The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1865-11-04
THE DEMOCRACY OF OREGON
AND JOHNSONI9Ms

AND JOHNSONkSMs
Below we give a very interesting letter
from an old gentleman lately arrived in
from Missouri, who is stopping
in Marion county, where he proposes, we
believe, to remain. As he does not seem
to exactly understand the attitude of our
party in Oregon, We take this occasion to
assure him that the distinction of !" State
Rights Democrats !" is not IN empty or
deceptive title with the ~stout-hearted De-
mocracy of this State. They know what
State Rights mean, and they mean all
they declare in their application of the
term to themselves as Democrats. He
need n3t fear the decentralization of our
party here by an acceptance of Mr.. John
son as our leader, or an approval of his
q policy" as Democratic. W. heartily
accord with him in the position he main
tains, and while his droll humor and pr
quaint irony pleases, his sterling, plain,
out-spoken, practical good sense, gladdens
and impresses US. Our columns are open
to him-will he not favor US and assist
the cause in Oregon, by contributing
again and frequently to our paper? And
now we ask readers to peruse his enter
tanning letter:
MARION COUNTY, Oregon,
Oct. 2S, 1865.
EDITOR STATE RIamTs DEMOCRAT: l
desire to address you in quest of informa-
ton. have my own views as to party
policy; also, as to what constitutes De-
mocracy. But they may be Incorrect
not adapted to the latitude of Oregon.
You call your paper a State Rights paper;
please give me some light on Johnson's
i restoration" policy. [ ask this favor
because, since my arrival here, l have
heard many men-Democrats-speak APP
provingly of Johnson's policy in restoring
the Union and | see in one paper that
g the theory held by President johnson is
consistent with the doctrine of State
Rights as held by the Democratic party
from the time whereof the memory of
man runneth not to the contrary Wheth-
er his official conduct will sustain that
theory, or whether he will back down be-
fore the threatening attitude of the radi-
cal revolutionary element, remains to the
future"
This says Johnson's theory is correct,
- ..l:o, klok L.. a.ko - fa~ anaord VrIfh
his theory. Now, | confess | can't see it.
1t does not appear to me that Johnson's
theory or practice squares with the Dem
Iocratic rule. However, admit | may be
a little p~rejudiced against Mr.. johnson
!, For. whenever / go to take him down, his
Tennessee career as Governor and Briga.
der General GENES to my mind and forces
him up again. Even his great statesman.
ship, as exempli6ed at his Inauguration a:
Vice President, fails to serve as an anti
dote to this Tennessee business. Nol
does his great love of justice-even "mil.
itahy justice satisfy me. Indeed, sir
[ doubt whether l should be able to think
/ kindly Of him, as u Democrat, if he should
in contempt of the laws of the land, hang
a woman every day during his " restora
ton" the theory of which is consisten'
with State Rights as held by the Demo
cratic party for so long a time.
But yousee am prejudieed, and proba
ltb b6fiic e7nst ssFfPf1 { sapp b6s e Ron a4e nos Of a hi
and viii be able and, | trust, willing Il
; enlighten me on a few points in his prae
ltice which seem to be a little muddy.
address my enquiries to You because you
paper claims to be /" State Rights" but
suppose you Oregon Democrats all thinl
alike on this question.
Mr.. Johnson's theory is that the seced
ed States were never out of the Unien
! Well, then, they must be in the Union
. for they are surely somewhere; and i
they are in the Union, they are entities
to all the rights and immunities of othe
States of the Union. Now will you tel
; me when or where the Democracy eve
held that it was consistent with the doc
trine of State Rights for the President t
interfere with the regularly elected officer
! of a State,-to relieve them of their pub
lie functions, and fill their places with hi
I own anpointees? Or, at what time di
the Democracy subscribe to the doctrin
that the President had the right to pre-
scribe a test oath to the voters of the se1
eral States, or interfere with the right c
q suffrage? Under what circumstances di
the Democracy declare that it was consist
= ent with State Rights for the Presiden
: to order a State to .amendit its Constitution
and to amend it, too, to suit his own Pres
idential will, regardless of the wishes {
n the people for whom the Constitution wa
made? In what Democratic platform d
you find the doctrine laid down giyin
the President the right to coniscate tn
property of citizens of States, and parct
q it out to his W followers Or, to SUI
! pend the right to the writ of habeas corps
. in time of peace? Or, wherein do We Sc
State Rights, or any other kind of right
in the arrest and imprisonment of citizen
without judge or jury or the suppressio
of newspapers by the same authority?
Now these things and a thousand othe,
have been done by Mr.. johnson, all in th
name of tsrestoration,a and some Dem,
Gratis say it is consistent with State Right
as held by the Democratic party for a
iHotAulte le4StH VI ClLnc,
Well, if g the citizens of each Stat
shall be entitled to all privileges and in
: munities Of citizens of the several States,
then l suppose they are entitled to notl
ing more, and if the President can pl
,faside an election in Virginia he can d
the same thing in Oregon. If he can v,
q cate the State offices in Virginia and f
them with his own appointees, he can d
the same for Oregon. Under this rql
he would have perfect right to order tn
Pacific States to amend their Constitution
in any way to suit himself, whenever h
q restoration" policy would seem to d.
s-mand it. And yet his theory is oonsis