The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1866-03-15
COLUMBIA.
Thursday Morning, March 10, 1866.
Tho Test Oath Assfn.

the. President is still clung to by the
radicals with their accustomed tena-
city and bitterness of purpose against
the President and the desire of the
Southern people The New York
Neecs justly remarks that the Execu-
tiTe is perfectly aware that the test
oath is opposed to the Constitution,
both in letter and spirit. He has de-
clared openly that he is in favor of its
repeal. How, indeed, could he have
done otherwise, seeing that the prin-
ciple of the oath strikes at the very
foundation of his policy, of recon
, struction? If the fact of having
borne arms at the bidding of over
whelming power against the United
States be recognized as political
disability, the recognition sets aside,
at once, the efficacy of the proclama-
ton of amnesty. The exclusion of
men from seats in Congress because
they have held Office under the de
fdcto Government of the Confederate
States, is an emphatic condemnation
of the suffrage, which has been made
by the President the basis of his poll
cy of restoration. Mr. johnson could
{ not, in fact, do otherwise than set his
face resolutely, as he has done, against
the test oath, without stultifying
himself. The removal of the oath is,
in truth, an essential part of the
policy of restoration.
The people of the South cannot
afford to yield to any dictation out
side the terms on which they have
y been invited to accept their place IN
the Union. The proclamation of
restoration binds the Executive Co.
vernment of the United States to them
in solemn contract AS he cannot
afford, without personal and official
dlshonor, to abrogate the conditions
OF that stipulation, so surely are they
bound, lin justice to themselves, to
stand resolutely on even the least of
its obligations. If they were to con-
sent to violation of even the small
est of its provisions, they would
thereby throw open the door for its
total abrogation.
The test oath underlies, as we have
said, the whole superstructure of re-
storation. It goes behind not only
the Presidential amnesty, but behind
even the oaths of the Southern peo-
pie. The loyalty of the men of the
South who have taken the oath of |
allegiance to the United States, is |
distinctly questioned by the institu-
ton of the test oath. If the men
who have sworn allegiance to the
Federal Government have been ho-
nest in that solemn obligation, then
are they undoubtedly loyal. The test
oath is, however, ordered as test of
loyalty, and consequently cannot be
edmitted by any honest man who
does not hold that the Southern peo-
pie, in pledging their faith to the
United States, have been foresworn.
We agree with the Ne1os, and be-
lieve that acquiescence in the factious
formulary required by the radicals on
this point is not only forbidden by
sonnd policy, but so far as our own
people, who have taken the oath of
allegiance prescribed by the Presi-
dent, are concerned, is forbidden by
their self-respect. The test oath, as
It's very title implies, was only neces-
sary during bostilities against the
United States, as sort of safeguard
or passport to Office; yet, when an
amnesty oath was prescribed after the
cessation Of hostilities, its continued
existence was only evidence of the
unquenched spirit of bitterness and
discord indulged in by the radicals in
Congress. This entering wedge of
innovation involves the abandonment
of the underlying principle Of the
restoration; is protested against by
the spirit of the Constitution, and
severely demonstrated against by the
OOod Sapsa and 1,otriOficp, of tho Dra