Daily Democrat and news. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1859-1864, 1861-12-03
SHARP cENsURE OF THE sECEE-
TARY OF WAR.
A Review of the "Con rabaud" Policy.
Prcuticc's Explanation OF What II All
Means.
From the Louisville Journal, Nos. g.

from the w aeNlnetOu uCnpatOHess nv
Journat Of yesterday:
WASHINGTON, Noy. 90.
"At supper given to Mr.. Prentice 10y
Col. Forney, last night, Secretary Cam
cron expressed the opinion that, rs
last resort we ought to arm every man
who desires to strike for human liber.
~.
"Secrctary Smith protested that the
Administration contemplated no such
policy.
"Slaves escaping from the rebels mi ght
te received as they had teen hitherto,
within the lines Of the army, bnt it was
not intended to arm them. If twenty
millions of ireemen could not, single
handed, subdue this rebellion, it would
be disgrace to them, and they ought
to give up the contest.
"Kobert j. Walker and Senator Nc
Dougal followed n.thc same strain
1t will be observed here that Secre-
tary Smith protests that the Admins
tration contcnplates no such policy as
Secretary Cameron recommends, and that
Secretary Cameron does not pretend TO
question the truth of Secretary Smiths
protestation. Secretary Smith, there
fore, stands in this conversation as the
representative OF the Administrator n,
while Secretary Cameron stands as mere
ly his own representative. Hence, the
Administrative is not responsible for the
opinion expressed by Secretary Came
ron. The opinion is one which he holds
and expresses on his separate and indi-
vidual responsibility, in opposition 10 the
Administration of which he is mem
Der.
MIR. PRENTICE ESTIMATES Tue VALUE OF
GEN. cAMERoN's OPINION.
Ii is his personal opinion, not his Off
cial onc-the opinion he iiourshes as a
man, not the opinion which guides and
governs him as an officer. With this
consideration, if the opinion were in it.
self Of only ordinary consequence, we
might very properly be content to dis
miss the subject, for Secretary Cameron
as man cannot impart particular con-
sequence to anything. The opinion, how
ever, is not OF ordinary consequence in
trnsically. 1t is Of extraordinary couse-
qucnce. For this reason, Mr.. Cameron's
manifest determination to thrust the
opinion upon the public constrains US to
notice it further.
POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO
CT
We need not say that, in this differ
cnce between Mr.. Cameron and the Ad-
ministration, we agree heartily with the
Administration. The actual policy OF
the Administration, as set forth by Sec.
rotary Smith, is both right and expedi-
ent the policy recommended by MIR.
Cameron is both wrong and inexpedient.
1t is wrong and inexpedient in meas
ure utterly fatal. Moreover, it is in
other respects unworthy Of virtuous
and enlightened nation. II is wrong,
because it proposes step not merely
unconstitutional, but radically and per-
mancntly inconsistent with the ends of
the Constitution. 1t proposes to ami
hilate one ofthe great institutions of the
county as a means Of preserving the
country. In short, it proposes to pre-
serve the whole by destroying a part.
The policy is thus illegitimate and alb
surd. If our antagonist were foreign
enemy the case might be different, tor in
that event the end of the conflict would
be simply to master the enemy, but in
the present conflict the end is not only to
master the enemy, but to so mas
ter him as to preserve the country
in its full constitutional integrity. The
chief and real end OF the war is the pre-
servation of the country; the mastering
of the enemy is but means to this end.
What in foreign conflict would be the
end is in the present conflict but mode
of securing the end. This is a distinc.
ton which, from the nature Of things,
must characterize civil war in all free
governments. 1t is a vital distinction.
1t, however, is distinction of which Mr..
Cameron appears to be either ignorant
or oblivious. Of course the waeing of
the war in such a way as to destroy a
constituent part of the country for whose
total preservation the war is carried on,
would be SO far forth to sacrifice the end
to the means. The policy, as we have
said, is illegitimate and absurd. Nor
does it derive the smallest comfort from
the fallacy that as slaves are property
they should be set free with as little re-
luctance as cattle in a paddock. Slaves
are property, but to SCI the slaves of the
South free would be not merely to con.
fscate SO much property, but to extin.
guish at blow the institution of slave
property in this country. It would no,
only dissolve the castings but shatte,
the mould. 1t would break the die as
we'll as melt down the coin. 1t would
not alone pluck the fruit of the tree. bu,
cut up BY the roots the tree itself. Ir
other words, it would, as we have con
tended above, destroy a constituent par
OF the country for whose preservation
entire the war is prosecuted. The poli
cy, thercfore,is wrong, being illegitimstt
and absurd.
INExPEDIENcY OF ARMING THE SLAVES
But it is also inexpedient. If tit wer.
in itself justifiablc it should not b,
adopted, because it is calculated not I,
promote, but to Ietard even the secon
Diary end Of mastering the enemy. To,
adoption OF such policy by the Ad
min'stration would virtually proclaim
that the conflict was no longer WAGE
tor the purpose of re-establshing th,
| hut g.. .