Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1867-11-07

~ ~ wv NN"oftfN'tvH' tNu 20 VfcSfFDe
the Union, loith all the dignity, equality
and rights Of the States unimpdired. {"
Hence, viewing the question from the
Northern standpoint, (and surely by
that you are willing TO be bound, !
Congress is estopped from denying
that these States are in the Union.
Then, if States IN the Union, they are
entitled to representation in Congress,
in obedience TO the Constitution. Be
ing refused this right, are they not
"proscrbed z"
Your second comment is upon my
use of the terms southern people, .
and you say the context shows that
"regard the whites onlya constituting
the people" On the contrary, you
say you contemplate the whole peo.
pie Of the South, white and black. and
"fnsist that the rights aud well being
Of them all should be cared for" On
this point, there is no disagreement
between us. We differ as to the mode
in which this shall be done. You say
it must be done according to the Con
gressional scheme of reconstruction
| object TO this scheme.
j. Because it is uneonstitutiona !,
and admitted to be SO by its authors.
III. Because it is in direct conflict
with the resolution just above quoted.
1t proceeds upon the idea that the
ten prescribed States are conquered
States; whereas, that the resolution
says the war was not waged for "con.
quest or subjugation." Ii "overthrows
and interferes with the rights and es-
Ia ablished institutions of the States
whereas, occording TO that resolution,
the war was prosecuted to maintain
these 1t destroys the dignity, equal.
ity, and rights of the Staies;" whereas,
that resolution declares that the war
was waged TO "preserve them"
III. Because, its inevitable effect
will be, if not so intended, to place
these States under the dominion OF
the negro race; so that, however de-
sirable it is TO have the "well- being"
of all the people, white and black,
"cared for" it will place the white
people at the mercy of the black, who
are being instructed that the latter
have grievances to avenge against the
former. In language, you embrace
"the whole people" white and black,
in the arms of your tender care but
in practice, by enforcing the Congress
sional scheme, il seems that the "welI.
being" of the whites is being disre-
garded.
". Because it is based on the as
sumption that Congress has the power
TO dictate to these States that their
constitutions shall contain certain pro-
visions, looking exclusively to the en-
reimbursement of the black race, ana
to exercise a supervision over the action
of the people of these States when as
sembled in primary convention to or
ganize their governments.
V. Because the principle which
alone could justify such action, by
Congress, as that scheme embodies,
ignores the separate existence of the
States clothed with the inherent rights
of selfgovernment, and converts our
Confederate system into a vast con
solidation. 1t is true, the scheme, on
it, face, gives us the opinion to accept
or reject. But we are distinctly in
formed that unless we accept it, we
may expect worse terms, coupled with
confiscation and more general disfran-
chisement.
Your third comment, being per
sonal animadversion upon my course,
deserves a few reflections. | repeat
what / said in my letter of the 9th
ult., that II never, in my whole life,
cherished a sentiment or did an act of
hostility to the Constitution of the
United States or to the Union of the
States based upon it, according to my
honest opinion of its spirit aud mean
ing" On this you remark that re-
pndiated the authority of the Federal
Constitution, and waged a long and
bloody war to disrupt the Union. This
! respectfully, but emphatically, deny.
Though believing in the right of a
State to secede, vet | opposed The Sc
cession Of Georgia TO the utmost of
my feeble ability, and voted against
ii in the convention. 1t is true that
/ signed the ordinance after il was
passed, in conformity TO resolution
requesting that il be signed by all the
delegates But my signature gave il
no additional validity. 1t was the act
of the convention without il. If my
signature had been necessary to make
il valid. | never would have sig ned it.
But signed it to give as much more
moral power to the action of the State
as possible. in the hope that it might
diminish the probability Of a war for
coercion. As far as the Union pdS
disrupted, il was done by the ordi-
nance of secession. Opposing that,
opposed disruption It's unjust, then,
to say that | "repudiated' the Con
stitutiou. Nor did wage war to dis
rupt the Union, The war, on our
part. was defensive When secession
bad become y fixed fact, | yielded TO
it as the mandate Of my State, unwise
aud fatal as then believed it to be-
willing to share the fortunes Of her
noble people. And If had not felt II
to be my duty to do so, what else
could l have doneY Was there any
authority of the Utlion in
the State Of Georgia to give me pro-
lection DO you notknow that there
was a total failure on tbs part of the
at Washington to coun-
teract the secession impulse Z That
its authority in the state was entirely
But when the war for
- - . .-..... 4 - Drnu,d.nt