Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1840-06-18
NORTH BEND, Dec. 81, 1891.
From the Baltimore American.

PARTY NAMES-lt is curious to note how
the old designation Of parties are applied Tn,
terms democrat" and "federaIst," once usec
in reference to actual distinctions, are nov
affixed with little or no meaning, as mere word
TO win popularity or TO excite prejudice. Iii,
very well known that the Federal party as
such ceased to exist long ago When President
MoNRoE'S administration came to a close, all
the candidates for the Presidential chair belong.
ed othe Democratic party, AMI each was sup
ported by his friends on grounds of a personal
nature. The old Federal party was diStrbu.
ted among the several divisions, some support.
ing Mr. Adams, some joining with the friends
ot Mr. Crawford, others tavourng Mr. Clay,
aud many allying themselves with the party
which sought to bring Gen jackson into pow.
Ter. When the contest came on afterwards be
tween MIR. Adams and Gen. Jackson, some Of
the most distinguished names among the Fed
eralists were found on the list of those who
Iorganized and concentrated the powerful oppo,
Sitons which defeated the reelection OF Mr.
Adams. Ills we'll konwn that many Of the
prominent men who now sustain rank rs lea
ders under the administration of Mr.. Van Bl>
rem were FederaIists. We say this without
intending reproach-but because it is matter
Of fact. The old Federal party having become
decomposed, the individual members of: had
certainly the right to choose among the Dem
ocratic candidates, and to consult their owr
preferences in supporting this one or that,
The strangeness Of the matter is that the Ad
ministration party, with ultra FederaIsts
among its prominent leaders, should claim Il
be the Democratic part, and that the Wing;
should be called Federalists.
But perhaps upon second thought, it is mol
SO surprising after all that the party in power
should resort TO such means Of warfare. There
is SO little in the principles Of the Wings 10 be
dlsapproved of by the people, and so much thai
would gain general assent if the whole subjec
we're fairly presented, that we may find in
these facts some excuse for the industry with
which the Administration journals have re.
course to names and epthets intended 10 con
vey uniavorabIe impressions. If the doctrines
ofthe Wings are sound and cannot be impugn>
| ed, there is yet one resource le(t-they can be
called Federalsts. To every thing that is al.
vanced, whether in the way of proposing a
good measure or Of defeating bad lone the re
Iply is ready-it is Federal movement. This
course saves trouble, and requires no argu-
ment.
For ourselves we are quite Indifferent about
the names which the Administration party may
choose TO take to ITSELF Their principles and
policy show sufficient grounds OF opposition,
no matter by what name the party may be
called. We should not object to Mr.. BucH.
ANAN, for instance, that he had once been a
FederaIlst-it is enough to know that gentle.
man is an advocate of the Sub Treasury. Sol
OF the party collectively. There is no need of
travelling 1beyond the records of the last ten
years 10 find ample grounds Of objection. The
question now at issue does not refer back ,oI
party distinctions which prevailed forty years
aSo-bul it stands on its own merits. The
eVi's oil the Government policy, are Of present
exlstence-they are known and felt they have
no reference TO the oIdquestion between Dem
ocrats and Federalists. Such terms are with.
out meaning, and have on application 10 the
present state Of things The points in dispute
between the old democratic and federal, pa rites
we're settled long ago.