Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

()t our local politics, I can speak fa vorably, as compared to what was the j ict six months since. We have, I believe, but four or five white Radicals in 'be county, and only two “to the manor born.” One of them, it is said, boasts t h a t he is the blacked black Republican in the Southern States. But, he is power less and can do the country but little } janl i. Asa writer, in the days of Know Nothingism, he used to “ sign himself Jhe name his father gave him,” now lie' M‘- us himself the name infamy has given him. The other was paid to do the dwy work of the party —to get all the Negroes to register he could, and prevent us many true men. The writer knows of what he writes, having* to contend » gainst the woikings of the native Radical in his efforts to prevent the writer’s registration. The others are exotics. One of them was elected Ordi narv, but he cannot obtain board and get lodging at Appling. Even the Negro, w ho had partially promised to board him, has now repented ot his sins, and is uow an outspoken Democrat, and has re fused to hoard the Carpet-bagger. I rather opine he will find the road to the Ordinary’s office, a “hard road to travel.” The Negroes are fast becoming con vinced of their error in their affiliation with the Jacobins, and arc fleeing the •wiath to come,” and, by November, we hope to make up a good record for this county. 01 the crops, 1 can only say, in my judgment, there will not be over half a crop of cotton made. That is, I mean the crop of 1868 will not come up to that 0 f 1867 by one-half. About the first of Au r ust, our crops were looking well, and doing well —as good as we could wish and expect —but a drought set in then, which lasted two weeks, with very hot sun, and, lo! a great change was observed; for fields then had an appearance of scalded vegetation; wilted and languish ing was the cotton stalks, as if the dreaded simoon had passed over them. Then, heavy and continued rains set in, the result of which was to precipitate to the ground all squares, forms, and small bolls, and, in some instances, even the leaves. There is complaint of the cater pillar in some localities, but I have not seen them in my crop. Ido not think they can injure the crop now, as there is little or no fruit to mature. I think we shall have finished picking cotton by the last of October. The July and August crop of fruit is gone —leaving only the first crop of bolls on the stalk. But, we are thankful that we are making enough of the staff of life. Planting on a large scale is not thought of; our labor is not reliable. Hence, the traveller in passing through our county now, will see a great change in the appearance of plantations. The long lines of tall fences, under the old regime, is no longer visible; but, instead, will bo seen abandoned places, old fields grown up in broom sedge, and broken down fences These lands could be re claimed, and by wise and judicious man agement, under European tillage, could be made to pay —not, however, uuder the present order of things. The heavy taxes imd r which labor and industry groans and languishes, must be removed before planting can be made a profitable invest lm nt, even under the superior tillage of the Swiss, the German, or the English man. And this must be done by hurling from power and place, the devils who now control the legislation of the country. This can be done —must be done—will be done. The ides of November will pro claim the glad tidings of Radicalism overthrown and Democracy triumphant. Columbia. Banner of the South. —We are high-' ly gratified to note the receiving of the Banner of the South, a paper of rare ex cellence in all its departments, and de voted to the cause of Right, and Truth, and Justic e It is published at Augusta, Ga., by the R ev. Father Ryan, a gentle man evidently of exalted Christian vir tues and ardently attached to the time hon Ted institutions of onr country. We pro. ;ct for this paper an extended circu mtioii throughout the country, and we pro -m e that it cannot fail to leave a good impression upon every reader. Even those who dissent from Father Ryan’s political views ipust admire the candor and boldness with which he deals with every subject which presents itself. Havilah ( Cal.) Weekly Courier. Horatio Seymour has ever been the firm, fast friend and champion of the workingman’s interests. This is why the workingmen are rallying so enthusiasti cally to his support. <• he public debt, on the Ist of Septem ber, 1867, was $2,492,782,365, and on the Ist of September, 1868, $2,534,614,- 313 ; showing an increase of $42,830,948 during the past year. LETTER FROM HON. H. V. JOHNSON. In Reply to the Executive Committee of the Democratic, Party of Troup County, In viting him to Address the Grand Mass Meeting held in La Grange , Ga ., Sept. 16th, 1868. Sandy Grove, Jefferson co., Ga., \ September 12, 1868. j Gentlemen : I duly received your polite invitation, in behalf of the Dernoerac3 T of Troup county to address them, at a mass meeting and barbecue, on the 16th inst., at La Grange. In the event that I cannot attend, you ask a letter from me “on the political situation. ” As professional en gagements will prevent my presence at the meeting, I cheerfully comply with your latter request. How rapid is the flight of time and what changes it works in the circumstances and hopes of individuals and the affairs of na tions ! The lapse of the last eight years seems to be but a span. But how striking the contrast between the picture of’lß6o and that of 1868 ! Our country was pros perous and happy. The States were unit ed as co-equals. From the Lakes to the Pacific, the people enjoyed the blessings of peace, and every branch of industry was crowned with ample reward. All this was the fruit of that wise system of govern ment established by our forefathers, and the compact of Union between the States, cemented by the Constitution of 1787. But war, cruel, unnatural,unjust and unconsti tutional war, intervened and left wide spread desolation in its track of fire and death. Hundreds of thousands of our bravest and best have been consigned to bloody graves,and the people,impoverished by plunder, spoliation and confiscation, are saddled with many thousand millions of of debt, the payment of which will absorb the earnings of several succeeding genera tions. In the midst of desolated homes we weep over the graves of our gallant dead, mourn the subversion of the Consti tution, and tremble with the apprehension that popular liberty is threatened with de struction. The heel of the oppressor is on our necks, and upon the ruins of our cher ished State government a fabric has been erected, by strange and hostile hands, through the forced agency of a constitu ency unknown to the Constitution—a fabric, which is the miserable spawn of usurpation and the bantling of the sword, dripping with unrighteous blood. Intending to be as brief as possible, I shall not pause to recount, in detail, the grievances which have been inflicted upon us since the surrender of the Confederate arms. How the term3 of surrender— simple and magnanimous—have been dis regarded; how we have been excluded from representation in Congress, in viola tion of the Constitution and every prin ciple of sound policy and wise statesman ship; how we have been taxed without representation, and forced to obey laws af fecting our every interest, social, civil and political, jo the enactment of which we were denied any voice or participation; how civil government has overthrown, our State subjected to arbitrary military despotism, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus - suspended in the time of peace, our citizens imprisoned without warrant, denied the right of trial by jury and tried by military courts, for alleged offences; in fine, how, in a thousand ways and by means the most odious, we have have been harassed, perplexed, insulted, oppressed and sought to be dishonored. With all these things you are too familiar to need to be reminded. We have borne all with unparalleled patience, looking and hoping for the day of our deliverance through the quiet, but potent instrument ality of the ballot-box. When we sur rendered our army we thought the strife was ended. We surrendered in good faith, and, in good faith, we have observed the terms of surrender. Chagrined and disappointed, as we have been, in our expectations of seeing the Union •restored aud the Constitution preserved; much as we have writhed and chafed un der the wrongs which have been heaped uj on us ; bitterly as we have complained of the oppressive bearing of the dominant power, let it be said to the honor of a brave but overpowered people; yes, let it be written with a pen of iron, that the inscription may go down to future ages, that we never have contemplated forcible redress ; never, the renewal of the war ; never, any means looking to revolution. Our earnest desire has been, and still is, to see the Union restored upon the basis of the Constitution ; and baffled as all our hopes have been for nearly three years, we still look to the justice and reason of our countrymen. Our appeal is now be fore the grand inquest of the American people, and the day ot trial is near at hand. We appeal to their patriotism and their devotion to constitutional govern ment and popular liberty; we appeal, in behalf of the equality of the States, in behalf of the sovereignty of the people of the resoective States and their inalienable right of self-government, and in behalf of the solemn compact of 1787 as the su preme law of the land ; we appeal to them by the memories of the past, the sufferings of the present, and the perils that darken the future, by a common brotherhood of political associations and kindred blood, and by every consideration that should move the hearts of patriots and elevate the minds of statesmen. We implore them to say to the storm-tossed sea, “peace, be still ’ Our voice is for peace ; that peace which springs from an association of co equal btaies not the unity of nationality that were the offspring of the sword, centralism and despotism —but the Union of the Constitution. But I prefer rather to consider, briefly, the great issues involved in the pending election, in order that we may act intelli gently in their decision. The main ques tion affects the character ot the Govern ment itself—the fundamental principles ot its organization—the very object which the Constitution was intended to accom plish. In defining that object, I cannot do better than to use the language of Mr. Webster, in his speech at Albany, New York, on the 27th of August, 1844. Ido so, the more readily, because his author ity cannot be disregarded by the people of the North, on whom will, mainly, devolve the responsibility of deciding the political contest now being waged between the two great parties of the United States. He said : “That the object of this Constitu tion was to make the people of the United States one people, and to place them un der one government, in regard to every thing, respecting their relation to foreign States and the aspect in which the nations of the world were to regard them. It was not an amalgamation of the whole people under one government ; not an ex tinguishment ot the State sovereignties. That would have been an extinction, not a Union, of existing States There was no pressing necessity, therefore, for mak ing the local institutions ot the several States approach each other in any closer affinity. As governments existed, each, within its own territory, for all purposes of territorial supremacy and power, in a word, for all State purposes, it was no matter what variety the States should have, in these respects, and it was left to their own discretion. And it is the very beauty of our system, as I conceive, that the Federal and State governments are kept thus distinct; that local legislation is left to the local authorities, and the gene ral legislation is given to the General Gov ernment.” The position of Mr. Webster evidently was, that so far as concerned the affairs of external relations, the Constitu tion of the United States, constituted us one people, and that, as between the seve ral States, it constituted them co-equal confederates, each being left to itself “for all purposes of territorial supremacy and power, in a word, for all State purposes.” Whether the first member of this proposi tion be true or not, the second is unques tionably true, and that is quite sufficient for the present discussion. That is the principle which is most vital to the States, and which is so fiercely assailed by the present dominant party. In the Convention of 1787, that framed the Con-titution, there was a formidable party —formidable for its patriotism and ability—that advocated a strong National Government, in contradistinction to a Fed eral Republic. Mr. Hamilton was in favor of clothing the national Legislature with the ‘ ‘ power of passing all laws whatsoever , ’ ’ without any constitutional limit, except the Executive veto, and of giving the authorß ty to the President to appoint the Govern ors of the several States. Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, proposed that Congress should have the power to negative all the acts passed by the Legislature of the several States, aud to coerce the States, by force, to submit to the acts of Congress. Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey, concurred gen** erally in these propositions. All of the three, with others, advocated the opinion that the Supreme Court of the United States should be invested with the power to review and reverse the decisions of the respective State Courts. Hence, it appears that propositions were offered and advocated in the Convention, giving to the General Government supreme power over the States, in their Executive, Legislative and Judicial departments. Without tracing the action of the Convention, in detail, suffice it to say they were all either entirely ignored or rejected; none of them—not one—is to be found in the Constitution that was adopted. The equality of the States was maintained; their separate sovereignty was unimpaired, except to the extent of the powers delegated to the Gen eral Government; and to clear away all doubt, as to their sovereignty, a subse quent amendment, proposed by Congress, declares, in express terms, that “the pow ers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States re spectively, or to the people.” The power of the General Government was limited to the conduct of affairs pertaining to foreign relations, the regulation of commerce, coin ing money, declaring war and making peace, raising armies, collecting revenue and a few other subordinate objects; while each State retained the right or self-gov ernment, to regulate elective franchise, within its own limits and to organize its own social, civil and political institutions. The Constitution was adopted by the sev eral States in convention, 'voting by States , and it was ratified by the several States, each in its corporate character, and not by the whole people of the United States, in the aggregate as one people. Such was the Government ordained by the Consti tution of 1787 —a Federal Republic, of co-equal States, with limited powers— limited as to the subjects confided to it, and limited as to the mode of exercising its delegated powers. It was so under stood, by the framers of the Constitution ; so understood, by eyery President from Washington to Lincoln ; so understood, by . every distinguished jurist of the United States; so understood, by all the most eminent statesmen who have illustra ted our past career ; and above all, by all the States, when they severally ratified the Constitution. Well might Mr. \Veb ster say, as he did say, in the extract pre viously quoted : “And it is the very beau ty of our system, as I conceive, that the Federal and State governments are kept thus distinct ; that local legislation is left to the local authorities, and the general legislation is given to the §eaeral govern ment.’! It is not only the "‘the beauty, n but, I will add, the whole efficiency “of our system.” Destroy its Federal feature of compact between co-equal States, and thenin the language of Mr. Webster, it is “an extinction, not aun ion of existing States .” .Its wisdom is vindicated by our past history. It had given us prosperity, peace and happiness, up to the time, when, ap prehended departures from it drove the Southern States into secession. Our ter ritory had extended to the Pacific Ocean : our population, hardy, thrifty and enter prising, had increased without a parallel; in agriculture, manufactures and com merce, we had risen to successful competi tion with the most flourishing nations of the old world our flag was respected on every sea and in every clime ; and, in fine, we .had risen to the first rank among nations. Such are tho results of adherence to the Union, as a compact between co equal States, from 1787 to 1861.* But the Presidential contest of 1860, resulted in the election of a sectional President, by a sectional party, pledged to a line of policy which the Southern States consid ered fatal to their rights and safe ty in the Union. In an hour of just in dignation, they committed the mistake of secession. That mistake provoked the crime of coercion, and coercion has open ed the gate to that turbib tide of aggres sion and usurpation, which has swept away all constitutional barriers and threatens to drift us into the stagnant sea of Despotism. Fully appreciating the dangers that environed us, upon the ac cession of Mr. Lincoln to the Presiden cy, I was still unwilling for Georgia to secede. I thought it better that party should battle with party, section with section, inside the Union, for the adjust ment of conflicts of interest, principles and policy. I thought it better, because secession was no redress for past griev ances, and I doubted its adequacy to save us from greater future ills. But when Georgia took the step, though adverse to my judgment, I obeyed her behest and linked my destiny with her people. And now that we are all overwhelmed in com mon defeat, and adversity, I cordially unite with them, in this last effort, to re store the Union and, if possible, preserve constitutional government. I have shown that the Constitution of the United States, as it emanated from its authors, ordained and established an Union, between co-cqual States —a Fed eral, in contradistinction to a National, government, and that, in this pecular feature, consists “its beauty” and efficien cy, to which we are indebted for all the prosperity that we have hitherto enjoyed. I will next show that the past meas ures and avowed future policy of the dominant party, whether so designed or not, must, if made permanent, destroy its federal feature, and convert our govern ment into an elective centralism which, like Aaron’s rod, will swallow up the re served rights of the States and extinguish “the State Sovereignties,” forever. It can not be denied that, if the Convention of 1787 had incorporated into ithe Constitu tion the proposition of Mr. Hamilton, to confer on Congress the “power of passing all laws whatsoever” and upon the Presi dent, the authority to appoint the State Governors; and the proposition of Mr. Randolph, to give to Congress the right to negative all acts passed by the several State Legislatures, and to coerce the States to submit to all acts passed by Congross; and the proposition of Mr. Pat terson, to clothe the Supreme Court of the United States with the power to review and reverse the decisions of the State Courts—l say if these propositions had been adopted, it cannot be denied, that our government, instead of being Federal , would have been National —an elective Centralism. Rut the party in power has, in fact, or effect, exercised all these ter rific powers. The Convention refused to give Congress the right to coerco States. This party has assumed and exercised it. The Convention refused to make the Gen- 1 eral Government supreme over the Exec utive, Legislative! aud Judiciary depart ments of the several States; but Congress has usurped and exercised such suprem acy over ten States of the Union. It has asserted the right to dictate the formation of their constitutions; by its own enaet- meats, it has deposed their Governors and Judges and regulated the question of citizenship and the elective fran chise. Congress has gone even beyond all this. It has emasculated the con stitutional functions of the Federal Exec utive, fettered the Supreme Court of the United States, and _so intimidated Rs Judges that they shrink from the decis ion of cases involving the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts. # lf these are not alarming strides to Centralism, it is difficult to conceive what would be. If these do not tend to overthrow Constitu tional government, in the name of reason and justice, what measures of legislation would lead to the result? Hut this great party of Centralism glory in their achieve ments and, in the Chicago Platform, con gratulate the country upon their success, and pledge themselves to perpetuate and make permanent their policy—that is to erect an elective despotism upon the ruins of our Constitutional Republic. We have seen the benign fruits of the Constitution, produced through a period of eighty years of peace and prosperity ; how we advanced in all the ele nents of greatness and power. Now, what are the fruits of less than three years administration of the government, in disregard of that Constitution, and upon the principles of Centralism? They are sectional hatred and strife, prolqnged and intensified; the Union dissevered; ten otates denied equality and representation ; governments forced upon them by the bayonet; agriculture, commerce and manu l k tUr j S industry paralysed; labor deranged, demoralized and subvert ed- an overwhelming and crushing public debt, n flat true patriot North, South, Last or West will hesitate to repudiate tms most egregious policy of despotism anu restore to its wonted supremacy, the Constitution of our forefathers? In order to sustain the general charge of the tendency of the measures and policy of the dominant party to Centralism and Des potism, let us consider some of their sdo cmc acts: K I. From the foundation of the govern ment, the right of the several States to fix the qualifications of citizens).ip and suf frage, has never been doubted, much less denied. But, in the Reconstruction Acts, Congress has assumed absolute control oyer this whole subject, so far as concerns the ten Southern States, to which those acts apply. Slavery being abolished, they confer citizenship and the right to vote up on the negroes of those States, together with social, civil and political equality,with the white population; and with this, they couple disfranchisement of the latter to an extent supposed to be sufficient to give to the former the ascendancy at the ballot* box. By a pretended amendment to the Constitution, this Radical change, in our system is guaranteed to be perpetual; whilst it is distinctly announced in the Chicago platform “that it was demanded by every consideration of public safety, of gratitude and of justice and must be maintained '.” IB . The equality of the States,in rights and dignity, is fully recognized, in numer ous provisions of the Constitution. And it was even declared, by unanimous resolve of Congress, at the commencement of the unhappy conflict of arms between the States, that the war was not waged“in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or of subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing *or interfering with the rights of established institutions of the States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity , equality and rights of the several States unimpaired ,” Ac. But in the face of those recognitions of the equality of the States, the Chicago platform boldly asserts that, though the Southern States shall not de cide, for themselves, the question of citizen ship and suffrage,yet, that, in all the other States, termed loyal, it properly belongs to the people of those States. 111. Congress has not only asserted, but exercised, the right o form and erect new States within the jurisdiction of ten of the States of the Ui|od, and decided who shall constitute those States, irre spective of the will of the people. Their sovereignty has been overthrown ; anew people, unknown to the Constitution and the whole theory and practice of our politi cal system, has been created, composed, to a large extent, of emancipated slaves and clothed with power to form State govern ments. All this is in direct and palpable conflict with the 3rd Art. and 4th sec. of the Constitution, which declares, among other things, * * * “that no new State shall be formed or erected, within the jurisdiction of any other State * * * without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.” What is a State in the sense we are now considering ? It is not mere territory, embracing mountains and val leys, plains and rivers ; but it means the civil organization of a community into Ex ecutive, Legislative and Judiciary powers —thus the actual government. Vattel de- State to be “a body politic or socie ty of meu united together for the purpose of promoting their usual safety and ad vantage by the joint efforts of their com bined . strength.” Such a government Georgia had, fully organized and opera tive, “deriving its just powers from the consent,’of the governed” aud founded upon the sovereignty of the people. Congress abolished that government and suppressed the sovereignty of the State. It deter mined who should constitute the people of the State. It compelled conventions, at the point of the bayonet, to orgonize anew government. It reserved to itself the right to approve or reject the Constitution. It' this is not the formation or rejection of a “new State” within the jurisdiction of another State, this language of the Consti- tution is useless verbiage. lam tempted to pause here and com ment upon this monstrous _ wrong. Its atrocity finds no parallel in history, unless it be the destruction of the national sovereignty of Poland in 1792 and her partition between Prussia, Russia and Austria —an act which has challenged the execration of all Christian powers. But nations, like individuals, are subject to the law of retribution. In % less than twenty years those proud despotisms received their punishment. Surwarrow sacked Warsaw, and the city of Moscow was laid in ashes in sight of a Polish army led by Bonaparte. How humiliating the treaty of Tilsit and the Peace of \ ienna! by which the par titioning powers lost as much territory as they respectively acquired by the division of their spoil! Such was the rapid ven - geanee which Providence sent close upon the heels of spoliation to demonstrate to the world that the destruction of the sov ereignty of a people is the most atrocious of national crimes. It is not for me to say what is the retribution that awaits those who have, by force, suppressed the sovereignty of ten States of this Union. As I can pray for nothing better for the South and the whole country, so I pray 5