Belief 3 - Reading 22 of 31, The Reconstruction Convention

Use the links above to navigate this simulation.

Belief 3 - Reading 22 of 31

Navigate within this Belief: Reading 21 << >> Reading 23

Additional Beliefs: Belief 1 Belief 2 Belief 3 Belief 4 Belief 5 Belief 6 Belief 7 Belief 8

SOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION

Harper's Weekly, October 7, 1865, page 626 (Editorial)

The South Carolina Convention was opened by a Message from Provisional Governor Perry, which has been printed in full in most of the daily papers, and has undoubtedly been widely read and pondered. Does any thoughtful man, who earnestly desires the pacification of the country, believe that the spirit of that Message promises well for such a result? We are all exhorted to conciliation. Is Governor Perry’s Message conciliatory? He asserts, indeed, some prodigious truths. He summons the Convention to recognize that slavery in South Carolina is dead. The shade of Calhoun must have sneered with indignant incredulity. Moreover, Governor Perry says that, until an organic law of South Carolina prohibits slavery forever, South Carolina can not hope to resume her place in the Union. We can imagine the expressive silence of the Convention as these words were read.

But from such a positive statement of the actual situation at the outset what might naturally have been expected of the rest of the Message? Might we not have looked for a sincere and conciliatory recommendation t hat the Convention should accept the situation? Was it too much to expect that the Governor would suggest that, as more than half the population of the State had been hitherto slaves and were now freemen, every means should be provided for their speedy education and elevation to all the equal rights of men and duties of citizens? Would a wise man and patriotic American insinuate, as Governor Perry does, that more than half the population of the State should be permanently degraded into a pariah class? And how could any American Governor venture, under the circumstances, upon a bold assertion of the falsehood that "this is a white man’s Government, and intended for white men only?" A very slight acquaintance with the history of eighty and ninety years ago would have corrected this error of Governor Perry’s, who, in this statement, merely repeats the enormous and false assertion of Judge Taney in the Dred Scott decision.

Does Governor Perry suppose that the men who signed the Declaration of Independence did not know the meaning of the words they used? "All men" no more means all white men than all red men. It means exactly what it says. The contemporary words of the leaders of the Revolution show what they thought upon this subject. And as to the Constitution Judge Taney himself can not help admitting that every person who, upon its adoption was a citizen of any State, became a citizen of the United States; and at that time colored persons were equal citizens in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina. "If so," says Judge Curtis, controverting the Chief Justice, "it is not true in point of fact that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race…and as free colored persons were then citizens of at least five States…they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established."

Indeed, so far as regards the vital question now at issue in the country—the status of the colored part of the population—Governor Perry’s Message merely echoes the spirit of the Dred Scott opinion of Judge Taney. Can it be expected that a Convention, acting in that spirit, can offer to the Congress of the United States "Such a republican form of government as will entitle South Carolina to the guarantee of the United States therefor?" Is there any reasonable hope that such a Convention will change the organic law to secure or suggest legislation to maintain that equality which is the spring of all republican government?

The welfare of the disaffected States is, in the first instance, in the hands of the members of the Conventions. Every loyal man in the land sincerely wishes that their action may be such as to reveal a disposition which may be safely trusted by the country. Those who have doubted whether such would be the result, have yet patiently awaited the meeting and action of the Conventions, and will patiently wait to the end. But the earnest mind of the country must be even now asking the question whether the action of these bodies thus far is such as to prove that the States may be safely left to the domination of the class which alone appears in the Conventions.

The responsibility is theirs, not ours. Wade Hampton, a delegate to this South Carolina Convention, has openly advised the late rebels to remain in the State, and do what they can to save it; that is, to perpetuate discord in the Union. The allies of the rebels in this part of the country exhort them to fight out "what remains of the contest." So be it. The choice is theirs. But if they choose to fight it out, do they suppose we shall not? If they could not beat us in the field, do they suppose we shall suffer them to outwit us I council? Do they suppose that we do not mean to finish our work? Do they suppose that the people of the United States, having won peace by a costly war, do not mean to secure peace?

If they will help us, if they will work with us, if they will honestly accept the situation, we shall gladly secure it together. If they will not, we shall still secure it. We ask for no injustice to any man, white or black. We ask only for equal justice for all men, since it is demonstrated that the Union can stand on no other foundation.

Harper's Weekly, October 7, 1865, page 626 (Editorial)

This site is brought to you by…