Secrets of the Late Rebellion

II. The records of the War Department show that 2,688,523 men were called into the national service from the beginning to the end of the war. Deduct from this number 75,000, and you have the additional number called into service because of the secret machinations and villa-nies heretofore spoken of., viz, 2,613,523, every man of whom is chargeable, fairly chargeable, unquestionably chargeable to the Democratic party.

III. At the close of the fiscal year (June 30th) for 1861, the Treasurer reported the debt of the United States to be $90,867,828. On the 31st of March, 1865, the Treasurer reported the public debt of the United States to be $2,423,437,001, showing an increase during the war of $2,332,567,173. This increase of debt of the general government by no means represents the sum-total cost of the war; for, meanwhile, the people had been paying immensely increased taxes every year, and beside this every State, every county, every large city, and almost every township of the North had been issuing bonds with which to pay bounties and other war expenses, so that in 1865 the amount of bounties paid by States and local authorities, so far as returned to the general government, amounted to $285,941,036. Add this to the government debt and you have the sum of $2,709,378,037. It is difficult, if not impossible, for any mind to really comprehend so large a sum, and the only way to appreciate it is to divide it among families, or individualize it. In 1860 the United States census returns show for the eighteen Northern States 18,855,831. In 1870 the returns show for the same States 24,035,359. There being no census returns for 1865 (as the United States census is only taken at the close of each ten years), the only way to approximate the population then is to divide the increase between 1860 and 1870. This indicates a population in these eighteen States for 1865 to have been about 21,445,595. Now the average estimate for each family is five. This would give us 4,289,119 families as existing in these States at that time. Next, divide the number of families into the number of dollars of public debt, and you show that upon each family was saddled, at the close of the war, a debt of $631.68. Or, to individualize it, divide this sum by five, and you have the sum of $126.33 as the average debt then owing by every mart, woman, and child then residing in the eighteen Northern States. Thus, it mattered not how poor a man was, or how many children he had, a ticket of indebtedness for the sum of $126.33 was plastered on the forehead of each. "Oh, well," some one may say, "that was easy enough for rich men to pay, and of course the poor never paid it, nor never will, since many of the very poor never handle as much money as that in all their lives. Why, to a man with ten children (and the poor, you know, generally have the most) that would have made a debt of $1515.96, which of course he could never pay, in addition to supporting his family." Ah! but, my friend, there is just where you are most mistaken; for it is just that class of men, together with farmers, who do pay much the larger proportion of public debts. True, they never pay it, nor would try to pay it, in dollars and cents to the tax-gatherer; but they pay it in the increased price they pay the merchant for the tea and coffee they drink, for the muslins and woollens, and hats and shoes they wear; they pay it in increased rents and decreased wages; and the farmer pays it not only in every article that he purchases, but in increased taxes and in decreased receipts for what he raises to sell. And what these fail to pay, the rich have to pay in increased taxes for State, county, township, or municipal purposes.

Now let us apply these facts to the solving of the problem (third) – How much additional did it cost?

This we can only do approximately by stating the problem thus: If to bring into the field 2,688,523 men for forty-seven months cost $2,709,378,037, how much would it have cost to bring in 75,000 for three months? Deduct this sum, amounting to $4,824,369 from the whole cost, and we have remaining the sum of $2,704,553,668 as the additional cost of the war because of the secret machinations and most desperate villanies described in the previous chapters of this book – every dollar of which, every penny of which, is justly chargeable to the Democratic party as a party. Or, to make the matter still plainer, more than three-fourths of all the taxes which the poor man, or farmer, or rich man has heretofore paid, or will hereafter pay, whether upon what he eats and drinks and wears, or upon cash paid tax-collector, is directly chargeable to the Democratic party.

IV. How many additional lives were sacrificed? This, like the last question, can only be answered approximately, and by the same process of reasoning.

The reports made to the War Department, during the war, show the total loss to have been 280,420 men – the very sight of which figures makes the heart sink in agony and sicken over the thought, and yet there is no escaping their terrible reality.

To get at the additional sacrifice, the proposition may be stated thus: If in a war lasting forty-seven months, with 2,688,523 men in service (of whom 1,500,000 it is estimated were in battles), the sacrifice of life amounted to 280,420 men, what would have been the sacrifice had the war lasted only three months, with 75,000 men in service? The answer to this problem is 499 lives. Now take this number from the former, and you have as the additional number 279,921 lives – the loss of which is as fairly attributable to the Democratic party as though it had by sentence condemned, and by its own power had executed, every one of these men.

The remains of thousands and tens of thousands who died in the service never were gathered, but to-day lie in Southern swamps, scattered over Southern cotton-fields, or at the bottom of the deep, blue sea, "unknown, unhonored, and unwept;" but the remains of other thousands and tens of thousands have been gathered, and now lie in National cemeteries at Arlington Heights, at Gettysburg, at Antietam, at Beverly, and at many other places throughout the length and breadth of our land. The above calculations show – and figures never lie when correctly placed – that if upon ninety-five out of every one hundred headstones erected to the memory of these departed heroes in the National and private cemeteries of our country were written the words, Died by the hands of the Democratic party, the record would be as true as anything now written upon those headstones.

We are fully aware of the terrible character of this indictment. We know already how many thousands will hold up their hands in holy horror and exclaim, Oh, this cannot be so! These are not the words of a historian, but of a politician, who allows his prejudices to get the better of his reason! But hold, my friend, hold, and think twice before you condemn once. Are they not words of truth and soberness? Examine each proposition just as carefully as you would examine one of Euclid's problems (for this is just what we have tried to do), and see if it is possible to reach any other conclusion. Republican though we certainly are, yet, in examining these questions as a historian, we have tried to divest our mind of every particle of political prejudice, and though the results of our researches and calculations are as astounding, as terrible, as sickening-of-heart to us as they can possibly be to any one of our readers, yet the figures would show no other, and we have had to accept them as veritable.

And yet the secret is only half out – the story, as yet, but half told. The losses of time, of money, and of lives heretofore spoken of relate only to the North – the Southern side of the story remains yet to be told; for in this volume we are writing no less for the information of Southern than of Northern men, nor would we in this record do any less justice to the South than to the North.

Jefferson Davis, however wild and mistaken politically, was never other than a high-minded, chivalrous gentleman. He was just as honest in his advocacy of slavery as Paul was in his advocacy of Phariseeism; and when Davis went forth to catch, imprison, and, if need be, to slay the enemies of slavery, he did it as conscientiously as Paul did, or meant to do, his work, in going to Damascus with the commission of a high-priest in his pocket Not only so, but President Davis was a man of deep knowledge, a thorough statistician, a cool calculator, and one who never took a step without first carefully counting the cost. He was the farthest possible remove from a reckless man. When a young man in the United States army and with the troops in Mexico, he never struck a blow, or made the least move, without first considering all the chances. In this respect he was almost as careful and as prudent as his renowned father-in-law, General Zachary Taylor. As a United States Senator he was remarkable for his caution and foresight, and though he sometimes took part in sharp debate, his general political tactics were conservative, watch for chances, investigate thoroughly, and then strike with effect.

Now, we have it only second-handed from President Davis's own lips that he would never have thought of a war with the North – never would have recommended such a war – never would have engaged in such a war – "but for encouragement given him, and actual pledges made him, by leading Democrats of the Northern States." He had once been Secretary of War; he had been a United States Senator for several years preceding the rebellion; he thoroughly understood the resources, not only of the general government, but of each individual State, and would, as he said, have thought it perfect madness for the South to have attempted a separate confederation, "but for the pledges of assistance made him and others by leading Democrats of the Northern States." Of this, as an historical fact, there is no more doubt than that there was a war. Outside of President Davis's own word, the facts heretofore related in this volume, and a thousand others which might be adduced, are confirmatory of these statements.

Again, the men whom President Davis had about him as a Cabinet and as outside advisers were generally men of marked intelligence and large experience, one of whom (John Tyler) had been President of the United States; some had been United States Senators; others, Congressmen; others had all their lives been connected with the army or navy; and scarcely one of all but what thoroughly understood the strength and resources, not only of the general government, but of each State, North and South. Is it to be presumed that a single one of these men would have ever thought of rebellion, or said one word to encourage it, but for the assurances they had from leading Northern Democrats that the party, as a party, would sustain them in such a movement?

If these facts be admitted, and this inference be conceded, does it not follow as an inevitable conclusion that the Democratic party, as a party, is responsible before God, and should be held responsible before all men, for the time wasted, the money squandered, and the lives sacrificed by the South in their attempt to establish a separate confederacy?

We cannot give the exact figures, for the archives of the Confederate government were mostly destroyed when the rebels fled and the Union army took possession of Richmond; but think, reader, think how many weary days, and weeks, and months, and years of untold suffering that was caused by that mad and murderous attempt; think of the houses burned, homes desolated, plantations ruined, by the frenzy and fury of reckless demagogues; think of the thousands of affluent families made homeless and penniless by this mad attempt, and of the thousands upon thousands who were once comfortable now turned out as beggars to die, through the efforts of a band of conspirators; think of the millions upon millions of hard-earned dollars squandered, worse than squandered, by this mad attempt; think of the thousands upon thousands of wives made widows, children made fatherless, parents made childless, by this foul treason; and then think – for if you are honest with your own conscience, and can rid yourself of political prejudice, you must think it – that all this waste of time, all this squandering of money, all this sacrifice of lives, all this suffering of wives, of children, of parents, is unquestionably chargeable to the Democratic party; and, with this last thought, ask yourself the question, What should be thought of – what should be the fate of – a party guilty of such unparalleled wickedness?

Of course, to this last question there could be but one answer, and yet the party feebly lives! Why it lives – for what purpose it lives – would be the next question which would naturally arise with every searcher after truth. To these inquiries we will try to give an answer, not an opinion merely, but an answer founded upon accredited history, as have been all the answers heretofore given.

It is well known to every student of history that, as far back as 1817, the leading sovereigns and princes of Europe, in their solemn conclaves and secret treaties with each other, formed the determination to subvert the liberties of the United States. Much of what was said and done at that time leaked out, and was duly communicated by our ministers and consuls abroad to the general government; but so conscious was our government of its own strength in the hearts of the people, that all such threats passed them by like the idle wind. When, however, the Duke of Richmond died in Montreal in 1819 – a man whom everybody knew to be a sagacious and wise statesman, and whose many high employments had made him intimate with all the sovereigns and politics of Europe, and whose deep personal interests at stake gave to his opinions immense weight – and when he declared, a short time before his death, that "The surplus population of Europe, when not wanted for the armies and navies of their own land, would be permitted to flock here, and would be entitled to vote; and, mingling in the elections without a knowledge or a love of the laws, or even the language, of the country, will be tools for demagogues, and create a disturbing influence, which the government cannot withstand;" and when to this he added, "I have conversed with many of the princes and sovereigns of Europe, particularly with George III. and Louis XVIII., and they have unanimously expressed these opinions relative to the government of the United States, and their determination to subvert it" – when, we say, these were published and became generally known shortly after his death, they did for a little while create some excitement, and both government officials and the people had something to say about these statements; but such was the confidence felt in our own strength, that the words of the Duke were soon forgotten, and were laid away with the "mouldering past."

Only three years thereafter (in A. d. 1822) the great powers of Europe held a congress at Vienna, and among the conclusions then and there reached, and which formed a part of their treaty stipulations, the two following cannot but strike Americans with great force:

"Article I. The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative governments is equally as incompatible with monarchical principles, as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right of kings, engage mutually, in the most solemn manner, to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced into those countries where it is not known.

"Article II. As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those princes, the high contracting powers promise reciprocally to adopt all proper means to suppress it."

The representatives of this government in Europe got hold of these articles soon after, and duly communicated them to the State Department at Washington; and the newspapers of this country also got hold of them, and for awhile had considerable to say about them; but erelong the excitement of both government and people died out, and things went on in their usual way. How many times since then the powers of Europe have met in secret conclave and reaffirmed what they then said, and adopted secret measures whereby to carry out these resolves, is not generally known, for the reason that the excitement following their first promulgation gave them warning that whatever they said or did in that direction thereafter had better be with closed doors, and under the most sacred pledges of profound secrecy.

The congress at Vienna was held soon after they had lodged the First Napoleon safely at St. Helena, and when all the world seemed to be applauding them for the act, and hence their outspoken boldness in denouncing representative forms of government and the liberty of the press. Indeed, in view of what they had all just witnessed, and some of them severely felt, it was not at all unnatural that they should have adopted the two articles quoted; and that they should have ever since felt that there was an irrepressible conflict between the "divine right of kings" and representative forms of government – between the absolute rule of kings and the liberty of the press, and that one or the other must eventually supersede the other. Hence, with them it became a question of self preservation – the very first law of nature – and under such circumstances it was not at all wonderful that they resolved just as they did.

They had recently witnessed the final act of a French drama and tragedy combined – the French Revolution, and the career of Napoleon as a consequence thereof – which they regarded as results of a representative form of government and of the liberty of the press; but which were results rather of irresponsible personal government and license of the press. They had seen or read of the assembling of a French parliament that had refused to register the royal edicts; they had witnessed or read of the disputes between the king and parliament, and the death soon after of Louis XV.; from thence they had observed the spread of liberal opinions and the accession of Louis XVI. to the throne of France; next, they had seen or read of the calling together of the States-General, and how they, soon after assembling, had assumed the name of the "National Assembly;" they knew of the dismissal of Neckar; the destruction of the Bastile; the abolishment of the privileges of the nobles and clergy, and of the first insult offered to the king and royal family; of Robespierre's government and the dreadful disorders accompanying it; of Lafayette's resignation; of the trial and execution of Louis XVI. and of his queen, Marie Antoinette, and of the Duke of Orleans; of the Convention's abjuration of the Catholic religion and substitution of reason in its place; of the abolition of the Sabbath; of the tens of thousands beheaded, or otherwise slaughtered, in Paris; of how Napoleon Bonaparte had finally appeared upon the scene, and for a while seemed to still the troubled waters; but how he erelong not only usurped the crown, but commenced war upon almost every nation of Europe; how in a hundred battles fought by him, at Austerlitz and elsewhere, he had been successful in almost every one; how he had finally invaded Russia and thus defeated himself; how he was afterwards made to resign and sent in banishment to Elba; how he had again reappeared in France and resumed power; how all the allied powers of Europe then determined upon his destruction; how he was defeated at the battle of Waterloo; how he afterwards surrendered himself into the hands of the English; and how, on the 17th of October, 1815, he was landed at St. Helena a prisoner of war.

All this they knew, and all this they set down as the natural results of a representative form of government and the liberty of the press, and hence it was that the first two articles of the treaty, from which we have heretofore quoted, were specially aimed against them; and a solemn pledge made, each to the other, that they must be destroyed. Of course, no mention was made in that treaty of the United States; for to have done so would have been virtually a declaration of war; but as it was then generally believed among the sovereigns and princes of Europe that the French Revolution of 1789 was a natural outgrowth from the American Revolution of 1776, and that Lafayette was at the bottom of it all – having imbibed the ideas from George Washington, John Adams, John Hancock, and other revolutionists of America, – the inference is plain and unmistakable that those two articles were aimed at the United States, and that the word "Europe" – where it reads they "engage mutually, in the most solemn manner, to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments in Europe" – was only meant as a blinder.

But, it may next be asked, allowing all this to be so, have they been doing anything since that time whereby to carry out any such intention?

To this inquiry, we answer yes, and will now proceed to show, briefly but unmistakably, how they have been carrying out such intentions; and this, too, comes legitimately under the head of "Secrets of the Late Rebellion, now Revealed for the First Time," since no one, to our knowledge, has ever heretofore shown the close relationship and unity of purpose between these same European governments and the Democratic party of the United States; and how, in the late rebellion (as in many instances before that time), they joined hands to destroy this government, and to break down the liberty of the press.

The first two political parties in the United States were known as Federal and Republican. In 1800, John Adams was the candidate of the Federalists for a second presidential term, and Thomas Jefferson the candidate of the Republicans. Jefferson was elected, and took his seat as President of the United States on the 4th of March, 1801. After a time, these two names gave way to Whig and Democratic. These continued until the name Republican took the place of Whig, in 1856-60. In its earlier days the Democratic party, as a party, was as pure and patriotic as any party that ever existed in this or any other country; but when the question of "Protection to Home Industry" (of which Henry Clay was the leading champion in his time) became a prime question in American politics; and when, because that this question involved the interests of European capitalists and manufacturers, Augustus Belmont, of New York city (a European by birth, a Jew, and the agent in this country of the Rothschilds', the great Jew banking-house of Europe, to whom almost every sovereign in Europe was indebted for loans), became the Chairman of the National Democratic Executive Committee – from that moment the Democratic party, as a party, became as completely in the interests of European sovereigns, capitalists, and manufacturers, as though every member of the party, as well as its head and front, had been born a European. We are not, of course, attempting to write a history of parties. To do so would require a volume of itself, and a large one at that. We have only made this running sketch that those not familiar with general history may readily see and understand the unmistakable historical relationship which exists, and which has existed for some forty years past, between the Democratic party, as a party, and European governments, European capitalists, and European manufacturers.

With this fact in mind, it is easy to understand why ninety out of every one hundred European emigrants who come to this country attach themselves to the Democratic party; easy to understand why the entire influence of the Roman Catholic Church (which is the church of nine-tenths of the sovereigns of Europe) should be thrown in favor of the Democratic party; easy to understand why more than ninety-five out of every one hundred Jews who come to this country from Europe attach themselves to the Democratic party; and easy to understand why, in the late rebellion, the Democratic party, as a party, cooperated with English lords, with English capitalists, and with English manufacturers (as shown in previous chapters of this volume), in trying to break down this government, and establish a slaveocracy in its stead – the leaders (not the masses) well knowing that this would soon give way to a yet more concentrated form of government in order to hold their slaves in subjection – neither a landed and family aristocracy, like that of England, or an absolute monarchy, like that of Austria, in either of which cases a representative or republican form of government and the liberty of the press would have been effectually and forever suppressed.