The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-07-29

I siveIy the folly and wiclkedness of the course
/ pursued by the Hills, the Johnsons ana bne
| Stephenses of the South. Their taohVs alo
essentially different, but they tend unIl' I1i1l
| ably to the same end. The impetuous ILL ILL
| devotes his froth and fury to an assaule uPVii Pi
/ tbe constitutionalitv of the Congressional
i plan and counses abstinence from vOIiIs' .oe'
1 the oonstitntionality of the Convention be I'M
/ pliedlv conceded. Herschel v. Johnson ih-
| dites angry epistles urging registrauon 10 De
| followed by voting against the convention
| R- tbese tactics he promises to 'orush this
| borrid bvdra.n Alexander H. Stephens,
| again carries out the policy of mastery in
| activity to perfeotion-leaving Georgia to its
! fate. while he muses. admiringly over the fall
lacies of Calhoun's theories, and discourses
of the superiority of Cicero as moral teacher
compared with the philosophers of these de-
generate days. Taking these men as repre-
sentatives of classes opposed to the law It is
scarcely possible to magnify the absurdity
and culpability of their conduct. If il were
feasible, as Hill suggests, to defeat the law by
refusing to register, or to overcome it, as
Johnson proposes, by regular voting or by
dreaming and specializing and prophesying,
after the manner of Stephens-to wait until
the tide flows past, and then cross the chasm
safely and pleasantly-there would be prao-
tlcal wisdom in their action or non-action, as
the case may be- But under no conceivable
circumstances can any advantage be derived
from the proceedings suggested. Reconstruc-
ton will go forward under the direction of the
military commanders, and on the basis laid
down by Congress, despite the denunciations of
Hill, the tactics of Johnson, and the abstrac-
tions of Stephens. These gentlemen united
with all the adherents they may muster, will
not stay the progress of reconstruction by
aught they may attempt. The utmost they
can achieve is the production of some ill-feel-
ing. and their own humiliation as political
leaders.
If these men were as disinterested as they
pretend to be, they would acquiesce in their
own exclusion from power as an atonement
for the suffering tbeyS helped to bring upon
the people of their State Assuming this ex-
cluslon to be permanent, it would be very
mild penalty for the part they played in the
Rebellion.
But Congress has not aimed at the impos-
tion of disabilities of permanent character.
1t has provided, not unreasonably, for the dis
franchisement and exclusion from Office of
prominent Rebels, while reconstruction is in
progress. But the opening left for the resto-
ration of the forfeited privileges in individual
cases, and the uncontradicted declarations of
desire to sweep away all restrictions so soon
as that may be compatible with national peace
and safety, sufficiently show an absence of
undue harshness as well from the spirit as
from the measures of Congress.
Were the opponents of the law actuated by
a lofty, unselfsh regard for constitutional prin-
ciple, they would be earnest in their repudia-
ton of the Provisional Governments which
Congress thrusts aside. By curious forget
fulness, they make no mention of the Execu-
tive usurpation of 1865 while vehemently
assailing the alleged Congressional usurpation
of 1867. AS between the two 'usurpations,"
however, that of Congress, which they con-
demn, is infinitely preferable to that of Presi-
dent Johnson, which they approve. The Pre-
sident, in his day, pulled down and set up
without pretense of right other than that of
the conqueror, and without consulting the
! people as to the time or mode of the change.
! Surely that was usurpation of the rankest
sort. Congress, on the contrary, in the name
of the country, pulls down the work of one
man, and appeals to the people concerned to
frame government for themselves. True,
there is not very great freedom of choice;
the conditions are specific and the
work well defined; but at least
there is a show of an appeal to the will
for their officials and their institutions. How
is it, then, that the Hills and Johnsons and
Stephenses, who complain of the policy of
Congress as harsh and tyrannical, utter not a
complaint respecting the policy of the Presi-
dent, which was more tyrannlcal in its essence
and more harsh in its operationH In this lati-
tude we are disposed to believe that the differ
ence of tone is attributable to the difference in
the characteristics of the two plans. The Pre-
sident's plan, crude and incomplete, left the
Rebel element undisturbed, and allowed of a
gradual reassertion of its authority Not only
the State organizations, but the State repre-
sentation in Congress, would have gradually
reverted to Rebel control. Under the policy
of Congress this will be impossible; and hence
the angry opposition of politicians who lack
the honesty and sagacity which lead the Browns
and Longstreets of the South to accept the
situation unreservedly, and to prepare man
fully for the altered condition of affairs.
The country insists, this time, that the work
shall be thorough, and it is not likely to hal
in its course for the accommodation of those
: who are as hostile to the principles for which
the North fought, as though ''the little affai
at Appomattox Court House" had not hap
pened.
RIoodshed An Tenuessea