, 1880-02-28

REWARDING CONFEDERATE BR1GAD1ERS.
The motion introduced in the House on
Wednesday on the Democratic side to repeal
the statute forbidding any person "who has
served in any capacity in The military, naval,
or civil service of the so~cnlled Confederate
States. or of either of tile States in insurrac-
tion during the late Rebellion from appoint
ment to anyi,osition in the army Of the United
States, shows clearly enough the animus
of the Democracy with reference to the mill
tary service of tile country. The motion
places the men who fought for their country
and the men WHO fought'against 1t upon the
same ground. It makes no distinction be-
tween the men who were true to their flag
and the men who deserted it. It advances
the men who sought to overthrow the Gov
ernment and to destroy its armies to positions
Of Importance and distinction, and thus re-
wards disloyalty. The audacity Of this mo-
ton comes ont In still clearer light when it is
considered that the statute which it proposes
to repeal does not affect any young man III
the South who, wishes to enter West
Point. It's doors open as freely to
them as if they were from the North.
It does not affect any young man from the
South who may be III West Point at the pres
ent time. If there are any young men in
that section with patriotism enough left in
them to wish to serve their country, nothing
stands in their way. ;: The statute affects only
those who were educated at West Point and
who were sworn to'support the flag Of their
country, and who in the hour Of danger
basely deserted their flag struck hands with
f1n ntlpn tim SNf1inf,
the Government had. given them against 1t.
No nation OIL the! face Of the earth under
similar circumstances would allow the res
toration Of such men to place i'll its armies.
In any other country such men would have
been tried by court-lnartial and punished for
dcsertion. They have proved their disloyalty
once In case Of another war, whit guaranty
has the country that they will not be dis
loyal again? In the discussion upon the
motion, Senator Thurman asked: "Who are
likely to be needed in case we should go into
war again? % III reply it may be asked: Who
of all others but those who proved their 10y
atty through the War, and Who did not fail
to respond when their country called for
them? These men will look on with indig-
nation at the spectacle of the advancement
of men who drew their swords against their
country. But, says Mr., Thurman, II did
suppose that the people Of this country had
right to the services of every able-bodlcd
man in time of war, and that it we should get
into war again we have the right to the
services of men who were lately in the Con-
federacy." Yes; and the people Of this coun-
try supposed in 1861 that they had the right
to the services Of every able bodied man, but
they did not get them. On the other hand,
the services Of those in the South were eln~
ployed against the country and against the
Government they had sworn to support.
Having been unfaithful once, having violated
their oaths once, what assurance has the
country that they will not do it again?
There is no question that this statute, which
was placed upon tie books as one Of the fut-
ure safeguards against treason, will be ex-
plunged by the votes of Southern Democrats
aided by their Northern allies. There is no
question that they will seek to break down
other safeguards, and that, if they continue
in power, they will succeed until State
sovereignty asserts its supremacy. There
was no statute for the preservation
Of the Union during the War that was
not opposed by Democrats. There is
not statute that has been passed since the
War looking to the future safety Of the Gov
ernment that has not been opposed by Demo-
Gratis. The effectual manner in which Sena-
tor Edmunds compelled them to show their
hands with referenceto to this particular statute
will not pass unheedcd by the loyal people
Of the country.