Staunton Spectator

In speaking of the mortality among the freedmen, the Richmond Times says:

"In a county of this State, a gentleman, some time during the year 1863, lost ninety-eight slaves by flight to the Federal lines.--Within two years from the time of the escape of these negroes accurate and reliable information was received, showing that, during the time designated, twenty-five out of ninety-eight negroes had died. Another gentleman, in the same county, lost, about the same time, twenty-six negroes by escape to the Free States. When he heard from them, after a period of thirty-one months, eight of the original number had died. Other similar examples might be given."

Strange is it may seem, as we stated some time since, the people of the South, who fought so long and so bravely against the Union, are better friends of the Union now than the people of the North who sacrificed the lives of so many thousands in its defence. The North fought for the Union -- the South fought against it; the South tired to get out -- the North tried to keep them in; the North succeeded -- the South failed. It would seem to follow necessarily, from the attitudes of the contestants, and the issue of the conflict, that the Union was saved -- that the South never got out --that all the States were still in the Union. The people of the South acknowledge their failure to get out, and claim the rights appertaining to those in the Union. Whereupon the people of the North say, in effect, "You are out of the Union -- we tried to prevent you from going out, and our efforts were crowned with success, yet you are out of the Union, and not entitled to the rights belonging to those in the Union -- you cannot be represented, and yet we will tax you for the support of the Government -- we ignore the "old fogy" principles of our revolutionary forefathers, for which they "fought, bled and died," that there should not be taxation without representation."

They do not say this in language, but in conduct. If they were as good friends of the Union as the people of the South are now, they would restore, immediately, to the citizens of the Southern States all the rights which they possessed before the war.--Though the South can do nothing more than claim her rights, the people of the North, in the language of the N. Y. News, have it "within their power to re-establish the political system to its normal condition; it was that they professed to fight for; they have conquered; how is it that they now throw obstacles in the way of the consummation to attain which they sent millions to the field and hundreds of thousands to their graves.

When the Southern States attempted to secede from the Union, every effort was made to drag them back; now that they are anxious to return to the Union, the door is shut in their faces. They were told they could not go out, and now they are told that they can not come in. The janitors stand at the threshold and demand their entrance fee. The Union must and shall be preserved at all hazards, was the war cry; but the peace cry is, there shall be no rehabilitation of the Union except upon such and such conditions; and those conditions are of a nature to cancel the very essence of that republicanism that was represented as the object of the struggle. To preserve the integrity of the Confederation was the avowed purpose of the war; why then do those who carried on the war neglect and refuse to fulfill its purpose now that there is now impediment? It is very strange that the respective positions of the contestants should be reversed; but so it is. The Southern States are now clamoring to resume their legitimate places in the political household, and the Administration is holding them back. It denies them the very privilege that it sought to enforce upon them as a duty."

The Buffalo Courier publishes the following private letter of the Hon. A. H. H. Stuart, of Virginia:

Staunton, Va., October, 1865

* * * * It seems to me that we are on the eve of a general break-up and re-organization of parties. We must adopt a new name, and that name should be expressive of the mission of the new organization. The object will be to establish the ascendancy of sound constitutional principles, and I can think of no more appropriate name than they "Constitutional Party." With such a party, and such a name, I think we must defeat the Radicals in any future contest. Mr. Johnson's policy will give us a firm ground to stand upon in the out-set, and the restoration of the authority of the Constitution, in its original simplicity, will form a permanent basis of Union in the future.

I can hardly think the Republicans will venture to adhere to the test oath, in view of the fact of its flagrant unconstitutionality. If they do, they, will place a weapon in the hands of their adversaries which can be used greatly to their disadvantage.

I mean to present myself and demand my seat as one legally elected and returned, and possessing all the constitutional requirements of eligibility. If admitted, I will give a cordial support to Mr. Johnson's policy of reconstruction, and use ever effort to restore tranquility and good feeling to the Union. If excluded; I will return home and calmly await the development of events. I certainly will not make way for a more pliant representative.

So far as Virginia is concerned, every vestige of opposition to the Federal authority has vanished. The people were never, at heart, in favor of secession, and they accept cheerfully the results of the war. In regard to the principal leaders of the attempted revolution, the only fear is that they will run into the other extreme of abject subserviency. Having never lost my balance by going for secession, I do not wish to lose it now by going for consolidation. Moderate men must now preserve the equilibrium of our institutions by holding to the Constitution with a steady hand.

Very respectfully your friend,

Alex H. H. Stuart