Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1868-08-27
GRANT AND COLFAX.
Jews and Foreigners.

Having seen that the negro is a man, an
as such susceptible TO the same condition
of life as the white man is, we come nov
to the second point of the reconstructed
policy of Congress:
rs the Republican party cbargeab
with the predicate, the Democratic part,
docs apply, that is, is it one of demoraliza
tion, of despotism, anti-democratic, IRA
tional and anarchical?"
This question again submits to two way
of consideration:
/. The legal character.
2. The historical and rational characters
l have shown in my discussions already
sufficiently, that the legal aspect of the re
construction policy of the Republican par
ty is unexceptionable and therefore i
might not be necessary to run over tn,
ground again, were it not that Vero has Ia
ken especial pains to unmake by sophistry
what have constructed by sound reason
Ing. He says; "you never have assigned
any reason for the reconstruction act thar
revenge"
| give him therefore once more the priv.
ilege of a reply, and in doing so, l shall
meet his assertions in number 90 of the
Democrat, word for word.
Speaking of generosity, you bad the mis-
fortune to make quo tations from ancient
history and especially the policy of Rome
towards conquered people. / replied to
you, and again you bring the matter up as
an open one, being even somewhat person
al, | reply TO you as follows;
Mr. Vero, it is none of nv faults il you
make an irrelative reference to history and
if you arc reminded of such. / have no
doubt that you read history, but it makes
q very material difference, in what light il
IS read or in what manner historical events
are spoken of.
Let me prove this to you:
You once quoted Cicero in one of his
orations admiring the profound wisdom oi
the Roman kings in admitting conquered
enemies TO Roman citizenship.
| said in my reply to this quotation, that
by applying these Historical ia t. to cur
present political condition you tortured
history.
i repeat now my own words: Don't you
know, Mr.. Vero, that these conquered en-
mics were never Roman citizens before
their being conquered; that these conquered
enemies were not traitors before the war OF
annexation; that the Romans were most
hard and cruel towards traitors?
In democrat No. 80 you mean to give
ne a good lecture by saying: "He is like
many others, he-despises historical facts. -
and in proof of this predicaiion, you quote
merely parts of my words just to suit you
You quoted my words as follows: ''dcnt
you know tha, those persons admitted to
Roman citizenship were not Roman. eli
zens?''
Now, Mr.. Vero, don't yon, by this par
tial quotation of my words give different
mcrning 10 my Pre-, iously given reply? Is
this not despising historical facts, consid-
ering printed opinions as such? Your sub
sequent personalities and your inquiries
what these people were before their annex
alton, is irrela,iye aud pass it by. Bar
barians or not, they were made Roman cit
izens, and this is certainly historical fact.
Your omissions and subsequent false in
fcrences were either bare imbccilty or an
intended dishonest construction for your
purposes.
To make the matter undcrstandingly
clear, let me finally say that your reference
to this part of Roman history is irrelative
as regards our present political condition.
Those people W hich the Romans conquered
and afierward made Roman citizens were
before this act in no other political relation
to the Romans than that Of not Romans.
These people stood in the same relation
to the Romans previous TO and after their
acquired citizenship as the people Of New
mexico or California before and after the
Mexican war, resp. the conclusion fpcace
stood to the United States. These latter
people acquired the "indigenot" ofthe L.
s. by conquest on the part of the L. s.
and in accordance to the conditions held
out by the U. s., but before that, they
were Mexicans and not Americans. The
Romanized conquered people like tie
Americanized people of New Mexico and
California adopted the characters and .he
political and civil efflucnces of such OF the
Romans resp. Americans. And both these
latter did not make any other concessions
in this regard to the annexed people than
the participation in their own privileges.
Therein just exactly consists the policy
of the Republican party, the supremacy of
equality over cast, the supremacy of har-
monious integrity over elements Of disturb
ance.
How can you apply this historical fact
to the Southern people?
Is it not inconsistent when you deny
that the Soutberners were a conquered
outside people, and still bring them into
parallel with people who were such, and
that upon the strength of such fac.s you
impeach the Republican party?
The rest of Mr.. Veros article is of legal
character concerning the constitutional y
Of Congressional reconstruction especially
as to its premises. .
Mr.. Vero, there is rhetorical figure un-
der the name OF '.pars pro toto" (the part
for the whole and lift is evident that the
above augmentation of yours as part of
your article is false, I shall not be out o.
the way when claim the application of
this rhetorical figure to your entire article
because 1 am going to demonstrate It.
All your writings underlics one tendency
that Of perverted and forced construction
which if consciously intended, excludes