The daily Green Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1861-1865, 1862-04-15
Mr.. Lords Sermon Again.

We publish, elsewhere, Mr.. Lords communi-
cation in response 10 our article on his Fast Day
Sermon, together with the portion Of his SER
mon referred to. We think our readers will
agree with us in the opinion that we in no sense
coloTed or mis-stated the argumentof the sermon
so far as the points made are concerned. Upon
some parts of this communication we have some
suggestions to make,-and for convenience we
have indicated these points by figures in paren-
theses at the close of the paragraphs containing
hem.
~ Mr.. L. delineates - two false theories Of
- the Constitution which have long been advo
6 Gated, and have now come into open conflict ="
The sermon is, in the part in which this quota
the connection, we think no fair criticism can
escape the conclusion that in the judgment Of
the preacher, those 4" two ia ise theories - were
among the most conspicuous causes of the war,
and were now in ARMED conflict. We still re-
gard that statement as incorrect, both In fact
and in argument, and will give some additional
reasons
The doctrine of State Rights, we reterate, is
and always has been mere weapon, an instru-
ment 10 accomplish certain ends. IL was en-
ployed to lead South Carolina into notification,
and succeeded. Congress passed tariff bill
that South Carolina disliked, and that State
took ul this weapon of State Rights to defeat
the operation of the tariff in South Carolina.
By that false theory the State was persuaded
not to submit, just as by President jackson s
stern determination it was persuaded afterwards
to yield. But the cause of the notification &C,
of South Carolina was the tariff aud not State
Rights. If Congress had passed no law distaste
full to South Carollna, she never would have re-
belled. AS well as she loved fight, she would
never have been so foolish as to take up arms
to defend a mere ais racticn, mere " falt
theory irrespective of the interests to be pro-
tected or fostered by the use of that theory
And We might 60 further and show that Slavery
had much to do with notification, butw do not
need to, as the pontwe made in our former article
was not respecting the origin of the theory Of
State Rights but only its agency in producing the
present rebellion. And indeed it is evident thai
MIR. Lord, in fact, regards it in the same light al
we do, for he says it has been taken up and cast
down by parties and states and men, that they
have " played fast and losse with it," rs suited
the exigency of the moment, and answered the
ends that for the time they desired to reach
And thus it no doubt may have been an agency
an this disturbance, just as the habit of wearing
concealed weapons on ones person, may result
in bloodshed, and is therefore to be reprehended
But We think no Judge or divine in such cas-,
would STOP in his judgment at the surface ant
say that the weapon was the real culprit with
out seeking for the cause in the bad heart, or il
the angry and bloodthirsty passions Of the muir
derer; and we should hardly stop in our pun
ishtnent of the criminal by setting him at llbert,
and forbidding him thereafter to carry sucl
weapons ON his person. And we never saw
anything in the writing Of Jackson, Webste
OF Clay, that in any way was inconsistent will
this position. II they ever made such an argu
ment we would be glad to see it. 1t is quit
easy to quote names, but the Language tsel
would be more satisfactory.
(2) We did most decidedly dislike, and "
do 50 still, that portion Of Mr.. Lords discours
houn on constitutional law. We don't wish t
see the crown, t at Webster has 50 long and s