National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-04-27
177h-lRRO-,5-1s75.

The speech of Gen. Bartlett at the Con-
cord-Lexington celebration welcoming the
ex-rebels Of the country to participation IN
the attendant ceremonies Is attracting con-
siderable attention, and is the subject OF
extended comment. No one objects to the
invitation. 1t was prompted by spirit OF
patriotism to which every true American IS
amenable, and in the enjoyment of which
we all may properly participate. The
Minute Men of 1915 were patriots, in hon
oring whom we honor ourselves. They
fought against crushing tyranny and to
establish the principles of lasting freedom
upon basis of equal justice to all Their
convictions were based upon truly con-
sentative principles. 1t is true they began
their struggle not for the purpose of throw
ing off their allegiance to the Government
of Great Britain, but because they were
opposed to the imposition of unjust, dis
eliminating and oneTous taxation upon the
Colonies then but recently settled. But
this shows their true conservatism, and
fortunately for US it laid the foundation for
future results, which developed the Revolu-
ton, and finally ended in the erection of
Great Republic. In that erection the Colo
nists all participated as they did in the au-
thorship and adoption of the Declaration
Of independence, and as they had pre-
viously in the premonitory disturbances
like the skirmishes at Alamance, n. c., at
Westmoreland, Pa, and at Concord and
Lexington. These men were our
ancestors, the ancestors of the peo-
pie of South Carolina as well as of
the people of Massachusetts,. Those of
Boston threw the British tea into the har-
Dor, while those of Maryland burned the
Peggy Stewart. In short, the Revolution
and all its attendant circumstances being
pre- national are now matters of national
pride For these reasons no objection to
General BaTtlett's invitation can be con-
sistently advanced, but we insist that those
who participate in such ceremonies should
be inspired by common love for COM
mon ancestry, a common cause and COM
mon country. There should be no invita-
ton prompted by sectional distinctions, or
participation jaundiced by recollections of
more recent occurrences than the Revolu-
ton. Every attempt to connect those &C.
currences with it serves to detract from its
importance, from its predominance as
truly national feature, and from the purity
of that reverence of it which should illus
trate every ceremonial observance.
For this reason we are of the opinion
that General Bartlett's supplemental re-
marks, comparing the traitors who fought
to destroy the Union in the shareholders
rebellion with the rebel-pstriots of cen
tury ago, should be deprecated by every
honest man who loves his country and its
traditions, or reveres the principles upon
which our governmental system is founded.
We cannot doubt the bravery of the men
who boldly charged our almost impregnable
lines at Gettysburg, or of those who dis
played valor in the Confederate ranks
which has never been equaled on the face
of the footstool. But the attack on Fort
Sumpter, preceded as it was by wicked
sectional prescription, and by the basest
and most ungrateful treason, is not to be
compared to the battle of Bunker Hill.
The man who is unable to distinguish a
difference between these two events is
either knave or fool. He either desires
to make treason respectable, or is incapable
of patriotic response to the most veneer
able and loyal aspirations ..of the spirit of
liberty. Treason is treason, and no man
can make it anything else. In the South
American countries where rebellion is CON
doned, where the rebels of one year are
exalted as patriots the next, and where the |
laws of to-day are purposely intended to
destroy all veneratiOn for the past, the |
of affairs speaks volumes in adj |
monition Of the absolute insanity and sui |
cidal results which must necessarily follow |
from the adoption of such policy in the |
United States. In 171j the issue was lib
erty; in 1860,'6j it was slavery, and the |
rebels of the two periods had nothing in
The former fought against
tyranny, the latter to maintain it.