The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1876-01-18
The Amnesty Debate-Mr. Blaine's Second
SDecch.

| Mr.. Blaine has not succeeded in clearing
himself of the charge OF having needlessly
and wantonly stirred up the most disagreeable
and irritating topics connected with the civil
war and reviving bitter memories which a
patriot should wish to leave undisturbed.
| The whole discussion about the treatment OF
| prisoners is ill-timed, purely mischievous,
and nobody can acquit MIR. Blaine OF having
| opened its sluices.
! His defense is as weak in logic as anything
we have ever seen from SO able man. He
| saws he has no wish to punish Jefferson Davis,
| but only resists an attempt to confer on him
an "honor." This is a refinement entirely
| beyond the realm OF common sense The
| "honor" that would be bestowed on Mr..
| Davis by including him in an act of amnesty
would be precisely neither greater nor less
| than the " honor which was conferred on
every male negro in the South by the amend
ments to the Constitution.
Did Mr.. Blaine or any other advocate Of the
amendments ever contend that their purpose
was to confer upon the blacks a high honor
Was it not rather the very pith and substance
of their arguments that they were lifting the
negro race from degradation, and giving them
their mere rights as men: 1t would have
sounded oddly, indeed, if the Republicans
of that day had detained, in the strain
| in which Mr.. Blaine began his speech
Yesterday, about the honor" which
was to be conferred on the ignorant plan tation
negroes by lifting them to political equality
With the "mean whites OF the South. An
act of amnesty would only place Jefferson
Davis in the same political condition as his
fellow citizens, the plantation hands and
negro whitewashers OF the State of Alissis-
sippi MIR. Blaine is hard pressed for argu-
| ments when he is driven to rest bis defense
| on so ridiculous ground.
| If the political disabilities pronounced on
the late rebels are not in the nature of pun
| ishment why were they inf jcted Was not
| the sentence pronounced on Gen. FitZ John
Porter intended to be punishment, and Is be
not enduring that punishment until this day
| Gen. Porter was rendered by his sentence in
capable of holding any office or position OF
trust under the United States; and we know
not what MIR. Blaine's sense of penal suffering
may be if he does not look upon that as a
punishment.
| Would it be comforting an ''honor on
/ Gen. Porter to relieve him from that SEN
tence? Section third of the fourteenth
amendment shows on its face that it has the
force Of penal statute 1t declares that
Congress may, by vote of two-thlrds of
each house remove such disability" This is
the section under which Congress il now de-
batting, and the question does not relate to
comforting an honor, but to the removal OF
a disability"
In all trials of impeachment under the
Constitution it is ordained that the punish
ment shall not extend beyond the same kim
of disqualification under which Jefferson
Davis is now suffering. Would relief from
such a sentence be regarded by any sane man
as an "honor?' When a culprit is pardoned
out of State prison and restored to his civil
rights, does the State Executive confer on
him an honor" Such logic is too futile
and preposterous for man of the pretensions
Of Mr. Blaine-N. Y. Herald, 1ih.