Civil War Overview
Civil War 1861
Civil War 1862
Civil War 1863
Civil War 1864
Civil War 1865
Civil War Battles
Robert E. Lee
Civil War Medicine
Civil War Links
Civil War Art
Republic of Texas
Civil War Gifts
Robert E. Lee Portrait
Page) the President has promoted Brigadier- General Benjamin F.
Butler, of Massachusetts, to be henceforth a Major-General of the United States
army. This is also history. All hail to Butler !"
General Butler, at the hour we
write, has just left Washington for
Fortress Monroe, where he is to command
15,000 men against Virginia.
THE MIDNIGHT MARCH.
ALL along the weary miles,
Down through the dark defiles,
Through the woods of pine and
larch, Under midnight's solemn arch,
Came the heavy, sounding march Of
the Seventh !
Scouts out on either flank,
Searching close through dyke and
bank, Sweeping with their restless eyes
Every hollow, cut, and rise,
Guarding from the foe's surprise
All the Seventh !
Every pine-tree's jagged limb
In the black night looked grim;
And each dense thicket's shade Seemed to hold an ambuscade; Yet no soldier was
In the Seventh !
Plod ! plod ! plod ! plod!
Over gravel, over sod,
Over up-torn railroad tracks,
With their bending, belted backs,
Waiting—hoping vain attacks,
Marched the Seventh !
" Halt ! Rest !" along the line;
Down every man supine
In the wet gravel lay,
Hugging with delight the clay,
Longing for the light of day
On the Seventh !
Though the dark night was serene,
Never foeman's form was seen ;
Though like flies they buzzed
around, Haunting every shady ground,
Fleeing at the slightest sound
From the Seventh !
So we marched till night was gone
And the heavens were blessed with
dawn; But History, with immortal hand, Must yet record how firm and grand Was
that march through Maryland
Of the Seventh !
CAMP CAMERON, May 9, 1861.
SATURDAY, JUNE 1, 1861.
THE CHARACTER OF THE WAR.
WE have received the following
letter from East Tennessee : To the Editor of Harper's Weekly:
EAST TENNESSEE., May 10, 1861.
ALLOW me a few observations,
intended to contribute to set right the public mind upon the subject of the
First, A war must be waged. It is
inevitable. The unity of the Government must be maintained at every hazard. Its
dignity must be upheld. Men must be taught—the whole American people must
learn—that it is a fearful thing to rebel against the Government—that the laws
must absolutely be obeyed. They must learn that while each American citizen is a
sovereign, he is also a subject He is a sovereign to make laws, and his
prerogatives are perfect; but he is a subject to obey those laws, and his
subjection must be absolute. And it is strange men can not see that the moment
they cease to be obedient subjects to their own laws, they cease also to be
sovereigns. For what sort of sovereign is he whose laws are not respected? But
still above these considerations, if it is possible to rise above them, the
Government must wage this war to restore the lost liberties of its citizens
within the States whose free Governments have been subverted by the
revolutionists. The loyal men of the revolted States (so called) are entitled to
the protection of their Government. I believe these loyal citizens constitute a
majority of the people; but whether a majority or minority, it is the duty of
their Government to protect them from unlawful usurpation and tyranny. A
necessity rests upon the Government to wage this war—else it too will be
subverted. This revolution is aggressive, insolent, and overbearing in the
extreme. Its Secretary of War even proclaims the purpose to plant its banner of
"the stars and bars" upon the dome of our national Capitol, and coolly threatens
that it may yet float over the city of Boston. This was before the promulgation
Lincoln's first proclamation, on the day on which
Fort Sumter fell. That
revolutionary Government seeks, by means of privateers, to destroy the commerce
of the nation upon the high seas ; and in fact it has been at war with the
Government almost from the day of
Lincoln's election—seizing upon its forts,
arsenals, vessels of war, its treasure, and its public property generally. With
an insolent, pretensive talk of peace, it has been practicing open war for
Secondly, The Government must
take the aggressive (so to speak); that is, it can not stand on the defensive,
and permit the enactment on a grand national scale of the shameful farce of Fort
Sumter—refraining from firing a gun while batteries are being erected around it
for its own reduction. By this weak policy loyal citizens of the States which
first "seceded" were left without protection and encouragement in their loyalty
; and thus cut off and neglected, they gradually acquiesced in the existing
state of things, and came to regard the usurpation as their Government, and
their old Government as a foreign Power. And to wash away the stain of " Toryism,"
many Union men enlisted in the armies which were being raised to war upon the
Government of their fathers. And without an active war of protection loyal
citizens must yield in all the revolting States. They have no arms, and no
standard to rally around. But,
Thirdly. This war is no war of
the North against the South—no war of sections. It is a war of the whole
Government against an insurrection and usurpation in certain States. It is a war
not to " subjugate the South" or the
Southern States but to 1iberate the
citizens of those States from that military subjugation under which they are
placed by usurpation and intimidation. Its very nature forbids
that it should be a war of rapine
and confiscation. It is the war of the law for its own enforcement against
revolution; and if those who wage such war shall themselves violate the law,
they too have plunged into revolution, and the law is destroyed. We loyal men of
the South warn you to beware how you let slip the hell-hounds of revolution—from
the very depths of despair we warn you that you come not into this place of
Fourthly, Let it be distinctly
proclaimed by the Government, and by all loyal public journalists, that the
nature of the war is to be such as I have set forth above; that the South is not
to be subjugated, but liberated—not the black but the white race; that the old
order of things is to be restored as it was; that the people are to be protected
from the unlawful violence of their usurping tyrants, and to suffer no unlawful
violence at the hands of their deliverers. Let the commanders of the advancing
armies every where proclaim these things to the people : that they are called
upon to submit, not to Lincoln or the North, but to the laws they themselves
have made—to the government established by their fathers and perpetuated by
themselves. And it will be found, as these things begin to be understood by a
misguided and intimidated people, they will rally in thousands to the standard
of the Government, and assist in restoring order. They will not only acquiesce,
but will actively assist in putting down the rebellion.
In this section of Tennessee a
large majority of the people are still true to the Union, and many pant for the
opportunity to take up arms against their oppressors. But they have no standard
to rally around—no Government to throw its protecting shield over them. They
have no arms, no sinews of war, no ammunition, no organization. In other parts
of the State thousands have been misled by false representations, sustained by
quotations from violent Northern papers, and are now in arms against their own
liberties. We have been all betrayed by traitorous Governors (except
Texas), and by perjured and terrorized legislators, who, grasping the sword and
purse, have put the people under a military despotism.
These are brave and excellent
words. We trust they do not come too late. There was a time when good Southern
men might have stayed this rebellion and crushed secession, by proclaiming
boldly and loudly that " the unity of the Government must be maintained at every
hazard," that " the laws must absolutely be obeyed," and that " the Government
must take the aggressive" against rebels. Unhappily, in those days, conservative
Southerners were spending their strength in denouncing what they called "
coercion" and " fratricidal war." Now the revolutionary wave has swept past
them, and has left them on the bank, idly protesting against the laws of nature.
What this war is going to be does
not depend on what rebels want, or what Government wants, or what neutrals want.
It must take its course and shape from influences and events beyond individual
control. To attempt, at the present time, to fix its metes, bounds, and results,
is as futile as it would be to try to stake out the ground which would be
overflowed if a levee on the Mississippi were suddenly destroyed. On one side
the Government, on the other side the rebels, have their plan and policy by
which they propose to abide. But the first red battle-field strewn with stark
corpses will change the most deliberate of their preconceived purposes. Let us
be rational beings, and remember the lessons of history. The worst of war is not
that some brave soldiers are killed, but that when it begins no one can tell
where it will end, what direction it may take, and who may not fall victims to
It was to the air of " God save
the King" that the New York tea ship, in 1774, was sent to sea without breaking
bulk, by a people unconsciously ripening for the war of Independence. But a few
months before the execution of Louis XVI., M. Roland, the head of the
revolutionists, addressed him in a famous letter : " You are deceived, Sire,
when the nation is represented to you as hostile to the throne and to yourself.
The people love the Revolution in you." Nay, without traveling so far back,
where can we find a more cogent argument against secession than the speech
delivered to the Georgia Legislature, in December last, by
Stephens, now Vice-President of the Southern Confederacy ? Has history been
written in vain, that people fancy this revolution of ours is going to pursue a
straight, even, smooth course, and to end under the same programme, and the same
principles as it begins?
We most sincerely hope our
correspondent is right when he speaks of the Union strength in the Southern
States. But it must be confessed that the North has suffered many
disappointments on this head. A month before
Georgia seceded she was reported to
be sound for the Union. Less than sixty days before Tennessee went out she was
stated to have given over 20,000 votes majority against secession ; now,
Knoxville, the loyal city par excellence, feeds and houses secession troops on
their way to Richmond. Virginia was relied on as safe till the very hour she
seceded. When such men as John Bell, W. C. Rives, and Henry W. Hilliard are in
the ranks of the enemy, on whom can the North place their trust ? If the Union
men at the South had made one single fight—if in some single county, town,
village, or plantation, even a score of men, brave as Southerners are, had drawn
trigger or unsheathed sword in defense of the old flag, it would have been
easier than it is at present to have relied upon the co-operation of Southern
Unionists in the suppression of this most lamentable rebellion
Still, for all this, we are
convinced—and we rejoice in the conviction—that the Government commences its
work with the intention of protecting property of all kinds, and of liberating
from a military despotism those Union-loving citizens of the South who have been
so easily overpowered by the rebels. To what extent, or in what way, events may
modify this policy, our correspondent is as well able to speculate as we are.
A CARD FROM MR. RUSSELL.
MR. W. H. RUSSELL, Correspondent
of the London Times, publishes the following card in the Mobile Register :
MOBILE, May 13, 1861.
To the Editor of the Mobile
Sir,—My attention has been called
to a statement in
Harper's Weekly, couched in the following words: " The
proprietors have dispatched an artist to the South in company with Mr. RUSSELL,
correspondent of the London Times."
In reference to that statement, I
have to observe that my companions are two, viz. : Mr. WARD, a personal friend,
who is kind enough to act as my secretary and traveling comrade, and who has no
connection whatever with any journal in the United or
Confederate States, and
Mr. DAVIS, a young artist, who is taking sketches for the Illustrated London
News, and who assures me that he is not engaged by or connected with Harper's
Weekly, although he formerly sent sketches to that periodical.
My position is that of a neutral,
and I am employed on a mission that requires the utmost impartiality on my part,
although I shall claim for myself the utmost freedom in the expression of my
convictions and of my observations to the journal which I have the honor to
serve. The expression of these convictions and observations, however, is meant
only for England, and I shall not permit the position I occupy to be abused
under any circumstances whatever by those who accompany me, although I have
every reason to believe that their good faith would render such a guarantee or
assurance on my part unnecessary.
I have only to say in addition
that by this post I have forwarded to the paper in question a request that they
insert my formal denial of the statement which has occasioned this
communication. I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your faithful servant,
W. H. RUSSELL, LLD.,
Barrister at Law.
We have not received the " formal
denial" to which Mr. RUSSELL alludes. But we owe it to ourselves to say that the
Mr. Davis he mentions is the special artist of Harper's Weekly, is traveling at
our cost, and is not to our knowledge drawing for the Illustrated London News.
We are sorry to add that we are informed Mr. RUSSELL was aware of these facts
before he wrote the above letter.
ENGLAND AN ALLY.
THERE need be no fear of the
attitude of England in this rebellion. She is in much more danger from its
success than from its failure. She wants cotton much, but she wants sound
constitutional liberty more. If we could imagine this rebellion successful, the
inevitable consequent encroachment upon liberty in England would presently force
the English to arms. The encroachment would proceed from precisely that Tory
party which sympathizes with the insurrection in this country—not that it cares
for one part of the country more than another, but because all aristocracies are
at heart united ; because feudalism in England sympathizes with feudalism in
America; and because the triumph of the rebellion would be a desperate and fatal
blow at the great cause of , popular constitutional government forever.
The people of England, however,
see that the only conservative policy of their government is a popularly
progressive policy, and they will insist upon that. They can not afford, for the
sake of any particular commercial or manufacturing advantage, to risk the
demoralization that would follow a recognition of so wanton and causeless a
rebellion as ours. They see that if the Slave States should throw off the
national government, the cotton crop would be at the mercy of a servile race,
without any force adequate to its control. That race would be permanently
inflamed by the rebellion, and by the neighborhood of the Canada line, suddenly
brought southward. Any year the cotton crop might be destroyed, and England
would have lost both her cotton and the moral support of her sympathy with a
free popular system. English statesmen might well wonder whether, in the present
situation of European affairs, their country could sustain a stroke so deadly.
Nor must the inspiration of a
great national principle be forgotten. Great Britain has pronounced for
individual liberty. Whoever touches her soil, if not branded with crime, raises
his head to heaven as free as the Queen. A ministry which should propose to
Parliament to recognize a rebellion which aimed to overthrow so beneficent a
government as ours for the purpose of extending and strengthening
would raise a storm in England that would hurl them from power and hiss them to
Let us have no fear of England.
She has been always the ally of Christian civilization, and her soil the
battle-field of constitutional liberty. What Madison said of the United States
may be said of England and of the universal Saxon race, "Their cause is the
cause of human nature."
A NATIONAL HYMN.
NATIONAL hymns are not made to
order. They spring from the sudden inspiration of great emotions. But there can
be no harm in asking every body who is now singing in obedience to those
emotions to send their songs to a committee and be paid for their trouble if the
song chances to suit. The committee, probably, know about writing hymns to
order, as well as any other gentlemen. They do not assume that they will receive
the hymn that shall be adopted by the nation, and therefore they reserve the
right of rejecting every thing, if nothing seems to be quite excellent enough.
The Tribune makes two objections
to the invitation of the committee. One, that a national hymn must be a war
song, while the committee do not ask for a war song. The reply to this is that
the committee evidently mean that they don't want a mere slogan. But they
intend, of course, a hymn which may be sung whether in peace or war by every
loyal citizen. " God save the King" is not a war song in any exclusive sense,
although it calls upon the Lord to scatter the King's enemies. It may with equal
fitness be sung either going into Waterloo or at a coronation. It is of the
essence of a national hymn that it shall express fidelity to the flag at every
cost. But it is to be a song for peace and war, not for a special campaign nor a
single battle. Fidelity to the flag at every cost is necessarily, to use the
objector's phrase, " battle to the innermost fibre."
The other objection of the
Tribune is that the word in the call "patriotic" is not definite. " Two-thirds
of the country," it says, " will spit at any national hymn which raises its
lyrical orisons to the God of the oppressed and broken-hearted in bonds." What
then? The same people spit now at the
Declaration of Independence. Is it any the
less our great National manifest to the world ? What is a patriotic hymn ? It is
a hymn which recites, in inspired and majestic rhythm, the patriotic idea —the
idea of the Patria, the country. And what is the American idea? Popular
liberty—the liberty of the people. No American hymn can be, in any just sense,
patriotic, which does not express that sentiment. The Tribune calls the
Star-Spangled Banner " splendid." So it is, in idea. But what makes splendor ?
Certainly it is not its jawbreaking lines. It is the chorus which expresses the
aspiration of every loyal American heart.
"The Star-Spangled Banner—O! long
may it wave, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." Any truly
patriotic national hymn is, of necessity, the great peace song and the great war
song of the nation. It fits every emotion of the national heart. It is the
national heart-beat set to music. Don't be afraid, Tribune. The heart of America
beats with the love of liberty. Its national hymn must needs be the love song of
liberty. The Continental Congress, in resigning its functions, dedicated this
nation to " liberty" and " the rights of human nature :" and the people of the
country cry Amen!
SITTING ON GUNPOWDER.
THERE is great and natural horror
expressed by many of the treasonable papers of those who would excite servile
Who is it, then, that is exciting
servile insurrection ?
The rebellious citizens of the
United States. In what way?
By taking up arms against the
Government, and plunging into war. The slaves can not be kept ignorant of the
war, and they will ask the occasion. They will learn that their masters are
fighting against those whom they untruly and persistently call " Abolitionists."
Is it not evident, then, that unless the slaves love slavery, they will fight
against their masters in any way they can ? And is he an inciter of servile
insurrection who points out to the masters so palpable a fact ? If a man sees a
neighbor sitting upon a barrel of gunpowder and intently trying to strike a
light by scraping a match upon the side of the barrel, is he such a diabolical
fellow if he warns his neighbor that he runs great risk of blowing himself up ?
THERE were some of us who did not
expect ever to hear Mr. Edward Everett mentioned with hatred by the Southern
papers. But Mr. Everett, like every other patriotic American, stands under the
sacred flag of his country, and welcomes battle rather than anarchy and
dishonor. And the rebels do not spare him. " You!" they shriek. " You, who have
eaten such quantities of Southern dinner ! You, who have basked in the sunshine
of such a host of Southern eyes of the softer sex—do you stand by the flag and
the honor of your country ? Smooth arch-hypocrisy, thy name is Edward Everett!"
It is the ludicrous old story.
The dinner argument is strong if you are hungry, but not otherwise. Southern
dinners which have in times past been eaten by gentlemen from the North are not
better, it is generally thought, than Northern dinners which have regaled the
Southern palate. And if it be good logic that Mr. Everett must be a traitor to
his country because he has eaten the dinners of men at the South who are now
traitors, then Mr. Jefferson Davis should be the most loyal of citizens by
reason of the excellent dinners he ate when he passed the summer in faithful
Maine. There are probably degrees in this matter. If a Northern man has merely
lunched or taken pot-luck, he is perhaps expected only to hold his tongue and
not profess loyalty to his country. But if he has been the victim of a
full-dress dinner, he must declare himself a full-blown traitor.
From the incessant twaddle in
treasonable papers about the enormity of any man who has enjoyed " Southern
hospitality" venturing to have his own opinions, it might be inferred that there
had never been any " Northern hospitality ;" and that when a loyal citizen has
been invited to dine in the sunny clime of treason, it was expected that he
would eat his own manhood, conscience, patriotism, and common sense.
IF a Senator of the United States
had said in his place, two years ago, that there seemed to be some lamentable
misunderstanding, even involving civil war, between the Sepoys of India and the
rest of the British empire, he would have shown precisely the kind and extent of
intelligence which Lord Malmesbury exhibited in the English House of Peers when
he alluded to the rebellion in this country.
And if the United States
Government had gravely deliberated whether it would or would not treat the
Sepoys as belligerents, it would have done what the rebels in this country
supposed the British Government would do.
There is no such flagrant cause
of war between two Powers conceivable, as the recognition by one of a rebellious
party among the citizens of the other as an independent state. When that
rebellious party has maintained itself for a reasonable period, and has
exhibited the capacity of fulfilling the functions of a national power, it will,
of course, be (Next Page)