previous next


Further from the North.

We give the following interesting extracts from Northern papers, of the 20th. They will be found very interesting:


The Confederates at the Chambersburg bank.

Mr. Ancher Smith, the Cashier of the Chambersburg Bank, was in Chambersburg at the time the rebels entered the town, and has furnished the following particulars regarding occurrences that came under his personal observation during the occupancy of the town by them. Mr. Smith was in the bank about 6 o'clock on the evening of October 10th, attending to some business connected with the institution and in company with two of the bank clerks.

He at first thought about packing up and making his exit with his family from the town. He proceeded to the balcony of the bank, in company with the two clerks, and had-scarcely arrived there before about sixteen hundred cavalry occupied the streets, filling them completely.

Shortly afterwards, an officer of very fine appearance and splendidly dressed came up and asked him if he was connected with the bank. He stated he was the Cashier. He was then asked if the gentlemen with him were also connected with the institution (alluding to the two clerks.) He replied in the affirmative. The officer, whose manner throughout was very polite and considerate, stated that it would be necessary for him to examine the bank, and immediately stationed guards around it.

On entering the institution, accompanied by a guard and the cashier and clerks, he asked if any valuables were deposited there. Mr. Smith said there had been, but hearing the rebels were in the neighborhood they had all been removed from the town. The officer then asked Mr. Smith if he knew who he was: on being replied in the negative, he said, ‘"I am Col. Butler, of South Carolina. I am instructed to make an examination of the bank, and report to Gen. Stuart my success."’ The guard placed over the bank were all South Carolina troops, belonging to the Hampton Legion. They were all well dressed, and generally speaking fine looking men. Shortly afterwards Col. Butler said, ‘"I understood before coming that the money had all been removed, but I hear there are some Government securities still in the bank."’ He then asked for the keys, which were reluctantly delivered, and the examination proceeded with. Mr. Smith informed him there were no Government securities, and the examination made was of a very slight character. All the doors were opened, and Col. Butler merely looked in, without making a very minute search.

In one portion of the bank about two hundred dollars in specie was discovered, which the Colonel passed by, remarking that he would no, disturb it, and that he had more than that in his possession at the time. During the conversation that ensued, and throughout which the rebel Colonel was very affable and polite, he asked Mr. Smith if he was married. Mr. Smith said he was, and intimated that his family was close at hand. Colonel Butler told him that his family should not be harmed, and desired him to quiet the fears of any citizens he met with, and desired him to report any misconduct of the troops under his command. After some further conversation the Colonel left the bank.


The position of Kentucky--a public meeting.

The Louisville Journal has the following account of a public meeting in Kentucky, held to consider the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln:

‘ A meeting was held in Frankfort on Saturday last, the proceedings of which, when received, will prove of interest to errant residents of the capital city. The meeting was called to consider the late emancipation proclamation of the President, and was addressed by Messrs. Thomas A. Lindsay, Lysander Morde, George W. Craddock, John Rodmay, D. B. Sayce, Lewis E. Harvre, and others, all of whom were severe in their denunciation of the President, and positive in their declaration of secession sentiments. A series of resolutions, asking President Lincoln to modify his proclamation in such manner as to suit the views of Southern Rights men, were proposed, but subsequently an amendment was offered and passed proposing all sorts of resistance to the President's plans. Craddock declared himself an original secessionist, and his fellow speakers wished to be considered quite as rebellious as Craddock. We will await the official proceedings of the meeting with much interest.

’ The Louisville correspondent of the Chicago Times says of this:

‘ To the readers of the Times it may not probably be necessary to say that Frankfort is the State capital, or was so until this invasion, when the capital was temporarily removed to this city. It may not be so well known who the gentlemen who figured at this meeting are. They are all prominent and well-known citizens of Central Kentucky, and, until this time, have never been suspected of faltering in their allegiance to the Government.

Is not the illustration a fair one of the change coming over the minds of the people of this State? Is not the cause of this change plainly stated?

There are other facts connected with the circulation of the President's proclamation in this State, and its effect, that are equally distinct and startling.

Previous to the appearance of the proclamation the rebels were everywhere met with a cold shoulder. They were not wanted here, and the people took pains to make them know it. They complained of their treatment — complained as Lee complained of his treatment in Maryland; they got no recruits; they were disappointed and vexed. All their labor and their pains were lost.

But the President's proclamation changed things wonderfully. It inspired them with fresh courage, just in the same proportion that it inspired the people of Kentucky with deep despondency and gloom. It was precisely the weapon they wanted. They seized it quickly and wielded it dexterously. Behold the result: twenty-three thousand recruits to the rebel cause. These are the figures, not made up for sensation newspaper reports, but furnished officially to the rebel War Department at Richmond.

Is not the President's proclamation rather a costly luxury to the country? Will it not be so, at any rate, if, when the gallant Buell shall have once more driven the rebel armies from this State, he shall have to waste his noble army of one hundred thousand men in posting guards in the several towns and cities to hold the people in subjection?


Daniel S. Dickinson — his past and present position.

The New York World publishes a communication giving some facts of interest about ‘"Hon."’ Daniel S. Dickinson, the most unmitigated hypocrite in the North. The writer, speaking of his position before the Charleston and Baltimore Conventions, says:

‘ He had some friends in the South, with whom he corresponded on this subject. The writer of this has had the honor to read some of those letters.--The honorable gentleman asked the votes of the Southern delegation on the ground of his firm adhesion to the constitutional rights of the South, and his uncompromising opposition to the abolitionists. (Should this letter chance to fall into the hands of Mr. Dickinson I wish to say to him as an apology for its publication, ‘"It is for the good of the country."’) He wrote letters to the Hon Andrew Ewing, J. S. Billings, and others of Nashville, Tenn., avowing his earnest support of the Constitution, and all its guarantees. Mr. Dickinson calculated largely upon the vote of Southern Democrats. His firm friends, Hon. Andrew Ewing, was chairman of the Tennessee delegation. At Baltimore the out-cropping of secession war too plain to be misunderstood Mr. Dickinson saw no chance to defeat the great and patriotic Douglas before that Convention. The delegation was hesitating, when Mr. Ewing received a letter from Mr. Dickinson, in which he said: ‘"Secede from the Convention, and I will go with you."’ The seceding delegates did not nominate Mr. Dickinson. Ewing and other delegates went home and proclaimed that ‘"Dickinson advised the secession."’ In March, after the inauguration, Mr. Ewing was asked to join the Union men in a meeting in Nashville. He replied: ‘"I want the North to see that we intend to fight — Dickinson is with us. I will have nothing to do with a Union meeting. "’ Notice the expression: ‘"Dickinson is with us !"’ I do not pretend to say that Dickinson was a Secessionist in March, 1861, but he had left the impression that he was.--Whether he was or not, he exerted a strong influence in favor of secession. There is no telling what a disappointed, ambitious office seeker will do. This was his position. What is it now? He now assumes a new position. He has thrown off the Democratic shackles of the Constitution which he once said was the supreme law of the land. He ignores that instrument, and takes strong ground for the ‘"higher lawism"’ of the Abolitionists. He is no longer a Democrat but an Abolitionist.


Letter from Bishop Gen, Polk.

The following is an extract from the letter written by Bishop General Polk to Hon. Garrett Davis whith was introduced in the Episcopal Convention, recently in session at Brooklyn, N. Y., by Dr. Vinton, on Monday, as one of the evidences proving that the Southern churchmen were ‘"earnest, conscientious, resolute,"’ in the course which has been pursued:

Columbus, Ky. Jan. 28th, 1862.
Hon. Garrett Davis, Washington city:
Sir: I have just received your speech on the subject of Mr. Bright's letter. I blush for my manhood when I come to reflect that the tongue and lips, and heart, and mind that uttered the sentiments in that speech were raised and nourished in a land of God's word, of Christ's teachings, and free Government. How strange you should see and speak no truthfully one moment and the next so falsely! Oh, vanity, vanity — self, self — me and mine! What praise and encomium you have for all other people who have tried to obtain their freedom save and except only us poor thr damned cavaliers!

Mr. Davis, don't you know that no nation ever yet could consent to and understand and acknowledge frankly before God and the world — that any portion thereof was ever oppressed or deserved any more freedom than they ? England thought thus of all these colonies, and fought seven years to prevent it. The United State with means and desperation unknown to nations, to prevent 12 or 13 States (or colonies) from leaving a Government which they never joined permanently and for all time, but which has most speedily become the most despotic, tyrannical, oppressive and burdensome of any nation within my knowledge. Now, this oppression I feel know, and experience, and utter the fact. You assume the tyrant's power, and tell me that what I say is not true. What despotic Ruler or Government on earth does less? Answer me this, you miserable dinner before God.

Well may you say that true hearts would join hands with England rather than ever again live with our bitterest, inhuman enemies. Yes, bless God! Old England shall have us, she will have us, and with twelve millions of ‘"Amens,"’ long before we will be again subjects of Infidel Puritans. Rationalists, and Ravishers of our mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters! Free Government in the Northern States never was understood never was appreciated existed only by a (Garter) consent for a time. It ended the day armed vessels were filled out to kill innocent people unless they longer submitted to the yoke — and burden even $56,000,000 per annum — and he slandered in public halls by public speakers. The Puritan Infidels succeeded for a time, and went under afterward.


Horace Greeley on secession — he Contends for the Rights of sovereign States.

By the irregularities of the mails between the Confederate States and their Northern brethren, we often miss some very spicy items which are not contained in the ‘"very latest" ’ Northern papers — A friend has furnished us with a copy of the New York Herald of the 27th of September, from which it appears that the day before Horace Greeley appeared in the Tribune as an advocate of secession. The following is the article from the Herald:

‘ In yesterday's Tribune, over his own proper signature, Horace Greeley published a letter to which he declares is favor of the right of secession, no only in the easy of the rebellions States of the South, but even of the Pacific States and Territories, should they desire to set up a new Government for themselves He down this general principle, applicable to every State in the Unions‘" I have taught and believed, and still maintain, is the right of a people to form and modify their political institutions without the necessity of fighting for such change."’ He denies that a county, or two or three counties, can lawfully secede from a State.--For example, the people of Nantucket could not be permitted to secede from Massachusetts, nor the people of Long Island or Staten Island from the State of New York. But the case is different with a sovereign State, or even a colony which is not sovereign. For example, he says, ‘ "I believe our revolutionary fathers had a right, for reasons which were cogent and seamed to them conclusive, to terminate their connection with Great Britain, and that the British were wrong in roasting their claim to do so. And the right which I claim for our fathers and for ourselves I will not deny to others."’

’ Then he goes on to say that ‘"if the people of our Pacific States and Territories shall at some future time have very generally attained the conviction that they could do better as an independent nation than as a part of this country, and should kindly, frankly, firmly express that conviction,"’ he would say let the bonds be dissolved. And so like wise in the case of the Southern States. The following are his words:

‘ "This is the doctrine I tried to promulgate in the winter of 1860-61--it seems with ill success. But I still insist that if it had been proved that the people of the slave States--or even of the cotton States alone — had really desired to dissolve the Union, and had peacefully, deliberately and authoritatively expressed that wish, we should have assented to it. At all events, I should. But they chose another method. The leaders assumed their right peacefully and summarily to dissolve the Union without the consent of their fellow citizens — at least their close allies, their equal copartners of the free States."

’ It is said that an honest confession is good for the soul. Greeley had owned up at last. Many a time we charged him with promulgating these doctrines and quoted extracts from his journal in vain. He either denied the soft impeachment or was dumb. Now, after contributing in so vast a degree to break up the Union, he expects forgiveness for his treason, like the penitent thief on the cross; but his repentance is not sincere. Let him, therefore, like Judas- iscariot go and hang himself ‘"on a sour apple-tree,"’ so as to save the people the trouble of doing it hereafter. If the right of a State peacefully to secede exists, the accident of war cannot alter the right; and if the cotton States had a right to secede on the ground that they had ‘"very generally attained the conviction that they could do better as an independent nation than as a part of this country,"’ then we had no right to prevent their doing so by force, and were the aggressors in making war upon them, whereas, in taking up arms they were only defending a sacred right.--Even in the case of seizing the forts and other property of the United States, they were only seizing a part of the common property, to which they had as good a right as the free States, ‘"their equal copartners."’ If this was all that was the matter, the account could have been easily settled and war would not have been necessary. In fact, the war, according to the reasoning of Greeley, it on our part the most atrocious ever waged against any people, and even more unjustifiable than that which Great Britain waged against these States when they were colonies under her sovereign away and threw off her yoke. There can be no doubt that the people of the States which have seceded are more unanimous than were the colonies at any time during the revolutionary war.

is is very evident that Greeley is of the same opinion now that he was in the winter of 1860-61; that the Union is not an indissoluble Government, but a rope of sand; that it may at any time be broken up like a partnership, and that he is in favor of the dissolution if the South really wants to go. This appears more clearly from an editorial article in yesterday's Tribune, headed ‘"inklings of Peace,"’ in which he says, ‘"There must be an accommodation, (between the North and the South) and, that fact established, it seems to us very easy to settle the terms." ’ So, then, all the blood that has been shed, and all the money that has been expended, and all the sorrow and calamity that have befallen the country, are in vain, and Greeley is willing to let the South go, even without the emancipation of a single negro. We submit to the President whether this article and the letter of Greeley to McChesney do not come under the prohibitions of the last proclamation of the President, and whether the writer ought not to be seized by Provost Marshal Kennedy and sent to Fort Lafayette as a ‘"disloyal person,"’ ‘"discouraging volunteer enlistments, and thus affording aid and comfort to the rebels."’


The meeting of the Governors at Altoona, and what they proposed to do.

The People's State Convention met in Boston on the 7th instant. Among the addresses was one delivered by Hon. Joel Parker, from which we make the annexed extract. The remarks of Mr. Saltonstall in regard to the proposition to remove General McClellan, are also given. Mr. Parker, speaking of the Gubernatorial caucus, says:

‘ And here, at the outset, I desire to express my emphatic and unqualified condemnation of that and all similar meetings, whatever may be their ostensible or real objects, as unwarrantable assemblages, tending to disorganization and mischief.

It has been represented that this was a most patriotic gathering, for the purpose of consultation respecting the best mode of aiding the Government in carrying on the war. Grant it for a moment, for the sake of the argument. The Constitution recognizes no necessity for such assemblages and consultations. On the contrary, the Constitution of the United States forbids a State to enter into any agreement or compact with another State. Now, if an agreement of Governors of States, respecting what each will do as Governor of his State in certain cases, or in relation to any proposed action, is not strictly and technically an agreement of the States which they represent, it is substantially of the same character, and tends to the same mischief. If it does not bind the State, it will control the action of the party who made it, as Governor, representing his State; and it will be carried into effect by him, as Governor, as if it were an agreement or compact of the State.

If Governors may meet and combine for one purpose, they may for another. If they may agree, as Governors, to support the Administration of the National Government, they may as readily agree, as Governors, that they will oppose it. And thus we have a precedent by which ‘"loyal Governors"’ may combine to control the action of the constituted head of the nation, and reduce the President to the necessity of administering the Government according to their loyal ideas and policy, instead of his own convictions of his constitutional duty.

If I had time, I should be pleased to follow out an exposition of the evil consequences which may attach themselves to such a precedent, even if the precedent had none but the best Intentions. But let us inquire whether this meeting of the Governors at Altoona is entitled to the very harmless and patriotic character which has been claimed for it.

If, instead of a meeting to aid the President in such measures as he, the constitutional commander in-chief, should deem advisable in order to carry on the war and suppress the rebellion, it shall appear that the design, purpose and effect of it, was to control his action; compel him to adopt their policy in the prosecution of the war; to select a military commander of their choice, and to issue such proclamation or proclamations as they should dictate — if all or any of these things were the object of that assemblage, then the vocabulary may be remarked to find fitting terms of reprobation.

Great surprise was manifested upon the receipt of the proclamation, because it was so perfectly manifest that it was ineffective for the purpose for which it was apparently issued, and was so capable of being made an instrument of mischief. That surprise was not lessened, but was increased tenfold, when it was found that but little more then a week before it was issued the President himself not only understood that a proclamation of emancipation was ineffective for the purposes of the war, but that he had the gravest doubts of his authority to issue each a and at the same time, that there was a great

And the to which he resorted to relieve himself

Judge then referred to Mr. Greeley's letter to the President, dated August 20th, and the reply of the President, two days later; and to the that on the 25th of that month, a call was issued in New York for a mass war meeting, to be held on the 27th, at which a national war committee was appointed, who, on the first week of September, met certain Governors of the New England States at the commencement of the Brown University--all of them seized, as the speaker said, with an irresistible desire to participate in the literary ever of that occasion. The next day (the 4th of September) this war committee, having held a ion with the literary loyal Governors of New Dogland, sent a dispatch to the Secretary of War, asking him to authorize the organization of a corps of 50,000 men, to be commanded by General Fremont or General Mitchell. How powerful such an army would have been to put down discussion, if it had pleased the Governors of the free States to use an enginery against free speech instead of against the rebels, the Convention could judge.--Fortunately, the Government declined to accede to the proposition. Next came the call, on the 14th of September, for the Convention of the loyal Governors on the top of the Alleghenies, to be held on the 24th of September. The object of this meeting, Judge Parker argued, was not for the purpose of making any such suggestions to the Executive as are bed in their address, which could have been as well made without their leaving their respective capitals, but for the purpose of bringing an influence to near upon the President which should compel him to remove Gen. McClellan from the command of the army, and also to issue a proclamation of emancipation. In support of this theory the Judge read extracts from a dispatch in the New York Tribune and from the Washington correspondence of the Boston Traveller; and while upon this point of his speech the President requested him to give way for a moment, that Mr. Saltonstall might furnish a little evidence in confirmation of the opinion cypresses by the Judge.

Mr. Saltonstall--Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand a letter which gives the authority of one of the Governors who was present at the famous convention of loyal Governors at Altoona, giving me the right to say that there was a formal proposition made there to remove Gen. McClellan from his command.

Voices Name the Governor.

Mr. Saltonstall--Governor Bradford, of Maryland. [Loud applause.]

Count Johannes--One groan for Gov. Andrew.

A Voice — What Governor offered that proposition?

Mr. Saltonstall--Gov. Bradford explicitly says that he is not authorized at present, or does not wish to give the name; but that there was — and this is all I say — a formal proposition made in that convention for the removal of Gen. McClellan; and it is for this gathering, or any other assembly of the people, to imagine by whom. [The audience showed by their applause and shouts of derision that they inferred from Mr. Saltonstall's statement that Gov. Andrew was the person referred to.]

Judge Parker continued his remarks.


Resistance to the enrollment in Luzerne county, Pa.

The Carbondale Advance says:

‘ We have melancholy news from Archbald. A death has resulted from a renewed effort to take the enrollment at that place. We published, two weeks since, an account of the manner in which the enrolling officer and four or five of his assistants had been driven from the town bloody and bruised. We learned about noon yesterday, that the enrolling officers had arrived upon the ground with a large posse, unarmed, for the purpose of taking the enrollment peaceably if they could, but with a company of militia in attendance, armed to execute the law forcibly if they must. During the afternoon six women were arrested for disturbing the peace, and sent to jail at Wilkesbarre. No serious difficulty, however, occurred until the officers were returning from their day's business to the hotel. A riot then occurred, with these results; Patrick Gillmartin, killed, received about ten shots. His wife was badly wounded. Patrick Colegar, shot through the hand; Michael Caffrey, severely wounded with these balls, and John Caffrey with two balls. Several others slightly wounded. None of the militia were hurt.


England and the Confederate Navy.

The New York Times devotes some attention to an article from the Liverpool Post, showing that ‘"an iron plated ram for the Confederates"’ is being built on the Mersey, that a vessel was then lying at Brunswick dock with a cargo of iron plates on board to be brought out to Charleston, to be fastened on other vessels, and that ‘"other contracts"’ had been committed to ‘ "English ship-builders"’ of a like character. In reply to the Post's remark, that ‘"it seems very clear, from the present vigorous conduct of the Southern Confederacy, that the South, at no distant period, will posses an iron-clad fleet capable of coping as successfully with that of the North as its armies have triumphantly met those of the Federal Government,"’ the Times says:

‘ There is but one observation that will spring to every lip in comment on these extraordinary facts, and that is that Confederate energy, Confederate talent, and Confederate money, are not producing these Confederate war ships Confederate money has not sustained the contraband trade of English ships to Southern ports hitherto; for the numerous prizes made of such by our gunboats have bankrupted some of the heaviest shippers of England, and made others shake in the wind.

No, no; this pretence will not do. The fast must stand apparent booths world, that a great combination of British capital has been made, embracing, without doubt, the shipping, the manufacturing, and the political interests of the kingdom, for the purpose of giving success to the American rebellion.--And to make sure of their work, so gigantic a scheme as the creation of an iron-plated navy, equal to the task of effectually raising the-blockade, is boldly entered upon. The reward for this enterprise will pay well for its hazard.

We have no words of warning or exhortation to offer our Government in view of these discourses of the Liverpool Post. It may suit optimists to discredit the story entirely. We do not. The case of No. 220 is too fresh in mind for that. How can we conclude that the sending out of that vessel portends nothing of the course the English enemies of our country are taking? However serious the duty, nevertheless we hold it is the duty of our Minister in England to demand the most explicit understanding with the English Government on the threatening preparations to break the Southern blockade, so boldly admitted to be in progress under the British flag, at British ship-yards, on British waters.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
1861 AD (2)
1860 AD (2)
April, 9 AD (1)
January 28th, 1862 AD (1)
March, 1861 AD (1)
October, 10 AD (1)
September 27th (1)
September 24th (1)
September 14th (1)
September (1)
August 20th (1)
March (1)
27th (1)
25th (1)
7th (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: