« AnteriorContinuar »
in their use and management. Men living far apart, with abundant leisure, naturally seek occasions of coming together. These, in the South, were afforded by the regular sessions of the courts and by the militia musters. The court-houses are placed as nearly as possible in the centre of the county ; and the militia musters were usually held there. From all the region men thronged to court and muster. The parade of the militia was not the least attraction at these gatherings; and every man was enrolled in the same company, and had learned something of military discipline. Rude as this militia organization was, it formed a basis for something better, and did good service when the people were summoned to actual warfare. In a few months the South was enabled to transform itself into a great military camp, with no serious interruption in the routine of its regular life.
At the North—and especially at the East-the case was widely different. There every man was engaged in some regular occupation. Besides New York and Phil. adelphia, each with a population of more than 600,000, there were six cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants -averaging 150,000,-nearly a score with from 40,000 to 80,000, fully fifty more with 10,000 each; and towns almost without number with more than 5,000, many of them being so closely connected with the great cities that they might be regarded as suburbs. Nearly onehalf of the inhabitants of the North were urban; fully nine-tenths of the South were rural. One consequence of this is obvious : The man in the country may need to protect himself and his household, and so provides himself with arms; the man in a town is protected by the police, and rarely requires arms. The rule was, therefore, that the Southern man was acquainted with the use of arms; the Northern man was not, and it required time to transform him into a soldier.
The Confederacy was strong also in the entire unanimity of its people. Several of the States hesitated to secede from the Union; but that step once taken, there was no overt opposition except in Western Virginia and Eastern Tennessee. The doctrine of State Supremacy had come to be an undisputed article of political faith with all parties. The Federal Government was merely
an agent created by the States, to be used or discarded at the pleasure of any one of them. Every man was bound to abide by the action of his State, to which alone he owed allegiance.
The North at first showed no such unanimity. The ties between the great Democratic party at the North and the South had been so close, that many believed that the Northern Democrats would yield everything to their old Southern associates rather than take part in the War for the Union ; and the utterances of many of the leaders of the party furnished grounds for that belief. It was months before it came to be apparent that the attachment of the great body of the Northern Democrats to the Union was not less earnest than that of the Republicans. Mr. Lincoln, whose election to the Presidency was the signal for secession, recovered only a little more than two-fifths of the popular vote cast at the Presidential election of 1860. He was not even the first choice of a majority of his own party. He was untried in public affairs, and when nominated was hardly known beyond the limits of his own State. Taking all things into consideration, the Confederates had at the outset fair reasons for their confident anticipations of success.-History of the Great Rebellion.
THE DOCTRINE OF IMMORTALITY.
The natural argument for the personal immortality of the individual man, as set forth by Mr. Emerson, may be thus briefly presented : "God has implanted in the nature of man a longing for immortality, and, by so implanting it he has promised that this longing shall be realized : He is always true to his promises; and therefore man must be immortal.” To us this argument is altogether inconclusive. If we rightly understand Emerson, it is inconclusive to him also, in so far at least as anything like personal immortality is concerned. “I confess,” he says, “ that everything connected with our personality fails. Nature spares the individual. No prosperity is promised to that. We have our indemnity only in the success of that to which we belong. That is immortal, and we only through that,
Is imVOL. XII.
mortality only an intellectual quality ; or, shall I say it, only an energy, there being no passive? He has it, and he alone, who gives life to all names, persons, things, where he comes. No religion, not the wildest mythology, dies for him. He vivifies what he touches. Future state is an illusion for the ever-present state. It is not length of life, but depth of life. It is not duration, but a taking of the soul out of time, as all high action of the mind does.
Higher than the ques. tion of our duration is the question of our deserving. Immortality will come to such as are fit for it; and he who would be a great soul in the future, must be a great soul now.”
We fail to see that the assumed universal longing for immortality is any sure proof that it will be gratified. How many of our most earnest longings are forever unrealized !
All men long and pray for comfort, health, and length of days ; but to how many are apportioned want, disease, and early death : their longings unsatisfied, their prayers unanswered. And again, this longing for immortality-in any sense in which we can understand the word—is far enough from being universal among mankind. To the five hundred millions of Buddhists Nirvana is the supreme object of longing and endeavor. As we understand it, the Buddhist idea of Nirvana is by no means fitly represented by our word “annihilation.” We understand it to be a state of fut. ure being devoid of everything which enters into the conception of personality : individual thought, will, and consciousness being absorbed into the infinite of the Supreme Being, as a snow-flake, without being annihilated, is swallowed up and absorbed in the ocean into which it falls—“a moment white, then lost forever : ' a state of existence when, in the strictest and most absolute sense, “ God shall be all and in all," as he was from the beginning.
Emerson scouts the idea that the immortality of the human soul was revealed by Jesus. He says: “It is strange that Jesus is esteemed by mankind the bringer of the doctrine of immortality. He is never once weak or sentimental; he is very abstemious of explanation; he never preaches the personal immortality; whilst Plato and Cicero had both allowed themselves to overstep the stern limits of the spirit and gratify the people with that picture." We think that Mr. Emerson is here in error. We hold that Jesus did "preach the personal immortality,” as emphatically as man could preach it. But quite apart from what we believe to be the teaching of Jesus, we believe most undoubtedly in the personal immortality of every human being. We believe it intuitively, and without any proof drawn from Nature-using the word as Emerson defines it, as "all that is separate from us, all which philosophy designates as the Not Me: all other men, and my own body.” We should doubtless have believed it, had Plato or Cicero never taught it, and had no direct revelation of it been vouchsafed to us. What we accept as Divine Revelation only confirms and strengthens our belief in our own immortality, just as it confirms and strengthens our belief in the existence of the one Supreme Being, eternal, immortal, and invisible, all-powerful, all-wise, and all good. We call in question not the truth of the doctrine of immortality, but only the validity of Emerson's argument in its favor; and most especially the vague and unsatisfactory conclusion to which it leads him.-Ralph Waldo Emerson, Philosopher and Poet.
GUICCIARDINI, FRANCESCO, an Italian statesman and historian, born at Florence, March 6, 1483; died near there in May, 1540. He was educated in the Universities of Ferrara and Padua; and before he was twenty-three years old he was appointed a professor of law, by the Signoria of Florence, and in 1512 was sent on an embassy to Ferdinand of Aragon, the success of which assured his reputation for diplomatic ability. Soon afterward he was sent to Cortona, to meet Leo X., who immediately made him Governor of Reggio and Modena, and later of Parma. Clement VII. added to his honors the vice-regency of Romagna, the rank of Lieutenant-General in the Papal Army, and the governorship of Bologna. On the accession of Paul III., in 1534, he resigned his dignities, and returned to Florence. In 1537 he espoused the cause of Cosimo de' Medici, but received so slight a recognition of his services that he withdrew to his villa at Arcetri, where he occupied his last years in the composition of his Istoria d' Italia, describing the course of events in Italy from 1494 to 1532. The impartial accuracy of the author, and the patience with which he traces the labyrinth of Italian politics, render his work highly valuable. He died before its completion. The first sixteen books were published in 1561, and four additional books three years