The National tribune., 1883-08-23
was the war Fought for Money!

Was the war Fought for Money:
In the September number of the North
american Rericr, Mr.. Richard Grant White,
whose cast Of mind seems to be peculiarly
cynical, takes the occasion in the course of
an article on class distinctions in the United
States to speak as follows of the war for the
preservation of the Union and the manner
in which it was fought:
The South had fought to maintain an inequality
of personal rights and aristoeratic form OF So
ciety The North had fought, not in a crusade for
equality and against aristocracy, but for money
for the riches which If had acquired and that the
newly developed means OF acquiring riches might
not be destroyed; for nothing else. After the first
flush OF enthusiasm caused by the bombardnent
OF Fort Sumter firing the flag had sub
sided, before which insult, defiance, and
notably. very notably, enthusiasm for liberty
and equality had been able 10 awaken enough fight
Ing spirit in the North to lead the adnlinistra-
tors Of the Federal Government to take any i'm
portant steps for its preservation, this excite
ment had subsidized and yet The must needs be
prosecuted or the Government destroyed, the con-
test became one of money for tie sake of money.
The war virtually carried on by the moneyed
men, the business men. OF the North. They fur
nished its ''sinews' and this they did for their
own purposes and in their own interests. Many
OF them grew rich by the means of the war; most
Of them that in ifs successful prosecution lay
their future prosperity. The war time was
money making process. The Federal Government
was victorious snply because it had the most men
and the most money on its side; and it had the
most men because it had the most money. The
Confederate cause failed simply because its
and It's money were exhausted; for no other
son. Inequality came to an end in the South;
equality was established throughout the Union;
but the real victors were the noney-mazers, naer-
chants bankers, manufacturers railway men, mo-
nopoiists, and spectators. 1t their that
had tliun1paed under the banner of freedom. Cen
eral Grant has been roughly handled by earcatur-
ISIS ana psragTsl,hists as a beggar. Verify. his
reward has been small at the hands Of those 20
whom be rendered his chief service. If the bust
ness men Of The North had given him an income OF
one thousand dollars day, and General Sherman
Of Eve hundred, they would have insuflicientiy
acknowledged what those stubborn soldiers did for
them.
Coming from person ike JEFF Davis,
whose ntterances ever since the war have
been tinged with the bitterness growing out
of his keen sense of personal failure, such
tissue of faIsehood as is here Haunted in the
face Of an intelligent public would surprise
no one, but enanating from a Northern
writer of considerable renown, and so far as
we know . mere spectator during the war,
of the sanguinary events which marked
its course, they are astounding and cannot
fail to provoke indignant protest in every
quarter where they may gain publicity.
It is not the first time, 1t is true, that this
heartless assertion that the war was prose
cuted by the North for mercenary purpose
has been put forward, but we cannot recall
another instance of it being made in
such positive matter-offact way. The
foreigner who should read this statement
would be apt to conclude that our great
struggle TO maintain the Union founded by
our fathers, was waged by hirelings after the
custom in petty European dependencies, and
he would be astonished TO find, upon further
inquiry, that of the hundreds of thousands
| Of soldiers who composed our armies there
were few whose enlistment did not entail
upon themselves and their families personal
sacrifices of the most onerous description.
The fact is that history affords no instance
of war in which mercenary interests bore a
less conspicuous part than the war for the
suppression of the rebellion.
Its not worth while discussing this ques-
lion in all its details, brit we cannot refrain
fIom adducing some handy proofs of the
glazing falsity Of Mr.. Grants statement.
The North says be. fought, not in a
crusade for equality and against aristocracy
but for money; for the riches which it had
acquired. and that the newly developed
raeans Of acquiring riches might not be de.
stroyed for nothing else.n That is absolutely
and unqualifedly false. Had such been the
case it would have been impossible either tc
have secured the men with which to carry on
the war for nothingi is more certain than thai
the monthly pay oIefed Dy the Govern
ment as compensation for the soldiers serv
ices would not in itself have been a sufficient
consideration TO induce prosperous rlcr
chants, bankers, professional, and business
men ofwcalth and reputation, mechanics and
labsers Of all classes enjoying profitable en-
rloymept, farmers engaged in the peaceful
ard reauneratjve tilIage of the soil, old mer
far beyond the prescribed age of military ser
vices, and boys with the down just beginning
TO appear upon their lips--to leave their usua
aroeatiens, forswear the pleasures and com
forts Of home, and, breaking away resolutel,
from all the endearments of family, brayt
tlls dangers of the field. Ia other countries
perhapss--in the populous prineipalities o
: The old world, where fine struggle for exist