Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1864-09-08
Peace.

The duration OF the war anu its cost il
life and M )ney incline some quiet souls
who would never consent to disunion, tC
ask whether We had not better try to fine
a shorter road to peace than by fighting
But is there any such road? Is there any
so short way out of the war as through
1t? Suppose that the Government should
order Gen. Grant to send flag OF truce
and propose an armistice. What should
follow?
Should we ask the rebels upon what
terms they would agree to return to the
Union? But they do not wish to return.
They have done with the Union The
error of the honest peace men is that they
do not see the rebellion TO be an ex preston
of a determination of the rebel leaders to
found separate government They
know if we DO not, that system of free
labor and slavery cannot co-exist in a
political society like ours II has been
tried from the beginning of our Govern
ment and was practicable for seventy
years only because during that time the
interest of slavery constantly oyerbore
that of freedom. The moment it was
friends of slavery tried to form a new
nation. They did not question the fair
ness or constitutionality Of the election.
They did not even wait to see if any ille-
gal acts were to be attempted. They said
simply, as Mr.. Rhett expressed it, that ait
is nothing produced by Mr. Lincoln
election or the fugitive Slave Law. 1t is
amatter that has been gathering head for
thirty years.
The rebels armel. then in the firm
conviction that freedom and slavery were
incompatible in the same Uuion. They
were willing 20 risk war with en- establish
ed Government, with a much greater
population, with infinitely superior
resources. For three years they have
maintained the contest, although they have
been steadily reduced in territory and
power. And now ifthey were asked what
terms they would accept they must need
answer, "disunion." They would say.
Let as part in peace. You want Liberty;
We want slavery. We said so before we
began to fight. After these three years
We certainly say nothing less.
But if we should reply that they might
dictate terms, would they be more pliable?
If we should say that we would agree to
tolerate slavery in any State, and in all
the Territories; that its discussion should
be penal offence; that anybody who
denied its humane and religious and
civilizing character should be imprisoned
for life and that the mention of the word
should be crime. would they return?
Certainly not. They would say. and with
perfect truth, that were promising more
than we could perform. They would say
and truly, that they knew the sincere
sentiments of the loyal States was averse
to slavery, aud consequently the mind and
heart and conscience of the North would
inevitably break any agreement. They
would say that they originally rebelled
not because of any violation of law, but !
because OF difference of conviction; and |
they would add, that while any kind of
material interest might be adjusted a |
radical moral difference could never be
compromised. FL /
What argument could we offer them
that wonld break the force OF such con-
victions? What more could we do than
promise to let them have their own way?
When they declined such terms, what
would remain but either to consent to
disunion, or to compel them 10 submission
to the Goyernment?-Horper's Ueekfy.