The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1868-01-15
THE SOLDIERS MONUMENT.

Does the Union think it honest or fair to
misrepresent and lie about its cotempora.
ries? Does it think it right to put into the
mouth of political opponent sentiments he
never uttered or felt, and then set its SLAM
der mill to work upon him, on the supposi-
ton that he entertains the views falsely at
tributed to him? If that is the character OF
the editors of the Union, the less people have
to do with them the better off they will be.
No indignity was ever put upon soldiers, as
soldiers, by US. No disrespectful word was
ever said of them, as body, or as soldiers
1t has been our duty, at times, to speak
plainly OF certain villains, scoundrels, cow
ards, and mean men, who joined the army
for Office and plumber, and whose main
achievements consisted IN house burning and
robbery, when in the south and, when al
home in mobbing democrats and democratic
newspapers and trying to drive democratic
women out Of town. But no unkind thought
was ever felt by us towards any man, because
he acds soldier; no unkind word ever ut.
.ered by Us in regard to any man, because h
aods soldier. This the editors of the Union
we doubt not, are we'll aware OF. 1t does
not become them, therefore, to conclude tina,
we are opposed to expending money for @
soldiers monument because we are opposed
to honoring soldiers, for such a conclusion
is false one. We are opposed to it for ex
actly the same reason that Senator Sumner
opposed a proposition to place pictures of
battle scenes in the late war, in the Rotunda
of the United States Capitol. He said,
when the proposition was made in the Senate
that he never wished to look upon picture
in the National Capitol, commemorating
bloody strife between our own countrymen
1t was a noble sentiment, and it defeated the
proposition. Would the Union feel justified
in charging Senator Sumner and a ma
jority of the United States Senate with un
friendliness to soldiers?
We are also opposed to the erection Of
this monument because it is unjust to the
living soldiers. Look at the large numbe,
OF soldiers with one leg, one arm, OF who are
manned for life, in some way-and the still
larger number of living soldiers who served
all through the war without being wound
ed. Are they to have no monument
no recognition by the country of the
much more valuable services they rem
dered? They exposed their lives equally
with those who were so unfortunate as to be
killed in battle or die of sickness contracted
in the service. They were fortunate enough
to be able to render effective service to theii
country from the beginning to the end O.
the war. Are they not as deserving of mon
uments as those who, unfortunately. both
for themselves and their country, fell by bull
lets or by sickness? We think the money
could be better expended in relieving the
wants of the widows and orphans of our de.
parted braves than by erecting pile Of
stones and carving their names upon it.
We are opposed to the erection of the
monument for one other, and only one other
reason, viz; The people are largely in debt;
their taxes are now grievous burden, and
yearly increasing, and we think it would be
much better to use the money to pay our