PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO. T HE North has made a most emphatic
declaration of its purpose to prosecute the war vigorously, and to trust the present Administration with the work. In Ohio, Mr. Vallandigham, whose wish to make peace was so unequivo- cally expressed that Mr. Lincoln stretched his authority to exile him from the Union, was the candidate of the Demo- cratic party, and was beaten, it is said, by no less than 60,000 votes, even without counting the volunteer votes in the army, which are all against him. But Mr. Vallan- digham is openly acknowledged as a disunionist. This crushing defeat shows, of course, that the North is as vehemently opposed as ever to a dissolution of the Union, but tells nothing of the temper in which they are pre- pared to push the Union cause. It gives us a glimpse of the tenacity of the Northern purpose, but sheds no light on the instruments it is disposed to use. The election of the Republican candidate, Mr. Curtin, as Governor of Pennsyl- vania, however, does tell us this. That State is one of the most Southern in bias of all the Northern States. On occasion of General Lee's recent incursion, the German settlers seemed absolutely apathetic, and a year ago the elections for mem- bers of Congress went chiefly in favour of the Democratic (or pro-slavery) candidates. In the new election the Democratic candidate was a man who professed himself favourable to the war. Judge Woodward is a cautious man, and no stone was left unturned by the Democrats of that Democratic State to represent him as loyal to the Union cause. A few days before the election General M'Clellan was himself per- suaded to write an electioneering letter on behalf of Judge Woodward. The General assured the public that after a full conversation with Mr. Woodward, he found that their views agreed, and that he considered " his election as Governor of Pennsylvania called for by the interests of the nation." " I understand Judge Woodward," he says, " to be in favour of the prosecution of the war, with all the means at the command of the loyal States, until the military power of the rebellion is destroyed." General M'Clellan then went on to point out in an indirect but well- understood form of words that Judge Woodward wished to restore the Union without prejudice to that slavery which the Constitution recognizes, and that he (General M'Clellan) held that this was the only legitimate purpose of the war; wherefore he was anxious to see Judge Woodward fully sup- ported. Here, then, was a definite issue. Mr. Woodward did not profess a wish to give in,—nay, did profess a wish to prosecute the war,—but not at the cost of slavery. Mr. Curtin, on the other hand, gave his full support to the effective measures of the administration for striking at slavery, and the people elected Mr. Curtin by, it is said, some 20,000 votes. And this was the more significant, that in one respect all the circumstances were favourable to the Democratic party. Judge Woodward had himself inter- preted the Pennsylvanian, law by which the elections were to be governed. The great question was, whether the Pennsylvanian soldiers in camp might vote or not. Now, the soldiers were to a man in favour of the Republi- can Administration. Their votes, if counted, would make a difference of some fifty thousand votes, and almost all would be on the Republican side. The Legislature had passed an Act permitting these votes to be taken in camp. Judge Woodward set it aside,—nay, interpreted the law with more than its usual strictness, as requiring that every soldier who should vote at all " must vote in the same election district where he resided at the time of entering military service."
Now this decision not merely prevented the soldiers in camp from giving their votes, but prevented very many Pennsyl- vanian soldiers in the enormous Pennsylvanian military hospitals from giving their votes also, because these hospitals would rarely be in the particular districts im which the men resided at the time of entering the service..
The soldiers, whether sick, or well and on duty, were, in fact,. shut .out from the election, and so fifty thousand Republican votes were lost. Now, in 1860 Governor Curtin got is majority over the Democratic candidate of only thirty-two• thousand, and that he should have beaten Judge Woodward under these disadvantages by, it is said, at least 20,00es votes, is a certain sign of the large accession of strength to the anti-slavery party in Pennsylvania. They voted against a man who calls himself a War-Democrat, and who- had the public support of General M'Clellan, in order to stamp- the anti-slavery policy of the Government with their explicit approval. And what Ohio and Pennsylvania—States almost imbued with the spirit of Border States—have done thus decisively, almost all the Northern States of the Union are- doing likewise. California gave a very strong Union majority; Indiana and Iowa have returned to their Republican creed. All the New England States will give the anti-slavery policy a triumphant victory. In short, the North has now declared emphatically not only against compromise with the South, but against compromise with the slavery which gives meaning and purpose to the South.
It is a curious thing to note the feeling which is expressed concerning these elections by the Southern party in England and their correspondents in America. As we have pointed out the real question at issue—at least in Pennsylvania, Iowa, and elsewhere, though not, perhaps, in Ohio—was not in the- least peace or war, but war against slavery and the South,. or war against the South without menace to slavery. This, and this alone, is the issue. Judge Woodward in Penn- sylvania, and the representatives of the Democratic party in New,England and the West, profess themselves as hostile to the rebellion and as determined to put it.down by force as the Republicans,—and if they are not so, they are simply hypo- crites. Indeed, they object (openly at least) to one thing and one thing only, in the conduct of the war,—the anti-slavery policy of Mr. Lincoln. Yet our Southern organs here, who profess always to be opposed heart and soul to slavery, though they conceive the war to be a wicked mode of extin- guishing it, because it involves so large a sacrifice of life, and property, and civilization,—our Southern organs here, and their correspondents in the North, speak of Mr. Woodward and the War Democrats as if they were far nearer in spirit to. the English pleaders for peace than the Republicans. In other words, the English Southerners would not object to the horrors of the war so much if it fails to uproot slavery, as they would if it succeeds. If they have to choose between. General M'Clellan, who would fight to the death for the Union, but leave the negroes as they are, and General Banks, who would set free the slaves as one of the most important ends of the war, as well as one of the most important means of bringing the war to an end, they will, with one accord, throw their influence with General M'Clellan, and against General Banks. We confess this seems to us the true test of that profession of continued hatred to slavery of which we hear so much. We can understand that Englishmen might prefer an American peace-politician to any other, eve". though he left, as he must leave, slavery untouched. But we do find much difficulty in understanding on what principle, short of warm affection for slavery, Englishmen. prefer the American war politicians whose object is to subdue the South at any coat, but to leave slavery in- tact, to those who profess their wish to subdue the South at any cost, and to destroy slavery in the process. Probably,. the New York correspondent of the Times does heartily prefer the former to the latter achievement; but , we can scarcely believe that there are very many Englishmen who sineerely agree with him.
Previous page
