The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-04-20
FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 1865.
TIE Chnrncter of southern Loyalty.

''loyalty" They "acquiesca" it is said, in the
result of the war. They still believe in the
abstract right of secession, but they are con-
virced that it is impracticabl to exercise it
by force. They still believe in the justice OF
the cause for which they fought but, like
many another good cause, it has been over
borne, and they accept the fact as it stands.
This, we are told by the New York Times,
is natural, and all that, under the circum-
stances. we could expect. "The sword" it
says, Cannot cut down opinions
We aglee that this attitude of the South
is perfectly natural, and was to have
been expected. Opinions and sentiments
which are the growth OF half a century,
which have permeated whole community
from top to bottom, and which have been pro-
pagated by tile expenditure of vast Sums of
money and many lives, are not likely to be
discarded simply because the physical agen-
cies by which they were sustained have been
overborne on the field of battle. Hatred of a
particular form of government and of certain
political institutions, long cherished, and be-
come as it were second nature, Is not to be
suddenly changed into love by the triumph of
said institutions and government in the arena
OF force.
We acknowledge, therefore, that the feel
ings of the Rebel communities are natural
but the practical concern OF the country is
not with the naturalness OF these feelings, but
with their character. If the sentiments OF
these people are still hostile to free institu.
tiOns, if they still regard secession as right,
if they still adhere to the fatal heresy OF State
sovereignty, if they still believe that their late
war upon the nation was Just-then, they are
still Rebels at heart, and only need favorable
opportunity TO again become so in fact. What
satisfaction is 1t to us to tell us that these
feelings are natural? Does that make those
who entertain them any the less dangerous,
or any the more fit to be entrusted with poll
tical power? The very fact that such SEN
timents have so long been cherished and have
taken such firm hold upon the South that
we now look upon them, even after our terri
BILE civil war, as natural, only increases the
danger, and shows the stubborn and deep
seated difficulty with which we have to con-
tend.
But, we are told, it is only the abstract"
right of secession-the abstract" doctrine of
State sovereignty. that is still adhered to,
aud that all idea OF maintaining these rights
by force is abandoned. OF course it is, now
that by the issue of war the Rebel communi-
ties are at our feet. What the South is now
after is the resumption Of pO,oer, and this she
can only obtain at the hands of the nation by
whom she has just been overthrown on the
field of battle. But, suppose these Rebel
communities once more restored to power;
their Senators and Representatives once more
in their seats; their sentiments towards the
Government still unchanged Estate sovereignty
and secession still adhered to; and suppose that
by the detection of one or two Northern States
the political control of the nation should once
again pass into the hands of its enemies, then
what guarantee have we that the game OF
secession would not be repeated, with all the
wisdom gained from the former experiment?
What guarantee that the vast resources of the
nation gathered in this very struggle against
Rebellion would not be turned against itself?
Take the case of ALEXANDER STEPHENS
himself he still adheres to belief in the
right of secession and the doctrine of State
sovereignty. Suppose, then. he takes, as a
Senator, the customary oath OF Office; would
that hold him as against the secession of his
State, any more than it did before? He was
always opposed to secession, he tells us, as a
policy, but wien his State seeded he felt
bound to follow her fortunes. Is there any
thing in Mr. STEPHENS present position to
show that he would not do so again? In
fact, would not his belief oblige him to do soP
His oath to support the Constitution of the
United States is taken, just as he took it
before, with the conviction that it ceases to
be obligatory the moment his State secedes.
Suppose General LEE restored to his old
position in the United States army; would
his oath hold him any more than it did beforeP
Does he now acknowledge that he forswore
himself in deserting the service of the United
States, and taking up arms against the Gov
ernmentp The truth is, that for those who
believe in the right of secession, and in the
doctrine OF State sovereignty, the oath to sup
port the Constitution and laws of the United
States is mere mockery. They might as
well not be sworn at all. An oath is intended
for emergencies. 1t is to bring the sanctions
off solemn obligation to bear when other
influences are tending to draw the man aside
from his duty. But these men take the oath
with the conviction that it ceases to bind the
conscience the very moment that the sup.
posed emergency arises. What is such an