The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-27
"A MONUMENT OF HATE

4
pointment to any places of profit or trust
In the regular army Of this country any
man who was engaged in the Confederate
service. 1t was passed at that time wh'
all the bitterest prejudices engendere1 oy
the strife of the civil war were still alive III
their most Objectionable and malignant
type, when it was thought indeed by the
vict-rs that their former opponents
| in arms were never to be again en-
trusted with the defense of the government
they had attempted to leave. For
| fifteen ar twenty years that declaration Of
the republican members of congress, not
indee the expression of the men who wore
the uniforms of the Union and dbl its
| fighting, has remained law Of the general
| government, and is one OF the few distinct
lively prejudlced and bitter monuments OF
the hate of the days OF its passage, and
which still stand between the Federal off
ces and the complete restoration Of the
South to political rights. With the proper
| appreciation of the absurdity of the
law and with commendabe over.
lures to wipe out so narrow mined
a provision and one rejecting so UNI
justly upon some of the truest patriots
aud bravest veterans now in the limits OF
the country, the democratic members OF
the national senate few days since at.
tempted to repeat the section referred to.
Northern democratic senators displayed the
| magnanmity of common sense in the mat
ter, and sustained the proposition, but such
| men as HAwLEY and others took advantage
OF the opportunity to again air their views
on the impudence and criminality .of the
South in attempting 'to break up the gov
eminent" The debate, in quiet and
limited way, was the channel for a repeti-
ton of some of the peculiar sentiments and
cherished memories which still, after the
lapse of nearly two decades, keep us from
spirited. SENATOR VOORHEES, struck the
correct notes in the few and impromptu
remarks made by him during the debate.
He said among other things: Now, what
is the difference between appointing a man
to big Office in civil life and appointing
him to an Office in the army? The opposi
ton to the repeal of this section, and in fact
the section itself, proceeds, | suppose, on
the idea that there was peculiar pertldy
n peculiar dishonesty, a peculiar treachery
II peculiar disloyalty to the government in
an army officer wearing the uniform laying
| down his sword and turning his back on the
government which had educated him and
which he had undertaken to defend. There
fore, according to the reasoning Of thi,
section, he should never be employed
in like manner again because of his trcach
cry, because Of his pertidy; but cannot q
man BIO trcacherous in some other place n
well as in the army? Take for instance &
in the judiciary where men betrayed thcii
trust and resigned their positions when tn,
war broke out, and when the war was over
made their peace with the ruling power
and had their positions back again. Is i
less injurious to the government to place
man ~ its representative at a foreign cour
with the honor of this country in his hand
than to place him back in the army? TIL,
senator from Kansas, and so did every othe
senator on that side, voted to confirm
GENERAL LONGsTREEr as minister to an Ina
portant court abroad where he was to hole
the honor of this country, and wher,
ii. he was so perlidious, so treacherous, AM
had been proven so by his resignation q
his old army command, he could hav
stabbed the honor of this government to it
heart. There is no logic in this opposition
at all. lfmcn who were In the army whel
the war broke out and resigned their posi-
tons are fit for one position they are fit TO
another. If they are fit for high position
on the bench fit for foreign appointments
III for cabinet places, they are tit for thes
likewise. VIII IL do to say that you viii
not trust such man in one place, but will
trust him in oil Others? There is an ncon
gruity about this, and the sooner this sec
ton is swept away the sooner We shall hav
no more scenes like these" AS stated b,
the eloquent and big-tearted lndianlan
there is no logic in tins opposition
at ALL" If q man does not enjoy the full
rights Of citizenship, he is simply not
citizen, and his interest in, and attachmen
to country is invariably proportioned /
the extent and number OF the privilege
which he is permitted to enjoy under GOV
crnment regulations. If the men of tn
North really desire to see patriots made i
this Union, about which they talk so much
they must first be generous and give men
country, in fact as well as in name, to frh
for and serve. Until then the rule G
tho hour will be simply hurtiIl and int,
minable chickering's, which only disgust tn
better elements of the country, Will
they keep the worst at strife, In readin
the glowing and sounding periods OF the re
publican senators in the debate referred I,
and in opposition to the repeal of the onie'
tionablc section the question unconsciousl
arises as to what might be the burden
their song in the event OF foreign wal
when by their own suicida policy the
had excluded thousands of gallant me
who made Shiloh, Chickamauga, Gettyi