The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1865-11-19
SO frequently since his elevation?

They ring the changes in three notes
first, the boast of being plebian;
secondly, the malediction of all trai-
tors; thirdly, the disparagement of
mercy. Was ever such creed pre-
sented to the world? We have sought
In vain for one noble sentiment, for
one generous emotion, for the faintest
trace of a recollection that he ruled
over the sons of rebels, that his own
position was the fruit Of rebellion,
that the first and great President he
had to follow had been traitor.
When it was the business of the
statesman to pour Oil upon the trou-
bled waters, the cry is for vengeance,
confscation, blood.
1t has been said that this war was q
struggle between aristocracy and de-
mocracy, in which the hitter has tri-
l1mphed. No delusion could well be
greater than to speak of the South as
an aristocratic country. Mr.. Lincoln
and Mr.. Johnson, both Southern men,
are they to be termed arstocrats? It
is very true that men of property and
refinement in the South have usually
conservative spirit; but as regards
the country at large and its institu-
tons, what more utterly democratic?
The State Constitutions are such as
no Chartist could improve upon. Vote
by ballot, universal suffrage, payment
of members, short terms Of office,
popular election even OF iudges-are
these the features OF aristocracy? It
seems to be unknown or forgotten
that the South was the leader in the
downward course of democratic pro-
gress, and that Thomas Jefferson was
Southerner. Believers in demo-
cracy ought surely to love the country
for his sake. If the embodiment is
to be sought of what is invidiously
represented as the aristocratic spirit,
1T would not be found amongst the
planters of the South, who lead at
home the simple lives of country gen
tlemen, but amongst the millionaires
OF the North, where alone are the
purple and fine linen, the luxury and
extravaganza, the exclusiveness and
self-esteem regarded as the character
istics of the aristocrat. The doctrine
of State Rights has indeed been stout
ly maintained in the South, but not
as part Of an aristocratic, nay, express
~ as part of the democratic creed.
State Rights are the only protection
against the abuse of the central power:
level them, and one man wields power
over q continent, and commands its
resources, who is irresponsible for
four years, and whom there would be
nothing to restrain but the strength
OF private individuals, equal to that of
so many grains of sand. We have
seen in this war that the moment
State Rights were disregarded, every
barrier set up by the Constitution
went down with them. It is as the
bulwark of defence against despotic
power and lnfringements of the Con
stitution, that the people of the South
have clung to State Rights. This
contest was, therefore, no conflict of
political principles, but, as Earl Rus
sell described it, struggle for indie
pendence on the one side and for
empire on the other. If, indeed, this
were in reality trump ph of demo-
cracy, then democracy must be sorely
IN need of something on which tc
plume itself, when it is thought to be
a matter Of pride and glorifcation
that it has enabled twenty-five mil
hons OF people to overcome five mil
lions of the same race.
The question naturally arises, what
caused the failure of this great effort
of the South to possess Government
of It's own? The principal cause is
indeed obvious cnough-the great
superiority of the North in numbers
and resources. If we add to the free
States the four slave States that fol-
lowed their lead, under more or less
compulsion--Delaware, Maryland,
Missouri and Kentucky tolthese
the districts at Federal command from
an early period of the war, say half
of Tennessee and Louisiana and a
e