Civil War Overview
Civil War 1861
Civil War 1862
Civil War 1863
Civil War 1864
Civil War 1865
Civil War Battles
Robert E. Lee
Civil War Medicine
Civil War Links
Civil War Art
Republic of Texas
Civil War Gifts
Robert E. Lee Portrait
AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN.
LIKE plates of brassy armor
The yellow plowed lands lay Upon
the valley's bosom
For leagues and leagues away.
Along them shines and shimmers
The lazy moving stream,
As o'er a child's soft bosom
The idle ribbons gleam.
The mountain's velvet helmet
Nods darkly on her crest,
As though some untold passion
Was trembling in her breast.
The green leaves chant together
A weird and mystic strain,
And the feathery tenants mingle
Their notes in the wild refrain.
The shadows sweep o'er the valley
Like an evanescent blot,
That seems like a holy feeling
Begrimed with an impure thought.
—'Twas thus lay the quiet valley
And the sentry hills held sway,
Ere the bugle notes scared the
Or the reveille woke the day.
And now was the smiling Sabbath,
And the sweet-tongued meeting
bells Rang out like an incense wafted
O'er listening hills and dells.
The soldiers catch the cadence
Borne out on the distant air,
And it comes to their weary
Like the thought of an angel's
But vain the holy summons—
The prayer remains unsaid,
The singer's lips are silent,
The sermon lies unread;
While long and dusty columns
Of sun-browned troops file by,
Nerved by the rigid purpose
To win the day—or die!
Along the paths of the mountain
Moves up the dark-blue line,
The gun-wheels grind o'er the
The burnished bayonets shine.
Way up in the leafy covert
The curling smoke betrays
Where the foe throw down the
And the answering cannons blaze.
The crack of the Minie rifle,
The shriek of the crashing shell,
The ring of the flashing sabre,
Their tale of the conflict tell.
They tell of the dear lives
War's food in Nature's lap,
Ere the Starry Flag in triumph
Waves through the Mountain Gap.
Night drops her pitying mantle
To hide the bloody scene—
Next morn a thousand dead men
Mark where the foe had been.
And where the fight was hottest
Two mangled corpses lay,
One clad in bright blue jacket,
And one in homespun gray.
Their hands are clasped together,
Their bloody bosoms show
Each fought with a dauntless
And fell 'neath each other's
blow! They fell, and the crimson mingled,
And before the paling eye
Back rolled the storm of the
To the peaceful days gone by.
Emit thought of the mystic token—
The talismanic sign;
Each recognized a Brother!
Two firm right hands entwine! The
fire of the noble order
Touched not their hearts in vain.
All hate fades out, uniting
Two hearts with the triple chain!
OF EIGHTH MASSACHUSETTS BATTERY,
ANTIETAM CREEK, October, 1862.
WE reproduce on the
a picture by M. Beauce, which represents GARIBALDI WOUNDED AND A PRISONER. Every
one remembers that Garibaldi, who was at the head of a small band of followers,
was attacked at Aspromonte by the Neapolitan forces and taken prisoner. He was
conveyed to Spezia by his captors, and placed in the hands of surgeons for his
wounds, which are severe. It is not yet known what disposition will be made of
him. When he arrived at Spezia one of our consuls addressed him a letter
inquiring whether he would accept a command in our army in case it should be
tendered him. He immediately replied that, being wounded and a prisoner, he
could not yet dispose of his future movements; but that if he regained his
strength and his liberty he would at once offer his sword to the United States,
which was fighting for freedom throughout the world.
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1862.
WADSWORTH WILL BE
HORATIO SEYMOUR, the
Democratic candidate for Governor of this
State, has arrayed himself fairly and squarely in opposition to the
President's proclamation or freedom, and claims
the votes of the people of this State in virtue of that opposition. Citizens who
now support him imply by their support that they are opposed to the United
States Government, on the most vital question of its policy, at the most
imminent crisis in the history of the nation. To use the words of Mr. John Van
Buren, at the meeting on 13th, supporters of Horatio Seymour consider "the
Government of the United States the most contemptible failure in the shape of a
Government in the world;" and pronounce that, in their judgment, "the Southern
people ought not to live under an abolition sway." In other words, men who vote
for Seymour mean by that vote that they hate and despise their own Government,
the Government of
Abraham Lincoln; that they are opposed, in the
crisis of a desperate war, to the most vital measures of policy adopted by that
Government; and that they find much more justification for the rebellion of the
Southern people than for the North's resolute and constitutional exercise and
defense of its political rights. The issue is fairly and squarely made.
Men who are in favor of
supporting the Government honestly and manfully; of maintaining the political
system handed down to us by our fathers, and of preserving intact in its
integrity the Union which a band of desperadoes at the South have endeavored to
destroy, will give expression to their views by voting for WADSWORTH.
Men who are opposed to the
Government of the United States; who can find excuses for the rebels, but none
for the chosen rulers of the country; who have a hundred schemes for destroying
and remodeling, but not one for simply maintaining the Union of our fathers; men
whose secret sympathies are at this dreadful hour with the enemies of their
country and the perjured traitors at Richmond: these men will vote for SEYMOUR.
It has been suggested that, in
view of the unequivocal indications of the election of Wadsworth, Mr. Seymour
should resign, and leave the course clear to his opponent. The Democratic
leaders scout the notion, and we are very glad they do. We should like to see
precisely how many people in this State agree with Mr. John Van Buren in deeming
"the Government of the United States the most contemptible failure in the shape
of a government in the world," and in pronouncing that "the Southern people
ought not to live under an abolition sway." We want to ascertain how many
citizens of the State of New York deem this a fit moment for dividing the North,
opposing the Government, and holding out to the rebels hopes of support in their
rebellion. We want to separate the sheep from the goats, and to see where we
stand. By no means let Mr. Seymour resign. By running he will render the country
a signal service.
The eyes of the rebel leaders at
Richmond are fixed upon the contest in this
State with perhaps even more intensity than upon the contest in
Kentucky or on the banks of
the Potomac. They know that, notwithstanding
the temporary successes which accident has enabled them to achieve this summer,
the result of the contest is as certain as fate, if its solution be left
exclusively to the sword. It may take more time than the sanguine people of the
North once hoped. But it is none the less certain, and the rebels know it. Their
only hope now is that the Government of the United States may be paralyzed by
divisions at home. If a party can be elected to power in the great State of New
York whose leaders unanimously avow greater aversion for the United States
Government than for the armed rebels; who wholly or partially justify the
rebellion, and denounce the Government of the United States as an intolerable
despotism. the hopes of
Jeff Davis and his colleagues will be revived,
their drooping spirits cheered, their armies encouraged to prosecute the
flagging contest. For such an event as the election as Governor of this State of
one who is identified with the rebel sympathizers, would signify to the foreign
world that the temper of the North was undergoing a change, and that the British
prediction—that we would tire of the enterprise of subjugating the South—was
becoming verified. If any thing would justify intervention, this would do it.
Europe could say to us, "Not only does the South desire us to interfere, but the
greatest and most populous State of the North practically calls upon us
likewise, by electing to office a man who is opposed to your Government; opposed
to the policy which you are about to initiate, and whose leading supporters
justify the rebellion." What could we say in reply?
In what condition should we find
our country next January if Seymour should be elected? Whatever Mr. Seymour may
say, how could he
possibly give a hearty or even
any kind of support to a Government which he and his supporters denounce as an
"atrocious despotism," "the most contemptible failure in the world," "a band of
thieves and robbers?" etc., etc. And how could the war be prosecuted if the
chief State of the North refused to support the Government; declined to forward
troops, and placed itself in the attitude which Kentucky occupied eighteen
months ago? Does Horatio Seymour expect to be able to play the part of Beriah
Magoffin in the heart of the loyal North?
TO PARTY GAVE UP WHAT WAS MEANT FOR MANKIND."
THE speech of Mr. Richard
O'Gorman, some ten days ago, will bring a pang to many a breast he did not mean
to wound. For some twelve years he has lived in this country, but has been
publicly known only as a most polished and charming orator upon occasions which
were not political. At last he breaks this public political silence of twelve
years by a fiery denunciation of the Government and its policy, and an eloquent
lament over the happy days when the freedom of person, of speech, and of the
press were absolutely respected. He eulogizes the "high and progressive
civilization" we enjoyed two years ago; and decries the despotism which, in a
time of tremendous
civil war, exercises the solemn Constitutional
right of suspending the habeas corpus.
Mr. O'Gorman's speech itself
refutes its assertion that the right of speech is destroyed; and his picture of
the condition of this city, as it appears to him at this moment, in the very
crisis of this terrible national struggle for existence, was the permanent
condition in peace of the whole region now in open rebellion. Under the "high
and progressive civilization" of two years ago the present rebels nullified the
Constitution. Now they are trying to destroy it. Does the orator know that he
praises the Constitutional reverence of a time when an innocent free citizen of
one State could be enslaved forever with his posterity by the law of another?—a
time when no State or national authority protected a man in his plainest rights
under the Constitution?—a time when the Constitution of the United States was
openly and shamelessly violated in time of perfect peace?
Of course crime does not excuse
crime. Violation then would not excuse violation now. But that is the time of
constitutional felicity which the orator selects for his praises. During all
those years the constant outrage could not loosen his tongue. Not only was the
outrage itself flagrant, but its cause was damnable, for the Constitution was
violated to sustain slavery. Even at the North the sacred right of speech was
threatened by mobs; but still this voice was silent. The tragedy of Kansas not
only revealed the most wicked and inhuman contempt of the Constitution, but
showed the imminence of the loss of all constitutional guarantees. But this
voice had not a word of reproach, or complaint, or grief. Exiled from his native
land for loving liberty, the orator saw the fundamental safeguard of all liberty
in his adopted country scorned and destroyed by the fierce will of a most cruel
despotism; but he saw unmoved. Good men, patriots, the heroes of liberty every
where looked on in alarm, and feared for the hope of humantiy. The Despotism
openly threatened to destroy the Constitution which it already nullified: and
the voice was silent, and the hand doubtless gave it the aid of a vote. At last
that savage despotism sprang at the nation's throat, to complete its victory and
subjugate the Constitution in every Free State as it had already done at home.
The nation, desperately struggling, declares that it will take all necessary
steps of war, since war has been forced upon it; that it will, in this great
stress, suspend temporarily some rights that it may secure the permanent
enjoyment of all rights; and then, at last, this voice breaks silence—storms out
into passionate music, and declares that those by whose consent the Constitution
was shamelessly outraged are alone fit to save it from destruction! Guaranteed
rights might be trampled upon—liberty lost—the laws defied—the Constitution
nullified—the Union mortally threatened—the nation in a deathstruggle—and the
eye was cold and the tongue silent. But from the wild turmoil let some illusive
gleam of hope burst forth that his party might recover power, and the orator
lends his fervid tongue to the destroyer.
" Who but must laugh if such a
man there be?
Who would not weep if Atticus
THE question of foreign
intervention is one that will properly continue to interest the public mind
until the end of the war. It is beyond dispute that France wishes to intervene,
but can not persuade England. How long the argument may continue before it is
successful is a matter of speculation. But the two points of the argument are
The first is the conviction that,
in case of our success, coming from victory flushed and furious with a huge
military organization in good working order, we shall instantly demand of Great
Britain an explanation of her passive hostility toward us in our misfortunes. In
other words, that upon our domestic settlement war with England is inevitable;
and that it is wise for her to prevent it, by stepping in and forcing a
settlement which will be founded upon separation.
The second point of the argument
for intervention is, that we are both heartily tired of the war, at the North
and South, and that we shall secretly hail a sufficient excuse for ending it. We
are held by foreign observers to be in the condition of duelists, who have
exchanged a round of shots and whose seconds and witnesses interfere. The
belligerents, of course, will not listen. Not they.
They can each be satisfied only
with the heart's-blood of the other. But after all, they are very well content
when the spectators insist and actually separate them.
These are views seriously
entertained by foreign statesmen, and by foreigners among us, and it is to the
influence of such convictions that we must look for the chances of intervention.
The foreign horoscope of the inevitable result of the war undoubtedly is
separation or anarchy. Peace, order, and law can be secured, in the opinion of
Europe, only by speedy separation. In the interest of civilization, of society,
and of government, therefore, the foreign mind believes intervention to be
It seems impossible to show
Europe that the only two possible results of this war are, either the
unconditional victory of the rebellion, which is dissolution of the Union,
destruction of the Government, and universal anarchy—or else the unconditional
victory of the Government, whereby the rebels lay down their arms, and submit,
willingly or unwillingly, to the laws, and seek their ends, if they still desire
them, according to the Constitution.
There is no middle ground.
Separation of the States is National death, and is as much the triumph of the
rebellion as Jeff Davis installed in the White House as President of the Union.
The aim of the rebellion is to change the Government by force of arms. That of
the Government is to maintain itself intact. But if it concedes any part to the
armed demand, it surrenders the whole principle. For when another rebellion
demands another concession there is no reason why it should not be made; until
at last the very form of the Government would have perished with its spirit.
If any one should object that
this does not follow, any more than the destruction of the British Government
followed the conceded independence of the American colonies, the reply is that
the relation of Britain to her colonies does not resemble that of the National
Government to the United States citizens. If you wish to have the exact
parallel, consider what would be the position of the Government of Great Britain
if it should, after a tremendous struggle to maintain its authority over Kent or
Yorkshire, concede the separation and independence of those counties. Would the
British Government, in any candid sense, longer exist? Could it with any reason,
or with any hope of success, refuse the claim of any other county to retire?
Intervention, by the confession
of foreigners who frankly discuss it, means separation. That is to say, it is
the armed alliance of whatever powers undertake it with the rebels. The
condition of the alliance is, that they shall fight for the cause of the rebels.
That cause is the establishment of a new political power in the world founded
upon slavery; and that power takes its origin in the conviction of its subjects
that they had a right to break away from their old political community, not
because of injuries suffered without hope of legal redress, which is the only
plea of forcible revolution, but simply because they feared that the normal
development of that community would peacefully eliminate slavery.
Nations are governed by their
interest; but national and individual interest is never dissevered from certain
moral principles in human nature. If Great Britain thinks her interest will be
served by drawing the sword in the cause of such a power she will do it. But she
will never sheathe it again as the nation she now is.
THE response of Europe to the
President's Proclamation is near at hand, if it
be not already audible when these lines are printed. It will be a yell of
affected horror and lofty indignation. Alas! nothing will please that unhappy
Europe. It is so determined that we shall go to pieces that it is impatient of
our reluctance. "Why don't you die? Why, in the naughty name, don't you
disappear? You're all gone. You've always been a sham, and now you are a
ridiculous warning. Just be buried as soon as possible." This is the tone in
which Europe comments upon our struggle.
A few weeks since we were
languid, in the high European estimation. We were a set of play-actors. Our war
was a melodrama. We did not mean to do any thing. We had no earnestness, no
purpose, no policy. The excellent Confederates, however, really meant something.
They were fervid and vigorous and united.
Now we shall hear that we are
ferocious, blood-thirsty, and barbarous; that the interests of civilization and
humanity require the preservation of a system which denies every right and
practices every enormity to turn men into beasts. We shall hear that we confess
we could not fairly conquer in honorable warfare, and have therefore appealed to
the most fearful means. We shall hear that we have made ferocity take the place
of heroism, and massacre that of honorable battle, and that we have merely
supplied another and more stringent reason for the desperate and unconquerable
unity of the enemy. We shall hear that the result was doubtful before, and is
hopeless now, etc., etc.
Meanwhile, in the midst of the
tantara, the Government of the United States has, as it has had, but one duty,
to suppress this rebellion in the most sudden, swift, and overwhelming manner.
It can not use too many means, nor kill it too dead.
MR. CASSIUS M. CLAY was born in a
slave State, and early convinced that slavery
was wrong, he has manfully advocated emancipation in Kentucky; and has been
universally known as one of the most valiant of the anti-slavery orators. He is
a man of indomitable courage, and his purely heroic career has compelled the
admiration of many who differ from his views. But like all ardent and sincere
men, whose moral convictions are not tempered with practical wisdom, Mr. Clay
frequently puts the cause he adopts in a ludicrous or repulsive light.
When upon his journey to Russia,
as our minister, he wrote a letter to the London Times and made a (Next