DES MOINES, Feb. 7, 1862.
The roads are liable to be in bad condition now-a-days, and if my letters sometimes fail to reach you in season, the fault is not mine. I judge from the late arrival of the Davenport mail, to-day, that the traveling is none too good. But then we have a telegraph now, which brings us the news in all kinds of weather, and all kinds of traveling. And to-night it brings us good news. A very cheering dispatch has just reached us. Fort Henry on the Tennessee river, is in possession of the Union troops! We have waited day after day with no little impatience, for some important news from the seat of war – for news of some decided move, some victory gained, or some steps taken that would ensure a speedy victory. But we have looked over the dispatches each day with less and less interest, until our local of the Register has, from sheer necessity, been driven to manufacture some telegrams in order to afford the necessary variety in the dispatches. Dixon likes a little spice once in a while.
In the House, to-day, Mr. Rothrock’s resolution offered some days since, came up for consideration. It is a joint resolution, instructing our Congressional delegation to use their influence in favor of the passage of a law to grant to ‘free white persons of foreign birth,’ who are now serving in the Federal army, the right of citizenship, so soon as they shall receive an honorable discharge. The resolution was adopted, after striking out the word “free.” A motion was made to strike out “free white,” and quite an exciting scene ensued. The yeas and nays were called, and the vote stood: 23 for, and 60 against. It is mortifying, to see what weak knees some of our Republicans possess. The lack one important ingredient in a true and genuine manhood, and that is independence. It is true this resolution will probably effect little, and the striking out of those words would be a small, and some might consider an unimportant matter. Yet why are the words there? Whence arises the necessity for them? The white foreigner, who fights for a government in its hour of peril, has a claim on that government for protection in the future; but the man of sable hue, who fights bravely in defence of the national honor, who perils his life to sustain the government, who labors assiduously in the support of our cause until the last rebel lays down his arms, is told that he cannot claim the protection of the government he has helped to rescue from destruction. He may spend his days on a Southern plantation; he may be arrested and imprisoned in a Southern port, or sold into hopeless bondage under the eyes of government officials. He has no redress. He has no claim upon the government. That is what those say, in substance, who would restrict this coveted provision to white men.
Those who voted to strike out, did not vote in favor of extending to colored men who may serve in the war, the right of suffrage. That must be decided by the State Constitutions. They merely voted in favor of extending to them the protection due to citizens of the U. S. Viewed in this light, I cannot easily explain the action of certain members. It is doubtless policy rather than principle that actuates them. Very few of the Republicans elected on the Union ticket, or as professedly conservative men, can be relied on. Most of them are quite as apt to be on the Democratic side as on that of the Republicans. They are mostly half-way men, and dare not come up and look a question square in the face. I fully believe the Union movement, this idea of doing away with all parties and harmonizing the conflicting elements, has done much, very much, to lower the standard of Republicanism. It has placed our Legislature men who dare not take an independent stand, who dare not advocate an unpopular measure, who dare not stand up boldly and fearlessly and speak their honest convictions if they chance to differ from the popular sentiment, who do not cast their vote upon a matter connected with slavery without a good deal of trepidation for fear they shall wound some sensitive nerves. Were this class of politicians out of the way, and were their places supplied by out-and-out Republicans, there would be less buncombe, less wrangling, and more effective labor.
A bill passed the House to-day fixing the bounty on wolves at $2.50, and repealing Article 8, Section 91 of the Revision of 1860 which provides for a bounty on other animals which are harmless. The bill for the exemption from execution of the property of the militia of the State in actual service, was taken up and discussed at some length. It exempts their property both real and personal, from execution, not only during their service but for two months afterwards. All seem to favor the enactment of some law of the kind, but a good many think the provisions of the act should not extend to commissioned officers. Quite an animated discussion took place on this point, after which the bill was recommitted to the committee on military affairs. The law of the extra session, which some thought covered the whole ground, seems, by the testimony of those who are acquainted with its workings, to be of no real benefit to the soldiers. According to the renderings under it, it affords no protection to the property of the man who is away from home fighting his country’s battles.
Senator McPherson introduced a concurrent resolution instructing our congressmen to vote for a reduction in the salary of army officers instead of a tax on their salaries. After being so amended as to include all commissioned officers and ask for a reduction in their salaries of 25 per cent it was adopted.
J. R. C.
– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Tuesday Morning, February 11, 1862, p. 1
