New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-08-20
THE LETTERS OF MosBY AND RHErr.

These two gentlemen have written let
tiers explanatory of their reasons for hav.
irg decided to vote for different tickets il
the next presidential election. Both en-
Joy the personal esteem of their fellow
citizens, and each is entitled to a just
construction of his motives. To those
familiar with the history of the separate
Southern States, the difference between
these gentlemen will be obvious. MIR.
Rhett is South Carolinian. He is i'm
bued with the doctrines of the school
which long governed that State. 1t was
always marked by jealousy of the rule
of numbers. 1t regarded the separate
States like the German municipalities, and
feared that their individual influence
would be swamped in the food of numer.
ical suffrage.
The stages Of this doctrine may be
traced in hostility to the protective tariff.
This enunciated the theory of nullifca-
ton by each separate State Of such Fed
eral laws, as were not in the judgment Of
the State unconstitutional.
At period when the positions Of Vir-
ginia and Carolina were far more i'm
portant than they ere to-day, Virginia
did not think the resolutions of 1898 re-
CURED an act of resistance to the Union,
and, we think, sent commissioner to
demonstrate against the action of Caro-
lima. It was known and notorious that
South Carolina had believed for many
years that abundant cause existed for Sc
cession, with an undoubted right to ex-
ercise that remedy. Virginia waited for
an overt act, VIII ich came to her-not in
the election of Lincoln, but in the proc
lamation of invasion. Carolina had long
been armed and ready. The action OF
these two representative States was cor
with their relative doctrines.
Mr.. Rhett maintains the claim of Caro-
lima when he says:
Those who assume for the general gov
eminent at Washington the reserved rights
guaranteed to the States through the CON
and would, by construction, con-
vert the States into mere convenient cir
Dles for minor local legislation, possessed of
no political power, practically strike out
the States.
He avows his hostility to and distrust
IF the majority as strongly as did any of
MS predecessors:
Whether injustice or oppression by one
nan at headquarters in the form OF Caesar
sm. or by ignorant and irresponsible num-
oers scattered in remote sections of q vast
the burden is just as heavy and
IS hard to bear.
Here, then, is the identical argument of
Mr.. Calhoun, with the aristocratic objec-
ion to the political equality of universal
suffrage which was avowed by Brooks,
Butler, Hammond and Keith. But Mr..
Rhett in standing faithfully by this
reed of his fathers, does not abide by
he Southern pledge to accept the con-
truction imposed upon the constitution
" the war, the amnesty and political
apitulation. He seems to expect these
esults may be set aside, and the doctrine
or which Carolina contended reinstated.
With this hope he avows his purpose to
Import the Tilden ticket. How Mr..
shett can expect such restoration at the
lands of this leader we can not imagine.
1e says:
Tilden was free soil Democrat, and at |
'uffslo in 1913 supported Van Buren, and
dams. In 1860 he was a squstter sover |
ignty Democrat and supported Douglas.
[e was q Union man and war Democrat in |
S6l, and afterward sustained Lincoln in |
he adjustment Of slave institutions in the |
outh to break down the ''lOst cause" and |
lake the war against the Southern Con-
ederacy successful.
Is it possible that Van Buren, free
oiler, squatter sovereignty Douglasite, !
Union man and war Democrat, vino sus-
lined Mr.. Lincoln in subjugating South |
arolina, and subjecting her to those mis-
,rtunes which South Carolina challenged |
nd which war has brought, is the man to
,stcre the doctrines Of notification, Sc
.ssion, or the repeal of reconstruction?
IT, Rhett condemns those recreant Caro-
mans who support the Republican
ayes-as Mr.. Rhett perhaps did the Re-
ablican Greeley-for their infdelity to
leir section. The support Of such life
ng political enemy of the South as Mr..
ilden is represented to have been seems
far more fraudulent and forlorn remedy
r Southern troubles.
We can really attribute the letter of Mr..
hett to nothi ng except disposition to
store the doctrine of Carolina by
inging in question anew the issues of
ate rights and popular sovereignty,
aich it is now better, in our opinion,
r the South, should stand forever set
ID.
The letter of Mr.. Mosby, of Virginia,
addressed from the standpoint OF
ople who, believing that their rights
d social safety was endange red, and
cir neighbors threatened by the asser-
m of national sovereignty, placed
in the front of the contest,
fered division and loss of territory,
in of property, loss of life, with bur-
n of public debt. These people seem
have stood to the consequences which
cir act invoked, without complaint.
icy do not seem to have striven to OBJ
n by political management what they
led to secure by open warfare. They
We not apparently suffered from in