The State Rights Democrat

On the 7th of December, 1863, Mr. Lincoln issued an "Amnesty Proclamation," in which he offered a "free pardon" to the great mass of the "rebels," on condition of taking an oath to support the federal Constitution and Union: and also to "abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress passed during the existing Rebellion having reference to slaves, so long and so far as not modified by decision of the Supreme Court."

On the 30th of March, 1864, a "Union State Convention" was held here in Albany, which adopted a Platform the third Resolution of which reads thus:

"Resolved, That the Amnesty Proclamation for the benefit of repenting rebels, backed as it is, by the splendid victories of our armies, has our cordial approbation as a peace measure, alike honorable and magnanimous."

What position do these same Radicals occupy now on this subject? The rebels have abolished slavery; they have repudiated their public debt;—they have done all, and even much more than Mr. Lincoln required of them, and yet President Johnson is virulently and bitterly assailed for granting them "free pardons." Now that they have laid down their arms, these Radicals would not only grant them no pardon, but would disfranchise them and govern them by the ignorant negro and the five satraps of the South and the army under them.

If, in 1864, it was right for Mr. Lincoln to grant a "free pardon" to repentant rebels—thus restoring them to all their ancient rights and privileges under the Constitution—it is right and magnanimous now to do so; and if, in 1864, such a policy received the "cordial approbation" of the Radicals of Oregon, on the ground of its being "honorable and magnanimous," why do they anathematize the man whom they themselves elevated to office, for attempting to carry it out in the very manner indicated by Lincoln?