Newspaper Page Text
THK ATLANTA HUJN
m oi'^u it iu it i-1' t'lo
DAILY nnd 'iTEEKLY
OwIIjr—Single Copy «
Twelve Mon tun ... $10 00 | Three Month# 8 00
Six Mo;itua 6 no | Ono Month 1 00
Clnhi for D»lly-»*«r Annum »
Three Oopiee 27 00 | Eight Copie* «8
Four « 86 00 Ten •• M0;
lire •• 48 00 | Single paper 6
Weekly—P*r Annum «
Single Copy 2 00} Ten Copies. 18 0
Three Copies .5 00 I Twenty Copies. 28 00
Ely# Copies 8 00 Titty Copies 65 00
One Hundred Copie 00
Weekly for Six Blontli* i
SlnaloCopy. 1 00 I Twenty Copies. 15 iO
Three Cope* 3 M YTty Copie 34 00
Eire Copies 4 00 I One Hundred Copies6o 00
Ten Copies 7 *0 | Single peper 5 cts
VOL. 3, NO. 20.} ATLANTA, GA^ WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1872.
WH° L |H8
WBX? ••THIS I* A MOrrrkllTINEUT asd impobtawx
mQOIBT—A WOBD TO Mb. STEPHENS. Editor! Con
stitution: The people of Georgia, end not the poll-
tiesns. Indorsed the Cincinnati platform and made
choice of Mr. Greeley as their candidate for Presi
dent, ami that In oppo'ition to the teachings of Mr.
"A. H. V in 1872, but In obedience to bis teachings
in i860, and hi* indorsement of Graiz Brown's
great speech made in Missouri last March.
Has Gratz Brown changed his principles? No.—
He is nobly battling for constitutionalism against
centralism, side by side with Ho. acc Greeley, tne
gallant Voorhoes and others, while Mr. “A. H. 8.”
has deserted the platform erecteuby himself, for
himself, in these words: "All who hold the senti
ments of Governor Gratz Brown on the subject,
and will, in good faith, assist in defeating the Radi
cal attempts at Umpire and Central Despotism, we
bail, not only as cordially accepted allies, but as
good cnongh Democrats for us in the coming con-
flict. whatever tnay have been their past party
names or associations." The groat princi
ples that Gratz Brown battled for then, he is
battling for now ; the Grant party that Gratz
Brown battled aga nst tlien, he is battling against
now, ho battled for constitutionalism against ceu-
tmliein then! The time Mr. A. H. 8. indorse; the
principles of that groat speech, and he Is to-day
battling for constitution'll rights of the citizen, pro
tection to person and property and nou-interlcrence
with tbs affairs of local self-government. The vital
principles taught and enforced in Gratz Brown’B
great speech that commanded Mr. A. H. S.’s admira
tion and indorsement last March, nro tbo same prin
ciples transferred to and embodied in the plattorm
of the great Liberal Republican Democratic party of
Georgia and the United 8tates.
The Democracy of Georgia is in no danger• f be
ing transferred. Who can transfer tbo Democratic
people of Georgia? Who dare attempt it? The
Democrats or Georgia placed themselves on fit bo
great constitutional principles of the Cincinnati
platform with Greeley and Brown as their leaders in
the contest between constitutionalism and central
ism, and they will never be so bate as to violate
tbo pledge of honor given when they made choice of
thoso honoat and great men as their candidates for
tbo two highest offices in the United States. Evou
the intimation of ro dishonorable a proposition, or
"inquiry” to tho people of tho Democratic party is
a rejection upon their honor; that tho Greeley and
Brown eleetornl ’ ichet will stand .sit is, and be
voted for in November with an honest purooto to
overthrow Grant and all his friends, whether they
belong to the highest or iowost order of animals.
Tha reason why the "Greeley ticket is still kept
up in Georgia” is becauso the people are opposed to
centralism and in favor of constitutionalism; be
cause they prefer tho "States shall be free from
Federal dictation;” bccaaso they preier tho pjincl-
pies enunciated by Gratz Brown and indorsed by
Mr. A. K. 8. last March, and now taught and in-
doraod by lior&co Greeley* Hall.
[Atlanta Constitution, Evening Edition, 31st Octo
ber, 1872.]
We give Mr. “Hall” the full benefit
of a submittal of his entire article to
the perusal of onr readers. If trutli was
his object would it not have been better
for him to have quoted our “indorse
ment of Gratz Brown's great speech
made in Missouri last March?” Had he
done so the groundlessness of what he
hero asserts would have too glaringly
stared him m the face for his proceed
ing a step further on the line of his
reckless statements about us or our
position or our having ever deserted a
platform erected by us.
Tho truth is, we did not give any gen
eral indorsement of that speech of Gov.
Gratz Brown. We published copious ex
tracts from it, and called the attention
of onr readers to them os “passing
events” of the day.
To one passage in this speech we called
special attention, and 6uid that if the
“Liberal Kepublicau” Convention then
called to meet in Oinoinnati, should
adopt a platform based upon the prin
ciples of that sentiment of tue speech,
we would be willing cordially to oo-oper-
ato with them. That sentiment was the
declaration of a purpose to rally the
country against “a Despotic system of
Central Authority."
This was our Platform in March last—
ever before—ever since —and now. Our
position thus clearly appears from an ex
tract of an editorial at the time, in these
words:
What docs ilia World mean by liberal Republican?
For ourselves, with a right understanding of the
worue, wo s.-o no difference in principle between a
liberal Republican and a true Democrat.
Soiar as name is concerned, tbo Democrats are
the tine Republicans of ihis country.
It has only been qnito rec.-ntly in our hiBtory that
the real Centralists and Imperialists assumed this
Democratic and popular name (Republican) as a
cloak to hide their wicked and nefarious designs
against tho Constitution. These simon pare Cen
tralists arc now recognized by all men tinder the
seynomen of Radicals, though that of Jacobins would
suit them better. -
Now, whoever acted with tnem under the name
of Republican—seeing these designs—and wishing
to arrest them (ana there are hutidreds of thousands
Of such), wo regard aa D—oewtS. W0 rare not
whether they coll themselves "Liberal Republicans'
or ‘•Jeffersonian Democrats." All true Democrats
are 1-beral Republicans according to tho true mean
ing and historical understanding of the word.—
Principles are what give chatacier to parties as well
as individua-s.aad not names.
Let us uuderstaud, Lieu, what the New York
lYuWdfmeanB by sn *-eminent Liberal Republican.'*
Does il mean ono auch as wo hava described—true
to constitutional liberty, or one who will regard all
tho gross usurpations of the present Dynasty as
"dead issues," and things of the "rfete pastI" V
so, we think tha delay of tho Committee and its
“masterly inactivity,” direc.ed to tamperings ot
the sort, not only tin justifiable nut exceedingly
censurable. It is worse than trifling with the high
trusts committed to their charge.
The first step for any depend reform in the Fed
era. admiuis.ration in any of its departments, is to
refurm the basis on which all its policies rest. All
the great evils now afflicting the country everywhere
and causing popular indignation throughout the
land, grow out of a departure irom tbo old Repub-
iican-Demoeratic-Jefl'erfouian creed in politico. The
only sure hope of correcting tho eTils is in remov
ing the cause. A. H. S.
When have we ever “deserted” oar
Platform of March last ? Did the Cin
cinnati Convention announce such prin
ciples as we said we would approve ?
On the contrary, did it not, in effect,
exrressly sanction “all the gross usurpa
tion* if the present dynasty as “dead is
sues' and things of the ‘effete past?’”
I ^ Did they not nominate for the Presi-
I aency Horace Greeley, the master spirit
of the Centralists, who is now running
up^| his own pronunciamento, that all
the sacredly reserved rights of the peo-
; > and of the States are to be held
* "subject” to wiiai ue claims .ts “a sol
emn CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION” On the
part of the “central authority” to inter
fere whenever it may deem it necessary
for the “maintenance” of what it may
consider the ‘‘equal rights” of all the in-
labitantsof the Slate? “Couid a more
*despotic system of central authority” be
tevised by the wit of mau ?
And yet “Hall’’ not only has the cool
presumption to charge us with “ desert
ing onr Platform,” bat of proclaiming
that tho “people” have adopted thin
“Despotic System”by which every ves
tige of their rights will be heid at the
will and by the grace of the Ruling
Power at Washington.
But pray, Mr. “ Hall,” if Mr. Gree
ley’s Platform is such an embodiment of
“Constitutionalism against Centralism,”
as you represent it to be, why did your
Greeley Convention in July last, at At
lanta, repudiate it, and “plant them
selves” upon the Platform of “A. H. S. ?”
If the object be not noun indirectly to
transfer the honest Democratic masses
from their own to this Radical Central
izing Platform, why resott to auch tricks
of Legerdemain?
When and where have the Democracy
of Georgia ever planted themselves upon
the great Constitutional principles of the
Cincinnati Platform? Was it in their
July Convention ? No! most certainly
no1 They there repudiated it Will it
be next Tuesday when they vote for
Greeley ? Yes. That is the trick to be
played off upon them.
While thousands of them will vote for
Mr. Greeley as a “choice of evils,” with
out any idea or intention of thereby in
dorsing his platform; yet such men as
Hall” will there proclaim that by so
voting they will havo planted themselves
upon his platform!
Ho and his class will then „tell them
that they “cannot be so base as to vio
late the pledge of honor given when they
mode choice of those honest and great
men (Greeley and Brown) for the hignest
two offices in the United States.”
These are tne arts of political Leger
demain by which the honest Demo
cratic masses are to be “transferred”
from the principles enunciated by A. H.
S. in March last, and approved by them
then, to the principles of a most des
potic system of Central Authority set
forth by the Radical, Cincinnati Plat
form.
A tew more remarks on this subject,
and we will dismiss it for the present.
There were hundreds of thousands of
truly “Liberal Republicans,” such as we
described, who were looKiBg anxiously,
in March last, to the Cincinnati move
ment, as it was then called—men who
had acted in late years with the Radical
party, but were then earnest in their
wishes not only to condemn past usurpa
tions and abuses of power; but desirous
of co-operating witb the Democratic
party in arresting the tendencies of the
Government to “n system of despotic central
authority.
High among them was Judge Davis,
of the Supreme Court of the United
States. He had pronounced against the
Radical usurpations in the Milligan case,
and in the McCardle case. It was un
derstood to bo the object of this Conven
tion to put some such man in nomination
for the Presidency.
But this object was utterly defeated
when Mr. Belmont undertook the manip
nlation of that body. No such man as
Judge Davis or Robert C. Winthrop was
looked to or desired by those who got
control of that Convention. A thorough
Radical, as Mr. Fenton said, was the sort
of man they mast choose.
Our readers will recollect what we said
about it at the time. We then gave it as
our opinion that no real liberal Republi
can wonld be selected. It so turned
out. Mr. Fenton got his man—Mr,
Greeley—the great arch chief of the
Radical Party! The result was that
the masses of the truly “Liberal Re
publicans,” amounting to hundreds of
thousands, abandoned their movement,
and now, almost to a man, will vote for
Gen. Grant in preference to Mr. Greeley,
This is the true situation of affairs at the
North.
Those who are now called “Liberal
Republicans” at the North, are made up
almost entirely of the extremist men of
the Radical Party, from Greeley, Sum
ner, Dana, Tilton, Tappan, Julian
Trumbull and Famesworth, down.
We have lately seen it stated, and not
contradicted,thut all oi the origmul sign
ers o f the call of thp Cincinnati Conven
tiou are now for General Grant, except
one.
The “illiberals” and “extremists”
got
Mr. Slcjibcni Uie CBainplon of
Departure Candidate.
Onr neighbor, Mr. Stephens, has been pleased on
several occasions totann. the Coi^tituiion os a New
Departurist, because it supports Mr. Greeley. He
has in tnat rigorous language that characterises his
political essays, spoken of the “New Departure
heresy" In connection with this journal. Hi* as
sault* on us on tilt* line hare beer, unremitting, and
a* lively a* an Intoxicated cricket.
We propose to show the glaring political in con*
istADcy oi our very able neighbor.
Ill the first place tho Ceiutilution has never advo
cated the new departure. We defy Hr. ntephens to
quote one word from Its columns in advocacy of the
new departure. Our support of Mr. Greeley is
based upon his representative position os the set
lected leader of a Liberal Republican movement in
favor of local self-government, the sanctity of the
habeas corpus, national fraternization, a return to
the constitutional methods of peace and civil service
reform, against the despotic, centralized, sectional
and dishonest polioy of Rod teal rule os symbolized
by Grant's administration. The deliberate and au
thoritative adoption of Mr. Greeley os such leader
of such gratifying movement by the great Demo
cratic party, of whicn we have been an humble,
though zealous member, carried with it our cham
pionship, at the cheerful sacrifice of all personal
prejudice and individual sentiment.
Political partv never did a sublimer act in a
nobler spirit than this heroic sell-abnegation of the
great constitntionsl organization of the Union. It
was a grand step for popular good will, the burial
of war hates, the re-union of a severed nationality,
tbo re-instatement in power of a deposed and de
graded Constitution, the retrogradation of the gov
ernment from startling advance and onward pro
gress to a destructive and demoralizing despotism,
and for the purification of the nations entire range
of corrupted public departments.
Greeley’s personality was nothing. His cause is
everything. It is the cause we support, not the
man. An inanimate figurehead, a bannered rag,
any selected symbol of the great idea would get our
support. Distort it, falsity it. deride it, agonize it
as one may; admit it an Incongruity, a paradox, even
an inconsistency; so long aB Greeley stands for the
great goods we have enumerated above, and Grant
btands lor the opposite, it is the patriot's duty to
support Greeley, and his triumph is the popular in
dorsement of what the Democracy lias striven for
and tho country needs for its prosperity and glory.
It is a narrow, pitiful, contracted, unstateBinan-
like treatment of a stupendous, trsnscendant issue
to dwarf it down to any man’s personality. Frincl-
ilea and results infinitely beyond all individuality
However surpassing, are at suke, involving funda
mental freedom and the broadest national interests.
In such a juncture, to be squabbling over a per
sonal record, a puny, trivial, accomplished thing oi
the past, is child's play, so irrelevant and looiisli as
to create amazement that thinking men should in
dulge in it.
Bat we have made rather a digression from the
purposo of this editorial. Coming back to that, we
urge that even if we had been a New Departurist,
which is not the case, Mr. Stephens is utte.iy incon
sistent in objecting to it.
Ho to-day flies at the head o'* his columns as his
candidate for Vice President, John Quincy Adams,
the earliest, most zealous, most persistent and un
changing New Departurist in the Union. Not one
syllable of his New Departure views has Mr. Adams
recanted. He stands upon them unalterably. Yet
this political heretic (in Mr. Stephsna’ view) is Mr.
Stephens’ po.itical leader, the representative of his
policy, the type of his principles, and ths head of
itis political movement for restoring constitutional
ism.
Mr. Stophens thunders at us for being a New De
parturist, when we arn not; and submissively fol
lows the champion New Dedarturist of the nation
as hiB political captain. He swears at us, ana by
Adams on the same ground. Ho blazes at us and
swallows Adams on identical principles. Was there
ever grosser political Inconsistency? We say it in
all deference, in all personal respect to the venera
ble Georgian, of whom we write. Rut we claim this
to be a proper characterization ot Mr. Stephens' as
sault on us and his following of Mr. Adams.
No, the adoption of Adams as a candidate by the
Straights, is a most inimitable stultification of their
course, and an equally inimitable vindication of the
Democratic party in supporting Greeley. They ef
fectually spike their own guns. The very essence
of their creed is hostility to the amendments which
tneir candidate, Adame, swallowa whole, boneB and
feathers.
The substitution of Adams for Brown as the polit
est figurehead of the straight concern is swapping
the witch for a devil. And in the light of Mr.
Stephens urging indorsement of Gratz Brown and
his views before Greeley was nominated, his rejec
tion ot Brown now and his submissive acceptance,
and firey advocacy of Adams, that most double-
dyed of New Departure amendment-gulping here
tics, has something in it bordering on tbs farcical.
Nol Adams’ candidacy means Grant and Wilson’s
election. Grant treads on onr prostrate forms.
Wilson says a hundred years won’t make "rebel"
blood loyal and fit to take part in the freeman’s right
of helping to ran their own government.
Greeley and Brown’s election means overthrow to
centralism and Southern oppression and peace and
equality for the South.
Choose ye wisely, Democrats!—Atlanta Constitu
(ton, Nov. 2,1872.
1. If the Democrats act “wisely,
as it is to be hoped they will, wonld
they not do well to inqnire how the
election of Mr. Greeley can possibly
mean “the overthrow of Centralism and
Southern oppression?” Have the South
ern people ever suffered any oppression
of which Mr. Greeley was not one oi the
chief instigators and perpetrators ?
Have the people of the Southern
States suffered any “oppression” from
“Centralism” since the war, except such
as the Powers at Washington deemed
necessary “ for the maintenance of the
equal rights of all the inhabitants of
these States, in matters pertaining to
their civil and political relations ?
Did not Mr. Greeley and his associates
deem all those “oppressions,” of which
we so justly complained, as nothing but
the necessary results of a faithful dis
charge on their part of a high “and sol
emn constitutional obligation ?
Does he not now ask the votes ot
Georgia Democrats with a distinct
avowal, on his-part, of the same “sol
emn Constitutional obligation ’ resting
on the "central authority” to renew all
these oppressions in the future, and even
worse, if it should be neoessary in the
discharge of the same obligation ? We
put these plain and direct questions, not
only to the Constitution, but to all reason
ing and “ wise” Democrats. If these
things'be true, then we ask further, how
can the election of Mr. Greeley possibly
be expected to effect the overthrow of
“ centralism and Southern oppression ?
We address ourselves to the calm judg
ment’ of reasoning as well as patriotic
men.
Is not the doctrine of Mr. Greeley, as
announced by himself, ,t hat there is such
a “constitutional obligation ’ resting
upon the “central authority,” the very
essence of “centralism,” in its most dan
gerous and odious form ? Does not the
Constitution of the United States, itself,
in exp re. wciuo, forbid *»ny such inter
ference the internal -flairs of the
States ? > e not nil these matters per
tainiu, ,~.e political and cavil rights
control of the movement. Opposition to
the principles of those “extremists’* was
the original object of those who were
truly “liberal;” and they therefore as be
tween Grant and Greeley, take Grant as
the lesser of the evils. This is one
reason why Grant will be so largely sus
tained m the Northern States.
So much for Mr. “ Hall” and his tirade
against us—as well as his principles of
“Constitutionalism.” A. H. S.
T’ue Griffin Middle Georgian says
of Mr. Beck*, the newly elected Congess-
man:
•*My. geek is a young man of ^ fair
talent and excellent character. "Without
brilliancy or much originality, be, is, j of the im-atntants of the several States
nevertheless, a man of respectable meut- i j e ft by the Constitution exclusively to
;.l attainments, and will do credit to the I States themselves respectively ?
section of Middle j Most assuredly they S®r«B*L every" ns-
best portion sumption cf por.er by the central an-
asserteu "coLbtuutiouul obligation," is
nothing bat a gross and palpable usur
pation. He asserts that it is the consti
tutional duty of the central authority to
do just what the Constitution itself as
serts it shall not do.
Can“Centralism”j)ossi5fybe overthrown
by indorsing the unconstitutional prin
ciples on which it seeks to establish its
permanent ascendancy ?
Oh, Democrats 1 would that you were
“wise” in this day of your greatest peril 1
“Principles and results, infinitely be
yond all individuality, however surpass
ing,” are indeed “at stake 1” Principles
involving the very foundation of all our
free Institutions in their fullest and
broadest extent, not only for the present,
but for all time to come 1
So much for the prospect of getting
rid of “Centralism” and “Southern op
pression” by the election of Mr. Greeley
to the Presidency. Wo have had enough
of his “goods” in the past. May Heav
en preserve us from any more of the
same sort.
2. Now, a few words in reply to the
blazing” assault of the Constitution
against what is termed “onr glaring po
litical inconsistencies,” in supporting
Mr. Adams for the Vice Presidency. On
this point we have but a few words; for a
few only are necessary to show the utter
groundlessness of the charge.
The brief, clear, full and conclusive
answer is, that whatever may have been
Mr. Adams’views upon tne “New De
parture” Question, or on any other on
which we may have differed with him,
he, nevertheless, now stands squarely
upon the principles set forth in the
Louisville O’Conor Platform. That Plat
form is a clear and explicit embodiment
of the ancient Jeffersonian Creed, with
out any indorsement of any sort of
Departure” therefrom. It arrays itself
in open antagonism to the “ New De
parture ” doctrines set forth in the
Cincinnati-Baltimore Platform.
If then we support Mr. Adams., stand
ing, as he now does, upon this platform,
wherein is our inconsistency ? Have we
not uniformly, ever since we took charge
of the political columns of The Sun, de
clared our willingness to support anj
candidates who should stand upon any
platform which did not “ depart” from
the ancient creed of the Democratic
party, and which did not “sanction"
the gross usurpations of the Radical
party since the war for the Union was
over?
While we all the time announced it as
our judgment, that the best policy for
success, and that line which would in
sure it, was the open and bold arraign
ment of these usurpations for popular
condemnation. Yet we have nniformly
declared, as every attentive reader of
The Sun most know, that we would, for
harmony’s sake, yield this view, and
support any candidates running upon
any platform which did not “depart”
from the essentials of the old Democratic
creed, and which did not sanction these
late radical atrocities, and close the door
against their future arraignment for
popular condemnation 1
Is not this the unassailable truth of
our position all tho time ? In support
ing Mr. Adams now, are we not, there
fore, supporting just such a man, on jnst
such a Platform, as we have ever said we
were willing to do, if the line of policy
we thought best should not be adopted ?
The Constitution, in the foregoing ed
itoral, speaks of the character of the ac
tions of “ an intoxicated cricket.” We
have given no attention to that depart
ment of Zoological Science. We know
nothing of how these “httle innocents 1
behave when “in liquor.” But we respect
fully submit to the intelligence of man
kind, whether any one who Bees inconsist
ency ou our part in this particular case,
have much more of the reasoning facnl-
ty about him than might be exp.ected,
even of a cricket “ threo sheets in the
wind!”
3. One other matter only in the fore
going editorial of the Constitution (whicli
is given in fall) we will briefly notice, and
then will have done with it. “In tne
“firstplace,” (itsays) “the Constitution
“ has never advocated the New Depart-
“ nre. We defy Mr. Stephens to quote
“one word from its columns m advocacy
“of the New Departure.
What does the Constitution mean by
this defiant challenge ? Let us under
stand each other. What does the Consti
tution mean by the New Departure ? Le
us first understand each other on this
point.
jSjWhat we mean by the “New Depart
are” was'the proposed policy of certain
leaders of the Democratic party last year
Constitution presume to deiy us to snow
from its colnmns, its advocacy of this
doctrine or policy ? If so, we have bnt
to refer to what has appeared in its col
umns almost daily for the last two months
at least, in laudation of the principles of
Mr. Greeley, whicli are therein held up
as the embodiment of “Constitutional
ism 1” What else does it mean in this
Very editorial we are commenting upon,
by whatit styles the “heroic self-i.bneg -
Hon" of the Democratic party at BAh.-,
more, but an indorsement of their “new
departure” in this particular, from their
own to a Radical platform ? Has not the
Constitution so advocated the Cincinnati-
Baltimore platform.? If it has not *o
done, or did not so mean to do, or to he
so understood, then we are in error, and
do not accept the challenge.
The truth and rignt are what we aim
atic all things; but candor compels us
to say that wa have'understood the Con
stitution as maintaining that the Cincin
nati-Baltimore Platform, as expounded
by Mr. Greeley, is such a declaration of
principles as should not only satisfy all
true Democrats, but in itself embodies
the essential ideas of Constitutional
ism against Centralism.” Are we correct
in this understanding or not? Under
the belief that we are, let us turn to that
embodiment of “Constitutionalism” so
advocated, as we have understood, by
the Constitution.
The preamble of the declaration re
ferred to, is in these words:
We, the Liberal Republicans ot tbo United
States, in National Convention asaembltd at Cincin
nati, proclaim the following principles as essential
to a just government.”
Among other principles so announced
as essential to a “just government,” the
following is set forth:
We plodge ourselves * * * to oppose any
reopening of the questions settled by the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Con
stitution.”
This pledge we understand as cover
ing, and a3 being intended to cover, the
whole of the “New Departure” doctrine
and policy. It adroitly unites the *13th
with the so-called 14th and 15thi Amend
ments to the Constitution of the United
States, when no fact is better known
than that it stands entirely upon differ
ent principles.
But the important point in the decla
ration is the “pledge” therein given “to
oppose any re-opening of the questions
settled” by the so-called 14th and 15th
Amendments.
These questions, so declared to be
settled,” and not to be reopened,
spring ffom principles asserted to be es
sential for a “just government, though
they involve all the usurpations, outrages
and oppressions perpetrated by the Re
construction measures. The pledge,
therefore, so given is the dear expression
of the substance and essence of the
“ New Departure.”
Now, whether the advocacy of this
Platform, with tnis pledge in it, neces
sarily carries with it the advocacy of the
New Departure,” even without express
words to that effect, we leave for the
public to decide.
We can only give it as our individual
opinion that it does,—and venture the
further opinion that such will be the
sober” judgment of a majority of man
kind, whatever may be the conclusion of
any number of “intoxicated crickets’
upon the subject. A. H. S.
Mr. Stepens.
Mr. Stephens mnst really pardon our frankness,
but we see notning in his article of yesterday to re
quire answer. It uses no argument whatever,
rnereiy indulges in assertion and denunciation,
fancies up a soliloquy which it ascribes to us.
Bpeaks thus of one of our articles to which it re
plies:
"We present it os an example of the extremities
to which strong minds are sometimes driven in
their attempt to sustain themseivea In their own
estimation, in the most palpable errors, as well os
an example of a strong mau laboring to extricate
himself from a morass into which he has ventured
without understanding ths grounds on which he
was entering. Every effort at extrication, only
plunges him in deeper.
It attempts to be facetious, speaks of our "inco
herent utterances," "raving,•’ “wild soiiloquys,
etc.
Now, we do say, in all candor and possible courte
sy, that Mr. Stephens’ caus ■ must oe weak indeed
when so powerful and ready a controverts t:st as
himself is compelled to drop argument, and even
the pretence to it and resort to such matter a forms
the staple of hla article. If there is a point in it on
which to hang a rejoinder, we tail to discover it.
Onr article that he refors to shows, by actual
comparison of its expressions, that Mr. Jefferson’
inaugural, the Baltimore platform and Mr. Greeley’
acceptance of the. nomtna.ion on it, and Mr. Ste
phen’s great speech of 1866, contain the some ut
terances about the Constitution and the States.
In nearly a column of rejoinder, Mr. Stephens
does not touch the matter. He does not show that
we quoted wrong, or that our deductions were cor
root. He avoids the argument and attempts a sort
of Ly-play on our bewilderment. If this is the ex
tremity to which this able statesman is driven,
there is a signifi.-ancs ab-,u: it that it is neediest lor
us to press. The "Straight" cause is indeed down
when its best champion thus advocates its causa.—
Atlanta ConslUutw-, November 1st, 1872.
Now, is our neighbor sincere in what
is said in the; foregoing editorial ? Did
we not clearly show that he did not
quote Mr., Greeley correctly when he
represented, him as holding that the
rights of the citizens of the several States
were to be enjoyed under his platform,
terp worse V Nay, more; was there noth
itig in our denial of the correctness of
his quotation from our apeecbtbefore the
Georgia Legislature in 1866, which re
quired & rejoinder, if only to the extent
of. admitting his error in thisjparticular?
That quotation was in theee’words:
Hr. Stephens in his address to the Georgia Leg is.
Isturein 1856, enumerated these like views: Ha
““J “protection and security to all under it*
jurisdiction should be the chief end of every gov
ernment; that the whole United States is now
wiinoat question, our country; that its Constitution
had been re-ordain&l as the organic law of the land;
thj t the trial of secession had BetUed the question
is to where our allegiance belonged; thai the Uni-
states was our country to be cherished and de-
rerdeil os such, by all our hearts and by all our
arms; that the Constitution of the United States,
and the treaties and laws made in pursuance there-
>r, are now acknowledged to be the paramount law
of ibis whole country."
9^ow, we assert that soutiuien^'are in
tins quotation attributed to us, which we
fit-ver uttered, either on the occasion re-
ie:red to, or on any other. Disjointed
expressions of that speech are here re
produced in a connection which give
tutm a meaning never inteuued by us,
aud whiah no one would derive from them
a- they stand in their proper connection,
in the speech.
We never on any occasion uttered the
ntiment as it here stands stated, that
he trial of secession had settled the
•tstion as to whom our allegiance be-
1 nged.” No ! never! The great labor
oi our life since the war was over, has
cn to establish the truth that the great
question to whom allegiance properly
belongs under our system of govern
ment, was not “settled” by the war l—
The question was only adjourned from
the arena of arms to the forum of reason
and right. • A. H. S.
■»"«»■«; —.
A wholesome silence on the part
oi the press very often most effectually
serves to prevent the extension of social
evils and isms that seek promulgation
from their corrupt authors, or abettors
of them. But when respectable journals
allow their columns to bo polluted with,
frequent and pleasant mention of char*
acters who are engaged in forwarding
the debasing and debauching system of
freeloveism, we are constrained also to
make mention of them, to present them
and their vicious operations intheir tra©
light, and condemn them as they deserve.
We have been astonished beyond ex
pression at the often recuring light
mention in the Constitution for months
past of the names and doings of Wood-
hull and Glafliu, two notorious women
of New York, who in their brazen ef
frontery, and licentious free love doc
trines des9rve to be classed with the
most degraded of fallen women. Utter
ly repudiating the proprieties which
characterize enlightened woman kind,
they assume a part before the public,
which is disgusting in the extreme to
the refined sensibilities of either sex
Imagine a woman, in cockade hat and
military regalia, marohing at the head
of a regiment of colored troops for the
Colonelcy of which sne had begged and
been elected!
But the climax of theirjifoul charac
teristics is attained in their doctrine, as
set forth by Victoria C. Woodhull in the
following extract from her pen, pub
lished in Woodhull c£ Claflin’s
Weekly:
*'I am engaged In officering, and jin some sense
conducting a social revoln tion on the marriage ques
tion. X nave strong convictions to the effect that
this institution, as a bond or promise to lo»e another
to the ena ot life, and forego all other loves or pas-
sionsl gratifications, has outlived its day of useful
ness; that the most Intelligent and really virtuous
of our citizens, especially in the large cities of Chris
tendom, have outgrown it; are conBtanUy and sys
tematically unfaithful to it; despise and revolt
against <t, as a slavery, intheir hearts; and only
submit to the semblance ot fidelity to it from ths
dread of a sham publio eplnion, based on the Ideas
of the post, and which no longer really represent
ths convictions of anybody.”
i The doctrine therein expressed re
quire no comment. Itis fraught with
its own condemnation, and places .its au
thor out of the pale of respectability ot
decency.
We indulge the hope, that in future
the Constitution and all other Southern
journals may find other material for in
teresting their readers than is furnished
by so infamous a character.
It is the design of the newly in
stalled Conducting Editor of The Sun
to make it essentially a news-paper,
which, in the scope aud quality of its con
tents, will not suffer by comparison with
the best Dailies of the Sonth.
With th8 close of the Political cam
paign, the keen interest that has for a
great while been felt in Politics will sub
side, until the years will bring around
another campaign. But tbe hosts of
political and personal friends and ad
mirers of our esteemed and honored
Political Editor will find his pen still
industrious, on political, historical and
miscellaneous subjects, while our local
columns will be unsurpassed for the
quantity or sprightliness of its news
about the city, or tho reliability of its
market reports.
Believing that we shall furnish a paper
that trill please, we solicit the continued
and yet more extended patronage ot the
public, ipr; -JiA Atoi IS
subject to the Constitution ? Did we
tC’scase all opposition to the Radi cal or-1 not clearly show that he was in an egre-
g&Mzation on account of the asurpa-'
- '-rious error in representing Mr. Greeley
the old (now defunct)
which is perhaps the very
of the State.’
ihority under Mr. Greeley’s erroneously
rions attending reconstruction; and to
accept their results “as finalities,” con
stitutionally accomplished, never more
to be inquired into, or arraigned before
the public for condenuutiou. This is
what we understand by the “New De
parture” doctrine, or policy, so-called.
With this understanding, does £the
as being in favor of “ local self-govern
ment, subject to Federal supervision?"
Was there nothing on these points in
onr article 11 on which to hang a re
joinder ?”
If not, what most be the conclusion ?
Is it not that no rejoin^?/,'
taxed upon w$ \
Hymeneal.
At the residence of: Mrs. Merrell
Carroiton, by Rev. G. W. Colquitt, Mr.
Wax. Beall and Miss Rhoda F. Merrell,
of the same place.
— At the residence of Bishop Persico,
jU oaV-H-al, Djr' jc’r. j. ainok, Mi. tvm.
J. Kelly, of Quebec, Canada, and Mias.
Mary Eden Reilly, cf Savannah.
— Ag the -M :thodist church in Madi
son, ou the 3utn, by Rev. W. P. Pledger,
Mr. Ma rshall A. Peteet and Miss Olft
^iobertoon, of that city.
— At tho residence
father, in Morg