I have not often written to "incog." correspondents, nor should I have
the presumption now to address you, unknown to me (unless by
reputation), but that peculiar circumstances have so combined as to
induce the experiment. Your Aunt, Mrs. Tompkins, has been prostrated by
illness for many days, and, for a while, closely confined to her couch;
thus rendering it at least inconvenient to respond to your elaborate
epistle, and, having permitted me the pleasure (?) of its perusal, she
requested me to act as her Amanuensis. In compliance, then, with her
desire I shall proceed "ex abrupto" to discuss the various points you
have presented; hoping you will pardon whatever of presumption there
attaches to me in taking up a gauntlet thrown _not directly_ at my own
feet.
First, then, you deplore the deep distress that pervades our land, in
anticipation of a conflict such as the civilized world never witnessed,
and even the annals of barbarous history scarce re^cd; together with
the inevitable consequence, that, our once (though _many years ago_)
happy Union must be _for ever dissolved_. Viewing it from our
standpoint I unite my voice of lamentation with yours; for it seems
truly a mournful sight to behold, spread out to the gaze of the world,
the history of a nation's folly, written in letters of blood. But I
look at the brighter side of this distorted photograph. With the eye of
_faith_ at least I can discern the hand of _Providence_ shifting the
scenes. This may seem strange, that a partition wall should be erected
in the Temple of Liberty, once an asylum for an oppressed world. That
the "Stars and Stripes"--the (once) badge of freedom, gracing the bosom
of every sea--should be riddled from its staff and another substituted
in its stead. Not less strange, however, did thousands of good
Englishmen deem it, to behold the proud "British Lion" quail before his
foe of "the wilderness," and the "Magna Charta" rent in twain. We must
look upon it then as an exercise of God's retributive justice for our
Sins as a people, or, that He designs that He shall ultimately be the
more glorified by the separation. In the former case of course I take
it that the _North_ will receive the awful visitation, for although
offences must needs come, yet, woe be unto him through whom they come!
In the latter condition the South is destined to become what (& indeed
far more than) the whole America _once_ was to the world. This
Government was far too large to prosper well for many years; or at
least comp^d to England (prosper), France and Spain, & Russia itself;
but especially should we be divided into 2 great gov's since we have
_virtually been so_, as to our domestic institutions, and many of our
social customs, for many, many years. It is true we did exist many
years also in commercial and social prosperity, & might have continued
to maintain such a happy condition had not the "green-eyed monster,
jealousy, reared his horrid front." Yes, it was in great part
_jealousy_. You yourself have admitted (& rightly) that our great
Ancestors were wiser than we. Well when they formed the _Original
Confed^y_ they were the Rep's[3] of _Slave States_, with _one
exception_. They did not deem it _wrong_ in itself, or they would have
abolished it--at least would not have made the "Fugitive S. Law" _for
its protection_. After a while, however, it _did not pay_ to keep
Slavery in Northern climates, & it was abolished _instanter_. Why then
was it that it became such a monstrous crime in their eyes? Wherein was
the consistency? Partisans became jealous of the wealth & power of
Southern planters & South^n politicians, elevated to their power
_through their wealth_--a thing _unavoidable_ in a Republican
government. Thus, through demagogues at the North an animosity was
aroused. It slumbered long in the germ, but being assiduously cherished
from year to year it at last budded and bloomed in a clime congenial to
its nature, & is now bringing forth its venomous fruit, even to a
"hundred fold." It was the consuming of this pernicious fruit that
brought death upon our "Body Politic" and produced all our woe. Would
to God that woe should fall upon none but those who "planted & watered"
it! I am perfectly conscious and cognizant of the manner in which this
spirit of enmity has been fostered. I am a _Northern_ by _birth_ and
_education_, & can testify to that which I know. I have also been in
the _South_ sufficiently long to _know_ the sentiments of the people
here, and how they coincide (or rather disagree) with the _Northern
conceptions_ of them. I have spent almost 8 years here--certainly long
enough to learn the _character_ of the "peculiar institution" as well
as its _practical workings & effect_ on society. And as I came with
somewhat of prejudice against it, you must be frank enough to
acknowledge me a fair judge in the matter. Among the first books put
into my youthful library, was a work called _Charles Ball_, or _The
Trials of a Run-Away Slave_. This was a horrid thing, and formed an
impression on my young mind that has only with the utmost _difficulty_
been eradicated. I am conscious that its contents are false. About the
same time, & repeatedly, I was taken to witness a panorama of _Uncle
Tom's Cabin_--another book whose leaves have furnished much fuel to
infernal flames. At the same time, & ever since, I have had my ears
grated with the harsh jargon of fanatical tirades against the
institutions & people of the South. Of course then my mind was
_poisoned & prejudiced_. And this has not been _my_ political training
alone but that of a majority of your youth at the North--_no further_
North too than _Penna_. How then is it possible that the North can
entertain amicable feelings toward the South? Add to this, what you
rightly remark, that the popular mind is continually influenced by the
issues of the _Press_--an instrument that has scattered the seeds of
discord broadcast over the land. And here you either ignorantly or
designedly intimate a slander against the South. You say "all papers
have free issue at the _North & not_ so at the _South_." Now do you not
know enough of Southern affairs to see that the South by their _very
Constitution_ cannot admit _incendiary_ documents to be cast into their
midst--it were suicidal. If the South should publish papers uttering
sentiments detrimental to Northern manufactories (_in general_) & in
favor of foreign manufac's, how long would the North permit such papers
to pass into their territory? Again, just as you say you "wish that
North^n. papers could circulate South," so also _do I wish_ that I
need not _bar my doors of nights_. And both our desires could be
accomplished if _all men were honest_. But, first, as I can't expect
robbers to pass by my unbarred treasury, so I can't expect to receive
Northern papers uncrammed with _incendiary items_. Again, however, the
South^n papers have _virtually_ no circulation at the North. I have
heard men, reputable for their knowledge & conservatism even, denounce
such Publi^ns.[4] as "unworthy to be touched." In the Reading Room of
Princeton Theo. Seminary there were taken, last winter, 12 weekly
papers, and about 8 periodicals from the South & scarcely 3 of these
were touched by _any but Southern Students_ during the Session, unless
some exciting discussion were going on in their columns. Thus much as
to newspapers. I confess they have been the cause of many erroneous
impressions on both sides, but the North is no purer from crimination
on this score than the South;--one stubborn evidence of this is the
numerical dif. in pop^ln.[5]
You next remark that Abolitionism does not predominate at the North. I
admit that for many years it _did not_, but lately it has acquired an
ascendency & is now wielding its baneful influence on the minds of the
masses. It is true there are many good people there whose minds are too
pure to be tainted by such an almost infidel spirit as pervades the
breasts of Abolitionists; yet the party in power has been elevated by
such vast majorities of the people, _in that section_, that, to one
investigating the matter, it seems the public sentiment at the North
has greatly changed in the last few years. In such a country as ours--a
democratic one--the masses are governed by a few great leaders; these
leaders, whether in power or not, are still the almost despots who rule
us. Their actions give fruit and coloring to the character of the
sections over which they sway their autocratic sceptres. Who then can
doubt the Aboli^n propensities of the N. when such men as _Beecher,
Greeley, Webb, Phillips, Sumner_, & a host of kindred spirits, are the
giant levers in the machinery of their society? It will not do to say
that these are disregarded by sensible people there, for I know too
well their power for evil. I know that _Dr. Hodge_--a man whom I love
next to my Father--stated, in his article on "the state of the
Country," that he did not know of 12 abolitionists "within the circle
of his acquaintance." But the Dr. was either woefully mistaken or he
didn't consider his _pupils as belonging to that circle_; for to my
certain knowledge there were twice that number within the walls of
"Princeton" at the time he made the assertion, and many of these
avowedly such--men who, I was astonished to see, withheld their names
when the same Dr. H. came round with a petition to Congress for "the
restoration of the Mis. Comp." & the repeal of the "Personal Liberty
Bills." These young men were embryo Ministers--men whose moral
influence _must_ be _powerful_ for _good_ or for _evil_. How is it then
you can assert that the North don't want the extinction of slavery when
such men as I have mentioned exert every effort to prevent its
extension & not that only, but the _operation_ of the _fugitive S.
law?_ I am aware that you stated the _contrary_ in your letter--that
the North are ever "rigorous" in its execution; nor am I so ungallant
as to doubt your veracity; but I think you have not fully informed
yourself on this point, else you would have learned that in scarcely an
isolated case has the Master ever recovered his property without being
put to more expense & trouble than the negro was worth; although I am
free to admit, that at the same time it cost the U.S. gov. an equal if
not greater Amount. Of course I refer to those negroes who have _not
merely_ crossed the _limits_ of a Slave State, & thus been caught, but
gone some distance North. Now the obligation to restore a fugitive
Slave is a _constitu^l. & moral obligation;_ and those laws designed to
prevent such restoration are unconst^l & criminal--and worthy of all
condem^n.--and unbecoming the dignity of any Sov^n. State. If people of
any State can't conscientiously submit to the Constitution there are
only 2 courses: they should endeavor to have it peaceably altered, or
should _move out of the Country_. This is the opinion of the most
learned and liberal men. _They have no right_ to live under the
protec^n. of a Const^n. & yet _refuse_ to submit to its _stipulations_.
True enough, as you say, the North wish _not_ to have the Negroes set
free _in their midst_, to overrun and disturb them--this they declare
by their actions, for they take no care for or interest in the poor
free (almost) brutes in their midst;--yet how soon will they be ready
to _resist_ you most violently should you attempt to take even one of
them back, from his then wretched abode, to his former happier place in
the service of a kind Master? "Oh! consistency, thou art a jewel!" This
then has been _one_ of the _two great causes_ of the present troubles.
The other--the denial of equal rights in the Territories--is still a
_greater_, because it involves a principle; the former was more a
matter of personal interest. The territories being purchased in common,
were the com. pos. of North and South. Each had a Const^l right to
emigrate thither _with their property_ & demand for it the protection
_afforded by_ the Const^n. It became, in course of time, a matter of
dispute whether the South could take their slaves there as _property_.
(As a matter of course this arose from _jealousy_--the N. having no
such prop, to take.) This great quest. was decided, however, by the
_Chief Justice_ in the highest Tribunal in the world, in favor of the
South; viz. that _slaves were property_. I refer to the "Dred Scott"
Case. This should have been sufficient, as it came from the highest
authority in the Gov^t. But some parties and people are _never
satisfied_. Full in the face of this high official the Repub^n Party
declare by their _Platform orators, & Press_, that slavery shall never
enter another foot of territory. Now if the South admit this principle
they acknowledge their inferiority to the North--an act that, even in
the eyes of the North, would not comport with their dignity & honor as
an independent & free people. The South being thus _oppressed_ then I
assert they have a right (not to secede, for no such right exists in my
conception, as it would be an element _subversive_ of any, & especially
of a Repub^ln gov.,) _to revolt_--a right inherent in & beyond the
control of all earthly govern^ts. Yes I coincide with the great Lord
Chatham when he says that "_Rebellion_ against _oppression_ is
_obedience_ to _God_." Our Ancestors rebelled against the tyranny of
British usurpation, & the Texans revolted against a like despotism
exercised by a Mexican Autocrat. Why then are the _Sovereign_ States of
_America_ not justifiable in throwing off the yoke or rather resisting
_to have put upon them_, the yoke, of Northern Tyranny? To make the
argument still clearer, however, as to the Territories, let us
illustrate it: Suppose a Repub^n. Congress decides that slavery shan't
be _protected_ in the _Ter._ as _prop_. I take my slave thither. An
indictment is brought against me. I am tried and condemned by the
territorial court. I appeal from its decision to the Sup. Court of the
U.S. What then? From _analogy_ I conclude that I shall be acquitted,
i.e., recover my property. For one Chief Justice has already decided
thus; and is not his decision final? Here then is an end of the matter;
since the Sup. Court is the Sole Arbiter in determining the
_Constitutionality_ of any of Congress' acts.
As to the North not making use of _slanderous epithets_ against the
South, I know nothing about _your particular section_ of the North, but
I do know that when I have been in Penna. & N.J., I have heard all
classes utter the vilest insinuations against the people of the South
_indiscriminately_. Yes, it often seemed as if they could find no
language too harsh, no comparison too base, no denunciation too bitter
to apply to those whom in their ignorance they deemed their inferiors
in wisdom and sense. Such have I heard from the lips of distinguished
citizens in all departments & professions of life. Even hoary-headed
ministers have entered the sacred desk with their MSS. reeking with
filth from the cesspool of political slander. Dr. Brown, with whom you
are doubtless acqu^td, is now in Phila^d. at the Gen. Assem. of the
Pres. Ch. He wrote home lately that he never saw a mob that made use of
viler language than did the best of citizens there in their denouncings
of the South. I confess, however, that this is not a _one-sided_
affair; for I have heard equally abusive language applied to the North
by the people South. As before, then, let us "strike hands" on this
point also, for both sections are equally culpable. As to the
_strength_ of _individuals_ in the two sections, it must be tested on
the battle-field, and there alone. Our war of words can never decide
anything on this point. I should be sorry to admit the men in the North
could not fight, had they a real enemy to contend against--a war of
"_justice, reason_, or _humanity_" to wage. But to arm themselves
against their brethren, and in such an unholy cause as that in which
they are engaged now, I must confess that their true metal can never be
exhibited. _One_ man whose heart is in the war can always conquer _two_
who are fighting from some _impure motive_. And now let me candidly ask
you to as candidly tell me whether or not you _think_ after _seeing_
the thing progress thus far, and having, as you say, been, & still
continue to be, well-informed as to apper^ns on _both sides_, the North
are engaged in the cause of "Justice." Admitting that some of them are
actuated by pure and lofty motives, do you not acknowledge that the
_vast majority_ are _blinded_ by _prejudice, led on_ by a desire for
_military fame_, prompted by the _prospect_ of _plunder_, or actuated
by the still more ----? but I refrain--my very pen shudders at the
thought of expressing myself further. Yes, I think you must confess
that is the case. I refer, of course, to the Armies of Lincoln _thus
far_ made up. Are they not composed of a _Mercenary horde_, made up
generally of the lowest rabble of the Country, & thousands of those
thrown out of employment in the manufacturing cities--who have resorted
to camp-life for self-sustenance--indeed _their only resource?_ Whether
you admit this or not, it is emphatically true to a great extent, for
the Northern papers themselves have made such statements as would lead
me to believe so, & more, I have correspondents in the North, who
confirm my suspicions on this score. My own Father who does not justify
the attack on Sumter, yet denounces Lin's army as a set of _Murderers!_
He lives in Penna. & this is the opinion of many good citizens there.
And now can such men be justified in their present purposes and
activities? If so, upon what principles? We have sh^n. that it is not
in accordance with sound reason & the "inexorable logic" of the
Constitution, since that noble edifice was attacked in two points
simultaneously by the Repub^cn party: 1°. by abrogating the Fugitive
Slave Law; 2°. by depriving the South of eq^l rights in the
Territories. These are 2 points in which the North has transgressed the
limits of immutable Justice, and nothing which is unjust can be
_reasonable_, for, they (Just. & Reas.) are twin sisters. Moreover, the
Bible justifies no war but that of self-defence. Then are the North
invaded? No, nor never will be, by the South, for all they ask is peace
within their borders. While they hold in one hand the sword of
self-defence, they present the "Olive Branch" with the other; and so
God grant it _may be ever_.
You lament the inconceivable disasters "inaugurated by the attack on
Sumter." True enough they may have been _inaugurated_ by that _act_,
but their unconcealed cause lies _far_ back of that, as we have shown.
That was only a raising of the curtain, or rather a forcing of it to be
raised by the Abolitionists--a beginning of the bloody drama. Who
caused the attack? What meant those _human cargoes_ that approached so
close to its walls the day before the battle? Why did the worthy (?)
Lincoln so long deceive the South^rn Commissioners by promise after
promise not to make war, but to _evacuate_ the fort, & meet them, as a
sensible Pres. would have done, in friendly negotiation for peace? S.C.
was right, and acted nobly in the affair, and was as justifiable
therein, as was _Anderson_ in occupying the Fort _before_ he had a
reason for doing so, declaring by his overt act that the U.S. forces
under him were at _enmity_ with S.C. But then you say S.C. should have
_first tried_ Lincoln before determining to secede. I think she saw
with prophetic vision the end from the beginning. She took Lincoln at
his word--that itself was oppression & tyranny sufficient to burst
asunder the closest ties of Union that could exist in any Country. You
say we sh^d. give everything a fair trial. I disagree. If I saw a
_serpent_ in my path & it sh^d. attempt to make battle, or declare its
hostility by displaying its horrid fangs, do you think I would coolly
stand by & give it a fair trial, & test its friendship? I would be
impelled, even had I never seen or heard of such a creature before, to
crush it immediately, & so S.C. has sensibly said to the Administration
"_Serpent, bite a file!_" As to your Eulogium on Lincoln I have not
much to say. If he pleases you, well enough, you're easily satisfied.
_I_ take it that he is a disgrace to the Chair he occupies; and to
judge from his conversations, he is devoid of all sense of refinement &
etiquette; to look at his executive powers as displayed thus far, he
had better be _a Bey_ than helmsman of the "Old Ship"; and what of his
_efforts_ at speeches? In the language of Logan, "I appeal to any white
man" to say if they would not be a disgrace to many a "Country
'Squire"! And yet such a man elevated to the highest position in the
gift of the American people! There was a time when the soundest and
most learned men of the land were made Presidents, now a man's capacity
for the office seems to depend on the meanness of his intellect & the
_number of rails he can split in a day_. And so great were his "maul &
wedge" propensities that he withheld not his hand from splitting the
Tree of Liberty. But let us inquire upon which side "_humanity_" stands
in this contest. You complain much of several (local) depredations
com^td by South on private _boats_ &c. I ask, in candor, if it was not
in retaliation for like outrages com^td by the North. I am certain as
to its being so in several cases. The very 1st boat thus ill-treated
was one belonging to the South on its way down the Miss. & attacked at
Cairo. To retaliate they determined to attack _North^en boats coming up
the river_. And what have your noble _Ohioans_ done lately & repeatedly
with our _Ka._ boats at _Gallipolis_? Thrice have they overhauled the
same boat and twice kept every pound of freight on her timbers. But
this is not all; your _humane Lincoln_ has closed the Southern ports, &
is daily _robbing vessels_ on their way in & out of the same. During
the last week he stole $150,000 worth of Southern Tobacco, & thus the
programme continues. _Very humane indeed!_ Again, he is _no invader!_
No indeed! by no means! yet hundreds of Citizens are now fleeing from
Wheeling, & other towns invaded, for personal safety. Scarce a day
passes but some one stops here who has thus escaped. If they remain on
their own soil and round their proper hearthstone the (very) humane
doom of a murderer awaits them! The North don't intend to make invasion
at all, yet _4000 F^l_ troops are now in _Parkersburg_, breaking up
printing presses, putting innocent people in jail, and doing other
_humane_ acts, "too numerous to mention." According to my letter from
Father I understand they don't have the first principles of _Civilized
warfare_--they intend to _hang_ all their prisoners. Oh! _humanity!_
HUMANITY!
And now that we have seen that neither Reason, Justice, nor Humanity is
on the side of the North, let us look at the subject in the light of
_Expediency_, admitting, for the sake of argument the while, that it
_were_ right or just to wage the war. And viewing it from this
standpoint, we ask, what does the North expect to _gain_ by it? Does
there live a man so lost to reason & common sense as to imagine that
the Union of the seceded States with the N.S. can ever be effected
again? _And if it could be done by force_, how long could a Repub^n
Gov. exist as a military despotism? And who would not prefer
_banishment_ or _death_ to _such_ a _life?_ What Satisfac^n could the
North themselves have in such an event? They would live a life of
misery; provoke the sneers of the civilized world; and draw down upon
their heads the terrible wrath of an offended God.
But this war will _not_ be permitted _thus to terminate_, the South can
_never be conquered_. You yourself know their "_spirit_" too well to
believe otherwise. Rather than be _subjugated_ they will _die_ a
_triple death_. Like their mighty _Henry_ they cry, "Give us liberty or
give us _death!_" And still more _I_ don't think they can be
_exterminated. 8,000,000_ of people, armed in the holy cause of
self-defence; struggling for their _liberties, honor, interests, &
lives_, with a laudable ambition, & an _unyielding perseverance_, are
_invincible_ by any force the North can raise to send against them.
Besides (to continue the sentiments of Henry), the battle is not to the
_strong_ alone, it is to the _vigilant, the active_, the _brave_.
Especially so when, as I said before, the forces of Lincoln are not
composed generally of men of the first rank of Society (except a few
Officers desirous of Fame), but the "offscouring" & rabble of the
land--men who have nothing at stake, not even their own lives we might
say, since they care so little for anything. So that notwithstanding
the immense number (and here let me remind you of the _disparity_ of
_forces_, of which you said so much, at _Sumter_)--"stubborn facts"--of
which you speak, the South has nothing to fear. And, moreover, as
certainly as I believe there exists a God of Justice & Mercy, so
certainly & conscientiously do I believe He will defend the South from
the Vandals of the North. Yes, dark as they seem, the clouds of gloom
do not shut out the star of hope, and they are beginning to be spanned
by a radiant bow of promise; the fall of _Ellsworth_ & the shattered
walls of the _once presumed impreg^ble_ Sumter, abundantly testify that
_God_ is on their side, and "if the Lord be _for_ them, _who can be
against_ them?" So I heartily say "God speed" them--they shall have my
prayers.--But let us take one more glance at the _expediency_ of this
matter. Are not the North fighting for a Patroclus' grave in this
struggle? What matters an _abstract banner?_ especially to the _"matter
of fact" Yankee?_ And then behold the inconsistency of the North in
another point; they have through their Representatives, for many years,
cried "_no more slave_ territory"; and indeed many of them, such as
Seward &c., have declared that slavery _must be abolished_, as both
can't exist under the _same gov.;_ yet, _now_ they are _fighting to the
death_ to _keep_ or _get back slave territory!!!_ "Oh! consistency!"
And, _finally_, at this point, will it not cost _myriads_ of _lives &
millions_ of _money_ to accomplish their infernal designs, even _could_
they do it? And can the North afford this? Even now it is costing
_Lincoln's Anarchy_ (for I can't call it _gov._) _$1,000,000_ per
day--a _matter_ of _record!_ Suppose then the war sh^d last a year,
what then? Union or dis-union? Alas, _farther separation_. Continue it
then two years more. What then? _Ditto & ditto_ it will _be_ should it
last as long as the "_War of the Roses_," for we have no houses of York
& Lancaster to _unite_, sign and settle the dispute by marriage--_one_
or _both_ annihilated!--And now I ask how, in the name of Reason,
Justice, or Humanity, can you lift up your voice in defence of the
North when they are the cause of all this accumulating misery?--when
they have deprived the South of her Consti^tn rights, driven her to the
necessity of a separation, and now raise their arm against her as an
enemy, declaring either to subjugate her, to overrun her with their
vandal hordes, or exterminate from her soil every living creature?--&
when, "Oh bloodiest picture in the book of time!" they are ready to
repeat with a triple vengeance the untold horrors of the Spanish
Inquisition? They are madly, blindly rushing, they know not where. The
blame of dissolution rests upon her. And the still more awful
responsibility of a civil war will hang as an everlasting incubus upon
her shoulders. Then let her beware ere she "_cross the Rubicon_"--let
her "pause long upon its brink." And shall we all perish by her
fratricidal hand? Shall the blood, shed by brother in deadly war with
brother, flow ignominiously through our rivers to the ocean & be
carried by its waves to stain the shores of Nations that for long years
have been centring their fond hopes on America as the _grand ideal_ of
the gov. they too would some day enjoy? Shall such hopes be blasted as
soon as fondly cherished? and now that Italy has trampled upon the
tyrannical "Mitre"--torn from her long subdued neck the yoke of Papal
bondage--passed from the darkness of superstitious bondage into the
light of religious freedom, shall we sink back to what she was, by
casting ourselves into the whirlpool of civil war? Shall we not only
put out, but shatter, the lamp of liberty, a lamp whose effulgence was
beginning to scatter the shades of despotism from off the earth? Shall
we extinguish the brightest star in the constellation of human freedom?
The united voices of Humanity, Justice, & Reason answer, _No!_ The
cries of myriad free men living, & of millions yet unborn, rend the air
with a universal negative! and from the vaulted canopy of heaven there
swells back the solemn echo, "_God forbid!_" As if augmented by the
mournful strain of 10,000 angels hovering in amazement over the
conflicting scene! _Oh! then let the North beware!_
Mrs. Tompkins says that if _you_ can justify your Bro. Ulysses in
drawing his sword against those connected by the ties of blood, and
even boast of it, you are at liberty to do so, _but she can not_. And
should one of those kindred be stricken down by his sword the awful
judgment of God will be meted out to him, &, if not repented of, the
hot thunderbolts of His wrath will blaze round his soul through
eternity. On the contrary, if the _vice versa_ should occur, she thinks
"those kin" would be justified, because in _self-defence_. As to Mr.
_John Marshall's_ being _promoted_ in the army of Lincoln, she thinks
_that fact explains itself:_ he spent much of his time _previously_
seeking, or at least _expecting, promotion_, & failing in a _laudable
way_,--in defence of his own kindred & the home of his bosom
companion!--he resorted to _Yankeedom_, and sold as it were his
birthright for a mess of Abolition pottage. This helps confirm my view,
that many take positions in Lincoln's Army with the expectation of
military promotion, & the hope of an easy conquest of the South. Oh,
how deluded! But as for many of them, "God forgive them, for they _know
not what they do_."
But I must bring these desultory remarks to a break-off. So, begging
pardon once more for transgressing the limits of formality, and hoping
you may live to see the verification of many of my remarks, I have the
pleasure of signing myself