The Glenwood post. (Glenwood Springs, Colo.) 1897-current, 1920-08-07
HOW THE SOUTH
NIGHT HAVE WON
A ouak~'s visw

A Quaksr's View
Some years ago WHOM there were but
few of the prominent actors of the
great drama of our middle history, the
civil war, still living and knew Of
but ono Confederate officer Of prom
jinence who was still alive-Gen John
b. Gordon wrote to him, asking
''Why did you fire on Fort Sumpter >,
cit seems to me" wrote, "that you
had everything to lose and nothing TO
gain by anticipating the action of the
Washington government in opening
hostilities.
In reply l received courteous
though brief letter, the purport of
which was that the Confederate author
tiles regarded the removal of the troops
under Major Anderson from Fort Moul-
trie to Fort Sumpter as an "act of
war" and. by implication. that the
bombardment of Fort Sumpter was a
defensive measure.
Here our correspondence ended, but
iif I had replied to his letter 1 should
have questioned his designation of the
removal Of Major Anderson s troops as
an "act of war; should have said
that truer designation would have
been ga gage of battle'' for the Con-
federates to take up, "challenge"
for their acceptance. But, however
that may be. thought then, as think
now, that this act-the firing on Stump
ter-was the primal mistake out Of
which came "the final overthrow Of
the Confederacy.
During the period of secession,
through the winter of 1s6O-61, phrase
came into use which was persistently
employed by the leaders of the seces-
sion movement, "You cannot coerce
state" Perhaps this combination Of
words this "dictum.' was used more
frequently in the question of secession
than any other combination Of words
in the language. But those who SO per
sistently employed it seemed to lack
full confidence in the efficacy Of that
which was implied. GAS the case
stands thus they seemed to reason,
"you cannot coerce a state, but we will
put in your hands that by which eoer-
cion may be affected; we will commit
acts of treason against which force
may be employed. And so these
states raised armies and, as we have
seen, attacked an American fort in
which were American soldiers. This
was treason as defined by the constitu-
ton, to be resisted by force, and we
know its outcome as shown in Lees
surrender, and the subsequent acts of
reconstruction.
Now let us suppose that different
course had been pursued. Relying on
the dictum that you cannot coerce
state, let us suppose that the leaders of
the secession movement, having procur-
ed ordinances of secession in the re-
spective states. and had ultimately
brought those states together into
Confederacy, had there rested; that
they raised NO armies, fortified no towns
or cities, interfered with no property
belonging to the United States.
" What" it might have been asked Of
the administration at Washington.
care you going to do about itl'
suppose recruiting had been authorize
ed and northern army raised San
army of iuvasion.n We can still think
of McDowell's crossing the Potomac at
Washington, not, however, 20 meet Joe
johns toms battalions at Bull Run, hut
to find a road open to Richmond, road
Iby the side of which farmers were
peaceably cultivating their crops me
chanics at work in their shops, and
those of us who remember that time
can assure you that, so fir as the offic-
ers could prevent it, there would have
been no molestation of private proper
ty. The boys would have been mis-
chievous Of course, and it used to be
said that the 36th, Ohio could kill and
dress pig without breaking ranks.
But boys mischief is small matter
compared with the devastation of d
single battle.
At Richmond IA company of well
dressed gentlemen, brought together
from different sections Of the sOath,
would have becn found assembled pass
ing laws for the better government OF
the Confederacy. Would the command
or Of our army, Cromwell-lfke, have dis
persed this a.'scmblages That IL un-
l