National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-11-30
THE DEMOCRACY AND THE
SOUTH

LIE DbMOChAC AMI The
SOUTH.
Under this caption the Richmond En-
quirer of a recent date prints an article in
which the writer takes great pains to COM
mend the New York Times for cts bold
----- ---''--'y ''--s-eIIIICIIT of Tho a.
"ment for the miserable, vindictiVe and
"imbecile course-which no one thinks of
Identifying by the name OF policY-it has
pursued towards the South since the
''close of the war. and applauds that
paper TO 'the echo for the sound and ring
ling Democratic declaration that there
"must he an end of all Federal inter
"ference in the South, because that is the
''true doctrine and right road to complete
"restoration" With such text as this to
preach from, il seems natural that the En-
Quirer should make out a good case in be-
half of the prospective management-dimly
prospective OfSOuthern affairs by the Dem
ocratic party. But we admonish the EIqui-
rtr that it takes its text from an apochryphal
source; that the New York Times under
its present management is not recognized
as good authority on any subject except
the inspirations Of hunnaturaliZed Heng-
lishmen, and that when it makes the de-
duction from the ignorant admissions of
the Times that the Northern people have
learned to regard the reconstruction pol
icy of the Government as a failure, it COM
mits an objectionable blunder.
1t is true that Congress was not pos
sessed of the wisdom of experience when
it passed the laws now so generally known
as the reconstruction acts, and that under
the peculiar circumstances of the political
situation, the Executive and Legislative
branches of the Government being at log
gerheads, the temptation was great to i'm
pose rigorous provisions upon the Southern
people in those laws. Never before in the
history of our own or any other Govern
ment had such a civil war occurred as the
one we had conquered, and never before
were public leaders confronted with the
complicated problem of rehabilitating re-
bellious communities, whose rights of
every character had been forfeited; but
whose claims upon the magnanimity of
generous conquerors demanded recognition.
The rebellious States had denatiOnaized
themselves, and had given to those Of their
enemies who were inclined TO be vindictiYe
an opportunity to retain them for a gener-
alton or forever in the condition OF colo,
NAL or territorial dependencies. But the
Republican majority in Congress felt il
to be its duty to reconstruct those
States with all their former geo
graphical limits and political rights
and privileges intact. In the performance
of this duty that majority was antagOnizet
by the Democratic party, not because tha
party sought to destroy the rights of thC
States or of individual citizens thereof bu
because it was a part of the Republican
policy that the former slaves of the re
beIlious section should be enfranchised an(
that the voting population Of the entirt
country should be increased proportionate
Nv with the number of colored males o
proper ages in all the States of the Union
Both parties agreed on the question o
restoration and reconstruction in every
IGSdIu save tule sLilSlO POAHtt Du' tAN ~iiiS
Gratis in their anxiety TO defeat negro o
or equal suffrage found it expedient Il
oppose other features of the policy
of the Republicans, and the -resul
is that the tradition, i'll fact, tn
only living aspiration of their parry to-da.
is opposition TO the reconstruction acts AM
The war amendments to the Constitution a
the natural sequences Of which those act
became laws
We. are forced to the deduction from
these facts, then, that if the Demo
cratic party should regain cOntro
Of the National Government its polio,
as regards the Southern State
would be consistently in accord with it
past record, and that all that has been don
by the Republican party, save the mere re
admission Of those States into the Union
would be undone as soon as circumstance