The planters at their public meetings give utterance to the same brutal spirit. Here is a series of resolutions, where, after calling for the withdrawal of the troops of the United States, and declaring themselves pledged to the existing state of things, and that it is their “honest purpose to abide thereby,” they proceed as follows.
“Resolved, That, if inconsistent with the views of the authorities to remove the military, we express the opinion that the plan of the military to compel the freedman to contract with his former owner, when desired by the latter, is wise, prudent, and absolutely necessary.
“Resolved, That we, the planters of the district, pledge ourselves not to contract with any freedman, unless he can produce a certificate of regular discharge from his former owner.
“Resolved, That under no circumstances whatsoever will we rent land to any freedmen, nor will we permit them to live on our premises as employees.”
Thus is the freedman, whose liberty the United States are bound to maintain, handed over to compulsory service, and under no circumstances is land to be rented to him. And yet these people announce that they accept the existing state of things, and that it is their honest purpose to abide thereby! Of course they accept a state of things which leaves them once more “masters” of their former slaves. Of course they will abide by this. Be it our function to teach them the duty and necessity of Equal Rights.
From South Carolina pass to Georgia, and there is the same wretched story. The spirit of the State appears in the language of Mr. Simmons in the Convention:—
“Let us repudiate only under the lash and the application of military power; and then, as soon as we are an independent sovereignty, restored to our equal rights and privileges in the Union, let us immediately call another Convention and resume the debt.”
Testimony from various quarters shows the same spirit. A recent writer, of unimpeachable authority, now sitting as reporter in your galleries, thus testifies:—
“In the stage between Augusta and Milledgeville I rode with two gentlemen of considerable local weight and prominence, who were both anti-secessionists in 1860-61. They talked of the approaching Convention, and of its probable action in redistricting the State for Representatives. ‘Well, Colonel,’ said the younger, himself a man of over forty years,—‘well, Colonel, what will be our proper course, when we are once more fully restored to the Union?’ The answer came, after a moment’s consideration: ‘We must strike hands with the Democratic party of the North, and manage them as we always have.’ There was a pause while we rattled down the hill, and then the questioner responded: ‘That is just it; they were ready enough to give us control, if we gave them the offices, and I reckon they have not changed very much yet.’ There was then conversation on other matters; but half an hour later, after a mile or so of silence, the Colonel suddenly resumed: ‘Yes, Sir, our duty is plain; we shall be without weight, now that Slavery is gone, unless we do join hands with them. Andy Johnson will want a reëlection, and the united Democratic party must take him up. It shall be a fair division: we want the power, and they want the spoils.’”