New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-07-07
sorTH C1ROLTy1S CHALLENGE.


SOUTH C1ROLTNIS CHALLENGE.
Our Democratic friends in South Carolina have
sometimes complained that we Republicans OF
| the North will not let bygones be bygones,
but are constantly reviving the issues of the
war But there is no ground for it. If war
issues are kept alive they have only themselves
to blame for it. OF all the issues preceding
and growing out of the war; but one of any
serious moment remains unsettled. 1t Is the
very fag-end of the slavery question. The
things settled by the war were that the slaves
should be free and their freedom cllnched Win
citizenship, with the power to defend IL In the
privilege of the ballot. No matter whether 1t
was wise to bestow unrestricted suffrage upon
men so little fitted to comprehend the respon-
sibilities and discharge the duties of citizens
Wise or unwise, it was thought necessary to
| clothe them with citizenship for their own pro-
| lection, and it is too late now to undo 1t IL
we would. The fact was accepted Ivy the
| Southern people; accepted, as we supposed, In
| good faith All that remains is that good faith
| in the matter be carried out. Whenever IL
shall appear that throughout the former slave
holding States the blacks are fairly and iully
admitted to the privilege OF the ballot,
| that there are no restrictions upon
| them as a class and that their votes are fairly
counted-in short, that they are Ill the free
endowment of the citizenship and equal rights
with which it was intended they should be en-
dowed-then the last issue of the war is closed
beyond possibility of reopening. 1t is for the
| Southern Democrats to see that this Is done
| Until they do, the Republicans of the North
cannot without dishonOr to themselves refrain
| fhn IN q settle
ment.
And when we say that in South Carolina the
blacks are not in the enjoyment of the rights
to which they are entitled under the laws, we
are not making loose statements or indulging
in assertions that will be contradicted by any
one having knowledge of the facts. Indeed,
the only redeeming feature of the situation in
| South Carolina is the calm and audacious can
dor with which the Democrats of that State
proclaim their purpose to defeat the PLAIN In
| tent of the laws which give the blacks the bal
lot. They boldly avOw it, and undertake to
defend and Justify it. 1t is not denied that
| the black voters are in majority IN the State,
nor that if they were permitted TO vote, and
their votes were honestly counted, they would
make the State Republican and send a
majority of Republican representatives to
| Congress But the white Democrats say
| that the Republicans of that State are both
ignorant and corrupt, that they are not quail
fed to administer the Government or make the
| laws, that their rule would be simply intOler-
able, and that they are justified under the law
of self-preservatiOn in resorting to any expe-
| dent, even to fraud and violence, to keep the
State from falling into such hands. They say
they deplore the necessity, but that necessity
it is; that the evil is one demanding an heroic
remedy. Hence, in the bill just adopted by
the Legislature for redistrct1ng the State, they
! have openly violated custom, usage and prece-
dent, and dlsregarded every consideration ex-
cepting how to secure Democratic Congress
men in all but one of the new districts. There
| probably never was so shameless a gerryman-
der as the one they have just adopted. There
is no pretence of justice or fairness in it. The
intention of making a division under which
the black voters should be reduced to the
lowest possible minimum of influence was
openly avowed and unblushingly carried out.
And if we rightly apprehead the po-
sition of the party through the utter
ances of its newspapers and public men,
the Democrats of South Carolina by this
act, and by their political conduct and policy
generally for the past five or six years, are In
open revolt against so much of the RecOnstruc-
ton Acts as invests the negroes with the bal
lot. They cut the argument very short. They
say: "IIere in South Carolina the negro voters
care in a majority. If they voted and their
"vOtes were counted they would rule the State,
"and they are not fit for it. We cannot and
"will not live under them. We have the power
"now, and by all means, peaceable or violent,
| "honest or dishonest, shall keep it," That is
the challenge and defiance which South Caro-
lima Democrats throw down to-day to the party
which when it gave the negro his freedom
gave him the ballot with which to defend it.
1t raises question which has to be met. 1t
cannot be avoided without dishonor. The
Democrats of South Carolina say IN effect to
the people of the country: 1--WE demand ex-
"emptiOn from the principle of majority rule,
"because the majority in this State are ignorant
"and unfit. We do not like to cheat at the
"polls, but we are obliged to in self-defence,
"and we ask you to vindicate and justify u.s."
Democratic success in the country would fur
nish that vindication and justification. 1t
would do more. 1t would practically repeal
the constitutional amendment which clothed
the blacks with the elective franchise without
going through any of the formalities of legis-
lation. Does 1t seem best TO make such a sur
render simply because the Democrats of South
Carolina say-as they said once before some
twenty years ago-that they cannot abide the
rule of the majorityf