previous next

Northern news.

From New York papers of the 11th we make up the following summary of news:

Deast Butler's peculations — a good reception in New York.

The New Orleans Della, when Butler left, published the following paragraph:

We wish to notify the Northern slanderers of Gen. Butler, that they may have time to prepare themselves, that there will be a wreck of matter and a crush of worlds when he opens his month in New York.

The "wreck of matter" was not very plainly discernible in New York. The morning Butler arrived the World published two columns of letters written by Northern men in New Orleans, and some in New York, exposing the thieving operations of the General in the former city. The following are extracts from the New Orleans letters:

Of the False, prudent, and traitorous operations of this vile son of my native State, volumes might be written. Quartermaster Makey, of Boston, has forwarded to the Chief of the War Department, some months since, sworn evidence as to the peculations of Gen. Butler from the Government of the United States and from loyal citizens; and if the indictments are not quashed by the political juggling of the advisers of the President, there can be no doubt as to the result of investigation. The Flag, published at Matamoras, says: "A bark has just arrived, consigned by the banker and broker of Gen. Butler (his brother,) to a concern here, which is loaded with superior barrel pork, (bearing the U. S. marks,) packed for the use of the Federal army, which has been offered to the commissary of the Confederate States, to be paid for in gold or cotton. Treasury greenbacks refused," &c.; and I learn from reliable sources that the pork was sold to the Confederate commissary and paid for with cotton. Of such ventures Butler, the Federal General, receives half the gains, while the robbery is covered by consumption in New Orleans "to prevent starvation," or by reported actual issue to troops. This traitor General has, through all his administration, been receiving the lion's share of net proceeds from powder, saltpetre, muskets, and other war material sold to Confederates, surreptitiously sent out from New Orleans by the lakes, &c., covered by permits for provisions — dealing in the very life blood of his own soldiers. Of such things the military infamy is composed of the base coward, who betrays all — true to none.

* * * * * *

It would take a small book to describe the scenes that took place between citizens who had been despoiled by Butler, calling on Gen. Banks for restitution. Mr. Buckner, one of our cotton princes and millionaires was robbed by Gen. Butler of $100,000 in bills receivable, sent him from Natchez. Gen. Butler said he could not find them when called on to return them. $5,000 in cash was taken from the same parties; he said he paid this amount over to the Government. Samuel Smith &Co. had $60,000 in specie taken from their vaults by Butler; $50,000 is in suit at Washington; the rest was returned, less $1,800 stolen. Gen. Butler returned this amount in currency, thereby taking advantage of thirty-five per cent. on the gold.

Acrostics and poetry lampoorting him were sent to him in such quantities that Gen. Banks had to protect him by an order, No. 114 (see New Orleans papers.) One verse runs thus.

Farewell and it in boil there dwells

A demon such as thou,

Then, Satan, yield the sceptre up--

Thy mission's over now.

* * * * * *

Mr. Davis, the President of the Bank of New Orleans, was thrown into jail without a trial, and in one short month was released, after having been told he was to be hung, and is now a raving maniac. This is the foulest deed Butler has been guilty of. In my next I will give all the news that transpires.

One of the letters from citizens of New York begs the World to expose the scoundrel fully. The writer says.

Tell the people here how he charged Dr. Campbell $1,700 for a pass to enter the Confederate lines, and, while he was gone, ejected his wife from her palatial home, that he might occupy it himself, to all of which hundreds of New Orleans men now here will not fear to testify, since their property is no longer under his control.

Tell the people about his partnership with his brother, and how he charged $12 a had, freight for sugar on his boats from the Latouche to New Orleans, (when $1 used to be the price,) allowing no competition.

And tell, too, how he would permit none but New England men to take goods into the interior of the State to sell them.

The Platform of Lincoln's Administration — the New Abolition Pronunciamento.

The speech of Mr. Thaddeus Stevens in the United States Congress, (a notice of which we published yesterday,) has created a new sensation at the North. The New York World thus reviews his position:

Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, the real leader of his party in the House of Representatives, has at last rendered the country the only service which the country could have expected at his hands. He has unmasked the now policy of the administration, and the issue between radicalism at Washington and conservatism throughout the country has now been officially made. The radical organs in the press have for some time past been throwing forth intimations of this issue. The slightest expression of reverence for the Constitution has long acted upon them as holy water is reputed to act upon the Prince of Darkness. Mr. Stevens now avows, on the floor of Congress, the settled policy at which these antipathetic contortions have long been hinting.

The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means deliberately recognizes the Confederate States as a foreign belligerent power, which has lost all its past relations with the Union, over which the guarantees of the Constitution no longer extend, and which is to be made war upon and subjugated or made peace with, substantially as if it were a desirable portion of the Mexican territory, or an attractive province of Canada. Of course this position, if it be the position of Mr. Lincoln's government, must profoundly affect the relations of foreign powers to the American question. It is a virtual abdication of all the grounds which the government has heretofore taken in its diplomatic correspondence. It asks Europe not to stand by in silence and await the restoration of a violated compact, but to watch the progress of the arms of the Union in a war of conquest and domination.

But we forbear at present to comment fully upon the natural consequences of such a change of front as this upon the opinion, and inevitably, therefore, upon the action of the world at large in respect to our internal dissensions.

The domestic aspects of the radical pronouncement more immediately demand our attention. It invites us directly to contemplate a war for the Union without the Constitution.--This is not the war which the American people have undertaken; it is not the war for which they have poured out blood and treasure like water; it is not the war to which their hearts and hopes are this day pledged.

The Constitution, said Mr. Webster, is the sole bond of union between the States. To surrender the Constitution is to surrender the Union. And this, Mr. Stevens, in behalf of the administration, now proposes to do. He declares the old war ended and a new war begun. The old war was waged or was professed to be waged under the Democratic and conservative theory that the Constitution, with its guarantees, and with the supreme tribunal which it established for the adjustment of differences between the States, was adequate to secure the blessings of justice, liberty, and progress to all the inhabitants of a family of States extending over a vast territory, and embracing many diversities of climate, habits, character, and interests. The new war is to be waged on the radical theory that all rights, and the Constitution itself, ultimately depend upon the will of accidental majorities which may obliterate legal distinctions, annihilate social order, subvert ideas of property to suit the real or the fancied convenience of such majorities.

The old war had an aim which rose beyond the more blind fury of arms, and could be fought to the possible result of a settlement in which, rights being respected, law could be restored. The new war implies no alternative result beyond the extermination of one party or the exhaustion of the other.

Are we to understand that in proclaiming it the Administration means to confess that the latter of these results has been reached? and is Mr. Stevens preparing the way in Congress for those propositions of peace which the Tribune has of late been so earnestly agitating in the press?

Mrs. Jessie Denton Tremont as an Authoress.

Mrs. Fremont has published a book, which it seems was intended for a defence of her husband in his Missouri campaign and defalcations. The New York Herald review it in characteristic style, and in default of the book to read for ourselves, we may take the review. It says:

‘ As President Lincoln sagaciously observes, "we cannot escape history;" and as great battle scenes will some day be painted from the popular photographs of the war and its Generals, so great histories will some day be made up from the hasty sketches of our present writers. Probably with this idea in view Mrs. Fremont has published a book detailing the story of her husband's body guard, and has devoted the proceeds of her work to the widows, mothers, and orphans of the brave men who fell during the charge at Springfield.

Mrs. Fremont's book consists of a collection of General Fremont's private letters and telegrams, strung together by a very pleasantly written narrative of his campaign in Missouri, in which a great deal of marching was done, but no battle fought, except by Major Zagoni and his one-hundred and fifty heroes. Although somewhat in the form of a diary, Mrs. Fremont's book is not so sharp, biting, and ill-natured as Gurowski's. She praises Fremont's friends, but does not abuse Fremont's enemies. Gurowski's book is as deliciously spicy as a plate of Downing's oysters, well peppered, and taken between meals, at No. 3 Broad street. Mrs. Fremont's book is more like Downing's boned turkeys for New Year's dinners. In Fremont's letters we find a few bints about that splendid expedition down the Mississippi, over which he dreamt largely, and a few complaints against the Administration for interfering with him, sending spies to watch him, and encouraging disobedience of his orders.--Of the palatial mansion at St. Louis Mrs. Fremont says nothing, except that her cellar was used as a magazine. General Fremont tells us that his coach and four was an ambulance.--The mules which drew this coach are severely sneered at and treated with some inhumanity. Nothing is said in regard to contracts, and to one letter — in which General Fremont promises, "before we get through I will show you a little California practice — that is, if we are not interrupted"--a foot- note is added, explaining that this alludes to the line marching of the California battalion in 1845-46, and not to McKinstry & Co.

Mrs. Fremont's story is obviously her husband's opinion of his own campaign. As such it will be taken for what it is worth, and we doubt whether it will effect any change in anybody else's opinion about the matter.--What he intended, to do was doubtless very grand; but what he really did amounted to nothing. In his letters to Mrs. Fremont the General hints at obstructions and impediments thrown in his way by the War Department; but if these hints mean anything they should have been made more plain and direct. All the fighting in the book is done by Major Zagoni and his company of cavalry, though Hunter, Pope, and Sigel, with their armies, were under Fremont's command. As a tribute to the memory of the fifteen soldiers of the body guard who were killed at Springfield, the book will interest many readers. We do not see, however, how it at all defends or explains the shortcomings of Gen. Fremont.

New England's rights Considered — her Undue preponderance Objected to.

A New York paper, taking up a subject that is receiving general attention in the North--the propriety of leaving New England "out in the cold"--says:

‘ The area of the New England States, leaving out Maine, is 33,272 square miles, that of New York is 47,000. All the northern and eastern portion of Maine is a wild, mountainous, and inhospitable region, incapable of settlement, so that the total arable surface of New England does not exceed the cultivable area of New York. Now, we wish to put the question, (we put it merely for illustration,) what objection is there to obliterating all the internal boundaries which distinguish the several New England States on the map, and consolidating them all into a single State? What right (bear in mind, we ask the question only to illustrate an argument) have three millions of population residing in New England to twelve Senators in Congress, when nearly four millions residing in New York are entitled to only two? This immense preponderance of political power, out of all reasonable proportion to its area and population, is held only by the tenure of the State rights which that section is madly attempting to undermine and overthrow. The stability of this disproportionate and enormous power rests wholly on the sacredness of the old State boundaries, which New England influence is attempting to shake and sweep away, and which it has already succeeded in destroying in Virginia. It is a favorite saw of the radicals that "revolutions never go backward;" and if this work of demolishing State rights and obliterating old State boundaries is to proceed, it is one of the likeliest things in the world that this fanatical and destructive device should return to plague the inventors. If they are going to roll up the Constitution as a piece of obsolete "sheepskin," (this is Mr. Beecher's tasteful and reverent epithet,) and return to first principles, why may not New York insist that New England shall take a dose of its own medicine? If the principle of human equality is to be rigorously carried out in the spirit of a doctrinaire, without regard to race or color, why not also without regard to the invisible mathematical lines which form State boundaries? Why, in short, is not a New Yorker as good as a Yankee? New England has one Senator in Congress to every 261,000 inhabitants, while New York has only one to 1,940,000, making the political value of a New Englander very nearly seven and a half times as great as that of a New Yorker.

The back pay of the Army and navy.

Senator Fessenden, from the Committee on Finance; reported on the 9th inst. a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow, on the credit of the Government, two hundred millions of dollars to pay arrearages due the army and navy. For one hundred millions he may issue coupons or registered bonds, hearing an interest not exceeding six per cent., payable at the pleasure of the Government any time after ten years.

For fifty millions of said sum he may issue United States notes without interest; for the remaining fifty millions he may issue Treasury notes payable two years after date, hearing four per cent, per annum; which notes shall be receivable for loans and all public dues, except customs. It also provides for the issuing of postal fractional notes, under the direction of the Secretary.

A Tennessee Union man.

The Nashville correspondent of the Indianapolis Sentinel thus describes the sentiments of a live Tennessee Union man he chanced to meet:

‘ In my travels yesterday I fell in with a native Union man, and as I had nothing else to do. I concluded I would try to learn what Unionism is. In the first place he is in favor of the Union provided the Government will agree to redeem Confederate bonds with Lincoln greens. He thinks that all rebels should be pardoned in full, and Southern war expenses, including the cotton burnt, farms, railroads and bridges destroyed by both parties, and the general expenses should be assumed by the Washington Government, and then the Constitution should be amended so as to guarantee a veto power, at least to the Southern States. Perhaps, I slightly intimated to him, that kind of Unionism did not go down in our country. He assured me there was no other in this country, except a few fanatics of the Andy Johnson school, who could not master a corporal's guard in all Tennessee. I guess the man is more than half right.


The New York Times says that Vallandigham will soon made a speech in favor of mediation. The New York Tribunes and Times say Vallandigham favors intervention also.

The Baltimore and Ohio read is now in working condition.

The New York Times says Seymour's message is in some points orthodox, but is remarkably simple and common place, and that it has no quarrel with him. The Tribunes styles it a

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 People (automatically extracted)
Sort people alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a person to search for him/her in this document.
Fremont (16)
Deast Butler (12)
Thaddeus Stevens (5)
Lincoln (4)
Zagoni (2)
Vallandigham (2)
Gurowski (2)
Downing (2)
Banks (2)
Webster (1)
Jessie Denton Tremont (1)
Samuel Smith (1)
Sigel (1)
Seymour (1)
Pope (1)
McKinstry (1)
Makey (1)
E. M. T. Hunter (1)
Fessenden (1)
Davis (1)
Campbell (1)
Buckner (1)
Beecher (1)
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.
1846 AD (1)
1845 AD (1)
January 1st (1)
9th (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: