The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-04-19
The Temper of the SOuth-Mr. Stephens
Testimony. M ..r ,-..r,.

The Temper of the SOuth-Mr. Stephens
Testimony. ..1 ,...r..
From Ae Times
MIR. Alexander H. Stephens testimony before
the Reconstruction Committee is described in
the Washington correspondence Of contempo.
rary as ''the most damaging to the South yet
brought OUT We have looked through the
evidence, as reported by the committee, without
finding anything in the tone, form, or substance
OF his statements to sustain such an impression.
So far from being damaging to the South" we
are under the impression that the facts and
opinions communicated by the distinguished
Georgian are as favorable as any reasonable
man could desire them TO be; while they re-
fleet credit upon the candor and modest manli-
ness of the witness. .... ...
Much of course depends upon the expecta-
tons with which we start upon the inquiry. If
the view we take requires on the part OF the
Southern people not only acquiescence in the
results OF the war, but gladness that these re-
suits are not other than they are; ii we assume
that to prove their recognition of the Federal
authority, and their loyalty to the Constitu-
tion and the Union, they must eXtol the
agents and the means by which their rebellion
was overcome; If we insist that thei,' duty is,
not TO regard the people OF the loyal States as
tellow.cllizens, equals before the law, but as
superio1s to be abectly obey ed; if these are
animation of such man as Mr.. Stephens,
then un doubtedly we shall rise from the task
with the disgust which evidently inspired the
ITlbal7le'S despatch. but all expectations and
demands of this nature are in our udg-
ment uniusti6able. Instead of calling upon the
Southern people to glority the men and the
power that smote them vanqul he'd them, and
punished them In the manner incident TO war,
We should doubt their sincerity and despise
their spirit we're they willing to do this thing.
Grant, and Sherman, and Sheridan, and Meade,
and Thomas have never been known to dis
parage the pluck or endurance of their adve r
saries ON the battlefield; and to-day these
heroes of the Union army bear no ungrudging
testimony to the quality of the Rebel soldiers.
So we prefer to have the South putting forward
its claims TO constitutional rights, rather than
meanly accepting every condition proposed to
it. Defeat should not entail forfeiture of self
respect; and that the South continues to respect
itself, despite its disasters is 60 our mind one Of
the strongest proofs OF ITS fitness for restoration
to the full privileges of the Union.
True, Mr.. Stephens says that his opinions,
and the opinions of the South generally, On the
undergone no change Why should they? The
. sword cannot cut down opinions, though it pre-
vents their application, as in the case of the Re
bellion. The North has decided that there shall
be no secession; the South, having tried to
secede and failed, submits to the decision and
accepts its consequences. What more can we
ask? Are we to exact not only submission to
our authority, but agreement with our opinions
formularies of political faith and to decree the
civil and political damnation of all who refuse to
subscribe to them? We may produce hypocrtes
by this process, but truly loyal citizens, never.
1t is enough for the present purposes of the
country that the South emerges from the strug-
gle convinced of the futihty of the plans and
hopes with which II started five years ago; con.
vinced, too that its interest is to be found in a
hearty, unwavering, and unIeserved acknow-
ledgment. of the Union, its authority, and its
claims-in an early adaptation of ITS Industrial
relations to the change produced by the aboli-
ton OF slavery-and in the abandonment, utterly
and forever, of all thoughts of agitation, except
as II may be carried on within the limits of law,
and by means known to the Constitution. On
these points we consider Mr.. Stephens eXposi-
| ton OF the feeling predominant in Georgia emf
nently satisfactory. And in some of the more
! important of his statements he is justified by
| acts OF the State Legislature in matters relating
! to the freedmen -1-
Nor can we trace any sign of inherent hostility
! to the negro in other than strictly civil relations.
individually Mr.. Stephens is reported to have
| sald, 81 should not be opposed TO proper sys-
tenn of restricted or limited suffrage to this class
Of our E o Popq1a,,on:n 1at, Beyond this what could
4 suffrage" is all our own State comedies to Its
I negro population; shall Mr.. Stephens be quar-.
! relied with because he is not willing to go
| further? He is averse, moreover, 10 any action
upon the subject except by the Southern States
! themselves. "In my judgment" are his words,
'it is matter that belongs of constitutional
right TO the States TO regulate exclusively each for
ITSELF" Well, New York also holds this view.
So does Connecticut and the North generally.
| Why may not Georgia cherish it as we'll as they
Is there anything Damaging to the South, y
! then, in Mr.. Stephens declaration, that it will
| not yield to negro suffrage or other amendments
| of the Constitution, as conditions precedent of
| readmssion to Congress? We think not II
! the South, never having been out OF the Union,
| is in the Union now, its title to place in Con-
| gress is indisphtable, subject only to the iudg-
ment of each House on the qualifications of its
| Representatives, individually considered. And
what the South is entitled to, of right ought not
| to be encumbered with any conditions Whatso.
l ever To talk of conditions.precedent in the
| premises, is to convey the idea of bargain,
which Congress may or may not conclude &C.
cording to its pleasure. He must be morbidly
| sensitive who objects to the courteous temper
| in which Mr.. Stephens lntimates that the South
! will prefer an ind etnite exclusion from Con
gress, TO admission purchased by the surrender
| Of constitutional right.
| In two sentences Mr. Stephens presents the
| logical change of position should the North
| continue to insist upon conditions which exclude
the South from Congress. 'gThe Southern
States would thus present themselves as willing
| for immediate union under the Constitution while
| 1t would be the Northern States opposed to it,
| The former disunionists would thefeby become
| Unionists, and the former (Unlonisis) practica
disunionists.p The possible dilemma Is Wortt
thinking about little in advance.