The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-04-20
The Testimony OF the vanquished.

The Testimony OF the Vanquished.
From the Times.
The same philosophical characteristics that
distinguished the speeches of Mr.. Stephens, OF
Georgia, appear in his testimony recently given
before the Committee on Reconstruction. 1t
differs very strkingly in several respects, and
in none more than in its vein OF philosophy,
from the testimony of General Lee. Lee de-
Clined to indulge in speculative fancies; refused
to go below the surface, OF to set forth any
thing that was not quite palpable upon the face
of 1t. He could hardly be drawn into the
answering of questions involving political views,
and was cautious to the last degree as to the
force and bearing OF every word he uttered.
Stephens was more open and free, more explicit
and exact, as well as more rhetorical, less
dubious, and less teartuli and was not back
ward in eXhlblting-what OF course be possesses
"a far more thorough knowledge OF political
influences and laws, and q far more extensive
apprehension OF the springs of human action
and thd forces that govern the popular will.
The two names lust mentioned are those OF
the two foremost men in the Southern States.
The testimony OF no other party or parties
could be of equal importance or historical value.
unless 1t were that OF Jefferson Davis. HIS testi
mony, moreover, would have more historical
interest than practical value. He is capable of
telling the world some things about the inside
working and actual conduct OF the Rebellion,
which we should probably learn from no other
ment ever since the fall OF the Confederacy, he
knows little OF the great moral changes which
have come over the Southern people since that
time. Moreover, it Is probable that Davis is
now, among Southerners quite exceptional in
his feelings and views.
AS the actual igure-head of the great South
ern Contederaoy, and its representative men
before the world, it is probable-and in truth we
understand II to be.a iaCt-that he still regards
himself as the guardian of its ruins and the SEN
tlmental defender of its wrecked fortunes-its
putative parent and its lncOnsolable mourner;
he will neither restrain his bitterness against its
destroyers nor acquesce IN the DEGREES whose
supremacy is inevitable. This may all be quite
as pitiiul as 1t IS puerle; but it is what mighC
have been expected OF Davis, and what would
render any evidence that might be extracted
from him more entertaining than nything else.
We are by no means committing ourselves
to the political philosophy OF Stephens, as set
forth in his testimony, when we say that in
many particulars it possesses the characteristics
that are ordinarily designated statesmanlike.
Stephens displays faith more or less firm in
principle and profound regard for that which is
expedient. Mistaken frequently in the appre-
heusiOn of Uruth-as in his celebrated corner
stonen bunder-he yet exhibits perpetual ten
dency to base himself on broad and estab shed
doctrines; but, when the application of any one
OF those doctrines to the circumstances OF prac-
tica life is palpably impossible he would either
ignore it altogether, or for the time being subor-
dinate it.
He declares himself, for example, to have been
Union man at the epoch of secession; but find.
ing secession inevitable and the Confederacy an
accomplished fact, he became a leader of the
new Contederacy in order that he might do all
in his power to rescue and perpetuate the prin-
clples established in the old Constitution aud
the political forms established in the original
Union. So now, again, he is still a believer in
the separate sovereignty OF the several States"
though 1t will be observed he does not now
reiterate as strongly as he proclaimed in the
South two or three years ago, the ultimate, ab-
solutc sovereignty of each State; but while, as
he alleges, his convictions on the original alb.
stract question have undergone no change he
accepts the issue of the war settling it finally
against his views. We say that, as things go,
views Of this style are considered philosophical
enough, and though they neither Indicate the
clearest initial convictions the highest order OF
principle, the spirit that actuates martyrs, nor
the man who is fit to rule in great crises, they
pass current as merltorlous in ordinary times,
and furnish rule of conduct not altogether in
applicable In the common work of government
MIR. Stephens sets forth views analogous in
principle to his own, as having controlled the
action OF the Southern people in the past, and
as still controlling it. Circumstances, such as
the secession Of South Carolina, compelled the
citizens Of Georgia to act against their own con-
victions, and though Unionists in principle
they fell into, indorsed. and fought for the des.
tTuctve policy OF disunion. They had always
believed, however, that the State had the right
OF secession, and though Mr. Stephens is eau
tious on this subject, remarking that "some may
have changed their opinion in this respect, but
1t would lie an unusual thing, as well as diff
cult matter, for a whole people to change
their convictions upon abstract principles"
yet he reterates with great force that the entire
State, like himself has accepted the result of
the war on this question, or on these questions,
as final, and will in no case bring them again
into dispute in the arena of war. They tried
war; he says, for the maintenance of their rights,
but having found that il destroyed them all,
they will now and henceforth seek their main.
tenance only by ways ofpeace.
1t is not in the novelty OF Mr.. Stephens state.
ments that their interest and value lie; but as
furnishing the ablest analysis of the grounds of
Southern political acton, and as personal mar
ration of the processes OF his own intellect,
during two great historical crises, they are OF
andurin0 intarasT