Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1875-04-29

man or men who would divide or destroy or
retard the prosperity and progress of the ma,
tion whose corner stone was laid in the blood
of our; fathers one hundred years ago to.
day. Moved by this prejudice, fourteen
years ago, [ opposed the men who preferred
disunion to death. True to this prejudice I
to-day despise the men who would for the sake
of self or party stand in the way of recon-
ciliation and united country. The distin-
guished soldier who is your chief guest to-day
than when he said "Let US have peace" and,
sir, the only really belligerent people in the
country to-day, North and South, are those
who, while the war lasted, followed carefully
the paths of peace Do not believe that the
light and dirty froth which is blown north.
ward and scattered over the land, oftentimes
tor malicious purposes, represents the true
current of fpublic opinion at the South. Look
to their heroes, their leaders, their Gordons,
their Lees, their Johnstons, their Lamar,
Ransom and Ripley, and tell me if you find
in their utterance anything but renewed 10y
atty and devotion to united country. These
are the men, as our great and good Governor
Andrew told you at the close of the war
these are the men by whom and throug gh whom
you must restore the South, instead of the
meaner men for whom power is only synonym
for plunder. As l begged you last summer,
| entreat you again, do not repel the return
ing love of these men by suspicion or indiffer-
ence. Ifyou cannot in forgiveness "kill the
fatted calf" do not with coldness "kill the
prodigal."
As an American am as proud of the men
who charged so bravey with Picketts divis.
ion on our lines at Gettysburg, ,as I am of the
men who bravely met and repulsed them
there. Men cannot always choose the right
cause, but when having chosen that which
conscience dictates, they are ready to die for
it, ifthey justify not their cause, they at least
ennoble themselves; and the men who for con-
science sake fought against their government
at Gettysburg ought easily to be forgiven by
the sons of the men who for conscience sake
fought against the government at Lexington
and Bunker Hill Oh! sir, as Massachusetts
was first in war; so let her be first in peace,
and she shall forever be first in the hearts of
her countrymen And let US here resolve
that true to her ancient motto while in war,
ense petit placidam, in peace she demands not
only for herself but for every inch of this
great country, sub hbertate quaetam.
CONCORD OR ALAMANCE?
In regard to the claim that the battle Of
Concord was the first armed resistance of the
American colonists to British aggression, Mr..
James Wood Davidson, formerly of South
Carolina, and we'll known as a gentlemen of
literary attainments, contributes the follow
ing to the New York World:
To the Editor Of the World :-SIR:-ln
your leader yesterday morning on Local
Centennial Celebrations" you speak Of the
battle of Concord, Massachusetts, on the 18th
of April, 1775, as in one sense the natal day
of American independence. You define that
zone sense" as "the first armed resistance
made by their (American readers) forefathers
to the aggressions of the power beyond the
sea-"
Ny own studies in American history have
not brought me to the same conclusion with
you in regard to this fact. | entirely agree
with you as to the zone sense" in which you
accept the phrase "natal day Of American.in-
dependence" because it seems to me that the
FIRST armed resistance" to British troops,
rather than the formal indoors declaration Of
independence, really marks the birth of the
secession Of the American colonies.
have no doubt that immense impetus was
given, as Jefferson suggests to the cause of
secession by the Lexington Concord fight; but
I neither suppose nor do I imagine that Jef:
ferson believed that that affair was in any
sense the cause or the occasion or even the
beginning of the conflict which resulted in
American independence. I am aware that
Peter Farley says that "at Lexington the
conflict rose;" but Peter seems to have writ
ten his jingle mainly for the delectation of
New England youth.
The one point of difference between your fact
and mine is that understand that the first
armed resistance toook place at a time and
in place different from those about to be
celebrated on the 10Th of this April.
There are three points at which we may put
the natal day-when the first armed resis-
tance to the British regular soldiers was made
by colonists in body when the second Con-
tinental Congress- on the 10th of May, l775,
determined upon armed resistance, and ap-
pointed Washington to be "Commander.in-
Chief of all the forces raised or to be raised
for the defense Of the colonies" and when
the Continental Congress, on the 4th of July,
l776, at Philadelphia, adopted the Declara-
tion of Independence.
You accept the first Of these So do l..
You consider the lexington Concord skirmish
as that first resistance. 1t seems to me that
the skirmishing at Alamance Creek, in Ala
nance county, N. c., on the 18th of May,
1771, was that first armed resistance made by
our forefathers to the aggressions ofthe power
beyond the sea. The skirmish arose in some
what this way: Governor Tryon at Newbern
built him mansion, costing some $4,000,
and levied tax on his citizens Of that Caro-
lima colony to pay the sum. The people
formed military companies, called Regulators,
for the purpose Of resisting the collection of
the tax-levy, and these companies we're armed
and drilled. They went into camp at Ala
nance Greek, and thither the British troops
within Tryon's command were sent to disperse
them A skirmish ensued in which the Reg.
ulators were defeated With loss of some three
hundred men.
In the two skirmishes, at Alamance Creek
in 1771 and at Lexington and Concord in
ITS, the assailants were the same, British
regulars; the opponents were the same, or.
ganized rebels the cause was the same, to
disperse the rebels and to defeat the opposi-
tion the results we're the same save that at