Year: 1876

THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER AND


COLONEL WADDELL.
One of our Virginia cotemporarles,
the Richmond Enquirer, criticizes
very severely Colonel Waddelrs re-
cent speech in Congress advocating the
passage of the Centennial approprla-
ton bill. The Enquirer charges Col
onel Waddell with having made COM
promise with the Radical party con-
ceding the very principle upon which
it claims and rests, not only the war
for the Union but the whole theory
and fabric of their process OF Recon
struction; it declares there is no anol-
ogy between tbs course and cause OF
Confederates and those of men who
rebeIled against established and recog
nized government and who because OF
such rebellion are traitors; that Con
fede-ates never will recognise that
thew ouieht to stand in the category OF
traitors, or that any such stain belongs
to tae brows of their Lees and John
stons, or that the enemy have been
magnanimous in restoring to us our
rights as freemen. The Enquirer
further reminds Colonel Waddell that
while sthe insurgent against the crown
of England or any other established
power is a felon and criminal" the
secessionist in this country has never
been proven in any court to have
violated any law of the republic.


If Colonel Waddells speech was
liable to the Eaq,tirer's criticisms the
JOURNAL would certainly not be found
entering the lists in its defence, for
we belong to the political school that
taught that State had the legal right
to secede whenever and for whatever
cause it might see proper so to do and
we 20 as far as the farthest in repudl-
ating the doctrine that Confederates
were traitors or felons or criminals Of
any degree. Let US see therefore If
there be any thing in Colonel WaddelPs
speech on that occasion to Justify SO
severe an attack. The paragraph to
which the Enquirer takes exception
reads as follows:


.They and I (the ex-soldiers of the
South recognize fully, we appreciate
to it's utmost extent, the fact that in
no other country but our own could
there be or has there ever been such
sight possible as that of men who,
within five years of the time when
they were engaged in battle against
government, have been restored under
The beneficence of free institutions not
only to the rig hts of citizenship but to
equal representation and participation
in the control of the government.
They not only fully realize that, they
not only appreciate it to its utmost ex-
tent, but they have an abiding sense
of the sublim nifty of such O -pectacle.
and they are proud of Their country for
having preseted that spectacle to the
astonished gsze of mankind"


Is there a word in the above that
places the course and cause of Confed-
crates upon the same plane with those
of men rebelling against established
recognized government, not forgetting
even the course and cause of our
ancesto of Revolutionary memory
and fame? Is there word that places
Confederates in the same category with
traitors, felons and criminals. lis
there word that suggests the posi-
biity of the existence of a stain upon
the brow of Lee? Is there a word
about mercy or about magnanimity !?
Is there q word showing that Colonel
Waddell believes any secessionist has
been or could be proved to have vio>
lated any law of the republic?


If there be any such words or any
such sentiments in Col. Waddell's ut
terances we fail to see them. All that
Colonel WaddeI says is that owing, not
to the mercy or magnanimity of the
Radical, party but owing to"the bene-
fieence of free institutions" that men
were in the Federal Congress
with equal rights within five years
from The time they had fought against
it. But for this spectacle the world is
indebted, not to the mercy or magma
nimity of the enemy, but according to
Col. WaddeTs express declaration, to
"the beneficence of free institutions, -
another and quite different thing in
our estimation. Indeed it is now, and
has been our opinion that but for that
same benefcence of free institutions
overruling and controlling the fierce
passions and hates lof our northern
brethren, the spectacle of Confederates
hung and shot after the war would
have been appalling.


Entertaining these views, it was with
surprise and regret that we read the
Enquirer's attack upon our representa-
tive-an attack that, it seems to US,
was not only unprovoked and unjust,
but made with more promptitude pos
sibly than was seemly in an assault
upon friend. The charge that one
of our representatives has, upon the
floor of Congress, placed stain upon
the brow of Lee CRATES harshly upon
the ears of our people. The feeling of
North Carolinians for that great man
is 80 reverential that such expressions
seem impious.


We are almost tempted to wish
that the article containing the
E,aquirer's structures upon Col. Wad-
dell's speech had escaped our attention
altogether, as it did for time, SO
much do we regret to see unnecessary
criticism and controversy among
friends engaged in a common patriotic
purpose.


We are much gratifed to learn as
we did by telegram published in the
JOURNAL of Sunday that there was no