The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-09-25
TOO REMOTE.

The vote in the State Senate for the engross-
ment of the joint resolution to amend article
SO of the Constitution so that there should be
observation-disclosures except for crime, and the
remarks OF Lynch and Pinchback in its favor,
show that some of the Radicals in this State
are disposed to hang out flag of truce. 1t
is, indeed, curious to note how many of those
who took advantage of the political proscrip-
ton, the fraud and force practiced under the
reconstruction laws to make themselves Office
holders and Legislators, and who framed or
voted for Constitution designed to carry out
the proscriptive spirit of the reconstruction
laws, now profess to condemn the policy of
DISTINGUISHING for political causes. What
credlt can these men expect to have for sim
cerity in this profession, after having SO eagerly
seized the opportunity to aggrandise them
selves and lord it over an unconsenting people,
by means of this very species of disfranchise-
ment? What sort of reformers are they likely
to prove who have been foremost in intro
ducing, and in profting by, the vice which
it is proposed to reform?
tits hardly probable that the proposition to
abolish the DISTINGUISHING article of the Con-
stitution will obtain in the Senate or the
House the two-thirds vote necessary to its
passage. And even should it be adopted by
the two houses, what would it be worth for
practical purposes? Two years would have
tn elapse before it could be incorporated into
the Constitution. In the meantime what
might not happen to aggravate the bitter
case of our people in the prolongation of the
present Ignorant rapacious, profigate, malig-
nant and treacherous rule of carpet-baggers
and scalawags and their colored confederates
in the conspiracy and usurpation which they
impudently dignity with the name of civil
government?
One of the Radical senators declared the
Acknowledgement, of which he advocated the
repeal, to be incompatible with republican
government. There is nothing new about
this except the source of its utterance. OF
course it is tue, and being true, it follows
that this very senator and all his political as
sociates have been and are still engaged in
imposing upon our people government which
is not republican, but which is fraught with
both in origin and organism.
Now if this is bad thing which ought to
be eliminated, why did those Radicals who
profess to so regard it do their best to estab-
lish it? If wrong at this time it was wrong
in the beginning. Why did they not vote
against the Constitution, if they believed it to
be unrepublican? And why, moreover,
should they propose to defer the amendment
Of the Constitution and Inauguration of re-
publican government for two years? If
really DESTROYS to do away with the wrongful
and despotic system now existing, their course
is plain, and honesty cannot mistake it. All
that they have to do is to unite with the Dem
struction, and above all the pretended civil
governments in the so-called reconstructed
States, as unconstitutional revolutionary and
void. Having come to this view, they should
lose no time in frankly representing to Con-
gress that the so-called civil government to
which they are attached is not republican in
. sh~r~etor, aud consequently IS not emitted To-
federal recognition and protection. Public
opinion would do the rest. The hideous
regime of carpet .baggery and scalawaggery
would tumble down as unceremoniously as if
it were struck with an earthquake.
The apparent repentance of the Radicals
referred to must be judged by its fruits
After what they have done, in view of what
they are doing, no flag of truce which they
may exhibit can be safely trusted, unless it be
one that clearly signifies surrender.