The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-03-21


The action Of the Georgia Legislature on
| the fifteenth amendment is so strange as to
be almost inexplicable without referring it to
the peculiar situation of the State with rels-
ton to the federal government and the Rsdi-
cal majority in Congress. After various leeis-
lative adventures, the amendment was ratified
by the House. In the Senate it was the OBJ
ject of quite as much maneuvering, and of
considerable debate it was postponed subject
to call, taken up, indefinitely postponed,
brought up again and finally defeated by the
casting vote of the speaker. But what is
most remarkable is that the House, by which
the amendment was ratified, is Democratic,
whilst the Senate, by which it was rejected,
is Republican. 1t follows that Democrats
must have voted for ii, in the House, and
Republicans must have voted against it, or
RETAINED from voting in the Senate. And
this is actually the case But what is the
explanation of the phenomenon Why should
Democrats vote for measure which is pecu-
liarly repulsive to Democratic views, and
which, everywhere else, is unanimously OPP
posed by the Democratic party and why
should Republicans vote against measure
which received almost every Republican
vote in Congress and which is supported by
the Republican party throughout the coun-
try2 The solution of this problem is to be
found, as we have said, in the peculiar con-
dition of parties in Congress, and the atti-
tide of the state toward the federal govern
ment and the Radical majority in Congress.
The vote, as analysed, does not express the
views of the members of the Georgia Legisla-
ture with reference to the proposed amend
ment, but merely their views of party ex-
pediency and party necessities within the
State of Georgia The Democrats who voted
for the amendment were influenced by two
motives. Some of them declared that, as ne
gro suffrage had been fastened on the South
by the votes of the North, it was only fair
that the same rule should be applied to all the
States alike that if Congress could establish
rule of suffrage for the Southern States, the
Constitution ought to establish rule of suf-
frage for the Northern States. In other
words, their action was intended by way of
reprisal or retaliation upon the North for
Muht was COnoiuCiO0 iP'sA~A
of power and despotic exercise of authority.
Other Democrats voted for the amendment in
order, as they declared, to avert the threat
ened wrath of Congress, and to deprive the
Radicals of all pretext for revision and
reversal of the work of reconstruction.
They hoped that by ratifying the amend
ment they would circumvent the designs of
the carpet-baggers and their negro allies. and
defeat the attempt to subvert the actual State
government Some of the Radicals, on the
contrary, fancied that the rejection of the
amendment would so incense Congress as to
assure the exclusion of the Georgia delega.
ton, and the immediate passage of an act to
remand the State to territorial and military
government 1t is noticeable that the Demo-
cratic press of Georgia unanimously condemn
the course of the Democrats who voted for
the amendment, whilst it is by no means
likely that even the congressional Radicals
would venture to make its rejection, accom-.
plished by Radical connivance, pretext for
| hostile legislation.