Page:Disunion and restoration in Tennessee (IA disunionrestorat00neal).pdf/32

 As a result of these measures there now began a general exodus of the able-bodied Union men. In small bands they crossed over the mountains into Kentucky. Many of them joined the Federal army, and rendered valuable service. Others formed camps safely within the Union lines, and quietly awaited the termination of the war. Their most prominent leaders made tours of the Northern cities, and raised funds for their support. Boston alone contributed over one hundred thousand dollars to this purpose. Vast crowds listened to the eloquent appeals of these exiled loyalists, and the impression became general in the North that the Southern authorities were treating the loyal mountaineers of East Tennessee with the most savage cruelty. Edward Everett, in a brilliant oration, compared them with followers of William Tell and the slaughtered saints of Piedmont.

The sacrifices and sufferings of the loyal inhabitants of East Tennessee were indeed very great, but there is no evidence that they were treated by the Confederacy in any manner not necessary and justified by the usages of war. After the failure of its conciliatory policy, the Confederacy either had to permit the erection of a hostile State within the heart of its territory, or coerce the loyalists into submission. It naturally adopted the latter alternative. It is frequently stated that in thus adopting coercive methods it acted inconsistently with the principles under which it withdrew from the Union. Mr. Everett, in the same speech quoted above, said: "One would suppose that under the usurped rule of men who profess to go to war for self-government and State rights, the people of East Tennessee, if for any reason they saw fit to do so, had a right to burn their own bridges."

The absurdity of such statements lies in the fact that they confuse the denial of coercive powers to federal government,