Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1865-06-22
@radford geporter,
Towanda, Thursday, June %, 1866.
PRESIDENT JOHNsONs RECONSTRUCTION
POLICY. r. -

81
The idea of granting full pardon to nine
tenths of the rebels who have borne arms
against our government. and did every
thing in their power to destroy it, and those
who sustained it, and who are now and
will remain its bitterest enemies, is alarm
ing the true friends of the Union every
where and it must not be understood that
our people are opposed to this wholesale
pardon from any feeling of revenge or vim
dictiveness. Far from it, 1t is only be-
cause the true interests of the nation re-
quire it, that they urge, at least, the dis
reimbursement of the great bulk of the
southern traitors. Why is it that we have
courts of law for the punishment of crime
1t will hardly be contended that homicide,
arson, theft, &C., are respectively punished
from a spirit of revenge. Is it not the sole
purpose of this to hinder crime? Do we
not make examples of law-breakers in or
der to deter others from the commission of
offenses? Certainly we do and mere re-
venge or vindictiveness has no lot or part
in it. 1t is upon this ground only that the
true Union men, in all parts of the land, i'll
sist that some punishment shall be inflicted
upon volunteer traitors for past offences, in
order to hinder them from doing further
damage to the country, and to individuals.
If it is necessary to infict pains and penal
ties upon offenders for the commission of
common and isolated offenses, that crime
NAV be restrained, how much more neces-
sary is it in treason, the highest crime
known to the laws, and especially where it
is so strong as to defy, and even threaten
the very existence of the government.
1t is a melancholy duty under all circum-
stances to infict punishment for crime !;
and there are but few men who would not
rather dispense with it, if it could be done
with safety. But all admit this to be i'm
practicable and we insist that in the trea-
son question the very existence of the gov
ernment depends upon the infiction of pun
ishment upon the offenders. We would re-
ioice could it be otherwise, and would be
glad if the offenders would!expatriate them
selves, or put themselves out of the reach
of the laws. But if they remain here, there
is no alternative left save punishment.
1t is urged that punishment inflicted up
on whole nation is enormous and impOss-
ible, and that the attempt to do a thing Of
this kind will recoil on the government, for
the reason that it will have the appearance
of persecution. But no such difficulty can
arise from what we ask. In the first place,
it is not in contemplation to do any thing
else than disfranchise the rebel masses, and
this will not have the appearance of pun
ishment In addition, very large ma or-
ity Of the people of the free States partici-
pate in the belief that the rebels should be
disfranchised, at least, and take part in de-
manding this of the administration ; and
will they turn round and condemn their own
acts, or censure the government for carry
ing out their wishes? Very improbable in
deed.
Moreover, pride of character is appealed
to in this contest for liberal terms to the
rebels and we are told that it looks like
"kicking fallen foe y" to insist upon pun
ishing the rebels after they are whipped
out = but this too, is erroneous. If the trail
tors were penitent, admitted their errors,
and were willing to respect the government,
there would be some show of reason in this.
The reverse however, is the fact If after
a quarrel between two men, the subdued
one begins to taunt the victor, charge him
with unfairness in fight, with meanness
and cowardice in general, seeks in every
way to injure him, and promises in the fu-
ture to take revenge, would it be thought
severe or ilIiberal, if the latter force the
former into position where he could do no
harm?
But it is contended by some that by re-
ducing the secession states to the condition
Of territories, we wipe them out, and that
the object i'll suppressing the rebellion, was
to restore the States engaged in it to their
original position, and not to destroy them
| and further, that the acts of secession were
unlawful, and for this reason the rebel
States were not out of the Union. All this
may sound we'll enough in theory, but what
are the facts, and what inferences do they
warrant? In order to be in the Union
State must be subject to the general gov
ernment, and was this the case with the
rebel States during the rebellion? Why,
every one knows it was not That they
were not only not in the Union, but organ
lied into a government that successfully
resisted the United States for four years,
and even threatening her existence And
still men say these States, thus conditioned
were in the Union. AS well might it be
said that man occupied house, when he,
his family and his furniture were in the
street, and all were in imminent peril, if he
undertook to enter the premises. To our
view therefore, the assumption that the
rebel States were in the Union during the
rebellion, sounds like an absurdity. Are the
rebel States not rather in the condition of a
criminal? They have broken the laws, ,and
have hv their offopses fnrfaitad tbnir