New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-08-01
FOPCEn and "FRRfDOM."

L
| " because it has so clearly defined the issue
"betwecn the two political parties of this
country That issue, he says, is " central
CITATION against freedom and self -govemment.
"The Republicans insist upon a government
9" of force the Democrats upon government
"of freedom" He has always said, and now
repeats with deliberaton and emphasis, " that
"the mission of the Republican party was to
" destroy the Government and they have been
" forced now TO occupy that position" And
he goes on in the same strain, thus " 1t Is
the duty of the Democratic party to save
"the Government; it is the party of The Con-
"sttution, the party of Freedom, and we
"must make the fight like men. II is the
eight of 177G over again. Are the people
capable Of self-govenmentl That is the
tissue. We hold that they are. The Repub-
" Can party says that they are not, and that
we must have government OF force"
| There are so many perversions OF facts,
so many Misrepresentation and abSur-
dities, and such utter disregard of his
toric truth in all tins, that comment upon
il Is almost surpeIiluOus. At first blush
1t seems as though the man had lost his head
entirely and was mumbing iucOherencies.
The reader who is in the least degree familiar
with the history OF the Republican party for
the twenty years in which Mr.. Hill says 1t
has been engaged in a mission to destroy the
Government and of the Democratic party,
which Mr. Hui calls the party of the Con-
" sutution" and E" the party of Freedom"
will he tempted to cast it aside with a
"Pshaw the mans crazyw No intelligent
Democrat at the North can read it without
settling 20 the conviction at once that here is
a leading Statesman who is unquestionabiy
either knayc or fool. For there is not page
or a paragraph of the history Of the past
twenty years that does not most abundantiy
ana lorcibly give the lie to ms description of
the mission of one party and the character
of the other.
But Mr.. Hill and his utterances should not
be dismissed so lightly. He is a Senator,
and a leader Of his party. He was one Of the
first of the rebel leaders to accept the results
" of the war; as they called it, and come back
cheerfully to Office, under a restored Union.
We OF the North, who did not at that time
fully understand the meaning of this phrase,
welcomed Mr.IIill with good deal of gush. We
learned later that what was meant by accept
8" ing the results Of the war" was simply that
those who did it had made up their minds
not to light the United States "On their own
hook after the Confederate armies had sur
rendered. That was very good OF them, to be
sure. bnt we had understood them to mean
that they accepted the result of National SUI
premacy and State suboTdlnatiOn. That was
our mistake And Mr.. Hill, more perhaps
than any other reconstructed" statesman,
has been at the pains to show it to Us
repeatedly, in and ont OF Congress. He
has made the meaning Of several terms,
such Us reconstruction" reconciliation"
the Old UnIon," ETC., which have been
current in politics since the war, very
plain. What MIR. Hill and his friends
accepted" was the easily comprehended
fact that they could not, for patent reasons
any longer assert in the field, by the act Of
war, their rights, as States, TO break up the
Union, and as individuals, to hold men in
slavery. What they understand by "TecOn-
" structiOn" is the return Of the Southern
Democrats TO Congress to assert there the
"rightsn they failed TO vndicate in the field;
reconciliation A" they understand to mean the
reunion of Southern and Northern Democrats;
and 10y 4" the Old Union" they mean the
Union controlled by the Democratic party.
They have accepted the results of the war in
the same sense in which a burglar defeated in
violently breaking into a house accepts that re-
suit and sets about the accomplishment Of his
object by eifecting quiet entrance with the
aid of confederates on the inside. And when
he talks about the Republican idea being that
ola government by force, and the Demo
ocratic that of government of freedom,
strange as it sounds in the light of recent
history, he frankly states the issue as he con-
ceiyes it, From his point of view, it is
Deither silly nor absurd.
1t is measurably true, too, from the Republic
can point OF view. Republicans do believe
in Government by force Tor they believe
in a Government by law, and necessarily Of pen
alties; and so, of force. There is no govern
ment without it. But the force they believe in
is that which cOmpels obedience 10 just and
wholesome laws. and puts no restraints upon
personal liberty. until that liberty degenerates
into license, and itself endangers freedom.
Mr. Hills doctrine, and the Democratic doe
trine, of State Rights, is part Of the system
which he calls government OF freedom"
He is quite right in saying that the Republic
cans believe in a government of force III con-
tradistinction thereto. They believed in it in
1861, and acted upon it. Thus far they be-
heve in centrallzatiOn," as he calls il; in a
centripetal force sufficient to hold this Union to-
gether. in opposition to the eentrifugalism OF