The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-14 00:00:00

Opinions of the American Press.

The New York, Herald boasts that " the amount
of cotton which has code out of the South since the
war closed has been equal in value to six or seven
years' production of the precious metals in the
whole country. We do not mean equal in value
only in the same way that the corn, wheat, or hay
crop is estimated, but in a much more important
and wider sense. Cotton is not only an article of
prime necessity for home consumption--not only
employs millions of hands and hundreds of millions
of capital among ourselves—•but it takes the same
place as gold and silver in the commerce and ex-
changes of the world. In this sense we say the
three to four hundred millions of dollars' worth of
cotton that has come out of the South since the war
closed—in one year—is equal in value to six or
seven years' production of precious metals in Cali-
fornia and the other States and Territories on the
Pacific side of the continent." The estimate of the
cotton received is three hundred millions in gold.
"Few probably," says the Herald, " have re-
flected upon the influence of this on the coun-
try, on our condition and credit, and on
the relative value of gold and currency. Suppose
the South had been merely a grain, coin, or stock
producing country, or producing such other things
only as a people consume within themselves, it
would have had little or nothing to spare, or that
the rest of the world would have required, when
the war ended. Or suppose the Southerners could
have used this valuable production during the war,
what would have been the result ? Had not our
navy blockaded their harbours and coast, and sealed
up the cotton, what immense resources would have
been at their use. We know not how long the war
might have been prolonged, or what would have
been the end of it. We ought to give due credit to
the navy for the invaluable service it rendered.
But let us reflect upon what our condition would
have been after the war was over, and would be for
a long time to come, without this cotton of the
South. The republic had raised upon its credit
within a short time sums of money which no nation
had ever raised before, and more, probably, than
any other could raise. Little short of a thousand
millions had been expended in a year. But this
extraordinary financial success must have been fol-
lowed by as great a revulsion and depression if wo
had not had the cotton of the South."

The Herald, in proof of what cotton has done for
America by converting England into a "frightful
example," as exhibited in 1814, says :—" She had
accumulated an enormous debt, and her commerce
with the rest of Europe had been paralysed. The
pressure of this debt and the demands of the coun-
try for supplies from abroad, together with the
spirit of speculation that revived with the return of
peace, drained the country of a large amount of
specie. Years of depression, revulsion, and intense
suffering among the mass of the people followed as
a natural consequence. Now, suppose England
had possessed in 1815 the same amount of cotton
we found, or that she had suddenly discovered three
or four hundred millions in gold, which would have
been the same thing, how easily, comparatively, she
would have passed through her troubles."
The New York Tribune, of April 28, says :—The
New York Times saw fit, last Wednesday, to lay
down the following fundamental basis of recon-
struction :--" If there is anything fundamental in
free institutions, it is the principle that all States
and all people, that are required to obey the laws
shall be represented in the Congress which makes
them. A Government which denies or discards this
principle is a despotism—we care not what may be
its form, nor under what pretext it may cloak
its tyranny. Unless this is true, then the whole
theory of free institutions, of self-government, of
representative republics, is a cheat and a sham."
Sincerely desirous of an early and complete restora-
tion of the States lately in revolt to their former and
proper relations to the Union and to the steadfastly
loyal States, we hailed the above as wise and just, and
offered to unite upon and abide by it, without cavil or
reservation. W e urged the Times, and those with whom
it is in general accord, to unite with us on that
basis, and put an end to the existing complication
—closing with this question :—" Is the Times ready
to pledge itself to a hearty and consistent support,
without condition or reservation, of this great,
comprehensive principle ?" The Times gives no
response to this respectful inquiry, but has, instead
thereof, a tirade against Mr. Wendell Phillips and
what is termed " the Radical Programme," which
is set forth as follows :—" We apprehend that,
when they can get their courage up to the' sticking-
point,' this is precisely the course which the Radicals
in Congress will endeavour to pursue Universal
negro suffrage' as the condition sine qua non of the
Restoration of the Union, is now, and has been from
the beginning of the session, the grand goal and object
of all their efforts. They have cloaked it more or
less, partly from policy and partly from fear ; but
the time is drawing nigh when they can cloak it no
longer. . . . All the talk and all the excitement
that has been raised about Constitutional Amend-
ments, equality of civil rights, status of the Rebel
States, &c., has been simply dust thrown in the eyes
of the public to cover the approach to the grand,
fundamental, indispensable principle of universal
negro suffrage, as the condition without which no
Southern State should ever again be admitted to
the Union. This is the secret of all the elaborate
legal endeavours to prove that the Union is de-
stroyed—that the States went out of it, and that
they can get back only on such conditions as Con-
gress may prescribe. This is the reason why
Stevens proclaimed them conquered States, deprived
of all rights, excluded from the protection of the
Constitution, and to be dealt with as conquered
subjects, at the sovereign will and pleasure of
the conquerors. This was the object of Mr.
Shellabarger's studied legal argument in support of
the doctrine of State suicide, and of his more recent
effort to prove that, even if the rebel States are in
the Union, they may rightly be held to have for-
feited all the rights of citizenship under the Consti-
tution. The feebler but still more zealous efforts of
Hart, Ward, Hohnes, and other Radical members
from this State, have all aimed at the same thing—
namely, to lay a foundation for demanding, at the
hands of the South, universal negro suffrage as the
condition of restoration." We judge that the
above is inspired by another mind and penned by
another hand than those who so justly set forth, in
the same editorial column, " the principle" " funda-
mental in free institutions," only two days before.
Possibly the two may somehow be reconciled ; if so,
we would like to see the feat attempted by the
subtle genius of the Times. Let us have a
clear understanding of terms. If by " universal
negro suffrage" is meant that every negro shall
vote, we favour no such proposition. We do not
deem it best that even every white male adult
citizen shall vote ; then why every black one ?
Felons, idiots, lunatics, and many other classes are,
for good reasons, excluded from the electoral body.
What we contemplate and advocate as impartial
suffrage implies only that no black man shall be
debarred from voting for any reason that does not
likewise disfranchise a white man. This is precisely
what we demand and insist on. Does the Times
assent to it? If so, there is no ground of substan-
tial difference between us. If it does not, then its
harping on " universal negro suffrage" is vague
and misleading. There is a large proportion of the
American people who have forfeited their politi-
cal rights by rebellion and treason. There is
another large portion who, having mainly been
slaves till recently, have not yet been politically.
enfranchised. We propose that the political disa-
bilities under which these two classes now labour
shall be at once and absolutely removed, sb that no
man shall henceforth be disfranchised in any State
because of his colour or because he has been a rebel.
Why is not this just, fair, wise, nay even generous ?
If the Republic can wholly forgive and restore to
every forfeited right those who desperately sought
her life, why may she not treat with equal favour
those whose only offence is their colour—who are
poor and ignorant only because they have been 1

brutalised chattels ? If this is not a beneficent and
statesmanlike solution of our remaining difficulties,
be good enough to tell us why !