Year: 1866

Z


THE DUTY OF UNION.


During the last few mouths there have
been enthusiastic meetings and passion.
ate speeches in support or condemnation
of Congress or the President. 1t has
been confidently asserted that the differ
ence would be referred to the people at
the autumn elections, and they would
authoritively decide between the contest
ants. All this has seemed to us prema-
ture, for the reason that the points of dis
sent were not finally established All
that is clear is, that the President holds
certain theories of the situation and Con
gress apparently others. But what Con
gress intended to propose under its theo-
ries was undecided, while nothing was
more evident than that the Presidents
logic was amazingly defective-and, to
use plain phrase, that his bark was worse
than his bite. =


A political canvas before an election
must be conducted upon certain proposed
measures, and not upon theories A bank
or no bank tariff or no tariff: the tol.
Grafton or prohibition of slavery in Ter
ritory it is upon such ineligible meas
ures that every body can comprehend that
the great popular debates upon the stump
are held and the popular decisions are
made at the polls. Now the important
question is, what are the differences in
proposed measures betweeB the President
and Congress upon which the country is
to be asked to decide?


That both honestly wish the restoration
of the Union can not be doubted That
both have ry as to the principle
which should regulate that restoration is
obvious. But until we know precisely
what Congress proposes how can an issue
be made for an election? The decision
of the Senate caucus and the debate in
the Senate forshadow, indeed, the ground
which Congress probably means to occupy
But is it so clear that the President will
refuse to stand with them? Suppose
that Congress proposes to disqualify GER
tain rebel leaders for certain offices until
two-thirds of each House remove the dis
qualification, aud substantially to equalize
representation by basing it upon voters,
is it probable that the President, who has
so constantly insisted upon making trea-
son odious, and has suggested the very
same amendment, will take the unneces-
sary responsibility of opposing so mild
and generous settlement? In making
these propositions Congress will have
yielded much to the desire of harmony
with ths Executive. Is the Executive to
yield nothing?


1t is true that the President may refuse
all accommodation. He may insist that
he has required all that is needful, all
that is constitutional. He may declare
that he will stand or fall without moving
au inch from his present position. He
has indeed virtually said as much. But
he said it under other circums taLces. He
said it when it seemed as if Congress in ,
tended to occupy position of uncompro-
missing hostility. Heisaid it before the ma
ture decision of Congress had been de-
clared. If after that declaration-after
the wise, just, and moderate proposition
which it would seem that Congress is
prepared to make-the President should
insist that the representatives of the loyal
people are to have no voice in the settle
ment of the victory which those people
have won, then the issue will indeed be
made, and the final appeal taken to the
country. But surely all those who believe
as we do, that the division of the Union
party, and the consequent surrender Of
the Government of this country to party
controlled by the counsels of such leaders
as Alexander Ii. Stephens, George Fl


Pendleton, Vallaudigham, and HoratiC


Seymour, would be intellectually disastrous


to the cause of true liberty and ciy;liza
ton, will not passionately insist that suel
division, with all its consequence, is in


evitable. Mr.. Wendell Phillips, VIC OBJ
serve, ferEently dssires that result. HI


prays that the Union party may be de
Heated But its defeat is the Resumption