Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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