The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1878-08-27


against the rights of this country The leaders have
been STEPPED in fraud and corruption from the time
they were placed in office until the present day;
when of their officers have become too notorious
ly corrupt they have transported them from one
office to another, and the President, in his good
hearted imbecity, stands up and says, Gentlemen,
take it all on myself The President shows that
his weakness is only equaled by his good nature.
That may be treaso II, if SO make the most of it,"
Gen. Anderson, it will be eeen, charged the
cause of the war upon the denial by the Ad-
ministration of the rights which belonged to
the South. In those days that was thought
disloyalty. No consistent War Democrat
would have said it. 1t was the echo of Val
landigham and Long. The position taken by
Democrats who supported the Government
in its attempts to crush the rebellion was
stated by the Hon. Bion Bradbury when be
introduced the following resolution in the
Maine House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the people of Maine repose an un-
waverng confidence in the ability, integrity, and
patriotism of Abraham Lincoln. President of the
United States; and, while fully approving OF the
policy by which he has thus far been guided in the
CouuuCt VI tuo tAlstlS wax, tuey peuge themselves
to rally around and sustain his administration in the
prompt and vigorous employment of all legitimate
means and measures now demanded or which may
hereafter be demanded by the exgences of the hour
for the speedy and thorough suppression of the Re-
beon and the complete vndication Of the authority
of the Constitution and laws.
Mr.. Bradbury supported his resolution in
speech from which we make the following
extract:
81 am for the Union, soith arsthout slavery. Give
me back the old Constitution, the old Government,
all the states, old and neY. the old flag, with no
stripe erased, no star obscured, under which for
more than eighty years we have grown rich, power
full and great,-and 1 am willing to take them
though the local and national guarantees Of slavery
remain unchanged will go further, and say that
if this rebellion be not speedily crushed, if the con-
spirators against the govern ment obstinatey pro-
tract this war, # as our armies move Southwark
military necessity strikes the feters from the bond
men of rebels, it will occasion me no regret.
1 intend to know no party so long as the Govern
ment is IN peril. Party ties are the merest jack
thread in this great emergency. for no poti-
cal organizations or partisan platforms. I am for
the Union and the Constitution, and for the speedy
crushing of the rebellion. 1 desire nothing better
ioI myecil tudu " Stduu as loyal democrat, with
other loyal Democrats of the land, upon the proud
position they have assumed
That was what War Democracy meant
then. 1t did not mean denunciation of the
Administration for carrying on war against
the laws and the rights of the country, and
for denying to the South the rights belonging
to it; it did not call upon the people to rise
and vindicate the laws for themselves and
visit the Administration with fearful retribu-
tion; it did not threaten our armies in the
field with an enemy in their rear "more fear
full than Southern hordes." 1t took its
stand with Stephen A. Douglas, when he
said: "Every man must be on the side of the
United States or against it. There can be no
neutrals in this war. There can be none but
patriots Or traitors" But Gen. Anderson
was not follower OF Douglss. He was
follower of Breckenridge, and followed that
traitor as far as he dared
If the speech of Gen. Anderson was not
disloyal in spirit, what shall we say to the
following points from another American who
opposed war?
"The freedom of speech and of the press
has been taken away" 'sIllegal imprison-
ments have been made" "Odious conscrip-
tions have been imposed" property has
been appropriated" "Peace. which might
have been had, has been refused.' The first
objects in taking the field have been aban-
doned." ''The country has been deluged
with blood, and made land of widows and
orphans"
These sentences sound like extracts from
peace platforms, or from Gen. Anderson's
speeches in the years between 1860 and 1865.
But they are not the same though 80 much
alike. They were the points made by another
General, Benedict Arnold, the traitor, in his
proclamation to the citizens and soldiers ofthe
United States, beseeching them to put an end
to the fratricidal war that was raging. Gen.
Arnold professed to be patriot,-he hurled
back with scorn the accusations of disloyalty
and treason brought against him. He was a
lover of his country, and he saw no treason in
criticising the conduct of the war. The colon
lists of 1850 took different view OF his actions.
They felt very much as the Union men of
1861 GA felt when they listened to incendi-
ary harangues against the authorities who
were conducting the war and straining every
nerve to reunite the country.
Here we have the attitude of Gen. Ander.
son in 1862. Was he, judged by Douglass
test, for the Union or against it, loyal or dis
loyal? Was he supporting the Government,
then hard pressed, and reelng from the de-
leats of the Peninsula, or was he throwing
what obstacles he could in its way? Did his
utterances encourage the loyal sentiment
of the North, or the reasonable senti.
ment of the South? Who drew the most
comfort from his speeches and actions, the
men in blue or the men in gray? Is it not
notorious that the South was strengthened
in its fight and induced to prolong its resist
ance by the speeches of Anderson and men
like hin ? Was not the Confederate Govern
ment LED to hope that there would be an up
rising in the North against the war? Nay,
did not some Of Gen. Anderson's Western
Democratic brethren actually engage in con-
spiracies against the Government? Were
not foreign nations led to believe that there
was in the North strong sentiment in favor
of the South? And did not the belief that
the South wonld succeed lead to the acknowl-
edgment OF its belligerency? What caused
this belief but the violent harangues of North
ern Copperheads? Were not these Copper
heads responsible for the prolongation of the
war? Who can tell how much expenditure
of blood and treasure, how many widowed
and orphaned homes, must be laid to their
charge?
How was he in 1858, the year of the draft
riots? Was he upholding the arm of the
Government thena Had ne undergone any
change of sentiment? Let US see. We find
him in the Democratic Convention of that
year, Convention presided over by chair
man who requested the committee on resoIu-
tions not to compromise him, for he was a
peace man. What was Gen. Anderson do
ing in that Convention? He was vouching
for the anti-war sentiment of the Democratic
candidate for Governor, and saying "With or
without qualification he is opposed to the
war.D Go wall was Can A Apdarsop,s pos;fiop