Belief 5 - Reading 3 of 9, The Reconstruction Convention

Use the links above to navigate this simulation.

Belief 5 - Reading 3 of 9

Navigate within this Belief: Reading 2 << >> Reading 4

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

RECONSTRUCTION

Harper's Weekly, March 11, 1865, page 146 (Editorial)

It is remarkable that one of the most important questions of the war was lately decided for the present in Congress by an extremely close vote, and almost without exciting public attention. The bill for reconstruction, involving the very consequences of the war, was lost by a majority of five or six.

There is certainly no subject upon which the public mind should be more fully enlightened before legislative action than this, and therefore we can not regret the present postponement of a final decision, which gives the country time for ampler consideration.

One thing is clear. Whatever the special terms of any system of restoration may be, and whether there be one law covering all cases or not, yet the essential point must be the security of peace. No mere theory of the Constitution will suffice. The practical point is that the nation, after the tremendous struggle for its life, shall take care that it does not yield to political arts what arms have not been able to extort from it.

Fernando Wood gives us the rebel theory of solving the question. "Congress has no power to make conditions on which a State may resume its position in the Union. Whenever the people of a State shall lay down their arms and recognize the Federal Constitution and laws, and send representatives to Congress, I should like to see the power which would prevent the return of those States." Here we have the rebel view of the matter, and Fernando Wood having said what he thinks we should do, every loyal American citizen knows exactly what ought not to be done.

It is for the Government, not for the rebels, to decide when it may withdraw its troops and when it is no longer in danger from rebellion. This is a point which can not be determined by oaths, but by experience. The Government must decide what tests to employ. It is not bound to remove its troops from a region full of rebels, nor is it to assume that they are loyal because they say so. As the national army advances it recovers the various States. Provisional Governors will be of necessity appointed. They hold by the national authority. They summon the people to an election, and, of necessity, they determine by the same authority who shall vote and under what conditions. This or anarchy is the alternative.

In any system of restoration whatever, which contemplates permanent order and actual quiet, the national Government takes the initiative, and holds the State until it is satisfied that with perfect safety to the country its hold may be relaxed. The practical question is, therefore, what tests are satisfactory. Is it enough that the voters swear allegiance to the Government? Is it enough that emancipation be accepted by the State Legislatures? Is it necessary to disfranchise certain classes? Is it necessary to enfranchise certain other classes?

But whatever may be decided upon these points one end is paramount—the national safety; and the whole movement proceeds by one authority, that of the nation. Of course it is exceptional. Of course it is abnormal. Of course it would be absurd to say that in a time of profound peace the national Government could altogether supersede the State authority. But of course it would be still more absurd to contend that in the settlement of this civil war it could not. The engrossing consideration now is national safety, not State rights. To insure the tranquil operation of the States in their spheres hereafter, it is necessary to adjust them by the national authority now. The loyal citizens of any State in rebellion are, in the eye of the national Government, the State; and to defend them against the conspiracy within and without the State, and to secure them in their defense, the national Government will justly do whatever the vital necessity of the case, not State precedent, demands. And of that necessity the Government is the judge.

The bill reported by Mr. Ashley was lost, as we understand, for two reasons. The opposition voted against it as an unconstitutional invasion of State rights, and some friends of the Administration because they did not like its terms. The bill seemed to some of these last too sweeping in disfranchisement, and to others unjust because it did not allow the black population to vote. Consequently so radical a Union man as Mr. Julian, of Indiana, was found voting upon the same side with Fernando Wood. There is a similar anomaly in the Senate. Where Mr. Sumner and Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, both oppose the Louisiana bill. Mr. Powell, because the State election was held under terms prescribed by the national authority, and Mr. Smugger, because those terms excluded the colored population from the polls.

We are glad that the present defeat of the bill enables us all to consider the subject more maturely. The principle of such a bill is beyond debate. Congress would be treacherous or imbecile if it did not provide for the inevitable emergency. Public opinion must now indicate what terms the bill shall prescribe.

Harper's Weekly, March 11, 1865, page 146 (Editorial)

This site is brought to you by…