.MTI4NA.MTAzMTU5

Isaac April 1848 National pride Tone & right of government. French Revolution. Misery. Ambition

You have never read "Julius Caesar". You ought. I believe I once walked unexpectedly in upon you one Sat. Eve , and found you reading a much inferior work of the same author. You remember perhaps abundant extracts from said J Caesar in certain school books. Why are you lean? Do they not keep you well? Do you not exercise? Do you call a man a good swimmer because he swims every day, or because he has learned to swim and can swim? Perhaps I better inform you this last sentence refers to disciplined thinking minds. I should like to drop the subject of "Mental Indolence." (This may be construed as a perfect submission to your views; or as "feeling somewhat sore on that point. Either Commonsense = Mental health. Versus Common Sense = Mental Strength. You say I mean the lowest worse sense of "National honor" Show me any better or higher, that really means any thing of the kind. What good has National honor ever done? War, pestilence, famine, murder, highway robbery, arson, have done good. Such a thing as National -purse I can partly understand; Such a thing as National-Pride I can imagine: National -Conscience I can not even get up an idea of. I tell you God never created, never designed any other responsibility than individual responsibility, any other conscience than individual conscience. If there was such a thing what good could it do? The individual resp. on cons. has precious little influence over most. You speak of Reforms. Take the Temperance Reform. Did you ever know or hear of a case of reform influenced clearly by conscience? If so was it individual or National? Where is the right to govern? Naturally, perhaps, in the first born, if he is fit for it. In a system of government instituted directly by God. He had subordinates, those to whom he delegated authority but there was no election, there was hereditary succession in the priesthood the noblest office in the world no representation. Will it not be so in a Millennium? I am not sure that there is any other right in governments than the "Divine Right" . It amounts to that in all forms in the end. The right to govern was in Oliver Cromwell; and that simply because he was the man capable of doing it. In that particular I do most fully agree will Carlyle. God in Mercy & Blessing to England, Europe, & the world, called Oliver to the throne of England. No man ever set on that throne by a higher or a more legitimate authority; was ever less an usurper. Is the authority of the Pres. U.S. any better than that of Nicholas? Does it not come from the same source, but by a much more round about course. For my part, I am not perfectly fixed yet upon this point, the favorite & according to some the fundamental idea of Republicans; upon the right any more than the ability of "the people" to govern themselves.