Year: 1866

IHh UUNGR6SSlUNAL


The question to be decided in the autumn
Congressional elections of 1866 is hardly
less important than that of the Presidential
election of 1864 At that time the ques-
ton was whether the Democratic party,
whose policy had produced the war, whose
Southern leaders conducted it, and which,
as party, although with conspicuous ex-
ceptions of certain individual Democrats,
justified the rebellion and opposed the war
measures of the government, should be in
trusted with the control of the gJvern-
ment. The response as prodigious. Ev-
cry loyal State but Kentucky, Delaware, ,and
New Jersey sustained the Union party
At this time the question is whether the
Democratic party, with its tendency and
policy clearly understood, shall determine
The conditions upon which the late rebel
States shall resume their full relations in
the Union. Is the Democratic view Of the
situation truer, is the Democratic interpre-
tation of the Constitution more just, is the
spirit of the Democratic party more favor
able to Justice, equal liberty, and reverence
for law, than those of the Union party
These are the questions which must deter
mine onr votes in the coming elections.
1t may be true--indeed for ourselves we
have not hesitated to say that it is true
that many foolish words have been spoken
and some unwise measures adopted by
Congress. Nor do we care to criminate
and urge that this Congress has been more
fiercely vituperated than any of its prede-
cessors. We have not to deal at the cleo
tions with the politeness or tact either Of
Congress or the Executive, nor indeed with
the uniform wisdom of the Congressional
measures The point is fundamental
principle Granting that the action of
Congress might have been improved in Ger
tain ways, is it probable that the action of
the Democratic minority would have been,
| either in detail or IN general policy, better
for the peace and union of the country
Had the party Of that minority been in the
| ascendent the test oath would have Geen
repealed Senators and Representatives
like Alexander II. Stephens and H6rschel
! Y. Johnson would have been admitted the
| Civil Rights Bill would have failed and in
word, the men who, supported by their
States, five years ago resigned and with
drew from Congress, and engaged in the
rebellion, would have returned by the icon.
tinuous right" of those States, and those
|
and still declared their right to do SO, would
have voted upon every measure proposed
for the future security of the Union and
country against the logical consequences
of their doctrines.


Would this have been wise policy or
safe for the country? Yet this is the poll
cy upon which the autumn elections are to
pronounce. The Democratic party holds
that, having laid down their arms, the
States lately in rebellion are exactly where
they were before. The consequences Of
such doctrine are plain. 1t assumes that
a combination of States may attempt to
destroy the Union by war, and that the
people Of the loyal States who defeat the
conspiracy in the field can rightfully take
no further step whatever to secure the vic
tory they have won. The Union party
claims that loyal citizens, after SO long and
vital war, have exactly the same right to
secure their victory that they have to win
it and consequently that when the at
tempt of combination of States to wrest
themselves from the authority Of the I'm
ion fails, none of those States can resume
their full functions in the Union except up
on such conditions as a truly sagacious pol
icy shall determine.


1t must be remembered that it is not a
question of more or less conditions, but OF
any condition whatever The Democratic
orators and papers ask indeed whether the
| late insurgents have not complied with Ger
tain conditions But neither they nor those
who have been defeated acknowledge the
right to impose them. Indeed, the Demo
cratic theory and policy condemn the Pres
ident equally with Congress, for he had no
more verbal constitutional authority to re-
quire assent to the emancipation amend
ment than Congress has to require assent
to the new amendment Regulating repre-,
sentatiOn. States with what Mr.. Stephens
calls " continuous right of equality with
all other States can no more be required to
adopt one amendment than another. The
present cooperation of the Democratic par
ty with the President, therefore, does not
spring from love of him but from hate of
Constess, and very natural wish of our
opposition party to divide the Executive
and Legislative powers.


Can party which holds and proclaims
the policy which we have described be safe
ly intrusted with the government of the
country and the settlement of the war
Ought any thoughtful and honest citizen,
however impatient he may be of the follies
of certain men, to suffer his impatience to
blind him to the fact that the elections are
to decide whether the friends and the spirit
Of Abraham Lincoln shall reorganiZe the
Union, or the friends and spirit of Horatio
Seymour and Vallandigham. There are not
two parties, there can not be. Under the
circumstances a Philadelphia candidate
must be as fatal to the cause of equal
rights and just government and constitu,
tional peace in this country as a candidate
,, of Tammany Hall. Let US improve Con-
gress in the ability and good sense of its
members as much as possible. But let al
true men beware of sophistry which
would make Mr. Jack Rogers the lead
er of majority instead of minority
Harper's Weekly.


+ A gentleman at table remarked that he