The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-08-14
WHAT IS ,TRUE CONslsTENCYs

Whenever this question of consistency is
raised with those who have taken the oath and
renewed their allegiance to the United States
since the close of the war; an oath the
meaning of which cannot be misunderstood,
and from the obligations of which all mental
quire, whether taking that oath-as it was then
and there interpreted and understood, as well
by those who administered it, as by those who
took it's consistent with an adherence now
to the political theory, under which the seces-
sion of the State was advised, attempted and
failed? Are we in error when we say that this
oath was intended to be the evidence of the
abjuration by those who took it, Of that political
doctrine, which thenceforth was to be regarded
as political heresy? Ifso, and we do not see
how it can be otherwise understood. then the
question of consistency is not to be Tested by o
reference to former political opinions, which
were thus renounced, but to the meaning and
the obligations of that oath, which was voun-
tarily taken, or required TO be taken,
by so many of the people of this State.
The true, the real question Of consistency, is
thus involved, not in question of mere politi-
cal orthodoxy, but in matter Of. the highest
moral obligation.
If it IL said, that whatever ma y be the force
of the view now presented, so far as it affects
those who have taken that oath; dh 9 same force
does not attach to it in regard to those who
have not taken the oath; we answer, that if
there is any difference, it can rela te only to q
certain class of persons. We mes n such as
expressly and publicly declare, that they do
not acquiesce in the results of the war, nor ad-
NIT that it has changed their SENSE Of their
political obligation, such as in th is claim to
maintain position, in opposition: to that in
which the people of the State have acqui-
esced; unless it shall be further maintained
that the Government of the United States in
tended to tolerate an avowed denial, Of what
It had declared to be the nature and extent
oif the allegiance due to it. If then we
allow this exception, we are entitled to
ask where are the persons who claim to be
included in its terms? Where ere they who
assert their allegiance to the State, to be still
paramount to their allegiance to this Govern
inert of the United States? Where are they
who insist that they recognize and VIII defend
the doctrines, under the lead Of VIII the
State passed its ordinance of secession. in 1861!
Where and by whom is the open avomll made
Of such position? Where and by IVhom is
the public declaration of adherence to such
opinions? We confess to have see them no
where to have heard them proclaimed by no
one. Without, then, that avowal and open
what is the position Of those who
have not been required to take, or residing
here, have not taken, the oath?
We can but answer, that they must be con-
,idered as consenting to and acquicscing in
hat conduct, which by The administration of
his oath, the Government of the United States,
has decided, shall express the condition upon
which its forbearance is accepted by
hose whom it claims by their conduct had
the exercise of its power to punish
But it is not only that thus by their acqnies-
cence, even they who have not taken the oath,
are in morals, as much bound, as are they who
have taken it; and that the obligation Of the
oath is inconsistent with an adherence to the
political doctrines they entertained and were
the creed of the people Of the State. We 60
further and submit that they who do thus pre-
tend to adhere to their former opinions in rsla-
tion to the rights of the State; ore now plainly
themselves; because the State,
obedience to which they profess as their first
duty, has itself renounced that creed, and no
longer teaches the doctrine that primary allegi-
ance is due to it. We assert, without the fear of
refutation; we would almost say without
the fear of contradiction; that the State, when
it spoke through its Convention in 1866,
renounoed its claim to that allegiance of those
who were within its limits which it asserted
to enforce in the war which then followed
We think that this was 80 intended by the
repeal of the ordinance of secession; by the
nearly unanimous vote upon the resolutions of
Mr.. ALDn1cn; and by all the other Acts of the
Convention inconsistent with the idea, of its
maintaining the continued existence of the
theory formerly held of the relation of the
State to the Government of the United States.
That to all of these, in themselves conclusive; ;
point and finish was given by the language
of Mr.. PERRY, then the Provisional Governor
of the State; and by his conduct while in that
position; conduct utterly inconsistent with the
ilea that there was left in the State
the wish, much less the will, to again
assert the doctrines it had taught and
enforced. And we cannot doubt that
Mr.. PERRY would not now hesitate to de-
clare that the Convention of 1865, was by its
call; and by all of its proceedings, accepted by
him. and the President of the United States, as
not having accomplished any thing more
completely, than the renunciation in re-
| gard to the nature and extent of the
sovereignty of the States, which had been
practically asserted in the ordinance of seces-
sion. Upon this point, we would be will
ing to reduce it to direct question. And that
question, with all proper respect, we would
address to Mr.. PERRY himself. And to Mr..
PERRY We would direct the question, whether
the Convention which he called together was
not accepted by him as the Convention which
would and did renounce that doctrine Of
Government, by which the allegiance Of the
citizen was claimed for the State, in preference
to the Government of the United States? We
can have no doubt as to the answer Mr. PERRY
would give for we know what answer he hos
given already.
Mr.. PERRY, as Provisional Governor, in hi:
proclamation, dated Goth July, 1866, declaring
his power to call Convention, informs thu
people of the State, that the object of that Con