Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1843-10-04

nothing. Oeiense Is no moie Ia" VI
nature than offense-as | had occasion TO
show, in reply to Bartholomew Summer
last week. The Editor o. the Investiga-
Tor says" The peace-maker is never
an offender, but he is always defender.
He defends right,and he opposes wrong"
A more thorough investigation OF this
matter will show him that he has under
taken to make distinction here where ne
cannot carry out the discrimination and
make out the difference. What IS Of
tense? What Is defense? What IS
wrong? What IS right? Wath aOhon'
is the discretion? Where does The poacer
lie to determine? Has this investigator
sufficiently investigated the bearings Of
such questions as these on this great mat
ter! There is not room here TO write
down the thoughts they call forth. Il
would require the space OF volume.
Let those who have the power to think,
and the courage and fidelity TO think, ask
themselves these questions, and others
that may come in connection with them,
and 60 about answering them for them
selves in their own minds.
Attack and defense are both prompted
by mans animal nature, and not by his
intellectual or mental. Fighting has a
common origin, among men and among
the lower animals. 1t comes from blind
impulse, and not from reason and philoso-
ply. Reason and philosophy may have
been employed more or less, in carrying
on war, under the control of the animal
impulses and propensities. But the latter
are the originators, prosecutors and con-
trolers of it. The former act only as
subjects 10 The case. Human beings fig ht-
ing for dominion, or possession, are doing
the same thing with 10 Her animals fight
ing for dominion or possession. Go back
far enough 10 the history Of the race, and
you wilt find men but very little remov.
ed from the lower animals, in their reaci-
ness to attack, owing to the great prepond-
erance of their lower nature against their
higheL Ia the present advanced and in
proved state of things in many parts Of
the world, attack has come to be consider.
ed dishonorable and wrong. This comes
of the better development of the nobleI
part of man. In still better develop
men:, defense will be looked upon as ob
jcctionable and unphilosophical, as attack
now Is.
One OF the questions which have ask
ed above, indicates the difficulty Of deter.
mining what Is attack, and what defense
Take the case of fogging, for iastonce
brought! by the Editor of the Investigator
in his former article. The one who fog
ged the other was justified by the Editor
And did he not attack the olher2 Prob
ably il will be claimed that he was defend
ing the weak in the person of the third in
| dividual, who was attacked, or was abou
to be by the one logged. But let US ex
anime in.o this case little. Il is easy Il
conceive that the person logged might jns
as well claim thai be too was 6 defendin:
the right, or opposing the wrong" in tn
other. For the Editor of the Investigate
speaks of defending RICH! and opposin!
wrong" as well as personal defense an
preservation. The person logged ma
have been very ignorant, and the victim q
| jealousy and the other bad passions, an
so have thought himself imposed upor
and thus viewed the one who spilled hi
| pail of water as his assailani, just as much
as really, and as sincerely. as. he We
viewed to be an assailant by the third pei
son who interlered and logged him. 1
the present STATE of philosophy, and vie,
taken Of attack, few fighters will be will
ing to be viewed as offenders. Nearly a
will claim TO be acting on the defense.
! The Editor of the Investigator speak
Of cases being supposab!e " in which on
might be'iuduced TO infict great bodily il
jury upon friend, for the sole purpose
protecting another friend from his unju
assault" This is quite as plausible as an
thing that he has brought tits apparen
Y more noble, because it looks like con
ing from better motive, than if the san
violence were done to an enemy. But
il in fact any beuer2 Is it more phil
: sophical to do violence to friend than
. | L