Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1862-11-27
RUTLAND HERALD.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1862.
rrom the Daily Herald OF Nav. P5.
Hon. a. j. hamiitOn and The Ruriinc
N Sentinel.

ia..a-s
At some length TO our article, published few
weeks since, entitled Two specimens of loy-
,hy." We herein commented up.,n the re-
marks OF the Sentinel in relation to portion
Of Spee, made some time ago in BrookDyn.
n Y, by the Hon A. j. Hamilton of
Texas What particularly excited the ire
cf the SeRtinel was Mr.. Hamlton's statement
that he should not be thankful for bayi n
the old Union restored as it existed in the state
Of Texas IN 1861. "And what reason tasks
he S-attnet, does Mr. Hamilton give for this?"
Why, 1t says, simply that he could not meas
re bis conscience or his jud ment with those
Of majority of his neghbors, and he was
Aereiore driven from amongst them" That
all S'mpfy toput 1t IN other l.s.ssttllape, that
% 0'D.~ ~, 40, exercise his constitutional right
liberty of jud lment and conscience "And
yet, says the Sentinel, q" Mr.. Hamilton invokes
be aid of tie loyal people in restoring the Gov
gnment Of the United States. Now we ask
h. Herald what does Mr. Hamilton mean by
AsW We answer that he meant that he
wanted the provisions of the constitution {" as
il is ~ enforced throughout the United States,
nstoring to hm and all others their absolute
nights uuder it.
The SeHttHeFs argument, as we understand
t. amounts to this if persons political SEN
sH ents are opposed to those of majority of
BIS neighbors, it is proper enough, if he insists
rpon the constitutional right to his own judg-
nent and conscience, that he should be hunted
md bounded out Of his state by the neighbors
who disagree with him; and it is highly i'm
vOper Tor him to ask the aid of loyal peonle
10 assist HIM in regaining the rights he is enti-
ted to by tie paramount law Of the land
We believe that majority Of the neghbors OF
The SenftHei-a majority oil the people Of this
aa,e--are opposed in Judgment and con-
Heuce upon this slavery question, TO the
SntiRd; Yet we should be exceedingly sorry
70 the Sshtinei's argument turned rpon it
selI for we have the highest respect for the
roprjetors Of at paper personally, ana 1se-
ieyc they have an undoubted right to enter
lain and express their views undisturbed, how
ever opposed such views may be to the "judg
nrnt and conscience Of majority of their
ne ghbors."
Tut th 5 argument of the Sentinel Is not
based upon proper statement of the facts in
he case. The Sentinel makes the mistake of
Srgettng (for all that appears in its article)
Ae most important fact of all viz: that the
majority of Mr.. Hamilton's "neighbors" in
Texas Of VIII ch it speaks, are arrant traitors
and rebels 10 tine government of the United
States We repeat for the SsatjneI'S benefit,
that un to the time the rebellion broke out
Dir Hamilton enjoyed the confidence of his
ne'Shbors and a degree of popularity among
'''" "hCAttlttu ny duH llidH VI ItAdS' uC
Tact that he was elected by the people of Tex
as their representative IN the United States
congress demonstrates that his views and
ar'rs conceded al that time Would they
have chosen an " ab iitioa .fapaticn to repre-
sem them in Congress! But MIR. Hamilton,
IN this same Brooklyn speech, atfirms himself
s1 he was Shareholder, and that he. had and
ra' n" CONSCIENTIOUS scruples regarding the
nsh'tnIness Of the "peculiar instituuon."-
Now abcn did Mr. Hamilton begin "to be
locked upon with coldncss and aversion ?''-
ImcseIy when his neghbors began to rebel
SSan-t th' Cnon, Why .? Because his
n"gh'ors .nt.nled to destroy the Union and
'nd to rear on its runs government whose
Corner stone, should be slavery; because they
tended that slavery should be perpetuated to
Ae destruction Of republican institutions. while
u.s. though STAKEHOLDER, preferred that if one
must perish it shoulu be slavery rather than
"e ohon; IN short, as he affirmed in this
speech, because he believed the solemn oath he
4.l taken to support the constitution of the
'u0ed States was still binding, and his ''neigh-
~s did not. Dies the Sentinel insist that
Af Hamilton should still have continued to
gree with his neighbors when they ioined
asnds IN the devilish scheme to subvert the
VA'0n that it was his duty to have become
""lt9r with them that he might remain un-
so'ested in Texas
'' IS true the Sentinel says that il was only
r''csIng Mr.. Hamilton's speech, and was not
'''uSslng what he is or has been. If this
'''e So, the only correct inference to be drawn
'O'n his speech is what we have stated. But
'of'unately the Seatina of the same date
'acterizes Mr.. Ham lton, without ouali6ca-
wy as pClhical fanatic whom the Texans
"'''' ""oa here mention that they were