies, and citi-
zens generally.
The following card appears in the
Citizen:
General llalpine’s Paper, The
New York Citizen Announce s our
Future. —The New York Citizen will
proceed as usual. It has its duty to
perforin, its place to fill; and, although the
public may miss the brilliant sallies of
the Chief Editor, as his associates will
miss his company, the work of the world
has to proceed. The objects and pur
poses of this paper will remain the same,
independent in politics, while absolutely
committed to loyalty to our country, and
devotion to its interests; political in its
bearing, but in no mere party sense, it
will still command the best talent that the
journalistic profession can furnish.
[From the Chronicle and Sentinel.]
THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES
BY ALEXANDER 11. STEPHENS.
Wc have jiSt risen from a perusal of the
great work of Vice President Stephens—
The War between the States— and a
masterly work it is. Indeed, a perusal of
it has led us unhesitatingly to the conclu
sion that it is oue of the grandest produc
tions of the present or of any other age ;
and the friends of Constitutional liberty
not merely in the States lately known as
Confederate States —but in the North—
and East —and West —and in every other
land where friends of Constitutional liber
ty are found, owe to Mr. Stephens a debt
of undying gratitude for this masterly ex
position of that form of government estab
lished between the States constituting the
United States of America. Only one vol
ume of this great work is as yet given to
the world ; and the object of its discus
sions is, first, to answer the question pro
pounded to him by one of the characters
introduced into the book, how he- Mr.
Stephens—after making what has been
known as his great Union speech delivered
before the Georgia Legislature in Novem
ber,lß6o,agamst secession,could so earner,
ly maintain the cause of the seceded StatJ
after they had withdrawn from the Union*
But to answer this great question, other
great questions come up for discussion an !
settlement, such as, where do£s the citizen
owe allegiance, and what is the relation
sustained by the States to the General
Government and to one another ?
A discussion of these subjects led to an
exposition ot the real causes of the war
and a vindication of the seceding Stank
in the exercise of their indubitable ri<u it
to withdraw from the compact of the Union
whenever, in their convictions of right,
it was their duty so to do. In seeking for
the causes which led to the mighty strug
gle that so long and so fiercely raged upon
this continent —a struggle the consequences
of which will descend to the latest genera
tions of men —Mr. Stephens, like a pro
found philosopher,looks beyond theimme
diate circumstances of the times in which
the conflict arose, to those great antago
nistic sentiments and opinions respecting
the character of the Government and the
relation of the States, which sentiments
and opinions have, from the very adop
tion of the Constitution, divided the peo
ple of the laud into two great,
parties. We agree with Mr. Stephens in
the sentiments he expresses in the inirodue
tion to his book, respecting the agency
which slavery had in originating that ter
rible struggle. He conclusively shows that
slavery, in the abstract —slavery, per se
—though it has been made to play k>
prominent a part in the closing scenes of
the drama, was but an incident-a collateral
—a mere question, upon which these an
tagonistic principles which had been in
conflict from the beginning on divers other
questions were finally brought into actual
and active collision with each other upon
the field of battle. Those are superficial
observers of the course of thingsand shallow
readers of the past history of our country
and of the opinions of political parties, who
assume the postulate—that slavery was the
cause of the war. He very properly re
marks upon this subject that, the opposing
principles which produced these results in
physical action were of very different
character from those assumed in such a
postulate. They lay in the organic struc
ture of the Governments of the United
States. The conflict in principle arose
from different and opposing ideas as to thJ
nature of what is known as the General
Government. The contest was between
those who held it to be strictly Federal in
its character and those who maintained
that it was thoroughly na'iona!. It was a
strife between the principles of Federation
on the one side and Centralism on the
other. The circumstances which attend
ed the composition of his history naturally
led Mr. Stephens to a full and thorough
discussion of these underlying sub stratum
principles. Ilis history is unique in one
particular, at the present day; at least as it
respects works of history or discussions in
philosophy, as he adapts the dialogue ci
colloquial form in advancing his view:
upon the subjects which he discusses; but
this form, it must he admitted, gives life
and animation to his discussions and, by the
introduction of different characters into the
debate, he is enabled to give a kind of in
dividuality to the different phases of
opinion entertained by the different parties
that have divided the country. This form
naturally harmonizes, too, with the object
ho had in the colloquial style; even in treat
ing of so grave a subject as the character
of Government, he has t he example of those
great masters of antiquity,Plato and Cicero,
and though he does not adopt this form of
writing became of their examples, yet, as
he remarks, it was enough for him to
know that the plan adopted by him was
not without well-established precedents in
other ages and other countries.
Assuming certain characters as repre
sentatives of the dividing parties of the
country, by words which he puts into their
mouth, he sets forth the principles of those
parties, and in responding thereto, he
gives utterance to his own most masterly
views. This mode, too, Mr. Stephens tells
us, presents the truth of history in reference
to the work he has publiohed. His ac
count of it is as follows ; In the early
part of 1807, while he was preparing mate
rials for this history, he was visited by
many former friends and acquaintances
from the North. It was natural that their
conversations should relate to the terrible
years of conflict which had just passed
away. Among the many visitors engaged
in these conversations and he
selects three— as representative characters
- -Judge Bynum, from Massachusetts, who
represents the Radical party; Prof. Norton,
from Connecticut, who represents the
Conservative wing of the same party;
Major lleister, from Pennsylvania, who
is atype of thoseknown as war Democrat- :
and Mr. Stephens himself—and we may
add, in reference to him, the expounder ot
the Constitution, the champion of the
sovereignty of the States and the unan
swerable vindicator of the righteousnes.- m
the cause for which the Confederate
States periled everything in the bloody
struggle they made in the maintuinauce m
their liberties.
Mr. Stephens says: “Let the reader
imagine all the parties assembled in the
portico at Liberty Hull the day after the
arrival of the guests and after the usual
salutations and inquiries’ have
upon the reunion ol old acquaintances and
former friends, and he will be prepared tor
the curtain to rise aud the discussion ;
follow.
“Judge Bynum —We were ail at -
North very much surprised as well as dis
appointed, Mr. Stephens, at your coup
on secession.”
“Mr. Stephens. Why so ?”
The question of Judge Bynum brought