National Republican., 1884-10-25

Since beginning this series Of articles
] havo frequently received letters, some
abusive, and others on trivial points did
not deem IL necessary to reply to. Tho
following letter postmarked, Washington,
d. c., Sept. %, is courteous in tone, and
refers to question Of moral ethics which
has been bruited ever since tho war
ended, and Isuppose never will be agreed
upon by both sides to the civil war unani.
inously until at least this generation has
gone over TO join the vast majority. Still
It may be of interest to get at the con-
federate view in the premises. Here ia
the letter:
In your article to-day in THE REPUBLICAN
you say you never recollect TO have seen Gen.
Lees face otherwise than serious and preoccu-
pied. What do you think caused this serious
hess and preoccupationP Was II remorse?
he found his allegiance TO his state was, in his
mind, greater than that to his government,
which had nurtured and educated him; 10
Dur knowledge OF this man, whose mind was
noble and fixed, this allegiance theory is not
good, especially rs he knew that the state was
not disloyal at heart for the government lie
knew that there were as many Virginians for
the government as there were against It, So,
in reality, he would have been with his state
had he remained true 70 ms honor. ne was
progressed he commenced to reflect, and re.
fection finally killed him. Your letters are
always interesting Maybe you can build for
or against that theory.
This communication is signed, "a
Friend" and have no doubt that he
represents that class of tho north which,
while holding the kindliest feelings to-
ward the people of tho south as
o body, still think that or surrender
ing the leaders should have clothed
themselves in sackcloth and ashes
and approached the conquerors begging
for mercy, with halters about their necks,
according to the good old medieval style,
whereupon they would have been mag
unanimously forgiven. The'truth is, that
the people of the south were Just as deep
in the mud as their leaders were in tho
mire
1t seems at this date that 1t has been
almost impossible for the northern mind
to put itself in the place Of the southern
mind long prior, up to, and throughout
the civil war. Nine-tenths of the SOUTH
erners had the supreme rights of their
states absolutely, SO to speak, imbedded
in the fiber of their muscles and the very
marrow Of their bones. Their state was
all in all to them. The genius of their
domestic institutions made them the pro-
vincials of provincislism. None but the
wealtfiest class travelled, and thus became
somewhat cosmopolitan in their views;
but high and low, rich and poor, were ac-
customed to consider their state as a sort
of center of the universe, about which
powers and principalities, federal or what
not, travelled as mere satellites. 1t Is true
that 1776 was remembered, and 1912 and
1916, when Yankee and southerner
mingled their blood on many battle
field, and the Fourth of July and the
Star Spangled Banner were as
much glorided by feasts and speeches
and cannon firing as at the north;
but the s0utherner was never national
ist as that term is applied now. Ho
looked upon the federal government as q
mere machine created in part by his
state to attend to the outside business
of the state. The states were the sover-
egns, the masters-the federal govern
ment the necessary servant to go to
market and make the purchases, as 1t
were. But at the same time they were
determined to uphold the dignities and
power with which they had invested
their servant, and to make him respected
among foreign nations, and accordingly
they sprang with alacrity into the ranks
of the battle whenever the conferred
prerogatives of the federal head was as
sailed from any foreign quarter. Yet
they had the most intense Jealousy of the
slightest encroachment by the federal
head on what were deemed the reserved
rights of the states.
And it seems to me that the southern
states were not alone in this jealousy.
Gen. Washington himself was called out
to quell o rebellion in Pennsylvania,
known as the whisky rebellion, and, if
Iecollect Alright, l have heard of such a
thing as Shaw's rebellion in AIassachu
sets, &c.
Now, at the beginning of the war,
there were officers of southern birth in
the army and navy of the United States
suddenly called upon in tremendous
crisis to decide upon course of action.
Every soldier forms an affection for the
flag he fights under. no matter what tbs,
apart from its historical associations. He
loves the old colors with al ardent and
per- nal affection, the depth of which
do 0t believe can be realized by civil
ian. 1t may be imagined, then, the con-
flict of mind which agitated these men
when they saw civil war inevitable and
that their native states would be arrayed
against the federal government and the
flag under which they were serving. On
one side was the pride of the service, the
love for the flag. and the thoughts and
customs of years. On the other side.
home associations family ties, situation
of property. and last, but not least, the
pride Of state which had from childhood
permeated their whole DelnB.
declare at this day l can feel a pity
for and a sympathy with these men while
under this torture of hesitation. 1t mus,
have been a terrible season for them and
of anxiety for their families as long as
their states were lingering on the brink
of secession, but the final step having
been taken, almost to a man they cast in
their lot with their states for veal or fol
woe. Then they thought the die was cast
Some of the letters written by officers
at this period (the beginning of the war,
are pathetic in the extreme, and show
what q heart-wrench it caused them tc
part from the old flag, from old associa-
tions and from beloved comrades. Dc
you mean to tell me that these men were
not acting from conscience and sense oil
duty? Whether they did not make great
mistake is another question, aud is not
germane to this article. / am only in my
feeble way trying to show that the charge
of dishonesty Of purpose brought against
the United States officers who resigned
and went south at the beginning of the
civil war is utterly unfair. Let every
man who reads this attempt in imagina-
tion, and in view ofwhat has been above
written, try to put himself in the place
of these officers, and even he may ii nd
himself in quandary If he makes an
honest inward examination.
All these southern officers could not
have been dishonest. No one but % ma
lignant fool would make such charge,
aud yet there was practical unanimity
in their action. Let there be, then, an
unbiased and charitable construction in
the premises. Even had they consciously
sinned against the federal government
they have suffered enough for it, God
knows.
But my correspondent asks me WAS IL
remorsep in relation to an article