The Jeffersonian Democrat. [volume] (Chardon, Ohio) 1854-1865, 1865-12-01
HENRY @. WRIGHT.
REMARKS.

HENRY O. WRIGHT.
| REMARKS.
Having expressed our dissent from the
sentiment Of Mr.. Wright's resolution, we
cheerfully publish the above rejoinder /;
and we hope our readers will give it the
candid and thoughtful attention demanded
by the importance Of the subject.
Admitting the truth of much that our
friend says, il seems 10 us that he fails to
sustain his position and, after careful
perusal of his letter, we regret to say
that our objections TO his resolution re.
main in undiminished force. Tke resolu.
tion affirms that "Reverence for Human
Beings is the only safeguard OF Human
Rights" It is from this sentiment, thus
affirmed, that we dissent. We do not
deny that human beings, rejecting, as
they do, the Divine image, and possessed,
as they are, of immortal faculties, are Of
lnestimable value, or that their rights
should be sacredly regarded. II there
are those who despise human nature, we
are not Of their number, and we are will.
ing to concede that TO do so does not tend
to make mankind better or happier
When Mr.. Wright elaborates an argu-
ment to prove the necessity Of due re.
specs for man and his rights. he performs
a supernuous task, inasmuch as that ne.
cessity is undisputed and indisputable.-
1t is the deduction Of his reasoning, that
reverence for human beings is the only
safeguard OF human rights." that we
deny, and trust may never be universally Y
accepted as true. Such q sentiment
we regard as radically wrong and danger
Gus in lis tendencies.
The idea Of q Safeguard" implies sta
bility, permanency, power /; and it neces-
sariiy follows that "lhe only safeguard
is that which alone possesses these and all
other essential elements, ,and "the Aiqhest''
that which possesses them in the highest
degree. II reverence for human be-.
ings is the only or highest safeguard Of
human rights" where are justice, right.
conscience. duty, to say nothing OF The ter.
rors Of the law Is reverence for hu-
man beings" better reliance than all
these? Grant that this reverence should
be judged by It's effects upon those who
feel it, and that it has never been univer.
sally felt: is il possible 10 make It univer-
sally felt before all mankind shall have
been elevated and ennobled by other and
more potent influences than mere rever.
ence can exert?
1t is the nature of reverence 10 lift the
mind upward. We are inclined to rever-
ence those things only which are OF seem
to be higher than ourselves. The men who
have been most distinguished for their
faith in human nature have not, as a gen.
eial rule. regarded il SO much with rev.
erence as with charity, and an abiding
confidence in what it may attain and
achieve, under proper guidance and in
its best estate.
AS we have denied that reverence
for human beings is the only or highest
safeguard Of human rights" the question
arises. what may be justly regarded as
such safeguard. We answer "A due
recognition Of and sense Of moral account
ability to Higher PoaOer. Independently
Of this, there is nothing .ha. deserves
the name OF "safeguard." Recognizing
as he ought the origin Of human nature,
and the source and sanction OF all rights,
man will sufficiently reverence his fellow.
man but, failing 10 do this, he will truly
reverence nothing. 1t is the idea OF
right or duty, which depends not upon
reverence for men like ourselves. that
alone can lead us to always sacredly re.
gard any rights, human or divine. And
this, in our estimation, is fatal objection
to the philosophy of Mr.. Wright, that it
begins ,oiM and rises no higher than man.
And this is why we. although disposed to
look with faith and charity upon human
nature, trust the time may never come
when it shall be universally accepted.
II is very easy to imagine perfect state
Of society, in which the rights OF every
individual would need no other "safe.
guard" than reverence for human be-
! inps % hul. as such a state does not and