The New era. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1865-1871, 1866-08-09

a traitor.
The late Attorney General BATES, and /
late Postmaster General BLAIR, Secre- /
tary of the Treasury McCULLoCH, all
members of Mr. LINcoLS's Cabinet, and
firm supporters of his Administration,
they too. since the rebellion was crushed,
have identified themselves with its
ruined fortunes, and adopted It's eX-
ploded principles, and are deep-dved
traitors. And then there are Generals
BUELL. and Din and BLAIR and SLo-
CUM, and AvERILL and ROUSSEAU, and
hundreds of others OF the same and in
ferior rank. who, through the war pre-
scented their life a continual Offering for
the salvation of the nation, They too,
since the great victory was aehievedand
the cause Of the Union made triumphant,
have espoused the rebellion which they
perled life to defeat! They too are
rebels and traitors And we might
mention also as among the recruits of
rebellion, Senators GoWAN, DooLTrTLE.
BUCKALEw, DIXON, HENDRICKS and
others,-the venerable EWING, of Ohio,
the learned CURTIS, of Massachusetts,
the eloquent BEECHER, of New York,
the indefatigable SWAMI, of Maryland,
all bold and undertaking defenders ofthe
Union till the war was ended, and the
power that threatened its safety was
crushed. but now the friends of rebellion,
the advocates Of treason! Such accord
ing to radical representations, is the
present character and status of these
gentlemen, and thousands of others,
than whom none were more bold, con-
sistent, devoted, self-sacrifieing friends
and defenders of the Union, and I'M
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS fthe rebellion
through its whole career. And now we
ask, by what standard of loyalty does
radicalism judge these men, and what
are the grounds of the condemnation it
pronounces against them? Are reverence
for the Constitution, love for the Union,
and willingness to do and suffer in their
defence, its test of loyalty? In whose
history, during the late fearful struggle
to preserve our national existence, do
| these sentiments find clearer and more
resistless illustration, than in that of
| ANDREW JOHNSON, and the others to
whom we have referred? Radicalism.
stimulated by its deepest malignity,
cannot point to an act performed, a word
expressed, sentiment breathed by one
of these men during the war, or since,
which is subversive of the Constitution
or hostile to the Union, or in the faintest
degree in sympathy with disloyalty to
either. Indeed, while the war progress
ed, and until its close, radicalism was
profuse in its laudations of these men,
and presented them as among henoblest
types of loyalty to be found in the
nation. And what have they done
since, to show that their sentiments and
purposes are not as loyal as before? Have
they ever expressed regret that the
Federal arms triumphed, and that Sc.
cession was defeated ? Have they placed
a single obstacle in the way of the restO
ration of the States that were in rebel
lion, to their constitutional place, and
rights in the Union. and thus sought to
defeat the great object of the Federal
arms in the war; This will not be pre-
tended On the contrary, they have moi
only always condemned the guilty
attempt to sunder the Union by sepa
rating States from il, but having over
come the force by which States were Sc
held in separation, they have employed
and are now employing their utmos
efforts to replace them in their former
position, that the unity, harmony, ant
strength of our noble system of repre-
sentative Government may be fully
restored. Upon what grounds then, W,
repeat, does radicalism pronounce these
men disloyal-rebels and traitors They
have furnished the highest evidence
which it is in the power of man to fur
nish, of their loyal devotion to til,
Constitution and the Union. VIVA
then is their offending: There can be
but one answer. They are disloyal t.