The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1866-03-21
Who is to Blame?

The disuni0n presses of the North are
busily publishing false stories of crime and
outrage at the South, as reason for deny
ling to the Southern States their rights
The object and the means are alike dis.
graceful. II, as they say, the feeling of dis.
satisfaction at the South is stronger at this
|time than at the close, Of the war, so far
from reproaching US, they ought to blame
themselves for the fact. II would suffice
to satisfy every reasonable mind, that the
Southern people had been repealed by a
harsh policy, instead Of conciliated by that
kindness which statesmanship and interest
should have dictated.
As it cannot be to the advantage of the
North, that Southern citizens should be
hostile in feeling; and as the Radical policy
according to their own testimony, has pro-
duced alienation, why not try a change? If
lit does not win our affections to abuse us
as rebels, and as low, ignorant, degraded
wretches generally; why notify what JUS
tice, and fair dealing, and respectful treat.
ment would have? 1t is On old saying that
"vinegar never catches flies" Why not try
a little sugar? According to the men who
accuse US their daily abuse, their daily dec
larations Of hostility, their avowed schemes
of oppression, have impaired those inclina-
tons for the restoration Of annuity, which
the South displayed at close of the
WARRIOR never yet We're q people won
by such wooing. They have but
reaped what they sowed Such undoubt-
eddy would have been the effect of their
course, but for the counteraction of the
Presidents proceedings, and the hope and
confidence with which his aYowed purposes
have inspired our people. It is the old
story Of the rivalry between Eolas and the
sun, as to which should sooner strip man.
of his wrapplngs. The violence of the wind
but made him hug his garments the more
closely-the warm beams Of the sun caused
him voluntarily to throw them off. Rich
mond Enquirer. !.s
--~->-~-~-~.>0>>>---~>~~ 81.
peA. The suit Of james Hickman, of
Huntsville, Ala, against w. B. Bate, late
Major General of the Confederate army, for
damages set at $4,000, on account Of ar
rest at Huntsville, Alar under orders from
Gen. Bragg, in December, 1862 is now pen
ding in the courts at Nashville. The cir
cumstances of his arrest are substantially
these: Hickman, alleged to be a blockade
runner, in violation Of the Commander-in-
Chief Of the Confederate army Of Tennessee
was arrested on the information of citizens
of his own town. He was tried on this
charge and acquitted. Subsequently, he
was again arrested on q presentation Of
Huntsville grand jury, for treason to the
Confederate States. Gen, Bate prosecuted
the case, and ex-Confederate Secretary of
War, L. Pope Walker, defended. At the
close Of the revolutionary struggle, Hick-
man, sued out an attachment on the prop
erty Of Gen. Bate, to cover '$25O0O worth
of damages. This case is o peculiar one,
involving many nice points Of law, and will
most probably be taken before the Supreme
Court for final decision. It would be sim
gularly strange if Gen. Bate, beings paroled
soldier, is to suffer damages for carrying
out an order for his superior, Gen. Bragg,
when the same parole protects the origina-
tor of the order Memphis Avalanche.