Year: 1873

The speech of the Hon R. M. T. Hun ter, formerly U. g. Senator from Virginia and afterwards prominent in the Uonfed- eracy. proposing indirect reimburse ment to former slave owners for their slave property, has revived this old sub- iect of discussion in Southern journals. There does not seem, however, to be much expectation of the adoption of such a measure even among those who would consider it just and expedient. We give below 2 specimen of Southern feeling and temper regarding this question:

 But though the South will be taxed to help to pay the heavy debt of the govern ment, contracted partly in effecting hef owh impoverishmsnt, and partly in build ing up the prosperity of her conquerors, yet there is not one man in thousand among us visionary enough to expect even s1e small reimbursement spoken of by Mir. Hunter for all our losses. The vim dictive policy pursued by the govern ment toward the subiugated South for the past ten or twelve years does not just fly any such anticipation. It is true, such measure would be but an act os strict justice, would go further than all other measures that have ever been adopt ed to heal the wounds of the war, to re- store once more the feelings of fraternity between all sections, and to make us in name, united people. yet such meas ure of justice is directly at war with the retaliatory and vindictve Legislation which has been systematically pursued towards us.-G GGtrest0n NesOs. z@ s'

 We have often and frankly expressed eur views regarding the oppression suffer ed by Southern whites from the State governments we have set over them. But we consider the matter and the manner of the foregoing article equally objections ble. Slavery was the thing for which the South fought. It was lost institution when secession was ''lost cause" Only a few months before the close of the war, MT. Lincoln offered the slave owners com pensation if they would give up Slavery and the Confectionery. They elected to fight it out to the bitter end, got emancipation without compensation, and this subse- quent complaining is in very bad taste,

 We wish to say, furthermore, that we do not believe that the many harsh fea- lures of reconstruction have originated in Northern vindictiveness. The collision between Andrew Johnson and Republi- can Congress no doubt aggravated many of the unavoidable evils of Reconstruc- ton; and no doubt the natural wish of the latter to establish and strengthen Repubhcanism in the Southern States made them less careful to secure South ern whites against the dangers of Carpet Bag rule than they should have been. Without, therefore, denying that there has been. vindictiveness on our part to- wards the South, we do not believe that that feeling has been by any means the controlling motive with the Republican party in it's policy of Reconstruction. They refused. and we believe justly re- fused, to remand the old slave into the power of the old master by policy of re- construction that would have given the old Confederates control of the new State governments. That they did not sufi- ciently limit the power of the ignorant, ir- responsible majority in States where the negroes outnumber the whites, we frank ly acknowledge. Disastrous as that er- TOT has proved to the prosperity of some of the reconstructed States, we still be- ieve that Universal Suffrage was the true and just basis of Southern Reconstruc- tion. It is not too late to remedy many of the evil results of Universal Suffrage in Louisiana, in South Carolina, in Flor ida and Mississippi. It is to this object, and not to the chimerical, unconstitu- tional project of obtaining pay for their emancipated slaves, that the white south erner should turn his chief attention. They need not expect that the North will ever Ego back" on Universal Suffrage; but we do not believe it will refuse to remedy some of those very serious evils that have accompanied reconstruction through universal suffrage