Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly volume 13.djvu/49

 POLITICAL PARTIES IN OREGON 41 existence." 52 But after Lincoln announced his policy, the Ore- gonian reversed its attitude and supported it, holding that the states had never been out of the Union and attacking Sumner's territorial idea both as unhistorical and impolitic. 53 The first serious treatment of the subject by the Statesman appeared May 29, 1865, in a leader "Is It Reconstruction?" It asserted that the very term "reconstruction" implied a previous dissolu- tion. This had not been admitted by Lincoln, was not admitted by Johnson or by any sound, safe leader in the Union party and could not be it asserted, without admitting at once the whole secession theory. It championed Lincoln's doctrine, that the Government was dealing with individuals, not with states. On one hand it deprecated the attitude of the radicals, like Chandler, Sumner and Wade who looked upon the subjugated states as reduced to Territories, and on the other it objected to the contention of the Democrats in congress that the southern states had not been disorganized and that they were entitled to resume their federal relations with their existing secession or- ganizations and officers. The Statesman used the term "reor- ganization" in place of "reconstruction" and said in conclusion : "The work of reorganization will probably be brief and will have but one obstacle the status of the Negro. The work of pacification will require much time and careful management." The Oregonian had a few good words for Johnson during the first weeks of his term, but ere long began to oppose him, very mildly at first, in his reconstruction policy. What might be termed mild, question-mark editorials appeared in the Ore- gonian in the early fall of 1865. November 11, it asserted that, while it would not have been safe to follow the radicals implicitly, it was by no means wise to utterly discard their suggestions. It admitted that as the President had chosen to consider the rebel- lious states as never having withdrawn from the Union, it became necessary to follow out a line of policy which should be consistent with itself and which should not interfere with the rights of the states as separate political communities. Neverthe- 52 Oregonian, July 23, 1864. 53 Ibid., March 4, 1865.