Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1868-08-27

ABLE SPEECH BY Hon. Ii. CARPENTER
AT the great Republican meeting in
Chicago, on Wednesday night, the Hen
NJ. II. Carpenter, Of Wisconsin, confin.
ed himself exclusively TO the question
of reconstruction, proving the legality
of the action of Congress by an argument
of singulas% clearness and force. We
give his views Oh this very important
subject in full:
The only real issue made by the par
ties; the only doctrinal difference in the
two platforms which arises to anything
like lirst-class importance, is that which
relates to the constitutionality of the
reconstruction policy OF Congress.
This little squable about paying off
our debts-this little question of uni
versal suffrage, and a few other things
very important themselves, are ques-
tions which relate to the administration
of the Government after you have got q
Government to be administered. But
the great question rises above that
which involves peace and war, which
touches the life OF the nation, and
touches our existence as one people un-
der the Constitution OF the United
States; and l propose this evening, be-
cause l have been requested TO do so,
and because | think il important IN it.
self to discuss for IA short time, as well
AS I am able under all The difficulties of
this situation, this question of the con-
stitutionaiity of these reconstruction
laws. l can not make such an argu-
ment funny nor amusing, but / will try
to state clearly and distinctly the
grounds upon which We defend that leg
islation. TO do this We must inquire in
to the facts of the case. What is the
gress was compelled to apply its recon-
struction policy? But, to save words,
let us take the State of Georgia as Illus
trating the whole principle, for what is
true of one State, is of course true of two
or three out of all. Georgia was one Of
the original thirteen States, and entered
this Union by adopting "a Constitution.
She had State Government organized
in harmony with the Constition of the
United States under State Constitu-
ton, which required all her officers to
swear to support the Constitution of the
United States. That Government con-
tinued in existence, as We all know,
down to 1860 or 1861, when the majority
of her people having determined to
throw off their allegiance to the Gov
ernment of the United States, and levy
war, if need be, to make that declaration
good, and to make Georgia an indepen
dent nation-organized new State Gov
eminent in Georgia, and that Govern
ment went into practical operation, and
was supported d by the people during the
entire continuance of the war. Now, if
those leaders, after they had determin-
ed to levy this war, had called a conven-
ton and framed new State Govern
ment, with new officers, and levied war
upon the old State Government of
Georgia, and supplanted it, and then en-
tered into the Southern Confederacy
and levied war upon the United States,
there would be no difference of opinion
in this assertion that the Government
which had come to exist by proceeding
i'm Georgia was no Government in the
Union of the United States. And yet,
in legal constitutional sense, the peo-
pie of Georgia did precisely what was
equivalent to this. They called a Con-
stitutional Convention, and they took
the old constitutional State Government
changed it in every essentional particu-
lar which was essential to its existence
as a State Government; instead Of re-
curing its officers to swear to support
the Constitution Of the United States,
they required them to each swear to
overthrow that Constitution. They sew