Newspaper Page Text
ttifrhli) ^Btflligfncrr.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA,
Wednesday, October 0, 1867.
Hon. B. C. Yauter on the Political Sltu-
allou of tbe South.
Xlic Ifulbcrt Relief Humbne.
We have before us the Carteraville Express,
from which we perceive that the Jlulbert Relief
Jf:/mbvg lias two disciples 'it least in the good
old county of Bartow. One of these is a candi
date to represent that count}' in the approaching
Convention, and announces that important fact
in the following delectable card :
Carterbyille, October 1, 18*57.
Editor* Express-. Having been solicited by
many citizens ol the 42d District, both white
and black, to run for the Convention, I have at
l.ifit cot iiiy consent to do so, and I hereby an-
nounce myself a candidate for said Convention.
As it is customary for said candidates to give
I heir views on tbe leading questions of the day—
here goes:
I believe in all men having their rights in the
courts of the country.
I believe that a Convention ought to be held
and our Slate reconstructed, and take her place
in the Union.
I am opposed to the confiscation of the lands
of the whole people.
1 am opposed to the whites and blacks becom
ing socially equal, but think they ought to be po
litically so.
As we are all poor and have but little of this
world’s goods, and in order that all should now
take an equal start, I am in favor of wiping out
all old debts, and let each one take a fair start,
Ac.
These are my ideas on some of the leading
questions of the day. If elected, I will do all
the good and as little harm as possible. Yours
truly, Ben. Latimer.
The unblushing effrontery of this Mr. Ben.
Latimer, we have never seen excelled. After
announcing himself “ in favor of wiping out all
debts and let each one take a fair start, dec.',' he
closes with saying, “ if elected, I will do all the
good and a* little harm a* possible.” “ All the
good ” indeed t Hob Peter to bestow upon
Paul, is a part of the good this man would
do. Verily, he is a marvellously proper man to
represent any people, not even excepting those
of African ’scent. And, then, hear him again.
He “ w opposed to the confiscation of the lands of
the whole people.” The whole people ? Does he
mean then that he is in favor of confiscating the
lands of a portion of the people ? Or does he
know what he docs mean ? We do not know
this Mr. lien. Latimer, noi do we mean him any
personal disrespect when we express our convic
tion that ail the fools in the land arc not dead
yet.
The other card or communication which we
notice in the Etprcss bears the signature of a
Mr. W. L. Goodwin, who closes with the affirma
lion that he will give his “ support to any measure
of relief which is expedient, practicable, and con
stitutionalThere is more sense in this than in
the card of Mr. Ben. Latimer; but so far as
relief is concerned it is a mere repetition of the
lluihert Humbug. Affirming that he knows
"that repudiation is not strictly, honorable, honest
or just between man and man—” that “the act is
scorned by many high-minded men,” he yet
utllms that “ it is expedient and practicable.”—
How “practicable” Mr. Goodwin ? How in the
face of the provision ol the Constitution of the
United States, which declares that “no ex post
lacto law, or law impairing the obligation of
contracts,” cau such relief—relief that repudiation
will give—he practicable. Tell the people of
Bartow County this, and you may escape the
charge of being nothing more nor less than a
disciple of the Hulbert, the would be great rebel
humbugger of t lie people of this State.
'flint .11 omi-uein—--We Recline.
A friend at Marietta addresses us the following
note:
Noticing in your paper of the 2d your com
incuts upon the action of your City Council in
; egard to a contribution for erecting a monu
ment to the “ Lamented,” as Brick Pomeroy
calls him, and to show you that the subject is
attracting attention iu the far West, I enclose
vou the copy ot u note received from a young
friend in the State of Arkansas. You can hand
his contribution to some one of that ilk, and
publish his communication. ,
Dear : 1 send you a two cent revenue
stamp to help erect a monument to the memory
<.f Lincoln. I saw in a Georgia paper that the
loyalists of that Stale were trying to raise funds
to erect a monument at Atlanta. I would send
you more, but I gave ten likely niggers, and as
1 never allow anything ot the kind to pass with
out leading a helping hand, when } 0u see any
of the agents in getting up this fund, give them
the stamp, and tell them I nm sorry it could not
have been a nigger. Yours sincerely.
We respectfully Leg leave to decline being an
agent in the matter referred to. The two cent
stamp is held subject to the order of the dona
tor of it, or to auy oue who will undertake to
appropriate it as he desires. The “Atlanta Lin
coln Monument Enterprise” is oue which we
can neither directly or indirectly advance, not
even to the amount of two cents.
Athens, Ga., Sc-pt. 30, 1867.
Mcsere. Ira R. Foster, George Ilillyer, If. V. M. Millar,
and J. D. Pope:
Dear Sirs—Your letter, of the 23d instant,
requesting my views upon ilie present political
status of Georgia, and the course most expedient __
for her |>eople to pursue in reference to the pro- i a l Robert “e‘ Lee "toV^eraTutysnes
posed call of a Convention, under the acts of unconditionally, because it was pressed
Congress known as the reconstruction measures, 1 — > ...
duce individuals to abandon the Confederacy,
and return to their allegiance to the United States,
assuring pardon to such as would return—that is,
i a personal exemption from punishment. But that
would not obviate the imposition of terms upon
the aggregate of individuals, as a political com-
| munity—as a State—before being admitted to the
. benefits of the Constitution and a participation
i in the Government of the United States. One
branch ot our army was surrendered Igr Gene-
Vtcwi ou the monument.
A friend suggests to us “that Judas got money
for betraying Christ, but did the money sanctify
the deed of treachery?”
“Again does the fact that certain members of
our City Council possess money, give them li
cense to set the moral sense of the community
at defiance ?”
Both these questions, we, of course, answer in
the negative. Neither iu the case of Judas, nor
iu that of the members ot our City Council, does
the posession of wealth justify the act, charged
by our friend against either of the parties.
Our friend also asks: “Why did not the mem
bers of our City Council who voted to grant, on
a certain contingency, ten acres of land to the
Atlanta Lincoln Monument Association, vote to
take the bones of our fallen soldiers to crown the
monument when erected ; or a base to erect it
upon when begun, as they do not seem to scru
ple in granting ground for it, all wet with the
tears of widows and orphans ?”
To the last querry, we can give no answer.—
We can only, as our friend does, enquire “why ?”
echo, and re-echo it, and leave the response to
come from those immediately interested in the
result of the vote which they have giveu and
which has been found so obnoxious in the com
munity.
The Alabama Election.
The Montgomery Mad ot the 4th instant says:
“Yesterday was the last voting day in Alabama, i
and the polls were closed in this city at the hour !
ot (5 o’clock last evening. We have no means I
of yet knowing the total vote of this county, !
but we presume it is between five and six thou- i
sand—nearly all negro votes. The vote falls 1
far short of the ex[>ectations of the Radicals. It I
is probable the Convention is carried, but bv a >
very small majority. This election will long be j
remembered as the greatest farce ever enacted ■
in the State of Alabama. The mass of the
is before me.
Having been no active participator, for some
years, in politics, I cannot imagine m3-judgment !
will carry much weight beyond the reason, ar-
f ument and authorities by which it is sustained.
propose, therefore, to assign, present, and quote
them. Whatever power of condensation I may
exercise, I am conscious it cannot be done in a
short space. Yet the immensity of the interests,
political and material, involved in our decision
of tbe issues presented, will justify the extended
limits of this letter. We were never before in
such a fearful crisis. There is an intensely ex
cited and inflamed condition of the public mind.
It is natural to a defeated people. Passion, pre
judice, mortification, hatred, exercise a fearful
control over judgment. It is a mental condition
unfavorable and fatal to a clear exercise of the
functions of reason. Unless we disembarrass
the mind of all these obstructions, we cannot
arrive at correct conclusions as to our situation,
or clear perceptions of duty.
I know that it. has been rendered more diffi
cult for the people to reasou calmly, and decide
dispassionately, as they have frequently been
harangued by politicians opposed to a Conven
tion, in addresses to their passions, and hatreds,
and prejudices. The bitterest words, and most
opprobrious epithets ot the language, have been
invoked, with which to denounce those who
think it expedient to vote for a Convention, and
especially those, among them, who were original
secessionists, and have taken the amnesty oath.
They are denounced as “ perjured traitors,”
“traitors to their principles,” “cowards,” who
would sell the South for a consideration; and
infamy, for all time to come, is invoked upon
them. Such declamation is, generally, evidence
of a bitter heart—of a frenzied mind—of weak
ness of argument; is an outrage upon the rules
of good taste—violative of every parliamentary
courtesy which should characterize the discus
sions of every speaker or writer. Sjich charges
upon States Rights men are untrue in fact, and
an unmerited slander.
I shall not follow in the pathway of such ig
noble example. I shall accord to every one who
may differ with me as much honesty of purpose
aud patriotism as I claim for myseli; aud, iu
deep devotion to my native sunny Southern
land, I yield to none. In kindness, in courtesy,
I shall proceed to discuss the situation. I in
voke the dispassionate consideration of the peo
ple.
I submit the following propositions :
Georgia is not now a State in the Federal
Union.
If Georgia is not in the Union, she can only
“be admitted by the Congress” of the United
States.
Georgia does not occupy the position of a
foreign government proposing to be admitted
into the Union of the States, which (like Texas
was originally) would be entitled to negotiate the
terms ol annexation.
Georgia occupies the position of a conquered
Shite, aud is, therefore, subject to the Govern
ment ot the United States—limited, in the exer
cise of its sovereignty, by the rules of interna
tional morality and justice.
The first proposition asserts that Georgia has
never been restored to the Union. If so, she
has no property in the Constitution of the* Uni
ted States; and can, of right, demand no benefit
under it, beyond What that government is pleas
ed to concede.
The surrender of our army ty the army ot the
United Slates was unconditional. Neither then,
nor at any subsequent time, have terms of peace
been concluded between the United States and
Georgia. The war, therefore, in law, still exists.
Georgia is under a military government until
the terms of peace are concluded. She has as
sented, in her late Convention, and acts ot the
Legislature thereunder, to some of the terms re
quired.
The remaining terms are now submitted iu
the acts ot Congress under consideration.
A compliance with the requisitions of those
acts by the proposed Convention, aud the Legis
lature to meet (hereafter, will conclude the peace
and entitle Georgia to admission in the Union.
• Upon acceptance, by Georgia, ot the terms
submitted by the conqueror, he will be precluded
from requiring any other conditions.
Upon the rejection, by Georgia, ot those terms,
by voting against Convention, the conqueror
can, by the law of nations, increase his demands
in number and rigor, aud curtail tbe right ol
tranchise he has now granted.
Georgia was a colony subject to the sover
eignty ot the British crown. In 1783 Great
Britain acknowledged her, separately, an inde
pendent aud sovereign State. She united with
other colonies, similarly situated, and framed a
General Government—the Government of the
United States—reserving to herself all sover
eignty not thus qualified. States Rights men,
ot the school of Jefferson, Calhoun, Troup,
claimed the right of a State to renounce the
compact—dissolve the copartnership—whenever,
in her judgment, tbe people, in Convention,
should so determine. The advocates of thi9
right were called secessionists.
Georgia, by her ordinance in convention in
1801, did dissolve her political connection with
the Government of the United Slates of America,
and declared herself a separate and independent
nation. She renounced all benefits, and denied
all obligations, under the Constitution of the Uni
ted Stales, and absolved her citizens lrom alle
giance to that Government. She formed, with
other seceded States, a confederated government.
That government declared itself a nation, sepe-
rate aud independent of the United States, and
again absolved its citizens from allegiance to the
Federal Constitution. States Rights men held
that the act of secession was rightful, aud, there
fore, peaceful in itself. The original secessionist
was a man of honest conviction ; he did not be
lieve he was committing treason against the Gov
ernment of the United Slates; and, it lie had
held an office aud taken au oath to support the
Constitution of the United States, he did not
believe he was violating that oath, since his State
had rightfully withdrawn lrom that Government.
Iu heart, he was incapable ol treason or perjury.
It is, therefore, 11 palpable and historic tact that
Georgia was out of the Federal Unique Shc-
rnust still be out, uuless it cau be proved that she
has been restored by the constituted authority of
the United States.
But it is alleged by the leaders of opposition
to a Convention, that Georgia lias been restored
to the Union, and the following reasou is giveu :
“For we must admit that the doctrines of the
issue, as insisted upon by the United States, and
the purposes and demands ot the United
States in making and carrying on the war, and
the terms of the surrender, were agreed to by us
in the act of surrender, and, therefore, made the
law ot the peace for both parties, being thus de
manded by one party and conceded by the
other.” ‘ B. H. Hill.
I will admit the doctrines of the issue, as in
sisted upou by the United States, were maintain
ed by their army iu our defeat, and in destroy
ing our national independence; aud that we
agree to abide the decision of the sword. Fower
cannot change opinion; it can coerce conduct:
the couquered satisfied of the folly ot resistance,
now or hereafter, may pledge never to attempt
to exercise a right again, but he cannot, at the
mere bidding of power, or the exercise of his
will, change the honest convictions of his mind.
I will admit that in our defeat the United States
have established their purpose, that Georgia
should not exist as an independent State; and
that, in the act of surrender, she consems to that
declaration and agrees to the purpose of the
United States—“the preservation of tbeUnion.”
I will admit that the terms of surrender,
were agreed to by us in the act ol surren
der.” But what were they? I will let Mr.
Hill state his own case, as I am re wing,
just here, his position—that the terms of
were demanded and conceded before the surrender,
and the case closed. He says : " I repeat, the only
demand made bv the United States iu the be-
Grant
and sur
rounded by overwhelming numbers—and to have
continued the straggle would have been a useless
slaughter of our gallant men. The only terms
of surrender were to disband the army, and re
turn to their homes, giving their word of honor
not to take up arms again, bat to remain peace
ful, law-abiding citizens. This was only a usual
military parole. And every soldier went home
a prisoner of war. And each one so paroled,
who has not since taken the amnesty oath, or
been specially pardoned—if worth over $20,000
—is a prisoner of war to-day; and will continue
so to be, unless pardoned, until the terms of peace
submitted by the Government of the United
States to the seceded States shall be accepted,
and due notice thereof given by the Government
of tbe United States. These facts ot history
show that, at the surrender ot Lee, no doctrines
of the “issue,” or“purposes ot the United Stales,”
or “demands,” or any other terms were demand
ed, or submitted, or proposed by any person,
military or civii, in behalf of the Government
of the United States; of course nothing being
proposed, nothing could have been accepted by
the Confederacy, even if there was any authority,
on her behalf, present to negotiate and accept.
General Grant had no power to submit terms of
peace, and bind his Government. A General
cannot declare war for his Government; neither
can he conclude terms of peace involving the
political status of the enemy. Tbe sovereign, or
one or more of the Departments of the Govern
ment, specified in the Constitution, can alone de
clare war or make peace. In the United States,
the Congress, and the President, conjointly de
clare war. Terms of peace can be made by the
conjoint action ot the President and Senate.
In 1797, Genoa was an independent republic.
She was invaded and conquered by France; and
ruled by her from 1805 till 1814 In that year
Lord Bentenck, an English officer, England being
at war with France, entered Genoa with his
army. Tbe people gladly surrendered to him,
on the idea that he was a Deliverer—England
having ever been on friendly terms with Repub
lican Genoa. And Lord Bentenck issued a pro
clamation declaring that the “Genoese State, as
it existed in 1797, with such modifications as tbe
general wish, the pubiic good, and tbe spirit of
the original Constitution seem to require, is re
established.” But this act of tbe British General
was repudiated by the British Government—
And, by consent ot England, Genoa was ceded,
by the Treaty of Paris, May, 1814, to the King
of Sardinia. And the cession was confirmed, by
the Congress of Vienna, in 1816.
But perhaps the true import, and design of the
language ot Mr. Hill’s proposition is, thatythe
doctrines of the issue, “and purposes and de
mands of the United States in making and car
rying on the war,” were legitimately to be assum
ed to have been “ demanded by one party and
concedetUiy the other,” and were legitimately to be
assumed to be the terms “ agreed to by us in the
act ot surrender;” although there were no terms
of peace, relating to political status, actually
submitted.
The argument is based entirely upon an as
sumption—a wild chimera of the brain—the
presumptions of an excited imagination. It is
not sustained by the practice- of nations, or by
iuternational law. Take an example in our own
history—the war with Mexico.
The declarations of the United States, during
the progress of hostilities, were not considered
as constituting or making the law of peace by
the acceptance, by General Scott, of the surren
der of the Mexican army at the capital of Mexi
co; nor considered as conceded and accepted by
Mexico, as such, in the act of surrender. No;
the terms of peace, unaffected and not concluded
by the act ot surrender, and embracing demands
additional to the purposes declared during the
war, were made by the Constitutional authority
—the President and Senate—and accepted, af
terwards, by Mexico.
The case of Genoa not only establishes the
fallacy of the position, that the terms of peace
must be made known at or before the surrender,
but also, even where the General declares and
establishes terms, the illegality of the claim by.
the conquered party, that the conqueror is pre
cluded from demanding any other terms.
It follows: as there was no law of peace made
at the surrender of the army, conditions may be
exacted thereafter.
There must be actual demands made, and as
sent thereto, to conclude peace.
They must be made, aud accepted, by compe
tent authority on each side.
The conqueror is not limited, in his demands,
by declarations made during hostilities.
He may increase his demands until the terms
of peace are agreed upon.
Until the terms of peace are accepted by the
people of Georgia, in Convention, the state of
war will continue.
“Il the people do not voluntarily submit, the
state of war still subsists.” [Vattell, Law of
Nations.
But it is alledged, that the President pre
scribed terms; that Georgia complied with them,
and, then the President restored her to the Union.
It the President’s act was valid, I admit that the
United States are precluded, by the well recog
nized principles of International law, from exac
ting other conditions, and are violating that
faith which should be sacred and inviolable; and
Georgia should never assent to such prohibited
demands.
It is our misfortune, that the President’s course
was not in conformity to the Constitution of the
United States; and, therefore, not the act ot the
government
Before I enter upon this point, I remark that
whilst no terras of peace were submitted through
Geueral Grant when General Lee sur.endered,
terms were negotiated between Generals Sher
man and Johnston. Those terms recognized the
seceded States in “the Union, with all the digni
ty, equality and the rights ot the several States
unimpaired.” This was the line upon which
General Sherman fought, and he was disposed
to be consistent and wanted his government to
end the war upon those terms. But knowing he
had no power to conclude them, he submitted
them to the President of his government, a part
ot the treaty, or peace making power, lor appro
val. The President rejected them, and directed
Sherman to press Johnston to the unconditional
surrender of Lee to GraDt Johnson surrendered
“without terms,” save the parole, which is a
mere military usage of letting the prisoners go
home, on honor not to take up arms again, and
to obey the laws, rather than hold them in close
custody till the terms of peace are made by the
duly couslituted department of the governmen-
ment. Such a course, when an army disbands,
is required by humanity and the law of Nations.
This rejection by President Johnson is a signi
ficant fact, that the United States had not made
and would not make the law of peace with our
army. The terms of peace, and admission to
tlie benefits ot the Union and Constitution of the
United States, were to be submitted to the people
of each se jeded State.
Farther proof: President Johnson ordered ar
rests ot governors of our States, appointed his
provisional governors, and issued bis proclama
tion to reconstruct said States, prescribed eligi
bility for seats in the conventions ordered, re
quired the emancipation of slaves, repeal of ordi
nances of secession, and dictated other terms, on
the ground that civil governments were subvert
ed. The laws of Georgia were permitted to ex
ist only by sufferance—to be provisional We
were not in the Union, then, up to this time.
The Constitution of the United States was net
yet our property. The people of Georgia not dis
franchised, organized a Convention, which com
plied with the President’s orders—even to the
emancipation of our slaves, and giving them
“absolute civil eqqality with their former own
ers.”
tian, which can be quoted to sustain them.”
And Mr. Hill sayB, that whoever would consent
to accept “new terms, prescribed after the sur
render, which, by being thus prescribed, “are
infamous,” are base, treacherous, servile cowards—
traitor* to their principles, who would sell their
country for a consideration, who deserve to be bra nd-
ed with tnfamy by the people.
If Mr. Hill, self-constituted judge of other
men’s motives—bitter denunciator of character,
—flippant dealer in fierce and odious epithets,
is correct, then, in the above burning denuncia
tion, he has composed his own epitaph.
For, since tbe surrender, he gave his consent
and approval for the people of Georgia to as
semble, in the Johnston Convention, aud abolish
slavery—a demand outside ot tbe Constitution—
and to adopt an amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, in violation of the Consti
tution—“to maintain the Constitution and pre
serve the Union.” Bear in mind, also, that
President Johnson ordered that no man should
be eligible to, or take a seat in that Convention,
who did not have a pardon. Whoever received
a pardon, or availed himself of oflered amnesty,
(the Convention was composed of none other,)
took an oath to support the Constitution ot the
United States.
Now hear the fearful judgment of Mr. Hill,
though he was present and consented to, and
approved of, the murder of the Constitution,
upon all the members of that Convention—upon
all the people who voted for delegates—upon
whoever aided in the adoption of that amend
ment. w
This judgment is pronounced now upon all
who vote tor a^Convention to carry out the
Sherman “Military bills”—being “to establish
that which is a violation of the Constitution.” It
just at all, it is equally just to apply it to any
“establishment oT’ or doing that which is a viola
tion ot the Constitution. I change, therefore,
the tense, only, to apply to past action. Hear:
“Oh f my deluded countrymen 1” “Did you
mean, when you swore to support the Constitu
tion, to vote for that which violated the Consti-
tion ? I press the question to every man’s con
science. Did yon obtain your consent to disre
gard the ConstUition ? Don’t dodge, or explain,
or qualify; answer the question. Did you ob
tain your consent to disregard the Constitution ?
If not to be regarded, or respected, or observed,
why swear to sub port it ?” “Slavery cannot be
abolished by aA President’s proclamation ; that
declaration waSLaly designed to be a war meas
ure—to end wits the war, and to make no part
ot the terms or law of peace: it was simply de
signed to force us to lay down our arms, and
thus preserve the Union. Congress cannot, con
stitutionally, abolish slavery, or compel a State
to do it, under the Constitution.” Were you will
ing to violate the Constitution ? Were you will
ing to swear to support it, with the intent, at the
time of swearing, to violate it ?”
Then, I proclaim, all posterity will proclaim—
your hell—mort—gaged conscience will never
ceaseto proclaim: you are perjured, and perjury
is not half your crime—you committed perjury in
order to become a traitor! You took an oath to
support the Constitution, and then you voted to
do that which is a violation of tbe Constitution,
a thing outside of the Constitution, and just so
sure as passion shall subside, and reason return
to our people, and sober, oath observing patrio
tism Bhali again rule in the land, so sure will you
Tie branded, and justly branded r as a felon and
whipped throughout the land with the stinging,
remwlpsa lashes of public iufamy, because you
took an oath to support the Constitution, with
intent to violate it; because you committed per
jury in order that you might help to destroy
your country. And in vain will you hunt ex
cuses to palbiate your changeless infamy.”
If this is a just sentence, it attaches to any and
every one, who have voted for or appoved any
thing outside of the Constitution, as well as to
those who shall do so hereafter. And the in
famy should be more intensified and more deep
ly branded upon Mr. Hill and the late.Conven
tion than upon those who vote tor accepting the
present Military bill; because they voted to make
the negroes free citizens, and forced upon us,
thereby, the question of the right of tbe free
male citizen to participate in the government
under which he lives. The abolition of slavery
is the Pandora's Doc—opened by Mr. Hill’s con
sent and approval—whence have arisen all tbe
ilia of the issues now upon us. That is, after
It may be replied, aud properly, that some of
peace j these things were necessary to be done, such as
repeal of ordinances ot secession, and laws in
consistent with our former position in the Union*
and were the decision of the war. But the abo-
<jinniug was, that the people of the Confederate i lition of slavery was a demand outside of the
States should lay down their arms, retire to their ! Constitution; slavery, and property in slaves,
homes, and obey the laws, because therein* ilie ; was recognized by the Constitution. Indeed it
United States sought to accomplish the only pur-1 is admitted by all of us—men in favor and men
intelligent whites of the State had nothinsr to do ! P ose of lhe war » to vit tllu defeat of secession j opposed to tlie present Convention—men every-
, tiAMiAM * ! and the preservation ot the Union ” “ The \ where
with it, and, therefore, have no cause for shame
at the perpetration of so immense an outrage
upon the rights and privileges of a gallant and
once free people.”
So closes the election farce in Alabama. Much
such a farce will soon be acted in Georgia. Let
our people prepare for it, and do the best they
can lor the State! Were it probable that united
action ou the part of the whites could be secured,
we would kuow what to recommend, but ap
prehending. as we do, that this cannot be brought
about, we have only to advise that the whites in
each election district govern themselves accord
ing to the circumstances by which they niav be
surrounded. Where good and tree men can be
elected, vote and elect them. Where such can
not be, in consequence of the gerrymandering
process, let the nigger and the white Radical, giv
ing preference by ail means to the former, take
the polls into their own keeping and elect whom
they please. It is but a faree anyhow—the trag
edy will come ofl thereafter.
question is, did the United States, during the war
and betore the surrender, make other demands,
or avow additional purposes, and make them
that Congress, under the Constitution,
could not emancipate our slaves. Mr. Hill ad
mits ibis. He says, also: “During the war, Mr.
Lincoln, President ot the United States, issued
known to the Confederates? I have been unable j his proclamation emancipating slaves in certain
to fiud auy other, and believe no other man is j Slates and ports of States. But this itself was
able to find any other legitimate or official de
mands or purposes.” Well, I admit that, in the
surrender, the army agreed to lav down their
arms, retire to their homes, and obey the Jaws.
And this covers the only “ terms of'the surren
der”—the parole given by the soldier “to lay
down his a: ms, retire to Lis home, and obev the
laws where he resided.” But while I admit all
the principles in Mr. Hill’s statement—it cannot
avail to sustain his posi ion—that at tbe surren
der these tilings “ were agreed to 1 y us,” and,
therefore, made the law of the peace lor both
parties, being demanded by one party and con
ceded by the other. They were not demanded at
all, nor were they conceded at all. There was
no authority thereto d-mandtiiem; nor, if de
manded, was there any one to whom the United
Males would submit terms of peace—settlement.
The objects and purposes of the United States
declared to be a war measure only, to end with
the war, and to make no part ot the terms or
law of peace; the Congress had proposed to the
States an amendment to the Constitution, abol
ishing slavery everywhere., but the States had
not ratified it." It was, therefore, only a propo
rtion undetermined at the time of surrender.”
“Neither he,” (President Lincoln,) “nor General
Grant, nor any other power, alluded to this as
part of the terms during the negotiations for, nor
at the time of the acceptance ot, the surrender.
The only conditions ot the surrender were to
submit to the Uiws. and not take up arms against
the U nited States.” And you know Mr. Hili as
serts that any terms “not distinctly made before
the surrender is accepted,” “is a base treachery
the people of Georgia blindly adopted and fol
lowed the fatal doctrines of Mr. Hill and coad
jutors in rejecting, last year, the terms of peace
submitted in the “Constitutional Amendment; ”
which allowed us to vote the negro or not—
gaining or losing, merely, political power ac
cording to our decision.
Bat the sentence is not just, is not applicable to
any who consented to abolish slavery, or who
shall accept the other terms of peace now sub
mitted—hard though they be, because they are
the terms ot the conqueror under the law of na
tions. Because, Mr. Hill is utterly mistaken, in
facts, history, and law, that the terms of peace
have been made and concluded. Hence, all his
premises are wrong; and, of course, all his con
clusions fallacious—leading all people, who con
fide in his judgment, to “imminent danger or to
tal ruin.” Will not the people awaken from their
delusion, and think lor themselves ? You trusted
such “false prophets” a year ago, when "the
“Constitutional Amendment”—tbe mildest mea
sure ever offered to a conquered people, which
left to us to vote the Degro or not as we pleased
—was submitted as the law of peace. You listened
to the Siren voice ot those “false prophets,” who
said “reject it”—because a few honored men are
disfranchised—no harm will result—the conquer
or will relent—yield and admit you into the
Union without that or any other exaction. How
fatal the delusion 1 How terrible the predica
ment in which your blind confidence has placed
you l Will you trust such prophets again ? Is it
fated that you should illustrate the mythological
adage, that, “whom the gods intend to destroy,
they first make mad ?”
It a sufficient number of you follow the coun
sels of such prophets again, and reject the pro
posed Convention, I warn you, in the light of
the past, there are ahead “evils of a more dread
ful nature, Which, though yet at some distance
we have but too great reason to apprehend.”—
The conqueror can, under tbe law of nations,
exact from the seceding States the payment of
their war debt—over two billions and a hall of
dollars; the quota of Georgia would be two
hundred and fifty millions of dollars. Its exac
tion would be total ruin to the people. Our
homes would pass into the hands of foreign
capital. The conqueror can disfranchise every
man who votes “against Convention,” yea every
sympathizer in the Confederate cause, as easily
as be disfranchised me, or any other person, who
held an office before the war and took an oath
to support tbe Constitution of the United States
This done, the conqueror can turn over the re
construction of your State government to the
negroes and few "whites who can take the “ Test
Oath.” If this should be done—and it may be
done, but 1 invoke the magnanimity of the con
queror that it be not done—then your State gov
ernment will pass under the absolute and irre
coverable control of the negro'. To recover
white ascendency then will be hopeless. But, if
you refuse to follow such fatal counsels, and vote
“for Convention,” and accept the terms, the law
cf the peace will be made: and no other terms
can be demanded, under the law of nations: aud
you must be admitted into the Union. Your
white vote now exceeds that of the negro; hun
dreds, perhaps thousands of white men, entitled
to register, but who, unfortunately, declined to
do so, may yet do so; and with an equality of
white voters even, thousands of energetic, intel
ligent white men, with capital, will move into
the State; the negro vote will not increase, but
gradually and certainly diminish, from tbe well-
known historic fact that the free negro race does
not thrive but decreases; and the years will be
few before the whites will have the absolute as
cendency and control of all the machinery of
the State government. Then prosperity, wealth
and population would increase; peace would es
tablish her benign reign, developing the im
mense resources ot the State, stimulating every
industrial pursuit, revivifying cur depressed en
ergies, and giving to our wives and children a
day ot Hope, and a home of security and happi
ness.
Will not, cannot our people comprehend the
situation ? Can you not submit to the sacrifices,
great though they be, “to procure a necessary
peace'' and to avoid possible, yea, in the event of
rejection of present terms, probable “evils of a
more dreadful nature,” super-added to the renew
ed demand of present terms ?
We are in the extremity, in which I can quote
the language of the great Publicist. If a State
“ thinks fit, by a disadvantageous treaty, to pro
cure a necessary peace—if by great sacrifices she
delivered herself from imminent danger or total
ruin—the residue which remains in her posses
sion is still an advantage for which she is indebt
ed to the peace; it was her own free choice to
prefer a certain and immediate loss, but of limit
ed extent, to an evil of more dreadful nature,
which, though yet at-some distance, she bad too
great reason to apprehend.”—Vattell—Law of
Nations.
Bat to recur to the position that Georgia was
restored to the Union, on the acceptance ot the
demands of the President, in her late Convention,
by his Proclamation to that effect.
I have said the President’s course was not in
conformity with the Constitution, and, therefore,
not the act of the government—therefore invalid.
The demands, or terms of peace submitted by
the President,shoald have been “by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-
t’airds of the Senators present concur.”—Clause
ises a second objection, fatal to the restoration by
the President:
“New Suites may be admitted by the Congress
into the Union.”—Clause 1, Sec. 3, Art, 4.
Even though a treaty of peace had been nego
tiated by the President “by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, two-thirds of the Sen
ators present concurring,” admission into the^
Union could not be effected save by the Act of
Congress.
The proclamation of the President, therefore,
ojuld not—did not—restore Georgia to the L nion.
For it is laid down in International Law, “But
all rulers of States have not a power to make
public treaties by their own authority alone.—
Some are obliged to take the advice of a Senate,
or of the Representatives ot a nation. It is from
the fundamental laws of each State that we must
learn where resides the authority that is capable
of contracting, with validity, in the name of the
State.—Y attell.
But even if the President’s terms had been
ratified by the Senate, Georgia would not have
been, ipso facto, restored to the Union._ It would
yet require the act of Congress to admit.
Upon the platform of Secessionists, Georgia
was out of the Union—both in fact and law
fully.
But the Union-men view denied that Georgia
could lawfully dissolve the Federal Union. Yet
they went with her, defining their act to be revo
lution against lawful authority. But the motive of
action, clearly, cannot affect the fact of action.—
If the revolution is successful, then the fact ot
dissolution is maintained; if revolution is unsuc
cessful, diso'ution is defeated, and the admit
ted lawful authority re-established. But some
political chemistry is necessary to re-unite the
“ disjecta membra.” And the successful Gov
ernment has tbe right to put in the crucible,
among other things, such iugredients as will so
solidify the Union that the seceeded States will
be, hereafter, deprived ot any solvents.
“A civil war breaks the bands of government,
it produces in the nation two independent par
ties, who consider each other as enemies, and
acknowledge no common judge. Though one
of the parties may have been to blame in break
ing the unity of the State, and resisting the law
ful authority, they are noi the less divided in fact.”
“When a nation becomes divided into two par
ties absolutely independent, and no longer ac
knowledging a common superior, the State IS dis
solved, and the war between the two parties stands
on the same ground, in every respect, as a public
war between two different nations,—Vattell,
Law of Nations.
Again, look to the history of the United States,
(of which Georgia was one,) and Great Britain.
They were colonies ot Great Britain. They de
termined to resist, and overthrow her lawful au
thority. They assembled, by delegates, iu a Con
gress, and on the 4th ot July, 1776, adopted a
Declaration, “that these united colonies are, and
of right ought to bt,” (simply by their own will,
the right of Revolution,) “ ^ree and Indepen
dent States ; that they are absolved from all alle
giance to the British crown, and that all political
connection between them aud the State of Great
Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.
Now, 1 beg you to notice that the Articles ol
Confederation, under which the revolutionary
war was conducted, were agreed to by the dele
gates of the thirteen original States, in Congress
assembled, on the loth of November, 1777 ; rati
fied by only eight States on the 9th of July,
1778, and not finally ratified by all the States till
the 1st of March, 1781.
And yet France, before the ratification by a
single State, and before three months had elapsed,
after the adoption of a common system of gov
ernment by agreement of the delegates only in
Congress, recognized the independence of the
United States, to-wit: On the 6th of February,
1778—only one year and seven months alter tlie
Declaration, whilst the war was being actively
waged, and five years before the war was ended!
. Georgia, in 1861, as the United States did in
1776, declared herself a free and independent
State, absolved all her citizens from allegiance to
the United States, and dissolved all political con
nection with them.
It is unnecessary to argue further, that—with
out reference to the question, whether Georgia
was lawfully takeu out of the Union or not—“the
unity of the State” (Federal Union) “was divided
in fact”—that “the State was dissolved.” If so,
she can only get back into the sisterhood of the
United States by an act of Congress.
“In Sweden, since the death of Charles XII,
the King caDnot declare war without the consent
of the States assembled in diet, but he may make
peace in conjunction with the Senate.” A simi
las provision to that of the Constitution of the
United States. It takes “Congress to declare
war;” but peace may be made “by the President
by and with the advice and consent of the Sen
ate, two-thirds ot the Senators present concur-
rin
Upon this’ State of facts let us listen to a stand
ard authority on the law of nations:
“When a prince, who is possessed only of a
limited authority, lias a power to make peace, as
he cannot of himself graut whatever conditions
he pleases, it is incumbent on those who wish to
treat with him on sure ground, to require that
the treaty of peace be ratified by the nation, or
by those who are empowered to perform the
stipulations contained in it. If, for instance, any
potentate, in negotiating a treaty of peace with
Sweden, requires a defensive alliance or guaranty
as the condition, this stipulation will not be valid,
unless approved aud accepted by the diet, who”
(being the war making power) “alone have the
power of carrying it into effect.” [Vattell.]
“The Kings of England are authorized to con
clude treaties of peace and alliance; but they
cannot, by those treaties, alienate any of the pos
sessions of the Crown without the consent of
Parliament. Neither can they, without the con
currence of that body, raise any money in the
kingdom; wherefore, whenever they conclude
any subsidiary treaty, it is their constant rule to
lay it betore the Parliament, in order that they
may be certain of the concurrence of that assent.
bly to enable them to make good their engage
ments.”
“The Emperor Charles Vrequired of Francis
the First, his prisoner, such conditions as that
King could not grant without the consent of the
nation, he should have detained him till the
States-Generai of France had ratified the treaty
of Madrid, and Burgundy had acquiesced in it.
Thus he would not have lost the truits of his vic
tory by an oversight which appears very surpris
ing in a prince of his abilities.” [Vattell, Law
of Nations.
By the requisitions of the Constitution, and
these rules ot international law, the law of peace,
in our case, cau only be made by the conjoint
action and approval of the President and Senate,
and of Congress; tor the holding of Georgia in
the Union was one of the main purposes of the
war.
Congress took up the question. She consid
ered what Georgia had done, under the Presi
dent’s demand, including the abolition ot slavery
and the adoption of the amendment to the Con
stitution prohibiting slavery anywhere, ever
hereafter in the United States, as already offered
by Georgia, being, in part, the terms of peace,
and passed them through all the necessary forms
ot law. Then she passed an act to submit to
Georgia the‘‘Constitutional Amendment,” which
permitted her to vote the negro, or not, as she
pleased. This act, had it been adopted by Geor
gia, and the spirit ot its provisions been carried
out, would have concluded the law of peace, and
Congress would have been required, by the law
of nations, to have admitted her into tlie Union.
But, under the fatal counsels heretofore advert
ed to, Georgia rejected.
The demand was renewed, by the present
Military bills, with the increased exaction ot uni
versal suffrage—what a terrible turn of the
screw ! How gladly to-day would Mr. Hill, and
all Georgia, accept “qualified suffrage” ot the
negro; yea, even, “impartial suffrage;” At least
he says "lhe negroes iu Georgia are citizens of
Georgia. They are free and have equal rights—
civil rights—and shall enjoy them. They will
be empowered to discharge the 1 rusts—which he
defines to be the right to vole for agents, and be
elected as agents, to fill othces—to make laws—
to execute laws—to administer laws—when
time and experience shall show they “are cap^
able and worthy” and the good of society will
be promoted thereby, and this Georgia will de
termine for herself.” lie is not. therefore, op
posed to the principle ot negro suffrage—a quali
fied suffrage” for the negro citizens ot Georgia.
He would certainly be, also, for “impartial suf
frage”—that is placing the white men on th e
same footing with the negro citizen—that is
allowing odIj sueli of them to vote or fill the offi
ces as “are capable aud worthy.” For he says
that “universal, indiscriminate, ignorant, vicious
white suffrage has buried a million of victims
slain by each other's hands, destroyed tlie peace
and prosperity of the country, and saddled an
innocent and unborn posterity with burdens too
Can Mr. Hill be correct
Congressional traitors from other States the
United States who did not secede from the Union
—“ shall determine who shall be entrusted with
the great duty of preserving society in Georgia;
and language breaks in the vain effort to express
the contempt and scorn he feels for the dastard
Georgian who would consent ^for such fragmen
tary conclave to so determine”
As Georgia and the other States of the Con
federate States were out of the Union, those
States Which did not secede constituted the L ra
ted States. They constituted the Government of
the United States, in the eyes ot all nations.—
They fought to prevent our maintenance of a
separate nationality. They conquered us. Let
International Law decide between Mr. Hill, and
those who agree with him, and those of us who
recognize the right of the United States to dic-
tate terms of the return ot Georgia to the Union,
“on principles countenanced by reason and eonforma
ble to humanity.” This expression shows that we
do not admit that the conqueror is absolute mas
ter of his conquest—that he may dispose of it as
his property—that he may treat it as he pleases.
“But it the entire State be conquered, if the
nation be subdued, in what manner can the vic
tor treat it, without transgressing the bounds of
justice ? What are his rights over the conquered
country ? The whole right ot the conqueror is
derived from justifiable self-defense, which com-
nrehends the support and prosecution of his
iiedits. When, therefore, he has totally subdued
a ""hostile nation, and thinks proper to retain the
sovereignty of the conquered State, and has a
right to retaiu it, he undoubtedly may, in the first
place, do himself justice respecting the object
which had given rise to the war (the abolition ot
slavery,) and indemnity himself for the expenses
and damages he has sustained by it (that he has
not yet done, nor required iu the terms submit
ted, which would ruin Georgia;) he may, ac
cording to the exigency of the case, subject the
nation to punishment, by way of example (dis-
francisement of those ot us who held office be
fore the war, which required us to take an oath
to support the Constitution of the United States,
this is punishment to individuals—it is no irre
parable loss to the State;) he may even, if pru
dence so require rentier her incapable of doing
mischiet with the same ease in future; (he has
required our repeal of ordinances of secession,
and au abandonment of the assertion ot the right
ever again; and he has, to this end, enfranchised
the emancipated negro, though this were unne
cessary to secure the laith of a true Southern
man. Now that he abandons the right, implicit
tailh may be had in.his fidelity.) “It it is against
the sovereign alone that he has just ebuse ot com
pliant, reason plainly evinces that he acquires no
other rights by his conquest than such as be
longed to the sovereign whom he has dispossess
ed ;” (but here the people of Georgia are the sov
ereign, and all rights which the people possessed
were, by the conquest, acquired by the conquer
or, of course, amoDg them, the right to regulate
franchise. I will recur to this view hereafter,)
“and on the submission of the people (by accep
tance of the terms of peace) “he is bound to
govern them according to the laws of the State.
If the people do not voluntarily submit (accept
the terms proposed) the state of war still sub
sists.”—Vattell, Law of Nations.
1 deduce the following incontrovertible propo
sitions: whether Georgia seceded lawfully, or
went out by revolution against lawful authority.
Georgia is out of the Union.
The United States have conquered her.
As conqueror, they have the right to dictate
the terms ot settlement and re-union, limited by
the principles of justice of international law.
The terms of peace and re-union have not
been concluded.
Until the law of peace is made, war, (though
actual hostilities have ceased since the capitula
tion of our armies,) or the state of war, still sub
sists.
The terms of peace and re-union can only be
submitted by, and agreed to and accepted by the
governments, or duly authorized authority, of the
respective belligerents.
On the part of the United States, peace may
be made by the conjoint action of the President
and Senate; but admission into the Union re
quires tlie action of Congress.
Therefore, iu our case, the co-operative action
of President and Senate, and Congress is neces
sary. Technically, there should be the two dis
tinct actions. Practically, however, this requisi
tion has been met. Tne Constitutional will of
all the necessary, authorized, departments of the
government is expressed in the present Military
bills. They are “tbe advice and consent of the
Senate,” “two-thirds of the Senators present ”
having “ concurred.” They were not approved
by the President, but over his veto the bills were
“ re-passed” by a vote of*' two-thirds of the Sen
ate and House of Representatives.” Then the
Constitution says “ it shall become a law.” But it
may be objected that the Constitution only says
“he shall have power,” but does not say “Tie shall
make.” The reply is, whatever force there might
be in that position, the defect has been remedied,
aud objection obviated by the consent of the Pre
sident to execute the law. The will of the peo
ple having been expressed in the constitutional
forms ot the government, which makes “it law,”
notwithstanding the objection of the President,
he proceeded to execute and is now executing
the present bills.
On the part of Georgia, acceptance ot the terms
of peace can only be made by the people in Con
vention, Congress having delegated that au
thority.
The Union-men view—that the State still re
tains intact all “its former rights and privileges
under the Constitution, and the individual citi
zens of the State alone can be exposed to pen
alties for rebellion ; tbe property ot the non
rebelling citizens could not be lawfully taken,
nor the political rights of the States impaired,”
is a manifest error. I think I have demonstrated
it. I propose to add a few more thoughts,
which have been induced by the above language
of a writer from Marietta, in the Atlanta In
telligencer of the 2d instant, signed “K.”—
Permit me to say, it is the best article that has
appeared on that side. Commends itself tor its
fairness, for its courtesy, its concession ot equal
honesty,of purpose and patriotism to an oppo
nent, for the entire absence of abuse. He has
won distinction, on that side, in this polemic
field. He admits that if the right of secession
was retained by the States, Georgia did place
herself outside of the Union—became a “seperate
nationality,” and now is, under the results of our
recent war, subject to the will of the conqueror
by the principles of international law. It fol
lows, that Stales Rights men, who honestly be
lieved in that reserved right, and now follow out
their principles in their logical sequences, and
have the manhood to meet the unfortunate con
sequences of defeat, and acknowledge the right
of the conqueror to dictate the terms ot peace
and re-union, are neither “servile cowards,”
“traitors to their principles,” nor “traitors who
are attempting to sell their country for a consid
eration,” nor deserving “infamy.”
The objection to this theory is, that it con
fesses to treason against a lawful government—
the highest crime known to the law. It defines
the cause of Georgia to have been merely a “re
volt..” In such a war the Duke ot Montmorency,
being defeated and taken prisoner at the battle
of Castelnaudari, lost his life on a scaffold, by
tlie sentence ot the Parliament of Toulouse. I
do not want to stake the life ot Mr. Davis, our
late President, or any of our representatives,
upon such a position.
The error of “K,” consists in a want of dis
crimination between what constitutes a revolt, a
sedition, an insurrection, a rebellion, and the ac
tion of an entire State in Us sovereign capacity.—
The action of Georgia, and other seceded States,
was not an attempt to overthrow the Govern
ment of the United States; but only to with
draw aDd be separate. It was not, therefore a
revolt. A sedilion{does not cease to acknowledge
the sovereignty ot the government) a concourse of
citizens, asyn the case of what is commonly Cal
led the whiskey rebellion in Pennsylvania, who
refuse to allow an odious law to be enforced upon
them—driving off the officers and refusing,
as in that case, to pay the direct whiskey tax.—
An insurrection is an extended sedition, magni
fied by the number of persons involved in law
lessness, reaching,it may be, a majority of a State
and amounting to a ve.y serious interruption
of the machinery of the State government. But
it is lawless action, of a portion only of the peo
ple ot the State. The State authority even is
attempting to suppress it. In such cases the
Constitution of United States provides “for sup
pressing insurrections” and resisting “invasions
from without,” upon a call from a Legislature or
Governor lor aid. But the Constitution of the U.
States does not reach the case of action of States.
Union men cannot denominate the war by any
lower term than “civil war.”
“But when a nation becomes divided into two
parties absolutely independent, and no longer
acknowledging a common superior, the State is
dissolved, and the war between the two parties,
The bill concedes the right to vote for or
against Convention, or tor or against ratification
of any action ot the Convention, it called. But
a vote against Convention would subject us to a
renewal of the same demands, with perhaps
more odious terms superadded. It not the exac
tion ot the payment ot the war debt, the support
of tite military government may be imposed
upon us. This atone would ruin every interest
in the State. A vote against Convention would
probably be followed by a disfranchisement of
all who so voted—perhaps of all who had sym
pathized with the Confederate cause. Congress
has as much power to do that as to have disfran
chised me. Then Congress would turn over the
organization ot your State Government to the
negroes anti those few whites who could take
the iron-clad test oath. This was Mr. Stevens’
proposition, and was carried in tire House of
Representatives. The State Constitution so
adopted would be admitted into the Union by
the present Congress.
The people should vote for and carry Con
vention.” Not only to prevent increased and
ruinous demands, but to save white men from
being disfranchised, by Congress, for contumacy
in rejecting a Convention. It is of infinite mo
ment in tbe future government ol the State—
after being restored to the Union—that Georgia.
re 1 ain her"present majority of white registered
voters. It is necessary to white ascendency and
control of tbe State—for good government.
There are wild alarms, that bad and unprinci
pled men may get control of the Convention,
and engraft upon the State Constitution provi
sions uujust aud proscriptive to classes, ot de
structive to good government; that they may
even disfranchise all who aided and sympathized
in the Confederate cause—and the miserable
condition of Tennessee, under the action of a
Convention, is held up as a scare-crow to voting
for a Convention.
In the first place, if there be danger, it is the
part ot wisdom to rally every energy and elect
the wisest and most virtuous citizens. The
whites have a majority ot votes: see to it that
good, not bad, men are elected.
In the second place, the Convention will have
no power to disfranchise beyond what Congress
has done in these Reconstruction measures.—
[See sec. 5, “Bill to provide tor.the more efficient
government of .the Rebel States,” commonly
called Sherman Bill.
It distinctly forbids tbe Convention to disfran
chise any “registered” voter; “and when such
Constitution shall provide that the elective fran
chise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as have
the qualification herein stated tor election of del
egates”—a security for the black vote, but at the
same time your safety.
They can not act on disfranchisement beyond
those of us who are disfranchised by the Consti
tutional amendment, (Sec. 3,) then only subject
to the power of Cong'ess, by a vote ot two-thirds
ot each House, to remove such disability.
And the Convention will have no power to re
pudiate private debts. For, by the Military bill,
the Constitution to be formed is required to be
“in conformity with the Constitution of the
United Stares, in all respects; ” And the Consti
tution of the United Stales says: “No State”
shall impair the obligation of contracts.
But if, from the loo great apathy of the people
to elect good men, bad and unprincipled men
should get control of the Constitution, aud adopt
unjust and proscriptive provisions, then you are
authorized by Congress to vote against ratifica
tion.
There are some minor points of objection
urged against acceptance ot the terms proposed,
and hopes of relief from them, which I had de
sired, briefly, to ventilate. But I am admonish
ed, by tbe great length ot this letter, that I
should conclude.
These views honestly entertained, though feeb
ly expressed, are subject to such use as you may
deem proper.
With sentiments of regard, your obedient
ssrvaut. Ben. C. Yanoev.
Georgia Teachers’ Association.
Under instructions from this Association, the
presiding officer has made the following ap
pointments, most of which have been accepted :
To report ou “The best method of teaching
Arithmetic, and to recommend the best Text
Books,” Professor Williams Rutherford, Univer
sity of Georgia, Athens.
On “Algebra and Geometry, and Text Books,”
Professor Gustavus J. Oir, Masonic Female Col
lege, Covington, Ga.
On “Natural Philosophy and Text Books,”
Professor W. Leroy Brown, University of Geor
gia, Athens.
On “Chemistry and Text Books,” Professor
Joseph E. Willett, Mercer University, Penfield,
Ga.
On “The Jactot method of teaching Reading
and Orthography,” D. Swope, Esq., Atlanta, Ga.
On “Reading Books and Elocution,” Rev. I. 8.
K. Axson, D. D., Savannah. ^
On “English Grammar aud Text Books,” Rev. L
J. M. Bonnell, D. D., Wesleyan Female College,
Macon, Ga.
On “Geography ami Text Books,” Martin V.
Calvin, Esq., Augusta, Ga.
On “Tite best, method of preparing a Student
for College in Latin and Greek,” Professor Win.
G. Woodfin, Mercer University, Penfield, Ga.
Ou “Pronunciation ot the Ancient Languages,’
Professor C. Schwartz, Wesleyan Female Col
lege, Macon, Ga.
On “ The best method of conveying a know
ledge of the facts and principles of the Bible.”
Rev. L. M. Smith, D D, Emory College, Oxford,
Georgia.
On “ Evidences of Christianity—whether it
should be taught in schools and colleges, and to
what extent, anti recommending text books,”
C. F. McCay, LL.D., Augusta, Ga.
Alabama Election-—The Vote An Conven
tion.
It seems that the whites, as a general thing
throughout the State, have not voted in the elec
tion now going on. Convinced that the swindle
would be carried through by lair means or by
foul means, if necessary, the legitimate corpora
tors of Ilie State stood aside and permitted the
bogus voters to run tbe machine. The whites
in the upper counties may cast enough votes
upon the question to swell the vote to mere than
a majority of the registered list, but we doubt
whether tlie Convention will be called by a ma
jority of tlie list. Thus iar the votes cast are as
follows:
Mobile, city and county, 3.121; Montgomery,
4,183; Elmore, 940; Lee, 1,500; Dallas, 3,300—
total up to 12 m., yesterday, 13,044. The num
ber of registered voters in these counties is not
less than 31,210. It will be seen, therefore, that
in counties where extraordinarily bad adventur
ers have been at work, and extraordinary influ
ences brought to bear upon tlie negroes, the vote
thus far has fallen below half of the registered
list by 2,500 votes. If the Radicals have done
so badly in their strongholds, they need not ex
pect ultimate success in their nefarious schemes,
even though a Convention should be called.
The result of tins vote should induce the politi
cians to remove Col. Swuyue to Ohio.—Mont
gomery Mail, 3d insl.
grievous to be borne.
that a majority of the white voters of Georgia stands on the same ground,in every respect, as a
orant and vicious” For it took a major- , public
are “ignorant
ity of white votes (tor there were no black voters)
to take Georgia out of the Union—and to com
war between two nations.”—Vattell.
As to whether the property of “ non-rebelling
citizens” could be lawfully taken by the United
pose the nearly 100,000 gallant—heioic army of j Slates Government, 1 refer him to recent deci-
Georgia—who fought lor the independence of | sions of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.
Georgia; who though conquered—yet are not | Alexander of Mississippi, a non-rebelling citizen,
dishonored, but covered themselves, ami their j who had even taken the Lincoln Amnesty oath
State, with honor and glory upon a hundred I during the war, and what are usually called the
•is deemed infamous by all mankind, and is held i 2, Sect. 2, Alt. 2.—Constitution.
to be a new and just causa ot war,” “and is a ! This was not done. There was no ratification
. . most perfidious abandonment of the most sacred j of the treaty by the Senate. So there was not
were declared at the commencement and during of national obligations in the face of mankind,” | even a conclusion cf the terms of the peace bv the
tae war, for her justification—claiming her war j “and that there is not a respectable publicist or , constituted authority ot thegovernment. Much
j was just—and proclamations were issued to in- 1 law-writer, ancient or modern, heathen or Chris- J leas OQf admission into the Union. And here ay-
battlefields. The Generals and soldiers of the
United States army generously bear testimony
to the courage and iionor of their gallant toe!
j Prize cases. The descisions are against his po-
i sitioD.
j. No; the action of Georgia can only be placed
Mr. Hill holds: “It is tho duty of society,! on one of two principles; secession or revolu-
Georgia, to withhold these trusts—voting and
holding offices—from the ignorant and vicious,
since the ignorant and vicious should never be
tion. Out in both law and fact,
if not lawfully.
Or out in fact,
The German Defection.—The great source
of uneasiness to tlie Radicils is the defection of
the Germans. This detection is constantly in
creasing in extent, and will undoubtedly cost tbe
moral idea men several thousand votes at the
State election. The German Republican Gene
ral Committee, an organization that represents
at least fifteen thousand German votes, which
were polled last year and several preceding years
for Radical candidates, has already taken the
field against al! candidates who will not pledge
themselves to vote for the repeal of the obnoxi
ous features ot tbe Excise law. Ttiese German
Republicans are among tlie most earnest and in
telligent voters in New York. And when they
say they will vote against Sabbatarian Radicals
they will certainty do so. Now, a3 the Radicals
cannot go back on the Excise law, they will not
nominate anti-excise candidates, and the Ger
man vote will, therefore, be cast against the
Radical party. It only seven thousand Germans
change their votes from the Radical to the De
mocratic side, tbe number will be sufficient to
insure a Democratic victory. There are many
American Radicals, also, who say they will not
vote for excise candidates, so that in this city
alone the defection caused by Radical Sabbata
rianism will carry the State over to the Demo
cracy. The indications at the present time
warrant me in predicting a Democratic majority
of ten thousand in New York iu November,
and Some who are more sanguine and perhaps
better informed, place the figures as high as
twenty thousand.—New York Cor. Charleston
Mercury.
There is great excitement at Victoria, British
Columbia, over a supposed volcanic eruption
sixty-five miles distant, in the Cascade range.
Thf. “ Rising Sons of Liberty” is the title of
a negro organization in the several Southern
entrusted, and have no right to b& entrusted with ; these military bili3, submitting terms of peace
the exercise ot a power by which they may rob and restoration. 1
or kill or torture others., .And ‘if foU^nys .’that They are passed under the law of nations,
every society must determine this matter for jt- In neither
self. It is flagitious, it is mean, it is cowardly; ft* ‘ Constitution,
is treason to the very frame-work of society tot These bills are the submission of conditions of
6ay_ that a fragmentary qonclave of perjured peace and restoration. Shall they be accepted ?
In either event. Congress has tbe right to pass : States, of a military character, which is creating
p«p militfffv hilla anhmtHtnrr forma nf nooo» I ’
no Jit tie an Kitty.
President Johnson lias declared to a friend
[mr aspect is there any conflict with the J that he shall make a stand in opposition to Con-
' gress if it attempts to suspend him during t|r$
impeachment trial.