Polynesian: "To be impartial" (1862)

Source: The Polynesian, Honolulu. September 20, 1862. 

"To be impartial," say the Advertiser, in dilating upon the state of military affairs in Virginia. What a naive confession of former one-sidedness, braggadocio and bigotry; what an unusual emotion in the Advertiser's sensorium! "To be impartial"- not once, when no purpose can be subserved and longer by unfairness and partiality; but to be impartial, candid and fair in recording events, as well as advancing conclusions, is what the Advertiser has yet to learn. We hail its commencement, however, with pleasure. It does well to acknowledge that the rebellion is something more than a flea-bite, and will require something more than cold steel to suppress it. 

In one thing, however, we see that our contemporary still follows its old habit of jumping at conclusions. It predicts that the general emancipation of the slaves, by proclamation of the President of the United States, is an event close at hand, and that it will prove an invincible weapon in subduing the rebellion. We fear the Advertiser's prophesy will meet with considerable interruption in its fulfillment, from the rebellious slaveholders, who are so "terribly in earnest," and whose strength has hitherto been so singularly underrated. We have been led to believe-though we may be wrong-that the President's proclamation were not kindly received at the South, and generally speaking, a dead letter, unless presented at the point of the bayonet. But it is the sharpness of that very point which the impending battle in Virginia will probably decide. It therefore seems to us a little premature to build much faith on emancipation proclamations until the authority of the Federal Government has been restored at the South. General Hunter tried emancipation proclamations in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, and the foolish slaves would not avail themselves of the opportunity as long as their masters had arms in their hands to prevent them. The old proverb says: "first catch your fish, then stew it." When the Federal Government has re-established itself throughout the length and breadth of Dixie land, it can dispose of Dixie's secants as it pleases.

The Advertiser quoits the whole of the circular letter of Doctor Doupanloup, Catholic Bishop at Orleans, in France, formerly editor of Ami de la Religion, in Paris. As Mr. Doupanloup is well known, we believe, as a sensation preacher, and we have not the space to quote the various strictures which his letter has received from his own co-religionists, we refer the Advertiser to the "New York Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register" of June 7, 1862, as one of the several reviews which that letter has called out, and which- "to be impartial"- it might not be amiss to know. 

"To be impartial," when speaking of the abolition sentiment in the Northern States, why not intimate that journals of so widely circulated as the New York Herald speak of the abolition "pressure" upon the Federal Government in this wise:

"As the reason for this indecisive policy of the administration, the President says that the abolition faction comprises 'many whose support the country cannot afford to lose.' There never was a sadder mistake than this. The country can afford to lose the support of every man who prefers the negro to the Union. The abolitionists are so small, though so noisy a a faction, that the country would not miss them if every one of the were hung. Their only services to the country consist in the 'pressure upon him,' of which the President speaks. The abolition party does not number one-tenth of the people of the loyal States. The abolitionists in the army and the navy are so few and far between that they are never heard of. Even in the Massachusetts regiments the conservatives largely predominate. The 'support' of the abolitionists is a delusion. They talk much, they write much, they fill offices, but they do nothing for the Union. On the contrary, we have often demonstrated that they do much against it. For a few weeks, recently, abolitionism, through its intrigues with Secretary Stanton and its majority in Congress, had practical control of the war power of the the government. Now, what possible good has it accomplished? Where is the abolition Genera who won a battle? Where are the negroes who were to rise against their masters at the issue of such a proclamation as that of Gen. Hunter? How many negroes have the abolitionists induced to join their black brigades? Gen. Hunter has obtained but four hundred negroes from three Slave States, though he has made his parade ground a camp meeting, and intersperses the military drill with religious hymns of which negroes are passionately fond. Where have the abolition plans for the war succeeded? When has abolitionism saved the State of the Union, as conservatism saved Kentucky and Maryland? When has abolitionism won back the State of the Union, as conservatism has won Missouri and Tennessee, and is fast winning Louisiana? At Hilton Head, where the abolitionists have had full swing, what have they done to restore the Union? Abolition intrigues have only resulted in defeats. Abolition interference with recruiting and with our armies has killed volunteering, and the very men who offered and refused a month ago now have to be sought for and hired with extra bounties. Abolitionism has even killed its own party, and driven such old fashioned abolitionists as Seward and Weed into a coalition with conservatives. The scum of the abolition faction only remains. Would gradual emancipation satisfy these fanatics? Would they cites for the President's bill in Congress? Is their 'support' with the trouble of asking for it? Is it worth more than the Union?"

And to be still further "impartial" why not indicate that the Border States, through their Representatives in Congress expressed themselves in the following manner:

"We have anxiously looked into this passage to discover its true import, but we are yet in painful uncertainty. How can we, by conceding what you now ask, relieve you and the country from the increasing pressure to which you refer? We will not allow ourselves to think that the proposition is, that we consent to give up slavery, to the end that the Hunter proclamation may be let loose on the Southern people, for it is too well known that we would not be parties to any such measure, and we have too much respect for you to imagine you would propose it. Can it mean that by sacrificing our interest in slavery we appease the spirit that controls that pressure, cause it to be withdrawn, and rid the country of the pestilent agitation of the slavery question? We are forbidden so to think, for that spirit would not be satisfied with the liberation of seven hundred thousand slaves, and cease its agitation, while three millions remain in bondage. Can it mean that by abandoning slavery in our States we are removing the pressure from you and the country, by preparing for a separation on the line of the cotton States? We are forbidden so to think, because it is known that we are, and we believe that you are, unalterably opposed to any division at all. We would prefer to think that you desire this concession as a pledge of our support, and thus enable you to withstand a pressure which weighs heavily on you and the country. Mr. President, no such sacrifice is necessary to secure our support. Confine yourself to your constitutional authority; confine your subordinates within the same limits; conduct this war solely for the purpose of restoring the Constitution to its legitimate authority; concede to each State and its loyal citizens their just rights, and we are wedded to you by indissoluble ties. Do this, Mr. President, and you touch the American heart and invigorate it with new hope. You will, as we solemnly believe, in due time restore peace to your country, lift it from despondency to a future of glory; and preserve to your countrymen, their posterity, and man, the inestimable treasure of constitutional government."