The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1912-02-02
UNJUST TO SOUTHERN BOYS

The forefathers of the editor of this
paper fought in the continental armies
in the tattered ranks of Washington's
battalions. They were especially in
evidence at the battle of the Cowpens
in the southern branch of that army.
His father fought in the early In
dian wars in Florida. He was one of
the little immortal band that was res
cued at the blockhouse on the
Withlachoochee river. He was one
of the three who carried the tidings
of the massacre of Major Dade and
his entire command from the post at
Fort King (now Ocala) to the post at
Fort Brooke (now Tampa) through an
almost unbroken wilderness which
was in possession of the savages He
finally lost his life battling under the
flag in the war with Mexico.
The son of the editor of this paper
enlisted as private soldier in the
war in which the immortal Teddy
won his spurs as the whole cheese
which landed him in the presidential
office, but under existing laws that
son, however aged, infirm and depend
ent he may become, cannot have his
name placed on the pension rolls of
the nation for the reason that his
father fought in the civil war on the
southern side. Is that not unfair and
unkind, but so it is; and yet We are
told by our northern friends who come
to settle amongst us that recollections
of the civil war have long since been
forgotten. in every northern state.
There is a law on our national
statute books which provides that no
widow or child of any person who
fought against the union in our civil
war can ever receive a pension from
the national government.
Representative Brantley. of the
Georgia delegation in congress, has
introduced bill repeating this I'M
just, unfair and discriminating meas
ure, and it is believed that as we are
now nearly fifty years removed from
the cessation of hostilities between
the sections that the bill will pass.
Discussing it the Savannah News
says:
when congress passed the law pro-
Vlding that no widow or child of anv
person who fought against the union
in the civil war should ever receive a
pension from the government it did
MT look far into the future 1t didn't
even see the possibility of a war with
foreign country, and that the sons
of confederates might participate in
1t. Statesmen are shortsighted in
many things, and they were particu-
larly so when they enacted the fore
going law.
Many sons of confederate veterans
fought in the Spanish-American war
and some of them are entitled to pen
sions, but they cannot get them I'M
til the law is changed. 1t is the pur-
pose of the Brantley bill to repeal
| the law shutting out from the pension
roll widows and sons of confederate
veterans and others who took sides
| against the union in the civil war.
1t is an interesting speculation as
to whether or not the bill will provoke
debate, and, if so, whether sectional
| feelings will be shown. The political
situation is such that anything in the
line of politics might reasonably be
expected. However, the house will
shape the bill, and as the democrats
control it the probability is that the
bill will be so reported that there
will be no excuse for making it the
subject of sectional debate. And,
as a matter of fact, it is doubtful if
either political party cares to bring
sectional feeling into politics again.
In the opinion of men of judgment
nothing is to be gained by stirring it
| UP.