The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-07-06
The Example of the Border States.

The position OF most OF the border States on the
subject of Rebel disfranchiseinent is worthy OF
remark. In West Virginia, Tennessee, and Mis-
sour, the policy of DISTINGUISHING those who
were guilty of rebellion has been incorporated
into the organic law. Each of these States,
during the war; was the theatre of civil war in
it's most terrible forms. The sufferings of the
Unionists of Tennessee were almost equal to
those of the WaldenSes of old. In Missouri a
most bitter and relentless guerilla warfare pre-
vailed, in which scenes of horror were enacted
almost without parallel in history We DO not
wonder that the Unionists of these States feel
disinclined to see Rebels walk back and enjoy
all the privileges of men who remained true to
the Government. And 1t is a very doubtful
policy, indeed, that would make no difference
between the traitor and the faithful citizen. The
10y al men of all the border States maintained
their integrity only at the price of the most
fearful sacrifices. Are they now to see the men
who prosecuted them treated as though they
had done 10 wrong?
1t is not revenge or cruelty or passion which
prompts to the punishment of treason. On the
contrary, it is the instinct OF order, of law, OF
stability, and so of mercy ard peace. Attempted
parallels between the cases of our Rebels and
those Of unsuccessful revoluionists in the Old
World fail utterly. Ours was rebellion against
a free representative Government-against the
decision of the ballot box-aeainst all that made
free government possible. 1t was a rebellion
against freedom and for slavery. The world has
no parallel to such a rebellion. Think for once
of comparing ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS and
LOUIS KossUTH! Compare the despotic Aus
trian Government with the American republic.
Compare KossUTH's speeches, filed with the
noblest sentiments of Christian civilization
with Mr.. STEPHENS speech iusttying the Rebel
lion on the specific ground of it's prosavery
character. Who does not see that their cases
are as wide apart as the poles?
The provision of the Constitutional amend
ment forever disqualifying the leaders in our
Rebellion from holding office, is as mild pun
ishment as the interests of civil order will tole-
rate. 1t is as little as our Government possibly
can do, and show any reasonable regard for its
OWE stability and perpetuity. The doctrine that
man by committing treason forfets none OF
his political rights, and upon throwing down
his weapons of unholy warfare, can straghtway
claim either to represent others or to be repre-
sented himself in the Congress OF the United
States, is a doctrine of the widest license. 1t
puts treason upon a par with loyalty. 1t by i'm
plication dishonors every man who remained
true to the country, for it tells him he has no
more rights in this Government than the traitors
who tried to overthrow it. They who stand for
such doctrine may call it "magnanimity,'
but it is a magnanimity that is opposed to every
principle ofpublic justice and to every demand
of public order. Hence, we are rejoiced to see
the stand taken by such States as Tennessee,
Missouri, and West Virginia. 1t shows the wis
dom of Congress in its reconstruction policy,
and that the terms of settlement finally agreed
upon by that body are such as commend them
selves to the judgment Of the Union element of
the South itself. Ii is only doing on a less
sweeping scale, just what the Union men of the
border States are doing at home, through their
local laws and State Constitutions.