Smyrna times., 1866-05-16
A Stale SOphism,

1t Is amusing to observe the triumphant ali
with which certain papers ask the question
whether, IT the United States fought to prevent
some of the States from seeding. and were
successful, those States are not still in the
Union and,. if so, whether they have not the
same rights In the Union that all other States
have?
The best answer to this not very profound ol
conclusive question is counter. uIIcstiou II
the rebel States did not succeed in seeding
were they not as much in the Union when the
auemPt tailed as they are now and, if so, by
"laC right were Governors appointed for them
WITHOUT Their consent; by what right are GER
tam 4uallled voters of those States DISQUALIFIED
ny the United States Government, and by what
| rlSht We're those States compelled to accent the
emancipation amendment before resuming their
representation in Congress? If the failure TO
SSeceoe dld not affect the relation of the rebel
states to the Union, why does the President
say to the Texas delegation that he homes the
state Will soon be restored to it's normal con-
dltlOn In the Federal Government, but that to
inns end much would depend upon the people
ot the State In demonstrating their LOYALTY to
the Government Does all this mean that
Texas, being prevented from seeding, is there
fore at once and without further consideration
or condition to resume an equal share in the
National Government?
The truth is, that the rebel States did not
succeed IN making themselves independent of
the Union; but if the rebellion did not disturb
the relation of those States to the Union. all
that the President has done is unconstitutional
ana not binding If it did disturb that rela-
tloil, any other condition which the Govern
ilehC may exact Tor the same purpose OF nation
al security Is equally constitutional The de-
nunclatlon of Congress upon constitutional
grounds Tor requiring the assent of those States
10 an amendment equaizng representation is
equally denunclatIOn of the President for de-
iliandlng their assent to the amendment abol-
i'Llng slavery, or to the reputation of the re-
Del ueDt, or to the revocation OF the acts of
secession
MILLING NO MURDER. has of late
D. en- controversy among several party Jour
IlalS about the administration Of General De-
venS, who has been on duty since the war in
south Carolina. Without referring to the
merits or tins controversy we mention it to
state that 1t has revealed very strange circum-
stance which occurred in General Deven 5 com,
y nand IN South Carolina. Lieut. ,nant- Colonel
lrowbrdge, commanding the 33d l.. :. Color
I'd Troops put to DEATH without trial. a man
named Calvin Crozier, for the alleged IN rider
u private IN the regiments named Mills
AFTER CroMer 5 death it appeared that Mill,
vas not killed, and Military Court of Innui
y was called to pass upon Trowbridge's con
iuct; The court acquitted him Of all blame.
md Mills, the man said TO be murdered. wa,
n court alive at the time, had his wound OK.
mlned by the members of the court, and VET
vas never called to testify by the Judge Adyo.
ate or the court General Devens reviewed
he case and sent it back to the court to he
eard over again, but the court persisted in rs
u ,l mer opinion that Trowbridge was free from
Il blame, and he was released from arrest ,
Fl neral Devens IS an officer of excellent repu-
lloh ana what he developes about Colonel =
lowbridge shows that the latter officer i nav T.
ne to be trusted with such issues as lite and =
cath '''' anu