The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-02-21

vice EreSlQeQb. NC dIucuu
did not prevail, and Mr.. Hendricks
subsequently, in 1866, In explaining
his vote against striking the name OF
Louisiana from the preamble, said:
g voted against striking 1t out, for
did not think the government estao-
lished there by General Banks at the
point of the bayonet, was such Gov
eminent as we ought then to recog-
nize"
What has occurred since, [ ask, to
make it more worthy OF recognltIonE
1t still has the same constitution
formed at the point Of the bayonet,
and one which does not repudiate the
debt created in aid of rebellion. IF
the people of Louisiana we're not In a
condition to participate in Presl-
dental election IN November, 1864,
by what process of reasoning can it be
shown that they were In condition
to frame or amend a constitution IN
April, 1864l
At the election for Governor, held
under this organization, In 1864, only
1925 votes were cast, in the entire
State, and yet this Constitution and
Government is said to rest on the
broad basis of the sovereign will of
the people of Louisiana. A glance
at the facts is sufficient to negative
any such pretense.
The State organization in Arkan-
sas, stands on no better or broader
popular foundation.
The other class of revOlted States,
still unrepreseuted in Congress, con-
sists of those for which Mr. johnson
appointed Provisional Governors,
viz: North Carolina, Mississippi,
Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina,
Florida, and Texas
How stands the fact as to the peo-
pie of these States electing delegates
to these conventions which framed
the constitutions under which recOg-
milton is demanded?
/ answer that In no one of these
seven States did the great body of the
people participate In the elections by
which these conventions were called.
Not more than one third of the white
men In each of these States who would
have been entitled to vote, had they
never been guilty OF rebellion, took
part IN these elections; and the great
majority of those who did vote, were
covered all over with treason, while
the loyal black men we're allowed no
voice in the choice of delegates.
Can aCOnyentiOn which rests on so
narrow popular basis as this, be said
to represent the sovereign will of the
people of.either of these States? But
waving this, if you please, did all
these repudiate the debts contracted
in aid If the rebellion? Did each one
of them, as is so confidently asserted,
expressly abandon the right of seces-
sion in the most solemn manner, and
repudiate and declare invalid their
several ordinances of secession?
| assert that thereeOrd shows that
the South Carolina Convention never
did repudiate her rebel debt and that
neither South Carolina nor Georgia
ever did expressly or implicitly in a
solemn or unsOlemn manner, abandon
the right of secession, or repudiate or
declare invalid their respective ordi-
nances of secession. On the contrary,
the record shows that both of these
Stases simply repealed their res pective
ordinances of secession, just as your
Legislature might repeal an act at one
session and revive the same act at any
subsequent session.
Each of these conventions did in
sert a clause In the several constitu-
tions adopted prohibiting slavery, but
it was done under Presidential eOer-
cion as is manifest from the fact that
their subsequent legislation disregard
ed all such inhIbitions.
Now then, In the next place, were
these constitutions submitted, APP
proved and ratified according to forms
always respected, as is alleged in the
complaint Of the Democratic party?
[ affirm, and the record of these
conventions proves the fact so to be,
that not one of these constitutions,
Except Texas,) was ever submitted
to vote of any portion of the people
for which it was framed; nor was any
attempt made at such submission.
Leaving Texas out of the question,
(as to which | am not advised the
only fact which does exist that could
give even the color of truth to the al
legation that they were submitted,
voted upon and ratified, Is the cir
cumstance that, In the single State OF
North Carolina, one solitary
clause prohibiting slavery, was
submitted and approved by a
majority Of those who were
permitted to vote, aud who did vote
upon the question. Aud In this same
North Carolina convention. prOpO-
sition was made to refer in like man
ner to a popular vote the ordinance
regulating the debt contracted in aid
of the rebellion, aud it was promptly
voted doWa, because it was known
that the people wnom Mr.. johnson
permitted to vote would not ratify it
Il Il