efer that you would, in future, make no more
subscriptions of that kind, and in the meantime we propose to protect
your property and guard your negroes." Turchin's policy is bad enough;
it may indeed be the policy of the devil; but Buell's policy is that of
the amiable idiot. There is a better policy than either. It will
neither steal nor maraud; it will do nothing for the sake of individual
gain, and, on the other hand, it will not crouch to rebels; it will not
fear to hurt the feelings of traitors; it will not fritter away the army
and the revenue of the Government in the insane effort to protect men
who have forfeited all right to protection. The policy we need is one
that will march boldly, defiantly, through the rebel States, indifferent
as to whether this traitor's cotton is safe, or that traitor's negroes
run away; calling things by their right names; crushing those who have
aided and abetted treason, whether in the army or out. In short, we want
an iron policy that will not tolerate treason; that will demand
immediate and unconditional obedience as the price of protection.

15. The post at Murfreesboro, occupied by two regiments of infantry and
one battery, under Crittenden, of Indiana, has surrendered to the enemy.
A bridge and a portion of the railroad track between this place and
Pulaski have been destroyed. A large rebel force is said to be north of
the Tennessee. It crossed the river at Chattanooga.

18. The star of the Confederacy appears to be rising, and I doubt not it
will continue to ascend until the rose-water policy now pursued by the
Northern army is superseded by one more determined and vigorous. We
should look more to the interests of the North, and less to those of the
South. We should visit on the aiders, abettors, and supporters of the
Southern army somewhat of the severity which hitherto has been aimed at
that army only. Who are most deserving of our leniency, those who take
arms and go to the field, or those who remain at home, raising corn,
oats, and bacon to subsist them? Plain people, who know little of
constitutional hair-splitting, could decide this question only one way;
but it seems those who have charge of our armies can not decide it in
any sensible way. They say: "You would not disturb peaceable citizens by
levying contributions from them?" Why not? If the husbands, brothers,
and fathers of these people, their natural leaders and guardians, do not
care for them, why should we? If th