Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1867-02-19
RRCoNsTRuCr1oN.

the government, which stands in the way Of
present and future radical supremacy. and is
used to designate the various bills which have
been brought before the rump Congress for
the degradation Of the South-as, for instance,
we read of Mr.. Williams reconstruction BILL
fIr. Stevens reconstruction bill, Mr. Banks
reconstruction bill, Sir. Elliott's rcconstruc-
ton bill, and half dozen other bills which
bear the same titles, but which in reality are
nothing more nor less than acts for the abro-
CATION of all the rights which human flesh is
heir to, and the establishment of radical,
puritanical system of government over US, and
in the Language of Mr.. Wendell Phillips to
mould US in the likeness Of New England
We are to mako ourselves agreeable to the
frost-bitten and nutmeg -pampcred descend
ants of the Pilgrims, or else we are to have
no history, no record, no genealogy-are to
beras those that were but are not
In thezselection of our own officers, and
the regulation of our domestic affairs wc arc
to have no voice. everything being made sub
jcct to the progressive ideas of the New Eng
land school of politicians. Read the sophie
mo-ic speech of Mr.. Banks, which we pub
lish to-day, if you wish to obtain an idea of
tho plan that is cllalkcd out for the govern
ment of the South, which means not recon-
structiou, but utter humiliation of civil lib
erty. and the forgery of tho most CALLING
chains of slavery.
Within the past week, Two separate bills
have received the sanction of the House of
Representatives, looking to the government
of the Southern States. The first of these,
is bill introduced by Mr.. Elliott of Massa-
chusetts, the chairman of the New Orleans
riot investigating committee OF these two
measures, the Richmond Enquirer has the
following just notice =
The discussion Of tie comparative helm
business of the Banks aud the Stevens poll
CIcs of reconstruction, has been to some cx>
tent superseded BY the adoption by the House
of Representatives, of both tho Stevens
plan for general application, and the Banks
pcl:cy, as presented by Mr.. Elliott, for APP
Piication in Louisiana. There is difference
between the two however; and the difference
is in favor of Stevens.
Stevens proposes net the removal of our
present State forms; but their subordination
to the Military Power, to be enthroned by the
abolition OF hGbecs corpus and declaration of
martial law, and administered by epauletted
satraps clcthcd with an absolute control and
discretion; restoration in short, of the days
of TerIyism. The Banks policy is to break
up our State establishments, and re-organize
them on the basis of prescription, 10th from
suffrage and office, all of who cannot take
certain stringent test oaths. These oaths are
so coatrived us to exclude nearly the whole
OF Our population, ard coufde the govern
ment to the exceptional members OF the COM
Elunity. As these are both few and uninfu-
entail, and would by the proposed policy be-
come douoly odious, the scheme implies
strong military establishment to enforce the
sway to be enthroncd'
The essence of both systems, therefore. is
military dc&potisna; by the plan of Stevens to
be exercised. in superintendent and con-
straint of our State and municipal functions
as at present administered; and by the plan
of Banks to be employed in support>cf 4 gov
crnmcnt administered by IIunnicutts AID ne
groes. The latter has all the odious clements
Of the former, with an intoerable addition.
Bad as Stevens is, therefore, Banks IS worse.
1t is proper to add, however, that the diff.
ference defined, is rather one of progress than
Of principle or permanent value. Stevens's
policy is but a preparation for the further
measure included in Banks's. 1t provides
tie force which is to sustain the sway of the
vast minority in these States, afterwards to
be introduced. Banks and Stey ems have the
same goal-thc former reaches it by one step,
the latter proposes two.
That both schemes are wholly unconstitu-
t;onal, cannot admit of doubt The sus-
pension of the huLenS corpus in time of peace,
en- which the military bill proceeds, is as
plainly forbidden as language can possibly de-
clare. The dissolution of the States and over
throw of their governments, is as utterly op-
posed to the most positive prohibitions. The
sending of dcspots to reign over communities
to which the Constitution guarantees repub-
lican govcrnments,is as fragrant crime against
the Constitution as would be the crowning of
king at Washington.
That both schemes will be vetoed by the
President, is certain. That they will be af
forwards passed over his veto is probable
What then? The expectation is, that the Pre-
si2cnt will not execute them and the scheme
is, to make this failure the ground Of his inl~
peachment-an4 removal. But the Supreme
Court may Interfere with the success. of this
plan. In some form, or other, the question
Of the validity of the acts in question will be
carried before that body. If they should rule
them unconstitutional, the President would
be fortified in Il manner that would Overawe
the intended impeachment. 1t is hard to be-
iieve that sworn Senators, even i'll these de-
generate days, would convict President of
official infdelty, for failure to enforce law
pronounced by the Supreme Court unccn>
stitu.ional.
We, by no means, therefore, regard the de-
structionists as having yet found plain sailing
or deep water, or as likely to- find it on the
course they are steering ! hey are running
on perils, for themselves, as we'll as the coun-
try But VIC earnestly appeal to the people