The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-07-22
HON. b. H. HILLS .xoTKs" AND SPEECH.

mas dI ldst suCSeoooo AA "PP"AAS
ing the right men in the right place.
HON. n. n. HILLS .NOTEs" AND SPEECH.
The Hon. B. d. HILL, one of Georgia's dis
tinguished sons, whom in days gone by her
people delighted to honor, during the last few
weeks has titillated the whole realm of passiv-
ism by his 'Notes on the Situation" published,
we believe, in the Augusta Chronicle and Sent'-
mel. We do not know how many of these
"Notes" have been issued. We have Numbers
IL and IS now lying before US, published in
the Louisville Courier, where they appear
under large heading: "splendid Series Of
Patriotic Papers" And certainly they have
struck a chord which vibrates extensively
through the heart of the South; otherwise they
would not be SO widely republished 1t is easy
at time of strong popular excitement or
deep feeling to make o great reputation for
wisdom, patriotism and public virtue, by sim
ply studying and pandering to popular
prejudice. This is easy, we say, requires no
marked ability, and certainly is no test OF
moral courage. We have q right to expect
something more from leader Of the people.
If he is worthy the confidence and high posi-
tion with which his fellow-citizens have en-
trusted him, he should be himself superior to
prejudice, and endeavor to bring the truth
home to the understandings of his constituents;
the naked truth, as seen through the medium
of sober fact and practical common sense.
This Mr.. HILL has not done. On the contrary,
he is running with the current, and sees his re-
ward in the popular plaudits which greet him
all around.
We had expected otherwise of Mr.. HILL. We
knew that long before the close of the war; he
had lost faith in the success Of the Confederate
cause; we gave him credit for some ff ut
and practical good sense, and fully expected
that he would be one of the first to seek to heal
the breaches between the two sections of the
country, and that he would do 30 by the only
practical way, viz advising them to accept the
proffered conditions of those who alone had the
power to dictate the terms on which our re-
admission into the Union should take place.
Instead Of this Mr.. HILL writes 'splendid
series Of patriotic papers," arguing ably,
learnedly, eloquently, if you will, that Congress
had no right to enact laws such as, upon e1-
animation, he finds the Reconstruction Acts.
This same fact is proclaimed in every one Of
the sNotes" we have seen. This is the sum
and burden of the '.Notes." So again in his
five column speech delivered in Atlanta July
16, 1867, he rings the charges on the uncon-
stitutionality of the Acts of Congress. He
opens in very ambitious strain: "Human
governments" he says, 'tlike everything else,
naturally tend to decay. They can only be
preserved by constant watchfulness, courage,
and adherence to correct principles. These
remarks apply with unusual force to free gov
ernments, which are the most difficult of all to
maintain" All very true, even though not
altogether original. But while these general
observation would be quite appropriate in the
mouth of an undergraduate speaking his
s'plece," they come with bad grace from an old
seccssionist, who long ago made the discovery
embodied in this exordium, and carried his
"watchfulness, courage and adherence" to the
verge of counselling war. The floor OF Con-
gress before the war, was the place where
these themes could be properly discussed. Our
rights under the Constitution could there be
debated ad lbitum. We were members of the
Union, entitled, without doubt or question, to
the full enjoyment of all the rights guaranteed
by the Constitution.
Put the moment we seeded and made war
against the United States, our relations to that
instrument underwent o change. When delibe-
ration failed, and discussion was fruitless, we
resorted to the ultima ratio-the arbitrament OF
the sword In this also we failed after long
and bloody struggle. What then? Shall we
now return again to those gladiatorial exhibl-
tions in the constitutional amphitheatre? Mr..
HILL seems to think this the proper course.
To read his "Notes" one would suppose there
had been no war, or that he at least had for
gotten that there had been war. Some OF
his arguments are the same as we were in the
habit of hearing daily in 1860. Can it be that
the distinguished ex-senator has become
oblivious of the intervening period, and simply
continues the argument he begun seven years
ago?
To show the potency of his reasoning we
will adduce one of his strong points. He says
"It is my business to support the Constitution
and my duty and pleasure to persuade others
to do 80. Some of you who favor the accep-
tance of the Military Bills take an oath to this
effect, and still intend to vote for convention
which you admit to be contrary to the Consti-
tuition! How is this? If you have a con-
science have said enough. If you vote for the
Constitution you are perjursd" Now this is Of
piece with the entire long and labored argu'
ment. If the premise were granted, the con-
slusion would be inevitable. Grant that we
have not forfeited our rights under the Consti'
tuition, and Mr.. HILL is right, but in assuming
this ground he begs the whole question. Pre-
cisely here is the split. Mr.. HILL, and other;
with him, persistently contend that we never
became aliens or enemies, that we never for
feited our constitutional rights; the war will
them was no more than prolonged politica
discussion, that could not change the status o
the combatants. These postulates, however
are not conceded by the representatives of th'
people of the North They contend that wher
we entered the arena of war we thereby no
only voluntarily surrendered our rights undel