“1. The border counties are required, whenever a call is made, to make up their quotas for the national army. Their men are sent away to fight for the maintenance of the Government. Can it be expected, then, that these counties, after filling their quotas and paying their taxes, will be able still to turn out and maintain in the field an additional force, sufficient to protect them from invasion? Is not the Government pledged, after it has taken their men and their money, to afford them protection, so far as it has ability? And have not these border counties a right to expect such protection? Is not the State under obligation to use all its power to afford protection to the remotest portion of its territory, so long as it demands the support of all its citizens?
“2. It has generally been conceded in the North, during this war, that what is called bushwhacking is contrary to the rules of war. A private citizen has no right to enjoy that protection and immunity which is accorded him by the armies, and then take his gun and shoot down a soldier. This, we think, is conceded, and it has been urged all along that private citizens who do so deserve summary execution. Suppose now that private citizens should employ violence against rebel soldiers, is it not plain that they would expose themselves to the vengeance of the rebel army, and that the end of it would be a war of savage butchery on both sides, a war of destruction and desolation? Would it not invite to pillage and arson and murder?
“3. But even if this had been attempted in the cases of invasion that have occurred, it would have been of no avail. Take the recent case of the capture and burning of Chambersburg. General Averill was not far from the place, with twenty-five hundred cavalry, when a detachment of Early’s corps, under McCausland, entered and burned it. If, then, General Averill felt himself too weak to interfere to prevent the rebels from entering the town, what could the unarmed citizens of such a place, without any one to lead them, have been able to do? It has been said by papers that ought to know better, that two or three hundred rebels captured and burned the town. Is it not to be supposed that General Couch would know what could be done, and when he despaired of being able to hold the town and left it, would it not have been sheer madness for the citizens to have provoked the rebel soldiery to shoot them down in the streets, without being able to effect anything?
“Besides it must be remembered that the citizens of Chambersburg did not know, and had no right to expect, that the rebel force intended burning their town before they entered it. As unarmed private citizens they submitted to what could not be averted, and expected to be treated according to the rules of war, under which private citizens are protected from personal injury by soldiers.
“That farmers should send away their horses, and merchants their goods, at the approach of the enemy, is not only natural, but eminently wise and proper. Allowing them to remain at home, without the ability to defend them from capture, would be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
“As against New York, the city whose leading papers have been vilely slandering the border counties of Pennsylvania, the case would seem to need no explanation or vindication. It is still remembered how that city found it necessary to have regiments from our armies to come to their rescue in putting down a riot caused by opposition to the draft. It is known, too, how anxiously they clamor for the Government to provide ample defences for their harbor against some rebel iron-clad that might slip in unawares and destroy their city. If New York needs monster guns to protect it from the enemy, is it wrong for Pennsylvania to expect arms and men to be furnished by the Government, to protect her borders from invasion?
“As to the kind of philanthropy that would thus vilify and slander a town lying in ashes, and its inhabitants houseless and homeless, what terms can characterize it? It is not only unchristian but inhuman. These things are past, but they are not forgotten.
“Chambersburg had a right to claim help in its calamity, not as a charity, but as a right. But in these times rights are not always accorded. Some sections have to suffer more than others, who do fully as much in men and money to support the government. This is to be expected. Let us try at least to be just in our judgment.”
The following is from the graphic pen of the Rev. B. Bausman, late pastor of the German Reformed congregation here, now of the city of Reading, likewise a corresponding editor of the paper referred to, and author of “Sinai and Zion,” an interesting volume of Travels in the Holy Land. Mr. B. hastened to the scene of ruin as soon as the telegraph informed him of the fearful calamity. After a suitable introduction, he furnishes the following incidents and reflections:
“Persons were fired upon, who attempted to extinguish the flames. A rebel soldier threatened a young man to ‘blow his brains out’ if he would not let the fire burn. With a revolver in hand, his sister rushed out of an adjoining room, her eyes flashing with a more terrible fire than that of rebel kindling: ‘Begone, thou brutal wretch!’ said the heroine, as she aimed with precision at the rebel’s head, who scampered away in a terrible fright.