Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-11-22
UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE AND UNI
VERRAL AMNESTY.

From the New York Evening Post
The newspapers tell as that Chief Justice
CHASE and several southern men are repre-
senting to Mr.. JOHNSON the propriety Of Of
fering 10 the southern leaders general am
nesty in exchange for universal or impair
tial suffrage. There is reason 10 believe that
this was the plan Of reconstruction favored
by few leading politicians Of The southern
States, and southern men, have told US that
if such project had Mr.. JoHssoS's ooun-
ienance, and was urged by him, il would
probably be received with favor by the mass
Of The southern people.
We think it right to add that our own pri-
vate information is 10 the effect that the
President does not at this time favor the
project, though we are told that he listens to
arguments for it.
In anything that is done, care must be
taken that we get the condition. We have
noticed that one or two journals, in their
zeal for this method Of reconstruction, have
advocated the release Of Mr.. DAVIS, in the
belief that If We are trustful and generous,
we shall get in return what is desired. We
do not favor any confidence in such a matter.
IL a practicable scheme Of exchanging am
nesty for suffrage can be contrived, and if
both parties are willing to agree upon such
an exchange, it is no doubt the simplest
method OF reconstruction. But we ought
not to give without being sure that we shall
get As the people have in the recent cleo
tons declared that Congress shall demand
conditions precedent Of the Southern States,
it Is only fair and proper that the declaration
Of general suffrage should be precedent
should precede the declaration Of general
amnesty, and not follow it.
This is at least tangible Il is, If we un-
dersland IL, frank offer Of universal am
nesty 20 The South for universal or Impair
tial suffrage. But the Post insists that the
latter shall precede the former. 1t says it
will not "fayor any confidence in the mat
ter" Why not? There is as much ground
for distrust on one side as on the other. But
this is a small matter, and may be arranged.
The substance Of the proposition is i'm
portant. 1t implies power and discretion
on the part of the South 1t looks to a set
Element in which the South is to have
voice. This is a vast advance upon the
nonsense which has been given to the coun-
plan Of reconstruction" in which we were to
have no voice. except upon compulsion, and
as prompted by the North. To it we can
listen with selfrespect, and consider it with
calmness. 1t involves the idea of COM
promise, 10 which there are two parties, each
having the power TO make conces-
sions, or not as they may think wise and
proper in view of the present and future
good Of the country, and Of all concerned.
1t forms the basis of honorable negotiation
and argument, and presents an issue in the
decision of which all can participate. We,
therefore, hail it as a wholesome step in the
direction of that equality which must pre-
cede thorough and permanent restoration,
whatever the ultimate decision of the propo-
sitiOn itself may be.
Among the preliminary questions which
the South would ask in an earnest discussion
of the proposition would be:
l. What do you mean by the terms "Uni-
versal Suffrage" and Impartial Sufrage?"
And in what respect if any, do they differ?
2. What do you mean by the term "Gen-
eral Amnesty| Simply an exemption
from arrest and trial for the "crime of re-
bellion ?" Does it contemplate a removal
Of the restrictions at present imposed upon
a large proportion of the Southern people |
by the 'test oaths" now on the statute books
Or is it designed that these restrictions and
limitations shall continue?
If the Post will answer these questions
fairly and squarely, it will have achieved
great work for the country, in stating and |
proposition which the South |
an comprehend and act upon. If then the
Congress will, in some appropriate form,
present it to the people Of the country, there
nay be prospect for settlement, speedy
md durable.