Doc.
171. advice to Southerners.
The Charleston
Mercury published the following soon after the attack on
Port Royal, S. C.:
Our enemies have invaded South Carolina for two purposes: First, to gratify their hate and revenge; and second, to gratify their avarice.
The first we have to meet with fighting; but the last must be defeated by policy, where fighting fails.
To defeat their avarice, our policy should be to destroy the objects their avarice proposes to feed on. General plunder is undoubtedly designed; but the special objects of their appropriation will undoubtedly be our slaves and cotton.
What shall we do with them?
Shall we leave them on our plantations to be appropriated by our invaders?
It appears to us, our true policy is, to take off our plantations our slaves, horses and cattle, and to burn up our cotton.
To leave our horses to arm them, our cattle to feed them, our slaves to strengthen and our cotton to enrich them, or to run their factories, appears to us to be the worst policy possible.
We imagine the Lincolnites hate all portions of the
South alike, and that they would commit as many atrocities on the coasts of
Louisiana, if ever they obtain possession, as they will in that part of
South Carolina now unfortunately subject to their malign control.
Their malignity is unparalleled; it extends to all the
Confederate States in equal proportion, and it leads them to violate all the rules of civilized warfare.
That they contemplate wholesale plunder is unquestionable.
Hence, as the exposed planters are bound to lose more or less of property, is it not altogether better that they should destroy what they cannot remove than to allow it to fall into the hands of relentless enemies, and thus permit then to reap substantial “aid and comfort” in consequence?
We think so; and, therefore, heartily endorse the suggestion thrown out by our
Charleston contemporary.
Let every bale of cotton be burned before a single flake is allowed to go into the grasp of the ruthless invader.
Indeed, some of the planters on
Hilton Head Island have already set the noble example of destroying every particle of property they could not transport to a place of safety.
If the cotton or other property falls into the hands of the Lincolnites, the planters lose, while the Lincolnites are correspondingly advantaged; but if the planters burn their cotton their loss will be the same, and the abolitionists will not be benefited.
Neither horses, cattle, hogs, sheep, corn nor cotton should be permitted to pass into their possession.
All should be removed as far as practicable, and the remainder destroyed the moment the fact becomes apparent that the enemy cannot be successfully repulsed.
By adopting such a course as this the common foe will be compelled to draw all his supplies from points some thousands of miles distant, through a costly and hazardous process.
The case is a hard one all round; but to our mind, as the
Yankees are hovering about our coasts on marauding expeditions, and as they will never pay for any thing they steal or ruin, it is best to inconvenience them as much as possible, by destroying all things they are bound to capture, rather than let them take, appropriate, and enjoy effects thus villanously obtained.
By way of illustration: There are twelve or fourteen millions of coin in the vaults of the banks of New Orleans.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that New Orleans was bound to succumb before the over-whelming forces of the enemy.
Would it not be the part of wisdom, policy and patriotism, to sink this twelve or fourteen millions of coin to the bottom of the
Mississippi, rather than to allow it to go into the coffers of the “Gorilla” at
Washington, to aid them in enslaving and robbing the people of
Louisiana and the
South?
We “pause for a reply.” --
New Orleans Crescent, Nov. 18.
