This Site:
Civil War
Civil War Overview
Civil War 1861
Civil War 1862
Civil War 1863
Civil War 1864
Civil War 1865
Civil War Battles
Confederate Generals
Union Generals
Confederate History
Robert E. Lee
Civil War Medicine
Lincoln Assassination
Slavery
Site Search
Civil War Links
Civil War Art
Mexican War
Republic of Texas
Indians
Winslow Homer
Thomas Nast
Mathew Brady
Western Art
Civil War Gifts
Robert E. Lee Portrait
|
GOD
BLESS YOU, SOLDIER!
GOD bless you, soldier!—when our
sky
Was heavy with impending woes,
When traitors raised the battle-cry, When fear met fear in every eye,
You rushed to meet our foes.
God bless you, soldier!—when our
light
Of hope grew dim and courage
waned, When freedom veiled her face from sight,
Your valor dashed away the night,
And morning clear remained.
God bless you, soldier!—scarred
and worn,
Wearied with marchings, watchings,
pain,
All battle-stained and
battle-torn,
Bravely have all your tasks been
borne,
You have not fought in vain.
God bless you, soldier!—think not
we
Alone revere and bless your name,
For millions now and yet to be,
Millions your arm has rendered
free,
Shall sing your deeds and fame.
God bless you, soldier!—when the
air
Grows heavy with the battle's
roar, Sheltered beneath His love and care,
May Victory with her garlands
rare
Adorn you evermore.
God bless you, soldier!—when the
dove
Of peace the Eagle's nest shall
share,
With home and hearts made warm
with love, With joys below—with joys above,
God bless you here and there!
HARPER'S WEEKLY.
SATURDAY. FEBRUARY 20, 1864.
CONSTITUTIONAL OPPOSITION.
THERE are several members of
Congress who please themselves by asserting that they constitute a healthy
constitutional opposition to the Government, and who insist that it is wrong to
call them unpatriotic, merely because they do not approve the method and policy
of the Administration in conducting the war. They protest that the
Administration is not the Government, and that they may censure all its acts
without being justly liable to be called traitors.
The reply to this specious strain
is very simple. The Government of the United States is defending its existence
against an able and desperate rebellion. The Constitution confers upon that
Government every power whatever which is necessary to its maintenance. It may,
in the last extremity, wage war, and whatever is lawful in war is lawful for
that Government. That extremity is now reached, and we are at war; consequently
no measure of legitimate warfare can be censured as unconstitutional. It can
not, for instance, be urged that, as the Constitution declares that no man shall
lose life or property without due course of law, therefore no
rebel shall be shot and no rebel's stores
seized. The only point of debate is the practical wisdom of certain measures for
prosecuting the war. Is it good policy? that is the question not, is it
constitutional? For what rights have traitors under the Constitution? The life
of every one of them is constitutionally forfeited.
Now to oppose the war, under
whatever pretext, is to favor the rebellion, and compass the overthrow of the
Government. Is, then, encouragement to the rebellion a legitimate constitutional
opposition? We do not speak of the honesty of men who take this course, we are
considering the excuse by which they justify it. Their course leads of
necessity, if they can persuade the country that the war is wrong, to a
counter-revolution and the success of rebellion. Do they suppose that to be a
sound and healthy opposition to the conduct of the war?
Of course we know that they claim
to be as good war men as any body. They are, first, in favor of the war; and,
second, they are opposed to prosecuting it. Try the quality of their war feeling
by their record. Suppose the Government to-day intrusted to the hands of this
party in Congress. Would they continue the war or attempt to negotiate? Look at
the leaders, who supply its arguments and philosophy, and direct its action.
They are such men as Vallandigham, William B. Reed,
Horatio Seymour, George W. Woodward, and
Fernando Wood. Other than the party which votes in accordance with the views of
these leaders, there is no serious opposition to the Government. And what these
leaders believe is known to the whole country. They are of opinion that the
difficulty should be settled by negotiation and compromise. That is to say, they
do not oppose the method and policy of the Government in waging the war, but
they are opposed to the war itself. Wood says that there is no such thing as a
War
Democrat. Their opposition, therefore, is
neither Constitutional nor legitimate. For they propose to treat with citizens
who refuse by force to obey the laws, and their demand is simply that the
absolute authority of the Government shall be overthrown. This is practically
the ground of the whole opposition in Congress. They voted at the very outset
for Wood's proposition to send
Commissioners to Richmond, by not
voting to lay it upon the table. Failing to carry the destruction of the
Government by a direct vote, they struggle in every way to thwart and perplex
its movements. They are aiming to retard the prosecution of the war, and so they
play into the hands of the rebels, who hope by prolonging it to weary the loyal
States and create a reaction. That these men are in a hopeless and futile
minority in Congress, as they are in the country, does not lessen the shame of
their conduct nor the scorn in which history will hold them. They will not be
recorded as a legitimate opposition who saved civil liberty. They will be known
as political parricides to whom power, not malice, was wanting.
A
SHORT SERMON UPON A
RECENT TEXT.
WHETHER political differences
should affect social intercourse is an old question which is asked and pondered
much in these days. But that they always have done so, is not a question. The
history of the old Federalists and Democrats suffices to answer it in this
country.
But however foolish and
unnecessary it may seem for a free-trader to refuse to dine with a
protectionist, or the friend of a bank to decline to dance at the ball of its
enemy, we can not forget that at the present time civil war rages, and the
proper amenities of peace are not to be expected. President Washington was a
Federalist and Jefferson a Democrat; and it would have been very foolish for his
Excellency upon that ground to decline to invite Jefferson to his house. But
would General Washington have invited Benedict Arnold to his table, or any man
whom he knew to sympathize with Arnold, or indirectly to help him?
The case is not different now.
Here, for instance, is a man who gives his fortune and his wisdom to the
country, and whose sons are killed by traitors in battle. And next door to him
lives a man who virtually excuses the treason, and thwarts the efforts of the
Government to subdue the traitors. Can the first man see in the second any thing
else than an accessory to the murder of his children? Can the second man justly
complain of political intolerance and fanaticism upon the part of the first? Is
not the avoidance of the second by the first a simple instinct? He need not
assault him, he need not insult him; but can he possibly hobnob with him upon
the ground that they honestly dissent and must agree to differ?
Mr. Webster and Mr. Hayne might
have retired from the Capitol to dine together after the one had utterly
demolished the other in a political debate. But is civil war a political debate?
If Mr. Hayne had left the Senate Chamber, raised the flag of revolt, and shot
Mr. Webster's son to the heart, is it a great pity that Mr. Webster should have
carried political differences so far as to be unwilling to request the honor of
Mr. Hayne's company to supper? In a civil war men must be judged and treated
according to the colors they show. If they choose the enemy's color they must
expect, and they ought to receive, the treatment of an enemy. If you would shake
hands with Judah Benjamin you will not recoil from Judah Benjamin's abettors.
But if you think that Jefferson Davis is justly responsible for the blood that
desolates the land, how can you affect indifference toward those who virtually
befriend him?
Clearly, when political
differences have ended in civil war, no earnest, devoted man, upon one side or
the other, will wish to associate familiarly either with those who are so
shallow as not to feel the terrible reality of the condition, or those whose
sympathies belong to the party which he opposes with arms.
MASKS AND FACES.
MR. PRUYN, representative from
the Albany District of this State, in his maiden speech in Congress, said that
his party had a right to require that the Administration should be faithful to
the Constitution of the United States. But he might justly have claimed more. He
might have truly declared that every citizen of the United States had the same
right, and ought to insist that the Constitution be respected. And then he might
fairly have gone a step further, and announced that if the President, as the
chief executive officer of the Government, transcended his constitutional
powers, he ought to be impeached and punished.
But, on the other hand, neither
Mr. Pruyn, nor any citizen or party, has the right to hold that every law of
Congress and act of the Administration shall be considered unconstitutional
until some court has declared otherwise. The policy of the party with which Mr.
Pruyn allies himself proceeds upon the ground that Congress and the
Administration are to be held guilty until they prove their innocence. The whole
burden of the speeches which inflamed the mob and led to the riots of last
summer—apart from their mean appeals to ignorance and passion—was that the draft
was unconstitutional. What followed, what was intended to follow, in an ignorant
mind? That the law might be justly resisted. "We think the law
unconstitutional," said Governor Seymour. "Is it unreasonable
that we should wish to have a
decision upon that point?" Not at all; if you will make your case and bring it
to a court of sufficient authority. Any man in the land has the right to
question the Constitutionality of any law, and to bring it to the test of a
decision, but he has no right meanwhile to disobey the law or to encourage
others to disobey it. Still less has he the right to assume that every act of an
Administration which he does not like is unconstitutional. For if this were so,
it would be the manifest duty of Congress and of the Executive to submit every
act and law to the dictum of the court before it could be considered valid; in
which case "the co-ordinate powers" of the Government disappear, and Congress
and the President become mere functionaries of a court.
The object, as every intelligent
citizen will see, of this incessant effort to delay and thwart the operations of
the Government, is to prolong the war, weary public patience, create popular
disgust, and thereby open the chance for return to political power of the
remains of the party which administered the Government while the conspiracy was
ripening that has now burst into deadly war. Nor will it be forgotten that these
remains of the party, which are now, under the old party name, seeking for
restoration, were the very part of that party which most steadfastly and
insultingly palliated and excused the rebels, and counted upon the success of
the conspiracy. These gentlemen have kept bad company too long. The louder they
cry "Constitution" the more clearly the people of the country remember that
under the same cry they connived at the overthrow of the Government, and winked
at infamy. They will live to learn that the Constitution is perfectly competent
to save the Government and take care of its enemies.
GENERAL GRANT.
IT is understood that the
Congressional caucus of the opponents of the Administration is considering the
policy of ascertaining if
General Grant will consent to stand as a
candidate for the Presidency against
Mr. Lincoln. The fact, of itself, shows their
conscious desperation, for General Grant is about as good a representative of
their views and sympathies as Mr. Lincoln himself. He is a man unreservedly
devoted to the war—brave, simple, successful—but should he unfortunately consent
to allow his name to be used at this time, we shall have practically lost the
services of our most conspicuous General; for from that moment he will be
fighting for the Presidency and not for the country. And what fighting for the
Presidency is we have seen in the career of
General McClellan.
Besides, General Grant is not
likely to forget what every body else remembers—that the military chieftains who
have been raised to the Presidency have been elected long after their campaigns
were ended. Taylor and Jackson and Harrison had long sheathed the sword when
they were summoned to the White House. But General Grant is still engaged in an
unfinished war, and Shakespeare long ago sang:
"The mighty warrior famoused for
fight,
After a thousand victories once
foiled,
Is from the lists of honor razed
quite,
And all the rest forgot for which
he toiled."
Should any great disaster befall
the army of the West before the election, what would be the political chances of
its General? And is it not reasonable to suppose that he would avoid such danger
to himself by saving his army from the risk? If any thing could prevent Grant's
moving upon the enemy's works it would be his nomination at this time for the
Presidency.
Probably there is no man in the
country who has so clear a conviction of this truth as General Grant himself.
And if we should hear that the nomination had been offered him and accepted, we
are very sure that the regret of the country would be equal to its surprise—not
that a thoroughly loyal supporter of the policy of the war was nominated for the
Presidency, but that the great army of the West with its Captain had been
paralyzed.
THE
SOLDIERS' VOTE.
THE other day in the House of
Representatives Mr. Myers, of Pennsylvania, said that Judge Woodward, of that
State, late candidate for Governor, was opposed to the soldiers voting. Mr.
Stiles, of the same State, rose to correct him, saying that Judge Woodward was
willing that the soldiers should vote if they came home! Generous man! He was
willing that the whole Pennsylvania force should be withdrawn from the army; and
as the Ohio and other Western elections occurred at the same time, he was
willing that the forces of those States also should be withdrawn for the same
purpose. That is to say, the kind man and loyal patriot was perfectly willing
the soldiers should vote, provided that the method of voting should be so
arranged as to help the rebels.
The reader will remember that
just at the time of the Pennsylvania election
Lee was advancing and threatening Meade. The
rebel newspapers had openly wished for the success of Judge Woodward's friends
as an assistance to the rebellion. His election would have been hailed by all
the enemies of the Government as a sign of the yielding spirit of the people,
and the bells of Richmond would have rung for joy. Suppose his plan had been
adopted, and the soldiers called home to vote. They might have defeated him even
more signally than he was defeated; but if, by the consequent weakening of the
army, Lee had won a victory in Virginia, the rebel joy would have been the same.
To insist that the soldiers shall
vote only upon condition of their coming home is to propose that
the army be virtually disbanded
from time to time. That is a proposition which it seems hardly possible that any
faithful friend of the Government should support; and yet it was in favor of its
author that General McClellan wrote a letter upon the eve of the election. Is it
surprising that Mr. Cox, of Ohio, the next friend of Vallandigham, when he was
prophesying the election of that noble patriot as Governor of the State,
declared that two hundred thousand Ohioans would escort him from the frontier,
and that in 1864, "with Seymour or McClellan" as President, all would be sure?
What would be sure? Merely that the bells of
Richmond would ring for joy.
The Union soldiers are merely
citizens of the United States fighting for their country, and its Government:
shall their patriotism and self-sacrifice disfranchise them? Shall every loyal
man who volunteers and marches to battle understand that his going has
practically strengthened the friends of the enemy behind him? Suppose that the
loyal voters enlist, and the disloyal and their friends stay at home and elect a
State Government which requires the soldiers to return. Is it not a question
whether they have not done more harm than good by going? And do Judge Woodward
and his friends suppose that the soldiers do not see and understand it?
A
RULE THAT WORKS ONE WAY
ONLY.
MR. CALHOUN'S famous dogma of
sovereign State rights was adopted and defended with a view to the contingency
of disunion. It was an adroit appeal to pride which has proved as strong as
Calhoun hoped. It was the argument of the rebels for secession, and of their
Northern allies for letting them go. In the South it declared that the
Constitution was a treaty among equal sovereign States, and that any one might
withdraw at its option. In the North it asserted that the national Government
had no right "to coerce States," and could not prevent its own destruction. In
both it did the work it was designed to do—it connived at the helpless ruin of
the Government.
But of our pleasant vices the
gods make whips to scourge us. State sovereignty was an admirable doctrine for
the purpose of destroying the Union; but when it threatens the Confederacy its
own friends howl. Sauce for the goose, it seems, is not sauce for the gander.
North Carolina, according to the State-rights doctors, had a perfect right to
secede from the Union; but to mention secession from the Confederacy is in their
opinion infamy itself. The Wilmington Journal, one of the most virulent
State-rights papers, exclaims: "The man who would strike down the Confederacy,
while at the same time professing extravagant and exclusive veneration for and
devotion to North Carolina, deceives, and deceives for a purpose. The thing
ought to mark its own reprobation, and this reprobation ought farther to be
stamped so plainly by public opinion that the hypocritical cant would for very
shame's sake—if shame be left with such men—be silenced forever."
If the word Confederacy be
changed to Union there is no more wholesome doctrine than this. But it was just
as true before North Carolina plunged into the pit as it is now, and its
condemnation is just as applicable to Copperheads at the North now as it always
was to secessionists at the South.
COMMON SENSE.
MR. THOMAS BARNES, a member of
the British Parliament, lately made a speech to his constituents, in which he
said a great many sensible things. One of them is peculiarly applicable to us at
this time. In December, 1862, he bought two hundred acres of land in Jamaica and
confided it to an agent who believed in freedom for the cultivation of cotton.
He paid cash wages, and the first week fifty negroes applied for work, next week
fifty more, and then two hundred and thirty. They worked most willingly, so much
so that frequently a hundred applicants were turned away; and in one year they
had cleared, fenced, and planted two hundred and ten acres of cotton, of which
Mr. Barnes laid samples upon the table before him.
"This," says the London
Spectator, "is practical sense; but it is odd that such an illustration should
be necessary to convince an English audience that a negro, like every body else,
works hard whenever it is made worth his while. Nobody ever saw an Englishman
working until that point had been settled."
A
SIGN OF THE TIMES.
A vasty remarkable sermon was
preached on the last Thanksgiving-day in the Episcopal Church of the Holy
Trinity in Philadelphia, by the pastor, the Rev. Phillips Brooks, and was
immediately requested for publication by more than sixty gentlemen who represent
the most substantial and truly conservative sentiment of that city. The sermon
is remarkable because Philadelphia is a city which trade and social ties had
peculiarly bound to the South; and because the Episcopal Church has been very
slow as a body to discuss any social or political question whatever. But in this
discourse there is a glowing exaltation of feeling, a fervent plainness of
speech, which is a natural and beautiful tribute to the cause, and a touching
illustration of the character of the preacher.
It is a sermon upon the mercies
of Reoccupation. Its controlling thought is that the Divine mercies are always
"of the character of a reoccupation of some province of mercy which has been
inhabited before, but only partially realized and enjoyed." Thus the race begins
in Paradise; is not fit for it; falls out, and must struggle back. The child
starts with unrealized purity of character, goes astray, and must finally, if he
would be happy, become as a little child again. The preacher then pursues his
idea into the national blessings of reoccupation: first, that of territory;
second, that of the principles and (Next
Page)
|