The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1867-01-04

ward under Charles IL, were the people who
had taken part In those wars, either on one
side or the other, disfranchised- the
privilege of sending their Representatives to
the House OF Commons, and deprived of
Stheir1. rights as subjects Of Great Britain -
/ imagine not. There may have been here
and there cases in which the ring-leaders
were punished; but there was no disfran-
chisements of the people inhabiting whole
sections of country, counties municipal
tiles that may have been involved in a re-
bellion or civil war.
Why not have peace and unity Z You say
they are not States, because you know if
they are States they must have representa-
ton If they are not States | admit that
they have no right to representation. But
they are States now you propose unlaw
fully and unconstitutionallyt to destroy their
character as States and convert them into
dependent territories or conquered provinces.
Upon what authority? Where is the law
for it? You cannot punish Staee.. There
is no Constitutional authority for the in
dictment trial, conviction and punishment
of a State as such. There is no punishment
for States prescribed in the Constitution,
or in any law have ever seen or heard of 8
Why punish them How can you try
the State? You cannot do it. Do you want
to punish the people ; You cannot do it.
1t is impossible. y The people of those States,
, many of them, would. never have concurred
in the movement of secession but for the
enormities and astrocities practiced by this
Government during the war, and the viola
tion of what was declared to be the object
| ofthe war in resolution passed by both
Houses ofCongress, to the effect that it was
not intended to interfere with their domes-
| tic institutions OF any of their rights and
| privileges under the Constitution. 1t was
not, sir, until after the Government violated
| that solemn pledge, made in both branches
I1f hot hoy To hcx
| ted, not for the purpose of subjugation or
| enslavement of those people, not for the
purpose of Overturning or interfering with
| their rights as States or their State institu-
| tions, not at all; but for the mere purpose of
enforcing the Constitution and laws of the
United States and preserving and maintain
ing the Union and the Government of the
Union under the Constitution; and that
when they succeeded in suppressing all
| armed opposition and resistance to the Gov
eminent, then those States should be re-
ceived again into the Union, or would be in
| the Union as before, according to the decla-
ration of Mr.. Seward in his dispatch to our
Minister to France, that the States would
| come back again and remain in the Union
with all their rights of property and repre-
| sentatiOn. / repeat, it was not until after
| these solemn pledges were violated by the
subsequent development of the real objects
and purposes for the attainment of which
the war continued to be prosecuted, that
| the Southern people generally concurred in
| the necessity of persisting in armed resistance
| for defence.
Now, in violation of all these pledges you
design in bad faith to convert these States
| into Territories. Where is the authority,
| where is the law for it Some gentlemen
contend the authority is to be found in that
portion of the Constitution which says that
| the United States shall guaranty to every
State in the Union republican form of gov
eminent, and shall protect each of them
against invasion, and upon application of
| the Legislature or of the Executive (when
the Legislature cannot be cOnvened) against
domestic violence. Sir, that provision of the
| Constitution, in my opinion, authorizes no
such thing as the conversion of those States
into provinces to be governed arbitrarily.
This clause of the Constitution contains no
such authority 1t is a mere guarantee that
| the Republican Governments of the States
shall be maintained There was no author
ity given in that clause to convert States
into Territories so as to deprive them of all
representation in Congress. 1t is an obliga-
tion, in fact, imposed upon the Federal Gov
ernment to- see that neither by domestic vio-
lence, foreign invasion, nor in any other way
| the Republican Governments of the States
should be oyerthrown. Now, does that give
to the Government of the United States the
| power to overthrow the State governments
when they are Republican in fact, and to
institute territorial governments so as to
deprive them of all representation in Con-
gress ? Was that the object Can. this
| Congress make them Territories at it's dis
| cretion 2 Can it reduce them to the condi-
tion of conquered and dependent provinces
when they choose and as they chooseq
Because the duty is imposed upon this Gov
eminent bv the clause of the Constitution
above cited to protect the States as States
| in the enjoyment of their republican forms
of government as existing, can it be conten-
ded with any show ofreason that this power
or duty of the United States is properly ex-
ecuted and performed by overturning in
stead of guaranteeing the republican govern
ments of these States, by changing their
condition as States into that of dependent
provinces, and by denying to them their
right of representation in Congress Never
no never