Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-02-19

From the Lnu'sviile Courler.I
This is a period of very curious ideas
al least among the people Of the northern
states. They have curiou US ideas of the
powers OF congress, Of the president. OF
the supreme court Of the proper plan for
the restoration OF the southern states. and
Of the manner in which they, having the
power to do what they please, should
treat the people of the excluded states.
They not only seem 60 think that thew
have the physical force to compel obedi-
eRce to their wishes, but that they have
the constitutional power, also, to impose
any conditions which to them may
seem right n proper, or which will
crafty their peculiar whims. Indeed
they go SO far In some instances as To set
up a standard OF expression, to the use
Of which the southern people should be
restricted, If they desire 10 furnish evil
dence of their loyalty. They would
establish q censorship not only over tb1
press, but over speech.
We have before us the Nav York
Times Of the 9th inst, IN which we And
an article headed, Was the Confed-
eracy q Rebellion ~ in which the Rich
mood inquirer is taken to ask for OBJ
Jectlng to the use of the words "%insur-
recuon aud " rebellion in eonnec-
ton with the late war, on the ground
that the struggle Of the southern people
Tor Independent political existence
was neither the one nor the other.
In its arraignment of the En-
qUfrer, tie Times gravely remarks
that If any justification were needed
for the adoption of stringent measures
against the south, it would be found in
the prevalence Of just such q spirit as is
found in these words" Now a sensible
man looking at this subject without pref
udice, and without regard TO e~xtraneous
Influences, would find It difficult to
repress q smile at so absurd a PROPOSE
ton. It is not because the southern
people are plotting treason against the
government, not that they are sus-
pected of any design TO resist its
authority, not that they are considered
dangerous, or that they have the ability
to accomplish anything by force, but
simply because they express the opinion
that their recent struggle was not am in
surrectiOn or rebellion that "~stringent
measures against her are Justified. In
a government protesting to be republi-
can a citizen is not 10 be allowed to
express an opinion upon events
which are past, or even to select
his own words TO describe those
events, lest he should render himself
obnoxious 10 the powers that be,U and
bring himself within the range Of q strin-
gent measures" Could the rr0ganc
and insolence Of conscious power be pro-
Jected to a nor astounding altitude than
this? AnG these sentiments originate in
the columns Of a paper, the editor of
which declared in the address Of the
Philadelphia convention, only a few
months since, that IL the people of the
southern states were abject and degraded
enough to accept the terms which con-
gress offered to them as the condition of
restoration, they would be unworthy to
associate with freemen! Truly, the
march Of ~JacObinism is both onward and
rapid.
The Times insists that 4" the great
question of the war was whether the
C~Onfederacy was a rebellion or not, and
the verdict of arms, to which tribunal
the appeal was taken, was emphatically
that 1t was a rebellion and nothing else
Right here the Times UnintentionalIv
opens the door for an argument. If the
attempt Of the southern people was a
mere rebellion, which Webster defines
10 be open resistance to lawful author
ityI' II follows, IS a natural and logical
consequence, that it did not change the
status of the states engaged in the rebel
non as political communities, or change
the relations existing before the war be-
tween them and the federal government.
Consequently, the rebellion having been
suppressed, and the authority of the
government having been again
extended over the rebellious states.
they must necessarily occupy now the
precise positions they occupied before the
war, and the whole JacObin programme
is a fraud and a swindle, in violation of
law and in derOgatiOn Of the constitution.
No one would pretend that "A riot would
change the character of the government
OF a city or change the relations previ-
ousiy existing between the city and its
citizens. Neither does an unsuccessful
Instruction change the relations of the
states TO the federal government, or of
the federal government toward the states.
The insurrection suppressed and the |,
authority of the government agaiB re-
c0gnized, all parties stand as before the
outbreak.
In this view, the idea that the former
states are not states now is absurd. and
the argument cannot be made ~respecta-
bic. II they are states now thew are en-
Titled TO all the rights and privileges en-
JOyed by other states, and the denial TO
them OF those rights and privileges is a
paIpable violation of the constitution.