The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-09-21
The Great Bugbear.
From the ". Y. World.

From the ". y. World
The chief topic of Republican invective,
since the opening of the canvass, is the i'm
puted intention Of the Democratic party to
disperse the carpet-bag governments by force
after the inauguration OF Seymour and Blair.
The Times, If we understand its reonder to
the World on Friday, admits that this imputa-
tion cannot be sustained unless it is logical
sequence OF the Democrtaij platform. This
puts the controversy on its true ground; and
on that ground we proceed to show that the
imputed intention is baseless ohimera.
The Times, arguing from the platform, rests
its case on the declaration that the reconstruo-
tion acts are surpations-unconstitu
revolutionary, and void, - and on the fact that
this clause was inserted in the platform at the
instance of General Wade Hampton. The fact
that Wade Hampton suggested it signifies
nothing, unless it can be shown that 1t is
doctrine which the Democaatic party had not
previously held Now, it is notorious that
this is subject on which there has never been
any difference of opinion in the Democratic
ranks. From the very inception of the Recon-
struction acts, the Democratic party has, to
amaD, consistently and Indignantly denounced
them as high-hand usurpations and
ilagrant violations of the Constitution.
Every speech made against them in Congress,
by every Democratic member, has proceeded
upon that ground. All of President Johnson's
numerous veto messages, uniformly applauded
by the Democratic party, have held up the
radical measures as revolutionary violations
of the Constitution. This doctrine did not
originate with Wade Hampton; it did not
originate with the South; it has been, from
the first, the spontaneous, settled, universal
belief OF the whole Democratic party. II it
had not appeared in the platform in the words
suggested by Wade Hampton, it would have
been introduced in some other words; for it
has been the constant sentiment of the party
on that subject
The only pertinent inquiry is, whether the
Times inference is well drawn; whether, in
other words, a declaration that the Recon-
struction acts are Unconstitutional, revolu-
tionary, and void," pledges the party to dis
perse the new governments by force. 1t is an
accepted principle of logic that an arg ument
which proves too much proves nothing. Ii
the reasoning of the Times proves that its
editor is pledged to abet the overthrow of the
radical policy by force, he will perhaps recoil
from his own conclusions, and admit that his
formidable inference is ill drawn.
Perhaps II may not have quite escaped his
recollection that there was once a famous
political gathering called the Philadelphia Con-
vention. 1t is possible that he may also recol-
lect (now that he is reminded OF it, that the
Philadelphia Convention Issued an address,
and that the respectable author of that address
was reported in the published proceedings as
pearing Inc nane vi henry J' Raymond. IL Is
true that the Philadelphia Convention was
held before the Reconstruction acts were
passed. But If the more moderate scheme
against which that Convention protested was
unconstitutional and revolutionary, the harsher
Reconstruction acts are more so. The same
arguments which were used against the one
apply with tenfold force against the other.
We propose to show by quotations what
opinion was entertained of the radical policy
by the author of the Philadelphia address.
'It seems to us, said the writer, ''in the ex-
ercise of the oalmest and most candid iudg-
ment we can bring to the subject, that such a
claim, so enforced, involves as fatal an over
throw of the authority of the Constitution and
as complete destruction of the Government