Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1866-08-29

the Cincinnati Gazette, upon the question
Of representation involved in The adoption
Of the Constitutional Amendment, should
be read by all. 1t applies as we'll Wis
,onsin as TO Indiana:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Shalt IRE hare Equal Representation >
IN IHustratioH Of Hoe the Copper
head Policy Works
We select the State Of Indiana as fine
example, to show the working of the Cop
perhead policy, although the principle and
the illustration applies equally to all the
white States-States where negroes axe
not a large part Of the population. lndi-
ana is in the midst of the central Vest
Her population represents in a fair degree,
the people Of the West She claims to
| have equal rights with those of any Of
those lately in rebellion. Take what the~
Dry you may of the present political con-
| dition Of the rebel States, it is presumed
| that her political condition is as good as
theirs, although Messrs. Doolittle, Ewing
Il Co. claim rights for the Confederate
rebel States which were never conceded
| to Indiana and Ohio when they were in
| the Union. but not represented. Let that
- II must Dt Cotttutu tlldI IDT1l 1nGl~
| ana has, on the whole, political rights at
| least equal TO those of rebel Louisiana.
| Granting that, let US proceed to examine
| the relative rights, power and condition of
| Indiana and louisiana In the first place,
| Louisiana deserted, expatriated herself(as
| did Alabama, Mississippi and Florida 20
| which we shall now refer l. From both
| Houses Of Congress. Her Representatives
| took theirbodios and souls officially out Of
! Congress. They expatriated themselves
! bodily, morally and politically As II
| representation, they did secede, and it Is
n simple fact The State did not secede,
| because they did not succeed in fighting
| Taking the facts, without any theory of
! the Constitution, there are two plain, solid,
| palpahle facts right before US. They did
take the representation out. They did
| not take the State out. The first they
| could do The second they could not
1 They had the Will to do both. What fol-
/ lows from these facts Three facts follow,
! and notwithstanding the violent contro-
versy going on, all parties admit those
/ facts: l. That Louisiana, Alabama, &c.
/ did take their representation out. , That
/ they did not take the State out, for the
/ Constitution and laws are now enforced
/ in every part Of the late rebel States. g.
/ That the political condition of those States
/ is changed so far that the Government has
| n right to impose conditions upon their re-
! turn to representation. The last has been
! admitted and acted upon by the President,
! Mr.. Johnson, and enforced, by compell>
! ing the Confederate States to accept the
| amendment abolishing slavery. This was
! imposed upon the Confederate States as
! an imperative condition precedent to their
! forming State Governments, and they were
! compelled TO adopt it by military force
1 This was the first step in MIR. johnson 5
policy. and it conceded the whole ground
! of imposing conditions upon the return Of
/ the Confederate States to representation.
/ We DO not understand Mr. johnson to
/ have uttered ore word in opposition TO that
/ principle In this, his position is far more
! logical and consistent than that of Messrs.
! Ewing, Rives and other constitutional law
yers, who ignore utterly the fact of col
untaY'y erpdtriatjOn from the halls of Con.
gress. and four years of bloody treason,
destroying, by the law Of nature and of
nations, erery drop Of political and in-
HeritH6le 6io0a IN H0Se communities Mr.
! Johnson proposes policy to impose
/ conditions for THIS, and reject them for
! that But Messrs. Ewing & Co. propose
! Z, principle which, if adopted, places the
! Government at the mercy of any State
which may hereafter choose to 20 in and
out at its pie sure playing hide-and-go-
seek with all its constitutional obligations
This principle is destructive of any eog>
crnment, and especially of government
founded on the union Of States So far
from being preservativc Of State rights, it
| is absolutely destructive of the rights of
! those States which do not rebel.
| The principle Of imposing conditions
/ being admitted, we now ask, why not i'm
/ pose condition which will make repre-
/ scatatioa equal? Who denies the abso-
! lutte equity and Justice of the amendment
/ proposed by Congress? Who can deny it ?
/ Now we viii show the practical lcork-
I iRgS Of having, or NOT having, that amend
/ ment, on the State of Indiana. Let every
man in the State of Indiana read the fol-
| lowing table. 1t is a table of population
| and representation in the four rebel States
! of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mis-
! slssippi, compared with the population and
/ representation of Indiana. The first line
/ is the white population; the second the
! negro population; the third is the repre-
scntation, 3rith0ut the amendment pro-
posed by Congress; and the fourth the
representation lcith the amendment