Year: 1876

sincerely shaken nanuS dCTOSS tnt uioOuy
chasm;" the Democratic party with its South
ern allies had accepted as its Standardized
in 1872 the Liberal Republican leader, whose
life had been devoted to warfare upon the
sectionalism which subordinated the United
States to the slave institutions of the South
it was believed, we may say almost universal
ly, not only that the question of slavery had
disappeared forever from our politics, but that
sectional issues had disappeared with it.
North and South, it was supposed, could fra
ternize upon the thoroughly established prin-
ciple of the equal rights of all men.


But of late there have been coming more
supposed to have been the exploded prejudices
and fallacies of the Democratic party and the
Solid South in days gone by. Again the doc
trine of State Sovereignty has been proclaimed
against the doctrine of Nationality. The right
of State to refuse to be bound by the polit-
ical system solemnly and constitutionally es-
tablished, has been again definitely asserted.
The power of State or of its citizens to grant
or to deny equal suffrage at their pleasure,
Notwithstanding the absolute guarantee of it
in the Constitution of our whole country, has
been assumed and acted upon. Hitherto, in
large regions of the South the freedom of elec-
ton has been worse than a farce; colored
voters have been absolutely unable to exercise
that freedom of franchise which was their
right, guaranteed by the Constitution of the
United States. They have been kept from the
polls by thousands, and the policy of the shot
gun and the derringer has restricted suffrage
to those mainly who would vote the Demo-
cratic ticket. The right of free suffrage, held
out ostentatiously to the colored voter with
one hand, has been effectually taken away
with the other.


Not only has this policy, which revives all
the sectionalism of the past and erects des-
potism in the South in place of Republic,
been revived, but the Democratic party in the
North has made itself the su!servient tool and
champion of the Solid South. Gaining Con-
troll of one of the Legislative branches OF the
Government, its first act was to appoint forty
seven of the Confederate officers and soldiers
to places vacated by the removal of men who
had fought in the Union army. Its next act
was to organize the controlling committees OF
the House of Representatives by giving almost
two-thirds of the Chairmanships to Southern
men and one-third only to Northern members,
whereas the proportion of the Southern States
to the Northern in population, wealth and po-
litical representation was nearly in the reverse
ratio of one-third to two-thirds. This subser-
viency to the South exhibited in this extraor


binary manner in the appointment of the
House committees has been still further ex-
emplified since in the action of some of those
committees themselves.


The Democratic Committee on War Claims
has promulgated in formal report doctrine
which, if carried out in the action of Congress,
would leave absolutely no limit to the taking
of money out of the Treasury to pay the
claims of the men lately in rebellion. That
doctrine, which fallaciously pretends to be
based upon recent decision of the Supreme
Court, is that in the taking of private proper
ty in the rebel States during the whole course
of the war the United States Government put
itself in the position of trustee for the own.
ers. 1t follows, says the Democratic Com
mittee on War Claims, that the Government
and the people are bound to pay the owners Of
the property which it took as trustee; its full
value at the time it was taken. This mos
unprecedented ground is repudiated not only
by the unanimous usage and decision of othel
Governments in time of war, and by the prin.
cples of public law, but also, and still more
emphatically, by the principles OF true patri-
otism and the public interest. If the people
of the whole country are to pay these South
ern rebels for what they lost by going into th'


rebellion, or for what the Government tool
from them while in rebellion, all distinction


between loyal patriotism and disloyal Treason


is wiped out at once and forever. The princi


pie that the man who was an enemy to hi


country, and who lost, and was compelled t.


pay some share of the cost of putting dow
the rebellion, is row to be reimbursed by tn


whole body of the people, the same as if h


had been steadfast adherent to the Unio


during the war, is monstrous and inadmissible


But this Democratic Committee on Wa


Claims has gone even farther in its declaratio
that no matter how thoroughly a rebel


Southern citizen may have been during th
war, the acts and proclamations of amnest
since that period restore him to all his righ
of property during that period the same as
, he had always remained loyal This doctrir
: DESTROYS at one blow the distinction on whic
all our existing laws regarding Souther
, claims are founded, namely, that such CLAIM
are due and payable only to those who Ca
v clearly prove that not only their property
r the form of supplies was actually taken fo
d the use of the Union army, but that the ow
II ers we're steadily faithful to the cause of Il
" Union during the rebellion. Is it wise, is
safe, is it decent or patriotic to votefor pa
# ty whose leading spokesmen are in favor
. breaking down all distinction between patr
;s OTIS and traitors-between fidelity to the Go
I ernment and fighting for its overthrow?


,e Another danger looms behind that of tur
~ ing over the National Administration, both
y its Legislative and executive departments,
y the control of the Democratic party, in leag
= with united South. That danger is that Il


party, if it succeeds to power, nay have in