Page images
PDF
EPUB

already in existence on the superficies of the globe. The mere laborer, unless he has such special skill or ability as make a peculiar demand for his services, is as helpless in the one place as the other, and every avenue of employment is crowded with applicants who, disinherited of their natural right to employ themselves, must compete with each other for the wages of an employer.

The treatment of land as the private property of individuals -the attaching to the element from which all must live of the same exclusive rights of ownership which justly attach to the things which man produces—is so opposed to reason, so repugnant to all moral perceptions, that it has only come to be accepted through a long course of fraud and usurpation, in which habit has dulled the sense of natural right. Secure possession by the individual user, is, of course, necessary to the use of land, since it is requisite to secure the right of property in improvements. The manifest way to combine the individual right to improvements and products with the common right to the land itself, is that the holder of valuable land—i. e., land which is worth a premiumshould pay a fair rent to the community in return for the special privilege granted him. This, in a rude way, was accomplished by the feudal system, and the road by which private property in land was instituted among English-speaking people was, by the shaking off their rents on the part of the feudal tenants, and the resort to general taxation for the public revenues, originally obtained from land. Conversely, the best and easiest way to secure the equal rights of all in the land of their country, is to abolish all other taxation, and by a tax on land values to take for public use that

value which attaches to land by reason of the growth of the com, munity, and to make it unprofitable for any one to hold land he is not putting to use.

It is instructive to observe how, in Pennsylvania as in England, the interests of the wealthy classes who have been most influential in directing public opinion and making laws, have led to the taxing of everything rather than land values. The State of Pennsylvania not only attempts to tax mortgages, money at interest and notes, but also capital loaned or invested in any other State. Great tracts of mineral land are taxed at such nominal rates that they can be easily withheld from use, while the miner, taxed indirectly in all other ways, must also pay a tax upon his occupation, which

[ocr errors]

is rated according to the county at from $150 to $300, the millionaire coal owner being rated on his occupation at from $200 to $350.

How monopoly begets monopoly, and special privilege leads to general corruption, might nowhere be better illustrated than in ring-ridden Pennsylvania, with its railroad octopus, its coal combination, its Standard Oil Company, and its pig-iron “statesmen.” And Pennsylvania may well feel hopeless of cutting away the monopolistic creepers which have enmeshed the Keystone State. “Take a pass !” said a Pennsylvanian to me, as I manifested some mild surprise at the statement that, although railroad passes are prohibited by the Constitution, Governor Pattison was the only man in the State who would not take a pass—" Take a pass ! What is the use of fighting a corporation that rules the State. I would take a whole freight train, if they would give it to me.” But though it may be useless to hack away at the branches, the tree of monopoly will fall if the ax be laid at its root. And private property in land, it will be found on examination, is the root of lesser monopolies.

HENRY GEORGE.

BURNSIDE'S CONTROVERSIES WITH LINCOLN.

I.

EVERY step in the compilation of the War Records reveals material which throws new light on controverted points. I subjoin the correspondence between General Burnside and President Lincoln after the battle of Fredericksburgh, in which the General offered his resignation, and also recommended the removal of Secretary Stanton and General Halleck. The heated controversy which arose over this action will be remembered by every one conversant with the history of the Army of the Potomac. It did not, however, bring to light the important correspondence now presented, nor even establish its existence.

A brief recapitulation of the former discussion is necessary to a proper understanding of the new dispatches, and, at the same time, it will greatly increase their interest. Soon after the failure of General Burnside's attack on Fredericksburgh he visited Washington, and had a long conference with President Lincoln in regard to a second crossing of the Rappahannock, which he had planned and desired to execute. On the return of General Burnside to his army, he said, to several corps commanders, that, while in Washington, he had verbally tendered his resignation to President Lincoln, and had also recommended the removal of Secretary Stanton and General Halleck, on the ground that they had lost the confidence of the army, and the country ; that he had subsequently reduced these recommendations to writing and read them to the President, in the presence of the Secretary of War and the General-in-Chief. This action of General Burnside first came before the public in definite shape after the report of the Committee on the Conduct of the War on the failure at Fredericksburgh. This report thus arraigned General W. B. Franklin :

[ocr errors]

SIDE'S CONTROVERSIES WITH LINCOLN.

1.

{y step in the compilation of the War Records reveals which throws new light on controverted points. I subcorrespondence between General Burnside and President after the battle of Fredericksburgh, in which the General his resignation, and also recommended the removal of y Stanton and General Halleck. The heated controversy ose over this action will be remembered by every one convith the history of the Army of the Potomac. It did not, bring to light the important correspondence now pre

"The testimony of all the witnesses before your committee proves most com clusively that had the attack been made upon the left with all the force that Ge eral Franklin could have used for that purpose, the plan of General Burnsi would have been completely successful, and our army would have achieved most brilliant victory."

General Franklin, who in the meantime had been relieved from command, published, under date of York, Pa., April 25, 1863, most conclusive answer to this charge, and incidentally repeate the statement of General Burnside, made upon his return fro the conference with Mr. Lincoln, to which reference has bee made above. On this point General Franklin wrote:

"— and it is equally true, though not so publicly known, that * General Burnside made quite as formal and earnest a request to the President t remove the Secretary of War and the General-in-Chief from the positions sever ally occupied by them, as he did to dismiss certain of his officers in the Army the Potomac.”

This declaration led to a long correspondence between Genera Halleck and General Franklin. It was initiated by Genera Halleck, asking General Franklin on what authority he mad the above statement. General Franklin, in 1866, added thi correspondence to a second edition of his pamphlet. From thi publication it appeared that, in the course of a long letter, he had thus presented the case to General Halleck:

"The facts are these : General Burnside was in Washington on or about January 1st last. He returned to camp, and soon after his return informed me, think in the presence of General Smith, and perhaps others, that he had seen the President, and had verbally recommended to him the acceptance of his resignation and the removal of the Secretary of War and yourself. The President, however, refused to entertain the suggestion, and the next interview that General Burnside had with him was in the presence of the Secretary of War and yourself. Between the first and second interviews he had reduced to writing the proposition which he had made in the first interview, and read to the President a letter to him, in which he tendered his own resignation, and proposed the vacation of the Secretary of War's and your positions, for the reason that an 'hree of you had lost the confidence of the people. This is the substance of the sway as I heard it from him just after his return to camp."

To this General Halleck replied at length, and upon the first point presented above he wrote:

"Immediately on receiving your pamphlet I addressed a note to General Burnside, calling his attention to what you had stated in regard to his having formally and earnestly requested my removal, and, as he has not denied its correctness, I presume be admits

"There is one singular statement in your letter, in regard to the embodying of VOL. CXLIV.NO. 362.

7

or even establish its existence.
of recapitulation of the former discussion is necessary to

understanding of the new dispatches, and, at the same
will greatly increase their interest. Soon after the fail.
eneral Burnside's attack on Fredericksburgh he visited
ton, and had a long conference with President Lincoln in

a second crossing of the Rappahannock, which he had
ind desired to execute. On the return of General Burn-
his army, he said, to several corps commanders, that,
Washington, he had verbally tendered his resignation to
· Lincoln, and had also recommended the removal of

Stanton and General Halleck, on the ground that they
he confidence of the army, and the country; that he had
atly reduced these recommendations to writing and read
he President, in the presence of the Secretary of War and
al-in-Chief. This action of General Burnside first came

[graphic]

public in definite shape after the report of the Comthe Conduct of the War on the failure at FredericksThis report thus arraigned General W. B. Franklin :

General Burnside's recommendation for our removal in his letter of resignation, and reading it to the President in the presence of the Secretary and myself. There is not a word of truth in this, so far as I am concerned. The only letter of resignation of General Burnside which I ever saw or heard of made no allusion to either of us."

At a later date General Halleck repeated the above statement, and added :

"What General Burnside may have said to the President or Secretary of War about me, in my absence, I, of course, do not know; but I have assurances that he never suggested my removal to either."

Later still, in 1866, when General Franklin notified General Halleck of his intention to publish the correspondence between them, the latter wrote:

“ Both Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Stanton assured me at the time that General Burnside never made to them, or in their presence, the statement alluded to in your pamphlet, but that, on the contrary, he had always expressed full confiderce in, and warm regard for, both the Secretary and mysell."

Such are the points of the former correspondence that are necessary to the full understanding of that to follow.

The compilation of the War Records has disclosed what, according to General Burnside, did take place at his conference with President Lincoln. These new letters also show that General Halleck asked to be relieved from his position as General-in-Chief, and set forth, in an interesting form, General Burnside's decided purpose to cross the Rappahannock for a second attack, and the unanimous opposition of his corps commanders to the movement.

I.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

WASHINGTON, January 1, 1863, MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK :

MY DEAR SIR : General Burnside wishes to cross the Rappahannock with his army, but his grand division commanders all oppose the movement. If, in such & difficulty as this, you do not help, you fail me precisely in the point for which I sought your assistance. You know what General Burnside's plan is, and it is my wish that you go with him to the ground, examine it as far as practicable, confer with the officers, getting their judgment and ascertaining their temper ; in a word, gather all the elements for forming a judgment of your own, and then tell General Burnside that you do approve or that you do not approve his plan. Your military skill is useless to me if you will not do this. Yours, very truly,

A. LINCOLN.

January 1, 1863. Withdrawn, because considered harsh by General Hallock.

A. LINCOLN.

« PreviousContinue »