Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-08-22


rauny proceeded, "a to have the har-
dihood to come forward and advocate
the conduct of Humphreys, and find
arguments to Justify those murders
which the British government itself
had not the proAigacy to avow. So
true is it that there ls5a las. stage of
human guilt, when conscience no lon
ger feels remorsc, when sha ne THAT.
great sentinel of moral virtue) is put
to fight, and depravity becomes I'M
blushing.
A writer in the Boston Repertory
quotes Grotins, Poffendorf, Vattel and
Martens, land l mean to shew that he
does so without understanding them)
to prove the right of Great Britain to
recede from the stipulatisns entered in
to with our government. An appear
ance of erudision may pass with many
for argument, but men of sense will
require something more than bare as
sertion, in cases where important in
terests are concerned.
And here 1 cannot help observing
on the inutility of all arguments deri-
we'd from riters on the laws of natl
ons in great questions ofnational con-
troversy. The world is no ionger ru-
led by priests and casuists. On what
soever side a superiority Of force exists,
to that side argument must and will
forever yield. A man might as well
adnonish victorious army in the mo-
ment of ASSAULT, or on entering a
: breach, when they are already mad
dened by resistance and the hopes of
plumber, of the moral obligations en-
Joined by the articles ofthe decalogue !;
not TO rob or offer violence to the wives
and daughters of the vanquished; as
talk OF the obligations of the laws of ma
tons to the minions Of a modern cabi-
net. In either case did he escape the
penalty of his imprudence with life,
he might be well contented to be made
the butt of their rcdicule for his folly.
When writer's, therefore, are recurring
to the obsolete rules Of morality In po-
EticaI questions: they forget that mo-
dern nations have promulged other
codes Of laws; not from the writings
of moral philosophers, tut from the
mouths OF their cannons.
We do not by this mean to deny the
relativeobliga,ions ofright and wrong :
we know that these are eternal and un-
changeable in their nature: but We as
sert that these are not objects OF re-
Election to modern statesmen. Their
sole consideration is what is favorable
to the qualification of interest or ANTI
ton but about the justice or injustice
OF the means by which these are attai-
ned they care nothing. With these,
therefore, it is folly To talk of the obli-
cations of morality with such superb
ority of force is the strongest evidence
of the justice of any undertaking
When, therefore, we enter on the exa-
minaiion of the present question, we
do not so much as hope that any argu-
mxnt we can offer, will have any eHec'
on The conduct of the adherents OF U.
Britain in this country. 1t IS 4 truth
well known, that when the graiihcati.
on of interest or passion is concerned
that men do not seldom act in contra
diction 10 the suggestions OF consci
ence and in circumstances like the
present, we do not expect that they will
act very differently.
What, therefore, is the practical uti
litv Of this discussion?
The ignorant or unwsry are the ma
terials upon which cunning politician
do ever operate. With such, eiths
from ignorance or incapacity, ssserti
on il often mistaken for proof, aud I'm
pudence for integrity. The maj
therefore, who bares their argument
of the sophistries in which they are
envelopsd and exposes the fallacy o
the principles which they cover, doe
service to such as are willing To EN-
brace truth when she is presented to
them naked. But upon the conduc
of those political empires whose exs
tepce depends upon the sale OF thel
pufs and Dostrums; refutation cat
have no avail. Voltaire asked by on
Of bis eieves, why he still continued
to puDlish arguments that had bee
- cCtsr rsfu,sJ fool faava hsl man