Holmes County farmer. [volume] (Millersburg, Ohio) 1857-1926, 1861-12-19
Prentice on Cen. CarncrOn's
speech at he FOrney supper.
LFIom the IouavLlle J.urnal. Novemett % :

tfrom the Louisville Jsurnai, November "a
We republish the following passage
from the Washington dispatches in the
journal Of yesterday: .....
Washington, November 20.-At the
supper given to Mr. Prentice by Colonel
Foney, last night, Secretary Cameron
expressed the opinion that. as q last re-
sort, we ought to arm every man who
desired to strike for human liberty.
"Secretary Smith protested that the
Administration contemplated no such
policy. Slaves escaping from the rebels
might be received as they had been hith.
erto, within the lines Of the army, but it
was not intended to arm them. II twenty
millions Of freemen could not, single
handed, subdue this rebellion, it would
be disgrace to them, and they ought to
give up the contest.
Robert j. Walker and Senator Nc.
Dougal followed in the same strain"
1t will be observed here that Secretary
Smith protested that the Administration
contemplated no such policy as Secretary
Cameron recomends, and that Secretary
Cameron does not pretend to oquestion the
truth Of Secretary Smiths protestation.
Secretary Smith, therefore, stands in this
conversation as the representative Of the
Administration, while Secretary Cameron
stands as merely bis own representative.
Hence the Administration is not resi- pom.
sible for the opinion expressed by Secre-
tary Cameron. The opinion is one which
he holds and expresses on his separate and
individual responsibility, in opposition to
the Administration of which he is a
member.
MR.. PRENTICE ESTIMATES THE VALUE OF
GEN. cAMERoN's OPINION
1t is his personal opinion, not his Of
fetal one-the opinion, lie flourishes as
a man, not the opinion which guides and
governs him as an officer. With this
consideration, if the opinion were in itself
of only ordinary consequence, we might
very properly be content to dismiss the
subject, for Secretary Cameron as a man
cannot impart particular consequence to
any thing. The opinion however, is not
Of ordinary consequence intrinsically. 1t
is of extraordinary consequence. For
this reason, Mr.. Cameron's manifest de-
termination to thrust the opinion upon
the public constrains us to notice it fur
ther.
POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATIONS AS TO THE
PROPOSED ARMING OF THE SLAVES.
We need not say that, in this differ
ence between Mr.. Cameron and the Ad-
ministration, we agree heartily with the
Administration. The actual policy of
the Administration as set fourth by Sec
retary Smith, is both right and ex xpedient;
the policy recommended by Mr.. Cameron
is both wrong and inexpedient. 1t is
wrong and inexpedient in a measure ut
terly fatal. Moreover, it is in other re-
spects unworthy of virtuous and enlight-
encd nation. 1t is wrong, because it pro-
poses a step not merely unconstitutional,
but radically and permanently inconsist-
ent with the ends of the Constitution. 1t
proposes to annihilate one Of the great
institutions of the country as a means Of
preserving the country. In short. it pro-
poses o preserve the whole by destroying
a part. The policy is thus illegitimate
and absurd If our antagonist were a
foreign enemy the cause might be different,
for in that event the conflict would be
simply to master the enemy, but in the
present conflict the end is not onl y to
master, but to master him so as to pre-
serve the country in its full constitution
al integrity. ....
The chief and real end of the war is
the preservation Of the country; the mas
tering of the enemy is but means to
this end. What in foreign conflict
would be the end is in the present con-
hict but a mode of securing the end
This is distinction which, from the ma
ture Of things, must characterize civil
war in all free governments. 1t is II vital
distinction. 1t, however, is distinction
of which Mr.. Cameron appears to be
either ignorant or oblivious. OF course
the waging of the war in such way as
to destroy the constituent part of tho
country, for whose total preservation tho
war is carried on, would be so far fortl
to sacrifice the ends to the means. The
policy, as we have said, is illegitimat(
and absurd.
Nor does it derive the smallest comfort
from the fallacy that, as slaves are prop
crty they should be set free with as little
reluctance as cattle in paddock. Slaves
are property but to set the slaves OF the
South free would be noe merely to confis-
cate so much property, bat to extinguiSh'
at blow, the institution OF slave property
in this country. 1t would not only dis
, solve the castings, but shatter the mould
1t would break the die as we'll as mel
down the coin. 1t would not alone pluck
) the fruit of the tree, but cut up by Tho
root, the tree itself. In other words, II
would, as we have contcnded above, des
troy constituent part of the country, fol
whose preservation entire the war is pros
ecuted. The policy, therefore, is wrong
being illegitmate and absurd.
1YExpEDrEcY OF ARMTNG THE SLAVES.
BIT it is also inexpedient. If it were il
itself justifable, it should not be adopted
because it is calculated not to prom ote
but to retard even the secondary end o
mastering the enemy. The adoption o
such policy by the administration woul(
virtually proclaim that the conflict wa
no longer wagcd for the purpose OF rees
tablishing the Union. but for the singl
purpose Of subduing the enemy. at what
over cost to the institutions of the country
that the chief end Of the conflict was moi
as at first, to preserve the country, but