|
|
Letter from Harris, Joseph
| Soldier: Harris, Joseph |
| Allegiance: Union |
| Unit/Service Branch: 75th Infantry |
| Home State: Ohio |
| Date Written: Monday, April 11th, 1864 |
| Location: Jacksonville, Fla. |
| Correspondence Type: Letter |
| Subjects: Slavery, Secesh, Politics, Patriotism, Newspapers |
| |
Cornelius Pervin
Sir,
At this my earliest opportunity I will proceed to answer yours of February 7th which came to hand some time ago. As you will perceive by the above heading, we have changed our position some 200 miles further south now camped near the town of Jacksonville Florida. Jacksonville is situated on the north bank of the St. John’s River about 30 miles from its mouth and some 30 or 40 miles below the southern boundary of Georgia. We left Folly Island on the morning of the 23d of February and by transport arrived here on the next day at noon – having another quite a pleasant ride on the “Bring [?] Deep.” For sometime after our arrival here there was a manifestation on the part of the enemy to make an attack on us. Consequently during the whole time, which was nearly 3 weeks, we were constantly on the alert and prepared ready […] into line of battle at a moments warning. The enemy has a […] force of 1300 men in our front at this time under command of […] Anderson, while we have 10000 to confront them under the command of Gen Hatch [?]. But with the breast works and forts erected since we came here I would wager a thousand they will be waisted [?] if they should attack us. I suppose you have heard something about the Battle of Olustee which took place in Feb. in this Department no very far from this place. On this point I would like to ask you a question as it will open the matter in dispute in our correspondences and remember I don’t ask it in a spirit of “animosity” as it seems your last letter was commenced in, but I propose as a mere matter of curiosity to know how you account for it as it seems you are determined to defend the traitorous curse of Vallandigham [?] and place yourself among the party commonly called ‘Copperheads.” The question is why do the Copperheads […] publish with so made explanation, all the details of a defeat to the Union arms, while they give but a passing notice without a word of rejoicing when success crowns the efforts of our army? A late instance of incomparable meaness in this line was in regard to the Battle of Olustee. We do not deny but what this was a defeat to our forces but the question is why do coppherhead papers herald it with such satanic glee throughout the country in flaming head lines while the really brilliant raids of Kirkpatrick and Smith are hardly noticed. You need not tell me they do it to give the people information about occasional blunders made in the army – in order to call for information for this would be a good motive and good is a contraband article to Copperheadism, but they do it from one of the basest motives that ever cased mortal man to sin and that is to present the darkest picture possible of the war to the people at home in order to discourage them from lending their aid to the army that has so proudly borne the old Stars and Stripes battling for [the] Union, battle against the hydraheaded monster of Secession and battling for that Constitution which is the bulwark of our [?] and that […] flag the emblem of Freedom and a shield for the oppressed of every land. You may ask how do your papers i.e. (be in Enquirer & Jones Telegraph [?]) do this., they do it sir by telling the people the infamous lie that the war has merged into a “Nigger war” by an exaggeration of our defeats, and by the meanest party spite in predjuciging the minds of the people against the constitutionally elected officers of our Government and that too when every time friend to his country is needed to help the administration to save the Union by trampling down the doctrine of secession. The reason why they devise to make good their assertion that where a state secedes by armed force –that is breaks the Union—we must not bring them back by armed force, oh no that would be terrible that would cause wars and oh my cowardly legs cant stand bullets, but let us tell them they are right and we are wrong, give them all they ask do anything to avoid wars at least to me cowardly soul, and let us live in peace though the [?] ally let the crack of the Slave drivers whip through out the land. Is this two hard a version of copperheadism – if you think it is let me tell it to you in a few simple plain words. It is this “we are for the Union, but when a State sees fit to secede by armed force let it be either right or wrong it cannot be brought back by force, but only by giving up to them the principle they contend for, or in other words the Union then can only be saved by honeyed words of Compromise” does this mean that a majority of the people of the United States must crawl at the feet of naughtly insolent Rebels in the minority because these rebels say they will break up the Union if we do not concede to them the principles they contend for. Must we stoop to them for the cowardly purpose of “avoiding war” I tell you sir this is the cowards reason. And it is the position your party occupies today – you pretend to be for the Union now and all the time in order to be so the Democratic Part of latter day kind would sell body and soul to its Southern Masters. The Copperhead propose [?] “We slant [?] Union with the institution of Slavery at all hazards – but not […] without slavery is a despotism.” Your party seems to be confirmed fanatics on this point, you seem yourself to think that the institution of slavery is sacred—more sacred than life to those of your Southern brethren who are engaged in the infamous purpose of destroying our government. I admire your candor in something it right to take the life of a rebel which your necessarily add is right on the battlefield as we are not in the habit of meeling them in deadly shifts any place else. But I must despise your weakness and the weak and disgraceful opposition of your party in general when your whole opposition to the efforts of the administration is based on principles which you so candidly admit to be the case, that it is right to take the life of a rebel but in no case is it right to take his property. I will candidly tell you, I think your party rather than have the Union saved as a […] effort by the destruction of slavery—would have our great country disunited and the dark and blasting curse of slavery reign predominant over its wins [?]. I assert it now as a principle which I hope to see realized at no distant day that the Union cannot be saved only by the destruction of Slavery—and it will be realized. What I have seen of the Southern masses both of soldiers and civilians they utterly despise the Copperhead element of the North are tired of the war and if the influence of Southern leaders could only be destroyed they would eagerly come back to the old Union again and acquiesce in the destruction of slavery – I think to ay the least of it it is very shameful not to say infamously disgraceful for a party at the North, a party which has given up under the influ- […] of free institutions, to be giving their strength on the side of rebels in defense of slavery which as every reasonable man will […] always been a curse to our nation. The time has gone […] when men who are so deliberately determined to effect the union of our nation – ought to have any rights in regard to the Constitution of slavery I care not who you call Abolitionists for now days according to copperheads sentiment a man who defends the Old Stars and Stripes sings the Star Spangled Banner or Hail Columbia is called an Abolitionist. If to utterly annihilate the doctrine of secession root out the institution of slavery if it presents its dark walls between us and the salvation of the Union with the Stars and Stripes as my emblem and a secure permanent Union of very part of our great country under the principle of Freedom & Liberty – I say if all this constitutes an Abolitionist then I am one and so is the army and a great body of the American People you seem to think no one wishes for peace but Copperheads and say after a long rigmarole about “burning houses” which I must confess I cant see the point – because you act […] peace now are called traitors, I tell you plainly and say what I think…
|
| |
|
|
