New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-10-11

political community, is considered to be a
full development Of the Republican principle.
1t is excessively unjust that the white people
alone should vote, and the whole population
be represented; but it is not at all unjust that
the blacks and ''loyalists alone should vote,
the whole population being counted as a basis
for representation.
But to go back to the Republicans article,
we find that the theory on which is based the
claim of Congress to organize State govern
ments on congressional plan-which is
equivalent to the assumption, on the part Of
| the federal government, to constitute the gov
ernments of the States-is that the Southern
States have lost their State governments, and
have reverted to territorial condition. The
Republican combines with this assumption
the additional assumption that only military
governments now exist in the South. Here
theory, and the other an error of fact. Ad-
hitting that the governments of the seced-
ing States lapsed at the conclusion of hos
tilities, it by no means follows that the States
lost their integrity-that is to say that
they were deprived of their statehood
Such theory would imply that State sover-
eighty depends upon certain forms or relations
or incidents of State government in fact
that the government is not the symbol of the
State sovereignty, but actually its creator. If
the Republicans theory is correct we could
not imagine State apart from its govern
ment; indeed, we could not imagine State
apart from some fixed and sacramental form
Of government. But when we reflect that the
State. e., the sovereignty of the community
within itself and its independence as against
other communities may exist quite indie
pendentiy Of any particular form of govern
ment, and that tits equally existent whether
the government be monarehical, aristocrati-
cal, democratical or even anarchical, if we
may use paradox, we at once detect the fall
lacy of the radical hypothesis. Suppose, for
instance, that the people of Illinois resolved
to try the experiment of dispensing with
a State organization-w State officers, leg
islatures, and the governmental paraphernalia
usually provided for by written constitu-
hons-would Illinois cease to be State ::
would she lose her sovereignty, and her rights
as member of the Union /? Clearly not. IF
she were willing to submit to the inconyen-
lence which such a course might entail on
her, the other States would have no right to
complain, except to the extent that Illinois
might be thus prevented from fulfilling her
constitutional obligations. Certainly Con
gress would not become the sovereign legisla-
tive body for the State endowed with the
power of organizing a government for her in
defiance of her will ; of enfranchising people
who never previously had been enfranchised.
and DISTINGUISHING those who had always con
stituted the political community.
In discussing this point we take no notice
Of the assumption that the ''rebellious " char
acter Of the Southern population justifes the
radical theory because this is entirely diff
ferent point. When the Republican charges
the issue from the general proposition that
loss of State governments involves a loss of |
State sovereignty, to the specific proposition
that political opinion, expressed even in the
ultra form of war against the United States, is
criminal to the extent Of working a general
orfeiture of rights personal, political, and
'oc1al-we shall be ready to discuss that ques-
ion. For present purposes, it is foreign to
he discussion.
The second error to which we refer is the
ssertion that none but military governments
zlst in the late Confederate States. The
aetis directly the reverse. In all of those
tates governments exist precisely similar in
orm, and in all the essential details of internal
administration, to those which are possessed
y the other States. To assume that they
% not exist, because, BY hypothesis, military
overnments ought to exist. is begging the
uestion. Moreover, as the question is put :
'rward as simply question of fact, it is to I
9 treated with reference to the actual and /
ot the assumed facts v
In conclusion, we would remark that the t
tempt to establish logical connection be- :
feen the radical policy and the action of
resident johnson is entirely unwarranted '
lthout admitting that the necessary result =
the war was to abolish the State govern il
ents within the insurrectionary" States t
T we can conceive that such State govern t
ents might have been permitted to con r
nue-We affirm that to ignore those govern :
ents was not by any means equivalent to t
noring the States Indeed, the President
As always carefully Disseminated the fgov-
nment from the State. The one is de- b
ruetible in many ways. The other is indie +
ructible, except by mere brute force. Presi-
ent Johnson insists that the Southern States l
e States Of the Union, whatever may be the t
laracter of their governments. In three of a
lem at Tennessee, Arkansas and I,
so-called "loyal governments 1
rst, and to these no process of 4recon- P
ruction z has been applied. So far as they =
e concerned, all the radical arguments ne q
'ssarily fail As to the others the radical u
cory is equally tallacious, and all deductions n
ON it are, therefore, false and inappicable. q
-ss------------ h
B b being now the only Union governor q
the South.-[Chicago Tribune.
Where is Wells? !,
The PhiIodaII1l,;o A., "