Newspaper Page Text
NTMBER 6.
Liberty Hale, ,
OMYrpoianTLLE, GA.,*JGtli June, 1874. )'
Editor cf the Constitutionalist: The long
■Ylavwi nply of Mr. Hill to my articles
3 and 4. in which his letter to me of
Hatch 14th, 1864” was given to the pub-
’ic, has h*«n before me several days; and
jgjtwsendyoa for publication such com
ments upon it as I deem pertinent, and os
mv emit feebleness of body has permitted
to have reduced to writing. The
>nsth of this most remarkable paper of
Sir Hill requires me, in noticing it, to
draw much more largely upon your col
ons than is at all compatible with my
vjdie*: but I trust you will on this Ocea
nia indulse me. I shall be as brief, con-
.hnsed and methodical as possible.
1st What Mr. Hill’s exigencies required
rf him, was not a history of his letter of
-Mairh 14th, 18G4,” or how it-came to be
written; Imt what he had to say of its sub-
,yt** and subject matter, in ex-
Tricathm of himself from the “hor
rible” dilemma in which it clearly
tjaced him; in view of wliat he had as-
jetted in his “Historical Address 1 ’ about
the mischievous and treacherous mach
inations of the “malcontents” in Georgia
in their attempt to array the State in hos
tility to the Confederate Administration,
at the extra session of the Legislature in
]«-*»; and of Ids “gandcrlcering” (not
candekering, as Mr. Hill seems not to
jeireive the meaning of that word as
used bv me) to Mr. Davis over his ex
ploits in defeating the movement His
letter of “March 14th, 1804,” showed
cnodusivefo that the action of the Legis
lature had been in pursuance of a pro-
examine previously fully agreed to by
aim.
At first he was so “staggered” by the
extract from this letter published in my
ankle No. 3, (which covered all the
points I then had in hand,) that he called
for the entire letter, hoping, perhaps, to
find something in other parts of it. on
which be could venture, by tho ingenuity
of a sophistical argument, to relieve him
self from the dilemma in which he was
then so dearly placed. In making this
call, however, he it remembered, Mr.
Hill said:
"Irmly nay now,
mrlM, written or Ifu
UUmlify me fur one
war on. the Confederate Administration and
lama, then I will confess that I am not entitled
to the mated of Southern titan, teaman or
r\ild nor. or enrr."
llis call was promptly replied to by the
{Mtldkation of all the other portions of
the letter not embraced in the extract be
fore given. So the public then had the
whole of the letter, from the beginning
to the end—without the mutilation of a
K-ntence, word, syllable or “comma” in
it. Mr. Hill certainly got no comfort
from the response to his call. The other
portions of the letter were quite os dam
aging to liis itosition as that part first pub
lished. After the whole was thus brought
«»ut, it will lie recollected that I, in my
ankle No. 4, in reply to his language
just above quoted, brought him directly
to law. in these words:
“ All I have to say in reply to this is,
• that If I, or Gov. Brown, or lion. Linton
1 Stephens, of the Georgia Legislature, in
their action at the extra session of 1864,
made “war upon the Confederate Adminis
tration or its lairs,” then ttyc letter, in all
its essential parts, fully identified him with
what wc did in cvcty essential particular.”
If tliis shall bring him to the convic
tion that “ he is not entitled to the re
spect ef any true Southern man, woman
nr child now, or ever; be it so. It is a
matter for his own conscience to deter
mine, when he sees wliat he put in wri
ting ct :he time. He may ciy “out” to
tbeae lines so penned, but they will not
“out.” Ilk only escape, consistently
with his character, is upon the ground
he did not stand to the principles
ami sentiments so announced by him, for
Ihc space of "one hour”
The issue thus presented he did not at
tempt to meet, drinking, perhaps, if lie
adopted the only plan of escape indicated,
a 211 . . *** uu auo IYCI IKJ U
bill m chancery which he was about to
be sworn to:
“I*st some suspect your tale to be untrue •
Better keep probability to view.” ’
Mr - 2Arc » h 'J tne! For
^ he most . Perfect friendly rela-
ev * r existed Between us. No
expression of personal unkindness had
C !5 r be ? 1 uttered by either against the
2™™i^£ ar “J wasaware - Hebad often
consulted with me upon the most detinde
questions of war up to that time. I had
a n d fni nkly given him my views
a upon all questions when asked. I had
as freely and frankly conferred with
personally and by letter, urging my
views on matters which I deemed of
vital importance to our cause, on which
my counsels had not been sought. On
W °f tBese he disagreed with me.
Just as I had urged in the most friendly
way upon many of my best personal
friends not to adopt the policy of seces
sion, but their disagreement with me on
this point, in no way or degree alienated
my personal feelings from them. Mr.
Hill says I know how to hate; but do not
know how to sacrifice personal feelings
on the altar of the public good. Who
among the dead or the living ever had
lesa of “Aafe” in his nature, or ever ex
hibited, throughout liis life, in a greater
degree than I have, the virtue of “sacri
ficing his personal feelings on the altar
of the public good.” Hate, indeed!
This quality is as far from my nature as
are itskindred qualities of double-dealing,
deceit, duplicity and hypocrisy. In tins
connection, I beg to be excused for say
ing that I have seen it stated in some pa
pers that I was influenced by "hate” or an
"old grudge” against Mr. Hill in entering
upon a review of Iris “Historical Ad
dress.” Such writers know nothing of
my nature. What cause had I ever had
for "hate” or "grudge” against him, even
if I had been capable of entertaining such
sentiments? Our personal interests in no
way clashed. I never met him on the
hustings but once, and was perfectly sat
isfied witli the result of the discussion
then had. The popular verdict rendered
at the polls in a short time after, upon
the merits of our respective arguments,
showed an increased majority on that
side which was advocated by me. Was
this any cause of “hate” or “grudge” on
my part?
I never met Mr. Hill in a court, cither
before a jury or a judge, in the State
Circuit Court, or Supreme Court, or the
Federal Court, where the verdict of the
jury or the decision of the Bench was
not in my favor. Was this any cause of
“hate” or “grudge” on my part
towards him? No! On the altar
of Tisiphone no offerings were ever
presented by me. Malice I can
cherish towards no human being. It is
true I am not devoid of passion, or even
tbe highest indignation, especially at
wrong, injustice and baseness; but even
now, after Mr. Hill has exhausted his
vocabulary of denunciations against me,
and taken his flight, I feel very much to
wards him as Uncle Toby did towards
the fly. His "bussing,” os I have hereto
fore said, about me for several years
since the war, with whatever motive or
with whatever object, I permitted to pass
with perfect indifference. It was only
when he exhibited himself in his “His
torical Address,” as belonging to tbe green
species order of that insect by his profuse
deposits of loathsome larvae upon my
integrity, character, and patriotism, as
well as that of the good name of many
of the truest and noblest men of the
South, I felt it to be my duty to crush
these noxious vermin without any dispo
sition to hurt individually the creature
that had laid them.
Again; If the matter of my defection
from the “cause” was a subject of discus
sion at Richmond in the Winter of 1863,
as he says it was, and if he and others
there “had reason to know that it was re
garded by our enemies as a most signifi
cant indication of a dividing and collap
sing Confederacy,” as he now says, why
did he not inform me of these facts when
he was at my house? Why wait ten years
‘to give me the information? Accordingto
. . his account, his visit here was a “brave
that ho would bo irretrievably caught, undertaking on his part, to make a patriot
and more ilamagingly exposed by proof
of his well known support in 1863, of
lion. Joshua Hill for Governor of Geor
gia, who had not only been opposed to
Secession, but was one of tbe very few
in tlic State who luul, during the whole
war, so little sympathy with the Confed
erate cause, that he was at its close ena
bled to take the iron-clad oath, so-
called.
In this most embarrassing predicament,
Mr. Hill, after two weeks rcconnoissance
and close observation of the situation, so
far as concerned any further contest in a
discussion of the question at issue, seems
to have come to the same conclusion as
to his course in this matter, that another
redoubtable knight arrived at, as to his,
under similar circumstances, though in a
conflict of a different sort, to-wit, that;
••In all the trade of war no feat
I* nobler than a brave retreat;
For he that fights and runs away,
May live to fight another day.”
Hr. Hill, at one bound, quits the field
of argument, and betakes himself to his
lavorae arena of fancy and fiction. Hence
his most remarkable new Chapter of Con
frderate History!
2. This new chapter, which is the work
entirely of liis imagination, as most of his
'Historical Address” was, is, to me, from
tlie beginning to the end, one of the most
amusing sj»eciiuens of work of this sort,
I ever rent. Nothing in the heroic JSclie-
utzkIcs thousandaud one stories, in the
Arabian Nights Entertainments, invented
to secure her escape from death, is more
of the Vice“Presidcnt!”
3d. Mr. Hill begins this new “chapter
in Confederate history” by assigning
as a reason for his vbold retreat, or
“retirement,” as it is called, from any
further contest in this controversy over
those portions of his “Historical Ad
dress” reviewed by me in this series of Ar
ticles. wliat he claims to be a pending
question of veracity between us, growing
out of what I said in my first Article
about his absence from Richmond pen
ding the consideration of the appointment
of commissioners to the Hampton Roads
Conference. On this point he claims
that he has shown me to be a "liar," and
guilty of a most “malicious falsehood 1 ’—
that lie has outlawed" me from the pale of
truth, and that henceforth I am utterly
•unworthy of belief, &c.
This is ccrtainlv a most ludicrous pre
text for such a bold and extraordinary
retreat in view of the facts of the case.
(Suppose I did 6ay he was not in Rich
mond when he was, feeling fully assured
of the truth of the assertion when I made
it, does that constitute falsehood on my
part? According to all standard
writers on law and morals, and ac
cording to the universal good sense of
mankind, "falsBurod" can never be justly
charged upon any one for stating what
he believe* to be true, especially if there be
good> reasons for this belief—even though
the fact turns out to be otherwise than it
was thus believed to be. My reason for
stating that Mr. Hill was not in Rich-
r . mond at the time Mr, Davis and Iris Cab-
Not even her account of the “Mer- inet had under consideration the appoint-
h.-uit and the Genius,” “Sinbad, the ment of the Commissioners, under the
Sailor,” or “Aladdin,” with his “Won- Blair proposition, (and which ended in
the Hampton Roads Conference)
icrful Lamp.”
What, for instance, more amusing,*
and at the same time more incredible
<oiy could liuve been invented, by tbe
m<Wi fruitful imagination than, that I
< ouid have told Mr. Hill at our interview
in March, 1864. that I had no confidence in
Jfr. Haris—I knew him tcM—that ire must
ffit lktri* as well as Lincoln—that I knew
■dr. IKiris intended to make himself a mib-
'■■<ry dictator—that I knew what I was say-
•\c. and hid reasons for knotting it, which
l could not state—that Darts meant to arrest
«<■—that he meant to arrest Brown, and even
Mr. Uul himself!
Whoever believes such a tale as that,
•an readily swallow as truth, anything in
•Julliver or Munchausen. Then his state
ment. that he well knew that- my oppo-
'ition to conscription, impressments, and
habeas corpus suspensions originated in
nothing but "hatred” of Mr. Davis, is of
’-lie same diameter. Who can be so
credulous as to believe any such story f
Mr. Hill in putting it up would have done
wen to have borne in mind the memor
able couplet, said to have been repeated
•;y the elder Judge Underwood, of our
s iate, (a distinguished lawyer and brilliant
wit of his day,) to a client of his who
*Dr. Johnson remarks, that amuse implies
vimething less lively than divert, and less
•apoitant than pleats. Hence it is often said,
•c are amused with trifles.
ampton Roads Conference) was
the fact that Mr. Hill had himself told
me a night or two before Mr. Davis sent
for me, on his first taking this matter
under consideration, that he was going to
Georgia, and took leave of me according
ly, and that I had not seen him there
afterwards.
If a man takes leave of me atmy house,
and says he is going on the next train to
Augusta, and 1 do not see him afterwards,
I should not hesitate to say, if the in
quiry was made for him, that he had
gone to Augusta ; nor should I thereby
subject myself to the just charge of false
hood, even though he did not go, as he
said he intended to do. No turpitude
either in law or morals attaches to any
one for any such act or. statement, unless
he persists in his statement, after it clearly
appears to him, from any subsequent de
velopment, that the probabilities are that
the fact was not as he thought it to be.
But whether a party, who attempts to fix
"falsehood’ upon another, who frankly
admits in such a case that the fact may
be otherwise than he thought it to be at
first, and expressly refrains from a re-
affirmance of it, is "free himself from tur
pitude of some sort, I leave to the public
t0 ^ovMthis is just wliat I did, when I saw
Mr. Hill’s “unwritten history of the
Hampton Roads Commission,” and his
open avowal, therein, of his double deal
ing and duplicity towards me in the mat-
of the Congressional Commission,
which I had proposed; and his bold an
nouncement in the same, of what he styled
the “flank movement” made by him and
the Georgia delegation, in conjunction
with Mr. Davis in reference to the pro
posed Congressional Commission, in or
der to “circumvent” me, and “stop” my
tongue,” by giving the “Negotiations”
and “Peace movement men their own
medicine mixed to suit themselves.” I
readily saw that his taking leave of me,
and telling me he was going to start to
Georgia the next morning, when he had
no idea of doing so, was in perfect ac
cord with his other deceitful and double
dealing conduct towards me on this entire
subject, so openly proclaimed by him.
It was when, this new, but baleful,
glare of light was thus thrown upon this
whole transaction, that I “frankly con
fessed” that “the probabilities” were that
he was in Richmond, when I supposed
he was in Georgia; and stated with equal
frankness that I would not “reaffirm”
that he was absent from Richmond at the
time stated. It was no "sickly admission”
after I was "ocerichelmed” by the evidence
of his witnesses. It was before one word
of Iris testimony, so-called, on this point,
was given to the public. It was made
most promptly, ana in the most manly
and truth-bearing manner, upon liis own
most infamous disclosure.
It is not my purpose now, nor has it
been at any time, to discuss the merits of
his testimony, nor to show how far short
it comes of sustaining him in making
good his pledge “on pain of infamy” to
prove, not only that he was in Richmond
at the time, but that I knew he was there;
and that he had insisted upon my accept
ance of the appointment as one of these
commissioners in the presence of a num
ber of gentlemen. I will say, however,
that the statement of Hon. Hiram P. Bell,
that he and other members of the Geor
gia delegation, Mr. Hill included, were in
my room in consultation upon my pro
posed Congressional Commission, the
night before Mr. Davis sent for me, and
that Mr. Hill said on that occasion that
lie intended to to go Georgia at an early
day; and that Mr. Bell did not remember
meeting him in Richmond again after
they parted that night at my room, is
quite confirmatory in its character of
what I said about Mr. Hill’s telling me in
my room, either that night or the night
before, that lie was going to Georgia, and
taking leave of me witli that declared
object, when we parted.
But all this has nothing to do with the
merits of the real issue between Mr. Hill
and myself on the Hampton Roads affair.
His presence at or absence from Rich
mond at that time does not in the least
affect that issue. It is true I stated his
absence as one of the reasons of the ins-
possibility of his knowing what he said he
knew. But.other reasons of the impossi
bility of his knowing what he said he
knew, equally conclusive with this, if the
fact had been as I supposed it to he, were
given by me in the same connection.
IIow, for instance, was it possible for
him to know and assert that what I had
written and published, as a history of the
conference, was not true, when the con
ference was held hundreds of miles from
where he was, whether he was in Rich
mond or Georgia? And how was it pos
sible that he could have known the
reasons why each of the Commissioners
had been selected, if what Mr. Davis had
told me was true?
So this question of his presence or ab
sence is a perfectly immaterial point. It
does not at all cover the merits of the
real issue between us. In this connection
further state, that I did not intend to
charge the Georgia delegation as being
“accomplices” with Mr. Hill. I only
said they were “accomplices” “accord
ing to Ins account of their joining him in
his flank-movement” in conjunction with
Mr. Davis to “circumvent me!” That
account I did not believe to be true,
believe they were as much imposed
upon as I was. I believe when they
heard that the Commissioners were ap
pointed, they believed it was an honest
bond fide movement for negotiations for
Peace. They little dreamed that it was
nothing but a response to Mr. Blair’s
proposition for a secret Military Conven
tion without any reference whatever to
makiner Peace on anv terms.
I will here also add that what Mr. Hill
says in his third letter about the rumors
touching Mr. Davis’ instructions to the
Commissioners, and what he had heard
of my private conversations, as to the
limitations of the instructions of Mr.
Davis to the Commissioners, as to the
terms on which they should make peace,
is the veriest bosh that was ever written.
I have never in private or public said
anything on this subject different from
what is published in the “War Between
the States.” . I have told everybody with
whom I conversed on this subject, from
the time I returned from Fortress Mon
roe, that it was no Peace Commission at
all, in any proper sense of the word, arid
there were no instructions whatever
given by Hr. Davis to the Commission
ers as to the terms on which they
should agree to treat upon the subject of
Peace.
4th. Mr. Hill says that I claim in my
article No. 5 that the Confederate cause
was lost because my plan of buying up
cotton was not adopted. In this he errs.
In No. 5 I only maintained that Mr.
Davis had said tliat our failure was owing
to a very different cause from that
asserted by Mr. Hill in his “Historical
Address.” Mr. Davis had said that the
failure of our finances was the failure of
our cause, and that this failure might
have been prevented if a proper plan had
been adopted for tbe purchase by the
Government of cotton, and rushing it out
to Europe before the blockade was
closed. I did assert tliat I had urged
upon Mr. Davis the plan of purchasing
the cotton, by giving eight per cent
Confederate bonds for it, and so rushing
it out, and that he referred me to Mr.
Memminser, who obstinately opposed it.
I said also that thousands of people in
this District knew that this was the plan
advocated by me in canvassing for the
cotton loan in the summer of 1861. Mr.
Hill says I did not offer it in the Provis
ional Congress. This is true. It was
not until the meeting of Congress
in Richmond that I had any opportunity
to do so. It was then I urged my views
upon Mr. Davis and Mr. Memminger;
and I did not offer my plan in Congress
because I could not get tbe administra
tion to agree with me. I knew nothing
could be done without its concurrence.
It was to avoid divisions and avoid sub
jecting myself to the charge of heading
a party in opposition to the administra
tion. This was well known to many
members of the Provisional Congress,
whether to Mr. Hill or not Mr. Brooks’
plan was entirely different from mine.
Its avowed object was the relief of
planters by issuing Treasury notes for
cotton, and thus inflating the currency.
This was the scheme which General
Toombs opposed and defeated. But
my plan was to buy the cotton with
eight per cent, bonds, with several
years to run and by which the curren
cy would not have been increased a dime.
But I told 3D. Brooks and other friends
of using cotton in any way proposed, and
especially CoL R. W. Johnson, of Arkan
sas, who was a most zealous advocate of
the cotton policy, in some shape or other,
that it was utterly useless for us to attempt
to do anything on this line, nnlpw we
could first get the approval and co-opera
tion of the administration. These are the
facts of the case, and if anybody has the
curiosity to investigate them further, I
refer him to Cleveland’s compilation of
my speeches, page 756. 3Ir. Hill’s re
mark abont this compilation is in
character with himself. I simply fur
nished 3Ir. Cleveland with copies of my
speeches as they had been previously pub
lished. This speech was published at the
time it was made from no reason except
a vindication of myself against unjust
attacks _ in the newspapers for factious
opposition to the Administration. No
fact stated in this speech has ever been
questioned from that day to this, so far
as I have heard. In my opinion, the
blunder of the Administration in not
using cotton, as they might and could,
before it was too late, was only one of the
many like blunders, both in our interned
and exterrud policy which led to the ulti
mate failure of the cause. 3Ir. Hill says
in his new chapter, that from the begin
ning he always kept before him the
“great overshadowing conviction that
Independence was certain, if our people
could be kept resolutely united,” etc. A
very strange conviction this for anyone
pretending to be a statesman. Did not
Cortes with less, perhaps, than a thous
and men, subjugate Mexico and deprive
millions of resolutely united men of their
Independence ? History teaches that
brains—trise counsels—are as essential in
the civil as well as the military depart
ment, for the successful conduct of war.
My convictions at the beginning, as to
the result af the issues presented by the
Secessionjof the Southern States, were ex
pressed in that celebrated “corner stone”
speech, (to which Mr. Hill refers), in the
following words:
“Will everything, commenced so well,
continue as it has begun ? In reply to
this anxious inquiry, I can only say it all
depends upon ourselves. A young man
starting out in life on his majority, with
health talent and ability, under a favor
ing Providence, may be said to be the
architect of his own fortunes. His des
tinies are in his own hands. He may
make for himself a name, of honor or
dishonor, according to his own acts. If
he plants himself upon truth, integrity,
honor and uprightness, with industiy,
patience and energy, he cannot fail of
success. So it is with us. We are a
young republic, just entering upon the
arena of nations; we will be architects of
our own fortunes. Our destiny, under
Providence, is in our own hands. With
wisdom, prudence and Statesmanship on
the part of our public men, and intelli
gence, virtue and patriotism on the part
of the people, success, to the full meas
ures of our most sanguine hopes, may he
looked for. But if unwise counsels prevail
— if we become divided—if schisms
arise—if dissensions spring up—if fac
tions are engendered—if party spirit,
nourished by unholy personal ambition
shall rear its hydra head, I have no good
to prophesy for you.” * * * Our
growth, by accessions from other States,
will depend greatly upon whether we
present to the world, as I trust we shall,
a better Government than that to which
neghboring States belong.”
No man ever made greater “sacrifices
of personal feeling upon the altar of the
public good,” to avoid dissensions, and
keep down discontents among the people,
by keeping the Administration on a right
line of policy, than I did during the
whole war. When I warned the author?
ities personally of what I deemed the
fatal tendency of their omissions as well
as commissions, 1 remained perfectly
silent until driven in a few instances to
address the public in self-vindication.
Now a few words in reply to Mr. Hill’s
remarks in reference to this speech. He
says it did a great deal in alienating for
eign sympathy from our cause { because I
had declared that the subordination of
the inferior to the superior race among
us was the comer stone of the Confeder
acy. How could this have effected our
interest, as argued by Mr. Hill? In using
this figure of speech on that occasion 1
hut repeated what Judge Baldwin, of the
Supreme Court of the United States, had
long before judicially announced in
reference’ to the Federal Constitution.
He had said, and judicially proclaimed,
that “slavery” as it existed in this coun
try, was “the comer stone of the Consti
tution of the United States.” This was
known to all foreign nations, whose
sympathy we sought. How, then, could
my announcement of the same truth in
reference to the Confederate Constitution
have affected their sympathies against us
in this respect?
Mr. Hill’s remarks, therefore, about
my lunacy in making such a declaration
merits no further notice.
5th. Mr. Hill says I perverted his letter
by the manner in which I published it,
and by injecting my comments upon the
separate parts as given to the public. In
illustration of this he says, that liisap-
S royal of Governor Brown’s message of
[arch 1864. was confined to that por
tion which treats of the causes of the
war, how conducted and who responsi
ble. “Now,” says he, “what will the
people think of Mr. Stephens w hen I tell
them that this portion of the message thus
approved relates exclusively to Mr. Lincoln
and hi* party,” etc.
The only reply I make to this is, what
will the people think of Mr. Hill when
they refer, as I ask them to do, to liis
own language as published in these
words:
‘Beginning with that portion of the
message which treats of "the causes of
the war, how conducted, and who re
sponsible’—from that point to the end, I
must say I have not read anything during
the revolution with half so much pleasure
and satisfaction. I know I must thank
you for it The whole country will owe
vou an everlasting debt for it. Governor
Brown can never pay you in kind for the
great benefit you have bestowed upon
him. You have given him a grandeur of
conception, an enlargement of views, and
a perspicuity and power of style to which
he never could have reached. His only
trouble can be the footprints are too plain
not to be recognized.”
The italics in the above quotation em
bracing the words, from that point to the
end, I make in this republication, in
order to call special attention to the fact,
that he had not confined lus high com
mendation to that portion of the message,
which he thus attempts to make the peo
ple believe be had! What, again, will
the people think of such a device to ex
tricate himself, and that, too, by charging
me with a perversion of the record?
Snch a Parthian shot is too amusing, (in
its Johnsonian sense), for farther notice.
But I ask again, with emphasis, what
act of the Legislature—wliat part of Gov.
Btown’s message—what part of the reso
lution of my brother, Hon. Linton Steph
ens, on conscription, impressments, sus
pension of habeas corpus, or what pint of
my speech delivered on that occasion,
had he not previously substantially and
cordially approved in principle, in his
letter of the 14th of March ? I had
called upon him to specify any portion of
either of these that he had not thus ap
proved. He responds to this call only so
far as the speech is concerned. This, in
general .terms, he characterizes as “a
most vindictive tirade against every
leading measure of the Congress adopted
to cany on the war.” His specifications,
however, are confined to tho following
quotations from the speech :
‘‘Without liberty—I would not turn
in my heels for independence. I scorn
independence which does not secure
liberty.
“I warn you also against another fatal
delusion, commonly dressed up in the
fascinating language, of, if we are to
have a master, who # would not prefer to
have a Southern one to a Northern one?
Use no such language. Countenance none
such. * * * I would not turn on my
heel to choose masters. I was not bom
to acknowledge a master from either the
North or the South!”
On these, amongst other like com
ments, he indulges in the following lan-
t was the effect 9t this message
and speech, and the ‘gandeleering’ be
tween tbe Vice President, the Governor
and the ex-judge of the Supreme Court
at the State Capitol against the Confed
erate Administration and laws ? The
‘horrible’ portion of the message and
this speech were circulated by the Re
publicans in the Northern Presidential
campaign of 1864, to prove that the Con
federacy was collapsing ! It was written
and spread over the North that ‘Gov.
Brown, of Georgia, sent a message to the
Legislature against the Confederate laws
which rallied m its support every disaffected
and disappointed man in the Confederacy.
This message was supported by Vice-Presi
dent Stephens."
Now on these points, what had he said
to me in his letter ? Here are his exact
words:
“1. To the legal principles you announce,
I agree. I intimate as much iu my
speech. I will never agree that the mili
tary, as such, from the commander-in-
cliief down, can take charge of and con
trol the citizen. Civilians must be gov
erned, and governed only by civil tribu
nals. Persons in no way attached to, or
within the lines of the army, cannot,
ought not, and must not, be governed
by military law, or military officers.
“The suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus does not and cannot annul, repeal
or modify the citizens’ constitutional bill
of rights. Here lies, deep imbedded, the
corner stone of Freedom's Temple, and I
will never consent to its removal.
The act of Congress, if carried out,
docs infringe in this rtspect. and, there
fore, I voted against it.”
If there was anything “liomble” in
the message of Gov. Brown on habeas
corpus, or the resolutions of Hon. Linton
Stephens, in arraying the people of
Georgia in hostility to Confederate laws,
which was spread over the North to the
injury of our cause, was not 3Ir. Hill as
responsible for it as any or all of us?
Now, I will venture the opinion that the
extract quoted from a Northern paper
was taken from a Richmond paper, and
that the message of Governor Brown and
my speech were never republished in any
paper at the North.
But why, let me ask, did Mr. Hill not
quote the passages .in my speech, which
immediately preceded the parts he picked
out, and which fit them in due connection ?
As the public may feel some interest in
the subject, in judging of the justice,of
these comments, I, in self-vindication,
reproduce them. They are in these
words:
* ‘Never for a moment permit yourselves
to look upon liberty, that constitutional
liberty which you inherited as a birth
right, as subordinate to independence.
The one was resorted to to secure the
other. Let them ever be held and cher
ished as objects co-ordinate, co-existent,
co-equal, co-eval; and forever insepara
ble. Let them stand together ‘through
weal and through woe,’ and if such be
our fate, let them and us, all go down
together in a common ruin. Without
liberty I would not turn upon my heel
for independence. I scorn all independ
ence that does not secure liberty.”
Who but Mr. Hill can see in these sen
timents anything hut the strongest devo
tion to those principles, and that cause,
for which the people of the Southern
States were struggling? Who but 3D.
Hill can see in them anything like a de
nunciation of 3D. Davis? I should have
thought infinitely less of 3D. Davis than
I then did, if I had supposed that he
would have been offended at them.
The difference between 3D. Hill and
myself was, that when the Richmond pa
pers, and others which were clamoring
for a dictatorship, which I was os loth to
believe that Mr. Davis favored, as Mr.
Hill liimself was, when he was with me,
raised their denunciations against this
action of Georgia; and when 3D. Davis
gave no public utterance in opposition to
these denunciations, 3D. Hill grew weak
in liis spinal column, and came to the con
clusion in pursuance of his natural incli
nations to seek favor at court,
“And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee,
Where thrift may follow fawning.”
I was indeed obstinate cnongli to show
that I was made of sterner stuff. 1 ad
hered to the principles, on which he had
so agreed with me “witli all” liis “heart.”
By these principles I then stood, now
stand, and will die, and never will choose
between masters. Mr. Hill’s statement
that I have been the apologist for any
Radical usurpations at any time, is in
perfect accord with his character. It is
utterly without the slightest foundation
in fact to rest upon. Nothing is better
known, than that in 1872, while 1 was still
obstinate enough to withhold my assent
to any of the usurpations in the Recon
struction Measures, lie was the champion
of those in Georgia, 'who were urging
upon the Southern people to give their
full sanction to all these abominations. In
1864 I stood by the Constitution of the
Confederate Government, which was
the constitution of our fathers; while
tlic only feat of statesmanship which
Mr. Hill claims for himself in the pa
per now before me, was his substituted
Habeas Corpus bill in the Confederate
Senate, which by his admissions to me in
his letter on the 14th of 3Iarch, did vio
late that sacred instrument. The charac
ter of one occupying snch position, I will
not portray. I will not even resort to
Macaulcy or any of the English standard
classical writers for a proper character
ization. In this instance I shall forbear,
not only from using any epithets myself,
but Dom resorting to any other source
for them, except to Mr. Hill’s own words
on a former occasion; so that he can take
the “physic” prepared for 6uch a patient
according to “his own mixture.” In his
notes No. 10 on the situation in 1867, he
used this language:
“I ask again and again, and I beseech
all men to ask—it is the earnest, anxious,
piercing appeal of the dying hope of lib
erty: Are you willing to violate the Con
stitution? Are you willing, first, to swear
to support it, with the intent, at the
time, of swearing to violate it ? Then, I
proclaim—all posterity will proclaim—
your hell-mortgaged conscience will never
cease to proclaim: you are perjured, and
perjury is not half your crime—you commit
perjury in order to become a traitor!”
Was not this as applicable to Mr. Hill
in 1864, according to his own written ac
knowledgement, as it was to the most
zealous reconstructionist in 1867 ?—What
was sauce for the goose then is certainly
good sauce for - the gander now.
Further comments are unnecessary.
But after this most extravagant condem
nation of himself, as one of those trai
tors who touched the ark of our cove
nant, from which come all the discontent
and crushing out of the spirit of liberty
in our country, ending in our ruin, what
care I for his anathemas against me (one
of the fullest loads his ink battery ever
before discharged) contained in the con
cluding paragraph of his letter now be
fore me? No more than Eden’s guardian-
angel did for the archfiend’s defiant de
nunciations of him on his “bold retreat,”
when “he looked up,” and “read his lot”
in “the celestial sign,” where he was
“weighed” in Heaven’s “scales,”
and saw how “light, how weak”"
he was, if he persisted in-
the combat 1 Mr. Hill was evidently
mad—I will not say "insanely mad," but
rather Satanically enraged, when he
penned those lines. On me their effect
was nothing but a most serene smile in my
inflexible integrity, and “unapproach
able” equanimity of temper, even in the •
highest excitement.
6tli. 3D. Hill says I made a “savage
attempt to ruin” him, “and if it has
ruined” me “the punishment is just.’*
This is among his fulminary denuncia
tions uttered as he was retreating. If
his premises were correct, his conclu
sion would be right. But in his state
ment he perverted the facts. It was
he, who in his “Historical Address,”
attempted to ruin me and others, and
not I by vindicating my own honor and
integrity, who attempted to ruin himf'
Let the proposition, therefore, be entirely
reversed, and the truth will be fully main
tained. But Mr. Hill must recollect that
I was not the aggressor in this controversy.
I never in mylife gave an unprovoked •
offense to any human being. We are, .
however, tola by the highest authority
that,, “it must needs be that offenses -
come; but woe to that man by whom the
offense cometh.” ) ;v--
While by nature I am utterly adverse c
to all such personal controversies as this,.
yet in reference to them, I have been-
governed through life by the counsel ot»
Poloniue: _
Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in,
Bear it, that the opposer may beware of
thee.”
3D. Hill’s present torture, if he pro
vokes the issue, may be greatly intensi
fied by a full exposure of that wonderful
'strategy,” (not "trick,” he plays “tricks” .
upon nobody) but that wonderful strategy .
by which he became the savior of Geor-.
gia in driving out Radical rulers, and in -
rescuing the property of the State from the <«.
hands of robbers. There is a great deal yi
of unwritten history on the secret negotia
tions between him and the “robbers,”
besides that which he gave to the New - 1
York Sun interviewer. If any portion he
thus gave mode him "sick as a dog,” per
haps when the facts attending his earlier' *
meetings at later hours in the night than ,
that at the Kimball House banquet witli
those whom he now styles “skunks,” shall,
be brought out, he may be seized with a
sudden inclination to make another re
treat, or “retirement” But no more at
present on that subject
As I have said, 3D. Hill was intensely
enraged when he poured forth that volley .
of ink curses against me in his concluding
paragraph. He was evidently in as’great
a fury as Cassius was in his quarrel with
Brutus, when he exclainled:
“Oh gods! ye gods! must I endure all
this?”
My reply is that of Brutus:
“All thi6? aye, and more! * * *
You shall digest the venom of your spleen,.
Though it do split you; for, from this day
forth,
I’ll use you for my mirth, j*ea, for my
laughter,
When you are waspish.”
AlexanderStephens.
Mr. J. D. Creswell Murdered in Bar
tow County.
Mr. J. D. Creswell, who will be remem
bered as a former citizen of our town, was-
murdered, at his farm in Bartow county,,
last Saturday night, in a most brutal manner -
by a Swede named Conrad.
Ha. Creswell, on Saturday morning, made -
a contract with this Swede, Conrad, to clean •
out his well; promising to pay him five dol
lars for the work, but stipulating that he-
should only pay him two dollars and.,
fifty cents cash, and the other two dol
lars and fifty cents in the fall, or when-
the crop was laid by. The well was cleaned,
to all appearances satisfactorily to 3D. Cres
well, and Conrad received his two dollars
and fifty cents, according to tbeb stipula
tion, and took his leave for home—which
was a only a short distance—as if all was
entirely satisfactory to him. Ahont dark
Conrad called at Mr. Cre6well’s house and
said he wanted all of the money. Hr. Cres
well remonstrated with hlA for making such,
a demand in violation of his contract, when
Conrad turned as if he would go back home.
Mr. Creswell went to the gate with him
rather to satisfy himself that Conrad was in
no bad feeling about the matter. As 3D.
Creswell turned to go back to the bouse
Conrad threw a rock and hit 3D. Creswell
on the back of the head, knocking him
down. He then sprang upon tbe prostrate
man and plunged a knife through his heart,,
letting the knife remain in tbe wound. As-
3D. Creswell was assaulted he called to a
colored man in the house, who came-
to him at once and found him witt
ering in his blood and the: murderer
gone in the darkness. The colored man.
took up the lifeless man and laid him in his •
room on a sofa, and in his excitement left
the house for the purpose of notifying 3D.
8tyles, who lived near by. Mr. Styles came
in a few minutes and found Mr. Creswell
dead and 3Ds. Creswell apparently in the-
same condition lying in the floor. It turned
out, however, that Mrs. Creswell, after the-
colored man had left the house, had realized
the fact that her husband was dead, and she
had fainted away, but subsequently was re
suscitated.—Borne Commercial.
Poster takes Leo Bail.—Yesterday af
ternoon J. F. Porter escaped from officer
Kendrick of the Police, and np to one last
night had not been arrested. He was ar
rested and in custody upon a bench warrant
charging him with another case of black
mailing. Kendrick accompanied him to his
(the Tremont) house, and Porter asked to-
step into anotherroom to change his clothes.
Here he jumped out of a window and be
took himself to parts unknown. Diligent
efforts are being made to capture him.
The success of tbe Southern Branch of
the National Surgical Institute, since its lo
cation here, has been truly wonderful.
Patients have flocked in by the score and'
sent home cured aqd rejoicing. With all
the modem conveniences and the latest and
best medical appliances, with skilled and
successful physicians, they deserve their en
larged success. It is not then a source of
wonder that the unscrupulous will use their
good name to obtain money from the public.
We are assured that they have no agents’ in'- -
the field, and will pay a reward for the cap
ture of all parties representing themselves -
as their agents.