The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1866-06-21
Why did they all EOle Nay /?

Why did they all Vote Nay?
Every Democrat in the House of Repre-
sentatives, on Wednesday, voted against
the reconstruction constitutional amend
ments. In doing so, we must suppose them
to have been actuated by certain principles
and it will be an interesting study to in
ouire what those principles are, as indicated
| by this united vote Of the Congressional
representatives of the Democracy.
| The first of the amendments declares
that all persons born or naturalized in the
| United States shall be citizens of the United
States and of the States in which they reside
| Is not this a very just and democratic
principle If the Democrats in Congress
are not in favor of it, where would they
draw the line Of discrimination between
those who, in their opinnion, ought to be
and those who ought not to be citizens
There are no longer any slaves in this coun-
try. ALI human beings who walk on A
merican soil, guilty Of no crime, are free,
Would the Democracy deprive any class
of freemen of the rights and benefits of
citizenship? If so On what ground would
they justify so extraordinary measure of
injustice and deprivation towards one class
of freemen, that would not, with equal rea-
son, apply also to some other class If uni
versal freedom, in country like ours,
means anything, it means that all men are
on an equality, as regards civil rights--or
or in other words, that they are all citizens.
This being the fact, will some of our Dem
ocratic politicians explain how, in justice,
or with democratic consistency, any class
of the people now inhabiting these States
can be denied the rights of citizenship {? 1t
is presumed that, having voted against this
proposed constitutional declaration of citi-
zeuship, the Democrats in Congress know
why they so voted, and that they can ex-
plain their action. We therefore wish that
some Of them would enlighten the country
by giving a reasonable explanation, if they
can, and thus free themselves from the sus-
picion that they are still, as they were in
old slavery times, Democrats merely in
name-clingiDg to the shadow of a princi-
pie, while ignoring its substance.
The second clause Of the first amendment,
against which all the Democrats in Con-
gress voted, embodies the principle that
the citizen of oae State shall not be denied
the rights Of citizenship in any other State.
They must have some reason for opposing
this very just and democratic principle,
but before we can even imagine what
that reason is, if it he IA jastiiabie one, we
must wait to hvae it explained by these
Democi attic Representatives or some of their
organs. Can they give an explanation that
will bear the scrutiny of logic and common
sense
The second amendment, against which
all the Democrats in Congress voted, propo-
ses to make the actual voting population of
State the basis of It's representation in
Congress Being opposed to this very just
and fair principle we must presume that
the Democrats of the North are in favor of
having all the non-voting exslaves i'll the
South who, before being freed, were only
counted as five for one, hereafter enumera-
ted equally with the white voters, every
colored individual being counted as one
man when apportioning the members of
Congress- thus almost doubling the number
of Southern congressman, and giving the
South supreme power in the legislative de-
partment of the Government, the North
receiving no compromising advantage what
ever. This may be regarded as justice by
the Democratic party, which worships the
South as its master, but the Northern peo-
pie, especially those who do not believe
that the South deserves to be rewarded, in-
stead Of punished, for her late treachery
and extreme wickedness, will fail to see it
in that light. On no ground can the Dem
ocrats in Congress justify their course in
opposing this amendment, except that they
desire the political power of this
Government to be henceforth conferred in
the rebellious Southland is this the kind
of Democracy that the leaders and organs
of that party intend hereafter to advocate
before the people Of these States
The third of the amendments that all the
Democrats in Congress voted against, pro-
poses to disqualify from holding any office
Of trust or responsibility under the National
or State Governments all who. as officers
in the military or civil service of the United
States, violated their oaths and BETRAYED
their country in her hour of peril. We must
take 1t for granted that the Democrats are
in favor OF eievating this class of traitors
and ingrates to the high, aud honorable and
lucrative positions of public trust under the
Government they attempted to destroy, as
a reward tor their pertidy. If not, why do
they oppose the proposition to disoualify
them from holding such positions /?
And the fourth of the amendments against
which all the Democrats in Congress voted.
declares the National debt sacred oblga-
r ton, and the rebel debt just DO debt at all.
Now, if rebels should vote against this
amendment, we would not be surprised,
hut when Northern Democrats who profess
loyalty and honor, vote thus, what can we
think Of them Do they not prove them
selves to be just as bad as the rebels them
selves Do they not demonstrate the fact
that they have more sympathy with the
late 'Confedracy and its obligations incurred
by the wickedness Of treason, than they
? have for the National Government of the
the United States and its obligations Of
honor We wish some of them would try
to explain their course SO as to remove
this ugly inference.
Why did the Democrats in Congress vote
against any one of the reconstruction con.
stitutioual amendments, which we have
now examined, if they are truly loyal and
honorable men? And with what show
of honesty, consistency or patriotism can
their partisans throughout the Northern
States support their action and follow their
example when the question Of ratifying
these amendments shall come up for final
! decision at the polls and in the Legislatures Z
We shall be curious to see Chicago Jour-
nal.