Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1879-02-13
The War for the Union.


Democratic party adopted principles that led
to the war, and when it began, the same or
ganization sympathized with those in arms
against the government, but left the South
end TO do the fighting. Whatever may have
been the feeling of portion of the Southern
people prior to the commencement Of hostili-
ties-there was undoubtedly large Union
element-tbe war excitement swept it out of
existence virtually or silenced it, 80 that in
point of fact the white population of the
South was almost in mass on the side OF the
rebellion, and the claims that are now set up,
on the basis of loyalty, for losses suffered by
the residents of the South, during the rebel>
lion, are, with few exceptions, false and
fraudulent There can be no principle, there
fore, upon which the claims of so called loyal
men can be allowed that would not in justice
apply to losses sustained by persons who
were VIGOROUSLY disloyal. If the door shall
be opened at all, it might as well be opened
wide, and this undoubtedly will follow the
payment of claims to Southern people who
may be able to turn up proof of loyalty. There
are exceptions, of course, in this as in sll
casses, but as a rule, and with few exceptions,
the color of the skin marked the line that
separated loyalty from disloyalty during the
war for the Union.
So much by way of preface. The points in
this case were brought out in the late passage
between Bragg, of Wisconsin, and Ellis, of
Louisiana, both Democrats. There is this diff
ference, however: Bragg was soldier in the
Union army; Ellis was soldier in the rebel
army. Que fought to destroy the Union.
The other fought to save it. The Union side
prevailed. Now Bragg and Ellis belong to
the same party and are equal upon the floor
of the House of Representatives, and the
question comes up whether the ex rebel soldier
whether the one has the same moral right
to dictate terms IS to the government as the
other; or, in other words, whether the rebel
lion was crime or patriotic undertaking
If crime, the subdued rebels are to be re-
garded as pardoned traitors who owe their
civil and political rights to the clemency OF
the government that conquered them. If a
patriotic undertaking, the Union soldier is to
be regarded by the ex-rebels as the agent OF
oppression. The cause the rebellion and that
of the Union could not have been both right.
Therefore, as regards the past, the rebel
soldier and the Union soldier, either in the
light of patriotism or morality, can not stand
upon equal ground. This point is so plain
that there is no occasion for argument. For
giveness does not imply forgetfulness also.
Safety in the future requires knowledge of
the past. The value of hind sight here be-
comes apparent. This, in business, in called
experience, and in general affairs no one can
safely undervalue experience. Bragg under
stands this thoroughly. So does Ellis. Hence
the clash. The situation here becomes inter
esting in political sense because of the cir
cumstances. In the next Congress the Southern
States will be represented by delegation
almost solidly Democratic. Virtually there is
no political party at the South except the
Democratic party. Practically the white
population is Democratic. No other organizs-
ton is permitted. There is no social stand
ing for Republican. This party is controlled
too by the men who conducted the rebellion,
and mainly by men who served in the reblel
army, who believed their cause was just, and
who believe so now, and who act upon the
principle that while they were conquered they
have not undergone a change of heart, and
who arc as determined now that no political
party shall oppose them within their territory,
as they were during the rebellion that no
Union party should have an existence within
the lines of the rebel army. Therefore, when
Ellis or a Southern Democrat speaks, he
speaks for the solid South; he speaks for that
section of the party that controls the whole
organization; that has the power to rule the
nation organization absolutely. Mr.. Bragg,
on the other hand, speaks for q helpless
Northern faction or fraction. He speaks for
the tail, while Ellis represents the head. The
Democrats have power except through a solid
South. There is hardly State in the North
they can safely count upon in Presidential
contest, while the Southern Democrats count
every one of their States as certain, whether
they have majority of the votes or not. Tis-
carrying South Carolina, and there is no
power greater than the shotgun in Louisian,
Mississippi or Alabama.
We have then a solid South represented in
the Democratic party by such men as Ellis,
Chalmers and Singleton. There are some who
are more polite than these, but when the lat
ter spske it was always safe to read. between
the lines for their real sentiments. We must
take people as we find them and judge them
from the standpoints of human nature. Mr..
Bragg, on the other hand, does not speak
even for the Democrats of the North. When
it comes to this question, he differs as much
from most of the Democrats from his section,
on the floor of the House, as the war Demo-
crat differed from Vallandigham. If the latter
were alive he would, without having changed
his opinions, except as to the physical power
of the South to defeat the government, fully
represent the Democrats of the North. 1t is
manifest, therefore, that Bragg, as a Demo
crat, is not in his proper place. 1t is also
clear that no man who blieves as Bragg does
can find q proper place in the Democratic
party. 1t was supposed that the war for the
Union settled several important and funda-
mental principles, but the late Democratic
caucus at Washington brought to the front
those same issues which caused the rebellion,
and readopted them. The Southern Demo-
Gratis, therefore, if the Democratic party is to
regain power in this country, lost nothing in
the rebellion, but the fight, their costs, and
their slaves. Buchanan in 1850 acted upon
the theory that the Union Of States was but
rope of sand. The government he contended,