Northern journals on the war.
It is somewhat remarkable that some of the
Northern journals which were lately rampant for the subjugation of our country, have very much changed their tone since the Bethel fight.
We have already given extracts showing how the change is going on. We now subjoin some editorial remarks of the New York Journal of Commerce, prefacing them with a paragraph from an abolition paper called the Springfield Republican:
Among a certain class of Democrats there are indications of an attempt to get up a compromise peace movement.
The men who make this peace movement may possibly mean well, but the supposition is at the expense of their good sense, and their proposition will find few supporters, while it will generally excite only indignation.
Upon this the Journal of Commerce thus comments:
‘
The Republican may, perhaps, recall the words of
President Lincoln's Inaugural message, in which he says:‘"Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always.
And when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you."’
’
The position taken by
President Lincoln, then, is the same which the opponents of civil war now hold, and have ever held.
It is to save this ‘"loss without gain"’ that they prefer to do now that which must be done eventually, viz: Settle this business by negotiation, as all belligerents have done before us.--It is true, we have but little hope of a peaceable settlement, which must be either on the basis of the preservation of the
Union, or of separation, and the reason is, because one section is as obstinately determined to have a Union of the whole thirty-four States as the other is to have a separation.
If the testing of this question by physical force is considered so important as to justify all the loss and disaster entailed thereby, there is of course no use in argument.
If, on the other hand, peace and prosperity, a return to friendly intercourse, and a recognition of the independence of the
Confederate States (in the belief and probability of an eventual restoration of the
Union) is to be preferred to a devastating civil war, the conclusion can be reached at once.
We, and those who think with us, are as loath to give up the
Union as the most zealous advocates of coercion, and grieve as sincerely as they over its dissolution; but we differ from them in that we deem the separation already complete.
We believe, moreover, that a resort to arms will make it permanent and full of hate; whereas otherwise it might have but an ephemeral existence.
We would prefer to live in peace and amity with our own kindred, in or out of the
Union, rather than in strife and contention with them in or out of the
Union.
It is significant of the phrensies impetuosity which now controls our action, that the suggestion of
President Lincoln (quoted above) has neither weight nor consideration in the
Cabinet councils nor in the minds of the people.
Whenever reason resumes her sway, the work of negotiation will commence, and we are glad to perceive unmistakable indications of the approach of such a change.
In such indications is our only hope of being saved from a continuance of this deplorable civil war.
