New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-11-07


Tor criIne,) in which event the representation shall
be pT0portiOnaly reduced
whether the object in proposing this change be |
the extension OF the elective franchise to persons
OF African descent (nearly all Of whom are no
toriously unqualified for it, or further diminu-
ton Of the already relatively small weight of the
Southern States in the administration Of the gov
efnment the adoption OF this amendment will GER
tainly force upon them choice between those |
evils. If the former be the real object, the latter
alternative must be regarded simply as penalty |
for refusing it. In this view it is not difficult to
expose the fragrant injustice of the proposition.
Let us consider briefly how the amendment will
affect States wherein slavery did not exist prior to
the war, and how those wherein it existed. In the
former class, the selection of the the other
alternative will be only matter of taste, no great
public interest being involved. If the franchise
be extended, the number thus newly admitted to
the ballot will be so small that no appreciate
effect upon popular elections can result. If re-
fused the number excluded from the enumeration
in fixing the ratio of representation will still be
so small that the consequent reduction would not
be seriously felt, and in some instances would
probably be merely fractional producing no cur
taIment at all. Now look to the other class of
States. There the number Of voters proposed to
be enfranchsed, and wholly unprepared for the
trust would be immense, and the disturbance in
the motive power of republican machinery meal
culable There, too, on the other hand, if the
franchise be withheld, the reduction of represen-
tation would be vast. Is there fairness, is there
justice in the proposed change SO differently af-
fecting different portions Of a country, united
under a common government for the common
veal? Would the enforcement of such change
by majority it could not harm upon a minority
il must ruin, bespeak magnanimity?
1t may be said in reply, that the Constitution
does not respect sectional diferences--that it was
designed for the protection and advancement OF
personal rights. 10 a large extent this is an
egregious error. The Union was originally de-
signed mainly for the conduct of foreign affairs
and common defense, leaving to the States the re-
guatOn OF their domestic concerns, The COnsti-
tuition resulted troma compromise OF sectional in
terests, without which it could not have been
formed. Indeed, in that compromise, the rights
and interests Of The Caucasian as affected by the
presence Of very large african population in
some, Of the States were considered ana adjusted
| The African element, whether bond or free, was
computed,alike with reference to this identical
subject of representation, and alike ignored re-
gardiUg the elective franchise.
The objection now urged against the amend
mcnt is, that il viii fall upon citizens iIlahting
one latitude like an Avalanche from its mountain
perch, crushing where itsetles; whilst upon those
Of another latitude it viii alight unttlt like a
| feather floating in still air.
| 3. The third section engrafts upon the funda-
mental law new disqualification for office, State
and tedcral-a disqualification not the result of
any act TO be done after the adoption Of the
| amendment, but contaminated before It's COncep-
ton. The act entaiiing disqualification for office
consists ia having heretofore taken an oath to sup
! wort the Constitution of the United States, aud
/ having thereafter engaged in rebellion or ihsur-
| rectlOu against the same, or " having given aid
| and comfort to the enemies thereof" Consider
| ing tile number of our citizens who have taken
the oath under the circumstances set forth, the
number personally engaged in the war, and the
breadth of ground covered by the words giving
aid aud comfort to the enemies thereof we can
readily perceive the sweeping character Of the
Disqualification It is as distinctly proscriptiye a.
if the persons to be affected had been aacertained
and their names inserted.
Lei il he noted as0 that thp DTOsCrihp1 al
jewellers on one side of certain geographical
line, whilst the authors of the prescription have
r tler local habitati0n on the other side.
1t is quite remarkable, moreover, that there is
in the center section no saving clause in favor oil
those Who in the interval between the cessation
Of hostilitles and the adoption of the amendment
may have received the amnesty of the govern
ment, Pardoned they may have been, but dis
franchised they will be,
You are asked to give your consent that such {
5 fate be visited upon many of your best citizens
who have long enjoyed the public confidence, and
some Of whom now fill important public trusts
Can Georgia spare all Of these from her service
8. The fifth and last section empowers the Con
gress TO enforce, by appropriate legislation,
the provisions OF the amendment. 1t Will be con
tended that they are the proper judges of wha
constitutes appropriate legislation. II, therefore
t the amendment be adopted, and fractional Con
gress, from which the Southern States, chiefly in
terested in it, are excluded, be empowered " t
. enforce it by appropriate legislation what YES
States2 Nay, more, what semblance of republ
can government can the true patriot OF the Mort
discern in such a state of affairs? Yet, that
the point to which we seem to be drifting fo
there is no assurance whatever that even this col
5 cessOn will ensure our restoration. Amendment
; have already been proposed to and accepted b
u.s. which it was believed would effect that result
E but hope is still deferred, right still denied.
; will not further analyze this amendmen
h equally novel and unjust
l. | ask Won to consider, however, WHY it is tn;
II you are called upon to vote upon its adoption
I whilst your State had no voice in its preparation
N The Constitution secures to the States the OF
& right as distinctly and positively as the othe
i Had representatives, and those Of other Stat
Il similarly situated, been present, aiding in givt
IS substance and form to it, possibly it might ha'
" come before you less odiOus thing. The poll
IT seems to have been first to push it, without the
a participation, beyond the stage of amendmen
l. and then say to them, accept our bantling or tai
lie the consequences. The omission of any materi
vs. part of the process of amendment, makes Il
amendment itself, unconstitutional, null and vol
Is Should the States especially to be affected !
O. this amendment refuse their assent to it, it cam
y, be adopted without excluding them from t
lie count and placing its ratification upon the Yot
,lf of tree-fOuIths of the now dominant States.
III 1t is said, however, that unless this c0ncessl
n be made, the now excluded States will be Ike
ne out Of the halls of Congress indefinitely We
On the amendment presented with such menace q
ot tnctly expressed, a higher motive, if possib
en- than any hitherto suggested would prompt its
M lection.
IN AT the termination of hostlities, it was rig
and proper that the previously resisting sta
to should in the most uneQuiy0Cal and formal mann
ar- abandon such resistance-rshould rescind all til
1p- had done in antagOnism to, and do whatever "
u.s. necessary and proper to place themselves in c.
ms stitutional relations with that government.
ion this, we believe, Georgia has done. Beyond Il
lie, in acting upon any proposed change in the fun
Tho mental law, even in this critical junCture, my
Gu vice is that her legislators act with the same in
nus gent judgment and the same untlinching tirmn
md that they would have exercised in the past,
would exercise in the future, when in full conn
ow ton and unambguous position Any other T
are OF action may involve sacrifices OF interest and
inst principle which magnanmity would not exact
ont self-respeet could not make.
ire. To submit to injurious changes in the Const
, OF ton, when forced upon State, according to
yes forms prescribed for its amendment, would be
ese thing to participate in making them, under
Gus ress against her sense of right and justice VIC
ing be very different thing. The difference, IN
ciple, is as broad as that which distinguishes n
erly tyrdom from suicide. Far better calmly avail
iea returning sense of justice, and consequent re
b9t of the tide now running strongly against US.
~ The military rule to which, as people, we 1
the been subjected during the past eighteen mon
be so different from all previous experience, l
+ha necessarily be more or less prejudiciai to our
q of terests and wOunding to our feelings. You
do. well aware, however, that it has been greatly
,an. igated during your recess. The administratic
! in think, have become thoroughly convinced tina