The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1867-09-17
The Convention---The Register.

The Register of the 18th copies our article
in reply to its first article on the subject of
Convention, and replies to US at some length.
The Register has replied, but we do not see
that it has ansacered US. We were under the
impression that we were dlscussiong public
measures in friendly spirit with a Repub
lican Journal but we find we were mistaken.
The Register gravely announces that it re-
jccts the action of the late Republican Con-
vention, and will not be bound by that &C
ton. 1t thus puts itself outside the pale of
the Republican party. We would, therefore,
find it impossible, even if we were disposed
to do so, to continue the discussion with the
Register as a Republican paper. We have
no wish to assail it as we sometimes do the
so-called Conservative press of the State
We shall not do so, save in selfdefence. We
differ with it radically, and we part company
with it in no unkind spirit.
We have stated that the Register rejects
the action of the late Republican State Con-
vention. That paper of the 18th says:
"For greater reason, we reject the
Standards idea of the obligations of parti-
IAN caususes, State or National. That jour
nal says: 1--WE cannot SERGE the party and
at the same time add to, or take from its
platform" And zee say, we have no inten-
ton to "serve a party" Party machinery
tends continually to corruption; and no
man should suffer the party traces to chafe
his conscientious convictions. We cannot
agree with the Standards eulogy of 1.-THE
plan for organization" as "embodying
principles and instructions to the rank and
file of the patriots of. Carolina" Time was
when freemen claimed the right to instruct i,
their representatives, or public servants; and
there must be sad degeneracy if knot of
to instruct the people. We repudiate the
intelligence of the people. 1t is cunning
device to parcel out Offices among the Ring
men and We predict that it will bring moth
ing but ridcule to its authors"
In the first place, the Register says it can
not "serve" the Republican party in the
second place, it repudiates the plan of organ
ization; and in the third place, it couples
with this reputation of the party and its
plan of organization, injurious reflections on
the Convention. We do not wish to appear
to dictate to our neighbors even in matters
of taste, but it does seem to us that it would
have looked better if Messrs. Goodloe and
Chaplin, who were members of the Conven-
ton and retained their seats till it closed,
had risen in their places and uttered what
they have said in the above extract.
The Register labors in vain to prove 1T
the Convention was for confscation. The
Convention must be Judged by its platform.
There is no confscation in that There is
no confiscation in the reconstruction acts
There is no confscation in any platform
heretofore laid down by any Republican con-
vention or meeting, big or little, in any of
the Northern States. The Register sets out
in its editorial Il portion of our article, and
says: Here we have the Editor of the
Standard committed unreservedly to univer-
sal suffrage and relief from disfranchisement."
If this be so, wherefore the assumption that
the Standard holds contrary views9 But
the Register misapprehends our position
We are for the reconstruction acts-nothing
more, nothing less. The Southern people
can do nothing on these subjects. They
have no voice in Congress. They have no
constitutional rights except as the conqueror
may extend such rights to them. Their
constitutional relations to the federal gov
ern ment, broken by rebellion, have not been
restored.
The Register is comforted by the reflection
that Col. Deweese, Gen. Latin, Mr.. G. H.
Foster, Mr.. Hood, and Mr.. Harris referred
to confscation in very different spirit from
Others. The gentlemen referred to are Just
as radical as the other speakers, and just as
much for confscation. There is really no
difference between them. They all stand
together on the reconstruction acts and on
the platform of the 9th of March Conven
ton. There is no confscation, as we have
said, in either. Public men frequently diff
fer in the tone or spirit of their remarks
when their principles and purposes are the
same.