The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-05-28


ro,., e.2ss eoss 5sos
Goggn majority as reported. ..........222 5
wises msJorty Ia the same counties in ls55.... SO
Opposition gain in nine counties ..............226 I
Anything near this ratio of opposition gains
throughout the State would not only overcome
the ten thousand majority of Governor
Wise, but would elect Goggin by twenty
thousand majority-there being one huu-
bred and forty.four counties in the State
But these reported gains will be subjected
to many heavy drawbacks-6rst, in the
figures themselves, when the full vote of
the counties reported comes in; second
ly, in the Letcher gains in the western division
of the State. Thus, bearing in mind the first
returns of the Virginia election of 1855, we are
not disposed to PREJUDICE the defeat Of Letcher.
When we consider that Wise secured ma
jority in 1855 Of 10000, upon an aggregate
vote Of 100000, equal to majority Of 10000 in
New York upon full VOTE and considering that
the Virginia opposition party in 1856 were SO
dispirited that they permitted the State to go
for Mr.. Buchanan by nearly 10000 majority, it
taxes our credulity to entertain the dea in 1859,
Of the election of the opposition candidate for
Governor of Virginia. In any event it is manifest
that while the opposition elements Of Virginia
have been brushing up and making vigorous
fight, the democracy have suffered a moral, if
not a mortal defeat, in the very Scbastopol Of
the party-the Old Dominion.
What has become of that heavy Virginia
majority Of thirty thousand for Mr.. Buchanan?
And how is it that, under the prestige of that
majority, the party has failed to do as much for
Mr.. Letcher as they did for Mr.. Wise? The reason
is, that ever since Mr.. Buchanan's election the
selfish plotting and intriguing politicians of the
party have been at work mining and counter
mining, plotting and counter plotting, North
and South, against the administration and
against each other for the Charleston Convention
and the spoils and plumber of the succession.
Thus we find the democracy in both sections cut
up into conflicting factions and cliques; and thus,
from the treacheries rivalries and hostile Presi-
Dental cliques among the party in Virginia, the
opposition have been encouraged to rise for the
conquest Of the State. If they have succeeded,
they owe their success to the demoralizations in
the democratic camp; but if the opposition have
failed, it is because they have failed to appre
ciate and properly to appropriate the real weak
ness of their adversary.
1t is remarkable fact that the sectional and
actious leaders and Presidential aspirants of the
democratic party, North and South, have We'd
with each other in their efforts to break down
Mr.. Buchanan's administration. For example,
the Northern anti Lecompton democracy have
made war upon the administration, and joined
the republicans in the charge that it has been
faithless to the rights Of the North and has sold
itself to the " slave power" while the Southern
6re-eaters have as bitterly denounced the Presi-
dent as an cold Northern federalist" and q
traitor to the South" Between these extremes,
we think, it is perfectly clear that Mr.. Buchanan
has pursued that broad, conservative, national
policy indispensable to an honest administration,
and equally essential to the unity of the demo-
cratic party. But the party is broken to pieces,
North and South, from the conflicting intrigues
Of jealous and ambitious sectional leaders; and
thus it is highly probable that the contest of
1860 viii be to the demoralized democracy what
the contest Of 1852 was to the old whig party
its final defeat and dissolution.
We know that this impression very extensively
prevails among men Of all parties-that they
"feel it in their bones," as we have heard the
| opinion expressed and we know that the mar
row escape of the democracy in 1885, and their
subsequent defeats, defections and divisions
have furnished the most substantial reasons for
| this opinion. But we do not surrender the field
to the anti slavery republican party. It is mani
fest that there can be no coalition between then
and The opposition elements Of the South. This
| Virginia election has been fought by the opposi
ton party Of that State as conservative pro
slavery party and in Kentucky and Tennessee
they occupy the same antagonistic ground
| against the black republicans From the gene
raj appearance Of things in Kentucky and Tennes
see, we have every reason to expect that in Au
gust next the opposition will carry those two
States In that event we shall have at once in
those important conservative slave States, and in
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
and Missouri, and in the southern border free
States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and ILL
nois, the materials for a powerful conservative
third party in 1860, competent to carry the Presi-
Dental election into Congress, and competent
I there to control it.
We see enough in the returns Of this Virginia
| election, and in the peculiar principles of the
Southern opposition elsewhere, to perceive that
there must and will be third party in the field
for the succession and taking into account the
disbanded Americans old line wings and dis.
gusted democrats, there will be materials enough
TO give this third party in 1860 a half dozen o.
the central States, including both sides OF Mason
and Dixons line and the Ohio river. Thus
while we recognise in this Virginia election a
new sign in the South of the overthrow of the de-
moralized democratic party, we also recognise
in it the nucleus Of new party which may de-