Page images
PDF
EPUB

$2,000; 20 years old, $4,000; 30 years old, $4,100; 50 years old, $2,900; and 80 years old, $700.”

If we make these figures the basis of our estimate and add to the vast number who, at different times, died as the result of wounds received on the field of war, the loss in dollars will go far up into the billions. It has been estimated that the cost of that war to the United States alone, independent of the patriotic lives that went out as the result of that struggle, was no less than "eight billion dollars." Combine the two estimates and tell us what the immense loss was to this American Republic. We affirm that it was possible, by pursuing Constitutional methods. to have settled our differences without resort to war. In other chapters we have shown how this could have been done. Then all the lives sacrificed could have been devoted to constructive pursuits, and all that treasure to peaceful channels in enriching the Republic.

We are prone to imagine in the midst of our prosperity that no other alternative than that of war could have made the country so prosperous. If the South is prosperous today it is in spite of the annihilation of her millions upon millions of dollars; in spite of the ashes of her dwellings and her granaries; in spite of the sacrifice of the lives of the vast majority of her patriotic sons; in spite of all the bitterness and hate engendered by war; in spite of all the additional wrongs and robberies of reconstruction-wrongs surpassed in cruelty and extent only by the great war itself. If the South could recuperate and grow rich in so short a time after all these wrongs and losses why should not a recourse to peaceful and Constitutional methods have been attended with infinitely greater blessings?

"About the end of July or the beginning of August, 1862, Mr. Lincoln called a cabinet meeting. To this assemblange of his Secretaries he then said with his usual simplicity that he was going to communicate something about which he did not. desire them to offer any advice since his determination was taken; they might make suggestions as to details, nothing more. After this imperious statement he read the preliminary proclamation of emancipation...... Such presentations of one man power certainly stood out in startling relief upon the background

of popular government and the great free republican system of the world." (American Statesmen, Edited, John T. Morse, vol. II, pp. 114-115).

And this was in free America! Consider the words "imperious statement," and "one man certainly stood out in startling relief upon the background of popular government;" and then tell us what is the character of the praise they imply? Have they the true ring of immortal verity? Is not "imperious" the synonym of despotic? And who has the right to be despotic but a despot? How insignificant was the great American Constitution in the presence of this "imperious statement!" Yet that Constitution was the production of the labored effort of the wisest of statesmen after much discussion and many compromises; and the adoption of that Constitution by the States was the result of a wider discussion and a searching criticism to which few public documents have ever been subjected.

It is but natural that Morse and Lothrop and Hale and Putnam, and the great host of other Northern writers should defend Lincoln in his "startling" usurpations. They belong to that section which claimed Lincoln, and in whose name he waged the great war. Whatever honor or dishonor the future judgment of mankind shall bestow upon Lincoln the section to which he belonged will share it to a greater or less extent. The future historian will exhonorate the great Northern masses who were misled by that "splendid popular delusion," to which reference has been made, but will hold the leaders in that "splendid popular delusion to a strict account."

Perhaps it is not generally known that Lincoln is not extolled for any great virtues except in the North and by Northern writers. Hear what Mr. Hapgood, a writer well known to the readers of this volume, says: "Singularly enough, perhaps, almost nothing of worth has been written about Lincoln in foreign countries." As a philanthropist and statesman his praise is confined almost exclusively to the North. The outside world regards him in the light of a usurper, a cruel autocrat in a Republic of Republics. (If the facts do not justify this criticism, we are at fault.) When his own sectional admirers shall have passed from the stage of action, and a new generation shall

review the facts of the Sixties in their true light, they will confess with sorrow the errors of Lincoln and the North, and will place no higher estimate upon the character of Lincoln than do the scholars of foreign nations today.

A talented Englishman (Henry) devotes two large volumes to the character and merits of Stonewall Jackson; and Lee is held in highest admiration for his superb talents and virtues the world over. Davis, too, is regarded as the peerless President of "the pure white Republic" that rose like a "thing of beauty" on the political horizon and went down without a stain. These and other Southern stars will shine with brighter luster throughout the ages to come. With them the necessity to violate the usages of civilized warfare was even greater than with Lincoln and his Cabinet, yet they proudly point to their record and challenge the world for one act of theirs that will not stand the severest test of civilization.

Perhaps there is no stronger defense of the South than the character of her statesmen, her military leaders, and the rank and file of her army. Even her privates were superb in character. The invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania testifies to their individual integrity and their regard for private rights. They were refined, they were competent, they were models as privates. Nine out of ten would have worn with credit the insignia of a commission. As to the officers of the Confederacy, both civil and military, they were the peers of the best whose names history delights to honor. Is it characteristic of such men as these to commit treason against their Government? Think of Lee, matchless not only as a military chieftain, but as a character also. The world has never produced his superior as a moral character. Was Lee guilty of treason? If Lee was not neither was his army. If the Confederate forces were not neither was Davis. The entire South was on the defensive against her protest, and against her best efforts to avert disunion and war. This being true, who were in the wrong? Facts have tongues, and facts are immortal. Their language is that of immortality. It is as true as undying. To the immortal proclamation of the facts the South confidently commits her cause.

SOME SIGNIFICANT FACTS AND SOME IM

PORTANT WITNESSES.

We have shown, in a general way, that there are at least three very important facts overlooked or disregarded always by Lincoln, viz: (1) That the basis of the Civil War was laid years before the Sixties in the aggressions of Northern abolitionism; (2) The equal responsibility of the North and the South for the existence of the institution of slavery in this country; and (3) the impossibility of a correct and just decision of the questions, growing out of the institution of slavery, without resting them on the true basis of the war and the common responsibility for the institution.

Lincoln said, "I am naturally anti-slavery." He was therefore naturally inclined to find some excuse to evade the Constitution which was strongly proslavery. We have seen how hard pressed he was by the Chicago clergymen and Northern abolitionists to issue the emancipation proclamation. "The Dark Days" of 1862 also spelt in their own peculiar hieroglyphics, the word necessity. Then, too, Lee. with his dreaded "invincibles" began his Northern march. This was immediately followed by a very influential conference, no less than that of the Governors of the loyal States. It was held at Altoona on the 24th of September, 1862. Its object was "to discuss the situation and especially the emergency created by the Northern advance of Lee." (Morse vol. 2, page 117). Here was no ordinary influIt was welcomed by Lincoln. Perhaps it originated in his own shrewd brain. It is well known that about this time he sent Seward through all the Northern States, asking "the Governors and influential men" to urge him (the President) to issue a call for more troops. This influence was added to that of the ministers, the abolitionists, "the dark days," the Governors' Conference, and of the coming of Lee. Then the die was cast. It was then the President said, "You must not expect me to give up this Government without playing my last card."

ence.

If he had not played his first card so aggressively and pompously, following it up with threats and illegal acts, he would not now have been compelled to play "his last card." The last card of the entire pack had now been thrown, and without a single exception all had been thrown for war and not for peace.

The infinite phrase, "To give up this Government," was as full of deception and cunning as an egg is of meat. It falsely implied that the South was the aggressor, and it was malic iously attacking the Government to destroy it. It implied that the basis of the then existing troubles was not laid in the long ago bitter assaults of anti-slaveryism-not in the avowed unconstitutional platforms. It implied, that all the teachings of three-fourths of a century were erroneous. It implied that an election by less than 38 1-2 per cent of the voters of the States had changed the Constitution; and that all who refused to consent to this fact were traitors and rebels. It implied that, while it was once possible for nine of these same States to withdraw from the original compact of thirteen States without destroying the great principle of self-government, it was impossible in the Sixties for eleven out of 33 States to withdraw without demolishing the Government. It implied that the 13 colonies were mistaken when they declared themselves free and independeni States in the same sense that Great Britain was a State. It implied that the Declaration of Independence was a fraud and a falsehood. In short, it implied that Lincoln was the embodiment of right, and that all his utterances were the gospel of the Government. Thus the facts of history were contracted with infinite complacency and self-assurance; and the system of Government changed with superb indifference. We can account for such a character at such a time only upon the basis of ignorance and moral insanity, either or both; and we believe that the time will come when the world will thus account for his anomalous conduct.

Let it also be remembered that the South had never violated the Constitution (unless she did so by her votes in the spirit of compromise), but had simply contended in the halls of Congress and on the rostrum for her rights in the plain terms of

« PreviousContinue »