THE NEW ORLEANS REPORT
The Report of the military board of inquiry into the New Orleans riot
confirms the opinion which every intelligent reader had formed from the facts published at
the time. It was a preconcerted massacre of white and colored Union men by late rebel
soldiers, with the assistance of the mob and the police, under the general direction of
Mayor Monroe, who while an unpardoned rebel, was elected to his office, and was pardoned
by President Johnson expressly that he might assume it. The facts of the case are
appalling. It is another of the tragical lessons which the people of this country can not
safely disregard if they expect to restore public order and the authority of law. It shows
us the imperative necessity of acting according to the facts, and not upon any general
theory, however generous or plausible. The country must look the truth squarely in the
face, and the truth is that the party which elected Monroe, and which planned and executed
the fiendish slaughter in New Orleans, is the party with which the President and the
Democratic party are allied, and which is again seeking the control of the Government. The
success of the Democratic party would be the success of Mayor Monroe and the New Orleans
conspirators; and whoever would not see a man like Monroe the chief magistrate of any city
will not vote so as to put into power the party which palliates and defends his crimes.Moreover, there is no reason to
suppose that the bitterness and ferocity of feeling which is proved by this massacre to
exist in one city is confined to that city. The riot at Memphis, if less elaborately
organized, sprang from precisely the same spirit. The incredibly fierce tone of a large
part of the newspapers in the late insurgent section, the private correspondence from the
quarter of thousands at the North, universal experience and human nature itself, warn us
that the worst of passions have survived actual hostilities; and that Generals Grant,
Thomas, and Sheridan spoke merely the truth when they said that a military force must for
a long time be maintained in that part of the country. Individual expressions of
acquiescence are of little avail in the presence of the overwhelming evidence of the
general hostile sentiment of the whole section. Any known Union man is, by the very nature
of the case, a more competent witness of the actual condition of the South than any known
late rebel. When an Alabama judge, like Mr. H. D. Clayton, lately a rebel general, in
exhorting his fellow-citizens to their duty, tells them that they ought not to "sit
down night and day cursing and gnawing their chains," but to conform to law, it is
very evident that the spirit of the exhortation will hardly lead to a very hearty and
zealous conformity. When the Bench can express its acquiescence in no more satisfactory
terms, the "bar" at the neighboring grocery will be very likely to do what it
can to avenge its "chains;" and when Union men declare that they live in
constant peril their testimony is confirmed by the tone of such an "acquiescing"
judge.
Does it surprise any one who reads the
Report of which we are speaking, and who reflects upon the state of society which it
reveals, that the delegates to the Loyal Southern Convention at Philadelphia spoke and
speak as they did? Governor Orr, Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, and other late rebel leaders,
who were sustained by the sympathy of their section during the war, and enjoyed the honors
of the rebellion without the least apprehension of suffering after its overthrow either
from the Government or from their neighbors, talk in very smooth and dainty phrase of
acquiescence and forgetfulness and conciliation. But the men whom the rebels during the
war hated and hunted, and whom after the war they still hate and persecute, may, it seems
to us, be allowed a little rhetorical warmth in the expression of their feelings. They
declare that in their judgment, if we would radically and rapidly establish order in the
disturbed section, we must make the rebel chiefs ineligible to office and enfranchise all
our friends of whatever color. That is the revolutionary and anarchical doctrine with
which they are charged. The Report of the New Orleans Commission makes it seem simply
common-sense.
It can not be doubted that the New
Orleans massacre has done more than the abstract argument of a year to impress the country
with the conviction that we can not wisely hope for peace at the South so long as
inequality of guarantees of personal and political liberty endure. That is the question
which will now be steadily agitated until it is settled. The temper of the people at
present inclines them to leave its solution to the necessary operation of the
Constitutional Amendment. But the refusal of that measure will indicate a spirit with
which the people will take the heroic method. The signs of this resolution are too plain
to be avoided. The prompt adoption or refusal of the Amendment by the unrepresented
States, after the elections show that it is the present essential condition of
restoration, will serve as a test of the actual situation of those States. Their
persistent refusal will show that the quality of their acquiescence has been
misapprehended, and in the light of that knowledge the next step will be taken. If they
adopt it, as we believe they will, the whole difficulty will be made more simple, and we
shall be inclined to anticipate a speedy and happy settlement of every question. But, as
we remarked last week, Congress has not tied its own hands, and there is no power which
can bind them. We may be very sure that the new Congress will fully represent the
sentiment of the country, and that its action will be truly the popular will.
The Report of the Commission leaves the
tragical part of the President in the New Orleans massacre unchanged. Indeed, it serves
only to confirm the conviction that he had already taken sides against the Convention, and
was therefore unable to act wisely or humanely. Nothing is sadder than to observe, in this
as in all passing events, his utter inability to comprehend the situation, or to give even
a logical appearance to his own acts. Yet it is fortunate that the path of duty has been
made so plain to the country. If the President had been a shrewd or reticent man; had he
attempted the demoralization of the Union party with greater skill; had he protected the
plainest rights of American citizens by defending the debates of the Convention at New
Orleans, it might have been less clear to the popular mind than it now is that the total
defeat of the party and the policy with which he is allied is essential to the national
welfare.
Articles Related to the Initial Impeachment
Discussions:
The President Judged by Himself
August 25, 1866, page 530
Reconstruction and How
it Works (cartoon)
September 1, 1866, pages 552-553
Which Is The More
Illegal (cartoon)
September 8, 1866, page 569
The New Orleans Report
October 20, 1866, page 658
The New Orleans Massacre
IMarch 30, 1867, page 202
Text from Illustration of Andys Trip
October 27, 1866, pages 680-681
The Great Campaign of
66
September 29, 1866, page 610
What Next?
October 27, 1866, page 674
King Andy (cartoon)
November 3, 1866 page 696
Shall the President be
Impeached?
November 3, 1866, page 690
The Popular Will
November 24, 1866, page 738
Andy Makes a Call on
Uncle Sam, Who Rises to the Occasion (cartoon)
December 1, 1866, page 768
Impeachment and General
Butler
December 15, 1866, page 786
Congress
December 22, 1866, page 803
What Next?
December 29, 1866, page 818
|
|