The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1864-12-17
MR. BROORs, or THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENPATIVRS.


ton TO the expression Of his opinion Mr..
BRooKs's motive may not have been proper,
but we viii not impugn It. Why should we2
Are not history and reason equally open to us?
We are at issue with Mr.. BROOKS in the
very FIRST points which he made. He said Of
the Presidents Message. that It contained two
startling points :-"The first, that the war
must 60 on without attempting any negota-
tions, and the second that it must be prose-
cuted until slavery was universally abolished"
Speaking Of DAVIS, the President said;-
"He would accept nothing short Of a severance
ofthe UnioR-precisely what we will not and
cannot give.' Mr.. BROOKS has no reason to
doubt that DAVIS would accept nothing
less. Has DAVIS not repeatedly said SOP Mr..
BROOKS would not wish negotiations to tend
towards any other solution than the integrity
Of these United States. Feeling satisfied OF
the fact that DAVIS will not listen to any
thing less than independence, what folly il is,
then, to talk about negotiationIi Aglin:-.
Did the President mean that the war "mlst
beprosecuted until slavery is universally abol-
shed" when he wrote :-"I shall not atte npt
to retract or modify the Emancipation Pro-
clamation, nor shall return to slavery any
person who is free by the terms of that pro-
clamation, or by any Of the acts of Congress-?
We confess that to us this consequence
asserted is a non sequitur.
When Mr.. BROOKS applies the lessons Of
history to his own country, it is just as neces-
sary for him to know that history as the one
with which he institutes the comparison.
There is no parallelism between the rebel
lion of the colonies against the mother-coun-
try, and the rebellion of the South against the
United States, except that, in the one case as
in the other war is an inevitable condition of
rebellion. But admit for a moment that there
Is parallelism between the two cases. Lord
CHATHAM, Fox, and BURKE, opposed the
course of England towards the colonies, be-
cause they deemed England unjust and the
colonies aggrtered Was it SO in the differ
ence between this Government and the South?
In 1775. before the Revolution broke out
into actual hostilities, Lord CHATHAM said:-
"The Americans, sore under injuries, and irri-
tated by wrongs, stript of their inborn rights
and dearest privileges, have resisted oppres-
sion aud entered into confederacies" The
demonstrating colonies do not greatly rese n
BILE the truculent South. Eighteen lords en-
tered their protest against the measures of
the ministry. They said :-"We therefore pro-
test against an address amounting to de-
cldrdtion Of iCar." Was our Government
guilty of such a course as to warrant a similar
protest? Fox, according to HUME, said:-
''It would create the Rebellion, which now,
without grounds, was declared to exist"
| Speaking of certain cOercive measures, HUME
| said :-"Thus we provoked rebellion by one
set Of unjust acts, and recruited the rebelliouS
| army by another" BURKE said :-"I do not
examine the abstract question of right; do
not inquire whether you have a right to rem
der your people miserable; but whether it is
not your interest to make them happy"
Yet, after declaring that injustice had been
exercised towards the Americans, what does
Lord CHATHAM do when proposition arises
for acknowledging their independence? An
invalid, leaning on the arm of bis son, he goes
to the House of Lords, and with fire in his
eye, speaks :-"My lord" says he, L rel Oice
that the grave has not closed upon me; that
am still alive to lift up my voice against the
dismemberment of this ancient aud noble
monarchy"
Perhaps the advice OF Fox was best Of all
Shortly before this dying effort Of the Earl o
Chatham. he aid:-"The great question con
cerning the propriety Of perseverance in the
American war depends on the experience
which we alreadypossess, and a calculation o
the means which remain to the nation for tn
attainment Of this favorite object"
In this, we see nothing that resembles IN
question involved in the present contest
nothing but claim in both cases, nothing
but war in both. The grand difference i
that in the one case, it was an unjust claim
and in the other, it is Just one. In the cas-
of England, we see some great men depra
eating an unjust war, and when embarke
in it, ready to do at any time the justice whic
they acknowledged from the very first, bu
not willing-iar from tito acknOwleda
the independence even Of an injured peopl
1 The South was the aggressor against tn
Government, and we cannot. we dare not a
knowledge its independence until it were fol
to deny it. If we cannot acknowledge /
independence, we cannot treat, for that a
j itself is acknowledgment.
70 Looking at the subject from purely mat
i rial point of view, let us say with Fox, Cha,
we got the means" to put down this Rabe
lion? In the name Of the American peop
we answer, yes--ample!
Is How vain is delving in the past for Il
IS swaddling clothes of antiquity Mr.. BRool
e takes us back to the infancy Of &