£7 Ciass _^ ^ 7S_ \/ EECONCILIATION. The inspired writers have taught us how- beautiful it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. Three years ago and more Presi- dent Grant concluded a great State paper with the declaration "Let us have peace," thus giving an intimation of the spirit which would control his Administration. A few weeks since Horace Greeley, in accepting the nomination for the Presidency, as if also in- spired ley the gospel of peace, expressed the same sentiment, in less elegant phrase, when he said let us "Shake hands over the bloody chasm." His Liberal supporters tell us it is time, seven ye-ars from the close of the war for the Union, to end all strife growing out of that bloody conflict, and to adopt measures of conciliation and concord. All of this is so much in harmony with the lessons taught by the Saviour from the Mount, such as "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall find mercy;" "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall see God," as to hardly fail in charming the Christian world with American statesmanship. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN FAVOR OF RE- CONCILIATION. Following the recommendations of Presi- dent Grant, a Republican Congress has legislated in the interests of pi'ace and unity. Immediately after the close of Presi- dent Johnson's administration, which through treachery had became Democratic, the Re- publicans in Congress enacted laws estab- lishing civil and political equality among all citizens of the Republic: substituting civil for military governments in" all the recently rebellious States; admitting every State to its proper Constitutional representation in the two Houses of the National Legislature; re- storing all citizens, without regard to their national offenses, to the right to vote at all elections; restoring all, except a few scores of the more flagrant leaders of the rebellion, to the right to hold office; and removing all other disabilities of every description, not- withstanding their persistent efforts to de- stroy the Union by force of arms; and sup- pressing Kuklux and other lawless band.s too powerful for control by the local author- ities. After ihis consummation; after oppression has been overcome; after violence of the stronger race over the feebler race has been weasureably suppressed by the enforcement of national laws; after civil gnvernmi-nt has been restored in the insurrectionary States; after all disabilities have keen removed, (with the above trivial exceptions;) after all have been restored to their property, their homes, and peaceful pursuits; after life and property have become well pi otected; after all the industries hav6 again bf^come prosper- ous; after the markets have again become almost burdened with the surplus products of the insurrectionary districts: Horace Greeley bolts from the Republicfiu organization, be- comes the fa*iandard-bearer of the Democratic party, and asks to bt; elected to tlie office of President of the United States on theground that he is willing to "shake hands across the bloody chasm," and desires conciliation. WHO NEED TO BE CONCILIATED. In the examination of this subject let us inquire who are the belligerent parties to be conciliated— what the disc-jrdauL elements to be harmonized. In answering this inquiry we may state with confidence, they are not the Republi- cans of the North on the one ^ido and the Republicans of the South on the othir who need the interposition of Mr. Greeley's friend- ly hand to brine them into concord. Between these two classes of our fellow-citizens there is perfect harmony now. No mediation is needed on their account. They are not the Northern States on the one side against the Southern States on the other. For, through the wise action of the Republican party, their laws are now horn >- geneous. There is now no Mason's and Dixou's line severing polilicUly Uie. \xu\>u of States. The dominatinc; maj >iity of t!ie people in the tweiity-two States lieretoiore. deuouiinated "Northern States," and also in (he fifteen States heretofore known as " Southern States," are Republican in sesiti- nient as above stated, are in harmonious accord. They are not the Liberal Republicans on the on>tt side and the Democrats on the other, for they manifest such a rapturous ecstasy of brotherly love for each other that it is difficult for thena to keep up two distinct or- ganizations. Their national conventions adopt the same platform and nominate the same candidates. And the affection of their several State conventions, each for the other, is as the love of David and Jonathan. Nor are they the Northern Democracy on the one side and the Southern Democracy on the other. They were never in more harmo- nious accord, not even during the recent bloody war, when the Northern Democrat-?, as a party, with noble exceptions, diligently strove to effect with their ballots what their Southern brethren bravely fought to accom- plish with their bnllets. We conclude, therefore, that the only pos- sible parties to this conflict whom Mr. Gree- ley would have conciliated by a general hand- shaking "over the bloody chasm" must be the Republican party on oho one side and the Democratic party on the other. THE KEPCBLICANS DIFFER WITH THE DEMO CKATS IN PRINCIPLE. This conflict between the Republican party and the Democratic party is a conflict of principle, honestly entertained by each, which can not be terminated by an expression of sentiment. Hand-shakings are certainly beautiful manifestations of personal regard by the owners of the extended dexters. Lov- ing embraces may sometimes even cure per- sonal estrangements, and often, doubtless, strengthen mutual affection where they do not nroduee mutual disgust. But they do not change black into white, falsehood into truth, nor wrong into right. A conflict of parties over principles underlying legislation and administration, is a conflict of reason; which must go on until the judgment of the one party yields— not to force or affection, but to the overwhelming proofs adduced by the other. It is a conflict which is waged as earnestly between personal friends and loving kinsmen as between enemies and strangers. NEITHER PARTY HAS YKT SURRENDERED ITS PRINCIPLES. This difference of the two parties on prin- ciples has not been yielded by the Democracy, and can not be yielded by the Republicans without danger to the Republic. THE ADOPTION OF THE CINCINNATI PLAT- FORM BY THE DEMOCRACY NOT A SURREN- DER. Some of the Liberals insist that the Dem- ocratic party became Republicans in a body by the adoption of the Cincinnati platform. We have heretofore shown in these columns the fallacy of this assertion; that Mr. Gree- ley did not so understand it, nor the leaders of the I>*mocratic party admit it; that these spokesmen for their friends maintained that neither the Liberal Republioans had surren- dered the principles of the Republican party, nor the Democrats any principle of the Dem- ocratic party by the ad'iption of this plat- form. This would seem to obviate the ne- cessity of analyzing the document itself to prove a truth thus authoritatively asserted. And yet as much that is said by the leading advocates of Mr. Greeley's election, seems to assume the conversion of the Demc^cracy in the adoption of this platform, we will exam- ine its articles in the light of the old dogmas of the Democratic party. ANALYSIS OF THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. The leading tenet of the old Democratic party was a declaration in favor of State sov- ereignty, including the right of any State to se».^de from the Union. In the second article of the Cincinnati platform the Democracy say, "We pledge ourselves to maintain the union of these States." But they nowhere assert tliat in their opinion a State has not the r?: ?(i to secede. Before the war the De- mocracy always declared their determina- tion to maintain the Union, but denied the constiUitional right to maintain it by force of arms. Wiien the war began, and all through the bloody years of its prosecution, they de- clared that "the National Government had no right to coerce a State;" and in the Cincin" nati platform they do not admit that this right exists. Before the war they insisted that slavery was a divine institution— was right and just and proper, and that emancipation was wrong and wicked, and would bo ruinous tr both whites and blacks. In the fir.^a n,rtic!e V Xof the Cincinnati platform they say, "we re- O^ cognize the equality of all men before the ^-Jaw;" and in the second article pledgre them- ., .selves to maintain "emancipation and enfran- chisement." But they do not say the negroes Thought to have been made equal befere the law; that the Democracy erred in opposing the enactment of all these laws for the liber- ation and enfranchisement of the col- ored people ; nor do thny say that, in their opinion, either emancipation or enfranchisement -was right or wise. The most that can be made out of these de- clarations by the Democratic National Con- vention is this; We were compelled to sub- mit to the passage of these laws over our heads by Republicans. It is now an accom- plished fact, and we recognize it; that is, we see that it is accomplished, and agree to sub- mit to ib, not intending to organize another rebellion on that account. They have here- tofore opposed the admission of negro testi- mony in the courts;the right of colored people to sit on juries, to bear arms, or to hold of- fice. They denounce it now among them- selves, and in private. They do not declare in their platform any of these things to be right, or wise, or expedient, or safe. They are simply silent on the subject; or, by im- plication, agree to submit to that which they do not think it possible at present to change. They originally insisted that the United States had no right to enact laws for the pro- tection of the rights of person or property within the limits of the several States, and hence denounced the Republicans in Con- gress as flagrant violators of the Constitu- tion for enacting laws for the punishment of the members of the Kuldux Klan. They do not in their platform retract this dogma; but, on the otlier hand, assert in the fourth article that "local self-government * * will guard the rights of all citizens more securely than any centralized power." They add: "We demand * * for the States self-govern- ment, and for the nation a return to the methods of peace and the constitutional limitations of power." If this means anything it is an assertion of the old States rights doctrines of the Demo- cratic party, and a demand for a repeal of all United States laws enacted for the pro- tection of colored people in the enjoyment of the rights conferred by the amendments to the Constitution, with a view of relying solely on the local State legislation for protection. The Democracy opposed the enactment of all laws imposing punishment or disabilities on the rebpls. They held that the rebels had committed no crime by making war on the Government. This Democratic doc- trine is not retracted in the Cincinnati platform; but, on the other hand, they de- mand in the third article "the immediate and absolute removal of ai^ disabilities imposed on account of the rebellion." The only dis- ability now existing is the denial of the right to hold otTice to a few of the worst of the rebel leaders. But as the Democrats never considered rebellion a crime, they can of- course demand the removal of all disabilities imposed on that account without a surrender of principle. The fifth article of tha Cincinnati platform is a declaration in favor of civil service re- form, which all parties favor in theory, and which the Republicans are carrying out in practice. The sixth article is a demand for light tax- ation, which the Democracy have always favored in platforms, but never reduced to practice when they have had the oppor- tunity. The seventh article denounces repudiation, which they would hardly admit to be in con- flict with the former dogmas of their party. They demand in the eighth article a speedy return to specie payment; which would seem to be in harmony with the old hard-money doctrines of the party. The ninth article is an expression of grati- tude to the soldiers and sailors of the repub- lic, which does not seem to involve any dog- ma of party politics. The tenth article js an expression of oppo- sition to all further grants of lands to rail- roads or other corporations, and favoring the use of the public lands by actual settlers; which is in conllict with tlio conscSfe*^ habit of the Democratic party, when in po\^, o£^ making sucii railroad grants; and their for- mer persistent opposition to the homestead laws. The eleventh and last article is an expres- sion in favor of cultivating peace with for- eign nations, which does not seem to conflict with any former declaration of principles by the Democratic party. This analysis proves what Mr. Crreeley as- serted in his speech of acceptance, that the Democratic party had surrendered none ol its old party dogmas (if we except their an- cient opposition to the homestead bill) bj the adoption of the Cincinnati platform. SHALL TBE P.EPDBLICAN PAKTY SURRENDER TO THE DEMOCRACY ? V/hat, then, is meant by this demand for conciliation? In the light of the foregoinsc analj'sis it can mean nothing but a demand that the Republican party shall surrender to the Democracy. It can not mean a' cessation of an armed conflict, for this has long since been ended. It can not mean the substitution of eivil for military govejuments in the rebel States; that has, also, been effected long since. It can not mean the removal of po- litical disabilities, for but little is left to be don'e under that bead. It can not mean the enactment of laws for the protection of an oppressed race in the South, for they have heretofore been put on an equality with the most favored races of men. It can not moan the extension of the national arm to punish ciiiairials too powerful for the State authori- ties, fcir the Ivuklux lavvs have been enacted and are in f-Rll force, securing comparative quiet. CONCILIATION MEAKS A SURRENDER TO THE DEMOCRACY. What is it that Republicans have ne- glected to do which Democrats require to be dfme in order to secure perfoet harraoiiy and absolute fraternity? We are unable to per- ceive anything except a surrender by the Re- publicans of their principles and party or- ) ganization and the support of the Demo- cratic nominees for office, State and National, so as to enable the Democratic party to make and enforce laws in harmony with their party principles. It is believed that this ac- tion by the Republicans would tend to con- ciliate the Democracy; that it would soften old asperl'\?;S; that it would be a demonstra- tion i.i^'-^'raternal fc^'ling by the Republican party which the Democratic party could not 'i misapprehend, and which the latter would know how to appreciate. Do this and the Democracy will walk up to the "bloody chasm" and shake hands with you. The proposition is simple and plain. The thing demanded of the Republicans is easy, pro- vided they have no conscience, or have been living a protracted lie for the past eighteen years. It is only to abandon their Republi- can principles and to vote for the Demo- cratic nominees. This could be difficult only for honest, sincere, truthful people, who be- lieve what they say, and do what they be- lieve to be honest and right. All others, if there are such in the Republican party, can comply with this Democratic demand with the greatest ease. LATE INVITATION. But if it were possible for candid, truthful, honest Republicans to join the Democratic party and to vote for the Democratic nomi- nees without self- debasement, as it seems to us, the invitation comes late. Had the De- moeracj- invited the Repu'iblicans in mass to unite with them before their conventions were called, when participation in their de- liberations by Republicans would have been possible, the invitation would have had the appearance of fairness. But to defer it until they and a few bolters from the Republican party had effected a private arrangement mutually satisfactory to themselves, includ- ing the nomination of a ticket for the two highest otBces in the gift of the people, and the adoption of a platform of principle to govern the incoming administration, should the'r nominees be successful at the polls, and then invite the Republicans to vote the ticket and swallow the platform, nominated and prepared by their old political enemies and treacherous members of the Republican party only, is an insult. It demonstrates that the Democracy desire to be conciliated, and not to conciliate anybody else; that they desire to bo considered the spoiled children who Will stop crying on the receipt of sugar-plums. Give them the fat offices, and they will shake hands with you over "the bloody chasm;" let them administer the Government, State and National, and they promise to behave like good citizens. This is all they mean by conciliation. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 789 560 2