Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1866-09-19

MONTKELAn0, w.
WsAnssAay Morning, Sep4s0bsr 49, 1893
Ms. Beeches's Letter.
We print elsewhere in full the letter writ
Tan By Mr.. Bescbef in answer 10 the invita-
TO. 10 aes - Chaplain Of the johnson Con-
vsotion as Cleveland and We also give some
extssess from the letter subsequently written
IN sxplanstisn of the first oomnunieatien.
Mr.. Beschss's position, - ct forth in thsss
Letters. i not quite clear. He Gays he il .
Rspublicsn and shall remain %, and he Insists
with difference ono point Of the
Presidential policy, favoring the immediate,
unconditional admission of Senators and
Representatives from the insargent States. but
their admission in /" moderate succession,"
significantly, however, leaving out South
Csrolins and some other States, in the snumer-
alton of the States whose representatives.
should be admitted Let US examine Mr..
Beeoher's reasons.
In the first place it il worthy of note, that
2Is
logic. Mr.. johnson and Mr.. Seward-steal-
ing from Mr.. DooIittle-afirm that there arc
shirsy-six stars in the flag. and consequently
thirty six States in the Union. and that every
State hsa. by the Constitution, . clear right
to immeI,ess represen ton in Congress. Mr..
Bescher would only admit States in " mod
crate euceession.'' keeping some on "probe-
sion to the last" If the President's logic is
good for anything, Mr.. Beecher's position 10
unssnabls. If MIR. Beechers position is sound,
the johnson constitu tionsl argument is
wholly fallacious.
Mr.. Beecher says" there is no place for .
State except in the Union" leaving rs to
infer that State, without representatives in
Congress, il not IN the Union. Where, then,
have the ten States, yet outside of Congress.
been during the four years of war, when they
were wholly unrepressntsd? Were they then
N the Union or sss of the Union? If out of
the Union then, what power has brought them
back Z If IN the Union then, what power has
since driven them out?
Mr.. Beecher's opinion that the admission in
I" moderate succession - of certain of the
insurRsnt States would have had " q salutsry
influence. must 60 for what it is worth. No
man can certainly say what would have been
the consequence of such admission. We
think Mr. Beecher favored the presidential
policy. which required certain guarantees,
among others the adoption of the abolition
amendment and the repudistion of the rebel
debt. II il was right TO insist on these acts.
and to postpone admission until they were
performed. Why might not Congress also in
siss on further conditions, and demand sd-
disional GUARANTEE for the seeariry of the
liberty slrssdy given 70 the slsves7 And il
not the great work Of reconstruction, not 20
much 70 pacify and soothe the rebels, - to
secure 10 the loyal men OF the South-whits
and blaek-shsir equal rights, If the CON-
ausrsd traitors refuse justice, must Congress.
j. order 70 exert " sslutary influence"
refuse to demand it?
But Mr.. Bsschsr says the federal govern
nent 10 unfit TO exercise local gOvsrnmeni.
and therefore should leave the local govern
nents to the care Of rebels. We are amazed
that he should say this, after the example of
Mayor Aonroe's" local government" Could
the federal government have erred 20 Grimm
ally - did the police who shot down the
psscsabls Union eitisens of New Orleans
Why should Mr.. Beecher sheorise when such
Does not Mr.. Bssehsr know, that the real
question i, no. whether " local goveTnnsn Is"
are better than the federal govsrnnent for she
administration Of local affairs, but whether
Union men have say security for life, liberty
or property under such local governments -
- Mayor Monroe and bis Thugs administer
in New Orleansf Congress cannot b blind
70 such terrible evidence, - il socumulating
oil over the South, Of the personal injustice
Of these local governments, however Mr..
disturbed BY the cries Of prosecuted Union
men begging for protection.
Mr.. Beechsr 10 not candid whom he says
good men arc withheld from advocating the
speedy admission of the South, from fear oil
it, effect upon parties. Congress made haste
10 admit Tennessee as soon - it ratified the
constitutional amendment, showing that what
Congre0 wsutsd wss security for mems
rights, and not the safety Of any party.
Good men do not care to see Southern rebele
like A. H. Stephens unite with Northern COP
perheads and thus rule the country, because
they know what fate such rule would bring
to the Union men of the South. They Dc
not seek to continue party supremacy, but
they do seek to secure their rights to many
millions of the people of the states lately in
rebellion. The time has been when Mr.
Beecher thought this An end worth working
for. Why, when there is now SD opportunity
never before offered Of accomplishing thi.
work, and of making this government In fact
- we'll as in name, q government of the people
respecting every mans rights, should Mr.
Bsechsr soeer 1t the Republican party fol
desiring to secure this grand contamination
And why should he seem willing that th.
power at home by the disfranchisement O
fonr millions of their people, should unit
with Northern copPerhescs to rule th,
country? Give as universal suffrage, ant
then we say with Mr.. Beecher, if the Scuti
can rule the republic it ought to do it: Blu
don't let Us with unseemly haste make on,
snwashed traitor in the South Is much of .
political power in the nation % two Unior
men in the North.
The remainder Of the letter only has weigh
- Mr.. Bescher's opinion. He thinks til,