Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1866-06-15

md take the place of the disloyal a
,nes that have existed, and then the 5
egal relation and connection between S
hem and the General Government t
must be restored. by some power or e
department. of the General Govern q
ment. t
Now, in what department of the e
national Government does this power /
rest, to say when the people of the {
insurgent States have returned to 1
loyalty, whether the State govern
ments set up anew are really and
truly loyal, and then to restore the
broken and severed legal relations
between them and the Union ?
Clearly, in. my judgement, it must
rest in and with the law-making power
of the Government, the representa-
tive Of the States and the people, the
two Houses of Congress. In the
progress of reconStructing or restor-
ing these States to loyalty and their
former position in the Union, the
executive department of the Govern
ment has assumed to dictate terms
and conditions to those States, which
they complied with. The terms and
conditions imposed were wise and
lust in themselves, and do not take
it upon me now to say they were not
rightfully exacted by the Executive.
But l do say that in my judgement,
there is far more ground of doubt as
to the rightful power of the merely
executive branch of the Government
to do this than there is as to the
power of Congress, the substantial
law-making power of the nation, to
exact the same or other like condl-
| lions.
1t has been said that unless these
States have really forfeited their State
existence and are out of the Union,
we have no more right to exact or
impose conditions to their return
than we have to impose similar terms
upon New York or Ohio; that a
State cannot commit treason or forfeit
its existence by the commission OF
crime. But there cannot well be q
State, exercising and performing its
) functions as such, without people ;
and the idea of the existence of a
State in harmony, with and yielding
: loyalty to the Union, and the people
5 who inhabit it at the same time armed
} and hostile rebels, is certainly an
anomaly.
| Now, the people ofthese States are
} the same who have been rebels, the
: same with whom we have been al
: war for years, and from whom we
e have Just succeeded in wrestling Cheil
+ arms. Now, can it be possible thai
: we are at once bound to admit these
/ people to actively participate witt
n US in administering the Genera
# Government. that we have no more
e power or right to test their loyalty o
d require security for it than we hav,
=, of the people of State which has al
c ways been loyal and true? 1t seem
n to me to be cOnfounding all dlStlnC
e tions between right and wrong, be
ii tween loyalty and treason.
e 1t is said there is no warrant i
a the Constitution for such a course
it and therefore we cannot do it. Th
y truth is, the trainers Of the Constitl
20 ton never contemplated such a stat
ID of things and made no provision 70
g it. The Constitution, to be SURE
m provides for the suppression of insul
n recUions; but evidently this neye
contemplated an extensive rebellio
" so formidable as to produce for yeal
ne division Of the nation and separat
le de facto government. The real que
lie ton is, not whether there is any e.
to press warrant in the Constitution tC
IN it. but whether there is anything
ID the letter or spirit of the Constitute
is, that forbids it. In my judgemel
/ !; there is not. 1t is sanctioned |
as principles of substantial justice an
ge right, and by the great law of Sc
be protection and defense, which is ;
he applicable to communities and nation
It. as to individuals.
MT [ conclude, then, that there is I
lis objection to the exercise by Congre
NJ of the power to impose any conditiC
CHI or limitation to the return of the
ID, States to participate in the cover
ut ment of the nation, which shall
NO just in itself, and necessary for Il
,ct safety and welfare Of the nation.
NO If, as [ insist, we have the right
wv require of these States suitable al
NO sufficient conditions or guarantee
of and that, to, by amendments Of t
NO fundamental law, then several que
ed tions present themselves upon Il
amendment proposed. Do we ne,
ON this amendment for our future pr
of lection and the peace and safety
lot the nation? Does this amendme
,es furnish it sufficiently? Is it doll
no any wrong or injustice to the viii
ar people of the South? Is it just to t
nd negro population of the South ? I'll
,ur amendment leaves the general bas
re- of representation, as fixed by t
Constitution originally, upon numbe
nm of population. In some of the d
tn cussions of this subject in this Cha
aw Der it has been strenuously insist
.b- that this is not the true and just bas
lal upon which representation should
cir based, but that it should rest up,
1m the basis of voters. | entirely d
ed agree with those who have argue
lie for this new doctrine; and in L
,se mind it is clear that the existing has
II is the only true one, the only o
IA consistent with the true idea of
lal representative republican governmer
cir The question is not, perhaps, direct
IN involved in this amendment, but st
,n+ # il not wholly aside from nv line