The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1844-04-18
WASHINGTON, April 7, 1914

ia the Army.
WASHINGTON, April 7, 1874.
DEAR GARRISON
There have been some debates in the
House of Representatives, during the past
week, which will deeply interest you,
and many of your readers. They related
10 theological questions, to which the pub
lie mind has been drawn Of late years,
chiefly, as suppose, by discussions in The
Llberator, and in meetings and lectures
in the Eastern States. These debates
have occurred on bill making appro-
priations for the pay of the army. Mr..
Petit, oflndiana, formerly clergyman,
moved the following amendment, VIZ:
That no money shall be paid out of the
Treasury of the United States 10 any
chaplain or chaplains.'
He disclaimed any intention to de-
nounce the Christian religion, but he in
sisted, in speech OF considerable length
and great earnestness, that it is absurd to
pay 1886, 900 year to teach a religion,
whose great and distinctive principles are
non-gesistance and forgiveness Of I'M uries,
to soldiers, whose duty, by the law Of the
land, is to fight and avenge Injuries. So
far as they really received the plain and
unequivocaI doctrines OF Christianity, they
musl be disqualified for performing this
duty. If this religion had been necessa-
ry or useful for national defence, our ia
theirs would have engrafted it upon the
Constitution; but they did not deem ii
safe SO 10 do. The precept, that when
smllten on one cheek, we should turn the
other also, would require US, when Great
Britain took possession of a part OF Maine
to give her Oregon also. He called upon
gentlemen, who were sicklers for re-.
lrenchment and economy, to retrench this
useless and Absurd expenditure.
Mr.. Petit was replied 10, but not, as
thought, answered, by Mr.. Holmes of S.
e., Mr.. Hammctt of Mississippi, Mr.. J. r
ingersoll of Pennsylvania, and several
others. None ofthen fairly met, or at
tempted to meet, the point he had raised !;
but they dwell upon the common ace
matter OF the bengn influence Of Chris,
tlanlty in mitigating the horrors of war
ust as though it were not of the very es-
sence OF war to do as much injury to an
enemy as possible! This islhe necessary
and grand design of war, and all the in
stances of forbearance and humanity are
but trlding exceptions, which, so lar as
they are practsed, constitute an argument
against war. inasmuch as they show
shrinking of the minds of men from car
rying out the essential principle of the
system.
Most Of these speakers insisted largely
upon the salutary influence Of Christian
pIety IN aggravallug the valor of soldiers
IN battle, and in prevailing upon God to
give success 10 armies. Mr.. IngersolI
said, with wonderful maipete, that the des-
pots OF Europe in making the Christian
religion part of the discipline of their
armies, showed how sensible they were
of It's importance to the efficiency Of those
armies, auc the stability OF their power.
He brought Napoleon as an illustration
OF this point, and minated that if be had
always been faithful to his Christian
creed, and never for convenience turned
Mahometan, he would have triumphed at
Waterloo, aud not persisted miserably on
the rock of St. Helena! He did not tell
US how he, a Protestant, would reconcile
it with his argument, if Wellington and
his army, who had never turned Turks,
had been defeated, as the result of Bona
parties fileIily to his ialth. The success
of Constantine, under the encouraging
vision of the cross, and the resistless and
destructive va,or OF CromwelI's pious
troops, We're adduced as decisive proofs of
the inestimable value of Christianity as a
munilion of war. Of those who assaIed
Mr. Petllt, none appeared 10 be quite SO
much shocked DIS the shareholders. Slave
ry being IA perpetual State of war, the most
unjust and unprovoked, it is no wonder
that those worthless showed so much SEN
siblIity on this occasion. If they admitted
war to be irreconciIabe with Christianity,
they would admit that slavery is so TOO.
OF course, they are peculiarly startled at
any reasoning, which can lead TO any
such conclusion. MIR. Petit was finally
prevailed upon to withdraw his motion,
and the appropriation for the pay of chap
lans was agreed to. Ga subsequent
day. however, he came up again 10 the
attack, with a motion to exempt soldiers
from compulsory attendance on public
and he then expressed great re-
greet that he had consented TO withdraw
his former motion, IN relation TO chap.
lans. He spoke again with great ANNA
ton, and declared that he was sorry he
had not passed between the teIlers alone
on his former motion. He was this time
supported by Mr., Hale of N. H., who
asked of what value that devotion could
be, which was enforced like the drill 3