Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-02-24
MIR. Stewards speech.

Mr.. Stewards Speech.
The optimism which has been the be.
setting sin of Mr.. Stewards craftsmanship
was never more manifest than in hi
speech on Thursday. 1t is his whole re.
lance in this dark and stormy hour. A:
far as this optimism consists of confidence
in Providence and the people, conf
dence that right and justice will finally
triumph-we share it with him. But
when II leads MI. Seward to declare that
the nation is not endangered, whether
isOne set Of political principles or another
be adopted, it resembles the blasphemous
trust in Providence of the sinner who
commits crime and leaves God to over
rule his crime for good. We believe, as
earnestly and fully as Mr.. Seward can,
that the principles Of liberty and justice
will finally triumph, that civilization
will continue to advance, and that the
Republic, firmly established on the great
foundation of human freedom and equal
ity, will be permanent and powerful. We
cling TO this belief as we do to our faith
in God But the belief shall not lead u:
to fold our hands and sit idle in this mos
critical period in the nation. 1t shall not
lead us to hold in light esteem the great
question at issue, or to regard its solution
with the careless leyity which Mr.
Seward affects. The difference between
our trust and Mr.. Stewards is this: that
we hope well for the country, because we
believe hat this question will be rightly
solved; Mr.. Seward hopes well for it
awhether we adopt one set of principles OF
another We believe that God will
cause justice and liberty To triumph, but
we believe that he works through human
agencies, and our trust in him only slim
ulates to more earnest labor. Mr.. Sew
aids faith, as he now defines it, seems tc
result in careless inaction ours in unre-
hitting work.
Mr.. Seward, unlike the New York
Times, the Cleveland Herald, and other
peculiarly administration sheets, has the
craftsmanship to perceive, and the candor
to acknowledge, the real issue before the
people. 1t is not, as the Cleveland Herald
would have US believe, merely upon the pas
sage or rejection of the Freedmen's Bureau
Bill it is not, as the address to the very
meeting which Mr.. Seward addressed de-
clares, upon the admission of the blacks to
the elective franchise-it is a question
vastly more important, more Immediate,
and more dangerous in its nature. 1t is
simply this: Shall the lately re5eIliOus
States, wnrepentant aud traitorous still, be
admitted, ajUst as they are" TO PoVer ? Mr..
Seward admits this when he declares that
athe conflict Of opinioR 6et,Oeen the President
and Congress, in reference to the Freed
mGn's Bureau bill, IS IN its consequences
comparatively ~wniDgportant and 'oouyd ss-
cite little interest # 1t stood alone" The
real issue, which he recognizes and argues,
is the immediate restoration of the South
ern States.
In his discussion of this topic Mr.. Sew
ard permits his blind optimism TO rule
him. Because the natural tendency
seems to be for all territories to be-
come States, he argues that the party
opposing The immediate restoration of the
rebel states will necessarily fail. With a
most unhappy inconsequence, which in a
b less distinguished man we should not hes
2 itate to stigmatize as fatuity, he ignores
the rebellion and its results, and declares
that, because it was impossible to keep Mis-
souri,, California or Kansas out of the
Union, we should make haste to welcome
back, without pause for inquiry or inves-
cation, every r~ed-handed traitor in the re-
bellisus states. In answer to this assertion,
we have two suggestions to present.
In the first place, the questions sur
rounding the admission of Missouri, of
California, and of Kansas were radically
3 different from those at present involved in
the restoration of the rebellious states to
power. The people of all the states above
named were truly and heartily loyal.
They were not at variance with the Union
on any vital issue. They had not been in
rebellion against the government. They
had not sent 10 Washington Representa-
tiyes and senators who had been openly
engaged in instruction, and whose hands
were red with the blood of the defenders
Of the Union. Their people were not at
heart hostile to the government, to free
dom, and TO all the principles of Republic
can institutions. The question upon their
admission or rejection was therefore sim
ply one of party policy. 1t did not in
volve, as this question does, the very exis-
tence Of the Republic.
In the second place It may be re-
marked that neither the majority in Con-
gress nor the Republican party nor any
body else has proposed permanently to ex-
clude the South from readmission. The
only issue is upon its immediate r~estora-
ton to power. The President says: "Re-
admit the rebellOus states Nowip Con-
gress says. "Let US wait till we are sat
isfed that these states are loyrl, that we
readmit them without imperilling
The government, the rights Of Southern
Unionists, black and white, freedom, jus
lee and the existence of Republican
Institutions p If the people of the
;outh and their representatives were to-
lay truly, honestly and heartily loyal, !
hey would be admitted to-day, without !
or hesitation. As soon as they 4
thus loyal they will be so admit v
ID. Until thez the Republican party is a