We make the following extracts from the latest Northern files:
A Phage speech in the united States Senate--Prentice's Comments Therson — the rebellion strong enough to be recognized.
The following article from the Louisville "Journal," of the 18th inst., is worthy of an attentive perusal. There is one point in Senator Henderson's speech which evidently touched Prentice on the raw. It is really the shadow of the coming event which is cast before. Mr. Henderson says: ‘"The border States have been ravaged, desolated, and now their population is flying to the wilderness territories of the West to escape the curses of what we call American civilization."’ Herein Prentice sees his own destiny: We have always believed, and we have repeatedly expressed the belief, that the Republican party, having swamped the Government in the consequences of the Republican policy, would ultimately conclude peace on the basis of a dissolution of the Union, if the people should not seasonably interpose at the ballot box. This belief, apart from its antecedent probability, is supported by the notorious fact that the most influential leaders of the Republican party were in favor of acknowledging the independence of the Southern Confederacy at the outbreak of the rebellion, strengthened by the equally notorious fact that the foremost of these leaders, the editor of the New York "Tribune," has subsequently at different stages of the war openly manifested the same disposition, declaring expressly not many months ago that, if we could not suppress the rebellion in the course of the next sixty or ninety days, we ought to bow at once to our destiny, and accept the best attainable peace. These facts, and a thousand corresponding ones, viewed in relation with the general fact that the Republican leaders hate slavery more than they love the Union, and love power even more than they hate slavery, put the justness of the belief in question beyond a reasonable doubt. The Republican leaders are ready to make peace on the basis of a dissolution of the Union just so soon as they come to believe that they cannot execute their schemes of arbitrary and irresponsible subjugation. They propose to subjugate the Southern people not to the Constitution but to the will of the Republican party; and whenever they become satisfied that this is impracticable they will have no further use and no room for the Southern people in the Union. They will at once acknowledge their independence. Some of the Republican leaders have already reached or well-night reached this point, and are training accordingly. For example, Senator Henderson, of Missouri, one of the most moderate of the Republican leaders, delivered a speech the other day in his place in the Senate, in which he said: ‘ There are but two sides to the question. The one is Union without slavery; the other is the immediate and unconditional acknowledgment of the Southern Confederacy. ’ * * * * Therefore, let the elements of opposition at once combine so that the friends of the Union may determine upon the best course to secure peace.--If those elements are too strong to be subdued except at the expense of our own liberties and the loss of every good for which the Government was established, the sooner we know the fact and act upon it the better. * * * * * * If it become evident that the friends of slavery are strong enough in this country to resist all reasonable efforts to subdue them, I shall act upon it I am not prepared to ruin the country in a vain effort to do what cannot be done. Shall this war go on forever? Is this common cry of "the last man and the last dollar" poetry, patriotism, braggadocio? Should the war go on until the public debt equals the entire wealth of the country? Should the whole capital of the people be forced into Federal securities, and the securities made the basis of an irredeemable paper circulation? Should it go on until misery broods over the whole land; until the civil authorities shall become impotent, and all rights of person and property stand at the mercy of the military forever? Should it go on until the members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall owe their places here to the bayonet instead of the ballot-box; until they become as contemptible as the Hump Parliament that so long enacted the military usurpation to the overthrow of the English Constitution, to be finally expelled from place by the power they had so basely served? Should it go on until corruption and fraud, the necessary concomitants of civil war, shall have crept into high places and put on the garb of patriotism; until offices be come so numerous that official patronage may quarter one half of the people upon the other half, and give them the means of perpetuating their own power? Should it continue until exhausted, the nation would welcome the coming of a Cromwell or a Bonaparte; until provost marshals, with military police, shall be stationed at every village in the Northern States, displacing the civil authority, issuing orders for governing people heretofore supposed to be able to govern themselves, teaching how God shall be worshipped, prescribing new and strange offences, and punishing them by courts martial? Should it continue until financial ruin brings misery, and misery rushes into anarchy, when no hope but despotism is left? * * * * * I once before stated, and I now repeat the opinion, that if the people of the seceded States were all united as men are united when inspired by a just cause, when urged on by convictions of duty to self, to country, and to God, they could never be conquered. History furnishes no example of such a thing, and I saw no special reason why the general current of experience should be broken in this case. I thought, however, they could be conquered, because I did not believe they were united. * * * * * Mr. President, we have expended two thousand millions of treasure; we daily expend three millions more. The daily destruction of property well nigh equals the daily expenditure, thereby decreasing our means of payment in the same ratio in which the burdens of indebtedness are increased. The border States have been ravaged, desolated, and now their population is flying to the wilderness, Territories of the West, to escape the curses of what we call American civilization. They seek peace, in order that when all else has been lost the future rewards of labor may be preserved for the comfort and support of their families. To the holy purpose of restoring the Union we have given a million of lives, and a half million brave soldiers now stand ready to add their blood to the sanguine lake that knows no filling. Rebellion is confronting us yet. Is it weaker than it was? Public opinion says yes. Take the newspaper press of our country and add up for yourselves the reported desertions of rebel troops for the last two years, and it equals the original militia strength of the South. The same authority tells us that the rebel armies are in a state of starvation, and in the same column reports the destruction of commissary stores on the outskirts of rebeldom sufficient to subsist their armies for three months. We are told by the reports of chief Engineers and Major Generals in command that forts have been levelled by our artillery, have become a mass of shapeless ruins and unavailable to defence. These forts, for six months thereafter, have held in security Confederate garrisons, and yet they frown defiance at our iron-clad navies. For three years the armies of the rebellion have defied our power. In April, 1861, the Executive and his advisers thought that 75,000 men could suppress the outbreak in three months. In July, 1861, the Congress thought that 500,000 men would soon complete the work. With an army of many hundreds of thousands now in the field, the same authorities regard it necessary to add 700,000 more to the present. Who is the man that thinks the rebellion is weaker to day than it once was, two or three years ago? It is easy to say we think it weaker. Indeed, it may be so strong; but our actions give no evidence that such is our opinion. If deceiving others be excusable, it is scarcely to deceive ourselves. This is significant language. It signifies mischief in the future. Declaring that there are but two sides to the question — the one, Union without slavery, and the other immediate and unconditional acknowledgment of the Southern Confederacy--Senator Henderson, one of the most temperate and rational of the Republican leaders, calls for a division on this question, classing with "the friends of slavery" all who are not Abolitionists, and avowing that, if they shall prove strong enough in this country to resist all treasonable efforts to subdue them, he will act upon it. Now, under this classification we know perfectly well, before hand, and so do Senator Henderson and party, that the Abolitionists will be in a minority of one to three or four, since the classification sweeps the conservatives of the country into the same category with the people in rebellion. The Abolitionists will be in such a minority in the country, whether they carry the presidential election or not. Of course two-thirds or three fourths of the people will prove strong enough to resist what Senator Henderson styles "all reasonable efforts" of one third or one fourth " to subdue them." And Senator Henderson and his party will act upon it by abandoning the war and acknowledging the independence of the Southern Confederacy. Such is the result foreshadowed by this remarkable language. The language fairly implies that its author is now ready to surrender the Union. The tone and drift of his remarks on this point are those of one who prepares the way for the reception of a foregone conclusion. If the reader were to shut his eyes on the anti-slavery ear-marks, he might easily fancy himself reading the speech for which Alexander Long has been censured in the House. Mr. Long and Mr. Henderson do not essentially differ. In our judgment, Mr. Henderson, everything considered, has made a more effective plea for the acknowledgment of the Southern Confederacy than Mr. Long has. The spirit, tendency, and fundamental principles of the two speeches are the same. The gentlemen agree so fully that we shall not be surprised if they are found supporting the same candidate for the Presidency. Indeed, Mr. Long concludes his speech by avowing that if "the war is to be still further prosecuted" he prefers "that it shall be done under the auspices of those who now conduct its management" The inference is that, between McClellan and Lincoln, Mr. Long will go with Mr. Henderson for Lincoln. We predicted upwards of a year ago that the peace men and the Abolitionists would ultimately act together in favor of the acknowledgment of the Southern Confederacy, and the prediction seems likely very soon to be realized. In that event, Lincoln will be recognized as the disunion candidate, which he will be whether he is so recognized or not; and McClellan, the only recognized, as in any event the only real Union candidate, will collect under his glorious banner not only the legions of patriots who meet in convention at Chicago, but the genuine patriots of the Republican party. For that matter, there are in the breasts of thousands and thousands of Republicans a smouldering admiration for McClellan, and a living faith in him that, no matter what may be the final combination of parties, will ere November burst forth in a blaze of devotion to the cause he represents. He will be, in the noblest sense of the expression, the people's candidate, as he is the country's hope. Under his bright standard will rally the pure lovers of the Union, while under the dark ensign of his adversary will gather Abolitionists, peace men, secessionists, and all the desperate odds and ends of a nation so long the spot of treason and of faction. Senator Henderson and his friends may call for a division on the question of the union of Abolitionism or no union at all, but the people will not divide on any such question. They will divide on the high question of the Union of the Constitution against all the devices of its enemies in whatever section. This is the true issue. Let the people prepare to meet it. Let them resolve to meet it triumphantly. We cannot dismiss this language of Senator Henderson's without one further remark. The views he presents concerning the nature and tendency of civil war surely deserves the very gravest consideration; we by no means would have them passed by lightly. They are indeed of tremendous moment. But they do not enforce the necessity of acknowledging the Southern Confederacy, which in all human probability would render civil war the normal state of this continent, nor yet the necessity of abolishing slavery by a constitutional amendment; on the contrary, they enforce the necessity of restoring the Union of the Constitution, and to that end the necessity of requiring the people in rebellion to submit alone to the Constitution as it is, and of waging the war distinctly to compel such submission and for no other purpose what ever. This is the true lesson of the historical retrospect he takes. But this is not the lesson he draws. He reads in the retrospect a warrant only for the abolition of slavery by a Constitutional amendment, or for the acknowledgment of the Southern Confederacy, of which the former according to his own admissions, would necessitate the latter. "The rebels," he says, in a preceding part of his speech, "declare that slavery cannot longer exist under our Government; that the two things, slavery and the Federal Union have become incompatible. In this alleged belief was found the motive for secession, and in it to-day consists the strength of secession." This is undoubtedly true; whence it follows that to justify and fix the belief through the Abolition of slavery by a constitutional amendment would be to strengthen the strength of secession, and consequently to bring the case at once within the conditions which Senator Henderson regards as warranting the acknowledgment of the Southern Confederacy. On the other hand, it follows as clearly that to remove the belief in question, by throwing open the doors of the Constitution as it is to the Southern people, would be to paralyze the strength of secession, and consequently to secure at an early day the restoration of the Union of the Constitution. The truth is, however, that the Republicans do not want the Union of the Constitution, and they will not have it, if they can get rid of it. They want the Union of Abolitionism; and if they cannot get such a Union they will have none, but will forthwith acknowledge the Southern Confederacy. Such is the significance of Senator Henderson's speech. It means nothing more nor less than this. Let the lovers of the Union ponder the development. It is but one amongst a thousand, all pointing to the same issue.The Red river expedition — further particulars.
A letter, dated at Grand Score, on the 14th inst., from a private in the Chicago Mercantile Battery, to the Chicago Times, giving an account of the part taken by that battery in the battle, confirms the dispatch in regard to the disaster to a portion of the Yankee forces comprising the Red river expedition. The letter says: ‘ Of our whole division, numbering three thousand men, but one thousand are left to tell the fearful odds against which they contended. Two regiments of the division were consolidated, and had in all fourteen hundred men and seven officers, the highest in rank being a Captain. ’ The 19th corps checked the rebels and held them for about twenty five minutes, when they were forced to retire, which they did slowly, and as night came on the bloody conflict ended. The next evening Gen. A. J. Smith came up with his command and relieved Gen. Franklin, and whipped the rebels badly. Twelve pieces of cannon were recaptured and eight hundred prisoners taken. A letter from another private in the same battery says: ‘ Our corps (the 13th) was all cut to pieces, and we fell back to this place, Grand Ecore, five or six miles from the battle field, to organize. We lost twenty four pieces of artillery, all that were in the fight. ’ This letter also says that Gen. Smith captured two thousand prisoners and thirty-six guns in a fight on the 9th. Still another letter says: ‘ We get all sorts of reports from the front. The latest is that Gen. Smith whipped the rebels, taking two thousand prisoners and eighteen guns. The expedition is no doubt broken up, and our troops are falling back. ’ Gen. Banks is mentioned as having been on the field on the 8th. Cairo, April 20.--Information obtained from reliable sources confirms the statement of the Chicago Journal's Red river letter of the 10th inst, concerning the battle of Pleasant Hill on the 8th, that account being mainly correct. Our loss, however, was greater than therein stated. The fight wound up in the enemy being handsomely whipped, and driven from the field with a heavy loss.Deserters from the Yankee army — important letter from Gen. Wistar.
Headquarters U. S. Forces, Yorktown, Va., April 15, 1864.
General — An extended spirit of desertion prevailing among the recruits recently received from the North, in some of the regiments of my command, has led me to make some inquiries resulting in apparently well authenticated information, which I beg respectfully to communicate to you in this unofficial manner, deeming it required by humanity, no less than by our common desire to benefit the service.
There seems to be little doubt that many, in fact I think I am justified in saying the most, of these unfortunate men were either deceived or kidnapped, or both, in the most scandalous and inhuman manner in New York city, where they were drugged and carried off to New Hampshire and Connecticut, mustered in and uniformed before their consciousness was fully restored.
Even their bounty was obtained by parties who were instrumental in these nefarious transactions, and the poor wretches find themselves on returning to their senses mustered soldiers, without any pecuniary benefit.
Nearly all were foreigners, mostly sailors, both ignorant of and indifferent to the objects of the war in which they thus suddenly find themselves involved.
Two men were shot here this morning for desertion and over thirty more are now awaiting trail or execution.
These examples are essential, as we all understand; but it occurred to me, General, that you would pardon me for thus calling your attention to the greater crime committed in New York, of kidnapping these men into positions where, to their ignorance, desertion must seem like a vindication of their own rights and liberty. Believe me to be, General, with the highest esteem, your obedient servant.
J. J. Wistar.
To Major Gen. John A Dix, New York city.
J. J. Wistar.
To Major Gen. John A Dix, New York city.
