Norwich bulletin., 1916-12-07
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Lee and Davis Essentially Differen.

-GC GIA 1aFtS ESSGnLidIlY 1iHeFcnT
 MT. Editor: I think that all fair minded people will fndorse what A Southerner has to say in regard to Lee and Lincoln. The noble character Of Lee is now recognized by all- in the north as well as the south. He opposed disunion to the last. but f1- nally followed what he considered to be his duty to his state. His case is essentially different from that of Jeff Davis and others who had plotted dis union for years and who remained intractible after the war. After that struggle the desire of Lee, like that of Grant, was for peace. Had the south needed his words the last vestiges of sectional feeling would long since have vanished. What still remains Of the bitterness engendered by the war has been kept alive by the south Has any northern writer done as much to sHr up old animosities as Thomas Dixon, Jr., has done?
 The south continues to regularly cast its vote for a certain political party regardless of the issues or ques- tions of the present day. The north. unprotestinely, allows a condition to exist whereby the vote of one south ern man has the power in the cleo torial college of three or four north ern men.
 example of fairness why does she so consistently attempt to villify the leaders of the Union forces while lauding the chieftains of the south :? She makes sarcastic allusions to one of your correspondents meeting Sher- man. Butler and John Brown in the next world. I do not think that any loyal American need be alarmed over the prospect of spending an eternity with Sherman or Butler. In regard l to John Brown. it would be we'll to Isremember the outrages of the border rufians in Kansas which made him | the fanatic that he was. Has A South erner ever read of the murder in cold blood of his son by the Rev. Martin l White, one of the minions of the slave l power?
 She states that her only interest in | politics is that of destroying the li- quor dealer. This is certainly a com mendable desire. but those interested | in that business could use in their defense the principal argument she makes in defense of the slave-holders. 1 She argues that, as the Negroes were their property. the shareholders were entitled to retain them and, if neces- | sary, fight for their possession, no moral question, apparently. being in- | volved. Were this premise true the large number of people interested or | employed in the liquor business could l claim it as a defense of their posi- I tion. If the mere fact of possession !! was the prime factor in such cases
 any established wrong could claim I Immunity. And certainly slavery 1 could claim no other right for exist l ence. John Fiske says: And is ii not a striking Illustration of the slow
 ness with which mankind learns the plainest rudiments of wisdom and of justice, that only in the full light ot the nineteenth century, and at the cost of a terrible war; should the l most intelligent people on earth have got rid of a. system of labor devised l in the crudest ages of antiquity and fraught with misery to the employed l degredation to the employers, and loss to everybody"
 Respectfully,
 A READER | Wiudhapo nac 1o1S