The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-07


west ct tho AIlaghaniss and The stalsnHsS
which Tor years was che utmost Of their
achievements IN The East. This dlg1nc-
ton will b found brought out with rs-
markAble clearness in the third part Of this
volume. IF We look says Mr.. snider,
at the military movements OF the civil
wharf.-the most impressive visible manifes-
tations OF tive observe four disttnct
armies, one for zach OF the great divisions
Of the country We seo. In other wur6a
opposed TO one another east OF tho Alle-
Rhanies the East-Northern army and che
EAst-southsrn army. On the western side
Of the Alleghanies We behold, In ~antagonism
to each other, q West-Northern army and
q West-Southern army. Tho scene Of war.
fare between the East-Northern and the
East-Southern armies was practically one
small piece Of ground lying between the
two capitals, Warrington and Richmond.
The scene Of contention between the West.
Northern and West-Southern armies CON-
prised, on the other hand. all the seeded
States Of tho Union but one. tho whole OF
which the West-Northern army ovorran,
pursuing Ito defeated antagonist. II re-
duced or neutraiEed ten out Of the slsven
States in rebellion, or, in other words, all
except Virginia. As our author puts 1t:
-ws may consider our line Of battle a. thai
Of q radius drawn from the capital a. .
centre and ciroling about the entire re-
VOTED territory; even II Texas was left
largely TO itself, being quite Isolated after
the fall Of VioLsburg. The sweep vas that
Of q hugo arm the arm Of Mother Union,
reaching out TO the extreme border and
bending around to embrace her rebellious
children, still dear, though naughty The
Eastern military movemsnts, on the other
hand. seemed rigorously confined to q little
stretch Of territory, In which was possible
no vast State embracing sweep, but only
a kind OF seesaw between the two opposed
armies, with a continuous equilibrium OF
defeat md victory for each side. II the
East-Northern army passed q certain line
what may be termed the natural line OF
separation between the North and South
it met with a bloody repulse; the same re-
pulse was encountered by the East-South-
ern army IL 1t passed the same line.
Our author is undoubtedly right in holding
that 1t Is this line Of separation between the
two sets OF States and their representative
armies which is the most striking fact Of
the long warfare in Virginia. Washington
cannot take Richmond, and Richmond can.
not take Warrington, though the two cities
are but little more than a hundred miles
apart. The same fate meets the one army
striving TO reach tho James River. and the
other army striving 70 cross the Potomac.
The fact, more technically stated, is that
IL either army takes decidedly the offensive
it is doomed to be driven back; while II il
remains on it's own side Of the line Of sepa-
ration it is victorious. Each wins on tho
defensive, but loses on the offensive
Such, unquestionabIy, was the persistent
Characteristic Of the Eastern struggle,
though, OF course, minor exceptions 90
CURED on both sides. Mr.. Snider would
regard Antietam and Gettysburg as bloody
warnings to the Southern hosts; more nu-
merousa and more sanguinary were thew warn
ings administered to the Northern hosts
from Manassas, Fredericksburg and the
Peninsula battlefelds. Both hosts had
transgressed, had sought to cross a for
hidden line, for which act each got a blow
like that Of fate itself" The result is, or
must be, that the East-Southern army. being
really on the defensive, has made good the
original line Of separation between the old
Thirteen States. This could only mean, IL
they alone were concerned, that the Union
was, in fact, dissolved. Such proved not
to be the case, however. because not In che
old, but in the new States lay the decision Of
the conflict.
Why did the Vest Northern army Sue
Deed in It's moro difficult task, while the East
Northern army seemed often likely to sue
cumb2 About the facts there 10 no doubt.
They are correctly stated in the book before
US: Outside Of soldieriy qualities, which
were quite the same In both armies, and out
side Of any superiority Of numbers or mate
rial Of war, the two causes-Union and Sc
oession-seemed in the West unequal from
the start-the former being inherently the
stronger and advancing. while the other
was inherently the weaker and retreating.
This fact is in striking contrast with the
equilibrium Of the two armies in the East.
and, it would also seem, OF the two causes in
that section"
Our askhor recognizes that here a couple
of problems arise: First, why should there
be such a difference between the East and
the West; secondly, why such a difference
between the West-N Northern and tho VEST
Southern armies2 1t IN the former problem
which our author considers, because the
latter may be solved with comparative
ease. Mr.. Snider reminds us that the new
slave States, the W~est-Southern group
which had seeded, were not ~preoR9nn1ed
independent States which had seen At TO
enter the Union, but veritabie children
OF the Union. Now they were trying to
slay their parent. or tho four groups Of
States-the East-Northern, tho East-South-
ern, the Vest Northern and the West
Southern-the latter group alone was seek
ing TO destroy the source OF It's being. lite
act had accordingly a parricidal character.
The epithet Ct parricide could not be Ievelled
against the old Slave States which had
seeded, because they were not the children
OF the Union. Their relation 10 IL was diff
ferent. Now, II We turn to the West-North.
ern States which, like the VEST Southern
States, were children OF the Union, and
ask for whom are they pouring out their
hearts blood, our author swe TO save
the Union from that other group Of children
who were seeking to destroy the same
parent" Which. then, OF the two groups
OF children was acting on the higher prin-
ciple, the loyal or the disboyal, the defenders
or the assailants OF the common parent
Our author submits that the difference
must have entered into the spirit Of the
two contending armies. He brings out