Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-07-21

they themselves Inhabited under State
Governments into an Independent Fed
eral Republic; and thus demonstrated,
If anything, their sincere attachment to
republican principles.
Does any one suppose that il in 1862
or 1863 these people had elected a scion
Of some royal house Of Europe and made
him king Of the territory then in their
possession, that the war would have
ended in their defeat2 And what him
dered them from pursuing such course2
Nothing but their attachment to repub-
lican principles. Defeat is bitter, ten
fold bitter to q proud people. But de-
feat, though bitter, was more acceptable
to them with republican principles pre-
served than victory with republican prin.
ciples destroyed. II you and i have
fought in vindication Of republican prin.
ciples, so have they, and more, they suf-
fered defeat rather than renounce them.
Who is there that can step before his God
and say that he honestly and sincerely
believes that these people are hostile TO
the principles upon which the Republic
is founded 2 And if they cannot do this
in sober calmness, upon what princi Piles
of policy or justice can you take from
them the elective franchise and claim
that you are good citizen Of the Re-
public yourself?
No, my friends. the principles and
form OF government are one thing
the extent of its territorial dominion is
another. A republic with territory Of
one thousand square miles is no less a
republic than one with territory OF ten
thousand square miles, and difference
of opinion about the size of the territo-
rial dominion is not to be confounded
with difference of opinion about the
principles and form Of a government.
Was Henry Clay, with nearly all the
New England States at his back, trail
tor, because opposed to the annexation
of Texas2 Or was Henry Clay, with all
these States at his back, a patriot,
although opposed to the annexation OF
Texas to the Union, and the men traitors
! who sought to separate Texas from the
Union These patriots because opposed
to Texas being in the Union, and those
traitors because in favor of Texas being
out Of the Union7 We're all these
patriots who were opposed to the extern
sion of territory beyond the limits of the
original thirteen States, and all those
traitors who sought to separate the ter
ritory of the United States into three
independent republics, each of which
would have been much larger in territo-
rial extent and population than the
original thirteen States2
l am no apologist for secession, which
| opposed, fought and abominated. But
may the good God of Heaven also pre-
serve me from being partisan bigot, to
be led by babbling idiots, or knave to
be guided by designing demagogues.
May the folly of the one never hide from
me the facts of history, nor the villainy
of the other induce me to attribute
crimes to my adversaries in order to
satiate malignant lust for revenge at
the expense of the liberties of my coun-
try.
Secession is one thing; rebellion an
other. The Government, its principles,
form and administration is one thing;
the extent of its territorial dominion is
another. The attempt to change that
government in its principles, form and
administration, in a manner net author
lied by law, and with force of arms, is
rebellion, and evinces, on the part of
those engaged, dissatisfaction with the
principles, form and administration OF
that government. The attempt to with
draw from the Federal Union, by erect
ing part of its territory into an inde-
pendent federal republic, is secession,
he Of
gagged, not an hostility TO republican
principles, for these they re establish,
but dissatisfaction with the particular
principles of the confederation which
they attempt to dissolve. Where then is
the evidence that this intelligence has
become vitiated by corrupt doctrine, it's
affection alienated FRI m the principles
upon which the republic is founded ?
But we are not left to our own unaided
reason to guide US in this conclusion.
The same authority which guided us in
our estimate as to the capacity of the
negro for self government, the same two
thirds majority of the Congress of the
United States Of America, likewise comes
to our assistance in estimating the offense
committed by the disfranchised intelli-
gence of the Republic, aud the condi-
tions upon which it may again be in
trusted with public affairs. And before
that enlightened body the question is not
"Was Joseph T. Brown a leader in the
movement of secession, from its inaugu-
ration to the end; and If so, in how far
did that movement prove him dlsaffected
towards republican principles, and thus
unworthy OF the elective franchise 2 but
the question is, in how far does he believe
that ignorance is better guarantee for
the safety Of republican institutions
than intelligence The question is not
how many drops of loyal blood are trick
ling from the fingers of Joseph Il.
Brown, of Georgia, or from the fingers
OF any other man into whose hand the
ballot is thrust by Charles ID. Drake, of
Missouri; but the question is with what
eagerness will "this monster, trickling
with loyal blood, grasp the hand of the
free aud independent American negro
and lead him to the support of the Radi-
cal party. Not secession, not rebellion
even, is the sin against the Republic
which this day excludes one vote from
the ballot-box in the Republic of Amer
lea; but the faith of Washington, of
Jefferson, of Adams, Of Franklin, that
intelligence and virtue, and these alone,
are the corner stone of our institutions
This is the objectionable sin; this is
the sin against the Holy Ghost of Radi-
calism; this is the sin that cannot be
forgiven.
Do you say there was one man in the
Iand ,vho want into the war with his ewes
open; not the innocent victim Of design
ing demagogues, aud, therefore, ought to
be disfranchised That man is Joseph
Z. Brown, OF Georgia, and he is enfran-
chised by the Congress Of the United
States. Do you say that there is one
man in the land who possessed influence