Polynesian Responds to Advertiser: "A Secession Flag Hauled Down"

Polynesian Responds to Advertiser: "A Secession Flag Hauled Down"
Source: Polynesian. March 15, 1862. Page 2, column 3. 

The Advertiser this week heads an article with: "A secession flag hauled down," and then goes on to say:

The public were startled last Saturday by the announcement in the Polynesian, that it has ceased to be Secesh, and intended to become a good, Union loving sheet. And then it goes on in a half column of apologizing, after reading which one is puzzled to know what he does think. The editor of the Polynesian for months has not hesitated to avow on the street, the warmest sympathy for the rebel fire-eaters of the South, because he once happened to sojourn at Charleston, or in some of the blockaded rat-holes of that neighborhood, long enough to say he had seen a live slave and discovered the beauty of Southern slavery. 

Having never forgotten our proper position as a foreign publicist and an impartial spectator of one of the saddest events that history will have to record, we never presumed for a moment to mock the genuine sorrows of true Union men, the fearful ordeal, the great clarity of a whole land, by aping on a small scale the heart-rending exhibition of a divided people. We believe that the United States will yet survive the trial it is assign through; and when the mist that covers the land from North to South is dispelled and, reconciled and free, it once more shines out in pristine beauty and lustre, a better and a wiser land, it will owe and render but small thanks to those officious scrubbers, at home and abroad, whose crude ideas, intolerant zeal and impaired vision never rose to the true Union level, who tried to render glory to God and service to a party by crying "mad dog" at their brothers, or inflaming the passions of sowing dissensions among the peaceful dwellers of as foreign land. When the strife is over and the passions calmer, candid men will appreciate and acknowledge who were the best friends of the Union. We can afford to wait. We never by "word or line" or "on the street" gave "the warmest" or the least sympathy to any course that tended to dismember the Union by revolt or disenfranchise a portion of it by conquest. Its own fathers did not so provide, did not so counsel, and the Advertiser will pardon us if we prefer to follow their views rather than its own.

The Advertiser chooses to forget the significant fact that, whereas we have counseled peace and an honorable compromise from the very beginning of the contest, itself has veered with the course of the armies. After the receipt of the news of the Bull Run battle it wrote (Aug. 29):

"Thus have the Southern Rebels, instead of losing, rather gained grounded up to the last advices, and who knows but that they may continue to gain ground, till the North is willing to listen to some of the terms of compromise, however harshly they may grate on her ears.

And referring to some propositions for peace, said to have come from the secessionist side, it said:

"The North may yet be glad to close in with these terms, or even with others less favorable. Now that the South stand as the victors, they may not be willing to renew so favorable tenders until the North has shown beyond a question that she holds the balance of power on her side. * * * * * The war may continue an indefinite period, and become a long and bloody contest, but we incline to the belief that both parties in he contest will be willing to come to some terms of compromise before six months have passed by, and that the North and South will yet settle down in peace and harmony, on terms mutual concession, when they come to rightly understand each other, and have had enough of brotherly quarreling and fighting; and that the Union will yet be preserved, and its proud flag be restored to float, not by conquest, but by the bonds of loyalty, over every State and fortress in the Union." 

After the Roanoke battle and the invasion of Tennessee it wrote (March 6th):

"Thus it will be seen that the Rebels are invested on every side, and with forces of such magnitude, that even if the advance troops are repulsed, there are hosts in the rear to support them. We can see no hope for the rebels, and but one alternative remains-for them to succumb to the terrible power and consequences which they alone have brought upon themselves. They must surrender and deliver up every weapon of war an every rebel leader before terms of peace can now be thought of. The position which they will occupy after the struggle is over, is not for them to dictate-it may be that they will be readmitted as States, but more likely only as territories -a fitting punishment for their inglorious treason."

And after the evacuation of Nashville, speaking of the negro question, it says:

"It cannot be permitted to exist as an element to former future rebellions, but must be placed beyond all peradventure in that respect. In its settlement, the South will have nothing to say. She has openly and avowedly withdrawn herself from the bonds and obligations of the Constitution, and has forfeited all rights and claims under that instrument. She must yield to and accept the verdict of the Federal Government, whatever that verdict may be. Like a criminal convicted of treason, she can expect no mercy, and can only accept what is granted her."

To quote its own words: "It is marvelous what a change comes over some people's vision when great victories occur."

When a writer makes a misstatement of a fact, it is presumed to be unintentional, unless otherwise proven, and it is forgiven, for it may be an error of apprehension; but when he assigns a false motive to a false fact, he commits literary felo de se and drops at once into that noiseless gulf of contempt from which there is no resurrection. We have been several times to Charleston. We have visited most of the seceded States at various times, and we have lived for years in Northern States. We have "seen a live slave" and a live abolitionist. Now what has that to do with the argument? If our biography is the subject of the Advertiser's remarks, why state one part and suppress another? What a pitiful figure it would cut if arraigned before a convention of first class journals with such unpardonable sins on its record?

The Advertiser will again perhaps be "puzzled to know" what we think. If so, we crave its patience. Intelligence comes by degrees and, whether we have to ascend or descend, next time our neighbor pleads the non intende dodge, it shall not wait long for an explanation. We take liberty to believe that the "Union cause" is something very different from the Union cry. But this again may be Greek to the Advertiser.

We are told that we have been "on the fence since the rebellion broke out." We should like to know where else it would have become us to be, as a foreign, independent, neutral publicist and spectator of a domestic quarrel in another land? We have heard of the ass in the lion's hide and the crow with the jackdaw's feathers, and we do not ambition either predicament. We surely have no business in the melee below the fence-no right to get up a fight on top of it. The Advertiser meant something awful hard, but had not the sense to see that it furnished the most convincing argument for our impartiality, justice and discretion. We can well conceive that American citizens may be deeply and acutely moved by the struggle in their native land. The drama there enacted is a life drama of an entire people. They play for empire and not for supper. The outside world speaks but in whispers, and before so great a spectacle imposes silence aux clacqueurs!  But this also may be a puzzle to the Advertiser. When it arrives to years of maturity, and has seen a little more of the world, it will be somewhat mortified to see how little sensation its rabid hallooing has produced.