Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

2 the countryman. TURNWOLD, GA., JULY 7, 1863. Gen. Toombs in Hancock. No. 1. When we gave a synoptical report of the speech of Gen. Toombs in Hancock, in our issue before the last, we did not intend it should go out in our columns with a mere annunciation that it was ottr misfor tune to disagree with the honorable speaker in many things. We intend ed that we would, in some subsequent is sue, give our own views somewhat at length, and state some of the points of difference between the conclusions of Gen. Toombs and those of our own mind. Imputing to the speaker nothing but the purest motives, as we did, and do, yet we must say that we fear that his criticisms upon the course of the government, and its settled policy, are likely to beget discon tent and mistrust in the minds of our peo ple which will not enure to our benefit in the struggle in which we are engaged. With reference to the Conscription Act, we must admit that its operation, in many ca ses, is hard, unjust, and cruel. But the Al mighty himself has never enacted a law, wihcb, so far as our finite minds can judge of its operation, is not, in some cases, harsh, and cruel. We say that so far as we can judge, from what is immediately before us, this is so. But take the laws of the Almighty with reference to eternity, and eternal things, and all those laws are not only in harmony among themselves; but in concord with justice, mercy, equity, and goodness—productive of happiness to all God’s creatures. The economy of the Almighty is to legard all things as a whole— “All are parts of one stupendous whole, Whose body nature is, and God the soul ”— and to enact laws with reference to all time —the universe—eternity. And in the end, even the apparent victims of his laws are made recipients of their mercy and benignity. The greatest immediate good to the greatest number, and the great est quantity, in his whole creation, is God’s law, without reference to temporary incon venience to exceptional cases. Th6 laws of man are perfect in propor tion as they approach this standard of the laws of God. But as it is not in God ? s plan that any one of his laws (we care not which one it is) should so immediately op erate, in all cases, as to be apparenly free from rigor and cruelty, much more is it so with reference to all man's. And these re marks are applicable to Gen. Toombs's ob jections to the Conscription Act, the Tax Act,Endorsement of Confederate Bonds,and Martial Law, though we made them first with reference to t,lie Conscription Act alone, to which we now return. We have admitted that this Act is, in many instances, harsh, and cruel. But the war itself, which created the necessity for this Act, is very harsh and very cruel. The severance of the old Union, to which Gen. Toombs, in his proximate action, con tributed so much, was, and is, in many re spects as to its results, very harsh, and very cruel. And yet we believe that both the war and the dissolution were unavoida ble, and will be, in their ultimate conse quences, very beneficial, though fearfully disastrous in their first stages. Conscription we conceive to have been necessary for the general good—the great est ultimate happiness of the greatest num ber, to be produced by what was absolute ly necessary—immediate action. And it is an argument of no force against it that we freely admit that, in its immediate op eration, and in exceptional cases, it is very harsh, and very cruel. We do not propose to go into any gen eral discussion of the Conscription Act. We have not time, nor space, nor necessity, just now, to do so. But we believe it was the best policy that, could have been adopt ed, and that it was the salvation of the country. We are not prepared to say that as our governments (State and Confederate) are, we would not have preferred to see the call for troops made through the States, if it could have been as promptly, and as efficiently done. But our cause could not have waited for the operation cf so much machinery, particularly with some of the authorities of the States jealous of their brief personal prerogative—not only punc tilious, but factious. And here is one of the grand defects of our dual system of government—State and Confederate. We, for one, are tired of being the subject, or the citizen of two governments. We do not wish to have two sovereigns—Gov. Brown and President Davis, for instance— claiming our allegiance. One might Lang us for treason to him, and if we had two necks, and two lives, the other might hang us for treason to him. And we suppose it we had the third neck and life, Lincoln would not be satisfied until he sacrificed them to the offended majesty of his omnip otent sovereignty, if he could only secure the opportunity. We fear that we can never have efficien cy, promptness, and energy, as long as we have two governments. For our individ ual self, we want a State government in full, or we want a Central government in full. We are not prepared, now, to say which we believe to be better—much less which we believe to be the more practicable of attainment. We return : As our dual government is, perhaps it would have been better to call upon the States for troops, than for the Central government to conscribe them, provided it could have been done as prompt ly and as efficiently. At any rate, it would have been more in accordance with the genius and spirit of our many-headed form of government. But we needed the troops, and we needed them immediately—without a moment’s delay. Conscription was re sorted to, and the result is before the coun try. The number of troops actually con- scribed in any State, besides the 12-months men which conscription kept in the service, is not a fail test of efficiency of the Con scription Act. We must take into consid eration the number of soldiers whom this Act induced to volunteer in preference to being conscribed. But after all, Gen. Toombs holds the Conscription Act to be unconstitutional, because he counts the conscripts the mili tia, and the constitution reserves the offi cering of the militia to the States. This is a point of State rights, and we would remark that some of the most punctilious, if not factious, State rights men, hold the Conscription Act to be constitutional—forin- stance, Wm. L. Yancey, and others. But the conscripts are not the militia, as such. The Confederate government, un der our constitution, has power “ to raise armies.” This may be done, 1st, by en listing men into the regular army ; 2nd, by accepting volunteers’; 3rd, by conscribing, or drafting in some form or other ; 4th, by calling out the militia in a body. When men enlist or volunteer immediately into the Service of the Central government, would any one hold that because the en listed men, oi volunteers, when out of such service, were militia men, therefore the State government retained the right to of ficer them ? Not by any means. Is it true that they have no right to volunteer, or enlist, because they are militia men 1 No one believes so. Then, if one militia man has the right to become a volunteer or enlisted man, a million have the same right, and the whole body of militia may, as individuals, volunteer or enlist. Here the whole body of the militia would be in the service of the Central government—