r 
 
 ■ Cf-x 
 
pH83 
 
r. 668 
 .L42 
 Copy 1 
 
 A I) E F E \ S E 
 
 fkronstntction Ms of (Cottpsa, 
 
 CRITICAL R K\ I E W 
 
 INAUGURAL OF H. II. II AIGIIT, 
 
 GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 i OMPRISING IMPORTANT POINTS AT issci: [\ THE PRESENT CAMPAIGN! 
 
 ReapeutiVtUy 1 ><•« I i« •;«!•■• l 
 
 To the Union-Republican Congressmen from the Pacific States, 
 
 AM) 
 
 TO THE OKDER OF FREEDOM'S DEFENDERS, 
 
 <Prof< ssor AUGUSTUS ... 
 
 w 
 
 SAX FRANCISCO: 
 Published in JOHN STRATMAN, \o. 506 Washington St. 
 
 1868. 
 
 Price, 25 Gents. 
 

 ®»Me of Contents in $%ty *§tftxmtt. 
 
 Propositions maintained in the Defense. 
 
 No. of Marginal 
 Paragraphs. 
 
 1. The insurgent States had no right to secede by their own authority 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24 
 
 2. In a Kepublican Government, a minority cannot assume or resume powers of in- 
 
 dependent sovewignty at pleasure, except in the case of just Revolution, 21, 2?, 23 
 
 :(. Tin- case of tlie Fathers of the American Independence was altogether different from 
 
 that i if the late insurgent States, 23 
 
 4. The insurgent States forfeited their civil governments, and all the rights and privileges 
 
 of Federal States de ju re, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 40 
 
 5. The insurgent States forfeited their civil governments, and all the rights and privileges 
 
 of federal states de. facto, 45,46, 47, 48, 49, 50 
 
 6. The rebel Governments and all their acts were illegal, null and void ; on the contrary 
 
 the United states Government, both before and after the secession of the South, 
 was, and is the true legitimate Government, and all its acts for the preservation 
 of the Union and the suppression of rebellion were just, Ugal and valid 28, 29 and 60, til 
 
 7. The late insurgent states are not entitled to any compensation for losses sustained by 
 
 the war : loyal soldiers, on the contrary, are entitled to the promised bounties, 
 and the national debt must be paid faithfully and entirely according to pledges 
 given 65 
 
 8. The civil Governments in the insurgent States were succeeded by the military power 
 
 of the Nation, which, according to the law and custom of nations, holds public 
 control until civil governments are organized; and during that period the writ of 
 habeas corpus and trial by jury are suspended, 66 
 
 9. In consequence of the loss by the insurgent States of their charter and condition as 
 
 States in the Union, and of their civil governments, Congress alone, and not the 
 Executive or Judiciary, has acquired a special jurisdiction over them, the dejure 
 and de facto, to reorearize the same and to regulate suffrage for that purpose 67, 68, 69 
 
 10. Under existing circumstances Congress was in duty bound to give the ballot to 
 
 loyalists, both white and black, n the Southern States 85, 86 
 
 11. In loyal States the right to regulate suffrage belongs to the people of each state Ill 
 
 12. The Union- Kepublican Party, as a party, has never advocated universal suffrage 112, 113 
 
 Objections and Charges refuted in the Defense. 
 
 1 State authority is paramount to Federal authority, See answer. .17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 
 
 2. States cannot forfeit their rights; because a State has no superior, A. .31, 32 
 
 3. Slates cannot forfeit their rights; because they are granted by the Constitution in per- 
 
 petuity, and because it is not said in the Constitution that they may be punished 
 
 for crime, A .. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 
 
 4. If the ordinance of secession were valid, then the war was wicked and unjust ; if in- 
 
 valid, the Southern States were never out of the Union .4. .41, 42 
 
 5. If armed rebellion is a crime, it should be punished after trial and on fair conviction .4. .43, 44 
 
 S. Congress formally declared that the war was not w-aged in any spirit of oppressi n, 
 
 conquest, or subjugation of the Southern States ,4. .51, 52, 53, 54, 55 
 
 7. Congress repeatedly recognized their separate State existence .4. .5K, 57, 58 
 
 (J. The Southern Mates, since their secession, have not been represented in Cougress : 
 therefore, the acts of Congress since that time, and until all said States are repre- 
 sented, are illegal v A: .62. 63, t'4 
 
 ;i. As Boon as the war ended the Southern States were entitled to all their former rights 
 
 and privileges, including that of representation in Congress A. .71, 72 
 
 in. The policy of Congress is inhuman and tyrannical, and the punishment inflicted on the 
 
 south, n i people js excessively severe .1. .74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 
 
 11. The Congressional policy places the southern people under military despotism : it 
 
 legislates martial law in a period of profound peace A. .81, 8 . 83 
 
 12. The Congressional policy subjects the white population of the South to a mass of 
 
 .nit negroes and compels the whites to exile themselves, ^4. .84, 85, 86, 87.88,89,90,91,92,93,94 
 18. The Congressional policy will introduce the antipathy of race into political contests 
 
 and had to strife and bloodshe i a. .95 
 
 It. Voters should be qualified : negrots are not a. .96, 97, 98, 90, 100 
 
 15 The people of the South have In good faith submitted to the results of the war A ..101 
 
 16. If justi. e and right to protection require the ballot to be given to the negro, then they [109 
 
 equally require It to be given to Chinamen, females, minors. etc.,.4..102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108. 
 
 17. The Congressional policy proposes to ignore all disrrlminalio-: in political privileges 4. .110 
 
 Noth. 'I he reader will n mart that most of the reasons given in the defense are very concise. This 
 is owing to tin necessity of preparing a brief summary of the grounds upon which the main points at 
 !• st t..r persons who have not time to read long dissertations.— (AUTHOR). 
 
DEFIES E 
 
 
 . OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS OF CONGRESS. 
 
 1. In commencing the defense of the Congressional Reconstruction, and the critical 
 review of Governor tiaight's inaugural Address, we deem il necessarj to acquaint the 
 reader with the motives which have impelled us to this undertaking, lesl ii maj appear on 
 our part an act of temerity. Theyaretwo right and duty. 
 
 2. When the policy of one party is Here .sly attacked byanother.il is the undisputed 
 right of every member of the former to defend it from the assaults of the Latter ; but, when 
 that policy is approved bj the majority of a nation, ii is then the boundea duty of every 
 loyal citizen and friend of the government to rally to its support. 
 
 3. The attack made upon a policy sanctioned by the majority of a commonwealth is 
 a covert assault upon the fundamental principle of a Republican Government, thai "the 
 majority must rule." If this principle be surrendered, the magnificent edifice of the Re- 
 public musl necessarily fall. The beautiful statue of liberty will soon crumble to frag- 
 ments, social order will cease, anarchy will prevail, popular government will be al an end. 
 
 4. Can a loyal citizen, a friend of popular institutions, be instrumental to such lament- 
 able catastrophe by culpable inactivity '.' Can the friends of freedom and progress remain 
 indifferent to the evils which will thence ensue, not in this country alone, but all over the 
 world'.' Xo\\ this is precisely our case. 
 
 5. The acts of Congress for the reconstruction of the late insurgent States, supported 
 by the Union-Republican Party, approved by the majority of the nation, arc vehemently 
 denounced as tyrannical and unconstitutional by the Democracy. The Authoi of the inau- 
 gural Address ( 1 ) stj les them ■■ a violation of tfo fundamt vital principles of the Constitution; 
 a violation of liberty : oft ■■< ry sentiment of humanity and Christianity; a disgract i > our country 
 and to tin age in which we live." 
 
 ti. H'c claim, therefore, that it is both ourrighl and dutj to defend the Reconstruction 
 
 Acts with all the fori f argument w e can control : and, though we are not a match for a 
 
 giant, we may nevertheless trj our sling, indeed, if seeing very clearly by the light of 
 reason which God has given us, the right, justice, and necessity of those acts, either from 
 human fear, or other base motive, we should shrink from the duly of expressing publicly 
 our sentiments, we would be criminal deserters of a sacred cause ; would lie guilty of omis- 
 sion in a strict duty to the ( rovernment ; and, as far as it lies in our power, would frustrate 
 the noble design of a wise Providence in endowing men with reason, that they may thereby 
 .subserve their own as well as the interests of the society in which they live. Earnestly we 
 trust and pray, that the enormous weight of such infamous crime may never rest on our 
 conscience! Hence, openly and fearlessly we affirm, that the reconstruction measures of 
 Congress respecting the insurgent States are founded on right, justice, and necessity ; and 
 
 as such are entitled to the support of every loyal American citizen and friend of just 
 government. 
 
 7. For the sake of order, we shall divide the Review and Defense into three parts, 
 und shall endeavor to prove three points : First- -We shall demonstrate that the insurgent 
 States had no righj to secede by their own authority : Second - That by rebellion and ac- 
 cession they lost their character and condition of States of the Union, and at the close of 
 
 the war they hail no civil governments ; 1'ism.i.v -We shall consider the logical results of 
 the crime and punishment of armed rebellion, and shall replj to various objections and 
 false charges started by our adversary and his party-friend-. 
 
 8. The long list of wrongs recited by the 'Author ol the Inaugural and repeated by 
 the Democratie Convention a- arising from the < 'ongressional policy of reconstruction, are 
 based upon the assumption that the insurgent States are still in the Union as States, and 
 are therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges of Federal States under the Constitu- 
 tion. Now this assumption requires proof; for, it contain- in reality the chief point in 
 
 (1) The quotations in italics in this article are extracts from Governor H. H. Haic.ht's In.wour.u. 
 Address, which we have selected in preference to other documents, because it contains in brief all (he 
 main objections and charges of the Democracy against Congressional reconstruction. 
 
2 
 
 controversy ; the main position, on the gain or loss of which depends the victory or defeat 
 (it the one side or the oilier. 
 
 !). This important point the author of the rnangural proves as follows : •• IT. have fought 
 against th< principh of secession, and have established the doctrine, tHat no Slate can withdratc 
 tht Union (by its own authority.) rAo.se States (therefore) are not out «f the Union (as 
 States)." This argument may more forcibly be presented thus: If we admit thai the insur- 
 gent States arc oul of the Union as States, we must admit thai they had the right to secede 
 by their own authority ; but we cannot admit thai they had the right to secede by their 
 own authority, consistently with the principles we held and established by the war; there- 
 fore the insurgenl State- an' nol out id' the Onion as St>t!cs. 
 
 in. The logical force of this argumenl is similar to the following: Ifvwe admit that 
 a murderer can be deprived of life, we must admit that he can kill himself by his own au- 
 thority : but we cannot admit that a murderer can kill himself by his own authority ; 
 therefore a murderer cannot lie deprived of life. 
 
 11. In the author's syllogism, the minor proposition is unquestionably -true ; and as 
 that comprises one of the main divisions of our subject, we design to support it by copious 
 arguments. 
 
 first ie^^ifit. 
 
 THE INSURGENT STATES HAD SO RIGHT TO SECEDE BY THEIR OWN ADTHORITY. 
 
 12. What is it to secede from the Union by State authority? It is to withdraw from 
 tin- National Union ; it is to assume, or (as secessionists say) to resume powers of separate 
 and independent sovereignty, not by National, but by State authority. No Federal State 
 can secede thus. 
 
 13. Whether a State assume or resume sovereign powers, which by the admission of all 
 are vested in the Federal Government under the Constitution, it is evident that such an as- 
 sumption by the former is a derogation of power from the latter which leads to its final 
 extinction :' it supposes therefore a repeal of the Federal Constitution. 
 
 11. The author of the Address affirms the same thing in these words : " lite right of any 
 member of the Union to withdraw atpleasure, and thereby extinguish Federal authority over its 
 citizens, could nevt r be recognized without <iss< nting to the practical repeal of (In- 1 < 'onsiiluiion and 
 tht abolition of the Federal Government." 
 
 to. Hut. neither the Constitution can be repealed, nor can the Federal Government be 
 abolished by separate State authority : simply, because a law and government which ema- 
 nate from a superior power can neither be altered nor abolished by an inferior one. This 
 principle is universally admitted, and upon it rest in great measure both sacred and civil 
 jurisprudence. 
 
 1(>. Now*, the Constitution of the United States, having been first adopted by the Rep- 
 iv- n atives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, and ratified 
 afterwards by the people Of said States, derives its power from the people of the United 
 States collectively ; it can neither be altered therefore, nor abolished by separate State au- 
 thority, any more than the Constitution of the State of California can be amended or re- 
 pealed by one county. 
 
 17. lint, State authority is paramount to Federal authority, reply secessionists. This 
 assertion is positively denied, for the following reasons : First — The absurdities which 
 would follow are absolutely inadmissible. If State authority were superior to the Federal. 
 each and every State would really be a separate and independent sovereignty ; conse- 
 quently, the Union id' States would be nominal and not real. Each State, though a part of 
 the Union, would possess more power than the whole Union. The Federal Government 
 would be destitute of jurisdiction. The Constitution which creates three different branches 
 of the Governmenl ami defines their respective powers and duties, would be useless and 
 nugatory. The form of Government of the United States would not — as required by the 
 Constitution — be republican in form; because a Republican Government is founded on 
 
 •the will of the majority as a rule." Hut if every Federal State is really sovereign and 
 independent, even in National matters, the majority of States can exercise no control 
 over it. 
 
 18. Second— State authority cannot be superior to Federal authority, because it is cre- 
 ated by the latter. Each and every State was raised to that position by the National will, 
 and previous to it- admission into the sisterhood of States was either a colony or territory 
 under authority. This tact can easily be proved by the history of the Nation. The thir- 
 teen original colonies \wre primitively subject to the British Crown, and each of them was 
 made a \'vrr and independent Stall' by the will of the people of the United Colonies, who, 
 through their Representatives in General Congress assembled, issued a Declaration known 
 as the Declaration of Independence, which they successfully supported with their blood 
 and treasure, 'the words of the Declaration are so clear, on this point, as to need no com- 
 ment : •• We therefore, the Representatives, etc., do, in the name and by the authority of the 
 
"good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare tli it these United Colon! 
 " and of right ought to be, free and Independent States; thai they are absolved from all 
 "allegiance to the British Crown, etc. And for the aupporl ol this Declaration we mutually 
 '• pledge i" each other our lives, our forti -. and our Bacrcd honor." 
 
 Now with regard to other States, Bub equontl] admitted into the Union, cl i * • National 
 Records show likewise lint they were formerly territories of the United States, and were 
 ;nl mi iir. | into the Union a- State- under Fe la-. if authority in National matters, b) an 
 Congress. Therefore, State authority i- nol superior to Federal authority. 
 
 in. Third Supposing, even, thai Bora • States (nol all) bad once been separate, inde- 
 pendent sovereignties; when they create I the Federal Government for mutual protection, 
 the) entered into a compact, tint all n.Uio lal qu istions should be discussed in the National 
 Council. To this compact the) did, ail ill new Stated do agree, before their admission 
 in tu the Union : it cannot, therefore. b ■ •■ : date I with ml a breach of public faith. II >nce 
 it follows, that the United States are djpundenl in national questions upon Federal au- 
 thority. 
 
 20. Fourth Even if we suppose that each State had a separate national existence be- 
 fore the formation ol the Federal Government, State authority is nevertheless inferior t<> 
 
 Federal authority; and the people of a State cannol res at pleasure the sovereign 
 
 powers delegated i" the General Government 
 
 21. The doctrine that "Governments derive their jusl powers from the governed," 
 namely, " the people," is undoubtedly true, and is ampl) supported b) reason and fact It 
 is likewise true, that the people maj choose the form of government which they deem best, 
 either Monarchical, or Republican, or Mixed ; also, that the) may grant their powers to 
 Governments for a definite or an indefinite period of time. But, withal, when a people by 
 their own free act have formed a Governmenl and clothed it with power, both civil right 
 
 and custom teach, that they are bound bj their own act ; thai they bei le subject i" the 
 
 Government of their choice, and cannot resume their original powers except in conformit) 
 with the provisions ol the Constitution they have adopted. 
 
 22. Now, there is not a Constitution among those framed by Nations, which grants 
 leave to a minority to resume powers of independent sovereignty at pleasure. Certainly, 
 the < 'onstitution of the United states dues not grant it to any single State. Such a conces- 
 sion would be a nullificatii f the < 'onstitution, and would constitute the germ of dissolu- 
 tion within the Government If minorities had the right under the Constitution, to assume 
 sovereign powers at pleasure, they would nut he effectually bound by it~ provisions. For, 
 they would have in their own hands the power to release themselves from its obligations 
 whenever they pleased. The number of a minority might he steadil) reduced until it. 
 reaches one. Ever) individual, therefore, when resisted in bis wicked designs, by law, 
 might resume his original sovereign power : declare his independence, and place himself 
 beyond the jurisdiction id' the law. All which is evidently absurd. 
 
 23. There i- one case, however, in which minorities may resume their sovereign powers 
 outside of the form prescribed by the Constitution, namely, by Revolution. Tbis occurs 
 when ( rovernments t) rannicall) use the poyy era Intrusted to them, or usurp others ungrant- 
 ed. for the oppression of their subjects, lint revolution, even in this extreme case, can only 
 be resorted to when everj other legal remedy hi- been exhausted. Such was the case ol 
 the Fathers of tin' American Revolution, as the) declared in the Document of Independ- 
 ence, which is altogether different from the case of the late insurgent States, which had 
 neither been tyrannically oppressed by the Federal Government, nor had they tried all the 
 legal means when the) appealed to arms. 
 
 21. To conclude : each and ever) State of the Union, whether originally sovereign and 
 independent or not. upon it- admission into the Union became subordinate in national mat- 
 ters to Federal authority. The proposition, therefore, ady anced by the author of the Inau- 
 gural in his argument that "the insurgent States had no right to seced* by (heir own authority,' 1 
 is perfectly true ; hut it does not hence follow, as he conclude-, that "th in the 
 
 Union OS States.'* Tin- inference. -<s illogical as that of the parallel argument. This We 
 will show in the following 
 
 SECOND T=>J\.T\T. 
 
 1!V REBELLION AND SECESSION THE [NSUROENT STATES LOST THEIR CHARACTER IKD CONDITION 
 OF STATES IN THE ONION, AMD AT THE CLOSE or in K W\t; TIIKV HAD Mi CIVIL GOV- 
 ERNMENTS. 
 
 25. As tin' word Staie has a double signification, one geographical, tl ther political, 
 
 it is well to define the sense in which it i- employed in the foregoing proposition. The 
 word State in a geographical acceptation denotes a certain section ol a country, ami is sy- 
 nonymous to the word estate or possession; because it forms a part of the national do- 
 main : in ;i political acceptation, it signifies tin- political organization of a j pi,- according 
 
 to a certain form of Government 
 
 26. In the above proposition, the word Slat* is evidently used according to the latter 
 
signification ; for the Southern States in a geographical sense are, and were in the Union 
 after, as well as before, the war. When, therefore, we affirm thai the insurgent States are 
 out of the Union as Stairs, we mean that they have no legal Governments, and that they 
 are excluded from the national rights and privileges enjoyed b\ Federal States under the 
 i lonstitution. On this point we arc at issue not only with secession, but anti-secession Dem- 
 ocrats also. We arc. therefore, asked on all sides. How is it thai States formerly in the 
 Union have become disorganized and are excluded lien) the participation of the rights and 
 privileges granted by the Constitution to Federal States ? The answer is simple. By the 
 crime of secession, rebellion and war against the Government, the insurgent States forfeited 
 their civil governments and all the rights and privileges of Federal Stales, both de jure and 
 de facto. The alleged reason contains two parts : firs) >l< jure from right : second ih facto 
 from tact. We shall expound the first part, and begin with the illustration above offered in 
 the parallel argument. 
 
 27. FlBST PART OF Till. ARGUMENT. ' "TllF. INSURGENT STATES FORFEITED THEIR CIVIL GOV- 
 ERNMENTS AM) ALL THE RIGHTS AMI PRIVILEGES OF FEDERAL STATES de ./'"''•" 
 
 It is undoubtedly true, that no man can take away his own life and destroy the physical 
 union of the bod} and soul by self-authority, because the natural law forbids it ; and by 
 the same law. no other man or body of men can deprive him of the right to life, liberty. 
 and the pursuit of happiness, as long as he complies with the laws of the community wherein 
 he lives. If. however, he violate the law ol society in points that are essential to its 
 existence : as. if he should murder peaceful citizens, or attempt to destroy the civil govern- 
 ment : in that event, the natural right of self-preservation justifies both man and society to 
 defend their own existence at the peril even of the aggressor's life : and. by the declaration 
 of the Supreme Judge of the Universe and of all mankind, on account of his wicked and 
 deadly assault the aggressor forfeits all his rights to life, liberty, and happiness granted by 
 natural law. 
 
 28. In the same manner, by the Federal Constitution no State can withdraw from the 
 Union by its own authority : ami by the same instrument, neither the Federal Government, 
 nor any State or Slates can expel another from the Union, or exclude it from a participa- 
 tion in its Federal rights and privileges, as long as it complies with the requirements of 
 the Constitution. But, if a State or States violate the Constitution in points that are essen- 
 tial to the maintenance of the Union : as, if Slates should withdraw from the Union with- 
 out national consent ; if subsequently, when asked to obey the Constitution, they should 
 refuse, and attempt to strike down the life of the Nation ; in that case, the right of self- 
 preservation, as well as the duty of enforcing the national law. justifies the Government in 
 defending itself ami the Constitution at all costs and hazards, even, if it need lie. by the 
 total subversion and destruction of the insurgent States ; ami by the law of Nations, found- 
 ed on the natural law. on account of their violation of the Constitution and armed aggres- 
 sion, said Stales forfeit all their political rights and privileges, but chiefly the right of self- 
 government. 
 
 29. This doctrine has ever been maintained both in theory and practice by all Nations, 
 as attested by ancient and modern history ; and there never was a rebellious State so utterly 
 impudent and arrogant, after having been subdued by force of arms, as to still claim the 
 right of self-government and a full share of political privileges. 
 
 30. Now the case we have described is precisely that of the Southern insurgent States 
 as proved by the' history of the rebellion. In the first place, they violated the Constitu- 
 1 1< .ii in essentia] points bj seizing Federal property and by seceding from the Union with- 
 out the national consenl : which, as ii has been demonstrated, no Federal State can right- 
 fully do. Subsequently, being asked by Constitutional authority to restore the property 
 seized and to return to their allegiance, they peremptorily and persistently refused. Uastly, 
 they fired the first gun againsl the country's Hag. ami most wickedly attempted to strike 
 down the life oi the Nation. Hence, by the law and custom of Nations founded on the 
 natural law, thej forfeited dejure their civil governments, and all the rights and privileges 
 of Federal States ; consequently, b\ reason of these acts, they (.'eased to be States in the 
 Union. 
 
 81. But Democrats reply " that States can not forfeit their rights." "The people of a 
 
 Slate (say some) may rebel ; but the State itself cannol. becau-e it ha- llo Superior.", 
 
 '.VI. This answer, to saj the least, is roid of sense : for. what does it mean. that •• aState 
 .annul rebel," and thai "it has no superior"? In what sense is the word " State " here 
 taken? In the geographical, signifying a section of laud'.' The idea is then both laugha- 
 ble and aii-nrd. Who ever heard of a tract of land rebelling against a Government? Nor 
 i- it true, in this case, that the land spoken of ha.- no superior; tor it has a soverign, name- 
 ly, the i inied Mao-. La Ihe word '• Estate used in a political sense, denoting the civil or- 
 ganization of a people according to a certain form of government ? In this case, both 
 propositiqns, thai "a State cannol rebel" and " has no superior," are false, and in plain 
 contradiction with the first assertion, " the people ol a State maj rebel." 
 
 :;:;. li But States cannot forfeit their righte," urge " the unterrified." Why? Because 
 e granted bj the ( lonstitution in perpetuity. Aye : but not unconditionally. The con- 
 dition i- that Slate- -hall not violale i he Coiistiiutiou : shall noi resist federal authority : 
 shall not attempt to destroj the Government. 
 
34. Rul we find qo where In the Constitution, insist they, thai States maj be punished 
 for crime with privation of all their rights. To this las! corner, therefore, musl our adver- 
 saries retreal in their dcfonseloss position. We find no where in the Constitution thai 
 
 ma] be punished for crime with privation of their Federal rights: therefore, thej hold 
 
 them perpetually ; therefore, thej hold them un iditioually. In real earnest, is this logic ? 
 
 is this knowledge of common and natural law? Von find nol in the Constitution that States 
 m.i\ be punished for plunder, rebellion, and aggression. Are, fhen, these no Longer crimes ? 
 are they no longer punishable? Vye ; sa\ ye thej are punishable, but cannot be punished 
 because nothing is said on the subjeel in the Constitution. 
 
 35. According to your il rj . therefore, the Constitution i- a Bhield for crimin il 
 
 ;i bulwark <it' protection for law abiding i pie : it is a promoter of disorder, nol ol order. 
 
 Will you admit these conclusions ? But we emphaticalh denj thai the power to deprive 
 rebel Stales of their political rights is nol comprised in the Constitution, it is nol con- 
 tained in explicil language, wo admil : bul tfa il is nol n isarj . for the following re isone 
 
 First Bei ause the objeol ol the Constitution properly, is to designate the differenl branch- 
 es of Government, anil to define their powers : to laj down general principles and to adopt 
 general rules for the foundation of future legislation. The specification of cases which 
 are in violation of the Constitution and the fixing ol penalties therefor, belong to tb< 
 ute law enacted bj the S ition il Legislature. S cond Nol all crimes and penalties are ne- 
 cessarily specified even in a criminal code. Thus, crimes thai fall under thejurisdiction >>f the 
 
 military power, such as rebellion, which is suppressed by the military, are nol tessarilj 
 
 comprised in the civil code. Also cri s, the penalty of which is fixed by the natural, 
 
 evangelical, and common law, as murder in the firsl degree, need not absolutely be men- 
 tioned. Various crimes, whose nv.urj and gravity rausl be judged from circumstances, 
 have often no certain penaltj affixed to them by express law. 
 
 36. Do you wish to know, then, how the power to deprive rebel States of their rights 
 is contained in the Constitution? It is contained implicitly. It is contained in the princi- 
 ples of natural ami common law on which the Constitution is founded. It is contained in 
 the righl granted bj the Author of Nature to Nations, as well as to individuals, to defend 
 
 their own existence againsl an unjusl aggressor, by the destruction ifitneed I f his life, 
 
 whether political or natural, it is contained in the power under the Constitution to levj 
 war, and to guarantj to each State a Republican form of Government, which mean- to en- 
 force submission to the will of the majority legally expressed. When, therefore, a certain 
 power, like the one in question, is necessarilj presupposed in the Constitution, it is therein 
 implicitly contained. 
 
 37. Bul is it nol strange thai they who defend the independent sovereigntj of each 
 State should advance this objection .' These men maintain thai State authority is para 
 iniiuirt to the Federal, and therefore, a State has the righl to secede at pleasnre. Al tie- 
 same time, they hold also thai the rights of a Federal State as well as the Union are per- 
 petual; because such was the design of its authors. According to the former doctrine, 
 therefore, States have the righl to secede, because thej are independent sovereignties : and 
 according to the latter, they cannol secede l ause the Union i- perpetual. These two ex- 
 tremes are evidently contradictory. Secession-Democrats cannot have both; they must 
 make their choice. ' W nichever thej choose, will fail them of support. 
 
 : 8. But, hiiwe\ er greal the inconsistency of secession-Democrats may be, it appears in- 
 significanl when compared with the self-contradiction of their confreres, the anti-secession 
 Democrats. These men. variously Btyled as anti-war-Democrats, Conservatives, late mem- 
 bers of the Union party, hold thai State authority i- inferior to the Federal ; thai no State 
 has the righl to secede al pleasure : consequently, thai Rebellion was a crime : thai the war 
 
 for the supremacy of the Constitution and the maintenance of the Union was istitutional 
 
 to the full extent: yet, thej also admit thai the rights of States in the Union are perpetual 
 and unconditional. The war, therefore, to its full extent, in defense of the Government, 
 was in their opinion constitutional ; yet, the logical, inevitable results of both the crime of 
 rebellion and ol the war. namely, the destruction of the rebel governments, their privation 
 of Federal rights are unconstitutional. This i- equivalent to affirming and denying the 
 same thing,' ol the same Biibject, and at the same time. That men of culture should fall 
 
 into so palpable a contradiction, is a painful evident f the weakness of human reason ; 
 
 but, that they should he extolled by partisan favor, as bright luminaries of intelligence and 
 statesmanship, is an insult to the science of governmenl and to an enlightened community. 
 
 39, No : under no circumstances shall we grant thai the rights of States under the 
 
 Constitution are perpetual and unconditional, except our op] nta maintain that the i 'oti- 
 
 stitution is above both natural and di\ ine laws, which absolutely require of all subordinates, 
 whether States or individuals, submission to lawful authority, fulfillment of agreements, 
 and forbearance from all aggressive acts. 
 
 40. To return, therefore, to our firsl argumenl : the insurgenl States are on1 of the 
 Union, nol because they had the righl to secede, bul inversely, because thej had not the 
 
 righl to secede. Hence, the argu nt (d' the author of the Inaugural: " u ■ cannot admil 
 
 that the insurgent States hadt) secedt by their own authority, consistently « 
 
 principles we held and established by the war ; there/on Iheyart not out of th Union as v 
 
6 
 
 is defective in logical connection between antecedent and consequent. The conclusion 
 should be exactlj the contrary one. We cannot admit that the insurgent States had any- 
 right i" secede by their own authority, to plunder Federal property, or to wage war against 
 the Govern m *: therefore, they are out of the Union as States : that is. they have forfeit- 
 ed^ jurt their civil governments and State rights, though their obligations remain, and 
 like conquered provinces thej are under the authority and law of the Federal Government 
 
 41. Similar to the preceding is the fallacj contained in the following dilemma, often 
 
 proposed bj de rats : " f the two propositions is true ; either the Southern Slates 
 
 seceded or they did not. If their ordinances of secession were valid the war was wicked 
 and unjust : if thej were invalid and void. then, as a matter of course, these Slates were 
 oeverout of the Union, and forfeited none of their rights tinder the Constitution." 
 
 42. This dilemma may he retorted as fellows: one of the two propositions is true ; 
 either the Southern States seceded or they did not. If their ordinances of secession were 
 valid, then, as a matter of course, those States went out of the Union, ami forfeited all 
 their rights under the Constitution : if they were invalid and void, the war was not wicked 
 and unjust. I lence it appears that this dilemma is a mere sophism, since it proves equally 
 well both contrary propositions, a thing which no true argument can do according to Logic. 
 Here, also, the fallacy consists in the false connection between antecedent and consequent 
 in the second member of the dilemma, namely : " If the ordinances of secession were in- 
 valid and void, then, as a matter of course, those States were never out of the Union, and 
 forfeited none of their rights under the Constitution."" The inference should be precisely 
 the contrary. For. if the ordinances of secession were invalid and void, their passage was 
 a violation 'of the Constitution, for which, as well as for other crimes, they justly forfeited 
 their rights under the Constitution. 
 
 43. Bui if rebellion ami war upon the Government, are crimes, resumes the author of 
 the Address, in thai case they should be punished, after trial and on (air conviction. "Bis 
 insisted," says he, " by those who argm in favor oj the reconstruction measures, that the 
 southern peoph rebelled, and thai rebels ought not to possess political rights or functions. Tlie 
 answer to this is plain. Nomanor class of men under our form of government can be de- 
 prived of rights or punished for crime, e.mjjl aflerafair trial and conviction.'" 
 
 -1 1. ' Truly the proposition, if absurd, is yet ingenuous! For neither judges nor jurors 
 could be found North and South duly qualified to try the rebellious States, en account of 
 either complicity, bias, or prejudgment of the case. What ? to try by jury crimes so public, 
 committed by whole States, and already judged and vindicated by the sword in the battle- 
 field? Can a proposition be more preposterous, more contrary to the law and usage of 
 nations '.' Are not crimes subject to military law in time of war'.' And in time of peace 
 are there not crimes which may be summarily punished even by private authority, without 
 trial, as burglary and murderous assault '.' Is the punishment inflicted in these cases any less 
 than privation of power to do harm '.' By what authority are private individuals allowed to 
 punish the offender without trial? Why! by the authority id' the God of nature and id' all 
 mankind! Is the life id' nation- less important than that of individuals'' If. therefore, no 
 trial is required in one case, neither in the other. 
 
 45. SECOND PART OF THE ARGUMENT. " Till: INSURGENT STATES FORFEITED THEIR CIVIL 
 
 Governments, and all the rights and privileges of Federal States defacto." Thus far 
 we have viewed the insurgent States in their true light as violators of the Constitution 
 and unjust aggressors of the Federal Government. If now. for argument sake, we should 
 look upon them as some foreign nations unjustly did. as belligerents, and grant for a mo- 
 ment the doctrine of independent Slate sovereignly; even so. w e maintain that they for- 
 feited their civil governments and all political rights and privileges. 
 
 16. Within the period of five years, between 1860 and 1865, they had two different civil 
 governments ; one which professed allegiance to the United States, and another to the Con- 
 tederate States. Both were </, facto destroyed : hence, at the close of the civil war in 1864, 
 no civil governments existed in the South. 
 
 ■!7. The local governments which maintained allegiance to the United States, were de- 
 stroyed bj the Southern Siales themselves in I860 and 'ill. when Confederate Governments 
 were established in their place, from that moment, therefore, their rights and privileges 
 a- Federal States ceased entirely. .Mr. Trumbull, in his speech delivered in the United 
 States Senate January 23, L868, clearly explains this point. "Thej (th« insurgent States) 
 " could not take themselves oul of the Union, and thej could not lake their State out of the 
 
 •■ Union : but what could they do. and what did they do'.' They had a State organization. 
 •• They could destroj that State organization, and they did destroy it. The political organ- 
 ■■ ization ol tin- State was bj their own act destroyed in 1861, and then the people of that 
 •• Si, iic had no ability to perform anj act under the < 'onstitution of the United Slates which 
 ■• it required a political State organization to perform. Hence they could not elect a Senator 
 •■ to the Congress of the United States. Why? Because they had no political Slate organ- 
 " ization, no Legislature ; and the Constitution sa_\> that Senator.- shall lie elected by the 
 ■ Legislatures of their respective States. Hence their representation ceased. Of course a 
 " ho tile organization — one which under the < institution of the United Stales we had author- 
 " ity to put down by force of arms, and which we did put down bj force id' arms — could not 
 
"elect a Senator to this body- That was not the State organization contemplated b the 
 
 "Constitution, because the Constitution provided for a State Legislator mposed ol mem 
 
 who were loyal and ti i oustitution of the United SI 
 
 18. Now the governments which owed allegiance to the Confederacj were desl 
 
 bj the forces of the United States, as is well known. The Confederate State? declared 
 their independence ; upon thai point a controversy arose between them and the United 
 States : both si lea appealed to the arbitral) f the sword. Upon its decision their polit- 
 ical rights, properly, fortunes, even life Itself, were staked. The decision ol the -word 
 written in characters of blood, was rendered in the battle-field amidst the clash ol 
 the thunder of cannon, the shrieking of shells. The decision was thai "the Union was 
 righl and the Rebellion was wrong." The cause of the Confederate Stair- was then lost, 
 together with their civil governments and political rights. 
 
 19. What claim have thej now to the disputed right, after having 1 n settled by the 
 
 sword? Who ever heard of a belligerent, fairlj beaten in battle, impudently demanding 
 the immediate restorati f the rights which he bad forfeited '.' 
 
 50. The verdicl of the sword and its pra< ults were frankly admitted by the 
 leading Generals of the Confederate Armies, al the time of surrender on the battle-field, 
 who therefore counsel? I theii to laj down their arms, and, with a m inlj spirit of 
 
 submission, asked n her terms than a generous pardon. The author of the Inaugural 
 
 concedes this fact : "iliosein arms ajainst tl,- national authority surrendered without any 
 
 hertlian such as wen agreed upon by the generals in thejutd"; and neverthe- 
 less, with singular inconsistency, he immediately steps back and claim- for the defeated 
 Confederates not as a favor, bul as a right, the restoration of all their civil and political 
 privileges. As well may a criminal convicted of murder in the Qrst degree asserl his claim 
 to the gubernatorial chair of a State! 
 
 51. But Congress, replies the author, t declared that the war was not ttcwj 
 
 oar part in any spirit of oppressi m : nor in any spirit of conquest or subjugation : nor forth* 
 purposi of overthrowing or inti firing with thi righis or established institutions of those Stales." 
 
 ."■■J. So will, sometimes, a good and peaceful man assure an unjust aggressor, thai he 
 h i- no intention of taking his life, nor even of fighting with him, if he will desisl from his 
 unjust attack. So will often a public officer also, declare to an offender thai he will nseno 
 coercion, it' the latter will peacefully submil to authority. In either case, however, it' the 
 
 ressor persist in hie wicked purpose, will the author say thai tl ther party is bound 
 
 by his promise to sacrifice his rights, to forsake his duly, to imperil hi> life for the offend- 
 er'ssake! Commo law, and usage scornfully reject a doctrine so pernicious and 
 
 absurd. 
 
 53. [t is true, therefore, tl it Lincoln proclaimed in his first Inaugural _d 
 
 dress, thai the North would nol unsheathe tbesword except theSouth did ii first It is true 
 
 that Congress declared thai "the war v 1 by the Govern ni for the purpose 
 
 of overthrowing or interfering with the Southern Institutions." Bul to all these declara- 
 tions and promises, a condition was added, thai the insurgent States should lay down their 
 arms; restore the Federal property; obej the Constitution. 
 
 54 These conditions were nol fulfilled. Resistance to authority was carried to the 
 extreme. The insurgent Slates impressed in their army every man capable of bearing 
 arm-. " from the cradle to the grave," as Granl concisely expressed it. They proclaimed to 
 the world their intention, " either to win or to die." In this emergency "eitherswim or 
 sink," either conquer or perish, was the alternative of the Federal Government. The right 
 ;m ,l ,iuiy of | its own existence, and of enforcing the law of the land, left no op- 
 tion as to the course to be pursued. " The Nation musl and shall be preserved " was the 
 unanimous response ol the loyal people from one end of the Republic to the ether. The 
 struggle thai followed was fearful, and the results Buch as mighl have t n expected. Le- 
 gislatures, Executives, Judiciaries ; in a word, all the civil governments of the insurgent 
 Stales were swepl out of existence by the tornado of war. like chair before the wind. 
 
 ;,;,. Who is to blame for this result? Undoubtedly, the unjust aggressor who obsti- 
 nately refused in time to listen to the voice of right, justice, and reconciliation. The prom- 
 ise made bj Lincoln and Congress to preserve the Southern institutions was prompted by 
 Clemency and Generosity, nol demanded bj Justice. Bul acts of clemencj are always con- 
 ditional, and must be merited by submission ; whereas the dntj of Justice i- absolute and 
 admits not of dispensation. The Federal Government was released from its pledge, the 
 moment the insurgenl State- refused to lay down their arm-. 
 
 56. Bul I Jongress. insists the author. " repeatedly recogni "1 their separ 
 
 in the adoptio ■ '!'■ '"> ,,ir official 
 
 with the other States and th* General Government, in On appoinin 
 rial and olh r officers forthem." 
 
 57. This assertion is positively denied. Congress declined to recognize the proi isional 
 Governments sel up bj the arbitrary power of President Johnson; hence it steadily re- 
 fused to admit their delegates to seats in the National Capitol. ''ote_M-e-.it i- true, toler- 
 ated them for a period of time, for experiment sake : but toleration i- nol recognition. It 
 was during this time of probation thai Congress submitted to them the Constitutional 
 
8 
 
 amendment abolishing slavery ; that it appointed judicial officers for them, and did other 
 acts with a view of testing the sincerity of their submission to Federal authority previous 
 to the ratification of their provisional Governments and their admission to Congressional 
 representation. 
 
 58. How sadly disappointed was Congress in its expectations is a well known fact. 
 The new Governments made use of their power to reenslave the freedmen in another form ; 
 to restore impenitent rebels to power : to supply them with arms against the friends of the 
 Federal Government, and those especially who fought for its preservation; so that thou- 
 sands of loyal men were compelled to flee for their lives. Very justly, therefore, Congress 
 refused to recognize the new civil Governments appointed by the President, until they 
 complied with the Congressional provisions. 
 
 59. To recapitulate the whole akgcment t\ brief. The plunder of Federal proper- 
 ty; the an id secession by State authority; the act of rebellion and war upon the Gov- 
 ernment committed by the' insurgent Southern States are unjustifiable crimes which, by the 
 Constitution and by the law of Nations and in accordance with the natural and evangelical 
 law. are punishable with the privation of all political rights and even with death. The 
 Southern insurgenl States therefore forfeited dejure all their rights, both State and National ; 
 they Forfeited them defado also : since the loyal State organizations were destroyed by their 
 own act in 1861, and the rebel organizations were destroyed by the Federal forces. Therefore, 
 by rebellion and secession the insurgent States lest their character and condition of States 
 in the fjnipn, and at the close of the war they had no civil Governments. 
 
 THIRD ZR^ZFtT. 
 TUE logical consequences of the crime and punishment of armed rebellion, false 
 
 CHARGES AND OBJECTIONS OF THE AUTHOR OF THE INAUGURAL AND PARTY MEN. 
 
 CO. The crimes of the insurgent States and their well-merited punishment having thus 
 been clearly established, it is time now to consider the logical consequences which thence 
 inevitably follow. 
 
 61. First Inference. If the acts of secession, rebellion, and war upon the Govern- 
 ment were clear violations of the Constitution, and high crimes on the part of the insur- 
 gent States, the rebel governments set up by them, and all their acts, were illegal, null and 
 void. By the contrary reason, both before and after the secession of the South, the United 
 States was the true and legitimate Government, having full power to make and enforce 
 laws : ami all its arts tor the preservation of the National Union, and the suppression of 
 rebellion, either as a military or political necessity, were perfectly just, legal and valid. 
 
 iYl. But a certain class of opponents stop us right here, and -ay that they can not ad- 
 mit, that after the secession of the Southern States the acts of the Federal Congress were 
 legal, for it had no power to make laws. According to the Constitution, they say. for the 
 legal validity of Congressional acts, it is necessary that all Stale- be represented. The 
 Southern States, since their secession, were not represented in Congress, therefore the acts 
 of Congress since that time, and until said States are represented, are not legal. 
 
 63. A- this objection conies from the allies of those who defiantly bade an eternal 
 farewell in the National Halls, and severed all connection with the North, it affords us, we 
 confess, considerable amusement. For it appears, from the tenacity with which their 
 friends cling to their presumed right to the Congressional seats, that their magnanimous 
 resolve was not altogether Bincere. Be it as it may. the proposition that "for the validity 
 nl Congressional art- ii i- accessary thai all States lie represented.'" is not altogether true, 
 lor. ii for the validity of a Constitutional amendment, the consent of two thirds of the 
 States is sufficient, why, tin- the validity of a Congressional act, is the consent of the 
 representatives of two thirds ol the States insufficient ? But supposing that it is necessary 
 that all the States be represented in Congress, the Constitution evidently means States in 
 tin- Union. The rebel States, we have proved, ceased <\, jure, and de facto to lie States in 
 the Union when they set up rebel Governments; since that time, therefore, according to 
 tin' Constitution, their representation in Congress was no longer necessary. 
 
 ci. Besides, the absurdities which from the contrary proposition would follow, make 
 the latter utterly inadmissible. If the representation of rebel States were necessary for 
 the legal validity of the acts of Congress, said States would be in reality integral parts of 
 
 i ah antagonistic Govern nts : they would at the same time lie composing and dissolving 
 
 elements of the Union. The South would have the right of being represented both at 
 Richmond and Washington; not so the North. Thus, the acts of the Southern Congress 
 would be legal without the vole of the North ; the ads of the Northern Congress would be 
 Illegal without the vote of the South. Hence disloyaltj could legalize its own acts, whilst 
 loyalty could not. Disloyalty, no matter how much 'in the minority, could at pleasure 
 impede legislation by withdrawing, and thus obstruct the machinery of government; loy- 
 alty, mi -the other hand, would I ntirely helpless ; hence the Constitution would offer a 
 
 Buperior advantage to disloyalty and encourage it effectively. Will our opponents admit 
 
all these absurdities? Will they go down the whole depth of the precipice ol error? If 
 not, they must retrace their steps. 
 
 65. Second Inference, [fin consequent ion, rebellion and war upon the 
 Government, the insurgent States forfeited all their rights, it follows, bj irresistible con* lu 
 simi. thai thej have no righl to any political office, either Statu or National ; thai lb 
 
 not entitled to anj compensation for losses sustained bj the war, nor to the payment of 
 
 the Confederate debt, nor to the pensi f rebel Boldlers, Bj the contrarj reason, thej 
 
 who were loyal to the Government in the hour of peril, and offered their lives and I 
 urc for its support, are entitled to the pr ised bounties : and the National debt, contract- 
 ed on account of the war, musl be paid faithfully and entirely, In accordance with the 
 
 pledge given. No deb I was ever more necessary, more just, and beneficial to tin' 
 
 Nation, for it was the prioe of our national hi'''. The faith ami honor of the Nation, as 
 well a- the credil of republican institutions, are pending on the punctual discharge of this 
 sacred obligation. The remarks made bj the Geneva Chamber, of Commerce, in their 
 friendly communication t" tin' American Congress, are pertinonf here, and deserve the 
 careful consideration of the American people. Thej are a- follows: "Brethren of the' 
 •• United States, praj hear us. ' * The moral responsibility of a republican people is 
 •• much more af Btake than thai of a people governed bj an absolute monarch : the) ought 
 •■ ti> know ilia i thej ..in nut put mi anj bodj but themselves the dishonor which would result 
 •• from breaking their engagements : thej ought to know that to a people, as to indi\ iduals, 
 •• the true means to establish their credit, and to give a Bolid basis to the confidence placed in 
 " them, is to fulfil mosl scrupulously everj engagement thej maj have contracted." 
 
 66. Third Inference, [f the insurgent States forfeited de jurt the Tight of self-gov- 
 ernment in local matters, and the rebel governments were destroyed bj the band of war. 
 so that at its close no civil governments existed in those States, the power, therefore, which 
 succeeded them was the military, which, according to the law and custom of nations, holds 
 public control until a civil governmenl is established bj authority ol the conquering 
 power; and during the period of military rule, bj the same law and custom of nations, 
 the -writ of habeas corpus and trial by jury are superseded bj military orders and tribunals. 
 
 67. Fourth infi • . [f, at the close of the war, there were no civil governments 
 in the seceded States, and, as stated, thej were then under military rule, it follows that thej 
 became subject to Congress with respect to the manner in which thej should be governed 
 
 by militarj commanders ; the term of duration of the military rule : the c litions for its 
 
 cessation; the power of reorganizing civil governments ; their mode and conditions; the 
 ratification of the new Constitutions, and the qualifications of the delegates to Co 
 
 The reason is, because all these things must be defined and sanctioned bj law. Now, neither 
 the Executive nor the Judiciarj Department has the power to frame laws, but C 
 
 alone 
 
 68. It follows, therefore, strictly, first : that Congress has power to reconstruct or re 
 organize the late insurgent States ; second: that it has power to regulate the question of 
 suffrage in said States for that object. Because, means and end are inseparable ; authoritj 
 therefore over the latter, implies it over the former also. 
 
 69. Hence we gather the following important doctrine concerning the power of Con- 
 gress to regulate suffrage in the insurgent States ; it arises from the following sources : 1st, 
 directly from the special jurisdiction acquired o\ er the insurgent States d< jun . by their le- 
 gal forfeiture of rights ; and de facto bj the result of the war which destroyed their civil 
 governments, in consequence of which, by the law and custom of nations, each of them 
 maj be reorganized at such a time, in such a manner, and under such conditions as may 
 seem expedient to the conquering power for the public safetj ; 2d, it arises from the fact 
 that the regulation of suffrage in the South is an absolutelj necessarj means fV>r protecting 
 both the life of the Nation and of its citizens ; and Bince c\ erj law, human and divine, im- 
 poses on the Govern nt the obligation of defending its own existence, as well as that of 
 
 its subjects, thej consequently grant the use of the necessarj mean-. Now, if said laws 
 permit' the use of the bullet, when necessarj for self-defense, whj not the ballot also 
 
 The right to regulate suffrage arhv a moreover from the injunction made upon the Govern- 
 ment by the Constitution in Art TV., Sec. I, " to guarantee to everj State in this Union a 
 Republican form of government " ; and from the power conferred upon Congress in the 
 last clause of the eighth section of the lir-t article of the Constitution, " To make all laws 
 " which shall be necessary and proper for earn ing into execution the foregoing power- ami 
 •• all other power- \ ested bj this < institution in the < fovernmenl of the United States, or in 
 " any department or officer thereof." Whenever, therefore, bj reason of some article em- 
 bodied in the Constitution of a State, or any other cause, the Government of a - 
 anti-republican in form, Congress by virtue of the foregoing clause has the power to pass 
 a law for the compliance with Art. i\'.. Sec l. of the Constitution. Hence it may regulate 
 suffrage by law if sessary. 
 
 70. From all this, it appears that the power to abolish slavery, under the Constitution, 
 existed previous to the military necessity claimed bj the Emancipation Act For th 
 ernment which permits human beings, made in the image of God, r to be driven like 
 
 to the market, is neither Republican, nor Christian, nor Human. Nevertheless, il 
 
10 
 
 thai our eminent statesmen, fearing a terrible convulsion, and probable disruption of the 
 Onion, if thai power was enforced, hesitated, and connived at iniquity for over eighty years. 
 But the God of Justice and Right would not tolerate it any longer'; and in the appointed 
 time,— as Lincoln in his second inaugural rightly said, — " He gave the Nation a terrible war. 
 by which, as by a baptism of blood, this country was cleansed and purified of the sinful 
 stain of Human Slavery." 
 
 71. But, Democrats, though compelled to grant that at the end of the war the insurgent 
 States had no en il governments, and became therefore subject to Congressional legislation. 
 contend nevertheless, that the war being ended they immediately recovered all their former 
 rights and privileges, including the right oi representation in Congress. Such a result is 
 certainlj marvelous as well as unexpected. Why? to lose and yet win on one side; to 
 win and yet lose on the other? This is certainly a most extraordinary result. If the suc- 
 cessful termination of the war brought such a result, victory then was worse than defeat : 
 to light four years, to sacrifice thousands of lives, to spend millions of treasure in order to 
 secure such a result, would be the highest folry and crime. In what code of law. either 
 modern or ancient, do our opponents find that States which forfeited all their rights and 
 privileges, both de jur< and de facto, regain them at once as soon as conquered by the 
 sword'.' What 1 .' to readmit immediately into the Union rebellious Slates tint sought the 
 
 Lestruction of the Nation 1 thai fought with desperation, and gave up the contest only 
 when they fell exhausted under the staggering blows of Grant'.' to readmit them to the 
 full participation of power, honor, and glory, without even imposing a small penalty for 
 tlieir enormous crimes ? without exacting any probation, requiring any security of submis- 
 sion in future ? Would this, pray, be a due regard to the public safety ? Would il lie a 
 vindication of the Constitution? a tribute of justice to the loyal States'.' to the gallant sol- 
 diers who are living, and to the heroes who are dead? 
 
 72. That secessionists should speak so, is not surprising ; but that men who supported 
 the war for the Union should entertain the same sentiments, appears almost incredible. 
 Yet, such i< tic fact. One of them, recently elevated to the high position of United States 
 Senator, did not hesitate to use the following language before a public assembly : (1) "By 
 
 your consent the pledge proceeds from me to contribute by all the power that in me lies 
 ;i to the speedy, immediate, unconditional release of the people of the ten Southern States 
 •• from the bondage which I have already described, and the restoration as an entirety and 
 ■■ totality of every constitutional right id' those States as members of this Union.'' The senti- 
 ments of (he author of the Address are analogous to the preceding. May we ask these 
 i hampions, these brighl lights of a regenerated Democracy, if at the time they supported 
 the war for the Union, they knew the consequences which rebellion entails upon the guilty 
 by the law and custom of every Nation', both modern and ancient ' If they did not. they 
 evince tic most lamentable ignorance; if they did, the most grievous inconsistency. 
 
 73. Firm inference. If the plunder of Federal property, secession, rebellion, and 
 war upon the Government were crimes, and the privation of political rights a just punish- 
 ment, as it has been demonstrated, it is then the duty of every friend of social -order, right. 
 and justice to approve and not to condemn in harsh language that punishment : just; as ev- 
 ery honest citizen 'approves the vindication of the law by the punishment of those guilty of 
 ii- infraction. 
 
 7 1. But, punishment, replies the author of the Inaugural with the whole Dem- 
 ocratic party, should not be excessively severe. •• The Congressional policy subjects the 
 white population of the South, inn,. women,and chUdren,to the domination of amass of 
 ignorant negroes just freed from slavery. It compels them to exile themselves from the soil in 
 which sleeps thi dustof their kindred for generations. It places them under military rule." 
 Surely, such a punishment is too severe, and unworthy of a magnanimous and Christian 
 Nation. 
 
 7.*>. < (mitting for the present the particular, we will give first a general answer to this 
 objection. A punishment which is less than the desert of a crime is not too severe. The 
 crimes of rebellion and aggression npon the Government committed by the Southern States, 
 are punished by nations generallj with privation of all political rights; with confiscation 
 of property, banishment, and sometimes with death. Now, has the Federal Government 
 punished the chief leaders of the rebellion with death, as England did the Sepoys ; and 
 
 ! >i lj Spain her revolutionists ? No; it has released them on parole/even the arch-traitor 
 
 himself, lias the Federal Government disfranchised all (hose who participated in the re- 
 bellion '.' No ; except a small number which is diminished by the amnesty proclamation. Has 
 the Government confiscated all their property ? No; most of the propertj seized during the 
 been restored to them, lias the Government banished them from the country ? 
 No : it has allowed them to live at option in any part id' the national domain; to enjoy 
 liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And is this too severe a punishmenl for their scan- 
 dalous rebellion against authority, and the i lense sacrifice of life and treasure which 
 
 thej ha\ e caused to the Nation ? 
 
 7 Bui '■ ilo y an our cowrit/rynn ,,," rejoins the author; '-they arc the bone of our bone 
 
 (1) Eugene Casserly. 
 
11 
 
 andflesh df our flesh." Aye; and the Bible tells us that "il thine eye offend tl pluck it 
 
 out, and it' thine hand offend ill nl ii off." 
 
 77. Before pronouncing a punishment severe, it is m inquire into the 
 
 nature of the crime committed. Crime and punishmenl are correlatives, connected tu 
 
 as cause and effect It is a practice, both unjusl and prejudicial ,to parato 
 
 them in public debate. If the exocutlon of a criminal i»- viewed wltboul reference to bis 
 crime, it will appear a murder; and every punishmenl Been in a separate lighl will seem 
 nol only excessive bul a |«<>— tii-v. »- injustice. 
 
 78. ' Ii is thus, thai the enemies of the Congressional Reconstruction make the me i 
 
 of Congress appear nol only too harsh, bul unjusl and cruel, ll i- thus, thai they make 
 
 whal they call radicalism a By ryme of severity, cruelty, and inhumanity : when, in reality, 
 
 it is simply justice to the innocent, and justice, tempered with mercy, to the guilty. It is 
 thus, thai 1 1 1 . ■ \ who bypocriticallj affeel love and devotion for the Constitution, while seem- 
 ingly shrinking with horror from any tiling which i- nol expressly contained in thai doc- 
 ument, sometimes bide, sometimes defend the grosses) violations of their partisans, for 
 whirh. in other countries, individuals forfeil all rights except one " the gallows." 
 
 79. Incessant is the olamor of these men againsl Congress, that it it an istitutional 
 
 to deprive the Southern States of their per do they look upon il as a well- 
 
 deserved punishment; thej never refer to the crimes which entailed it, far less thej rep- 
 resent them in a fair light ' instead of this, thej destroj the chapterof history which relates 
 the guilt, and retain only thai which records the punishment. And upon this thej dwell at 
 length : this thej comment, describe, and magnifj to immense proportions, for the purpose 
 of arousing the imagination and passions of the simple and uninformed, and of con\ incing 
 them thai the Congressional measures are, in the language of the Author of the Inaugural, 
 "■ a violation of th* fundamental principles of Uu Constitution, a viola 
 
 -,,,-. i,, a,, c mntry and to tm itch we 
 
 live." As well maj thej sever the bead From a human body, in order to make il appear a 
 monster, as to omil in the bistorj ol reconstruction the fact thai the Southern 
 foiled all their rights by rebellion, in order thai the acts of Congres m unconstitu- 
 
 ti in il. Restore the mutilated portion of the narrative, and all parte will perfectlj corres- 
 pond. Lei the case of the insurgenl States be fairly explained to the people, and. beyond 
 all doubt, no conscientious man will ever accuse Congress of severity, bul rather oi 
 sive leniency inward those States. 
 
 mi. But whj conceal the historj of the crime? whj pass over it- horrible details? 
 whystippress its aggravating circumstances 2 What is the intent, the object, the motive ? 
 Are thej who do this sincere ? Are thej bonest? Shall, then, the present and futu 
 
 !.• deprived of the only advantage which nJBj accrue to them from the terrible 
 scourge with which a kind Providence has visited this country, namely, a moral lesson for 
 themselves and children that •• Rebellion is a heinous crime, and it- consequences are ter- 
 rible .'" Sh ill we then forgel -<> soon live hundred thousand brave soldiers cu< down in the 
 prime of life by the accursed hand of rebellion? Shall we obliterate the waitings, sighs, 
 and tears of bereaved mothers, sisters and wives occasioned bj thia execrable monster? 
 
 Shall we have compassion mi the guilty, and refuse our tears of sympathy to the | r 
 
 widow- and orphans of the innocenl \ ictims '.' Let us lie humane with our wayward breth- 
 ren! Ave. let u- lie element and generous ! lint before being (dement, let US be jUSt to 
 
 the innocent as well as to the guilty! Clemencyis acharming quality ; bul justice i- an 
 absolute duty ! Justice is the Bupreme attribute of the Deity! upon justice, as upon an 
 adamantine basis, the world is poised! Let, then, " Impartial Justice ro all Mbn," be 
 our tm it i' i. for it is inscribed in naming characters mi the sword of the Omnipotent 
 
 81. Thus far we h >\e refuted the objection of the author on general grounds : we shall 
 now pi-- in the particular. " The Congressional policy (say- he) subjects Ifu whi 
 
 Houth, men, women, "<<</ children, to Uu domination of " mass of ignorant negro 
 
 i. U compels them to exu\ themselves from the soil in which sleeps the dust 
 motions. It places them under military rule." This objection corn- 
 two charges : that the Congressional policy subjects the Southern i pie tu the dom- 
 ination of the negro, and that it subjects them to the power of the military. We -hall 
 commence with the latter. 
 
 82. ■• //. ' re*," says the author, " commits tm 
 
 martial law, that is under " Constitutional Government, '<» a period of profound peace." Just 
 s0 [f ,i, r insurgent Mates were nut subject i" i 'ongressional legislation bj the right of war. 
 Jual so, if they had submitted to authority in good faith, if thej had nol persecuted loyal 
 citizens. Thousands of them were murdered, thousands compelled to leave the country, 
 and many to hide in secrel places. Congress was besetwith petitions praying protection 
 to the lives of loyal citizens. What should Congress do? Refuse their requesl '.' Abandon 
 the friends of the Governmenl to the rage of their enemies? Their lives, property, and 
 
 liberty had l nsecured to them bj everj sacred obligation of right justice, and gi 
 
 which could bind the Nation. " Tht solemn pledgt of th Nation," says the author, " con 
 nolle violated without a breach of publicfaith upon our national banner." This is true, when 
 the condition mider which a pledge is given to a party has i a faithfullj fulfilled by the 
 
12 
 
 latter, as the loyal whiles and blacks of the South have done, but not so the rebels. Con- 
 gress, therefore, was in duty bound, when other expedients had tailed, to protect loyal cit- 
 izens by military force. 
 
 83. But is it true that "in the Southern Stales there is no other law but the will of thecom- 
 ' " thai •• evi ry cyo& offia r, executive, legislative, and judicial, is left to hold his positiol- 
 
 at tin pleasure of thi military?" thai "civil rights exist there only at the pleasure of the win 
 itary '.' " Nol long alter the close of the war. provisional civil governments were organized 
 by the arbitrary power of the President, and only tolerated by Congress ; civil officers 
 were then elected and laws passed under those governments, as all know. Military com- 
 manders nave subsequently been established in the Southern Districts by act of Congress, 
 simplj for the purpose of protecting life and property and of enforcing the laws, should 
 civil authorities he either unwilling or unable to execute them. The military commanders 
 thus appointed have not an absolute and independent power. They must faithfully execute 
 the laws of Congress, the orders of the President and of the General of the Army." and may 
 be removed as often as it is deemed expedient. Where is then their independent authority"? 
 their absolute dictatorship ? The charge, therefore, that the insurgent States are under 
 military despotism is not true. 
 
 84. We pass now to the other charge, that "the Congressional policy subjects the white 
 population of the South, mi >. women, and children, to the domination of a moss of ignorant ne- 
 groes just freed from slavery ; consequently, it compels them to exile themselves fromthe soil in 
 which sleeps the dust of Hen- kindred for generations." We confess that we cannot well re- 
 concile these two assertions-: " the Congressional policy subjects the Southern people to 
 'military' and to' negro 7 domination." Are they subjected to both at one time '! If not. 
 to which are they subject? But let us omit this. 
 
 85. We have demonstrated that in consequence of the forfeiture of rights by the in- 
 surgent States and the result of the war. Congress has the right to regulate suffrage in those 
 States for the purpose of reorganizing civil governments. Now we affirm further, that 
 when absolute justice and necessity demand the exercise of said right in conformity with 
 the public weal, it is the bounden duty of Congress to use that right. This proposition is 
 self-evident, and needs no proof. For the duties of Justice are indispensable. The ques- 
 tion, therefore, is resolved into this : Was Congress in duty bound to regulate suffrage in 
 the Southern States? We answer most emphatically. Yes. ' Justice absolutely demanded it. 
 for the protection ofthe lives, property, and liberty of loyal men. both white and black. Grati- 
 tude demanded it. for the support they rendered to the Government iii the hour of peril, at 
 the com of life and blood. Public faith demanded it, on account of the promises made to 
 them during the war. Public safety demanded it. as a security against rebel machinations. 
 If. therefore, from the concession of suffrage to the freed men arise inconveniences that are 
 unpleasant to disloyalists, all we can say is, there is uo redress. When the alternative is 
 between Clemency and Justice, the Government cannot sacrifice the latter for the former. 
 It the inconveniences are too hard, they who were the moral cause of them by their im- 
 penitence and obstinacy must bear the blame. Had they submitted in time to Constitu- 
 tional authority : had they accepted the first plan of reconstruction, a very easy and rea- 
 sonable one ; it is positively certain that neither emancipation nor extension of suffrage 
 would have been reported to. Both these measures, though perfectly constitutional in 
 consequence of the armed rebellion of the Southern States, would never have been adopt- 
 ed, had they not been forced by absolute necessity, as the documents show. No Govern- 
 
 i earth did ever exhibit more clemency, more moderation and patience toward vio- 
 lent rebels, than the Government of the United States. But clemency, moderation, and 
 patience have a limit : if they transcend the boundaries of justice they are no longer vir- 
 tues, but vices. They have now reached that limit ; and we 'trust, for the sake of the inno- 
 ci nl and loyal citizens, for the welfare of the Nation, that justice alone will be hencefor- 
 ward administered, until the last embers of the rebellion are totally extinguished. 
 
 86. Therefore, even admitting that the complaints contained in the 'objection of the 
 author are true, nevertheless, from a solemn duty of justice and necessity, Congress could 
 not do otherwise than to grant the elective franchise to loyalists both while and black. 
 
 87. Hut. we cannotagree with the author ofthe Inaugural, that "the Congressional 
 poKcj/" (on account of the extension of suffrage) "subjects the irh'.t, p,q„ihition of tin South 
 to the domination of a mass of ignorant negroes; and that it compels th< whites to exile them- 
 selvt s." 
 
 88. The whites are in the majority there. According to the last census ofthe Southern 
 States, in I860, the number of whites was 1,622,281 ; and that of the -blacks, 3,346,861. 
 The majority of the whites, therefore, was then 1,275,420. Allowing a decrease of pop- 
 ulation in both races on account of the war, the majority still preponderates in favor of 
 the whites. 
 
 89. In all Conventions held under the Congressional plan of Reconstruction, the ma- 
 jority of the members presenl have been white, [n the registration books more whites 
 than blacks have been registered, though a great many of the former refused to register. 
 
 90. Now the whiles, with the exception ofthe disfranchised class ofrebel leaders, (whose 
 number [g greatlj reduced by the Amnesty proclamation,) are entitled to vote: how, then. 
 
L8 
 
 can they, having an electoral majority, be made Bubjeot to the aegtoec '>> the ball I 
 
 it because the latter prevent the former fr voting? The contrarj i- the fact I 
 
 lowing statement IV an eye-witne88, and corres] lent of the Vete York TYibune, bean 
 
 testi j on the subject : " If jeera and abuse will make Northern men leave, thej will 
 
 '•jeer and abuse; if threats are i led, thej will threaten; and Jf violence Is required, 
 
 •• thej are readj to maltreal and murder. This Beems severe ; but look al the gang of 
 
 " them around a poll, with their trowsers in their i to, their broad brimmed hats half 
 
 •• covering their faces, their rei olvers in their belts, and the bowie knives in their bosoms, 
 ■• w ill satisfy the mosl incredulous." 
 
 91. The question, therefore, reverts; If the white population in the South have an 
 electoral majority, how can thej be placed under the domination of the negroes! The 
 only answer to this is, because of their own free will and accord, al the of dis- 
 loyal demagogues, thej refuse to vote. In i f "I this we will cite one among the hun- 
 dreds of cases which have occurred at the fate elections. The VHckaburg Times, immedi- 
 ately before the election, had the following notice: "Stat iwat from the polls. Vfe 
 
 " again urge everj <1< at \\ bite man. every In rable gentleman of the American race, to 
 
 "avoid Genera] Ord's election as he would avoid pestilence and. prison. As this advice 
 •• does not apply to, and is nol intended for the white Bneaks of the Lojal League, we Bhall 
 
 " expecl the last nai 1 despicable vermin oul in all their strength." And after the elec- 
 
 ■•timi: " The immortal fight. — We arc gratified to be able to announce to the readers of 
 
 "the Times that al the Court House yesterday, tl nly place open to the whole i pie, 
 
 •■ there were casl the \ otes of eighl i pie onlj ! We tried to gel the n imes of the inter- 
 esting sneaks who voted, but tailed, ii ._di the Times office does and is readj to pay a 
 
 " dollar for the nai f each voter. * ' There were onlj eighl cowards, dogs, and 
 
 "scoundrels of the Maygatl and Mekee Btripe." Now if elections go bj default in the 
 South, who is to blame? Have Union men in this State a righl to complain of Governor 
 Haight's election because it went by default ? 
 
 92. But supposing, even, that the elections in the South were carried exclusively by 
 negro vote, (which is not the fact, for many districts have given democratic majorities in 
 various States, and the Constitution has been defeated in Mississippi bj negro votes,! we 
 will ask, how can the whites be subjected to the domination of the blacks '.' Are they not, 
 according to the author's language, " almost as ignorant of political duties as the beasts of 
 
 Is?" and the Caucasian gentlemen, on the contrary, very intelligent? Which is 
 easier, that intelligence be controlled by ignorance, or that ignorance be controlled by in- 
 telligence? Did not Southerners often boast that the late bondsman would always remain 
 attached to his former master, and could easily be controlled l>y him '.' 
 
 93. Let us suppose further, that the Southern States were in fact Africanized bj negro 
 vote, and that the blacks controlled every department of the civil government : neverthe- 
 less, how long would such a Btate of things last '.' How long would the political power re- 
 main under negro control '.' The white majority there will lie immensely increased by im- 
 migration from all parts id' the world, a- Boon as law and order are restored : and. a- certain 
 as the Sun rises in the Orient daily, every vestige of negro power, whatever it be, will be 
 swept from the South with the rapidity of a whirlwind. Hence, it i> neither the tart, nor 
 is it possible that tin' Southern people can lie ion-- subjected to negro domination. 
 
 '.il. And. if such he the case, what compels them to go into banishment '.' If they ^n. 
 
 it musl he by their ow u fr id : and certainlj . to remo^ e \ oluntarily to another portion 
 
 of the national domain, ami enjoy all the rights of citizenship under the Government's pro- 
 tection, can not be c msidered Buch a dreadful punishment, such a painful banishment as 
 to call forth plaintive notes. One thing i- remarkable, however, that while the Author with 
 so much feeling complains of the exile of Southern disloyalists, he does not utter a word 
 of sympathj for the thousands of 'loyal citizens who were compelled to leave the South 
 under threat id' murder and assassination. 
 
 95. It. therefore, the white people, who have an immense majority on this continent, 
 neither are. nor ever will he. subject to negro domination, ii follows that the apprehension 
 of the Author, that the elevation of the negro " will introdtic* tin antipathy of raa h 
 
 il contests and lead to strife and bloodshed " is entirely groundless. The author ami 
 his party friends maj quiet their fears on this Bcore. . There is not the least danger of & 
 conflict on the part of the blacks, who have no intention of molesting the whites, a- long 
 
 as the \ are permitted to live by the earnings of their toil, and to enjoy th mmon i ignis 
 
 of nature, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nor i- there any danger on the part 
 of the disloyal whites : for they have not the power to do it. alter the last exhaustit 
 test. A sad experience has taught them to respect the will id' the Nation : and they 
 are now aware that there i- a lived determination in the loyal American people to protect 
 the rights of the freedmen, in accordance with the national pledge; and to establish law- 
 anil order in the South at all costs and hazards. 
 
 96. But "voters should always be qualified and negroes are not," resume our oppo- 
 nent- : •• therefore, it is wrong to confer upon them the electn e franchise." 
 
 97. This objection, which ha- the appearance of truth, will he found on mature reflec- 
 tion to prove, if it prove anything, that all impenitent rebels and their sympathizers, th« 
 
14 
 
 Copperheads, should not be allowed to vote, because they are not qualified. Let us exam- 
 ine each point of the objection separately. 
 
 98. First "Voters should always be qualified." What does this mean ? What is 
 qualification, with reference to the performance of an act? It is the knowledge of the act 
 i,> be performed, and the will of performing it well. Hence, as applied to suffrage, quali- 
 fication comprises the knowledge of the thing to be voted upon, and the will of voting in 
 conformity with right and justice, [t follows, therefore, that for the right qualification of 
 suffrage a certain knowledge of the rights and duties of citizenship and of political sub- 
 jects ; also honesty of intention, impartiality, loyalty, are necessary requisites. Now, it 
 often happens that individuals do not possess all these requisites. What is to be dune then ? 
 Disfranchise them all'.' If such a rule were universally adopted very few Stales could be 
 admitted into the Union : very tew governments, either State or Municipal, could be or- 
 ganized. Hence, it seems absolutely necessary that some dispensation be made, in order 
 thai civil governments be organized for the protection and advancement of civil society. 
 In such an emergency, in whose favor will Democrats discriminate? Of the loyal and ig- 
 norant, or of the disloyal and intelligent? To whom will they trust the elective franchise — 
 a power so great for good and evil —to the humble, honest, and loyal, or to the proud, dis- 
 honest, and disloyal ? What can injure more a Commonwealth, — loyalty combined with 
 ignorance, or disloyalty associated with intelligence'' The terrible destruction of life dur- 
 ing the late war. the present enormous debt of the nation, are the results of disloyal intel- 
 ligence. Will then Democrats prefer in'elligence to virtue, when either one or the other is 
 the alternative? Ignorance can he easily overcome by education : not so, the spirit of re- 
 bellion. It is well for Democrats not to urge this argument of qualification too much, for 
 it will recoil against them, both on the point of intelligence and loyalty, with terrible force. 
 
 99. Hence, we will therefore reply to the general assertion, " Voters should always be 
 qualified." By their honesty of purpose, by their loyalty to the Government, we grant it. 
 •• Voters should always be qualified" by the knowledge of the rights and duties of citizen- 
 ship ; in ordinary cases, we grant this point also ; in cases governed by absolute necessity, 
 we deny it. We" fully agree with the author of the Inaugural that '■ Our free institutions 
 re si ni"'ii( tin' virtue ami intelligence of the people," and by virtue we understand chiefly hon- 
 esty, loyalty, and justice. Hut when both virtue and intelligence cannot be obtained, and 
 vet' it is absolutely necessary to lay the foundation of a civil government for the welfare of 
 a people, we contend that it is far safer to base the civil edifice upon virtue than intelli- 
 gence. Again, when it is absolutely necessary to protect the life of the Nation or of its 
 citizens, and the alternative is to grant to loyal men either the ballot, or the bullet and 
 bayonet tor self-defense, it is far more humane, more economical to give them the former 
 than the latter. 
 
 100. Now to the second point of the objection: "Negroes are not qualified." After 
 the exposition just given of the qualities required in a voter, this can be easily refuted 
 thus : •■ Negroes are not qualified " by their honesty of purpose and loyalty to the Govern- 
 ment, we deny it. Their war record is ample proof on this point. By a sufficient knowl- 
 edge of the rights and duties of citizenship, with respect to some blacks — not all — we grant 
 it. Bui what will this prove? Only that some among them, as well as among Democrats, 
 are deficient in knowledge, which defect is remedied by time ; but not in honesty and loy- 
 altv. which are the first qualities in a voter, and on which our free institutions chiefly rest. 
 Now. we have demonstrated that in a case of absolute necessity, as the one under consid- 
 eration, these qualities are entirely sufficient. 
 
 ]0L But the Author cannot concede that there exists any necessity of granting the bal- 
 lot to the freedmen, as a means of protection for themselves and the Nation. He even de- 
 nies that there exists any spirit of insubordination among the disloyal people of the South. 
 -7/ is not true,(says he,) that there is any disposition among the penple of those Mates to repeat 
 
 II, r experiment of secession They have in good faith submitted to tlie results of the war, 
 
 ,i,<<l disclaim oil idea <f secession <>r of resistance to federal authority." In view of the well 
 known tails that "the (disloyal) people of these States " have attempted to evade the 
 emancipation act and to reenslave the blacks ; that they have contrived with all their pow- 
 er to defeat the Congressional plan of reconstruction ; that they have organized secret socie- 
 ties as the infamous Ku-Klux-Klan for the intimidation and assassination of loyal men; that 
 officers of all classes, civil and military, public journalists and private citizens, have im- 
 plored Congress to establish military commands for the protection of life and property ; in 
 view of all these fads, the contrary assertion by the author may be regarded as the coolest 
 denial of the most evident truth. It is true, however, that if Southern disloyalists have 
 not succeeded in withdrawing from Federal authority the second time, it is not because 
 they did not •• try again." 
 
 102. But" it is not a sound reason urges the author, for conferring the elective franchise 
 upon negroes, if it were true that theu need more protection. Upon this theory the more he'pless and 
 ignorant the negro is the more propriety there would be in admitting him to the ballot-box and making 
 him a legislator and sovereign." Again : " If it is a question of justice, as some assert, and justice 
 re&iiri stht ballot to be given to the negro, then it equally requires the ballot to be given to the China- 
 man. If the negro requires the ballot to protect himself, as others assert, then the Asiatic needs it to 
 
L5 
 
 protect himself. There is, however, no truth in either tiotemint. Vo 
 
 any more than in Un ales or minor* or ' > 
 
 die hall ■ himself '""' ""''' than eilhet of tl<< other cl ed to." 
 
 L03. This argument is neither a fortiori nor apart. The difference between the two 
 rase- i- .. , p., | j i ; 1 1 ■ 1 \ e\ iilriii . t h:i t it is a wonder how an intelligenl iniutl could 
 
 ever fail to ee it. Of the various reason for whicli suffi en granted to (be loyal 
 
 blacks a i the South, nol one cun be ussigned in favor of the Chinese, colored men, I ign 
 
 ers not n : women and children n< the North. Although these reasoi have re- 
 
 peatedly been stated in the course of this article, nevertheless it will avail much to Bum 
 them np briefly here, for the sake of comparison and contrast 
 
 104. /•' ' Congress, in consequence of tl stincti if oivil governments in the 
 
 Southern States bj rebellion and war, has acquired a special jurisdiction over them, which 
 n b is nol in the loyal States. The blacks who reside in those - much subject to 
 
 the im m ftslution of Congress as the blacks in the District of Col bia. Nol bo. 
 
 however, < !hin imen, colored men ami others in the North, « ho are directly Bubjecl in local 
 matters to the Legislature of the State wherein thej reside. 
 
 ]().">. Sec d i'i consequence of the same special jurisdiction ' - i !»•• right 
 
 of regulating suffrage in the late insurgent States, where the freedmen reside, for the pur- 
 pose of reorganizing State Governments in harmonj with the Federal Government : which 
 right it has not in the loyal States, since thej are neither disorganized, nor have thej for- 
 forfeited their Constitutional rights by rebellion. This ib so true, that it freedmen should 
 emigrate to places beyond the jurisdiction ol Congress in local mutters, it could not then 
 bestow upon them the right of Biiffrage. 
 
 106. Third In the hour of the country's peril, the freedmen, tl gh exposed to per- 
 secution and death : though brutally ignorant, as the author asserts, knew better than 
 
 many intelligent De crats bow to be loyal to the Government Thej stood bravely by 
 
 the flag, and manj of them died in its defense ; whereupon thej obtained from the Gov- 
 ernment a guarantee thai their lives, liberty, and property should be protected in future. 
 Neither Chinamen, nor the colored people and other classes that reside in the loyal States 
 were exposed to the same dangers during the rebellion : nor did thej render the same ser- 
 vice, and receive the same pledge of the nation. 
 
 107. Fourth — Since the close of the war the freedmen have been subjected bj disloy- 
 alists to all sorts of persecution. Their civil rights have been trampled upon, their liberties 
 attacked, their lives threatened, and thousands of them have been brutally murdered. 
 Nothing of the kind has occurred to Chinamen, colored people, and other classes in the 
 loyal States. 
 
 108. fifth In the insurgent States there is an absolute necessitj to enforce the laws 
 of Congress, and to sustain the national authority, which is. as yet, stubbornly resisted by 
 impenitent rebels, who entertain still hopes of o\ erlhrow ing it flnallj . No m cessitj of the 
 kind exists in the loj al States. 
 
 109. Hence, neither by right, nor justice, nor necessitj could Congress extend the 
 privilege of suffrage to the Chinese, colored men, foreigners nol naturalized, women and 
 children in the loyal Slates, as to the blacks in the insurgent Stales. To suppose, as tl e 
 author of the Address does, that brutal ignorance, weakness of sex. helplessness of con- 
 dition, are the grounds apon which the elective franchise lias been granted to tbe Southern 
 blacks, is such an assault upon common sense, and a grievous slander upon the National 
 Congress as tarnishes the reputation of a gentleman. 
 
 110. The assertion, therefore, that "ttu Congressional policy proposes to ignori aU dis- 
 crimination inpolitical privileges; (hat no Urn can h dravm unless suffragi is confined to tfu 
 white population" is \\ holly untrue. The line is easilj draw d bj the immediate jurisdiction 
 which Congress ha? over the blacks in the South, t.ut not in the North : bj the necessity 
 that exists of protecting the lives, property, and libertj of its citizens; of reorganizing 
 loyal (io\ en 1 1 neii n : of maintaining Federal authority in the Southern, nol however in the 
 Northern States. Hence it follows, thai Congress has the righl to regulate suffrage in the 
 former and not in the latter State.. 
 
 111. The doctrine that "in loyal states the righl to regulate suffrage belongs to the 
 people of each State " has been clearly declared by the late National Union-Republican 
 Convention held at • Chicago, and very properlj . For, aside from the opinion of those who 
 maintain that the elective franchise is a privilege and not a righl : even admitting it to be 
 a right, yet it is not of the same nature as those mentioned in the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence, namely, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 
 
 1 12. The foregoing declaration of the < Ihicago I !om ention effectually refutes the false 
 
 charge of Dei srats, that universal suffrage in the South means universal Buffrage in tbe 
 
 North, including negroes and Chinamen : and also the following statement of the Author 
 of the Lnaugnral : " .1 portion of thou persons in this Stab who favor negro suffi 
 
 advocate Chinese suffragi ; but the Congressional policy makes no distinction." Both points are un- 
 true. First, The Congressional policj does make a distinction by the right, justice, and 
 necessity, which, as it has been proved, exist in one case and not in the oilier. - 
 No portion of the Union Republican party of the State of California has ever ad) 
 
16 
 
 Chinese or negro suffrage in any loyal State; nor has such a proposition ever been sub- 
 mitted to the vote of the people of this Stale ; it' it had, it would have been, as it will ever 
 be, defeated by an overwhelming vote, from both Democrats and Republicans. 
 
 1 13, Such are the fabrications of the Democratic politicians for the purpose of obtain- 
 in-- political advantage. It is thus, that at the last election they succeeded in driving away 
 from the Onion-Republican ranks many simple-minded persons, and brought them over to 
 their party : it is thus, thai they secured a share of political power which they could not 
 have obtained by legitimate means. 
 
 111. To conclude ; from the evidence we have offered, it is made manifest that Con- 
 gress has a speci il jurisdiction over the late insurgent States, which neither the Executive 
 nor Judiciary have, and in consequence of which it may prescribe such conditions for their 
 readmission into the Union as the safety and welfare of the Nation seem to require. It 
 follows, therefore, by a rigid logical conclusion, that as soon as said States shall have com- 
 plied with its conditions, they will be legally entitled to the participation of all the rights and 
 privileges of Federal States under the Constitution, including the electoral vote for Presi- 
 dent of the United Mate-. 
 
 115. It lias repeatedly been asserted bj r Democratic Journals, that if Grant be elected 
 by the aid of negro suffrage under the Congressional plan, the election will be contested, 
 even if it be necessary by another appeal to arms. Fondly we hope, fervently we pray, 
 that the Angel of wrath may nevermore unsheathe his terrible sword over our heads! But, 
 should so dreadful a calamity befall us again, there is but one course, but one duty marked 
 to us by right and justice ; that is, to stand to the last breath by Congress and Grant. 
 
 "A Defense of the Reconstruction Acts of Congress, and Critical Review of the Inaugu- 
 ral of H. H. Haight, Governor of California " 5 entered according to Act of Congress, 
 in the year 1868, by Augustus Layres, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the 
 United States for the District of California. 
 
 FRANK EASTMAN, PRINTER, 509 CLAY STREET. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 013 744 674 1 
 
UBRARV OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 674 1