Newspaper Page Text
4
jf' Oi,,
M mm e utm
EEV. A. J, RYAN, Editor
AUGUSTA, G a., FEBRUARY 27,1869.
ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS AND
BUSINESS LETTERS FOR THE “BAN
NER OF THE SOUTH” SHOULD BE
ADDRESSED TO THE PUBLISHERS -
L. T. BLOME & CO.
RED X MARK.
The red X mark is not a Ku-Kluxism,
but a sign that your subscription expires
with No. 52, Yol. 1. Please send your
renewal at once by Express or Postoffice
Money Order. Our subscribers are
earnestly requested to attend to this little
matter immediate]v.
COMING!
It would seem as though that wild
spirit of change that has been so rampant
throughout the civilized world, for some
years past, is now upon the wane. Re
action has set in, and in a short time,
shorter than many of us think, we may sec
the distracted interests of peace and pros
perity gliding- back into those channels
where order and comfort once waited on
their uudisturbed operation. In one
word, the fell spirit of Radicalism has
received a check, and when we say Radi
calism, we mean not alone that form of
the demon which disturbs us, but that
general bloodthirsty, destructive, irreli
gious, and brutal sentiment which gar
nishes itself under different circumstances
with a variety of high-sounding and ad
captandam names. Progress, Liberal
Ideas, Spirit of the Age, Equal Rights,
Enlightened Moral Sentiment—these are
some of the gauds and gewgaws of its
nomenclature; but under each and all
lurks the purpose to destroy, with neither
thought nor knowledge of how anything
better is to be set up in the place of the
thing cast down.
Some few months since the fever reached
its height. In Italy, Garibaldi—that
Garibaldi who proffered his sword to Lin
coln in the South’s darkest hour—and
Mazzini—that Mazzini who deified the
slaughtered tyrant as higher than Christ
—were plotting against the Pope, and
threatening by their machinations to set
all Italy on fire. In France, the old
breed of Robespierre and Danton reared
their heads against the Empire, though,
whatever may be its faults, the Empire
has spared the blood and increased the
wealth of its people,and Red Republicanism
lias never done either. In England, the
mob rose howling for their “rights,” and
threatened, at one time, to renew the ex-
cesses of the old Puritan days under
Cromwell. In Spain, plots were in pro
gress that have since culminated in the
expulsion of Isabella and the anarchy
that followed it. In Cuba, the flames of
revolt were lit ; and in the United States
a cruel and blackguard despotism has
just handed the South over to ignorant
Africans, thieving interlopers, and home
born traitors to Liberty. Everything’
looked dark ; there was hardly one star
seen in the murky sky; and it is no won
der that many felt hope and purpose fail
them, and were ready to do or say any
thing that tyranny might bid, so only
that the degradation gave them peace in
their day.
Now how changed! To the superficial
observer it may seem there is no great
difference ; but not so to him who reads
the signs of the times by the lights of ex
perience. So far from holding the fate
of Italy, Garibaldi and Mazzini are now
laughing-stocks, for the sober second
thought has revolted at their vain imagin
ing's and well proven incapacity. In
France, all attempts to beat down a
peaceful Government, and erect in its
stead the dismal anarchy of the barri
cade, the revolution, the fine-spun theory,
nd the bonnet rouge, have failed. In
England, the wild ravings of Radicalism
have waked a conservative spirit that
threatens, at this coming Parliament, to
make short work of Yankee copyists. In
Spain, the people have rejected the “ad
vanced ideas” that it was sought to cram
down their throats, and emphatically re
buked, by a tremendous vote, those
officious patriots who wanted all the
power. In Cuba, the sentiment is averse
to having the same wretched game of
emancipation and Negro equality played
that has been played with us ; and, lastly,
for the United States, a steady, a persist
ent, an indomitable determination that
the white man alone can have political
power in the South—this, and a good
crop, and who fears the Radical wolves
and jackals ? The tables are turning.
Men’s minds are losing the fatal bias given
them by war, passion, aud sophistry.
They are beginning to judge the tree by
its fruits, and, finding that this Upas tree
of Radicalism produces no fruit but
poison, are coming to a determination
that will soon cut the tree down and cast
it to the flames.
CONFEDERATE OFFICERS IN THE ITS
ARMY,
The Springfield (Mass) Republican ,
in an article which we publish in this
issue of the Banker of the South, pays
a very just and deserved tribute to the
Officers of the Confederate Army. It is
not quite sure that they ought to be ap
pointed to positions iu the United States
Army, yet it is very certain that the
proposition is not an unwise one, and
ought to be taken into very serions con
sideration. Well, our gallant Generals
are their own masters, and their own
judges of their own conduct; but we
should regret to see them giving their
swords and their genius to the military
service of a Government which has out
lawed them—which has trampled down
every principle of military honor, and
every sense of political justice. They are
Rebels—they are, iu the eyes of that
Government, and of their dearly beloved
Northern brethren, more than Rebels—
they are traitors, and nothing vile is vile
enough to apply to them, either in words
or act. But now these dearly beloved
brethren are beginning to discover the
humbuggery and inefficiency of their Ileint
zlemans, their Bummer Shermans, their
Sheridans, and all the rest of that species
of “Capt. Jenks of the Horse Marines,"
which constitutes, to a great extent,
the brilliant array of U. S. Army officers;
and, at the same time, they are beginning
to confess some admiration for Confederate
military talent, and to do tardy but de
served justice to the brilliant soldiers
who constitute the galaxy of Confederate
Generals. The contrast between the two
sets of officers is so strong and so unfa
vorable to the Northern soldiers, that we
do not wonder that the people should ask
to have such men as Lee, and Johnston,
and Beauregard, and others, placed in
high positions in the Army. Oh, yes !it
would be a capital idea. It would give
the army eclat, and restore to its officers
that prestige of honor and renown which
once so justly belonged to them! It
would make that Army more respected
at home and abroad. It would give it
character and glory. In short, it would
be satisfactory to the people of the North
and creditable to the Government. But
would it not be a sacrifice of honor and of
principle t A relinquishment of that
glorv which was acquired in the defence
of a Cause, though lost, yet living and
just ? A contribution to the Future of
what justly belongs to the Past ? Surely f
there is more honor and more glory in the
title of “Ex-Confederate Officer," than in
all the rank, aud pomp, and power, of
Commander-in-Chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States of America —
more grandeur in the would-be degrading
title of “Southern Rebel,” than in the
possession of any office in the gift of a
Government which has violated Honor,
destroyed Liberty, and trampled Justice
uuder its feet. Gentlemen, the case is
with you.
WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY.
This subject, as a theme for p etic in
spiration and patriotic discourse, nas be
come thoroughly threadbare. The illus
trious name which constitutes it one of the
Nation's memorial days has passed from
the Earth, but lives yet in the hearts of
true patriots everywhere. He was no
myth—no creature of poet’s imagination
—no vain hero of pompous historians;
but a living, breathing reality—a man of
power, of genius, and the will to do and
dare. He was an admirer of Truth, an
advocate of Justice, a devotee to Patriot
ism. He left a name and a character
stamped upon the annuls of his country
which have become part and parcel of
that Country’s greatness: and, despite
the evil teachings of political dema
gogues and military fiends, he still lives
in the hearts of those who love the vir
tues which he practised. We hold his
memory up to day, therefore, that “his
light may shine before men,” and recall
the wayward wanderer from the highway
of political destruction to the road of
political truth and wisdom. We tell of
him that he was a just man, a good man,
a patiiot, a believer in, and a defender of
the Constitution of his country, an enemy
to tyrants, and an ardent lover of Con
stitutional Liberty.
Oh ! ye backsliders from the political
faith of your fathers—you who have for
gotten your country, and seek only your
own aggrandizement— you who have
struck down the banner of Liberty, aud
would fain pull down the very Temple
itself —pause, aud look back at that grand
old figure, warning you of your perils,
and pointing you to the path of patriot
ism. Read his words of wise and judi
cious counsel, and give them heed. His
example, his advice, his warning voice,
are all before you. Heed them, and
save your bleeding, suffering country.
You have wandered from the right
way—you have raised new and false
issues—you have placed party above
country—and you have brought ruin and
desolation upon your land. Cease your
wickedness, turn from your evil ways,
and follow once more the teachings and
the practices of him who was “first in
war, first in peace, and first in the hearts
of his fellow-citizens”—of him who was
the “Father of his Country” and the
advocate and defender of Constitutional
Liberty.
THE NEW MOVEMENT-
Fifth and Last Letter of Gov. Henry A.
Wise.
Richmond, Ya , Jan., 19, 1869.
Dear Sir :—I have shown Virginia
has an existing, legitimate and recog
nized Constitution, of 1831. I have shown
that her existing body politic, under tnat
Constitution, was in the most solemn
forms recognized bv the Congress of the
United States, before the war, during the
war, and since the surrender of the Con
federacy. I have shown that the Consti
tution fixes and establishes the qualifica
tions of voters in this State. I have
shown that no other power upon earth
except the State’s own power, has juris
diction to create or modify the elective
franchise of a State of this Union, and
“the Congress” itself, in both Houses,
depends for election upon the most
numerous branches of the respective State
Legislatures; the Federal Government, so
far from having any power of prescribing
or modifying elective franchise in any
State, depends entirely on the electors
defined and designated by the States.
That there is not a Representative in the
House of Representatives of the Congress
who must not be elected by the electors
in his district, of the most numerous
branch of the Legislature of his State ;
and there is not a Senator of the Con
gress who must not be elected by the
Legislature elected by the electors defin
ed and created by the Constitution and
laws of the State to which ht belongs.
That Congress can create no elective
franchise or electors, except for the Dis
trict of Columbia,or for the Territories of
the United States, and cannot convert a
State of the Union into a district, or
Territory, or province; cannot avoid the
apportionment of the Representatives to
the States, according to the federal taxes
imposed upon her, and cannot deprive
any State of her two Senators. And that
in the case now' pending of vacancy in
the State offices of Virginia, the manda-
tory function of Congress is to
protect the State against “domestic vio
lence,” and to call upon her own electors
to elect her officers, or to meet in con
vention to reorganize her State govern
ment.
Congress lias created a provost-martial
military authority, which has appointed
a quasi civil provincial authority to keep
the peace and prevent domestic violence.
Why has it not called into action the
State’s own already existing “organic
law,” her Constitution of 1851 ? Her
own electors require only an officer or
authority to call*them to the polls, and
to appoint a time for elections, the places
beinsr alreadv fixed bv her own law.
By the IVth article,section!,of the Con
stitution of the United States,“the United
States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union a republican form of govern-
ment, and shall protect each of them
against invasion, and on the application
of the Legislature, or the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be conven
ed), against domestic \ iolenee.” It is a
striking fact that in every article, s’ection,
and clause preceding this fourth section
of article 4, and in every article, section
and clause subsequent thereto, the Consti
tution uses the words “the Congress:”
“the Congress” may or shall do this, or
not do that. But this section changes
the words, and names another power to
perform the duty of “guaranteeing every
State in this Union a republican form of
government, Ac.” This is not a mere
change of terms. No instrument which
was ever drawn by man is more careful,
is as careful of its terms, and of the
sense of terms, as the Constitution of the
United States. The men who drew it
were scholars and civilians, jealous and
vigilant, and critical, and little less than
inspired. They were instructed and in
vigorated by trials, and had an experi
ence of colonial and Confederate status
and of seven years proof of war. It
was no accidental variation of phrase; it
occurs but once, and in the midst of
clauses using the words “the Congress”
many times, both before and after its oc
currence. For these reasons, it is obvious
the words “United States” are not used
as svnonvmous. “The Congress” is but
a department of the municipal govern
ment of the United States. The “United
States” impart the sources of national
sovereignty in convention, or acting by
States, as the Constitution itself indicates.
Now, it was, doubtless, meant by this
tliat in all eases where State govern
raents were in any way interrupted, or
suspended, or bad in form, no less an
authority than the sources, of national
sovereignty, “the United States,’ 5 should
or could act. This guarantee power of
a republican form of government; this
national necessity of protection of each
State against invasion; and this “parens
patricQ ” obligation against domestic vio
lence, was evidently deemed the most
sacred function of sovereignty. The
States are objects of protection; their
Federal sovereignty is to be exerted to
that end; and the cause of each State,
was the cause of all. They, therefore,
did Dot leave this highest trust for them
selves, to their mere creature, the mu
nicipal Federal Government, or any one
of its departments,Executive, Judicial or
Legislative, but they kept this power, of
which they are both the trustees and the
cestunque trust, to be exercised by them
selves, “the United States,” and not by
“the Congress.” Their duty to them
selves is made imperative in terms, as
well as in fact—“ The United States shall
Ac.” They may not omit this duty. Ft
is a duty in its very nature to guarantee
not only that the form of government shall
be republican, but that each State shall
have a government of her own. The
framers knew that no form could be re
publican which wa» not a form of self
government; and the very fact of guar
anteeinga republican form of government
guarantees fully not only that the gov
ernment shall have a republican form,
but that tne Republican form in each
State shall have a government. It was
meant to provide for precisely such cases
as the present case of Virginia —an old
existing State—with an approved and
recognized established form, but without
functionaries of office.
This is not the case within the powers
of Congress to “admit a sew State into
the Union.” Virginia was in the Union
before Congress ever existed. She
was in the Union the moment the consti
tution was adopted and before any Con
gress was ever elected. There she is
now, and Congress has no power to evict
her from it. There she is with her form
of government, which Congress has re
cognized as republican ever since 1850.
What, then, is the duty of—not Congress,
but —the “United States ?” It is to
summon her electors to resume their
already formed and recognized republican
government. But “prominent gentle
men” have surrendered this constitution
al position of the State, and have pro
posed to submit to Congress her whole
“organic law,” just as if she a now
State about t> be admitted into t’:
Union. that the (w!
gress may decide that her Constitution /
1831 is now, owing to the fundamental
changes of the war, irreversible forever
no longer republican. They go farther
than to imply merely that to return to
the Constitution of 1851 returns to the
state of African slavery itself; they
“surrender,” that Congress mly decide
that no form of government is republican
which don’t allow to Negro freed men and
to all present citizens, universal “s u f.
(rage.”
Now. the first objection, that of the
impossibility of returning to the Consti
tution of 1851, without again returning
to property in slaves, is easily met. -The
United States” have but to summon the
electors of Virginia already existing to
assemble in convention to amend the
Constitution of 1851, without attempting
to dictate anew class of voters not al
lowed by the State, and without disfran
chising any of her old voters who are
untried and uneonvieted of crime We
venture to affirm that a legitimately
called convention, elected by the old
voters of Virginia, would unanimously
put the question of slavery within her
limits at rest forever, in the first week’s,
if not in the first day’s, sitting. For
myself, I praise God for the war notwith
standing its aud deaths, as a
special providence indispenssable to
free me and my heirs forever from the
weakness, if not wickedness, of African
slavery. There is no power on earth
that can compel me ever again to be the
master of a slave; and the only anxietv
I now feel for myself and my heirs, ia
that we may never be the slaves of mas
ters who will enforce a denial of self
governmentto us and our fellow-citizens!
But this will not satisfy a domination
over us, which demands that Congress
shall dictate the precedent conditions of
a State Constitution providing “univer
sal,” that is, Negro Suffrage. This dej
mand “prominent gentlemen” yield to,
and surrender the right of self-govern
ment as well as of Negro equality at the
polls and in office. Now, do they mean
to asseat to the proposition that no form
of government is republican which don’t
allow “universal suffrage” or the equali
ty of all citizens, black and white, male
and female, pauper or tax-payer, at the
polls aud in office ? If so, then most of
the States in this Union have not a re
publican form oi' government. What
shall be done with them ? How are they
to be reformed ? Are different rules to
be applied to the different States ? Is
Virginia to be forced to allow eoual
privileges to Negroes with whites, and
other States to be allowed to discriminate
between them and to decide for them
selves who shall and who shail not be
electors and office-holders ?
These questions must be satisfactorily
solved; and cannot be by Congress.
They can be justly and impartially de
cided only by “The United States.”
How ?
By calling the electors of Virginia to
send delegates to a convention or ail the
States of the Union :
Ist. To define what shall be deemed
a republican form of State Government,
to which all the States shall conform
equally and alike. This Congress am
not do in judging of any Constitution of
a State which is already in the Union.
It can judge in the case only* of the ad
mission of “new States.” This definition
of republican form will not necessarily
make uniformity of State Constitution'
but need only require conformity to
certain cardinal features, such as those ot
suffrage, or eligibility to office, and of
jury trial, for example. This much
uniformity would tend, in no inconsidera
ble degree, to assimilate the States, and
to make the I nioa more common and
equal to all.
2d. Let the Convention of States
submit its amendments to the State Leg
islatures, to be elected by their present
elctors, to be ratified, as prescribed t-y
the Constitution of the United States, by
three-fourths of them.
This would be legitimate and constitu
tional, and would bind all, and all woutd
submit to whatever would be done in this
way, with a willing obedience. But,
“prominent gentlemen 7 ’ perhaps, think
that two-thirds of Congress will net
propose amendments, nor will two -thirds
of the State Legislatures call for a Con
vention. Before we act on this supp vi
rion, would it not be well, and what
due t) ourselves to make the effort be
fore Congress, or the State Legislatures,
to obtain either amendments or a Con
vention ? Suppose, at last, neither can
be obtained, is that any reason why we
should not keep every advantage we
now have under the existing provisions
of the Constitution of the United States.
But do “prominent gentlemen’ say that
our people can't bear to abide longer m
the present state ot things, and can t
wait for reason, and patriotism, and love