Destruction and Reconstruction: Personal Experiences of the Late War , livre ebook

Pub One Info - Richard Taylor

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

144 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

These reminiscences of Secession, War, and Reconstruction it has seemed to me a duty to record. An actor therein, accident of fortune afforded me exceptional advantages for an interior view.

Informations

Publié par	Pub One Info
Date de parution	23 octobre 2010
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9782819902973
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0100€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

PREFACE.
T hesereminiscences of Secession, War, and Reconstruction it has seemedto me a duty to record. An actor therein, accident of fortuneafforded me exceptional advantages for an interior view.
The opinions expressed are sincerely entertained,but of their correctness such readers as I may find must judge. Ihave in most cases been a witness to the facts alleged, or haveobtained them from the best sources. Where statements are made uponless authority, I have carefully endeavored to indicate it by thelanguage employed.
R. TAYLOR. December, 1877.
CHAPTER I.
S ECESSION.
The history of the United States, as yet unwritten,will show the causes of the "Civil War" to have been in existenceduring the Colonial era, and to have cropped out into full view inthe debates of the several State Assemblies on the adoption of theFederal Constitution, in which instrument Luther Martin, PatrickHenry, and others, insisted that they were implanted. Africanslavery at the time was universal, and its extinction in the North,as well as its extension in the South, was due to economic reasonsalone.
The first serious difficulty of the FederalGovernment arose from the attempt to lay an excise on distilledspirits. The second arose from the hostility of New England tradersto the policy of the Government in the war of 1812, by which theirspecial interests were menaced; and there is now evidence to provethat, but for the unexpected peace, an attempt to disrupt the Unionwould then have been made.
The "Missouri Compromise" of 1820 was in reality atruce between antagonistic revenue systems, each seeking to gainthe balance of power. For many years subsequently, slaves – asdomestic servants – were taken to the Territories without excitingremark, and the "Nullification" movement in South Carolina wasentirely directed against the tariff.
Anti-slavery was agitated from an early period, butfailed to attract public attention for many years. At length, byunwearied industry, by ingeniously attaching itself to excitingquestions of the day, with which it had no natural connection, itsucceeded in making a lodgment in the public mind, which, like asubject exhausted by long effort, is exposed to the attack of somemalignant fever, that in a normal condition of vigor would havebeen resisted. The common belief that slavery was the cause ofcivil war is incorrect, and Abolitionists are not justified inclaiming the glory and spoils of the conflict and in plumingthemselves as "choosers of the slain."
The vast immigration that poured into the countrybetween the years 1840 and 1860 had a very important influence indirecting the events of the latter year. The numbers were too greatto be absorbed and assimilated by the native population. States inthe West were controlled by German and Scandinavian voters, whilethe Irish took possession of the seaboard towns. Although thebalance of party strength was not much affected by thesenaturalized voters, the modes of political thought were seriouslydisturbed, and a tendency was manifested to transfer excitingtopics from the domain of argument to that of violence.
The aged and feeble President, Mr. Buchanan,unfitted for troublous times, was driven to and fro by ambitiousleaders of his own party, as was the last weak Hapsburg who reignedin Spain by the rival factions of France and Austria.
Under these conditions the National DemocraticConvention met at Charleston, South Carolina, in the spring of1860, to declare the principles on which the ensuing presidentialcampaign was to be conducted, and select candidates for the officesof President and Vice-President. Appointed a delegate by theDemocracy of my State, Louisiana, in company with others I reachedCharleston two days in advance of the time. We were at once met byan invitation to join in council delegates from the Gulf States, toagree upon some common ground of action in the Convention, butdeclined for the reason that we were accredited to the NationalConvention, and had no authority to participate in otherdeliberations. This invitation and the terms in which it wasconveyed argued badly for the harmony of the Convention itself, andfor the preservation of the unity of the Democracy, then the onlyorganization supported in all quarters of the country.
It may be interesting to recall the impressioncreated at the time by the tone and temper of differentdelegations. New England adhered to the old tenets of the Jeffersonschool. Two leaders from Massachusetts, Messrs. Caleb Cushing andBenjamin F. Butler, of whom the former was chosen President of theConvention, warmly supported the candidacy of Mr. Jefferson Davis.New York, under the direction of Mr. Dean Richmond, gave itsinfluence to Mr. Douglas. Of a combative temperament, Mr. Richmondwas impressed with a belief that "secession" was but a bugbear tofrighten the northern wing of the party. Thus he failed toappreciate the gravity of the situation, and impaired the value ofunusual common sense and unselfish patriotism, qualities hepossessed to an eminent degree. The anxieties of Pennsylvania as tocandidates were accompanied by a philosophic indifference as toprinciples. The Northwest was ardent for Douglas, who divided withGuthrie Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, andLouisiana held moderate opinions, and were ready to adopt anyhonorable means to preserve the unity of the party and country. Theconduct of the South Carolina delegates was admirable. Representingthe most advanced constituency in the Convention, they weresingularly reticent, and abstained from adding fuel to the flames.They limited their rôle to that of dignified, courteous hosts, andplayed it as Carolina gentlemen are wont to do. From Alabama,Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas came the fiery spirits,led by Mr. William L. Yancey of Alabama, an able rhetorician. Thisgentleman had persuaded his State Convention to pass a resolution,directing its delegates to withdraw from Charleston if theDemocracy there assembled refused to adopt the extreme Southernview as to the rights of citizens in the territories. In this hewas opposed by ex-Governor Winston, a man of conservativetendencies, and long the rival of Mr. Yancey in State politics.Both gentlemen were sent to Charleston, but the majority of theirco-delegates sustained Mr. Yancey.
Several days after its organization the NationalConvention reached a point which made the withdrawal of Alabamaimminent. Filled with anxious forebodings, I sought after nightfallthe lodgings of Messrs. Slidell, Bayard, and Bright, United Statessenators, who had come to Charleston, not as delegates, but underthe impulse of hostility to the principles and candidacy of Mr.Douglas. There, after pointing out the certain consequences ofAlabama's impending action, I made an earnest appeal for peace andharmony, and with success. Mr. Yancey was sent for, came into ourviews after some discussion, and undertook to call his peopletogether at that late hour, and secure their consent to disregardinstructions. We waited until near dawn for Yancey's return, buthis efforts failed of success. Governor Winston, originally opposedto instructions as unwise and dangerous, now insisted that theyshould be obeyed to the letter, and carried a majority of theAlabama delegates with him. Thus the last hope of preserving theunity of the National Democracy was destroyed, and by one who wasits earnest advocate.
The withdrawal of Alabama, followed by otherSouthern States, the adjournment of a part of the Convention toBaltimore and of another part to Richmond, and the election ofLincoln by votes of Northern States, require no furthermention.
In January, 1861, the General Assembly of Louisianamet. A member of the upper branch, and chairman of its Committee onFederal Relations, I reported, and assisted in passing, an act tocall a Convention of the people of the State to consider of mattersbeyond the competency of the Assembly. The Convention met in March,and was presided over by ex-Governor and ex-United States SenatorAlexander Mouton, a man of high character. I represented my ownparish, St. Charles, and was appointed chairman of the Military andDefense Committee, on behalf of which two ordinances were reportedand passed: one, to raise two regiments; the other, to authorizethe Governor to expend a million of dollars in the purchase of armsand munitions. The officers of the two regiments were to beappointed by the Governor, and the men to be enlisted for fiveyears, unless sooner discharged. More would have been desirable inthe way of raising troops, but the temper of men's minds did notthen justify the effort. The Governor declined to use his authorityto purchase arms, assured as he was on all sides that there was nodanger of war, and that the United States arsenal at Baton Rouge,completely in our power, would furnish more than we could need. Itwas vainly urged in reply that the stores of the arsenal werealmost valueless, the arms being altered flintlock muskets, and theaccouterments out of date. The current was too strong to stem.
The Convention, by an immense majority of votes,adopted an ordinance declaring that Louisiana ceased to be a Statewithin the Union. Indeed, similar action having already been takenby her neighbors, Louisiana of necessity followed. At the time andsince, I marveled at the joyous and careless temper in which men,much my superiors in sagacity and experience, consummated theseacts. There appeared the same general gaîté de coeur that M.Ollivier claimed for the Imperial Ministry when war was declaredagainst Prussia. The attachment of northern and western people tothe Union; their superiority in numbers, in wealth, and especiallyin mechanical resources; the command of the sea; the lust of ruleand territory always felt by democracies, and nowhere to a greaterdegree than in the South – all these facts were laughed to scorn,or their mention was ascribed to timidity and treachery.
As soo