The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-02-15
THE WAR STILL OPEN.


pletely resolving the federal government into
the absolute despotism of sectional faction,
it is no wonder that the leaders of this faction
have deprecated all sentiments and all ten
denotes pointing to basis Of true pacifcation,
and have been anxious to perpetuate the fe-
rocity and the license, if not the military
| maneuyres, battles, victories and defeats, in
cident to state of war. This systematic
hostility to peace is at the bottom ofthe whole
out from time to time in specious formulas Of
the situation put forth by radical journals,
and noteworthy specimen of which we find
in a recent number of the Chicago Republi-
can. The formula in this case comprises
seven fundamental propositions, the subjoined
sentences, from some of which, extracted
without reference to their Enumeration, Will
indicate the gist of the whole:
| The defeat of armies in the field does not, of
| itself, make peace.
| Congress occupies toward them the dual
| relation OF the conqueTing power and OF
| the original goveTnment-the only one that
has Tightfully existed over the States since they
| abolished their state governments by revolution.
Congress alone can declare war or make peace.
| Peace having never been made with the South,
4 the Wer rs nOt concluded. OUereQ terms or peace
| ere now undergoing acceptance or rejection.
Reconstruction is a war measure, looking to
peace and the questions arising out Of 1t can no
! more be appealed for settlement to the courts
than could Lees army, during the rebellion, have
appealed TO our judicial tribunals for an iniunc-
tion to restrain General Grant from fling his can
| non against them.
| Here it is assumed that conqueSt 10
rlished. and that peace is unattained; that
| hostilities resulted in the utter destruction
of one Of the belligerent powers, and that,
! nevertheless, the fact of belligerency con-
tinues to exist. Taken together, these are
! impossible assumptions. There can be no
belligerency where there are not at least two
| combatants. 1t is a relation which neces-
sarily ceases when conquest supervenes. Yet
we are told that the conquering power, en-
! bodied in Congress, is still at war with the
conquered enemy, and that of this prolonged
ard unilateral war reconstruction is
"measure looking to peace" This can only
mean, logically construed, that reconstruc-
ton aims at conquest; for conquest is the
only peace which it is possible for war to
establish. But in the radical formula under
examination conquest is assumed as an
! accomplished flct. Consequently, the power
of war for purposes of peace is exhausted,
and there is no ground in the situation, as
| described in this formula, upon which to base
a waIlike policy Of any kind. Thus, accord
ing to propositions deliberately and emphat-
ically laid down as the platform of the radical
reconstructionists the pretense that recon-
| struction is prosecuted as ga war measure,
looking to peace" is indecently illogical, is
an insult to common intelligence, and an
atrocious libel upon a conquered, disarmed
| defect and helpless people
That reconstruction is a war measure, in
the intention of its radical authors, is, how
ever, not to be doubted Its object is to per-
petuate the despotsm Of q faction. Despot-
ism is simply a state Of war in which one of
the parties is too weak for active resistance.
But this is not ALL The theory that holds the
white population of the South to stand to
Congress in the relation of enemies, pre-
sumes them to be under no obligations to
maintain the peace in respect to Congress.
If the faction controlling that body has a
right to make war against them, in the form
of reconstruction, or in such other form as it
may please to adopt they have o right to
make war against that faction by any means
Of which the situation will admit. Recon-
struction being "a war measure" our people,
most assuredly, are not required by the duties
of peace to submit to it. Force is the only
argument with which war measures can be
expected to persuade. The very fact of their
adoption supposes the existence of an oppo-
sition which is morally invincible. Under the
same theory the Constitutions and the gov
ernments created in the South by the minions
of the congressional faction, can be nothing
more or less than a continuation of war by
that faction against the great body of the
Southern people. Therefore, no measures of
forcible resistance on the part Of this people
would be at variance with the radical view of
the situation.
Should the motley assembly in Mechanics
Hall, who have been playing part in carry
ing out the "war measure" of reconstruc-
ton, be tumbled into the Mississippi river
tomorrow by the decent and right thinking
portion of this community, the act would be
merely response to the theory on which the
whole radical policy towards the South is
oootN-3 lOopOlio0 o'BHdl, luuScu, perhaps
startling, but perfectly logical and natural
The rights of war do not exist for one party
alone. The radicals, by assuming state of
war as the ground of their reconstruction
policy, concede the right of our people to
stand out against this policy by force until
compelled TO submit to it by superior force
Hence, it is not possible to separate the idea
of the South reconstructed under radical
policy from the presence of military des-
potism.
Three little bnHs-Charlie. Allie and Iirnnnie