Newspaper Page Text
A
THE ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN, FOB THE WEEK ENDING APRIL 24, 1872.
THE ATLANTA SUN
‘Mr. Stephens.
We publish below an article, under the
above heading, from the Constitution of
the 18th instant. This issue of that pa
per did not reach us until Saturday—too
late for ns to take an earlier notice of it.
We now give it to our readers, that they
may judge both of its “tone” and merits.
We b»vfe a few things only to say in re-
ply.
In the first place, we would remind our
neighbor that it was not his quotation
from the Patriot, but his quotation from
us, that we referred to. This his own
article clearly shows.
In the next place, we say most respect
fully to him, that we do not think any
thing in our article which he was review
ing, gave him any just cause of “resent
ment.” Certainly, nothing was farther
from our intention. We simply stated
that his prompt vindication of us from
■what he styled an unjust charge of the
Patriot, from the “tone” and “bearing”
of what ho said, “seemed to us,” to have
been said, not so much with an object
“manfully to defend as indirectly to as
sail.” In other words, that there was
something about it which impressed us
■with the belief that it was not intended
as a real vindication of what was felt to
be an unjust attack; but if we were
wrong in the impression which his arti
cle made upon our mind, we in advance
invoked his pardon for the candid opin
ion we expressed in regard to it, and left
him to put himself right upon the sub
ject. n
No offense whatever was meant by
what we said, nor is any taken at the
manner in which our neighbor has set
himself right upon the point stated;
though it still loaves us under an impres
sion that the article in question was not
intended as a real defense of a recog
nized “ally and friend” against what he
deemed an “unjust” charge.
How far our neighbor is himself in
clined to be “just” towards us in speak
ing of our “unqualified indorsement” of
Judge Davis, &c., we leave our readers to
form their own conclusions.
The same we say of his remarks about
our. “progressive'
We assure our neighbor that we have
no intention to “quarrel” with him or
anybody else; but we think that he is
mistaken in saying that “we took him to
task last fall” for the course lie pursued
upon the admitted “heresy” of the “New
Departure”—so-called.
We know he was silent upon it. We
thought it too great and dangetous
“heresy” to be tolerated for a moment by
sentinels upon the watch-towers , of Lib
erty. We state further that it was not
until after wo became satisfied that he
intended to refnain silent upon it, that we
became connected with the Press. It
was not until after we became satisfied of
this fact, that we determined that there
should be a Democratic organ in Atlanta
thatwonld not he silent upon this or any
other question or policy involving vital Dem
ocratic principles, that we became con
nected with The Sun. We, however,
said nothing about the course of
neighbor until he “took” us, and others
agreeing with us, “to task” for our
for a questionable tonft pervading It, wo mait say to
him what we tract he wUl excuse us for saying, that
he has very bungiingly performed what he so kindly
undertook to do. lie will also please pardon us for
saying further (if we are wrong) that the tone of his
sei.ming tindication strongly impresses us with the
belief that the object was not ao much, manfully to
defend, as indirectly to assail. How this really is,
as he approaches us in anch “dubious shape," we
leave him to explain.
We suggest to him, however, that whenever friend
or foe is quoted, either for defense or attack, the
language quoted should be fall enough, at least, to
give the exact meaning of the words used. This we
conceive onr neighbor did not do in reference to us
in the present instance; and especially as he refers
to the last Friday’s issue of Thk 8ns, as the date of
our opinion that Judge Davis is such a “Liberal Be-
pnbllcan” as true friends everywhere could support.
He must know very well that we expressed the
same opinion of him, as far as we were cognizant of
his public acts and sentiments, very soon after his
name was presented by the Labor Reform Conven
tion. We thought then, and on Friday last, and
still think, that the Democracy, In their present de-
mor&lizAtion in some State*, produced by tne “riew
Departure Leaders,” may go farther and fare a great
deal worse than they will in supporting sny one
who though he may call himself “Liberal Hepubli-
can ’’’ or take any other party name, yet holds that
tUe’rcconslrucllon measures of Congress were un
constitutional. and therefore void.
The language of the Patriot we never
saw, and therefore conld not quote. The
fact of Patriot's assault we. got from
an exchange.
We regret very much that we “bungled”
so as to put our contemporary insucb
a maze of perplexity as to our purpose
We meant just what we said-no more and
no less—and we have nothing to explain
Our words are plain English. words,
written in their current acceptation, and
are without “questionable tone” or “du
bious shape.” _ ...
We resent and repudiate the insinua
tion conveyed - in Mr. Stephens’ response.
It is not our habit to {“indirectly assail”
under “seeming vindication,” and leas
of all[to play this hypocritical role to an
ally and a friend.
It has been our fate to differ with Mr.
Stephens on some questions of party
policy, and this difference we have not
hesitated to express emphayeally but
courteously. And when we differ again,
and think it proper to state the difference,
he will remain in no doubt as to our
States are to live under a government I to revive them, nor any questions re-
of laws ora government of bayunets. lating to them antecedent, to the war.
This is the great, practical, absorbing, We believe also that in this matter we
“living issue” at this time. but repeat the universal sentiment of the
With regard to the past usurpations Southern States. Wo are for dealing
and revolutionary measures of Congress with the living present and the lire issues
since the restoration of the Union in now before us. These are the usurpa-
1865, by the resumption of their obliga- tions of the majority faction in the Con-
tions to the Union under the Constitu- gress of the States since the close of the
tion, by all the States which had attempt- war—since the proclamation of peace and
edto withdraw from it, and for which since the restoration of the Union by the
alone the war was professed to be waged resumption of their obligations to the
in opposition to this attempt, The Sun Constitution, by all the States which had
will advocate and enjoin strict obedience attempted to withdraw from it.
to all acts of Congress and acts of State The arraignment of the abuses of pow-
Legislatures under them which have the er in these usurpations, “before the bar
form of law as expounded by the courts, of public reason,” for popular condemna-
State and Federal, and enforced by those tion, is the platform on which we stand,
in. authority clothed with power to exe- It is no “dead platform,” or platform
cute them. erected on. “dead issues,” unless the
Constitutional Liberty is the offspring principles of the rights of the people, as
of Reason—not of physical force. well as the rights of the State, be dead.
The rectification of all political wrongs If this be so, it is useless to say anything
and usurpations under our systems of about the usurpations of Cqngress in the
Government, should be sought through Ku-KluxBill, or the Election Bill, or any
the instrumentalities of the Constitution; other act of despotism by a confessed
through the peaceful operation of the. consolidated empire,
ballot, the Legislative, Judicial and Ex-1 But believing that this fatal end has
ecutive Departments of the Government, not yet been reached, we believe that the
But no people devoted to Constitu- High Mission of the Democratic parly
tional law need ever expect to secure a is far from being ended. Its great work
rectification of admitted usurpations of\ is to arrest the progress of usurpation,
Power by accepting them as accomplished and to save the country from so laments-
facts, and granting, in advance, a complete ble a catastrophe.
absolution to the perpetrators of them. The This Mission is not to be performed by
position of The Sun towards all ussurpa- “canning” or tricks of any sort and
tions by Congress, will be the same as above all, it is not to be performed by ac-
that of Mr. Jefferson towards the “Alien cepting as rightfully accomplished facts,
and Sedition” acts. This is quite enough such as are not to be questioned or as-
for the present. sailed, any of these flagrant usurpations
It is proper, however, to add for gen- of power by which the Ku-Klux Bill and
eral information, that it is not my inten- the Election Bill are claimed to be right-
tion to change my present residence, ful exercises of authority.
There is no prospect of my ever being These fatal blows at Public Liberty are
able, physically, to do so, even if I were but the results of the preceding more
inclined. All communications, there-1 glaring usurpations. They are but the
meaniDg.
It is a little remarkable to us that Mr.
Stephens should see an assault in the
statement of his own views. He does
what we are not prepared to do yet, in
indorsing Judge Davis as a Republican
“whom the true friends of constitutional
liberty everywhere could support.
We have read considerable to please us
some with Judge Davis, and the approval
of Mr. Stephens has had no little agency
in this result! But we want to hear more
still before we can give him such in
dorsement as Mr. Stephens does. Judge
Davis is a Republican office-holder, and
bas been an ardent long-time Republican.
Yet Mr. Stephens, who took us to task
last fall for urging that our Northern
Democratic friends be let alone to fight
their local battles on any issues they
pleased, even the New Departure heresy,
which we did not indorse, has jumped
clear over oar head and indorses a zeal
ous long-time Republican office-holder as
one “whom the true friends of constitu
tional liberty everywhere could support.”
If this is not “progressive,” and does
not falsify the Patriot’s charge, we are
sadly in j. very honest mistake. It is
true Mr. Stephens spoke of Mr. Davis in
connection with the alleged machinations
of Democratic leaders to get the Cincin
nati . Convention to nominate a Radical
Centralist, and not such a man as Judge
Davis, but the connection does not in the
slightest degree affect the unqualified in
dorsement of Davis.
Wo make no quarrel with Mr. Ste
phenB for such indorsement. It is his
right to so indorse, and hiB indorsement
carries great weight. But if there is any
assault iu the statement of the indorse
ment, he is responsible, not the Constitu
tion.
We do, however, question the good
policy of constantly taunting the many
worthy, honest Democrats who advocat
ed the New Departure, and keeping that
sole fresh, especially when the taunts
come from^those who indorse Republi
can office-holders os worthy of support.
Degrees in Democratic departure maybe
ment with The Sun,
to me at this place.
Alexander H. Stephens.
. Liberty Hall, Crawfordville, Ga., 16th, June 1611
fore, to me, connected with, my engage- fruit3 of the others, and “by their fruits
t’txx- s™ must be addressed | ye shall know them.”. In the- language
of the St. Louis Republican,'■'■When a Cen-
“ <ral Government begins to appropriate the
“ Powers of surrounding Stales at' Pro-
“ vinces, it never, of its own accord, ceases
“from the process.”
This Process was begun by the majori
ty faction in Congress in their Recon
struction policy so-called, by which, atone
blow, ten of the States of the Union
were stricken from the roll of Common-
Fromthe Atlanta Sun, 3d July, 1872.
“ ON WHAT ISSUES SHALL WE GO INTO THE
FIGHT ! ”
Under this heading we give our read
ers to-day an article from the Richmond ™re stricken irom tne roll ot uommon-
Enquireroi the 27th nit. In it there are and P ut “ a condition farworse
many things which we cordially approve,' tban tbafc of B rovinces *
while there are some others which we do
not know that we rightly understand.
As to the issues upon which the Dem
ocracy of the United States should go
into the great civic struggle in 1872, we
entirely agree with the Enquirer in say-1 tbe usurpations. of the Ru
ing that the whole question is presented ^ ux Bill, compared, to this fellest of all
in a nut-shell, by the St, Louis Republi- bl ° w8 ; at tbe very citadel of PublicLib-
can, in that one paragraph quoted by the I er K ’ , . , , ....
Enquirer, and which is in these words: Now, we advise and counsel no forcible
“The Constitutional question before ^stance to any of these usurpations,
the people then is not whether a State advise obedience to them so long as
has a right to secede, or to nullify any they I«ave the forms of law as judicially
“act of Congress. That was decided, in expounded and enforced by those in im
pact, by the late war; but whether a thonty clothed witk power to execute
“State has any rights which the National £hem ’ <1° insist, that in denounc-
“Government mty not, at its pleasure. “S the latter and later of these usurpa-
“set aside. When a'Central Government £ 10ni ?’ the voice of the people shall not
be silenced against the former and greater.
We moreover much more insist that the
course. What we then said was entirely ' proper to establish, but it strikes us to
in our own defense. be in bad grace to keep up an inter-
Now, in order .that all of our present necine warfare between those differing
readers may judge for themselves of this
matter, as well as the one now under con
sideration, we present them to-day with
a reproduction in full, of all that was
then said by both parties upon the sub
ject.
We avail ourselves also of the occasion
to reproduce our salutatory, and one of
our leading editorials, soon thereafter,
that they may, in this connection, like
wise, judge for themselves, how far we
have “departed” from the principles and
policy we set out to maintain.
We do this, because there are several
thousand more readers of The Sun than
there were when even the last of these
articles was published.
The only comments we have now to
make npon the position of our neighbor
last Fall, as will be seen in his articles,
“taking” us and others “to task” for our
course, is to call his special attention to
what he then said about what he tvould
do in his “uncompromising adherence
to principles” when the proper time should
oome.
“Nexttear,” said he, “willbesoon
ENOUGH-FOR US TO TAKE POSITION, WHEN
THE GREAT NATIONAL FIGHT BEGINS, &C.
“When the hour of battle comes the
Constitution will be no inactive spec
tator. It will strike, and stike bold
ly FOR THE RIGHT.”
Bold words, these.
only ip degree,
We are for healing party divisions, and
warring on the enemy. We have enough
there to engage us.
From ike Atlanta Sun, 17th June, 1871.
. . Salutatory.
They were re
duced, with all their seven millions of
population, to a condition worse than
that of serfdom. They were subjected
entirely to military rule, without the re
cognitions! a single civil right’!
"begins to appropriate the power of sur
rounding States or provinces, it never,
“of its own, accord, ceases from the pro
cess. It continnes the encroachment,
people shall not be taught to believe or
assert for any purpose whatever, that any
“if unresisted, until it has become im . I of these usurpations have been nothing
“pexalized, and the States reduced to bufc acts ° f settlements of questions grow-
“outlying dependencies.” m S out of the war or us results; and
The real true living issue involved in a ?°vo all » ^ ^sist that these usurpations
the next contest in this country, as we sbal be recognized by the people
view it, is thus briefly but pointedly * «© a settlement of any ques
stated. The onlv change or modifies- fc J, 011 “™ ihe ™™er and by the authority
tion wo would make in it, would be to \CoMlumaUy appointed'
strike out the words “National Govern- These measures were m no way con-
ment,” and insert in their place “Federal nected with the legitimate results of the
Government;” but the context seems to ? ar uJ h ® Um ° n * as ^restored un-
showclear enough that the meaning of the der Constitution when they were
writer was the same. He only fell into e ? acted ;, Tbey TYf r f. eonfcssedly “out-
the very common error of speaking of Slde ° f Constitution,” and therefore
as a “Nation-1 °P enl y Revolutionary in their character
and objects.
The settlement of them—so-called—
the “Federal Government’
al Government.
Now, what we do not know that we, . , , ,
rightly understand in this article from ™ 8 ’ moreover, the work of- fraud, per-
the Enquirer, is, what is therein stated fid y» ©^violence, a “mode and manner’
about the absurdity of the Southern I ^teriy at war with the authority Consti-
States keeping up a party “organizedon tukonally appointed.
“thebasis of the rightof Secession, to L 0n ? of FT 10nS , ^
“be formally manoeuvred in every polit- therefor©* ? e£o . re - Bf 0 ]^ 68 of the
“ical conflict,” &c., and about our “re- United States, is indeed the Constitntion-
“organizing a pro-slavery party in the Question, not whether a State has a
“eonntrv ”&c 1 j v j . right to secede, or to nullify an act of
with pleasure when they were uttered,
and we earnestly hope soon to see them
boldly maintained A. H. S.
From the Atlanta Constitution, April 18,1872.
Mr. Stephens.
Mr. Stephens, in Tuesday evening’s
Edition of The Sun, has, among other
things, the following to say in reply to a
short editorial in the Constitution, urging
that a charge of tho Washington Patriot
against Mr. Stephens of being buried in
the “effete past,” was unjust in view {of
Mr. Stephen’s indorsement of Judge Da
vis, a Republican in politics,as one whom
“the true friends of constitutional liber
ty everywhere conld support:’
Tho object of its production -we do not hnotr, and
are not quite sure that we correctly understand the
exact tenor of its bearing.'
We have not been fortunate enough to see. the ar
ticle in the Washington City Patriot, to which refer
ence is made, and against tho “unjust” charges of
which our neighbor so promptly enters bis protest,
and gt-ucrously, it \could teem, ventures npon onr
vindication.
real vindication—was the object of our
neighbor, as wo should unhesitatingly view it, but
Since the “Announcement” of Mr.
Speights on the 15th instant, it is proper
for me to state to the patrons of The
Sun that, in consenting, as one of the pro
prietors, to take charge of the Political
Department of this paper, my object is
to make it a true organ of the Jefferso
nian principles of the Federal Govern
ment, under which, the Peoples of the
United States lived in 60 great peace,
prosperity and happiness for more than
half a century. The object will be to ad
vocate such doctrines as will secure a
perpetual and harmonious union of the
States under tho Constitution, in the
spirit and for the purposes for which it
was originally made by the fathers; and
upon the principles announced by Jeffer
son, maintained by Madison, and set
forth by Gen. Jackson in his “author
ized” explanation of the principles of his
Proclamation on the Nullification move
ment in South Carolina in 1832 and in
his Farewell Address.
Upon these principles and those an
nounced by Gen. Washington, he who
was “first in war, first in peace, and first
in the hearts of his countrymen,” The
Sun will stand. Its position will be, that
the Government of the United States is
a “Confederated” or “FederalRepublic,”
formed by the States, possessing in itself
no inherent Sovereignty; but that all its
We hailed them ©pTOrcigli Powers—which are specific and
limvfftii I J .1 a?
country,” &c.
We say, we do not know that we right
ly understand these and other like por
tions of the article in question, and
therefore forbear all comments upon
Congress—but whether a State has any
right which the Federal Government
may not at its pleasure set aside.
On this alone, we are willing to unite
them, except to say that we know of no ® £ b t ? rty in - a11 th *
proposition or wish in any part of the ^ates of the Ufcion, u the coming con-
Southern States, entertained by even a ‘ est to P ut . out °^P°^ e + r , l hose who have
rintfe individual, io party "JSSC
upon any of these conjectured hypo-1 - ar l5 ,^ ave , 80 - wickedly
theses. abused their high tr usts—whose progress,
The right of secession for all practical i^^°^,. arrested » end i n ©vitably in
purposes was, as we-.understand, decided i, m . ... , ...
by the war; not that war can ever settle I£ f e . battle be Patched upon this
oi decide any principle ortruthin matters ground alone, with no soft words of
of government or justice between men or usurpations of any sort, there mil be no
States, any more than in matters of need of •‘ levie f’ Volunteers for their
Science, Art or Religion. War may de- accord, when the signal is given
cide, and may determine permanently, I^P 0 ” f ? rfch every quarter with
questions of policy, but never questions J for the cmise, which love of
oiriaht liberty ever inspires, and which, lUpopu-
A legitimate result of the late war, we £ar potions, is ever the surest ‘‘earnest
believe, was the settlement—and settle- OI victory. A. id. o.
From the Atlanta San, 20th September, 1871.
THE GREAT ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CON
TEST OF 1872, AND THE UNITY OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
ment forever—in this country, of the
policy of Secession as st practical mode
of 'redress against any usurpations on the
part of the Federal Government.
This legitimate result of the war has
been accepted in good faith by all those
States which recently resorted to this
limited—are held entirely by delegation
from the several States, and that the
States are absolutely Sovereign in the
exercise of all reserved or undelegated
Powers. (
The Sun, under my general control of
its political course, will continue to stand
upon the principles of the platform of
the Democratic Party of the Union, as
announced in their last General Conven
tion at New York, in1868.
A chief object will be to show by calm
and argumentative appeals to tho good
sense And patriotism of the true friends
of the Constitution, North as well as
So nth, that any departure from the essen
tial principles of that platform will be
exceedingly dangerous, if not fatal, to
the liberties of the whole country.
The great “living issue” now before the
Peoples of the United States, is between
Consolidation, Centralism and Empire
on the one side, and the sacred sovereign
right of local self-government by the
Peoples of the’several States on the other;
or, mother words: The great question
now is, whether the Peoples of these
It must be admitted by the friends of
mode of redress for what they regarded Constitututional Liberty everywhere in
breaches of the common compact, and this country, that, all other questions
threatened usurpations by tbeir confed- j apart, the chief and vital issue in the po-
erates. Hereafter the mode of redress litical contest next year, in the United
for all abuses of power by the Federal States, will be Constitutionalism, or the
Government which they seek, will be to preservation of the Federal Union of
make common cause with all the friends States, on the one side; and Centralism,
of the Constitution in all the States. or the consolidation of the whole people
So of the old question of negro slave- of all the States into a Despotic Empire
ry. The Southern seceding States, all— on the other,
every one of them—abolished that insti- This view is clearly presented in the
tution by their own. acts. This act on late Congressional Democratic Address,
their parts respectively, may or may not which was signed by every Democrat in
be considered as a legitimate result of tbe present House of Representatives,
the war. Whether the one or the other, from the Territories as well as the States,
however, it was done by these States and no one at ail conversant with the
themselves, and after the close of the signs of the times can doubt its correct-
war-—after they had fully resumed all | ness. The Democratic sentinels at Wash-
their obligations to the Union, nnder the
Constitution, and were fnlly recognized
by the Federal Government as constitu
ent members of the Union, and entitled
to an equal voice on the questions per
taining to its welfare, even those touch
ing changes in the organic law. It is by
the acts of these States that the Thir
teenth Amendment of the Constitution
is now a valid part of the organic law of
the Union.
These questions, therefore, relating to
tbe right of Secession, for all practical
purposes are considerations, as well as
those relating to the nature and extent
of negro servitude in the Southern States,
we consider emphatically among the
“dead issues.” We have no disposition
ington have so announced it. The Radi
cal Senators, Trumbull and Schnrz,
virtually admit it with alarm; while Sen
ator Morton, the Platform-maker of the
Imperialists, in several of his late speech
es, has openly and boldly proclaimed it.
The contest over the principles and issues
involved, as thns presented, must and
will be fierce and bitter, for the fate of
Public Liberty on this Continent for gen
erations to come may depend upon the
result.
No such contest, involving so momen
tous consequences, has come off in this
country since the memorable struggle of
1800, between the Centralists of that day,
under the lead of the elder Adams, and
the cause of popular rights, under the
lead of Mr. Jefferson.
The chief issue, then, with its resalts,
being so unanimously admitted by the
friends of Public liberty everywhere, as
well as by their opponents, the next most
important question is, how the most
lamentable catastrophe of an overthrow
of the free institutions of onr ancestors
can be averted ?
On this point we have no hesitancy in
saying that it can only be done by unity
in the Democratic party. Upon the
united and harmonious action of the
Democracy of the Union, therefore, in
the coming contest the hopes for liberty,
not only in this country, but in all coun
tries for a season, rest. This is our view
of the subject.
Upon what, then, is it essential that
they mustjfo-si be united ? Unquestiona
bly upon the most vital question, or issue,
involved in the contest. There can be no
proper union in action until there is per
fect union in sentiment' on this point.
We make these remarks in answer to
quite a number of our cotemporanes,
who speak witn so much earnestness in
•behalf of unity on the part of the Demo
cratic Party; and occasionally refer, di
rectly or indirectly, to The Sun, as one
of the Southern “impracticables” and
“extremists,” &c.
Now, to all sucli wo say, that we think
their zeal is beyond their knowledge.
They either do not understand us, or do
not understand tlie difference between
us and those who advocate what is styled
the “New Departure.”
We advocate unity with all the earnest
ness at our command, but unity upon the
essential question involved in the con
test—uniti/, in opposition to those usurpa
tions by the Ruling Dynasty—which
clearly show its purpose to be, to estab
lish a Centralized Empire, in lieu of the
free institutions established by the Fath
ers; while “tbe New Departurists” advo
cate unity upon an acceptance as “finali
ties,” and an indorsement as “verities” and
•rightful acts,” all of those usurpatory
measures, which so clearly show the ulte
rior purposes and real designs of the
Party now in Power; and from whose
grasp the liberties of the country must be
rescued, or all will be inevitably lost.
Now, waiving tbe question of what is the
real object of those calling themselves Dem
ocrats, who advocate the policy of the
New Departure” movement, we would,
at this time, simply ask if anything could
be more “impracticable” than the adop
tion of such a course as they recommend,
with the view of thereby arresting future
usurpations. Can Power or tyranny ever
be displaced, either by yielding to its
demands, or sanctioning its crimes by
open approval ?
'If the design of those who concocted
the “New Departure” programme*vas
real and in good faith to defeat Central
ism, could any plan for. such a purpose
be more preposterously absurd? The
absolute folly of the idea is enough of it
self to raise a suspicion as to the motive
and objects of those who present it; for
some of them are unquestionably men of
sense in the ordinary affairs of life.
We are not, however, discussing the
question in a practical and rational point
of view, without reference to the motives
or fidelity to the great cause, on the part
of those who proposed it.
We want unity, as much as any of our
cotemporaries, South or North; but we
hold that unity upon the main, and chief
issue, is altogether essential. Is this either
“extreme” or “impracticable?” Can any
aiional man expect or hope for success
upon any other line ?
With one other remark we shall con
elude what we have to say upon this sub
ject to-day.
The idea has been given out, and re
peated. again and again, in divers quar
ters, that the “New Departure” pro
gramme is that on which the Northern
Democracy are united; and that Southern
Democrats should, therefore, cease their
opposition to it. To this we say, em
phatically, that we are at direct issue with
all those who maintain any such position.
We should despair of the country if we
believed any such thing. This “New
Departure”-programme is nothing but
the work or device of a New York politi
cal Ring, composed chiefly of those who
never were Democrats, except from neces
sity. The main object, as we believe, is
success for spoils alone, and not with any
view to the maintenaneje of the liberties
of the country. Indeed, upon the direct
issue between Constitutionalism and Cen
tralism, wo believe they would openly es
pouse the cause of the latter. To the di
rect question, whether he would support
the Democratic candidate upon the Jef
fersonian Platform of Principles, one of
the chiefs of this Ring refused to answer,
as our readers know.
It is true this Ring, in an evil hour, by
their corrupt means, got the States of
Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, Maine,
Iowa and Wisconsin to adopt their
scheme, more or less distinctly set forth,
in all their late State conventions; but we
utterly deny that these conventions, by
their resolutions, expressed the views of
the honest masses of the Democracy in a
single one of those States.
We do know that this Ring endeavored
to get the Democrats in Congress to
incorporate their views and policy in
their late address referred to, and
that they utterly failed in that attempt.
It was then they sought to opeiate
through the State Conventions, by
the manipulations they could there
more successfully practice. But there
has been no fair expression of the senti
ments of the masses of the Democracy
on this subject, in a single State of the
Union, as yet. The Democratic mem
bers of Congress refused to .give the
New Departure” programme their ap
proval.' It is, therefore, nothing but
bald assumption—a begging of the ques
tion—to assert, or argue, as if the “New
Departure” is in accordance with the
views, generally, of the masses of the
Northern Democracy, or ever will be.
The masses of the Northern Democracy
are as true to the principles of liberty
and the Constitution, as the Southern De
mocracy. This is our view of their pat
riotic devotion to the great Constitu
tional principles involved in the contest
of 1872. We believe, also, that they are
anxious for unity upon the chief issue in
the contest, and have as little disposition
to ignore it as wo have. Then why should
not all—every friend of the Constitution
everywhere—unite in laboring and striv
ing, as we, and other opponents of tbe
policy, as well as principle of the “New
Departure,” are earnestly doing to bring
about a perfect unity of the Party, upon
the only programme which can possibly
secure success in .the rescue and preserva
tion of our free institutions ? While this
is an open question, before the meeting of
the General Convention of the Party
the watch-tower-every organ of Demo,
cratic public opinion—who does not at
heart approve the “New Departure >’
openly and boldly so proclaim ? I 3 n ’,.
this the sound dictate of the highest
wisdom as well as the purest patriotism'
A. H. S. '
the defenders of the Constitution and I next year, ought not every sentinel upon
[From tho Atlanta Constitution, 2ith Sept,, 1871)
STOP IT.
If the Southern discassiou of what
bed the “New Departure,” has de
veloped anything very conspicuously'
that thing is a certain amount of political
bigotry on both sides, that could bene
ficially be dispensed with. Both sides
resolved to force their own con
straction of the other’s position on each
other. The agitation has become so
heated that it rather appears that each
side is more anxious for victory for its
views than for results salutary to the
country.
One of the worst features of the dis
cussion is the tendency to misrepresent
each other.
What possible good can it do to insist
upon placing the worst possible construc
tion on the new movement, we cannot
see, particularly when it is the case that
the more odious the interpretation, tho
more damage is done to those engaged
in the movement. It is helping the enemy
that far. This intolerance and bigotry
of judgment that are unwilling to do
justice to the position of others, are the
worst foes to truth. Elaborate argu
ments are used to prove that the North
ern Democracy means the very thing that
is condemned. Every effort is used to
push our Northern friends into the ex
treme of an unwelcome position. Pup
pets are set up seemingly for the pleas
ure of knocking them over. In the ar
dor of debate the most reckless conclu
sions are taken for granted, and fought
against with the fiercest vim. Our friends
North who are engaged in a life and death
straggle, are lampooned and battered, as
if they were our Radical enemies. Tho
most unexceptionable enunciations of
Democratic sentiment, that nobody in
tho world thinks of disputing, are fired
in heavy vollies at those who don’t deny
their truth, and who indorse them.
There is no enemy before the Southern
Democracy but the Radicals, yet from
the way some of our gallant and undoubt
edly patriotic Southerners are pitching
into the Northern Democracy, we would
think that the latter, and not the former,
are our foes.
Some of our friends certainly seem to
be showing a want of discrimination, and
they are gentlemen that we like, and
heartily join in their declarations oi
Democratic doctrine. In their hot on
slaughts upon the new movement of our
Northern friends in trying to bury war
issues, they have a blow for every one
that don’t exactly suit them.
There is our esteemed friend, of the
LaG range Reporter, who begins a para
graph thus:
We tell the Constitution and its conductors in tho
New Departure.’ ’’
This journal has never advocated the
New Departure, yet the Reporter thus
places us in the very teeth of our record.
It is this undiscriminating warfare that
is doiDg the Democratic party harm.
We do full justice to the honest purposes
of our cotemporary, but we cannot com
mend this careless method of statement.
HThe position of the Constitution has-
been one of inactivity in the local battles
now going on North. There is no na
tional contest now progressing. This is
the off year.
The Democracy of the Northern States
under Radical rule have, under the pres
sure of a grim, inexorable necessity,
whose power we have personally observed
in a two months’ experience, adopted a
programme to get the distracting “war
issues” settled, as the only method of
securing the ear of the country upon the
heresies and crimes of Radicalism, and
of redeeming themselves from the oppres
sion of Radical rale. The necessity of
the programme is proven by tbe una
nimity of its adoption in all the Radi
cally governed Northern States.
This effort at local redemption we have
felt that we of the South had no right to
interfere in, particularly when our inter
ference could only result in harm. The
movement of nationalizing these local
contests by the Southern Democracy we
believed to be fatal to the Democratic
success in those contests. There was ho
possible good to be gained by such in
terference, and the certainty of unlimited
harm.
Pretermitting any expression of opin
ion upon the propriety of the new move
ment, in the view of the known divisions
Of Southern sentiment in regard to it,
and with the idea of keeping out of
sight all subjects of party disagreement
at an inopportune time, we have steadily
advocated Southern silence during the
pendency of these local Northern con
tests, and deprecated Southern interfer
ence, particularly against our Democratic
friends North.
Others have thought and acted differ
ently, waging an unceasing warfare on
the only friends we have North. The
result has only confirmed us iu the pro
priety of our course. We have seen the
damage done. We have been perfectly
cognizant of it. We have fought against*
this untimely, this damaging agitation.
We fight against it still. We hare no
right to be imperilling the success erf our
Northern allies in their battles for free
dom at home by forcing our views upon
them at an improper juncture, when their
interests axe at stake on the arena of
their own soil.
Next year will be soon enough for us to
take position, when the great national
fight begins, and a common result awaits our
common efforts. When a national ruler
and a national policy are the stakes, then
will be our moment to act.
Bat now for us to be meddling in the
local matters of onr Northern Democrat
ic friends in their States battles for State
interest, when they deprecate our inter
ference and suffer injury, it does seem to
us a grave and dangerous mistake.
Better pursue “masterly inactivity.”
One more word. While the policy of
the Pennsylvania Democracy has the in
terpretation given to it by the address of
the Executive Committee, we shall ad
here to our belief in that interpretation
as being tlie meaning of the Democracy.
We shall not argue for another con
struction, but against it. We shall give
onr friends the benefit of all doubts. We
shall take them by Avhat they say in their
last explanation of their position, and not
fight them on a construction of their
views that their last declarations disprove,
when-by so doing wo hurt their pros
pects. *We prefer to believe well of our
allies, and are certainly going to do so,
when, us in the case of the Pennsylvania
Executive address they give us the
grounds for doing so.