The Daily Dispatch: February 18, 1865., [Electronic resource]

It is a common boast of the North, and religiously believed by most of its people, that cold climates beget and keep alive self-reliance, energy, enterprise, skill and inventiveness; and that warm climates produce indolence, carelessness, ignorance and improvidence. If that be the fact, we wonder that they do not stick to their cold climates instead of seeking to settle in latitudes where the enervating influences of the sun may cause them to degenerate.

But there are certain facts in the history of mankind which conflict seriously with this favorite Northern theory. We do not mention these in a spirit of self-complacency, but simply in self-defence, and in defence of the Sun, which performs some important offices in the economy of nature. This much, at least, must be conceded: No Northern man will contend that the sun diminishes the energy of vegetation, or begets weakness and effeminacy in the animal life. --No one will pretend that the gigantic growth of Southern vegetation is surpassed in Northern latitudes, or that the lion, the tiger, the elephant, the Arab horse, are inferior in strength, courage and speed to the animals of cold countries.

If man is an exception to this rule; if the sun, which develops and energizes all the rest of creation, which stimulates, fosters and perfects all plants and all animals, renders humanity effeminate and indolent, we should like to see some evidences of the fact. We do not find that evidence in the condition of the aboriginal races of America when first discovered by Europeans. In the high latitudes, the Indians were rude, improvident and savage; in all the tropical parts of the continent, in Mexico, Central America and Peru, they exhibited forecast, skill, inventiveness, and were surrounded by vast architectural remains, that proved the existence of an immemorial civilization.

If we go to the Old World, we look in vain for any illustration of the self-complacent Northern proposition. We find that man was created about the centre of Asia, and we should thence infer that region was the most favorable locality for his full growth and development. We are no bigots on this subject; not extreme, by any means, in our vindication of the Sun. The Sun, no doubt, has his faults, a spot or two here and there; but, on the whole, is a benignant luminary, not unfavorable to human progress. We are disposed to concur with a theory, that as we recede from the isothermal latitude of creation, and go too far north, or too far south, man and all other created things deteriorate. Nevertheless, it is better to have too much sun than too little. In the equatorial and tropical regions of the Old World there is abundant monumental and architectural evidence that, before Greece and Rome existed, those regions were always inhabited by energetic and civilized races, while in the Northern latitudes there was only a dreary waste of ignorance and barbarism.

It was under a glowing sun that the patriarchs, prophets and apostles of Divine Revelation were called to the great mission of reclaiming the human race from the ruins of the fall. It was under such a sun that Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon were matured to the most vigorous manhood and the loftiest wisdom. It was there that the Sun of Righteousness first arose, and blended its fructifying rays with that luminary, which is spoken of in Scripture as a type of the spiritual energy and life-giving power of the Son of God.

Why has Northern Asia been always barbarous, and Southern Asia been always civilized ? Why, if the Northern theory be true, was Egypt the most civilized and powerful of nations, the granary of the world, the land of intelligent and persevering industry, bearing evidence even now, in its pyramids, obelisks and catacombs, of a combination of labor and art which even modern civilization has not been able to equal ? Or, if cold is necessary to enliven and stir into action human energy and genius, what do they make of the valor, the enterprise, the philosophy, the arts, the eloquence, the refinement, the civilization of sunny Greece ? What of Rome, the mightiest power that ever dominated the earth, whose soldiers were capable of doing more, of daring more, of suffering more, than the soldiers of any land, before or since; who chained Northern barbarians at their chariot wheels, and whose conquests compacted and integrated that magnificent empire till it was round and respondent as the sun that warmed into life its victorious eagles ? Was Julius Cæsar a Northern man ? Was Hannibal, that Carthaginian hero, who, in the opinion of some of the best modern soldiers, was the greatest military genius the world has ever produced, begotten of an iceberg ? Where was the Gothic genius when these Titanic Children of the Sun made the earth tremble beneath their ponderous footsteps ?

If we come down to a still later period, we find another memorable refutation of the stereotyped Northern absurdity, that warm climates beget effeminacy and weakness. What becomes, under this theory, of the Arabian Empire, which, under the banners of Mahomet, went forth, conquering, proselyting and enslaving mankind ? Their creed was false and their swords were merciless; but the question is not of truth or mercy. It is whether warm climates enervate the human race, take the sap out of their manhood, and render them only fit for slaves. The Arabians shook Asia to its foundation, and added nation after nation to their conquering flag. In thirty years after Mahomet's death, thirty-six thousand cities had been subjugated, and the Persian monarchy was overthrown; they penetrated Europe, invaded Tartary, and threatened India. Spain became a tributary kingdom. The eighth century saw the Arabian Empire stretching from the Ganges to the Atlantic; from the Pyrenees to the deserts of Africa. Nor was it alone in the character of heroes and fanatics that they figure in history. They built the Alhambra; they exhibited an intellectual development equal to their courage; and Europe is deeply indebted to them for literature, science and taste. The brilliancy of their knowledge was not surpassed by the glare of their conquests and the lustre of their victories; and in the track of desolation that lay behind their march sprung up flowers of refinement, courtesy and civilization.

It is not certainly in the northern parts of the world — it is not among Esquimaux or Laplanders — that we must look for the grandest developments of man. Whilst the highest exhibitions of intelligence and energy were given by the Mediterranean nations, the northern multitudes were miserable savages.--Whilst Greece and Rome displayed wonders of architectural skill, the dwellers in the cold regions, now known as Russia, Germany, Sweden and Denmark, could not build comfortable dwellings to protect them against the rigor of their own climate. The civilization of Russia, such as it is, is not older than the days of Peter the Great, and he had to visit lands where the sun shone to procure the exotic and transplant it to his bleak domains. Germany, like Russia, is indebted to her conquest by the Sarmatians — a comparatively southern people — for a civilization which is not indigenous. The sunny land of France, inhabited by a people of Roman descent, and England, whose controlling element of society is of Norman origin, are the masters of the world. Who was Raphael ? Who Canova ? Who Dante ? Who Columbus ? Who Napoleon ? Italy, even in her old age, has given to the world a constellation of genius and energy, made up of stars of the first magnitude, which will shine on till the firmament above is rolled up like a scroll.

The traveler who now visits Europe to behold the wonders of science, energy and art, does not go to Russia, Sweden Denmark or Norway. He finds there a very gluttonous and animal people, but not superior knowledge and refinement. The Northern States of this Union have, indeed, a civilization, which consists in the application of mechanical discoveries to the increase of individual gain; but the progress of this war has developed a latent barbarism only equalled by that of Russia. It is true, the material and national progress of the United States, up to 1861, was prodigious, if not unparalleled; but it was under a Southern leader that she achieved her independence, and under a long line of Southern Presidents and Southern Statesmen that she rose to greatness and prosperity. If she wants to make a fair experiment of the capabilities of Northern and Southern races, let her withdraw her armies, acknowledge our independence, and see what the result will be at the end of the century. Even in our tributary condition under the old Government, we produced the greatest of its political and military leaders, and supplied by our industry three-fourths of its revenue. Let us see what we can do when we set up for ourselves ! It is the dread of that result, that, with all its vain-glorious confidence in the superiority of Northern energies, induces a Northern journal to declare that not for Canada, nor Mexico, nor all America beside, would it permit the South to go.