The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1866-05-31

zEz<.S:s<zzs
would a court say in such case. and | ad-
dress some who have been Judges? The
court then appoint somebody to support
the trust until the corporators meet to-
gether and elect for themselves.
What did tie rebellion destroy? Did it
destroy the States? DID it destroy the
rights Of the people Is States D.d it re-
peal the constitution? Did it repeal the
laws? IF it did not. then what did it do ?
If it had succeeded Is hegentleman SAYS,
ii might have done ell that; but it would
have succeeded not IN virtue Of law but in
spite Of it. I would have succeeded as 4
revolution, not as q legal right Of secession.
Then the suppression of the rebellion, if
we are honest, if we are true, if we intend
to stand upon the ground upon which we
started out, restored the Stata quo ants
Jelium. That is all 1t just brought every
thing TO the place of divergence. to the
point Of departure. What has the Presi-
dent done? Attempted to bring it back
there.
This government has three departments.
! an executive, q legislative and judicial
These three departments are distinct and
Independent Of each other; coordinate
The President, the executive Of this gov
ernment, ackf owledgcs the relations Of
these States to the Union The Supreme
Court Of the United States, the highest
Judicial tribunal ofthe land the other dar
opened It's dockets and recognized the re-
lations Of these States and their citizens to
the Union The third department, Con,
gress, has refused. Why? Because the
honorable Senator from Michigan and GER
tain other honorable Senators say it is not
safe to admit them Although in the bit,
terest war that ever was waged, in the
greatest conflict Of arms that the modern
world. at least, has witnessed, we have
been their vanquishers, We have compelled
them 10 submission although We nave .
population three times rs many as theirs,
aud representation two CT three times as
great as theirs, it is no. safe 70 admit them
Would it not have been much more pru>
dcnt to have taken democratic advice at
the outstart, if that Is 50! The democrats
said: " Why make var? Do not make
war If you do you viii cmbroil. and you
will embitter this contest SO that it will
never be safe 10 admit them" Way did
no make war? Because We bolieYed
that? Not at all. We made the war BE-
cause we believed that men were governs
Ell by common sense, that they were actua-
ted ~ motives o. common interest. and
that it would be perfectly safe 70 admit
them the moment tAc rebellion vas put
down. That Is why we made the war, and
that IS why we avowed tl.e purpose But
times have changed. the tables are turned
Now that party which was foremost in ma
king the war, foremost in declaring its
purpose. Is foremost to declare that the
war was Il failure. and that this thing can
not be done, and ayows here openly again
upon TIE floor OF the Senate, and by mems
Der OF that committee who has right to
know. who has taken the testimony and
selected the witnesses, [ have no doubt, to
prove it, that that people are utterly unfit
to be restored to their rights, and that II
is utterly unsafe that they should come
back into the nion. Now, Sir, if that is
true, that is the most formidable declara>
ton of iisunion that | have ever heard
and that establishes disunion as q fact |
think no man | know Of is mad enough to
suppose that you can maintain Union at
the point Of the bay0net The honorable
Senator from Michigan does not pretend
that that IS Union. That may be conquest
but it il not Union.
Nr. President this theme is exhaustless;
this subject has no limits, it can have none
save in the Constitution and laws. There
is no reconstruction, there is no plan Of
reconstruction except that which is involy>
ed in obedience Of the laws; and the man
who supposes there is hope fit is, in my
judgment, still more mistaken than the
man who now asserts that the Union is
gohe, aud gone irreparably, from the hearts
Of the southern people. In either event
this doctrine is disunion; in either event
it shuts the door of hope.
Mr. President, do not beliye, | cannot
believe. will not believe now, standing
over the graves Of 100000 or 800, 600
American citizens fallen in the strife OF the
Union, tnat there can be no Union
What conceivable, what possible interest
has any man to disseminate this doctrine
among our people? Why is it that men
so about from day to day trumpetng the
unitneSs of the southern people for a
Union, and yet calling themselves Union
men? Who has made the people of the
north believe that this breach has been so
widened, that the gulf is so impossible,
that we never can be friends again With
our southern brothers? Who is it that
does it? Are they union men, | ask ?
In the case ola quarrel between two men,
what kind Of Union friend would he be !
who would go from one to the other aud
say: "iIe he hates YOU, he hates YOU in
the very innermost recesses of his heart,
and then goto another and say, He would
stab you behind If he had chance -
Would that be to make Union, roconciia-
iation. between these parties And who
does this thing? 1t is not the President
who does it. It is not Mr.. Seward who
does IT, Tt IS not the army who does it