Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1868-05-12
From the Richmond Dispatch.]
Moral CoWardice."

A gentleman has handed to us the following
paragraph, which is said to be an extract from
a sermon preached many years ago by the Rev.
DR.. Dewey:
but we in this country have our own dan
gers. And the greatest of all dangers here, as
[ conceive, is that of general pusillanimity, OF
moral cowardice, of losing proper and manly
independence of character. | think that l see
something of this in our very manners, IN the
hesitation, the indirectness, the cautious and
circuitous modes of speech, the eye asking as
sent before the tongue can finish its sentence.
I think that in other countries you oftener meet
with men who stand manfully and boldly up,
and deliver their opinions without asking or
caring what you or others think about 1t. 1t
NAV sometimes be rough and hard, but at any
rate it is independent: Observe, too, in how
many relations-political, religious, and social
"a man is liable to find bondage instead of free
dom. If he wants Office, he must attach him
self to party, and then his eyes must be sealed
in blindness, and his lips in silence, towards all
the faults of his party. He may have his eyes
open, and he may see much to condemn, but
he must say nothing
There is little reason to doubt that DR. Dewey
spoke the truth. Shall we have the blessings
of universal suffrage and not the evils thereof?
People who decide all questions by counting
noses must infallibly come to consider that as a
test of what is right. Ifa man will not agree
with majority Of his fellow citizens upon polit-
ical questions, he shall not be constable, nor
overseer of the poor, nor hog-reeve. That
much is settled and it is but single step fur
ther to decide that he shall not hold any posi-
ton in the chambers of business, or even in the
church. We all know that there is such tell
dency in the community. And such being the
case how natural that man should learn to be
cautious in the expression of his opinions even
upon Indifferent questions. We are all like the
people of the town in which man was worried
out of his senses because he carried red UNI
brella. Would we allow any man to indulge
such fancy? Not we. If he dare walk with
stick six feet long, or carry red umbrella or
wear white hat two inches higher than is
sentiments, he may hang up his fiddle. He
can get no position in State, or church. or on
change This is free country, and we don
| allow people to have opinions Of their own, or
peculiarities OF any Sort except at the risk OF
the owner Would any Republican in the
land dare to say that Abraham Lincoln was a
man of third-rate abilties-or even to intimate
that he was not pious Christian, although
everybody knows that he uas the former, and
was not the. latter? Would any man in the
South dare to say that Robert E. Lee is not a
greater general than was the first Napoeon?-
If any such there be, North or South let him
not aspire to public position. Even the man
with the red umbrella could defeat him for any
position in the gift of ':the people or of the
women. In fact, public opinion is a despotic
tyrant in all free countries. Aristides was
banished by public opinion. We do not know
but better day may come-when man may
even aspire to office whose hat is no larger than
the hat now fashionable among the ladies' But,
Judging from the present state of things, that
day must be very distant
SHALL MARRIAGE between NEGROES
and WHITES be allowed? This is one of the