The Alleghanian. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1859-1865, 1863-05-07
who is ProIOnging the War.

the North IheSe are serious questions,
involving guilt of the deepest dye, on the
part of those justly responsible. We put
these questions to the VALLANDIGHAMs,
the WOODS, the BROOKS, to FRANK
HUGHES, yea, to the whole copperhead
democracy. What part are you acting IN
the terrible drama now passing before the
eyes of the American people? With an
arrant hypocrisy, known only to villains,
you charge this rebellion upon the North,
and sneeringly call it an abolition" war
This assumption you very we'll know is a
base lie. Did the abolitionists fire into
Fort Sumter and the American flag ?
Who raised the standard of rebellion ?
Was it the abolitionists at the North !?
Do you say yes history brands the false
hood upon your forehead, and records you
set of perjured witnesses. But you say
the war can be stopped, and the whole
country restored to "peace." This you
assert in your conventional resolutions, Ill
your stump speeches, and in your news
papers. How are you going to make
"peace" upon what terms and conditions? !?
You answer by a. restoration of the "Union
as it was" and affording new guarantees
to slavery. What do the rebe.s say to
this? They hurl it back in your faces
with contempt and derision. We repeat
when the rebels reject your PROPOSE
tions, and insultingly tell you they would
never compromise the matter, even if you
would sign shee. of blank paper, and
allow them to ELL it up to suit themselves,
how do you expect to "compromise" a
peace What does JEFF DAVIS and
all his followers say to you and to the
loyal people of the country ?-"Southern
independence, or fight" Then where
does your logic lead you? To no. other
earthly result but final dismemberment
of the Union, and the recognition of a
Southern Confedoracy. That's it, and you
know it.
Look little further; supposing your
reasonable proposition Of ''peace" should
be accepted, > granting southern indepcnd-
;ence, dividing the union-how could you
or how conld the two parties establish a
dividing line? Do you suppose the great
West would surrender the free and unin-
terrupted navigation of the Mississippi,
and the control Of the Gulf of Mexico p
Never, never. Then where is your wes-
tern boundary? Make the Mississippi
your western boundary and you divide the
southern confederscy in twain. Would
JEFF DAVIS agree to that Never
Then again, the recognition of a southern
c5nfederacy would involve another ignom-
inious surrender on our part-all our
Notifications on the Gulf and Atlantic
coasts, including Fortress Monroe, Fort
Pickens, and all our other forts, would
have to be given up to the rebels. And
what would you do with New Or
leans? That would have to be surrend-
cred, too. If southern independence, as
an abstract question, shoul be recognized
to-day, it might take a seven years war
to settle the questioned boundaries. Sup
posing they should be temporarily settled,
how long would they stay settled ? not six
months without another war. The ire
sstible "logic Of events" establishes be-
yond all controversy, the proposition for
peace as made by the copperheads an
impossi5i7ay.
Then what follows let us see. The
rebels commenced this war upon the hy-
pothesis that the North ,oouM be diUiided
Had they not entertained this sentiment,
reckless and desperate as they were, they
never would have hazarded a war of
rebellion; and why not? Because the
Southern traitors understood that with a
an;ted North, they never could succeed !;
that with a dirided North, one party
taking sides with them, the chances
might be in their favor.
All accounts from the rebellious States
agree that both the army and people are
suffering almost beyond description
Destitution, want and starvation, stare
them in the face on every hand. They
are dragging along the war upon bloated,