The weekly loyal Georgian., 1867-08-10

who by deceit and force sought to
destroy His supremacy, these very
! pretences which hate begets of hypoc-
risy in this attempt 10 destroy tie
| Constitution will become 'yelping
monsters in the political heH into
which the genius of constitutional lib
erty suiU cast yoH, and will kennel in
the womb that bud them, and howl
and gnaw, and vex with conscious
terrors forever" Shades Of Millon!!!
NU4HBER III.
Mr. Hill in No. I, in discussing the
" law OF peace" between The Northern
and Southern States, lays down the
claims Of both at the commencement
of the war, He says the Southern
States insisted, lst, THAT the Federal
Constitution was a compact 10 which the
! States were parties as separate and
independent States, and, therefore, were
| parties with the right by virtue of their
separate sovereignty of withdrawal
from the compact, when in the judg-
ment Of the State Withdrawing her
interest or safety required withdrawal
I'd. "That the administration of the
common government by y sectional
party because organized on a
principle OF avowcd hostility to right
of property held by the citizens Of the
Southern States, and recognized by the
| Constitutou-would cndanger the inter-
est and safety of such States, and
therefore justified the exercise of the
right claimed to withdraw" This is
laid down as the whole claim made by
the Southern States. He then says in
a note: 6 The reader will observe that
| do not claim the doctrines and pur-
| poses Of the Confederate States as
constituting any of the terms of peace.
These were all defeated in the .fght aud
! abandoned by the surrender"
We then. Mr.. Hill being the Judge,
"abandoned BY the surrender" as one
of the "terms of peace " the right of
withdrawal on account of the common
Government being administered by a
sectional party, organized on priuci-
pies of acowed Hostility TO light Of
property held by citizens of the South
ern States and recoGMzed by the Con-
Stituti0a."
After having admitted that these are
:he "terms of peace all that Mr.. Hill
says about the Constitution, and its
guarantees, and our equality in the
Union, and about our rights, for which
we are to .Fght and die, is simple empty
school boy defamation.
II sectional party-organized on
principles of avowed hostility to right
Of property held by us, and recognized
by the Con5titution-claimed the right
to administer the common Government,
and we yielded that right by the sur
render, as part of the ''terms of peace"
and absolutely and unconditioually
gave up and abandoned that very ight
ofproperty, amounting to thousands of
millions of dollars in value, and con-
sented to meet in convention at the die
tation of the conqucror, and incorporate
| intonur State Constitution a clause aban-
in "avowed hostility" to which, the Sec
tional party was organized which
property was recognized and protected
by the Constitution and if at the like
dictation of the conqueror we consented
TO, and ratified an amendment Of the
Constitution of the United States, for
ever denying to the States, or the Con-
gresS, the power to restore this property
to us, what is the value Of the remain
ing rights of person or property left us
by the "terms of peace if we attempt
to hold them 10 defiance Of the will of
the conqueror? II We were unable to
sustain our cause in the field, and were
compelled to abandon ana give up,
without compensation, thousands OF
millions If dollars worth Of property
"recogni.cd by the Constitution for
the sake Of peace, with what possible
nope Of success can we now, impover-
iShed aud 5isarmed, reenter the field,
10 i-ht lor Mr.. Hills right TO hold
Office
If there were no dishonor i'll the acts
by which the Southern States incorpo-
rated irto their Constitutions clauses
abolishinG slavery, and thereby
destroying thousands of millions Of
dollars worth of property, and we
consented to its incorporation into the
Constitution of the United States, at
the dictation Of the conqueror, what
dishonor is there in Incorporating into
the same Constitutions a like provision
enfranchising the freedmen, and dis
entranchiSing officers who engaged in
the war against the United States? II
the first did not violate the Constitution,
and was not, "by legislation" the
adoption of measures "outside of the
Constitution" how does the last violate
it? Ii he who voted for the Conyen--
ton, called at the dictation of the
conqueror, 10 do the first, did nn
violate his oath to support the Consti-
tuition, how does he who votes for the
Convention in the second case, at the
like, dictation, become peyured |
traitor?
Mr.. Hill's statement in reference to
the abolition of slavery presents Il
strange medley of confused jargon as
will be seen by the following extracts. |
lie says: "Mr. Lincoln's proclamation
abelishing slavery was declared to be a |
war measure only" "There was an
agreement on our part to emancipate."
Therefore, the abolition Of slavery
may, in fact, though not i'll legal strict
ness, be counted as one of the things
decided by the war, and as being part
of the law of peace" "But the States
had not ratified it (the Constitutional
Amendment). 1t was, therefore, only
q proposition undetermined at tie tiaec
of the $mrender" "Neither he (Mr.
Lincolnl nor General Grant, nor any
other power, alluded to this (emancipa- |
tion) as part of the terms during the !
negottdtions to,, nor at the time Of, tie |
acceptance Of the surrender"
II have shown, from the official re-
cords of each and all, that the only
conditions demanded of the Southern
people, in laying down their arms,
were the preservation Of the Union
under the Constitution, with the single
change of the abolition of slavery,
which single change was very doabt-
fully and impeEtccty demanded, but
was very promptly and cheer1Htiy
yielded"
Why, certQiaH, it was very doubtful
whether the conqueror demanded the
abolition of slavery as part of the
terms of peace! But the shareholders
of Georgia, to remove all doubt on that
subject, very promptly, o yes, and most
= IL