Rhode Island Republican

We are at a loss to determine whether it is their own ignorance and stupidity, or their contempt of the public understanding, which can find in the recent events in France, reasons to contemn republican principles, or impudently to urge the republicans of America with inconsistency for not bestowing the same applause on Bonaparte as first consul, as when he led the republican legions of France to triumph over six armies of the combined despots in one campaign.

It must be attributed to their own incorrigible stupidity, for the plain and unequivocal effect of an adherence to principles of right is totally different from an attachment to men. The former never change, the actions of men, though they are contrary to principles, do not either alter their nature nor diminish their value. Arnold at Stillwater, at Quebec, at Saratoga, in spite of a profligate character, excited the admiration and gratitude of his country; his valor and intrepidity shed lustre on the American cause, for which he then fought successfully—but when the same Arnold for 2000 British guineas, attempted to betray his country into the hands of the enemy—when he menaced the country with 'a deluge of American blood' when he set fire to New-London—were the principles under which he first fought changed—did he then merit the applause and honor, and attachment for his country? Did his betraying his country and rendering himself infamous, alter the nature of virtue, liberty and justice? Were not the principles unchanged? it is the excess of stupidity or of a baseness as corrupt as that of Arnold, that could attach odium to principles because men have deserted and abused them—Are those who adhere to the principles of truth and liberty under all vicissitudes inconsistent, because they do not admire and approve of the actions of the same men, when those actions are not only inconsistent but destructive of each other?