The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-09-02
IMPoTENT ARGUMENT FOR REcoNsrRUc

The New York Times is eminently a fop after |
this description. In its last strut, In tins
character. before the "amorous looking glass
of sympathetic stupidity, it cast a silly sneer
at the rules of Whateley, and raised its dull
foot against the intellectual fame of Calhoun.
1t terminated the scene with this precious
sample of owlish oracularity; 1.-The practical
question is, not whether reconstruction Is log
zeal. bat whether it is fact-rot whether 1t
is the consistent application of well-defned
dogma. but whether it accomplishes the
results at which its promoters aimed By
this test, and not by anything to be found in
whateley or Calhoun, the work of Congress
will be judged. 1t has its vindication in us
success"
1t is almost enough to cause one to take up
the cynical idea that the human race are the
most irrational of all animals, to see men pre-
tending to deal with questions OF statesman
ship-tbe class which is especially typiied in
the columns of the New York Times-and
yet affecting contempt of logical ratiocina-
ton.
What would be thought of the navigator
who should contemptuously refuse to consult
the compass, the horologue, or the heavenly
bodies What would be thought of the civil
engineer who should scott at mathematics?
What would be thought of the merchant who
should deride bookkeeping and boast OF
conducting his business without accounts and
calculations? Yet the idea of craftsmanship
without reference to logic is not whit more
absurd than any one of the above examples
would be.
The Times wants it to be thought that
there may be antagonism between abstract
craftsmanship and the practical, matter-of-
fact craftsmanship of which that journal
would like to be considered a shining expo
nent. But there is none whatever In the
conduct of public affairs craftsmanship Is
nothing more nor less than applied logic, and
any policy that is in open disregard Of logic
can be nothing more nor less than impudent
auackery. What is the Times, then, but an
arrant quack, when it contends that the con-
~, -S;-nfl policy of reconstruction is justiha-
According to this expounder and advocavo
of the policy, it is to be judged by this test,
"whether it accomplishes the results at which
its promoters aimed" And we are told that,
having accomplished these results, Z" it has It's
yindication in its success" This is as much
as to say that any work is good and ought to
be maintained if il has effected the object for
which it was intended, no matter how foolish
or wicked that object may have been. Such
plea would sanctify every accomplished
scheme of criminality or of disastrous folly
which it is possible to conceive.
But will the Times let the world know what
results the promoters of reconstruction really
aimed at !? Without this knowledge it is i'm.
possible to Judge of its success. Since that
profound legal expositor, Sheridan, ceased tc
construe law in opposition to the law Officer
of the government, We have been left greatly
in the dark as to the real intent of the pro
moters of reconstruction. We can only judge
the intent by the visible or acknowledged re,
suits. Ard what do they show? Do they
shour that -Aannetrrlotian Is, -th>-----------
complete State rehabilitation and self-sustain.
ing State autonomy, is an accomplished fact
as the Times wants it to be believed? No
nothing of the sort Congress is plainly TOLD
by all of the so-caled reconstructed govern
ments that they are without any basis of per
manent existence in their respective States
! and that unless protected by the military
power of the federal government they will in
} evitably go down under the sheer pressure o
} public opinion around them.
Viewed in this aspect, these government
} are ridiculous failures and, by contrast th'
{ governments organized under the policy o
, President johnson were remarkably success
full. The latter did not need to be bolsteret
up by federal power. They felt perfect,
able to take care of themselves, and did no
ask the United States for gun or soldier.
These governments were facts, too; fact
of reconstruction such facts as the Time
{ holds to be sacred simply because they ar
| facts. And yet the reconstruction policy nov
, supported by that journal began with tn
} notification of those very facts.
/, Plainly, there is nothing successful an,
nothing ipviolable, under either of the fore
going views, about the present system of re
| construction. Where, then, shall we loo
for evidences of its success and of its claim
! to inviolability? Is it in the degradation G
almost every civil function? Is it in legisla
, ton ignorant and proAigate beyond all pre-
-; cedent? Is it in taxes that threaten to be
come synonymous with confscation and rob
: berry? Is it in public bankruptcy that seem
every day more remidless, public corruption
: that seems every day more incurable, while tn
present order of things continues? Is it in tn
increasing venom and frenzy of incendiary agi
tators, and the increasing peril of the peac
and order of society," If these, and like mise
: rable consequences, are the results at whic
the promoters of this systsm- of reconstruC
| ton aimed then il must be o-81rittssa
I upon the theory OF the New York Times, it
T brilliant and famous success. But to tn
9 proposition that sit has its vindication in il
+; success and such successive beg strongl
: to demur and we feel sure that every INTEL
0 gent mind in the country which has locke
squarely at the facts, provided it has not II
nounced both conscience and logic, will agre
3 with us.
h GIN LEE TO GEN. RosEoRAss.-A New Yor
dispatch of The 18th ult. says:
| Il. eha