Newspaper Page Text
THE ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN, EOK THE WEEK ENDING JUNE 5, 1872.
THEATLANTASUN
FROM THE DAILY EDITION OF
Wednesday, May 29th, 1872.
The position of Hon. Jeremiah S. Black
of Pennsylvania.
Among the many misrepresentations
new so studiously put afloat and indus-
riously circulated by the telegraph and
'the press to forestall the Democratic
Party, and commit them to the support
of Mr. Greeley, is one in reference to
the position of Judge Black, of Pennsyl
vania, to the f fleet that he bad declared
for Greeley.
In another column we give a recent
etter from this distinguished gentleman,
rom which our readers will see how
much'truth there is in that report.
A. H. S.
The sequel shows clearly that we were
right, and that a split is inevitable.
But, as we said in the beginnijg we
never would go with the “Departurists,”
so we say *n the end; and how any one
who knows us could have supposed it to
be otherwise, we can not imagine.
A. H. S.
Mr Stephen* may think the assertion that ho is
ntolerant la “n»ked, bald and utterly unroetained/’
but it ao happen* that he i* not the arbiter who is to
decide that qnettion. Hi* dictatorial nature i* very
properly Ignored and condemned by the arbiter—
the people.—Middle Georgian, May 18 <2.
Mr. Stephens would remind his co
temporary of Griffin, that be has never
said that “the assertion that he is intol
erant, is naked, bald, and utterly unsns-
tained.”
He wonld remind him also of the
scriptural in junction: “Thou shalt not
“bear false witness against thy neigh
bor.”
What Mr. Stephens did say was “a
naked bald assertion” &c., was the charge
of his Griffin cotemporary, against him,
that he “is so intolerant as . to deny the
honest masses the right to investigate and
reflect upon the political state of a fairs."
This is wbat Mr. Stephens said was “a
naked, bald assertion and utterly unsns-
tained by the facts.” The same he still
maintains; and he thinks, moreover, that
it will be a difficult matter for his cotem
porary to maintain the correctness of. his
own assertion, before the “rightful arbi
ter”—the people.
Mr. Stephens’ whole, course has been
not to dictate to any one, nor to deny
any right of any one, but to defend all
the rights of the honest masses, as well
as all others, of every class and caste,
even the perfect right of his cotem'porary
to abandon the Dtm leratic creed and to
hoist the Radical, Greeley or Grant ban
ner and Platform, whenever he chooses.
Mr. Stephens only reserves to himself
the like right to stand by bis principles
and colors.
If this is intolerance, make the most of
it before the “rightful arbiter”—the peo
ple. A. H. S.
Not for Grant.
Reports have been in circulation recently, through
the press and otherwise, to the effect that Hon. A.
H. Stephens had declared that as between Grant and
Greeley, ho wonld support the former. We have
declined to give any currency to this report, because
we did not believe it to be true.
Wo aro gratified at being able to state now authori
tatively that Mr. Stephens wUl not support Grant
under the emergency mentioned. In a late number
of Tiie Sen he 6*ys ho will support neither ot these
genUemen. Wo regret that Mr. S. has, in advance
of the action of tho party at Baltimore, declared that
he wiU not snpport Mr. Grecloy, because the indi
cations, to our mind, now are, that Greeley will be
indorsed thero by tho National Democracy, and his
refusal to abide by that action will produce a split in
the Democracy of the South, which may lead to dis
astrous results.—Augusta, Ga., Chronicle and Senti
nel, May the 26th, 1872.
Will the split he confined to the De
mocracy of the South? Think you that
the “honest masses” of two millions of
Northern Democrats, with anything like
unanimity, will support Mr. Greeley,
even though he be “ indorsed ” by the
Biltimore Convention? Those who sup-
p6se that the Democratic masses, there
or elsewhere, can be transferred by their
“trusted leaders" as so many cattle, we
think will find themselves very much
mistaken.
If a split, therefore comes, North,
as well as Sonth, “ which may lead
to disastrous results,” who are re
sponsible for them; we who adhere to
the prinfciples of the party, or those who
abandon those principles, and go off in
search of a Radical leader, moving nnder
a Radical Banner?
Our cotemporary of Augusta, a few
days before, complained of our intoler
ance, and said we had no right to read
him out of tbeDemocratic party. We
give the purport of his language.
Now, in the present connection, we
will take occasion to say to him that we
have, at no time, intimated any desire or
intention to read him out of the party.
Our position has been and was distinctly
stated in the article he was commenting
n, that every one should choose for him
self what banner he would enter the ap
proaching contest nnder. What we
wanted to know was where our cotempo
raries stood. If any one of them, or any
number of them, were disposed to enlist
nnder the Radical banner of either Grant
or Greeley, we did not question their
right to do it.
In that article we held, and now hold,
thatany one who, for any cause whatever,
wishes to abandon Democratic principles
and adopt Radical ones instead, has a
perfect right to do so; but we must con
fess our surprise that our 'cotemporary
of Augusta should ever hkve been in any
doubt even, for a moment, as he seems to
have been, as to our position upon the
consummation of this “New Departure*
movement.
We felt fully assured, when it was
first started, that the object was
to Radicalize the Democratic Party. It
was to put the Federal administration
in the hands of those who would con
duct public affairs on Radical principles
for the purpose of establishing Radical
measures and polices under a Democra
tic name. The prime object of this
movement was the disorganization and
disintegration of the Democratic Party
as then constituted.
The Communication by “A Georgian.”
The very able article by A Georgian in
oar columns to-day, cannot fail deeply to
interest a very large circle of onr read
ers.
It is from the pen of one of the most
erudite of the sons of the State, and
one of the profoundest thinkers of the
age.
The appeal is addressed particularly
to the people of the Northern States;
bnt it has much in it that the people of
the Southern States may well study,
with both interest and profit. We com
mend it to the special attention of all.
A. H. S.
The Ring of True Democratic Metal.
Let no one who is really interested in
the question as to whether it is proper
for the Democratic Party to support
Greeley or not, under any circumstances
that can be imagined, fail to read the ar
ticle taken from the Washington (Ga.)
Gazette, which we publish to-day.
[COMMUNICATED.]
THE ANATOMY OP SECTIONALISM.
Its Influence on the Dominating Sec
tion, the Oppressed Section, and the
Country at Large.
What ivas thought of it hy the Fath
ers, and what has been Verified and
made Intensely Clear by Experience.
Its Effect upon . Public and Private
Morals—upon the Stability and Pcr-
^jnanent Welfare of the Country.
Comparison of Sectional Rule with
Foreign Domination, with Religious
Persecution, and the Odium Tlieola
gicum, with Class Legislation, r and
with Personal Slavery.
The Constitution changed from a For.
tress against Foreign Aggression into
a Prison House for Domestic Tyranny
—Misconception, Ignorance and Preju
dice Invested with Authority—Influ
ence without Interest or Sympathy—
Power withont Responsibility—The
Sum of all Misgovernment, full of
Evils and Aggravations.
No real Interest ot the Dominating Sec'
tion Promoted—To the Oppressed See
tion, Wrongs, uot Rights, Secured—
Worse than all External Dangexs
Combined.
A Candid Expostulation and Appeal for
Peace and Good Governmentfor Pub
lic Virtue, and a Return to Sound
' Principles and Honest Administra
tion.
BY A GEORGIAN. •
Will not you, the People of the Domi
nating Section, give audience to the
complaint of a citizen ot the Oppressed
Section, who craves an Imparlance, and
asks you to make pause, after so long a
time, and listen, that we may reason to
gether? We have that to say which ne: r-
ly concerns us, certainly, and which we be
lieve to be not unworthy of your attention,
also. There is ground, we believe, even
now, in the present aspect of affairs, for
serious consideration—a new reckoning
—and perhaps a change of the general
course and mode of procedure of the
Government.
This is, at all events, a proper time to
take a large and general view of the Sit
uation, not narrowed by party feeling,
nor limited by previous commitment to
a policy whicb is certainly not infallible,
ahd may be wrong. The issues we pro
pose to discuss are real and alive—the
living, breathing questions of the age,
and the day—practical, timely, and con
crete.
We say then to you, candidly, that we
of the Oppressed Section have been in
troduced into, and are living under new
circumstances, which are no improve
ment on the old ;. that, on the con
trary, they are far less favorable
than the old, both to public prosperity
and to public and private virtue. From
good government, honestly administered,
we have been transferred to misgovern
ment and mismanagement, so injurious
and onerous, that no just conception of
their operation can be conveyed or con
ceived, unless by actually living under
them, and seeing them in detail.
We have known what good govern
ment is, and educated to enjoy it; and
our experience of the past qualifies us
to appreciate the present s’ate of affairs.
Your men of virtue and morality little
dream of the change you have wrought
here. You have done this deed nn fit
tingly, and been led by degrees, point
by point, into courses and methods whicb
you did not contemplate at the outset.
But we assure you that these methods
have, as a matter of fact, subverted on a
grand scale, the very foundations of pub
lic virtue, and are now sapping those
also of private morals, and reducing their
standard to the same lowered level.
Nor have we entered upon this new
career entirely without warning. From
the earliest times, its probable conse
quences were foreseen.
OPINIONS OP THE FATHERS.
Sectional rule was ever regarded by
the fathers and founders of the Republic,
as incomparably the most dangerous rock
which threatened the safety of the people
of the United States. Accordingly, the
Constitution was framed with express
reference to avoiding it. It was the last
act of Washington to warn his country
men of this specific and fearful danger.
When, in the case of the Missouri Re
striction, the first serious sectional dif
ficulty arose, Jefferson declared him
self alarmed as by a fire bell in the night.
And such, during onr whole history, has
been the view of our wisest statesmen,
who best understood and most desired
the welfare of the country. In all this—
were they right or wrong ? Are these
views less true now than of old ? Now,
especially, that the light of experience
has been added, does it contradict,
or does it corroborate their anticipations?
Experience has but confirmed, and made
them trebly strong. We propose to dis
cuss this general subject with judicial
calmness.
comparison with foreign domination.
In what respects does Sectional Rule
differ from Foreign Domination ? Prin
cipally to its disadvantage, in this, that,
like hatred among brethren, it is usually
more bitter, more shrewd in policy, and
more adverse in feeling.
The very Constitution intended to pro
tect from foreign foes, becomes a wall to
enclose the one section for more con
venient persecution by the other. Its
use is simply to prevent escape. And
the confidence of the majority in their
right to oppress is greater than in a strict
ly foreign domination; for the very at
tempt to escape is treason, and the right
to oppress is regarded as a most sacred
right, of origin nearly, if not quite, Di
vine.
-A PEOPLE ENSLAVED.
Sectional government imposes on its
victims many of the evils of personal
slavery, without its compensations. It
is the enslavement of a people, by con
tinued force and arms. There is a mas
ter and a slave, after some sort, but less
of sympathy between them than in the
same relation between individuals. An
enslaved section is in an evil case. Nor
is the enslaved section of onr country of
a race adapted to the institution. To
hold it in bondage and oppress it may
not be so regarded by those who do the
act; but it is in very deed a crime!—a
crime, we say, of buge * proportions—
against God and man—against nature
an<j law—against your fathers and your
brethren. It is usurpation—the assump
tion of powers and responsibilities with
out right, and without fitness for their
discharge.
Tne definition of tyranny,being power,
withont responsibility or fitness, this
exists in its fulltst extent and most odi
ous form, in a Sectional government.
Let us proceed to consider some of the
particulars.
WANT OF INFORMATION.
No people ever understood another
people; no section another section. I
is said, “one half of the world knows
not how the other half lives.” This was
intended to apply to neighbors and the
people of the same country. But those
“imperfect sympathies” which exist be
tween individuals, widen vastly among
peoples. Their actual intercourse and
means of intercourse are much less than
among individuals. A small numberionly
of any people has any actual acquaint
ance or opportunity of acquaintance, in
regard to another people, with that educa
tion by surrounding circumstances which
moulds the character of men and States.
Mntual misapprehensions prevail, and
mutual suspicions. They cannot do each
other justice if they would; they can
not govern each other wisely, with per
feet purity of motive and sincerity of
aim. They necessarily misjudge each
other, and that on a grand scale. Mean
while, the means to rectify error and the
motives to its rectification are alike small.
SECTIONAL COMPARED WITH CLASS LEGIS
LATION.
Sectional legislation is far worse than
mere class legislation—odious as that has
been ever regarded. In the latter case,
accommodation to the law, 6t combina
tion against it, are easier, and the evil
effects more visible to the authors of the
evil.
• When parties divide upon matters of
general and not local concern, the action
of either party affects the whole country'
alike. Men differ as to policy, but share
results; all parts are benefitted, or all
injured. But when they divide section-
ally, with broader diversity of views,
there is no community of interest. The
majority section has influence without its
proper counterpart,interest; the minority
section, interest without influence. This
severance is the very essence of Tyranny,
of which Taxation, without representa
tion, is only one of the Protean forms.
It is a Hydra with many other heads.
Iudeed, asectional government is spe
cifically the most odious and aggravated
form which Tyranny can assume.
A single tyrant can be approached—
appealed to—appeased. He has weakness
es—he has favorites—he must die, and
will have a successor; but a tyrannical
section is inaccessible—deaf—unfeel
ing as a stone. Sufficient intercourse
to correct false impressions is simply
impossible in the nature of things.—
Hopeless task, to enlighten ignorance
not based upon evidence, and to reform
action founded on prejudice. No charm
er can reach the ear dull as death to tes
timony or to appeal. The rancor of or
dinary partisan strife is abated by per
sonal intercourse and friendships. Mem
bers of different parties are neighbors—
they are friends—often kinsmen—but
these relations do not exist in the sec
tional division of parties. The Majori
ty section is destitute of knowledge,
sympathy or community of interest with
the oppressed minority. An Emperor or
a Despot may regard one of his depen
dencies with pride; but the dependency
of a sectional mn jority is the victim of a
soulless machinery, untouched by any
living affection, and actuated only by
cupidity and prejudice,
OF NO PRACTICAL BENEFIT,
and bad as are its consequences, it sub
serves no countervailing good purposes.
What interest have I in governing Mas
sachusetts? What have you, that Mis
sissippi or Florida should be shockingly
ill-governed? What relations have we to
be preserved—what points of contact be
tween us? What interest, information,
facilities for information? How or why
should I go out of my sphere of sensible
and practical action, to govern you, at so
remote a distance from my .range of
knowledge and sympatheis, of tastes and
feeling, of knowledge of facts and prin
ciples, and of suitableness to circum
stances?
Foreigners do not know these things,
and sections are foreign to each other.
Few peoples are fit to govern themselves,
with all the lights they possess as to their
own wants, and all the checks they re
ceive when their mistakes find them out.
Self-government, even nnder the most
favorable conditions, is no easy matter.
But interference out of the lange of
knowledge and., interest leads only to
mischief.
religious intolerance.
The desire to compel men even to do
the will of God, leads simply to religious
persecution. Desire to make our fellow
men do the.will of men—do our way,leads
only to usurpation and tyranny. It has
not half even of the plausibility of perse
cution for opinion’s sake—a doctrine now
universally abandoned in theory, at least
(unhappily not in practice) and consider
ed indefensible. ®
tion of the government made by force and
fraud within the past few years, 6how
both the wisdom of the Fathers, and onr
folly. And be it ever remembered that
Consolidation is in order to Sectional Rule.
That is its specific aim and object.
It is to exert influence where they have
no business and no interest, that men
design to centralize the government.
AGGRAVATIONS
And Sectional Rule, when, and however
attained, is rampant and restless. It is
not ordinary party rage, but revolution
ary fnry rather, acknowledging no limi
tations—sweeping everything before it,
casting off restraint, possessing all the
terrible energies of mob law, and all its
misguided and untamed passions
without even the sight of the sufferings
of its -victims. The mass concentrated,
unopposed, and rushing all one way—
individuals straggle, rival, emulate each
other, and the torrent becomes perfectly
intolerant of reason from without or
within. The result must be inexpres
sible wickedness and tyranny.
WORSE THAN AT.T. FOREIGN DANGERS.
We tell you that Ruch a government is
worse than all Foreign dangers. Wrongs
are secured to us—not rights. Our chief
danger lies in our protectors. We need
protection from our protectors more than
from all the world besides. The dangers
from all other quarters are as nothing
when compared to those from our usurp
ing sectional allies. After onr first great
struggle, our need for combination—re
mote as we were from powerful neighbors
—was less than that of most of the States
of Europe. Our danger was rather of
domestic misrule. This formidable dan
ger,coming from within surpasses all dan
ger that can come from without. A
dominant section, in its self-cenfidence
and vain glory, is wont to disregard all
restraining influences. The principle
that all just government is founded on
the consent of the governed—Consti
tutional obligations—the principles of
humanity—all the bonds of civilization—
are as straws in the -way of its arrogant
and imperious mere will. Opposition
only seems to vex and enrage it; argu
ment.is worse than wasted. If a good
feeling arises among the dominant peo
ple, born of nature or sympathy, there
are not wanting those who rebuke it. If
it arises among the oppressed, those who
(with more excuse) cry, shame upon it.
And so it is that mutual dislike and sus
picion are kept up.
SOLID FOUNDATIONS.
It is on. such strong foundations of
plain common sense and human expe
rience, that the judicious and earnest
warnings of our Fathers against section
al rule, rest. The rights of local self-
government; what are usually called, in
brief, States rights; are based on no vis
ionary ideas—on no mere figments of the
imagination, but on honest terra firma—
on just views of human, nature and
the teachings of history.
OUGHT THESE THINGS TO GO ON ?
Wepnt the case to'any honest and
true man at the North: Can you conceive
of a form of Tyranny more odious ? If
your people were the victims of such a
sectional tyranny, would you submit to
it, if you could help yourselves ? Do
you desire to perpetuate it ? Was it your
object, in the war, to subject'the South
to such tyrannical usurpation ? No such
object having been avowed, oughtitnow
to be pufinto effect?
If you would harmonize the country,
it'must be on the basis of justice and
equality. Else will not our subjection
be what yours would be, and what that
of any people deserving to be free ought
to be—sullen? The perpetuation of the
present mode of administering the Gov
ernment is worse than any change in its
form, or in the extent of territory it
covers.
Not justice, but injustice, is a war
breeder. You haye no real interest to op
press ns; all your interest lies in the com
mon prosperity. Plunder, the only plau
sible reason, holds not. It is no more
your interest, than your bnsiness, to op
press us.
Will you extinguish all hope of patriot
ism the most sincere, and make loyalty a
by-word and reproach—the symbol of
willing and. accepted servitude ?
We have been speaking of Principles.
It remains now to speak of Facts. The
experiment of sectional administration
has been tried upon a grand scale. The
fruits of this Upas tree have ripened,
and are subject to inspection and analy
sis. Wrongs and evils have grown up,
in comparison with which, the causes of
the first Revolution of ’76, and the sec
ond of *61, are as a pimple to a cancer.
A brief review of salient points of facts
will require another number.
k THE REAL OBJECT OF. CONSOLIDATION.
Thegigai tic strides towards consolida
[Conamunicatecl.]
Greeley on State Rights and Central-
■ ism.
A writer in the Atlanta Constitution, of
yesterday, using the signature of “Fair
Play,” is pleased to say that he regards
“Right Reason” “as an unfair criti
cism of Mr. Greeley’s exposition and ap
proval of the Cincinnati Platform,” and,
he adds:
“ We are surprised that the writer
“ should so far forget the duties and ob-
“ ligations of the hour as to misinterpret
“ or misrepresent Mr. Greeley for party
“ purposes.”
Nobody will accuse “Fair Play” of any
party purpose—at least, not of any Demo
cratic Party purpose.
This language effectually breaks down
the bar o* courtesy whicb is perpetually
invoked just now by a class of persons
who are pursuing an object which they
are exceedingly unwilling to have char
acterized by its proper name. That ob
ject is nothing less than the destruction
of the Democratic Party, and the stealing
from the people of a sanction of, not only
the miscalled 14th and 15th Amendments
of the Constitution, bnt of the Radical
interpretation of those usurpations.
This was the object of the New De
parturists from-the beginning, and it is
now the object of the same persons, who
aye artfully and. assiduously laboring to
persuade the Democratic Party to sup
port Mr. Greeley, who is the zealous ad
vocate of those miscalled Amendments,
and is, of all living men to-day, the ablest
and most authoritative exponent of that
interpretation of them which spawned
the Enforcement Acts, and the Ku-Klux
Act, with, its suspension of the Habeas
Corpus in a time of profound peace.
This class of persons know full well
that these miscalled Amendments are not
parts of the Constitution, since they have
never been either proposed or ratified in
the modes prescribed by the Constitu
tion itself for proposal and ratification.
This has been demonstrated again and
again, and not even an attempt has been
made to refnte it.
But since it cannot be denied, the ne
cessity of the Centralists requires them
to evade it; and, accordingly, they are
most industriously engaged in the work
of its evasion. They are constantly endea
voring to persuade the people that they
cannot get rid of these usurpations, and
that they ought, for that reason, to accept
them as parts of the Constitution. They are
constantly endeavoring to make the im
pression that the people actually have ac
quiesced in and accepted them as parts of
the Constitution, right in the teeth of the
notorious fact that the very last expres
sion of popular opinion in the Northern
States themselves, on the direct question
of negro suffrage, was against one of
these so-called Amendments; and right
in the teeth of the plain Constitutional
truth that no acquiescence or acceptance
of the people can serve the purpose of
making additions to the Constitution,
save only such acquiescence and accep
tance as are expressed in the Constitu
tional mode of ratification, after a pro
posal in the Constitutional mode.
And now comes “Fair Play,” and con
tributes his mite to the work of misrep
resentation, by quoting a resolution of
the present Democratic Legislature of
this State, as authority to support Mr.
Greeley in asserting, as “Fair Play” says
he “simply means to assert, that it is the
duty of the people of the United States,
or of the several States, to obey the fun
damental law of the land;” that is to
say, the fundamental law of the land,
including the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments' as parts of it', for it is only
to these Amendments that Mr. Greeley
can possibly refer, when he speaks of
the Central Government’s “solemn Con
stitutional obligation to maintain the
equal rights of citizens. ”.
It was perfectly true, just as the reso
lution of the Legislature declared, that
Bullock’s statement to the effect that the
people of Georgia had recently denounc
ed or ignored the Constitution of the
United States, was false; but it is not
true that the resolution says or was meant
to say, or to intimate, that the so-called
14th and 15th Amendments were parts
of the Constitution of the United States.
I have no idea that such a declaration
could have received the sanction of the
Legislature, and I know that it could not
have received the sanction of many
members who voted for that resolution.
Bullock’s statement was false, whether
the so-called Amendments formed parts
of the Constitution or not; and, there
fore, that question was not, and could
not be, iuvolved in the denial of his state
ment.
It is also true, as the resolution de
clared, that the people iof- Georgia did
not then (nor do they now,) “deny to
any person within the limits of the State,
the equal protection of the law;” but it
is not true that the resolution affirmed,
or was intended to intimate, that all
persons “within the limits of the State,”
had “equal rights" Much lees was it
intended to say that the rights of the
persons within the limits of this State,
(whatever those rights might be,) were
derived from tbe so-called Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Amendments.
. “Fair Play” strangely “misinterprets,
or misrepresents” this resolution of the
Legislature; and veiy strangely, he
seems not to Jcnow that the difference
between protection of the rights of the
citizens of the States by the Slates them
selves, and the assumption of maintain
ing those rights by the Central Govern
ment, is just the difference between
Slate Rights and Centralism. Whenever
the State of Georgia extends “the equal
protection of the law” to her citizens,
that is State action, and it is all right;
whenever the Central Government under
takes to do the same thing for Georgia,
that is usurpation, centralism, Greeleyism.
“Fair Play” seems to suppose that
whatever the Legislature may do for the
equal proteotion of its people, may also
Vbe done by the Central Government.
He is perfectly logical, therefore, in sup
porting Greeley; for that is the very quint
essence of Greeleyism.
• “Right Reason” has neither “mis
interpreted nor misrepresented’’ Mr.
Greeley’s letter of acceptance in any par
ticular.
It is too plain for dispute that, in this
letter, he makes the rights of the States
to regulate their own internal policy, the
sacredness of the Habeas Corpus in time
of peace, the superiority of the Civil over
the Military Power, and every thing else,
subordinate to the views which the Cen
tral Power shall have of its “solemn
Constitutional obligation to maintain the
equal rights of citizens.”
What Mr. Greeley’s views are concern
ing this “solemn Constitutional obliga
tion,” is clearly proved by the Enforce
ment Acts, and the Ku-KIux Act, with
the suspension of Habeas Corpus, under
which poor Carolina is now groaning and
bleeding.
All of these despotic, usurpatory and
outrageous acts, were advocated by him,
and advocated as what was demanded by
“our solemn Constitutional obligation to
maintain the equal rights of citizens.”
This was the very cry raised in chorus
by Greeley, Grant, Morton, Butler and
Sumner.
And now Mr. Greeley has the cool
effrontery to ask Democrats to rally to
the music of that same bloody Radical
slogan ! None will do so who are guided
by Eight Reason.
Tlxe Voice of trie True Democracy.
County, Ohio, May 23,1872.
Editors Atlanta. Sun: Inclosed I hand
you $9 for the Weekly Sun, to be sent to
the following names: * - * *
I will send you more names before
long. I hope you will ever remain, as
you have been in the past, true to Dem
ocratic Principles, and not do as the Cin
cinnati Enquirer, the Ohio Statesman,
and some other papers of this State—
shout for Greeley. That is not the kind
of Democracy we have in county.
We will not vote for Greeley if he is
nominated at Baltimore, or at any other
Convention. We intend to vote for a
sound Democrat, and nothing else.
Yours truly,
City, Co., Mo. )
May 23d, 1872. [
Editors Atlanta Sun : Please send me
a sample copy of your weekly
at your earliest convenience, I want
to subscribe for it myself, and get
up a club for you, if its appearance and
terms are such as its political character
seems to be. Respectfully,
These are but samples of letters we re
ceive daily.
From the Washington (Ga.) Gazette, 2ilh V.
WLat Should the Democracy Do} 7,
The above is, at present, the all oh
sorbing question with the Democrat?,;
party. It is indeed very strange £u
great national party, with the strength
of the Democracy, should, under fh
present circumstances, pause to ask 6
answer such a qustion. The CincinnaH
nominations, which we looked fortoti
to as likely to split and demora£g
Radical party, seems, from present an
pfearances, about to do more in flint
to the Democracy than to the Radical?
Prominent Democrats are desertim?
going over to the opposition.
cratic newspapers all over the land«?I
changing their tone, and are eit£
openly advocating the indorsement nil
support of the Radical ticket bv
Democracy, or are insidiously pavine [hi
way to such a course, and are attempting
to educate the popular mind to look
favorably upon the sugar-coated treason
The fact that the Democracy is to-cHv
the strongest party in the field is stndi
ously avoided by these false liparted
Democrats and faithless journals. The
fact that with a straight ont Democratic
ticket we can easily win a glorious victo
ry and restore the Constitution of our
country and bring back prosperity and
good government is kept in the back
ground, concealed and smothered from
the Democratic millions. These pretend
ed Democrats speak to the people as
though there were to be only two promi- ‘
nent tickets in the field, as though the
contest were to be between Grant and
Greeley, and as though the only course
left for us is to choose between the two.
There are but two parties in this com
test (we do not take into consideration
the Prohibitionists or Free Love affairs,)
one is the Democratic and the other is
the Radical. The fight is to he between
these and these alone. He who is not a
Democrat is a Radical, he who is not a
Radical is a Democrat. Grant is a Radi
cal and all his followers are the same.—
Greeley is a Radical and all his followers
are the same. There are but two sides to
the question, there is no middle ground
and there can be no compromise. All those
who endorse Greeley and the Cincinnati
platform should no longer attempt to call
themselves Democrats, but should take
upon themselves the name of -his party
and array themselves under his banner.
They should cease to try to deceive
themselves and the people, by asking
what should the Democracy do? and
which should be the choice, Grant or
Greeley ? All that the Democracy has
to do is to stand where it has always
stood, upon its principles. There is no!
necessity for any change whatever. If
its principles have been right heretofore,
they are right to-day; if Radicalism has
been wrong heretofore, it is wrong to
day, and no logic can make it otherwise.
Simply because there are or will be
two Radical tickets in the field, should
the whole Democratic party run wild and
think it incumbent upon its members to
leave all the old land marks, break ranks
and join together to place one Radical in
power in place of another, instead of tak
ing advantage of the breach in the opposi
tion to preafcforward to certain and easy
victory ? To those who say they are “for
principles and not men,” we would say
there is a vast difference between the Cin-
cincinnati platform and the tenets held
by the Democracy, and all who accept
that platform are necessarily and essen
tially Radicals, and are sailing under
false colors when they call themselves
Democrats. We would ask those who
are for men and not principles, what is
there in Greeley’s past life or present
position that they can approve ? He has
been all bis life the most bitter enemy
the Democracy and the South has ever
had. His past history is too well known
to insult the intelligence of our readers
by recalling it to their minds. He has
been, from the birth of the Radical party,
and is to-day an open, avowed and extreme
Radical.
As a Democrat, with an abiding faith
in the correctness of Democratic princi
ples, we never trouble our brain to de
cide which we prefer, Grant or Greeley.
We have no choieet both are Radicals,
and we are a Democrat, and we are" op
posed to both and to all Radicals and all
Radicalism.
We cannot see why any member of the
party should urge no nomination by the
Democracy. Should none be made, and
the party indorse either one of the Radi
cal candidates, it will never be known as
a party again. Its organization and its
principles will begone forever. So long
as it maintains its organization and con
tinues to battle for its rights, it will live
and will have a prospect of success in
the future, though it suffer defeat after
defeat. But once disband, and all is ir
revocably lost; the Constitution of our
fathers gone, and the letter, spirit and
form of our government entirely and per
manently changed.
It becomes Democrats to think long
and deeply before they go over to Radi
calism. There is no road back, and tho
results of the step should be well studied
before it is taken.
Is it a Case of Intentional Poisoning I
We feel it necessary to state that a very
distressing and mysterious case of gen
eral sickness occurred at the boarding
house of our esteemed neighbor and
friend, Mrs. Overby. It appears that for
supper, last evening, about 8 o’clock, a
chicken salad had been very nicely pre
pared; and that all who partook of it
were attacked with purging and vomit
ing, very similar, in many respects, to
the symptoms of Asiatic Cholera, includ
ing cramps, to which the writer of this
can painfully testify.
Mrs. Overby, herself, was one of those
most seriously affected.
The necessary steps hav- been inaugu
rated to have a portion of this dreadful
dish strictly analyzed. This having been
accomplished, we shall be able to furn
ish the public with additional, and more
satisfactory information.
All who partook of the dish were more
or less affected, in proportion to Ike
quantity eaten.
Mrs. Overby keeps one of the best
boarding houses in Atlanta. Her house
has a high reputation iu this city and
abroad, and is well patronized. We for
bear making further comments till the
case is fully, investigated.
. r.
The Maryland Democratic Con
vention will meet in Baltimore on the
19th of June, to nominate delegates ^o
the National Convention.
fISS?" Pike county Democrats meet on
Mi a 4.Mi nf .TnnA spnrl to At*