Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1862-05-07
SPEECH OF MIR. W. F. LEAK,
OF RICHMOND,
On M. Badgers ordnance to exempt Quakers from
~ military duty

h
SIR: / have listened with marked attention to the
arguments that have been brought forward for and
against, the present memorial of the Society, of
Friends, asking TO be relieved from military duty,
and my mind has been brought to the following
conclusion and that for the'foowng reasons which
ask to state briefly with the hope that if am so
fortunate rs to make myself understood others may
take the same view as do and cast their vote in
favor of the memorial, as propose to cast mine.
In the first place, allow me to say, that the ground
upon which they rest their opposition to all wars
and fighting is new plea trumped up for the &C.
casion; but is coeval with the institution of the
Friends; that tbs of their fundamental reli-
| gous principles, under all circumstances to bear
faithful testimony against the sin of going to war;
and that, as SUCH they cannot aid, either directly
or indirectly in the prosecution of any war.
, They say, and We have right TO question their
sincerity, still less right to invade the tabernacle
| Of their bosom, and there set up an image of
own orthodoxy, that their opposition rests its sup
port upon their construction OF the enes inculcated
| by the New Testament and being such, it becomes
question of conscience, and that sooner than vio
late its teaching they stand ready patiently to suf
fer any penalties you may impose for the non-per-
Torrance of what you may conceive to be their pres
| ent duty. -
! Their opposition then becomes a religious one,
and being such, involves the liberty of conscience
for there can be no religion, when there is
science, neither there be any conscience where
tan duty. | do not mean to say, That the conclu-
sion OF mans conscience always right, per Sc,
but do mean TO say, that the honest dictates OF
mans conscience, availng himself of all the lights
IN his power, to arrive at correct conclusions,
| obligatory upon him. and that he cannot disregard
| them without contracting sin.
In this view Of the case the proposition is sim
ply reduced to this-would it be right in this Con
vention to exact the performance of any duty from
any of its citizens and punish them for its per
iormance when they had the highest degree of moral
evidence, that the refusal to perform, originated
from no refractory spirit from contempt of au
thOrity but solely>aroSe from deep seated convic
ton, that the performance required sinful?
We have heard much, Mr. President, about con-
science, and different definitions given of this much
abused word. What sir, ask, is conscience?-
Conscience has been defined by some to be that
| judgment which the rational soul passes upon all
her actions" and is said to be faculty of the soul
ITSELF and consequently natural to it. Others, there
are, who state that it is a ray of divine light. Mil
ton calls it Gods umpire" and Doctor Young calls
it "GOd in man." Dr. Adam Clarke, one of the
most learned, most able and pious biblical critics,
that this any other age has produced, says that
conscience is nothing else than faculty capable of
receiving light and conviction from the spirit of
God and he says that it answers the end in spirit
ual matters to the soul, that the eye does to the
body, in the process of vision.
The eye is not light in ITSELF is it capable of
discerning OBJECT, out Uy the lnStrumentalLy OF
solar or artificial light but it has organs properly
adapted to the reception of the rays of light, and of
the various images of the}objects they exhibit
When solar light is present to eye whose organs
are perfect, there is discernment, but when this
light is absent there is dScernment of the object,
however entire and perfect the optic In this
very same manner the spirit of God eplightens thet
/ eye of the soul, which we call conscience, and its
! teaching and conclusions obligatory. Yes in
the language of holy writ the spirit itself bears wit
with our spirit; ;hat is, it shines into the con-
science, and reflects through the soul conviction
both ofour duty, wellas the obligation resting up
on to perform that duty.
Conscience, then, according to this definition, pre-
suppOseS a knowledge our. part of the rule by
which it is to. be governed; which so far as chris
tians are concerned, is the written word of God
Conscience then has law, rule, standard, which
is authoritative and rises superior to human legsla
ton and when honestly entertained should be respect
ed The dictates Of enlightened conscience should
never be d:Sregarded and cannot be without conse-
quent and pain felt for omission of duty
Ii follows from the premises, that although the
thing suggested may not be right per sc, yet it
appearing to be- juStifes him who follows its sug-
geStlonS
eyes, what conscience dictates to be done
On not iu do
THIS teach more than He'll to shun
That more than Heaven pursue.
Conscience in the language of Abercrombie in
his moral ethics, holds place among the moral
powers analogous to that which reason holds among
the intellectual. When act under its influence
we perform actions simply because we feel them to
be right and we abstain from others because we
feel them to be wrong without regard to any other
impression, or to the consequence OF action upon
ourselves others.
Now, sir, the good book in which we all profess
to believe clearly reveals this truth-hat conscience
is power of such Importance that without any
acquired knowledge or any actual precepts, it IS
sufficient to establish in every man such an impress
sion Of duty, as leaves him without excuse: For
when the Genties which have not the law do by
nature the things of the law-those not having the
law are a law unto themselves" Again: "lf our
heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart
and knoweth all things"
The province Of conscience, then, is to convey to
man a certain conviction of what is right. The dc
ates Of conscience never be disregarded without
remorse and pain felt for omission
But, say gentlemen, they lor0Rg in their con-
illusions, and therefore, such tanatclSm should not
be respected; but this docs not meet the case
believe myself that they are wrong, but then ask
who made me keeper of their conscience? The
question still returns, ought we to impose pains and
penalties them for their non-performance of that
which they justify upon religious principle? | un.
heSitatingly answer No But it has seen said that
they enjoy the privileges of the government, and
will enjoy the liberties for which fighting
and therefore ought to fight or contribute to the
support of the war. In this there seems upon q
surface view of the question: 70 be some PLAUSIBLE
ty but if you will properly analyze the argument
II has not the force that is attached to it If you
are willing to receive a Communication tax it must bs
for the reason, that you to some extent respect
their conscepce and if respect it so far as tc
exempt them directly from bearing arms, how car
you disregard the same conscience, when you seek
to impose special tax for emitting to do in their
estimation sinful act?
If the gentleman from Wake has said if il be
wrong to fight yourself it is equally wrong to gel
another to fight for you, for what you do by anoth
er you do by yourself Notwithstanding they re,
ligousy resist the going to war, or furnishing o
substitute, or paying an equivalent, still they hold
it to be their religious duty to make no opposition