Mineral Point Weekly Tribune

Messrs Editors: As you have kindly offered to publish an article in favor of the Soldiers' Home, I venture to express a few thoughts on that side.

As the letter of "One Leg" has been read, quoted and commented on both in private and in public places, I will call attention directly in it.

Please notice that I do not now speak in behalf of the Fair, but of the Home. It is said that the Soldiers oppose it! and "One Leg" comes out as a representation of those for whom this Home is proposed. But, I ask, what right has he to speak for those who do need and want a Home? What right have I who have good eyes to protest that my friend Mr. Davey shall not bring on a supply of spectacles for such as need them? Just so much has a "disabled" soldier who claims to be able to support himself to speak against the proposed Home. What does the call in the circular state as the object of this effort? Is it to provide a Home for all disabled soldiers? Is it to furnish a home for the indolent and dissipated? Read: A permanent Home the object of which shall be to furnish....an asylum for soldiers honorably discharged from the service, who have no homes, and disabled by wounds or sickness are unable to support themselves." Now "One Leg" or no leg, if he has health and strength or money, so as to be able to support himself, or if he has a home where he can live by the aid of his pension is not included by the terms used. But there are those who will need such a Home. This none can deny. There are thousands in our army who have enlisted in feeling that they have no friends to care for them—none to love them—no home; and they, when they return must be cared for: to leave them to die in the "poor house" were a disgrace too deep for a christian land like ours. The letters we see are not written by that class of men. Our soldiers never complain, and those who really need such a home will not come in our public prints and ask for it, we must furnish them a Home, then seek them out and bring them to it, not as to a Public Poor House, but as part payment by a grateful people, of a debt that no price can equal. The sad wrecks of the battle field, an unhealthy climate and those horrid prison pens, will come back to us, and will be willing to be aided if we can make them feel that they are not paupers but honored servants of a grateful country. They have pride and self-respect, we would not take these away, but rather show them that we too are proud of and respect them. But why multiply words? The communication of "One Leg" admits just what we claim—The writer says: "A home established for those who cannot earn a livelihood is not objectionable!" and this all that is proposed in the effort. It is to furnish a Home for disabled, homeless, dependent men who must otherwise go to the alms house! Why then should patriots and christians oppose so noble a work?

We should remember, too, that hundreds will come home who will hope, and earnestly try to support themselves. For a time they will succeed; but the seeds of disease that exposure and hardships have planted will bear fruit in old age, and they too will deserve and need our help. Let us then in the name of religion and of our common humanity prepare for them such a Home as their services have merited. They are in their present condition for nobly standing between us and the invading foe that would have destroyed our homes—shall we not then give to them one? History shall say whether we of Wisconsin have honored the brave or dishonored ourselves.

Yours, &c., E. B. M.

Mineral Point, April 10, 1865.