often been strewn with the bodies of the slain.

It has often set up a false standard by which people are to be
judged. Our common sense, as well as all the divine intimations on the
subject, teach us that people ought to be esteemed according to their
individual and moral attainments. The man who has the most nobility
of soul should be first, and he who has the least of such qualities
should stand last. No crest, or shield, or escutcheon, can indicate
one's moral peerage. Titles of duke, lord, esquire, earl, viscount,
or patrician, ought not to raise one into the first rank. Some of
the meanest men I have ever known had at the end of their name D.D.,
LL.D., and F.R.S. Truth, honor, charity, heroism, self-sacrifice,
should win highest favor; but inordinate fashion says--"Count not a
woman's virtues; count her rings;" "Look not at the contour of the
head, but see the way she combs her hair;" "Ask not what noble deeds
have been accomplished by that man's hand; but is it white and soft?"
Ask not what good sense was in her conversation, but "in what was she
dressed." Ask not whether there was hospitality and cheerfulness in
the house, but "in what style do they live."

As a consequence, some of the most ignorant and vicious men are at
the top, and some of the most virtuous and intelligent at the bottom.
During the late war we suddenly saw men hurled up into the highest
social positions. Had they suddenly reformed from evil habits? or
graduated in a science? or achieved some good work for society? No!
They simply had obtained a government contract!

This accounts for the utter chagrin which men feel at the treatment
they receive when they lose their property. Hold up your head amid
financial disaster, like a Christian! Fifty thousand subtracted from a