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
NOT those who sleep beneath the
sod, To meet us here no more;
We blessed the very path they
trod Unto a holier shore.
Still smiling, as we said,
"These dear ones are not dead,
Nor even lost, but only gone before."
Here, by our side, the dead we
Our dead—their presence palls
Upon us, as their lagging feet
Tread where the sunlight falls.
Honor may call in vain,
They answer not again—
Death has closed up their ears to
When rings the clarion voice of
War against truth and right;
When Treason triumphs over law,
These dead rise in our sight, And
fix their ghastly eyes
Where Freedom's banner lies,
As if their very glance her stars
You can not speak of liberty
But they will cringe, and sigh,
And wonder if they'll ever see
Such days as have gone by. They
plant for future years Myriads of gloomy fears,
And love to count how thick the
crop will be!
Away with them! Bury these dead!
They but defile our land:
Away with them! and in their
Bid loyal freemen stand! Look
up—look up on high! See victory draw nigh!
Know that your country's freedom
is at hand!
SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 1863.
THE CONFEDERATE LOAN IN
THE rebel agents, it seems, have
succeeded in persuading some speculative bankers in Europe to undertake the
negotiation of a Confederate loan of $15,000,000. The money is wanted to pay for
the steamers which Englishmen are building "for the Emperor of China," and any
sacrifice would be cheerfully undergone to procure it. It is called a "cotton
loan." The bonds covenant that the Confederate States will pay to the holder, in
twenty years from date, the sum of money expressed in the bond, or, if the
holder prefers, will deliver to him, at a point within the Confederate States,
at any time between the date of the bond and the expiration of six months after
the conclusion of peace, a quantity of raw cotton equivalent to the value of the
bond, estimating the cotton at 5 1/2 d. per pound.
The British journals give
prominence, in connection with this loan, to the house of Erlanger, of Paris and
Frankfort, and wish to have it understood that it is a continental enterprise.
As, however, the cotton is to be valued in sterling, and the coupons are to be
paid in the same money, the real operators in the affair must be Englishmen. The
London Times, which has uniformly decried our securities, and called upon the
crown lawyers to prosecute any one who tried to negotiate a loan for the United
States, comes out warmly in favor of the rebel bonds, and has already puffed
them to a premium.
Well, we don't know that we have
any right to complain. If we can stand the fitting out of rebel privateers in
England, we can also endure the negotiation of rebel loans in the same country.
It is not precisely what we expected. But life is full of similar
disappointments. There are a good many English capitalists who are investing
money in our stocks; and we suppose the nicely moral publicists of Great Britain
will contend that strict neutrality requires us to suffer other capitalists,
with Southern proclivities, to invest their means in "cotton bonds." For the
sake of the latter, it will be a pity if the Southern guerrillas burn up all the
cotton at the South; and it will be a still greater pity if
Jeff Davis should
repeat for their benefit the repudiation he so successfully practiced in the
case of Mississippi. But this is not our business.
If we are true to ourselves, and,
in the homely language of the President, "keep steadily pegging on" at the work
of suppressing the rebellion, the adventurous speculators who have taken these
bonds will by-and-by find that their debtor has ceased to exist. The season for
active operations has already commenced; and if our generals and admirals are as
dashing and as lucky as they were at this time last year, the foreign loan of
$15,000,000 to the rebels will prove of no more substantial use to them than the
Alabama or the
LORD LYONS'S DISPATCH
A MOST curious and important
dispatch from Lord Lyons to
Earl Russell, dated Washington, November 17, 1862,
has been published in the British papers and is reproduced here. In this
dispatch Lord Lyons states that
on his arrival at New York from Europe, on 8th November ult., he was waited upon
by "the Conservative leaders," who were exulting in the triumphs achieved by the
Democratic party at the elections in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New York;
that "foreign mediation" was the thought uppermost in their minds; that they
dreaded its coming too soon, as "a premature proposal of foreign intervention
would afford the radical party a means of reviving the violent war spirit, and
of thus defeating the peaceful plans of the conservatives;" that the success of
such a proposal required that "it should be deferred till the control of the
Executive Government should be in the hands of the Conservative party;" that
these leaders so talked as to lead Lord Lyons to perceive that they "desired to
put an end to the war, even at the risk of losing the Southern States
altogether;" that their aim was "an armistice to be followed by a convention;"
that "the more sagacious members of the party are well aware that the probable
consequence of an armistice would be the establishment of Southern
independence;" but that they deem it "wiser to agree to separation than to
prosecute a cruel and hopeless war;" that "if their own party were in power,
they would be disposed to accept an offer of mediation ......and would desire
that the offer should come from the Great Powers of Europe conjointly."
These astounding statements will
be read with amazement and indignation by the loyal thousands who voted the
Democratic ticket in New York, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Whatever may be
the views of the Democratic or Conservative leaders, who made such haste to
parade their country's agony before a foreign embassador, the masses of the
Northern people, Democratic or Radical, Conservative or Republican, most
certainly have never entertained any desire for foreign intervention, but on the
contrary, from first to last, at every and all times, have most strenuously and
emphatically protested against foreign interference, and averred their intention
to resist it at all hazards.
Nor is there the least shadow of
ground for stating that the party which triumphed at the recent elections has
ever expressed or entertained a desire for the termination of the war by the
division of the country; but, on the contrary, it is notorious that throughout
the States where the Democracy are dominant the people have all along been, and
are still, resolutely set upon the prosecution of the war, at any and all costs,
by every lawful and available method, until the rebellion is finally crushed.
To state, as Lord Lyons has done,
that the Democratic party would, on obtaining the control of the Government,
welcome foreign intervention as a means of ending the war and securing the
independence of the South, is a libel so gross that his lordship owes it to
himself to let the public know the names of the "Conservative leaders" who so
basely traduced their fellow-countrymen.
That there is, in this city, a
nest of malignant Copperheads, who have no more notion of patriotism than the
reptile to which they owe the sobriquet they bear; men who would sell out
American independence for a rise of a penny a pound in cotton, or the profit on
a shipment of wooden buttons and bowie-knives to South Carolina—whose principles
are sordid as their views are narrow and contracted—" Russell's Diary" long
since informed us. He, too, was taken in and crammed by these pretended
Democratic leaders: deceived by their glib talk, and fascinated by their
Champagne and turtle, he allowed himself to be so thoroughly humbugged by them
that his letters informing the Times there would be no war were published
simultaneously with the accounts of the bombardment of Sumter. That the same
clique should have been equally successful with the poor driveling creature who
succeeded Russell is no wonder; but is it possible that so astute a diplomatist
as Lord Lyons was similarly humbugged? Or are we to suppose that the real
leaders of the Democracy, the men who will control the country if the Democrats
carry the election in 1864, did actually tell these Englishmen that they were
for the ruin of the United States, and in favor of a foreign commission to
divide our estate?
This dispatch requires
explanations, or the "Conservative leaders" will have a difficult account to
render to the public.
"WAS the Lounger oblige a friend,
whenever it will come in conveniently, by saying what it is that the modern
English novels, magazines, and better sort of newspapers mean when they use the
word gentleman? There are obviously several grades in their estimation. What is
the highest, according to any received understanding in soundly 'good society'
"May we not, without the least
loss of self-respect, allow that there is an ideal of the gentleman in England
that we do not see in America? Are there not in Europe artists, so to speak,
accomplished in the minor social benevolences and graces, whom we, with the best
opportunity that the country affords in such accomplishment, can not rival? And
do not such social artists establish a standard style, a school of mere manners,
of which there are innumerable imitators? And is not an evident attempt to
succeed in this style required of those who would meet the modern English ideal
of gentleman in this grade? " 'Gentlemen,' as a mere statement of family
etc., is not intended in these
inquiries. Yet the question arises, would any man with a very strong and
uncontrollable individuality of character pass muster as a gentleman of the
finest type in English society—as, for instance, an irrepressibly humorous man,
an exceedingly apathetic, or an extremely vehement man, allowing that every
where there are unquestionable exaggerations of all these types? Does a good,
simple-hearted, well-bred, and carefully-nurtured English girl of the better
sort of the quiet middle-class ever feel quite satisfied that a Frenchman or
other foreigner is a perfect gentleman? And is there not an incurable confusion
of ideas which leads an Englishman to suppose that one who has not the technical
style can not have the essential qualities of a gentleman? He takes it for
granted that every honest man wishes to be a gentleman, and that, if he does not
conform to the external fashion, which is the easiest part of it, he is not and
does not care to be one. Hence, when in traveling he meets men who disregard
this external standard, he sets them down for rogues if not ruffians, and acts
"This accounts to the writer, at
least, for certain experiences of Englishmen traveling in this country, which he
is confident no sober American could have encountered. Does the Lounger's
experience confirm this? Has the Lounger seen any Englishman who has been in
Washington since the war commenced who did not evidently want to say, 'Mr.
Lincoln is not even a gentleman?' meaning simply, 'Mr. Lincoln may be an honest
sort of man in a crude way, and perhaps even with some eccentric talent, but
without common sense, or he would certainly have learned to conform to the
standard of the gentleman.'
"As custom establishes the
meaning of words, and as the definition given by modern English literature and
opinion to the word gentleman is confined to manners and not to character, may
we not freely admit that, in this sense, the President is not a gentleman, and
yet be proud of his character, his tact, his nice instincts, his prophetic
dignity? If we admit that his stories sometimes drop in where the technical
'gentleman' would not put them, must we be ashamed of it? It would be a very
good thing to have a gentleman, even in the sense of a person of excellent
polish. But may we not say that 'polish' is not of the last importance just here
"A CORN-HILL HOER."
The note of our correspondent
touches the subject of a very profitless discussion which is suggested by
Trollope's and Russell's book, and the talk of certain persons in "society." As
Mr. Russell informs us, he fell, upon his arrival in this country, into certain
circles which had much to say of the vulgarity of the rail-splitter. Yet
doubtless all the persons in such circles were partisans of Mr. Buchanan, who
spat upon carpets in London, and who betrayed his country. That is to say, they
could consider a man "gentlemanly" who in his private manners was unclean, and
in his discharge of supreme public trusts was false. Doubtless, also, the same
persons considered the Marquis of Hartington "a gentleman," and the young
officer who reproved him "ungentlemanly." It is clear that in such minds there
is no accurate standard whatever either of what is morally or socially
There is no doubt, as our
correspondent suggests, that there is a certain standard of manners by which the
English novel and current opinion measure a man to determine if he be a
gentleman; and, with our social subservience to English precedents, it has been
somewhat adopted here. But the different organization of our society plays the
most ludicrous pranks with this standard. Where social position and hereditary
wealth are united the standard becomes and remains tolerably fixed. Where they
are both fluctuating the criticism by such a standard is futile. There is a
polish and ease of manner known as gentlemanly because persons of confirmed
social position and fortune often have it. But it is precisely the quality which
sharpers most easily imitate. The criticism of this kind directed against the
President, of which Russell and Trollope speak, was itself a proof of the want
of what is truly gentlemanly upon the part of those who expressed it. For the
very essence of a gentleman, in any large and noble sense, is that he
instinctively distinguishes between character, which is the eternal fact, and
manner, which is the most transitory of appearances. Gentlemanliness, like every
human quality, has a kernel and a shell. The nut may be sound and sweet in every
particle, however rough the envelope, as it may be utterly foul and rotten,
however smooth and pretty the skin.
The sting of social satire is its
exposure of this discrepancy. The satirist strips off the mask, and wipes away
the paint, and reveals the haggard, horrid features. He pulls out the false
teeth; he wrenches off the false calves; he tears out the padding, and shows the
decrepit, lame, shivering reality. He sits at the feast as Socrates sat at the
banquet of Alcibiades. The philosopher fixed his eyes upon a lovely guest.
Fairest of women she seemed, but under his glance she wavered and shrank; she
shuddered and changed; and, slipping to the floor, glided away, a loathsome
In this country we have had
Lamias enough in high places. Since "gentlemen" of fine manners have plunged us
into this fearful war by the most unscrupulous and incredible dishonor, let us
see what gentlemen of less manners and loftier honesty can achieve in
establishing a permanent peace and saving the national honor. Washington for
many a year has swarmed with technical "gentlemen" and "ladies," and a society
composed of such was the very hot-bed of the most infamous treason and falsity.
The historian of the war will do his work very imperfectly if he does not reveal
the influence of that kind of social blandishment upon our troubles. For the
power of manners, however subordinate, is not to be denied. And the historian of
the war will equally fail if he does not count it among our signal good fortunes
that when the very nationality of America was to be tried by fire, the chief
magistrate and representative man of the people was truly a representative, even
to exaggeration, of those qualities which are American as distinguished from
FROM A DIARY.
THIS morning Dash met Blank at
Maillard's, where he was taking a cup of chocolate. Blank asked him if he had
joined the Union Club.
"Why do you insult me by such a
question?" rejoined Dash.
"Why, yes. Do you think a
gentleman wishes to belong
to a club which refuses to expel
a traitor, even if it does not actually receive his money in dues? Is there no
"Oh," said Blank, quietly, "you
are speaking of the affair at the corner of Twenty-first Street and the Avenue?"
"Of course," replied Dash.
"Well, my dear boy, you are
behind the age. That is the Disunion Club."
I lately dined in company with
one of those inane young gentlemen who, as Theodore Winthrop says in "Cecil
Dreeme," praise slavery and think they are aristocratic. The young gentleman
went on for sense time, when Mrs.— said to him, politely,
"If you sympathize with the
rebels, why don't you go and join them?"
"I, Madame? I assure you I am
perfectly loyal." "Indeed?"
"Why, certainly, only I stand by
the Government, not by the Administration."
"So Vallandigham says."
"I mean I am no Abolitionist."
"So Brooks says."
"That is, I am afraid we are
alienating the South."
"So Tom Seymour says."
"In other words, I am a Union
man, but I don't think war can restore it."
"So Toucey says."
"But, my dear Madame, the war is
unconstitutionally carried on."
"So George Ticknor Curtis says."
"I mean that our liberties are in
Fernando Wood says."
"Well, but isn't the war
"So Ben Wood says."
"Come, then, isn't it hopeless?"
"So the London Times says."
"Yes, my dear Madame, but what on
earth do you say?"
"I say that whoever stands
against the Administration in this war stands against the Government. I say that
whoever says he is no Abolitionist means that he intends to embarrass the war. I
say that whoever is afraid of alienating the South is afraid of irritating a
snake that has already stung him. I say that whoever thinks that force can not
restore the Union does not know that Union is the most irresistible instinct of
the American people. I say that whoever says the war is unconstitutionally
carried on is in danger of being split by the tempest in which he is trying to
split hairs. I say that whoever says our liberties are imperiled by the
Government and not by the rebellion, works and prays for the success of the
rebellion and the annihilation of all civil liberty and order. I say that
whoever calls the war fratricidal has no more conception of national honor than
lottery-dealers are said to have of honesty. I say that whoever considers the
cause of the United States hopeless hates that cause in his heart, and is
utterly ignorant of the character of the people and of the facts of the
situation. That is what I say, and that is what every truly American man and
woman says and believes."
The young gentleman made no
reply. But the next day, at the Club, he said to a friend, "I dined yesterday at
Mrs. —'s, What an awful Abolitionist she is!"
— tells me that the other day he
was coming to Rochester from Lockport upon the railroad, and was presently
attracted by the sound of a warm debate between two persons near him. The whole
car became gradually interested and attentive. The debate was upon the necessary
topic; and after a great deal of talk upon the part of Copperhead about the
sovereign rights of States and the destruction of liberty by the Government, he
"The fact is, that I approve of
slavery, and I hope to see the day when it will be introduced throughout the
country. It is the best thing for the negro, and it develops fine traits in the
master. I have lived at the South, and I admire Southern society. It is a great
mistake to suppose that there is any restriction of free speech. A gentleman may
say any thing he chooses. I have heard all kinds of sentiments expressed there.
I am entirely in favor of slavery. The slaves are better off than the working
classes at the North. If I am not mistaken, the time is not very far distant
when the prejudice against slavery will disappear."
— says that he heard this oration
to the end, and being fresh from a conversation with Eagle, who had told him a
tale of his Southern travel, he immediately took part in the conversation.
"You say, Sir, that you like
slavery; that it seems to you a proper and desirable system of society; and that
you believe the prejudice against it will disappear. Of course no man of sense
would stop to argue such propositions with you. Slavery is done for in this
country. It has plunged into a civil war, and it is already drowning in the
blood it has shed. But you said also that it is a great mistake to suppose that
there is any restriction of free speech in the slave region. Now, Sir, my name
is —, my address is —. Last week I was talking with a friend of mine, Mr. Eagle,
for whose perfect veracity I vouch. He was traveling on business in Georgia in
1858. He was sitting in a car, as you are now. He was surrounded by Southerners,
as you are by Northerners. The conversation fell upon politics, and he naturally
and quietly expressed his views. He said that slavery ought to be restricted to
the Slave States, just as you say that it ought to go every where in the
country. He said that he thought slavery wrong, just as you say that you think
it right. The whole earful of passengers became immensely excited. They
denounced him as a d—d Abolitionist. They said he had no business in the South.
They got hotter and hotter, and at length resolved to stop the train and hang
him up to a tree by the side of the track; and it was with great difficulty that
a few more sensible passengers succeeded in saving my friend's life. So much,
Sir, for no restriction of free speech. My friend, traveling in a car in a
region of slavery, says that he prefers freedom, and his life is immediately
threatened; and he is a watched and suspected man until he gets beyond the
border. You sit here in a car in a land of liberty, and say that you prefer
slavery, and our only emotion is mingled amusement and disgust. The different
emotion of the two cars shows exactly the difference between the civilization of
Free and of Slave States. In the latter, when a man says, 'I love liberty,'
there is a thrill of fear. In the former, when a man says, 'I love slavery,'
there is a smile of contempt."
—says that the face of Copperhead
turned blue, but he made no reply.
A POOR "ARTICLE" OF REBEL.
THE most pitiful and mean of all
rebels are those who have escaped from the rebel section to the North, and
devote their time and tongues to the abuse of the Government whose protection
they have sought. The inexorable despotism of the rebel sway, the enormous
prices of living, the certainty of rebel conscription have driven them away.
They reach a city where they can say just what they please, where the aspect of
life and the means of living are as little affected as possible by this bloody
attempt of a faction to overthrow the Government, and they openly express their
delight in (Next Page)