The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1845-11-13
]. HOLCOMB, Editor Il Publisher,

rally different. 10 look after The differ
ences then on those minor points, and ex
plain, will be the first object of this letter
And in doing this. propose carefully Il
initiate one merit of yours, viz. CRITICS,
on thoughts rather than words. The diff
ference between us has arisen, think
from TWO sources; FRS, our attaching
different meanings TO words and phrases.
And secondly, from our taking different
stations in our system of ethics as points
of observation, from which 10 look out on
the practice of war.
First, of words. Though may have
used the word war rather loosely, on speak
ing OF ancient acts, or customs, yet as
used by others to express the modern Gus
tom of International warfare. BY the
term aoar let me say, do not mean phys
ical force absractly considered. | do not
mean the action of authority either paren.
tai, or civil, Furnishing an offender ; not
even capital punishment by civil law
Nor yet is war in the sense [ use the
phrase, the action of civil government IL
suppressing mob, or handful whether
foreign OF domestic though aided by mil
itary force, as its strong arm, and at the
hazard Of the lives of the insurgents. Aud
though public opinion may be far from
being correct on much that pertains to
these and kindred topics,yel have thought
it best for the sake of cearness, 10 avoid
encumbering the cause of peace. as it
stands opposed 10 international war, with
these mooted questions. But positively,
soar, or q state of qoar, is that attitude
which two nations may at pleasure assume
relative to each other, or in which one ma
ton may place itself relative to another
nation, in which attitude, according to the
theory of war, each has right 10 engage
in the destruction Of the lives and proper
ty of its opponent; each at the same time
claiming all the mmunites Of civil states,
and each recognizing the others right tc
such claim; each claiming the right TO
judge of matters in controversy between
them, and execute It's own judgment each
claiming the right 10 take the life o! the
soldiers of its opponents, and at the same
time acknowledging such soldiers entitled
10 commentator aud respect, in proper
ton TO the valor and skill with which they
prosecute their murderous work. Such
in principle, and corresponding in prac-
tice, is the war against which | treal..-
And that such is the system and such the
practice; the law Of nations and modern
history abundant y testify. Such is the
war that multipiies those gigantic evils we
complain Of. Now sir, it is obvious from
this definition that your plea for physical
force, should we give it all the importance
you ask, does not approach the point at
issue.
But again. The word depraOity. In
using this phrase, depravity Of fallen man,
as the original cause of war; meant an
innate propensity TO do wrong. Taken
10 this sense know not how to look for
its "couse in passlonaI perversons. ~
Again; the word civilization. BY it
mean, not the present slate of society ia.
ken as an ineger. l use it rather with
reference to the character of an act, or
practice, as contrasted with barbarism.-
Secondly. As 10 the different standpoints
from which war may be viewed. 1t seems
10 me that in looking out on the moral as.
pect Of society, if we take post Of obser-
walton which presents to our view the
whole history--all that pertains TO man,
in the form of social compact under the
three classes, Barbarian, Savage and Civ
llized, showing each class as unit, and
bringing all that pertains 10 the character
OF man under one of these classes, and
making a constituent part, or feature OF
that particular class; we shall be liable 10
great cooluson. and error, in approaching
the moral character and acts of Individuals
Rather would |, 10 looking out on public
wrongs, choose position sufficiently re-
tired for quiet observation, aud with the
glass Of Gods law. look with impartiaIily
on every class, and on every organization,
remembering the divine ruIe;--" Though