Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1850-1854, 1854-03-10
Independent Democracy.

been good deal exercised, Of late, about
the term Independent Democracy"
We think it was the Oneida Telegraph,
sometime ago, which, in speaking of the
three parties of Ohio, designated one of
them the Independent Democracy. The
Free Democrat denounced the course of
the Telegraph, as mean and unworthy
one, in thus seeking te give the great Free
Democratic Party a name it had repudia-
ted in solemn Convention assembled, and
said there was no such party as the In
/ dependent Democracy in Ohio.
At another time it charged the Notion
al Era with a medling, ofticious, domin-
eering, unmaliy course, in persisting to
call the party which nominated John P.
Hale for President the Independent De-
mocracy."
Only few days ago, when we said that
our sympathies were with the Independ-
ent Democracy, but that we should not
De its organ or partizan, it took occasion
to say we probably meant the Free De-
mocracy, as there was no Independent
Democratic Party in the State or Nation,
but that it had no objection to our or
ganizing such party if we chose.
Why this much ado about name? Are
names principles that they are deemed
so essential? What matter is it. whether
the name under which men act be Adolf
tionism, Liberty -partyism, Freesoilism,
Free Democracy, Land Reform or indie
pendent Democracy,so that the principles
urged are right.
The Free Democrat denounces the Dem
ocratic and Wing Parties, because they
adhere to their old organizations and
names SO tenaciousiy, after the principles
which were the cause Of their original or
carnations have all been changed aban-
doned, or no longer applicable. Is it not
doing precisely the same thing it denoun-
.ces so severely in them? Paying more
regard to the name gifts party than to the
principles it represents?
1t is precisely this course which has
brought SO much disrepute upon the or
ganization in this State. The Free Dem
ocrdt, being in the metropolitan town of
the State, has had the widest circulation,
and has been regarded as the leading
paper devoted to the Freesoil Cause. 1t
has severely denounced Democrats and
Wings, and made terrible ado about the
name and organization of its Party; but
has been the first to abandon both every
year since it has been published.
In lS49 it took the lead in trying to
bring about a union with the Democratic
Party, under the name, not of Free, but
Union Democracy. This effort failed. In
1850 it joined enthusiastically in getting
up Pe0pie's-not Free Democratic
Party, in the Charter Election of its City.
In 1851 it took the lead in procuring the
nomination of Gov. Farwell, knowing
that he was not a Free Democrat, but
claimed to be Wing; and knowing, too,
by arrangement. that the Wing Party
would also nominate him, which it did,
and which nomination he accepted for
mally. In 1S52itrefuscdt to support again
the Peoples Party, in the City Charter
Election, but supported instead, with all
its fOrce,-not the Free-but the Old
Line Democratic Party, and its editor
himself consented to run for the Common
Council as Regular Old Line Democratic
Nominee. In 1858 it was loud in repu-
dating thenceforth all coalitions and com
promises, and insisted on separate,
thorough distinct, and permanent organ
ization of the Free Democratic Party.
The writer of this proposed, in a some
what elaborate article addressed - the
voters of the State, that an open coalition
be made with the Wing Party, in the
nomination Of candidates which would he
acceptable TO the liberal men of all par
ties. The Free Democrat repudiated this
suggestion.and insisted on a separate, dis
tinct nomination. Such nomination
was made And yet the name of the ed
itor of that paper was published as one
Of the getters up Ofthe the Peoples Tick
ct. composed of both the Wing and
Free Democratic Tickets, and the paper
ardently supported it. 1t was the very
coalition made clandestinely without the
consent of the mass of either parties, which
the writer of this propos ed to do openly
AID fairly, and which the Free Democrat
at that time repudiated; and what is
noteworthy coincidence, the ticket finally
agreed on was almost identical with the
one the writer suggested. In the same
number in which it finds fault with our
using the name Independent Democra-
cy." it proposes Peoples Convention"
to be composed of all parties opposed to
Douglass Nebraska Bill, to be held at
| Madison.
| We wish that paper to understand that
we are not here finding fault with its
course in supporting governmental prin-
pies and measures. We approve 1t,
in that respect, and agree with 1t in the
main. Neither do we question its right,
or its consistencygas an independent pa
per. to support such men, and such meas
ures. at such times, and III such manner.
| A. IL r1lnaSes.