The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-08-14
WHAT IL ,rI,uE CONSISTENCY,


renewed their allegiance to tho United States
since the close Of the war; an oath the
! :icaning Of which cannot he misunderstood,
an,i from the obligations of which all mental
reservation is excluded; we are forced 10 in
quirc, whether taking TINT onth-as il wns then
and there interpreted and understood, rs we'll
by those who administered IL, as by those who
took it's consistent with mn adherence now
10 the political theory, under which the scces-
sion OF ihe State was advised, attempted and
failed? Arc We in error when wo say TINT this
| oath was intended to be the evidence Of the
abiuraton by those who took il, of that political
| doctrine, which thcnceforth was to be regarded
| as political hcrcsy? So and wo do not sec
how il can Inc otherwise understood then tho
question Of consistency is not to be tested by n
reference TO former polticnl opinions, which
| were thus renounced, but to the meaning and
| the obligations Of that oath, which was vollIn-
tarily taken, or required to he taken,
by 30 many Of tho people of this State.
Tho true tho real question Of consist cncy, is
! thus involved, not in question OF mere poliii-
| cnl orthodoxy, but in a matter Of tho highest
moral obligation.
If it is snid, that Whatever may he The force
of the view now presented. so far rs it affects
hose who have taken TINT oath; tho same force
does not attach to it in rcgnrd 10 those who
have not tnken tho oath; we answer, Tint if
there is any difference, il can relatc only to n
certain clnss of persons. We mcnn such rs
expressly md publicly declare, that they do
not acquiescc i'll the results Of the war, nor adj
nit Tint il has changed their sense of their
political obligation, such US in this claim to
maintain position, in opposition 10 that in
which tho people of tho State have ncoui-
csccd; unless il shall be further mnintuincd
thnt tho Government of The Unied States in
tended to tolerate m nvowcd denial Of what
it Ind declared TO be the nnture mud extent
OF the allegiance due 10 il. Ii then We
allow this exception, we nre entitled TO
ask where are the persons who claim to bo
included in lis terms Where nrc they who
paramount to their allegiance 10 the Govern
inert of the United States? Where are they
| who insist TINT they recognize and will defend
the doctrines, under the lead of which the
State passed. its ordinance Of secession in 1850?
Where nn by whom is the open avowal made
of such n position? Where and by whom is
RI" r,sblio declaration of adherence TO such
opinions? We confess to have seen ihem no
where to have heard them proclaimed by no
one. Without, then, that avowal and open
declaration, what is the position Of those who
have not been required to take, or residing
here, have not taken, tho oathY
We can but answer, that they must be con-
sidercd as consenting to and ncquicscing in
that conduct, which by the administration Of
this nnth, the Government of the United States,
has decided, shall express the condition upon
which its forbenrance is accepted by
those whom it clnins by their conduct had
provoked tho exercise Of its power to punish
But it is not only that thus by their acauies-
oencc,' even they who hayo not taken the oath,
arc in morals, us much bound, as arc thcy who
have taken il ; and that the obligation of the
oath is inconsistent with an adherence TO the
political doctrines they entertained and were
the creed of tho people of the State. Wo 20
further and submit That they who do thus pre-
tend TO adhere to their former opinions in rela-
ton to the rights of the Stnte are now plainly
contradicting themselves; because the Stnto,
obedience TO which they profess MS their first
duty, has itself renounced that creel, and no
longer teachos the doctrine that primary allegi-
anec is due to it. Weassert, without the fear of
refutation;. we would almost say without
the fear Of contradiction; that the State, when
it spoke through its Convention in 1865,
reilounocd its claim 10 that allegiance Of those
who were within its limits: which il asserted
in Ills ordinance Of secession; and attempted
to enforce in tile war which then followed.
We think that this was 80 intended by the
repeal Of the ordinance OF secession; by tho
nearly unanimous vote upon the resolutions of
Mr. ALDnIcn; and by all the other Acts of the
Convention inconsistent with the itlca, Of It's
maintaining the continued existence of tho
theory formerly held of tho relation of the
state 10 The Government Of tho United States.
That TO oil Of these, in themselves conclusive:
point and finish was given by the language
OF MIR. PERRY, then the Provisional Governor
Of the Sthtc; and by his conduct while in that
position; conduct utterly inconsistent with tho
lea that there was left in the State
the wish, much less the will, to again
assert tho doctrines it had taught and
enforced. And we cannot doubt that
Mr. PEnnY would not now hesitate to de-
clare that tho Convention Of 1866, was by it's
call; and by all of its proceedings, accepted by
him, and the President of The United stntss, as
r' having accomplished any thing more
completely, than tho renunciation in re-
gard to tho nature and extent of the
sovereignty Of the States, which had boon
practically asserted in tho ordinance of seces-
sion. Upon this pointt We would be will
Ing to reduce il to q direct question. And that
question, with oil proper respect, wo would
address to Mr.. PERRY himself. and to. BIr.
Penny wO would direct tho question, whether
tho Convention which ho called together was
not accepted by him as tho Convention which
would and did renounce thdt doctrine of
Government, by which the allegiance of tho
citizen was claimed for tho State, in preference
to tho Government Of tho United States? We
can hhvo no doubt AZ to the answer Mr.. pyRRy
would gyo for wo know what answer lie hos
given alrendy
MIR. Penny, as Provisional Governor, in his
proclamation, dated Goth July, 1866, declaring
his powor 10 call Convention, informs tho
people Of the State, that the object Of that Con.
yention is to alter or amend tho Constitution OF
the State; with authority 10 exercise within the