The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1868-04-08
Gen. Hancock to Governor Pease,
nHEApqRs, Firm MILITARY Drsrus1cr,2
New Orleans, La, March 9, 1868. Z

FHEAD'QRs, FIFTH MILITARY DISTRICT, D
. New Orleans, La, March'9, 1868.
To His excellency. EN-. Pease, Governo,
OF Texas: r~7-r-,r-~5 1--,-r-,
,Sr-Your communication Of the 17tt
January last was received in due course Of
mail, {the 9th Jauuary, hut aot until i,
had been widely circulated by the news
paper press. To such o letter-writter
and published for manifest purposes. i,
has been my intention to reply as soon as
leisure from more Important business would
permit. -
| Your statement that the act of Congress
Ito provide for the more efficient govern.
ment of the rebel States" declares that
whatever government existed in Texas
was -.proxisional; that peace and .-erde,
should be enforced; that Texas should be
part of the fifth military district, and sub
ject to military power; that the president
should appoint an officer to- command in
said district, and detail force to protect
the rights Of person and property, suppress
insurrection and violence, and punish of
tenders, either by military commission, Of
through the action of local civil tribunals
as in his Judgment might seem BEST, will
not be disputed. One need only read the
act to perceive iS'eoht8inS such pf0p isions
But how all this is supposed to have made
it my duty to order the, military commits
sion requested, you have entirely failed to
show. The power to dc, q thingi shown,
and the propriety of doing It, are often
very different matters. YOn, observe you
are at q loos to understand how govern,
ment without representation in Congress-
or militia force, and subject to military
power, can be said to be in the full exer.
else of all it's proper powers. You do not
reflect that this government, created or
permitted by Congress, has all the powers
which the Eact intends, and may fully ex.
ercise them accordingly. If you think it
ought to have, more powers, should be al,
lowed to send members to Congress, WELD
a militia force and possess yet other pow.
ers, your complaint is not to be preferred
against me, but against Congress, who
1sr j ~ issue tb between AAa by
question as to what, Congress ought, to
hapedone has no pertihence. You admit
thea of Congress Iauthorizes me to; try
an offender by military commission, or al
low the local civil tribunals to try, as
shall deem best; and you cannot deny the
act expressly recognizes such local civil
tribunals as legal authorities for the pur
pose specified. When you contend there
are no legal local tribunals for any purpose
in Texas, yon must either deny the plain
reading of the act of Congress, or the pow
or Of GOp tO no tho arf
? You next remark that you dissent from
my declaration, "that the country (rexas.
is in state of profound peace" and pro
coed to state the grounds of your dissent
They appear TO me not a little extraordI
nary. quote your words: att is true
there no longer exists here (Texas) any or
ganized resistance to the authority Of, the
United States" fBut large majority Of
the white population who participated in
the late rebellion are embittered against
the government, and yield to it an unwill
ing obedience.p Nevertheless, you concede
they do yield it obedience You proceed
"None Of this class have any affection fol
the government, and very few any rcspec,
for it. They regard the legislation of Con
gress on the subject Of reconstruction as
Unconstitutional and hostile to their inter
ests, and consider the government now ex
listing here under authority of the United
States as All usurpation on their rights
They look on the emancipation Of theil
late slaves and the Acknowledgement Of a
portion of their own class as an act of in
suit and oppression" ag9,i 9,Ef
Aud this is all you have to present fol
proof that war and not peace prevails il
Texas, and hence it becomes my duty-s(
You suppose-tO set aside the local civi
tribunals and enforce the penal code
against citizens by means of military com
missions itia ItatiS&k.3,jA 50 @tff Z
My dear sir, / am not q lawyer, nor ha.
it been my business, as itmay have beer
yours, to study the philosophy of statecraf'
and politics. But I may lay claim, after
an experience of more than half a lifetime
to some poor knowledge of men, and some
appreciation Of what is necessary to socia
order and happiness And for the futur,
of our common country. could devoutlJ
wish that no great number of our people
have yet fallen in with the views you ap
pear to entertain. Woe be to us whenever
it shall come to pass that the power of tl,t
lnagistrate-civil or military-isp permitted
! to deal with the mere opinions or feelings
of the people. Fh11f1 Sr.il =
| ] have been accustomed to believe thai
sentiments of respect or disrespect, an(
feelings of affection, love or hatred, so .lens
as not developed into acts In violation o.
law, were matters wholly beyond the pu
nitOry power of human tribunals. ;ez4F}
Twill maintain that the entire freedom
of thought and speech, however acrimoni
ously indulged, is consistent with the no
blest aspirations Of. man, and the happiesl
condition of his race. - * y X y - ''''"
When a boy. remember to have read q
speech of Lord Chatham, delivered in Par
lament. 1t was during our revolutionary
wal, and related to the policy ofemployine
the savages on the side of Britain. Yot
may be more familiar with thespeech thar
| am. If I am not greatly. mistaken hi
lordship denounced the British government
his government tin terms Of unmeasur
ed bitterness He characterized its policy
as revolving to every sentiment of humani
ty and religion; proclaimed it covered
with disgrace, and vented his eternal ab
horrence of it and it's measures. 1t may,
think, be safely asserted that q majority O.
tho British nation concnrred i'll the views
of Lord Chatham. But whoever supposed
that profound peace was not existing in
that kingdom, Or that government hat
any authority to question the absolute
right Of the opposition to express theil
objections to the propriety Of the kings
measures in any words or to any extent
they pleased? It would be difficult tt
show that the opponents ofgovernment il
the days of the elder, Adams, or Jefferson
or Jackson, exhibited for it either "affec
ton or e respect !" You are conversanl
with the history Of our past parties ant
political struggles touching legislation OF
alienage, sedition, the embargo. nationa
banks, our wars with England and Mexi
CO, and cannot be ignorant of the fact, thai
for one party to assert that law or. system
of legislation is unconstitutional, oppres
sive and usurpative, is not new thing il
the United States That the people o.
Texas consider acts of Congress unconsti
tutional, oppressive or insulting to them
is of no consequence to the matter in hand
The president Of the United States la'
announced bis opinion that these acts o
Congress are unconstitutional The Su
al - V1,N