The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1844-04-12
COM M U NICATIONS S
For the Spirit Of Democracy,
Nix. ErIToR:-

consequence OF the notice taken of his remarks, in
relation to the right which human tribunal has to
pronounce the sentence ofdeath upon the deliberate
murderer. 1t, however, would have afforded me
much more qualification to notice his second pro.
ducton, had he attempted sustain his first position
by direct arguments He intimated in his first, that
he had arguments, reasons and authorities sufficient
to convince reasonable mind, of the Nervousness
of int1ictng capital punishment in "any case,' and
then abored TO show upon whom the crime of exc
cutting the criminal would rest. Feeling anxious to
elicit the gentleman fund ofinformation upon that
subject, cordially offered, we noticed the article,
expecting his second number would contain the
desired revelation.
There probably, can be no limit placed 10 intellec
tual and moral improvement; and at no former Pc
riod has the march of mind been rapid than the
present; hence we should listen with profound at
tention to the discoveries of the great and learned
The world at different periods, has produced moral
philosophers of considerable reputation, but it was
left for the nineteenth century to produce whose
acute moral sensibities could perceive the unjust
ness of that law which demands life for life The gen
tleman, however, to whom alluson is made, occu-
pies peculiar position at resent, in relation to this
magnificent discovery. Ithas been announced by
him. that the law which demands lite for life, can be
viewed in no other light by him than as being the
law of the "devi,' and adds, "Savages gaveit birth
superstition cradled' &C. This now is something
of which the world has heretofore heen entirely g
oh; ;Io. nbarco ind IN,
have been of the opinion that this law had divine
sanction; that the Almighty himself atone time sad
"whosoever sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his
blood he she'd" If, however, our modern philoso-
pher be correct, this must have been an erroneous
impression and Deity has been represented as Civ
ing sanction to an enactment of Satan. The ] VS.,
freance can be placed upon scriptural account
during the time their government was strictly
Theocracy, punished four or five different crimes
with death, and that too as the oraces of truth in
form US, with divine sanction. According then to
the modern standard of morals, the principles of
Justice could not have characterised this divine adj
and human wisdom has at length at
tanned to that perfection, that it can descry the er
rors of Omniscience. The gentleman, however,
whose sense of wrong is exceedingly acute, ap-
pears to leave Revelation out of the question, and
enters into an eluciddtion ofthe nature of govern
ments, and endeavors to show for what purpose |
they ,cere formed, and by whom they actre nstitu-
ted. "Gove-nments," says he, severe established
by man for the general good, prosperity and happ-
ness of his race" Admitting that governments are
the institutions ofmen does it necessarily follow |
that the principles upon which they are based must
be ofhuman origin? Although the admission that
man is the insttutor of government is radically !
wrong. and is manifestIy at variance with the prin
cipes that Omnipotence exercises supervision o.
yer his works. 1t is undoubtedly true that men do
form governmental compacts, for their mutual pro-
lection; but the idea or institution Of government
together with its radical principles eminated not
from the wisdom of men.
Having expatiated upon the nature and institu-
ton governments and made small petition, "M"
fixes his general principle: "With the admission"
says he "that governments were instituted by man
it may be laid down as general principle that they
cannot possibly be invested with more power than
man their creator possesses without violation OF
Justice. I'm the first place, this princpei predl-
Gated upon a fallacious admission, one which is at
war with the whole tenor OF revelation. Men in
sttute or form churches upon the same principle
that they do governments, and surely there is not
an individual in Christendom, who will make the
admission that the principles of the christian re.
gion are sanctioned by authority no higher than
that OF men. In the second, it is contrary to that
principle of our nature which teaches US to pre-
serve our own life. Man is said TO have an inalien
able right to life and consequently to the means of
preservingit. Ifnow men can consistently claim a
right to preserve the vital spark, individually, the
faaciousness of our philosophers radical principle
will readily be discovered, since government is only
a compact, formed by surrender of individual
rights.
The inquiry may next arise to what extent has an
right to defend his own life-not only
our own, but the instinct Of the lower order of an
imaIs establish the fact, beyond contradiction, that
we are iustifiable in defending life at fbe ex-
pense of the life of our assallant. In becoming a
member of society, we surrender this rghto COM
munity and are guaranteed mutual protection as
a consideration for the same. Conclusions drawn
from erroneous hypothesis are pitiabe things, and
initiate much against the cause OF the philosopher,
by whose ra,ocination they are deduced. A few
reasons, and they good, should be the advocates
motto.
Thenext question which occurs to our friends
mind is this "Have men the natural
right to commit murderi" He then proceeds to
discuss this proposition, and concludes that man
has not natural right to commit murder; which
indeed is very correct conclusion, and one to |
which assent is very cordially yielded. Butindeed,
it is surprisingly strange that his powers ofdiscrim-
ination did not enable him to see, that he had
gotten hold of the wrong question. It is not