The National tribune., 1903-02-19

obsolete, save by the ignorant or preju-
diced.
I'm the first place, what is rebellion?
Webster says: 1t is an open and avOw-
ed remuneration of the authority of the
government to which one owes allegiance,
or the taking of arms traitorously to re-
sist the authority of lawful government {"
Now as to the facts: Were not the
Sorfhern States part of the United
States of North America? Was not the
Stars and Stripes their flag as much as
any ones? Was not the flag carried to
victory on many bloody field by Wash
ington and Jackson. and that which waved
over Sumter. the flag of their own Gov
eminent? And were not Maj. Anderson
and his troops a part of the army of their
own Government, the Government to
| which JEFF Davis and Lee and all the
leaders of the rebellion had often sworn
| allegiance?
Was not the act of secession ian open
| and avowed remuneration of the authority"
of their own lawful Government? And
was not the firing on that fort, and on
| that flag. and on the brave men defending
them, an act of taking of arms traitor
| ousiy to resist the authority of lawful
Government"
| don't blame any American who ever
joined in war against this grand Repub-
| lie for being ashamed of it. or for want
ing to give the act some different name,
but the trouble is, IAN onion by any other
name would be an onion STILL
The writer asks: as the aggressor in
fight he who strikes the first blow, or
he who makes the first blow necessarily
In this case they were one and the same
individuals. for there was no reason for
the first blow except such as existed in
the over-heated brains of Jeff Davis and
his followers. Every question at issue
could have been settled much easier and
cheaper without that first blow" or any
subsequent blow. But the fact remains
that the first blow Was struck by the
States Government. a,tsrrisoned by soldiers
of the Government, with the starry EN-
blem of the Government waving over them.
This was 'an act Of srebelliOn," though
the name may seem harsh.
There is n big mistake made by many
writers and speaker. in speaking of the
late war.
They call it wdf between the States.
but it was not "a war4Itetween the States"
in any sense whatever.
1t was war between the people Of a
Few States and the@ Government of the
United States. Theveiwas no quarrel be-
tween Kansas and Tennessee, Wisconsin
and Florida. or Iowa and Georgia, or any
other set of States. as States.
The quarrel wasH Between the people
who were trying=tO setup2a separate Gov
eminent within the domain of the United
States and the Government of the United
States.
When the flag was assailed at Fort
Sumter, the loyal people. both North and
South, responded nobly to the call of the
President for troops to avenge the insult.
If that first blow" had been struck in
Maine instead Of South Carolina, that
grand army Of loyal men would have
marched through that State as freely as
they did through the South.
1t could not be ga war between the
States for the reason that in nearly
every Southern State were many noble,
brave, and true men who stood Loyalty by
the flag, leaving home and families. helped
nobly to fight the battles of their loved
country. Tennessee furnished the Gov
eminent over 10000 as loyal. brave and
true soldiers as ever carried a gun in
any war.
I can't understand why they like to
call it "a war between the States" I'M
less they think it is more honor, or less
dish0nOr, to be forced into line by individ-
ual States, than by the Government of all
the States combined.
What State did Ohio, as a State. fight
with and conquer; or Iowa, or Maine, or
Indiana, or Minnesota? Or what State
was it that compelled Tennessee, as
State, to lay down her arms, and dis
band her grayclad army? And did Geor-
| gia. or South Carolina, or Alabama, or
Texas have to surrender to some Northern
State? The idea is absurd.
If the thought that they fought with
and surrendered to the army Of the United
States is distasteful to them, / would
think it would be many times more SO
for them to think they had lost out in
fight with individual States Of the North.
In war between Sovereign States the
vanquished are made to pay indemnity
in territory, money, or both, as in the
Franco-German war, or as was the case
| in our wars with Mexico and with Spain.
There was nothing of the kind asked or
thought of, at the end of the civil war.
All the Government asked was that they
lay down their arms and submit to the
authority of the United States. And
when Lee surrendered to Gen. Grant, that
noble American general said: Let the
men take their horses home with them
They will need them to put in their crops"
That was not the act of conqueror
| from some sovereign or foreign State!
He had only reestablshed the authority
of the United States Government on its
own territory. There was nothing asked
of them. only loyalty and good citizen
| ship in the future.
II thc poNSihoF Oi y tIIioHt udu lldr-
shaled the armies of his State and invad-
ed the State of Tennessee to liberate her
slaves, or for any other purpose, the
United States army would have protected
Tennessee against the Fermonters. They
could not help interfering in such a case.
for that would be anualawful invasion of
another State. g1n
But think the American soldiers,
North and South, are the best soldiers
that ever, fought on land or sea. They
have never been conquered by any but
| Americans, and though a portion of them
made bad mistake, some 40 years ago,
the best thing we cab do is to 'let the
dead past bury its dead" and be as broth
ers. Though we cannot undo what has
been done, let us not. quarrel over the
name of the slate unpleasantness," but
march on, shoulder to shoulder, in the arts,
| sciences, and commerce, if need be in
war, and the rest of the world will look
| on and wonder Mt our progress, and they
| will all go around the other way rather
than meet and clash swords with our in
vincible citizen soldiers-JoHN w. HART
LEY, Co. ii, 9Th Kans., Nashville, Tenn.