The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1869-08-04
The Republican Party In Favor OF Gem
erai Amnesty-The Sentinel Answered.

| the VIRGINIA question am no" "'''@N' VIZ
Republican party of this State. The attack
amounts to nothing, and the ahsureilty Of
the charges it makes is so apparent that we
should not notice them but for the fact that
the writer has raised points which we wish to
have discussed, that the people may fully
understand the merits of the question.
The editorial in the Sentinel contains three
charges against the STANDARDS party. These
charges are prefaced by numerous questions,
and upon the supposed inability OF the
STANDARD to answer them the charges are
based A truly pleasant and comfortable
way of doing business. AS the gist of the
article is contained in the charges we will
attend to them first.
The Sentinel says:
l. ave distinctly charge the Republican party
of North Carolina, of which Governor Holden is
the head and the Standard the organ, with being
opposed to general amnesty, and cite as proof,
that neither the leaders of the party, their Con-
ventions, their Legislature or their organ, the
Standard has advocated general amnesty, or the
removal of the political disability of any man IN
the State, except those of their own partyi but
that, on the contrary, the Legislature voted down
every proposition introduced in favor OF Such re-
moval, and the Standard justified the action. u
What proposition in favor of general am
nesty has ever been voted down in the Leg
isature, that the STANDARD has ever had
a chance to justify the actions Can the
Sentinel specify single instance? Most as
suredly not. Its charge is mere assertion,
wholly unsupported by fact. 1t is apparent
that the writer in the Sentinel does not UNI
derstand what general amnesty. means.
No Legislature or convention has
anything to 10 with general amnesty,
and can neither offer nor withhold it.
That right belongs to Congress alone. Hence
it is clearly impossible for the STANDARD to
have ever Justified" any voted against gen
eral amnesty. For the benefit of the Senti
mel, which docs not seem to clearly compre-
hend what it is talking about, we will in
form it what the term general amnesty"
means. Amnesty" according to WEBSTER
is ga general pardon for otfenses committed
in time of war, or the proclamation of such
pardon" Very good. What is the crime
for which amnesty is desireda War? No,
rebellion. What is rebelion2 Treason
against the government. What is the punish
ment for treason2 DEATH, or such other
punishment as the government may elect.
Has any such punishment been inflicted up
on the rebels2 Nothing but the disability
to hold office in the reconstructed States,
and disfranchisement in the unreconstructed
States. This the Sentinel must concede to
be the mildest punishment treason ever re-
ceived. By this it will be seen that amnesty
has already been proclaimed, as all have
been pardoned for acts committed in the
war. No man is now liable to arrest because
of his having taken part in the war. This is
general amnesty, and the most complete ever
extended to any men guilty of treason. But,
although it has pardoned "all offences COM
mitted in time of war;" Congress has not
seen fit to order general removal of politi-
cal disabilities. They were imposed, not on
account of Offences committed in time of
war;" but for treason against the govern
ment in causing war to be levied against it.
Treason is not necessarily accompanied by
war. 1t may be arrested before it has gone
that far. Still it is treason and is punished
rs such. The STANDARD has, from the first,
been in favor of the amnesty granted by the
government. Can the Sentinel deny it2 1t
has never, however, favored the repeal of
the 14th amendment, which imposes politi
al disabilities. And why? Because Con-
gress is willing to remove the disabilities
Of every man who asks it to do so. There
ore there is no need for its repeal. If any
man is unwilling to ask to be relieved from
he disabilities brought upon him by his
OWN traitorous acts, let him remain as he is,
tor he shows himself unfit to be trusted.
We say now, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF
HAVING REMOVED THE DISABLE
TIES OF EVERY MAN WHO ASKS
IT. Docs the Sentinel understand that
Thus then, the first charge of the Sentinel is
shown to be untrue.
2. The second charge is, that the STAN
DARD is in favor of the Leagues. True. We
are in favor of the Leagues for they are COM
posed of loyal men. They are simply polit-
ical clubs, to be admitted to which, but one
oath is required-the oath of loyalty to tha.
government Can the Sentinel see any harm
in them2 If so how can it support the IEm
Klux, which is a Democratic organizati an,
whose ayowed purpose is murder, riot, nat
pine and arson2 Let the people Judge BE-
tween the two.
1. !" We distinctly charge the Standards rmnty
with official corruption and extravaganza, and,
as proof, refer to the Chatham Rail Road sfa,r.
the penitentiary swindle, the log rolling nail
road appropriations, the ruinous sale of Rail-
Road and State bonds, by which it is more than
suspected many State officials and "Ring va men
have been pecuniarily benefited"
The STANDARD, in an article in April last.
took ground against some of the Legislation
which had been done during the session. In
such legislation, however, Democrats we're as
much concerned as Republicans, and in pro-
portion to their number much more so. Hence
it is impossible to lay such affairs upon the
shoulders of the Republican party. AS
party it has not been corrupt or extravaganza.
There is not single instance of the official
corruption which the Sentinel has charged.
If there was, let the writer give proofs