Civil War Overview
Civil War 1861
Civil War 1862
Civil War 1863
Civil War 1864
Civil War 1865
Civil War Battles
Robert E. Lee
Civil War Medicine
Civil War Links
Civil War Art
Republic of Texas
Civil War Gifts
Robert E. Lee Portrait
OUR DEAD ARMIES.
hundred thousand rank and file are they, Under the Captains of fulfilled renown,
Led to immortal triumph since
which they won the hero's perfect crown.
They march in silent lines compact and strong,
Enfranchised from all human doubt and dread;
No mortal tremors through faint pulses throng
In the unshrinking armies of the dead.
No straggler slinks away in pallid fear,
No sick list swells before the battle day—No mixed and broken columns throng the
rear When on the front war's booming engines play.
They are invincible in hand and heart;
Before the fight their victory is sure ;
From elbow-touching comrade none shall part—None shall the after-thirst of
No cry for help from front ranks pressed and sore
Rises above the storm of fire and hail ; They hold each forward post
And no supports are needed lest they fail.
The fortresses they guard shall never yield
To gnawing famine or to bursting shell ; No widening breach shall ever be
No pallid flag its tale of shame shall tell.
They ask no furlough ere the next campaign;
Through the dark winter hours of storm and frost,
Fixed as the earth's foundations they remain,
The whole two hundred thousand, at their post.
Their term of service with no time expires ;
The hidden future need shall see them stand With changeless front to guard the
Set up to Freedom on a ransomed land.
Oh, Armies of the Dead! In tears and pain
They were enlisted for the eternal years, To keep humanity's fair name from
To lay forever all its rising fears.
SATURDAY, MAY 7, 1864.
UNION FOR UNION.
are three classes of persons engaged in manufacturing opinion hostile to the
Union Convention called at Baltimore. First, the enemies of the American
Government and human liberty known as Copperheads. Second, the declared
in any case whatever. This class calls the Baltimore call "insolent!" and
criticises the Administration with all the acridity of the fiercest
rebel journals. Third, the class which is wholly devoted to the country and to
liberty, but is dissatisfied with the influences that surround
the President, and are persuaded that
are almost as dangerous
to the good cause as
This class wishes the Convention to be postponed until after
has fought, and, in any case, asks that the terms of the call may be so changed
as to include War
and all other loyal Union men.
As to the first part of their objection, it is clear that under no circumstances
whatever could the policy of a man like the President be altogether agreeable to
them. It will always be a more cautious and patient policy than they approve.
The practical point, therefore, for them to decide is, whether, looking at the
whole course of his administration, the cause will be imperiled by its
continuance ; or whether, all the circumstances considered, any other man known
to us is more likely than he to accomplish the great work. If they know such a
man, clearly it is their duty to persuade the country to adopt him. If they
merely wish that there were such a one, do not the times require something else
than expressions of regret and dissatisfaetion ? If they believe the continued
presence of Mr.
SEWARD and Mr.
BLAIR in the Cabinet to be detrimental to the country, let the attack
upon those gentlemen be made openly, fairly, and incessantly. But let it be
based upon facts, and not upon rumors nor bald assertions. When the President is
persuaded that the cause is injured by any of his advisers, and that public
opinion demands their removal, we are very sure they will be removed. But a dumb
dissatisfaction is of no use. Why should a few men go to Washington and
privately decry any secretary to the President ? The public have a right to
know, at such a time as this, why any great change is made in high public
officers, and therefore the discussion should be as open as possible. The
BUTLER was formerly one of the chief charges against what was called the
influence of Mr.
SEWARD. Well, Mr.
SEWARD remains, and General
BUTLER declares himself to be entirely satisfied with his present
treatment. We are not defending Mr.
SEWARD nor denouncing him ; but our friends ought to bear in mind that
it is very easy to overestimate the influence of an obnoxious person.
Now in the matter of the call to the Convention. It is surprising that any man
who has carefully read it should call it narrow, partisan, or exclusive. It is
as comprehensive as patriotism, and as little tainted by party-spirit. Indeed we
do not understand how a better call could
been issued. It is addressed to
qualified voters who desire the unconditional maintenance of the Union, the
supremacy of the Constitution, and the complete suppression of the existing
with the cause thereof, by vigorous war, and
and efficient means." Such voters are requested to elect delegates. Is
this not a platform upon which every loyal Union man can stand, Generals
BUTLER and Dix, Mr. DICKINSON
and Senator JOHNSON equally with
and BANKS, Mr.
WEED and Senator
SUMNER? How could it be simpler, broader, better?
Every man who wishes to see equal popular rights established in all the States,
and the final overthrow of the oligarchical spirit which generated the
rebellion, and is a perpetual insurrection against our national peace and
freedom, is invited to take part in the elections to the Convention by the very
terms of the call, " the complete suppression * * * of the cause of the
rebellion." Its complete suppression is its total destruction by the
establishing of equal rights. To change the form of the call to " all who are in
favor of the people against an aristocracy" does not change its nature, nor make
it broader or stronger. It is already addressed to those very persons and to
none other. It certainly is not addressed to gentlemen like the
VALLANDIGHAM, the WOODS, LONG,
nor to JEFFERSON DAVIS and his
Confederates. But to every loyal Union man who wishes to establish peace upon
equal liberty it is addressed with a directness that he can not avoid,
And how is it a party call ? It
is issued, indeed, by the Chicago Committee ; but that is a necessity of the
case. That Committee is the recognized representative of a great mass of voters,
and speaks by their authority. And by that authority a party platform is
repudiated altogether. Had a few gentlemen of the several late political organizations
combined in a call, it would have had the force of their personal influence, but
it could not have been so weighty as if they had been by consent of the voters,
their representatives. And it is obvious that at this time the fact of the late
party ties of the Committee is of no importance whatever, in view of the entire
absence of partisan character in their call. They propose nothing but the
salvation of the country by every necessary means, specifying the destruction of
slavery as one of them. Can this, in candor, be stigmatized as a party call or a
narrow call ? Is there a loyal citizen any where in the country, whatever his
party antecedents, who may not heartily and wholly respond to it ? And is it not
the duty of all men who wish as
little division as possible among the true enemies of the rebellion to
refrain from hypercriticism upon the terms of a call which was intended and is
framed to include every earnest and unconditional Union man in the country?
The Union men are unquestionably the mass of the people of the free States. But
they must not forget that every spring and autumn the elections are not
unanimous. They must remember that last November Pennsylvania was carried by
less than twenty thousand majority for the Union, and that if the summer
campaign in the field is unsuccessful we shall need all our
unity and ardor to withstand the disarrangement which will ensue. Let us
seek, then, rather for grounds of union than of difference. We can not all be
satisfied altogether. Shall we not take counsel of our patience and faith in
justice and the people rather than
of impatience and distrust ?
IT is a very important question how far the menaces of refusal to abide by the
nomination of the Union Convention at Baltimore which are uttered by the
immediate friends and supporters of
General FREMONT are authorized by him. Has
General FREMONT interests different from those of the country ? Is his
nomination so essential to the national cause that the cause itself may be
risked in order to secure it ? We are unwilling to believe that he would
acknowledge it. Yet he must be fully aware that it is privately and publicly
asserted that he means to be a candidate in any case ; that those who declare
their intention under no circumstances to vote for Mr. LINCOLN, even if he be
nominated, use the name of FREMONT
as their rallying cry; and that his continued silence under such
circumstances is an injury to the national cause. Certainly if General FREMONT
should declare that he means to abide by the decision of the Convention, he
would neither decrease the favor of the Convention toward him nor the respect
with which so many Union men, who intend to support the Baltimore nomination,
have been accustomed to regard him.
Those who speak in his name repudiate the action of the Union Convention in
advance, because they declare that it will not represent the people, but the
politicians ; and they propose to obviate this difficulty by
galling another Convention.
Quis custodiet custodes? How is the new Convention to be purged of politicians?
These gentlemen object that the Baltimore Convention will be packed to nominate
Mr. LINCOLN. And what is their remedy? To pack another at Cleveland to nominate
General FREMONT, But which is the more promising aternative?
—an unpledged assembly called to nominate the best candidate, whoever
he may be, or one which is called to defeat the nomination of a certain
candidate? The friends of General
FREMONT have as fair a chance to send delegates to the Baltimore
Convention as the friends of any other candidate ; and when they declare that
they will have nothing to do with it, they say very frankly that, as they can
not hope to control it, they will repudiate it.
If this is the spirit which animates them—if the interests of one man are dearer
to them than the welfare of the country—if they are seriously resolved to resist
the nomination of the Union Convention, if it should not be that of their
favorite, and to bring a third candidate into the field, the incalculable
misfortunes which may befall the country in consequence will be justly
attributable to them. When the order relieving General FREMONT of the command of
the Western Department reached him in camp near Springfield, Missouri, more than
a hundred officers came to his tent, threw their swords upon the ground, and
declared their intention to retire with him.
"Take up your swords, gentlemen," said FREMONT ; " remember that you are
the soldiers of a cause, not of a man." Has the General himself now ceased to be
the soldier of a cause ?
THE Senate has at length done its duty in providing for the equal payment of the
colored troops, and for the fulfillment of the promises made by authority to
those already enlisted. The House ought not to delay for a day to agree to the
bill. For nothing is clearer than that the policy of employing colored troops
should be renounced altogether, or that we should treat them honorably.
Professor PECK, of Oberlin College, who has investigated the condition of these
troops on the Atlantic coast, reports that the difference of pay between them
and white soldiers is rapidly demoralizing them. Chaplain CONWAY writes to the
same effect. At Fort Esperenza, in Texas, a colored battalion of the Fourteenth
Rhode Island Artillery refused to receive
their pay, and declared themselves out of the service ; and the sad case
of Sergeant WALKER in Florida, who was shot because he would not submit to be
cheated by the authority of the United States, is fresh in our memories, and
will always be shameful for our name. And while we refuse to treat these brave
men honorably the rebels massacre them like dogs. The rebel conduct is fiendish,
but at least it is consistent. If men, because they are of a certain color, may
justly be deprived of liberty and all the other rights of human nature, they may
certainly be deprived of life at the will of their captors. Massacre, barbarism,
the most shocking inhumanity, are to be expected in a people who have been
unfortunately bred under the slave system. But we have the right to require
manliness and honor and justice of those who have been more fortunate. Shall we
sacrifice the good name of our native land to the indulgence of a wretched
" Well," says some reader, " I think they had better be paid—but what a pity
that we had to call upon them to help us!" Why so ? Why should the Government be
dearer to any one class of citizens than to another? When it is threatened why
should not the call for its defense be universal? You don't think it a pity to
call in the aid, as soldiers, of foreigners of every race ; why is it so that
native Americans of every hue should be summoned? The remark is only an evidence
of. the far-reaching taint of the slavery from which our troubles spring. For,
except for the system which brands black men as pariahs, it would be as natural,
and as much of course, that they should fight for the Government which protected
their rights in common with all others, as that Gaseous and Normans should fight
together for France, or Scotchmen, Welshmen, and Yorkshiremen for England.
Of all the inane remarks with which the earlier days of the war were rife none
was more ludicrously silly than the exclamation, " Well, if white men can't put
down this rebellion it had better succeed." It might as wisely have been said, "
If the men with pug noses, or red whiskers, or who are five feet high, or the
blue-eyed men, or the left-handed men, can't suppress it, it had better not be
suppressed." The spirit which makes this kind of discrimination is one which
entirely misapprehends the character of our Government. It is not a Government
of any class of men whatever, but of all the people, of every descent,
complexion, or race they may be. The cause of the United States is the cause of
human nature, said JAMES MADISON, speaking for the Continental Congress. And in
the introduction to the edition of the Federalist, just published by LIPPINCOTT,
Mr. JOHN C. HAMILTON records with
emphasis the well known sentiments of his father : "All men have one
common original : they participate in one common nature, and consequently have
one common right." His son and editor adds, " He meant the whole human race, and
looked to the emancipation of the blacks as part of the great sacrifice to be
laid by the American people on the altar of freedom." If we had always believed
and acted as the fathers of our Government believed we should have had no war.
the purely arbitrary distinctions between citizens would have been destroyed.
And when we fully believe our own principle, and bring the Government to
conform, we shall have permanent and prosperous peace, and not before.
LAST week we welcomed the art criticisms of the
Tribune for their sincerity and ability, however we
might differ with the judgments they expressed. This week we wish to speak of
the utterly unfair way in
which those criticisms have been attacked.
They are the plainest opinions of pictures founded
upon principles plainly stated, and they are denounced as " personal injuries."
The critic is insulted, if
not threatened, in private speech and in
published communications, for a faithful performance
of his duty. But the insult is addressed to
every man who discusses art quite as much as to
the individual critic, and every journalist ought to
take up the gage thus truculently thrown down.
The only open question in the whole matter is,
whether there has been any personal attack made
by the critic ; a question which the most exasperated artist will not
dare to answer in the affirmative.
Their names are used merely as representatives of
their paintings, as we say " a Titian," " a Raphael," " a Teniers." When,
for instance, the critic says that
the promise of Mr. KENSETT is fading away in
such pictures as the October Afternoon upon Lake
George and the Massachusetts Coast, you may not agree with him ; but it
is perfectly clear that he is no
more insulting Mr. KENSETT than if he should
say that he thought Mr. FARMER had a truer eye for nature than Mr.
KENSETT. And even if there had been
personality in the criticisms, certainly the account has been balanced by
the petulant, and contemptuous,
and, we must add, contemptible personality of the rejoinders.
But what right has the critic to write as he does ?
Simply the right that every span has to express his
opinions. If he have insufficient knowledge—if he
be merely presumptuous, shallow, and conceited,
he writes himself down an ass much more emphatically
than any one else can write him by calling him
so. If you ask what right he has to have an opinion,
you ask a question not worth an answer. Or, again,
if you demand what he knows of pictures, the reply
is, that the articles themselves answer. If they
show that he knows nothing, why all the exasperation
? Mr. LEUTZE, for instance, paints a picture of
Washington Crossing the Delaware. He has thought
upon his subject, he has studied and practiced his art.
His picture may be assumed to be the result of long
reflection and preparation. He paints it so and not
otherwise, because he is convinced that so it ought
to be. Now, is it conceivable that, if the artist be
correct in his conception and method, so elaborate a
work is to lose in reputation because somebody who
knows nothing looks at it and says, " It is all false ?"
If the artist be as profoundly convinced as he should
be before painting that or any picture that it is all
true, are he or his friends likely to be more than
amused or interested if some ignoramus pronounces
it unnatural in conception and extravagant in execution?
Or is nobody to express an opinion of pictures except painters themselves? The
same rule must then be applied to all other arts. Only poets must criticise
poetry; only musicians music. MOTLEY
only may be allowed to criticise BANCROFT. BRYANT must be the sole critic
of LONGFELLOW. But if any one has
often listened to music in the company of musicians, or if he recalls
what he may have heard painters say
of each other's pictures, he can
readily fancy whether criticism would be gentler if
it were confined in every art to experts in that art.
Are pictures painted for painters or for the public ? Do poets sing for
poets or for the world? Why are the
works of the year annually exhibited in the National Academy if it be not
that their merits may be judged by
the public taste? Has a man no right as he looks at the present
Exhibition to prefer M'ENTEE to GIFFORD, or GIFFORD to COLE, or
COLE to HUBBARD, or HUBBARD to COLEMAN, or COLEMAN to any body else ? We
can not too strongly condemn the spirit which has been displayed
in the rejoinders to the Tribune criticisms,
as if it were a mortal offense in a critic to say that
CHURCH is not a great painter and that FARRER is ;
that LAFARGE is untrue to nature and HIENNESSY is true.
But is it, not unkind, you ask, to speak of any
men as HUNTINGTON and DURAND are spoken of in those articles? They are
denied every kind of excellence. Very well, grant that it is unpleasant;
but what is the way to meet such criticism ? Is it to
declare that gentlemen of such unblemished lives
and amiable characters must necessarily paint fine
pictures ; or to show that they do paint them ? We
are very sure of the answer both of the gentlemen
named would give to the question. They would say
that neither they nor any painters had a prescriptive
claim to praise, and that, as artists, they must be judged by their
works. They stand exactly as BRYANT
stands in a kindred art—as indeed every
artist always stands, at the mercy of any man who can show that their
reputation is unfounded.
Yet once more, we shall be asked if it is not ungenerous
in any man to spoil another man's market for his wares? Here, we are
told, are some young artists who
club together, and hope to realize a pretty
sum by the sale of their studies and pictures, and
on the very eve of the sale an article appears, with a knowing air, in a
leading paper, declaring that the
pictures are unworthy the gentlemen who offer them for sale. The
community of buyers, who are not
very sure of their own taste, are alarmed, and they refrain from buying
lest they should make themselves ridiculous. Is this, we are asked, not rather
hard upon young artists who, in any case, have no very easy path to tread? Now
surely this is not an honorable
question for the friends of the
artists to put, since it implies that the pictures would,
except for the criticism, have been sold under a misapprehension. Do the
artists wish higher prices paid for
their works than they are fairly worth ; and (Next