New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-06-13
THE TRuTH.

sentences about Southern Chieftains,
labors hard to prove them only ideal
characters. This is not only hard on
Southern chieftains, who are not all men
in buckram, but it is deviation from the
truth that not even the sophistry of the
Times can sustain. Admit that the times
are changed, and the people are changed
with them, yet this does not prove that
the Times is correct in asserting that
One of the greatest of fallacies, and a
very hurtful one it has proved to the whole
country and people, which is constantly
repeated and pertinaciOusly held at the
North, is that the people of these Southern
States are led and controlled in their polit-
zeal opinions and actions by certain persons
who have figured prominently in her past
history as political chieftains."
The REPUBLICAN has no disposition to
rake up the dead past, but when the
Times refers to it for the purpose of
branding the North with SANDER and
making it appear that the people of the
Southern States have never been under
the control of political chieftains, it
becomes necessary, for the truth of his
tory, to speak of both the past and pres
ent, and this will be done without dispos-
ition to be reproachful to the people of
either section; without intention to in
cite the sectional jealousy of people
that belong to a common country and
have a common interest to subserve.
The REPUBLICAN has only the truth to
maintain in matter of this kind. The
Times says, speaking of the people of the
South:
No people on this continent have ever
been more positive, independent and self
reliant in their political convictions and
conduct than those of this section. 1t was
SO in the past.
The men who constituted themselves
the people of the South before the rebel
lion were certainly positive, independent
and self-reliant in their political convic-
tons. They were the ruling class, and
made political chieftains. But did they
tolerate political convictions that conflict
ed with their own? We will ask the Times
what would have been that mans fate, in
1860, who had the hardihood to proclaim
himself in this city Lincoln man? The
answer may not be given by the Times,
but everybody who lived here then will
answer: ''He would have been hung to a
lamppost." And any man who re-
fused to join in the work could not
have enjoyed the confidence of the men
who then controlled the politics of the
State.
Can the Times name single individual,
no matter how great his learning and
talents, that ever rose to distinction in
this State by advocating principles an
ia yonistic to the interest of the slavehold-
ing class-the ruling class in the South !?
We think not. We know that eminent
ability and service in the free States of
the republic would have marked such per-
sons as fit subjects in the South for rejec-
ton and expulsion, and that if they had
undertaken to advocate principles and po-
licies looking to the extension Of popular
rights they would have been regarded
as public enemies, and either hung or
tarred and feathered and driven from the
State.
Man worship is something that is so
distasteful to the American people that no
portion of them is justly chargeable with
it, the Times to the contrary notwith-
standing. There has been what is called
party discipline, and that has prevailed
in the Democratic party to a greater per-
lection and power than any other party in
this country. This discipline not only
required subordination to chiefs and
leaders, but it demanded the absolute sur
render of popular convictions when they
were not in accord with party dictation in
matters of principle and policy. This
discipline was kept up in the South with
much more rigor than in the free States
before the war, and in that way the South
long held the balance of political power
that did not belong to her. She
made herself a unit on the slavery
question by crushing out all OPP
position in the Southern States, and
forcing the people into a support of
slavery.
The caucus system belongs especially
to the Democratic party, and was enforced
in the South as rigidly as anywhere else.
1t was one of the most efficient means
that could be adopted for securing sue
cess, as after matters had been agreed
upon in caucus few men had the nerve
to oppose them, no matter how objection
able they might be. There is not the
slightest doubt but that secession was
agreed upon in secret caucus Of the
Southern leaders before the presidential
election in 1860, to take place as soon as
possible after the result of that election was
known. The people in the Southern
States, or large majority of them, knew
of this part of the programme. 1t
was arranged by the leaders and carried
out in the interest of slavery. In this
State there is no doubt but the popular
vote was against secession. But this did
not prevent Slidell, Benjamin & Co. from
H. C+o4o o,,4 Of tho TTpio1, And