Search the
Browse Newspapers
by Date
Articles Indexed
by Topic
About the
Valley of the Shadow

Valley Spirit: May 14, 1862

Go To Page : 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |

-Page 01-

Description of Page: Democratic address takes up four columns.

Address of Democratic Members of Congress to the Democracy of the U.S.
(Column 1)
Summary: A speech reaffirming the platform of the Democratic party and the party's crucial role in the successful prosecution of the war. Democrats have always fought in the interests of the nation as a whole, the authors claim, and the great size and wealth of the country can be mostly attributed to its nurturing under Democratic administrations. The Democratic party stands for restoring the Union and supporting the administration in fighting the war. Democrats oppose purely sectional parties, such as the Republicans who agitate for abolition. Philip Johnson and S. E. Ancono of Pennsylvania are among the Representatives who signed the address.
Republican Evidence
(Column 4)
Summary: Address by Mr. Dawes of Massachusetts to the House of Representatives concerning the alleged corruption of former Secretary of War Simon Cameron. Dawes produced documents that seemed to indicate that Cameron used the procurement of such items as horses as a way to win over political enemies in Pennsylvania.

-Page 02-

Description of Page: Literature and classifieds

-Page 03-

Description of Page: Humor and classifieds

-Page 04-

Description of Page: Includes a column of war news and a reprint of a speech of Henry Clay from 1839.

Let It Be Read
(Column 1)
Summary: Directs the reader's attention to the Democratic address on the first page. The editors echo the speech's contention that the Democratic party is the true party of the Union. They go on to accuse the Republicans, including Lincoln, of seeking to destroy the white race in order to elevate the black race. The party of Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson will eliminate sectionalist tendencies of all sorts.
'Who are in Fault"
(Column 2)
Summary: Attacks a claim by the Transcript that the roots of secession could be found in Calhoun's nullification doctrine in 1832. It would be just as easy, claim the editors, to find the roots of secession in the Hartford Convention of 1812 or the Whiskey Rebellion in 1795. The Transcript uses faulty logic, they claim, and then the editors proceed to cite Southern Unionists, including Andrew Johnson, Joseph Holt, Parson Brownlow, the Louisville Democrat and the Louisville Journal, as proof of the patriotism and heroism of that cause.
Col. Housum
(Column 3)
Summary: Notes the return of Lieut. Col. P. B. Housum of Chambersburg, a member of the 77th Regiment of Penn. Volunteers, who returned to his home last Friday. He was in command of the regiment, since his superior Col. Stumbaugh had been promoted to command of the brigade, but "impaired health" required him to take a brief furlough. Housum was one of the first men to raise a company at the outbreak of the war, and after serving in the three months service he volunteered again, received a commission as Lieut. Col. in the 77th, and was ordered to Kentucky. Despite sickness, he kept his place in the regiment during the battle at Pittsburg Landing.
(Names in announcement: Lieut. Col. P. B. Housum)
Abolition Logic
(Column 4)
Summary: Argues that one can see abolitionists arguing on both sides of the question as to whether or not black labor is superior to white, and what impact abolition will have. If black labor is inferior and slavery is crowding out white labor in the South, then abolition will release a flood of marginal labor into the market. On the other hand, if black labor is superior, it will crowd out white labor, which will be unpopular with the white working class. Either way, say the authors, emancipation will have deleterious consequences.
Origin of Article: Louisville Democrat
Full Text of Article:

The arguments of Abolitionists are the most contradictory it has ever been our duty to read. The first proposition is, that the black labor in the South, protected and fostered by State Institutions, expels the labor of the whites, and thus is a decided injury to the dominant race. Therefore, for the good of the whites, it should be abolished. If this is so, what is to be the result of their vaunted philanthropic measure? The whites will gradually deprive the blacks of all the labor by their superior energy and industry, and these will be thrown upon the community, an idle, thriftless, vagabond race, to be supported by taxation upon white labor in indolence and debauchery. The duty which has compelled the master to support the slave and make him useful, will have passed away, and, instead of the burthen resting where it should, and where it can be made remunerative, it will fall upon all men--the white laborer as well as the wealthy planter--and no return will be made. It is a plain fact that it requires about three hundred million of dollars per annum to support the negroes. This is now done by the master, who gets a profit in return, but when the white labor has eaten it out, the necessary poor house, police regulations, &c., will have increased this sum to five hundred million dollars per annum; a tax, in times of profound peace, equal to what is now paid in the midst of the most gigantic war the civilized and savage world has ever known, exceeding the tremendous efforts of France in the days of the elder Napoleon.

This conclusion is indisputable upon the premises of the Abolitionists. Therefore, when any man in the North or South is addressed by such arguments, and trusts in them, he must get his own consent to pay annually a tax of five hundred million of dollars per annum for this one purpose alone; and add to it two or three hundred millions additional, for the usual expenses of the government, we do not think it would be an excess to put down the government expenses, one year after another, including war times as well as peace, under such a scheme, at a thousand million per annum. Then, if we add the favorite colonization scheme, with its enormously additional expenses, we can come within the mark by placing the annual governmental expenses at fifteen hundred millions of dollars per annum. This is not excessive. There is the expense of removing them from all parts of the country, the expense of shipping, the purchase of the territory to which they are exiled, the expense of sustaining them. Suppose that we grant that their labor, released from competition of the whites, was to pay five hundred million above what is necessary to feed and clothe them--even the Abolitionists do not grant this much--which is more than they get in servitude, but put the figures down at a minus; still there is a thousand million. That is, every man, woman and child has to pay each $29 per annum to support the negro, or to every father of a family of five, the sum of $145 per annum. There is no use arguing such a question. No people can pay it. It is an absurdity. It is clear that the substitution of white for slave labor involves the duty of sustaining the negroes, or exterminating them with fire and sword. This is the plain matter of fact philanthropy of Abolitionism and colonization, and includes the sum total of its morality.

The very converse of the above proposition is assured by the many Abolitionists--that the negro laborer is superior to the white. That is, that the negro, emancipated from the trammels of slavery, and elevated to the position of the white man, will do better; will be at least equal to him, and in many avocations superior. These men are not struggling, then, to make this a republic of white men, but blacks. The result of their argument is, that blacks being fully equal to the whites, and in some cases superior, will be brought into competition with them. The fact, then, before every white laborer is, that when this scheme succeeds, he may expect a black competing with him in every field of life--on the farm, in the workshop, in the manufactures, and as domestic servants. Everywhere he will find the negro under-working him, and placed upon a precisely equal footing with him. Is there any white laboring man, whose philanthropy extends so far, that, for the purpose of emancipating slaves, he is willing to take the bread from the mouths of his little ones? And yet madness and fanaticism are daily and hourly telling him in the lecture rooms, on the stump and in Congress, that such is to be the result, for the conclusion is inevitable, and hailing the day when it is accomplished as the millennium.

If this be true, the white laborer must prepare for the consequences. The negro, no longer confined by the laws to a particular State or section, will seek his market whatever it can be found. If he is equal to the white, he will no more confine himself to one section than the white does. Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania, notwithstanding stringent laws, will soon find floods of laborers pouring in upon them. The increase of the blacks cannot be confined to the now slave States. It must, in the nature of things, spread, and it will certainly seek the border free States. If they are profitable, more profitable to employers than white labor, they will, as inevitable, make their way to them as water finds its level.

We have thus succinctly placed the two arguments, the only two we have heard that were not all froth, before our readers. It is easy to see that, granting in turn the premises upon which each proceeds, that the emancipation of slavery will be a direct injury to the country. We can state shortly what would be the ultimate result of either. After a heavy expense and turbulence, the States in which there were negroes would be compelled, in self-defense, to resume the old laws, and again reduce the blacks to bondage. Men need not go insane upon it. It is not a question whether slavery is an evil or not, any more than if it is an evil for man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. It is a fact and condition that cannot be altered without producing injury to both classes. The negroes are here and must be managed. The wisdom of the past shows that they have been at least as well cared for as the laboring whites, and until we can so improve upon the past as to relieve the destitution and suffering of our own race, we had better refrain from experimental plans to add to the comforts of one already situated as God intended them.--Louisville Democrat.

From General Banks' Army -- Rout of Ashby's Rebel Cavalry
(Column 6)
Summary: News of a skirmish near Harrisonburg, Virginia, between the 5th New York Cavalry and Ashby's Cavalry on May 6.
Full Text of Article:

Newmarket, Va., May 7.--Yesterday afternoon a detachment of the Fifth New York Cavalry made a reconnoissance towards Harrisonburg, and when five miles this side they encountered upwards of two hundred of Ashby's Cavalry, and, charging upon them, pushed them within two miles of the town. Ten of the Rebels were killed, and six taken prisoners. Our loss was one killed, and the Batalion [sic] Adjutant taken prisoner. The work on our side was done with the sabre, and was a very gallant affair.

A small Rebel picket was seen in the neighborhood of the Columbia bridge yesterday, in the Luray Vally [sic].

The weather is cool and pleasant. The sick are improving.

-Page 05-

Description of Page: Four and a half columns are war news; no local news appears in this issue.

War News
(Column 1)
Summary: Four and a half columns of news from various fronts, leading off with McClellan's capture of Williamsburg, an account of the capture of New Orleans, and the surrender of Norfolk, which President Lincoln supervised himself. The Merrimac was blown up by the Confederates at Norfolk to prevent its capture.
(Column 5)
Summary: Casper Hug and Sophia Shireman, both of Chambersburg, were married on the evening of May 5.
(Names in announcement: Rev. Dr. Schneck, Casper Hug, Sophia Shireman)
(Column 5)
Summary: David Mitchell of Sabattisville, Maine, married Mary W. Foster of Chambersburg on May 6.
(Names in announcement: Rev. A. H. Long, David Mitchell, Mary W. Foster)
(Column 5)
Summary: John Bergher and Elisabeth Bremer, both of Chambersburg, were married on March 11.
(Names in announcement: Rev. J. Steck, John Bergher, Elisabeth Bremer)
(Column 5)
Summary: John Ferry and Louisa Jane Dixen, both of St. Thomas, were married on April 10.
(Names in announcement: Rev. J. Steck, John Ferry, Louisa Jane Dixen)
(Column 5)
Summary: Jacob S. Brand and Mary Margaret Flack (daughter of George Flack, Esq.) of Chambersburg were married on May 8.
(Names in announcement: Rev. J. Steck, Jacob S. Brand, Mary Margaret Flack, George FlackEsq.)

-Page 06-

Ex-Secretary Cameron Censured by the House
(Column 1)
Summary: On Wednesday the House of Representatives voted 75 to 45 to censure former Secretary of War Cameron for engaging people not legitimately connected with war business in contracts with the War Department. Only five out of nineteen Pennsylvania Republicans voted, all against the resolution.

-Page 07-

Description of Page: Classified advertisements

-Page 08-

Description of Page: Three and a half columns of classified advertisements.

The Riots in Schuylkill Co'ty
(Column 2)
Summary: One hundred and sixty members of the Pennsylvania state reserves were dispatched to Minersville, in the West Branch coal region, in response to a miner's strike which began on Monday. The miners stopped working the pumps which kept water out of the mines, and demanded an advance of ten cents per wagon for miners and twenty-five cents per day for laborers. The owners of the mine, the Forest Improvement Company, are furnishing large amounts of coal to the government. The company will attempt to restart the pumps under the protection of the reserves. The miners are supposedly well-armed and refuse to let anybody work.