Bloomsburg democrat. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1867-1869, 1868-11-25
Rebellion Versus civil War.

l S~
and perhaps if we were to mix great deal
Of milk and sugar with very little unhat.
tering truth, we might induce even loyal
men to swallow it. It will not be denied
that, so far as a standing army and the
Frecdman's Bureau are concerned, there
would be no necessity for such costly cstab-
lishments lift we're not declared to be right
to punish rebels by disfranchisenent for the
part they took in the war.
Now let us ask few questions, to which
we would like to have fair answers.
l. Was the terrible war in which We were
for four years engaged rebellion?
A rebellion is an act of war by persons
against government to which they owe al
legiance: but our war was brought on by the
invasion Of the southern States by the Fed.
eral government. For more than two years
the war was carried on by the Federal gov.
ernment entirely in the southern States and
when the prominent southern men engaged
in it were asked what they wanted, they re-.
peatedly replied that they only desired ito
be let alone" The southern States had
confederated for the purpose of establishing
a separate government; and the citizens of
those States were placed in such position
that they were compelled to assume an atti.
tude of fhostility to the general government
or to the government of the State to which
they owed obedience and allegiance. Will
it be pretended that an individual may justly
be placed in such an attitude? Or will it
be pretended that citizen of a southern
State, desiring to support the Federal gov.
ernment, had any protection from it2
Perhaps We shall hear it said that the
paramount duty Of every one is to the Fed
eral government; let US grant this, and what
then? The Constitution is the supreme law
Of that government, and it is we'll known
that northern States had violsted that law
long before the war began. Were southern
Statesany more culpable in disregarding that
law than northern States we're? And so to
individuals, what could they do when the
government, claiming their allegiance, re-
fused or was powerless to protect them in
it?
2. Were those engaged in the effort to
separate the southern States from the Fed
eral Union traitors2
IF they ..were, it is most remarkable that
none of them have been tried and punished
for the crime of treason. And is it not o
monstrous outrage upon justice aud decency
to punish arhole communities, where no one
has been legally convicted of any crime
8. Is it not well known That the party
which has been dominant for the last eight
years has heen for long time endeavoring
to provoke hos,ilities, and that they spurn-
cd the Union and the Constitution so soon
as the war was over?
It is mcckery Of Language to call State
"rebel," and, iiasmuch as the individual
who yields obedience TO the government Of
the State of which he is citizen cannot be
either rebel or traitor, there can be no
propriety in now applying those offensive
names to southern men engaged in the re-
cent war.
Those who have manliness enough to ena.
bic them to recognize possible truths should
not hesitate to acknowledge that the people
of the two sections Of our country were en-
gagged in terrible ciui1 ,uar, which was pro-
voked by selfish factionists in both sections,
and very small amount Of generosity
should induce them to give credit to those
southern men who fought brayely while there
was any hope Of success, and acknowledged
their defeat when their power was exhaust
ed. Not only have the southern people
accepted defeat, but they have refrained
from armed resistance to the most gross acts
Of tyranny. Tho insult put upon them by
depriving their most intelligent men Of
their rights Of citizenship, and giving the
elective franchise to negroes, is unworthy Of
any people pretending to any sense Of right
and fair dealing and it is very plain that
II can accomplish no good object.
The pretense that the negroes were loyal
during the war is d fslsehood too gross to
need serious denial and storits of cruelty