The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1902-09-14
AN EXCESS OF PRIDE.

1t Is to be regretted that New Orleans
should send forth a discordant note in
with Confederate homes and
that from a Confederate veterans camp
should come a virtual slap in the face
of General Torrance and those of the
North who were disposed to join him in
his efforts to somewhat ameliorate the
condition of needy Confederate veterans.
1t is true. the veterans Of New Orleans
at a meeting last Tuesday night, spoke
highly of General Torrance and his
kindly act, but they added this:
We cannot accept even this generously
pro1ered assistance from any SOU ce
save from our own people. 1t Is the uuty
OF the South and the South alone to pro-
vide for Confederate soldiers who may
need our assistance. To permit others "
DO that duty would, in our Judgment, be
both unbecoming and wrong to the
southern people.
The New Orleans Times-Democrat also
takes that view. and in a long and elo-
quently-worded editorial protests against
the reception of any assistance from a
Northern man or a Northern organiza-
ton. The keynote Of its argument is
found in the sentence: THE South can
never permit members of the Grand
Army of the Republic to build homes for
the Confederate soldier" and upon that
as a text builds its argument against
the proposition of General Torrance,
while rendering him all honor for his
offer. That paper, also, takes the posi-
ton that help for our needy veterans
people.
Now, we do not yield to any man. wo-
man or child in all this broad Southland
in our devotion to the Confederate cause,
in our admiration of those who made
the name of Confederate soldier glorious
throughout the civilized earth, or in our
pride and self-respect concerning all
things connected with the great strug-
gle, but there are some stern and pitt
less facts connected with this question
which should not be buried beneath the
lowers of rhetoric. In recent issue of
The Norfolk Landmark there is an edi-
torial dealing with the action of the New
Orleans veterans and with the editorial
of The Times-Democrat and recent ed
ltorial in The Advertiser. From The
Landmarks article we take this ex-
tract:
Whea The Timss-D emocrat decares thas
the Confederate soldier has never ask ed
no, nor ever would have accepted-a
dollar in pension from the United States
government" our contemporary over
looks the somewhat melancholy circum-
stance that the Pension Bureau has re-
...nf blu a NJ m har nf iona
ior pensions from ex-CQnfederates who
construed Senator Pritcua@d's pet pen
son measure as providing for such Il
| county, whereas the measure merely
made way for the pensioning OF Union
soldiers who had deserted from the Con-
iederate army. There are strong ma
lures which prefer starvation to d sac
rifce of pride, but want and depriva-
| ZION are terrible sappers of strength.
| We shou like to be able to agree with
The Times-Dem ocrat, which expresses
SO eloquently beautiful theory. The
Advertiser however, will probably be
practical truth. Whatever be the South )
| decision as to accepting or refusing the
assistance of the Grand Army of the
| ~ .ie t.ectl N of ex-Confeder-
| ate homes, the offer is generous one
which is bound to be appreciated and to
| nave a good effect.
We have no charges or accusations to
| -HdhS dSdHl5I any part VI AAS OOulhI VI
against any city or community, but we
would like to ask If the Confederate Vet
rams in Louisiana, or even in New Or
.eans. are taken proper care of when
they need help? Does the State of
Louisiana, or The Times-Democrat own
city, provide for the old soldiers so liber-
ally that none of them suffer from want
md privauon? If this is done, If all
'aally deserving veterans in New Or
ans, even, are looked after. taken care
and properly provided for, then that
ity may with some show of propriety
md consistency reject offers OF assist
ance from the other side. If this is not
| the case, and If there is even one old
Confederate in New rleans who is spend
ing his last days in want and misery
then we deny the right Of the New Or