The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-08-26

AS matter OF logic, perhaps, OOugre5S WOulu
have been spared some trouble, and perhaps
also some inconsistencies, had IL at the outset
laid down definite rule, in accordance with
one or the other of the MercWy'S hypotheses
By no possibility, however, could it have
pleased its present opponents. Had 1t treated
them, avowedly, as conquered and alien enc
mics, banished their leaders, aud made their
whole property liable for the payment OF the
cost of the war, it would not have exceeded
conqueror's rights. Civilized preoedents might
have been adduced for all this aud more. We
cannot imagine what the Mercury would have
said in the presence of that contingency, for 1t
would be known only in aute-war history.
But the class for whom it speaks would doubt
less have cried as Justify as they could against
such oppression. They would have protested
as vehemently against the logic of conquest as
now they protest against the lack OF logic in
reconstruction.
Or had Congress chosen the other course,
and adhered inhexiby to the view that the
Southern people should be treated as "native
Rebels" think you the temper which obtains
expression in the columns OF the Mercury
would be satisfied 2 Suppose, for instance,
the Government rebelled against had resolved
to signalize the danger of Rebellion by hang
ing certain of the leaders, and banshing
others. And suppose Congress- in the exer-
else of right in such cases unchallengable,
had enacted the confscation of Rebels lands
the Union soldiers and the freedmen. Would
the disciples of the Mercury bave been better
satisfied Would they have then admired the
inexorable logic which now they craveH
The truth is that reconstruction derives a
large part of its justification from the fact
that it is the growth of necessity rather than
the working Of a premeditated plan. We
have always believed that prompt and mag
unanimous settlement of the difficulty would
have been best, and that course might have
been adopted but for Mr. Johnson's evident
desire to keep the process of restoration in
his own hands. Congress assumed control
of it and has kept it. At first restoration was
offered on the mild and not ungenerous terms
! of the Fourteenth amendment, which the
South unwisely rejected. What could Con-
| gress then do other than what it has done
! BY refusing the terms Of the amendment the
| South raised an issue which the loyal States
could meet but in one way. Were the people
| lately in rebellion to dictate their own terms,
or were the people who suppressed the Rebel
lion to say what guarantees of future peace
| should be exacted This was the question
suggested by the South, acting under the ma
| lign influence of Mr.. Johnson; and Congress
was constrained to meet it in the most deci-
sive manner. Out of this exigency, thus
created, came the Reconstruction acts. 1t is
not incumbent on us, or on nybody, to claim
for them the merit of perfection. In several
| y,
been better. That they are not better is
circumstance for which the South is indebted
to the Democratic representatives, whose aid
enabled the ultra radicals to carry their points.
With all their faults, however, these acts
have restored seven States to the Union. The
logic of the process is a matter of no moment,
practically. 1t has served its purpose in
seven States, and-may be with changes
suited to the circumstances doubtless
fulfill its purpose in the remaining three.
BY this test reconstruction must be Judged
Unconverted Rebels may assail it, bitterly as
they please. They may denounce its work
ing. They may display their arrogant anger
at the organic alton of a political power which
reduces the old slave owning oligarchy to
com Parative insS Snifoanoe. still, recOnstruo-
tion is doing its work. 1t is bringing back
the Southern people to participation in the
Government on basis which for the first time
renders the Southern institutions Republican
in fact as we'll as in name. We are satisfied
with this result, without caring to balance the
abstract reasoning for and against it. We
should as soon think of calculating the worth
of reconstruction by reference to Babbage's 8
logarithms as of estimating its excellence
according to the logic OF Whateley. These
amusements bsst beft the stagnation OF
Charleston.
sometimes be caught tripping. They may be
students of Whateley, but they do not always
remember his logic. For instance, they con.
tinue to represent the Rebellion as an effort ia
achieve liberation from Union which typiies
bondage, while they profess a desire for re-
storation to the Union as it was, as a mean:
of regaining liberty. They point back tC
their share in the Rebellion as to efforts tC
attain liberty and independence; and will
the next breath call for unconditional resto
ration to the Government which, according
to the logic of the Rebellion, was a gall
ing tyranny. They boast proudly OF Rebe
prowess, and yet in their hatred of Radical
ism, exalt the old Government as 'honoreG
at home and respected abroad, ," which Gov
ernment they attempted to destroy. Para
doXes like these abound in the Rebel speeche
of the present campaign. The iercury in
dulges them occasionally, as when 1t prints
side by side protests against the abject bond
age TO which the despotism of reconstruction
, has reduced the whites, and prophecies o
electoral victory by these same enslaveC
whites over their Republican tyrants. Thes
{ may be pardonable discrepancies. At leas
they prove tnat logic is not Omnipotent, ever
! in South Carolina.
] But why prOloDg controversy about form
and terms which events have stripped of rea
3 significance The practical question is, no
whether reconstruction is logical, but whethe
it is a fact-not whether it is the conssten
. application of a well defined dogma, bu
5 whether it accomplishes the results at whic
its promoters aimed. By this test, and not b
0 anything TO be found in Whateley or Calhoun
, the work of Congress will be judged. 1t ha
1 its vindication in its success.
The Democratic State COnVentiOn-Break
erS Ahead.