Litchfield enquirer., 1861-02-07

HesA We nave received late copy Oi a ser mon delivered on Thanksgiving day last by the Rev. Azariah Eldridge of Detroit, Michigan. It is an able and interesting discourse on the :'State of the Country and Secession," and as it's ideas on the latter subject so we'll coincide with our own, and are so ably and concisely expressed, we arc tempted to give the following extract:-
 But l thank Him to-day, and from the heart, that am an American citizen. And can it be possible that, while we are here engaged in these grateful services any in the land desire to secede from such, prospects as are before us, and such an inheritance as this? Can any grievance, fan cied or real, present or prospective, have caused them to forget the value of Union, with such interests involved; to despisc such stall wart and rapidly growing Confederacy; and to think of casting away the protection of its agis, against foreign enenies and the salutary restraint of federal law and order, upon elements of do. nestle trouble? Will irritating paragraphs from an irresponsible press or little intellectual, pet tish legislation here and there in the North ius- tify them to posterity, and to the world, in at- tempting to break up this government What has the Union done to deserve il-treatment at their hands It has bought Louisiana for them, at $l5,OOO,OO0. It has bought Florida for them, at S5,00O,O00. It has paid down $37 100000, ndscarried on a war, costing s2oO, ,OCO, that they might have Texas. What has it done to merit their ill.will? What are the practical wrongs they complain of? Where the positive aggressions? Not an inch of territory has ever been purchased, or acquired, since the Constitu- tion was adopted, at the instance of the free states, or was intended for their benefit.
 And now, in the absence of all just ground of complaint against the Union, or anything but gratitude for partial services and special favors, what shall we say to their destroying it before our eyes? Irrespective of party, which would utterly ignore, by the proprieties of this oeca- sion, what must we say, as Christians and Pa triots, to their idea of resisting the Supreme Law of the land, and breaking away from this Gov ernment? Is there but one thing to be said, or done? that it must bo and shall be put down! Did not Andrew Jackson, in declaring so, eX- press the first principle of civil government, as we'll as the strong dictate of Patriotism? Is what they propose, in the way they propose it, any thing but treason in essence, and revolution if effected ? What right has any State, or the People of one, to secede from the Union, any more than to crowd into it, in spite of itself and the wishes of the whole? Is this a matter of fast and loose, of cut and come again, according to the whim of the members and their feelings after election?
 "But, then, after all, if there isa proper way, or can safely be made one, to let some of these people out, must confess that, for one, donot feel the importance of keeping them in, and their descendants after them, forever! If they are de termined to go and will ask to be let out in be- coming manner, and promise to behave we'll when out, why not permit some of them to try it? May not the people of the United States, if they choose, suffer some such thing as this ? We know what is said upon the subject; how the le. gal gentlemen, many of them view it; the ground taken, when New York proposed to accept the Constitution, with a right to withdraw within specified time. They argue that the Union is a Compact, like that between man and wife in giv- ing themselves exclusively to each other, which would be broken up by the permitted withdraw ment of State. But there certainly would seem to be some difference. The original States did not give and bind themselves exclusively to each other. They were not to remain by themselves, the same. The Constitution contemplates change in this respect, by the division of old States, and the admission of new ones? And how does this differ in principle from letting State out In the nature of the case, what is the difference be- tween passing in and passing out, as to destroy ing the Compact, or unsettling the Constitation ? Why may not the provision to let the States in be construed to imply the idea of letting State out :? And why would an amendment, wisely