Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1862-06-25
The Leader VS.. Union.

The Leader VS.. Union.
The Cleveland Leader of Saturday last
ventures a reply TO our article of last week
in reference to the Union Party. W,
canno see that it relieves itself, by it.
subsequent efforts, of the suspicious thai
must inevitably attach to any who MAY
suggest the disbandment of the Cnior
organization of Ohio, for reasons so purely
partizan and personal, as advanced 10y
that paper. The question being an i'm
portant one, we will refer to it again.
Speaking of the workings of the plan
last fall, the Leader says:
The Chronicle truly says that the Unior
party was to waive past differences ana
effect a cooperation of all parties that they
might present a united front against the
rebellion and in support of the admins
tration. But was the contract fulfilled by
the Democratic party? 1t WAS certainly
as binding upon them as upon Republic
cans. The latter did ~honorably give NJ
all party spirit and enter heartily into the
Union movement the former gave nc
united or even general support to the
movement, but nominated \ distinctive
ticket and drew off much more than hal
their strength from the Union platform
albeit that platform was framed with dis
tinct avoidance of anything obnoxious Il
the Democracy.
The Leader does not quote Us correctly.
We did not say that the Union party =
was to effect a cooperation of all parties
but said it was expected to unite all who
were in favor of a vigorous prosecution OF
the war;" and "tO effect an harmonious
cooperation of all the Union clements"
&c. We did not expect the pr~o-slavery.
Southern sympathizing leaders of the
Democratic party to unite in any such pat
riotic project, more than we did Davis.
Toomhs and Cobb. But we did anticipate
that thousands Of brave, true and loyal
men would unite, and in this we claim
We were not disappointed.
We hope the Leader will not again mis-
quote our remarks to provide for itself a
text from which TO draw differences prcju-
dicial to the Union movement.
The superficial deductions of the Leader
may possibly lead others into its CHROME
Gus way of thinking on this subject. 1t
assumes as admitted points more than the
facts in the case will warrant. In the
first place, there never was a " contract !"
made with the Democratic party. That
party held its conventions, State and
County, prior to the meeting of the Union
Convention, and its Central Committee
refused to issue a call for an Union Party
Convention, but nominated a straight
ticket and adopted q platform full of par
titan bigotry. This course was hot salts
factory to thousands of men who had pre-
viously acted with the Democratic party.
Democrats of this class united with Re-
publicans in signing a call for a State Con-
vention, to be constituted without regard
10 prior political sentiments, provided
they were in favor of sustaining the Adj
ministration in a vigorous prosecution of
the war for the suppression of the rebel
lion" In this patriotic movement the
Democrats, as a party, refused to cooper
ate through their authorized leaders,
But this did not deter thousands of its
individual members from rallying around
the Union standard. 4 State ticket was
nominated, composed of men of all par
ties" which WAS elected, and we believe
they nave been true to every obligation
involved by their nominations. 1t is,
therefore, a waste of words, to complain
of what the democratic party" has re-
fused to do for the sake of the Union
movement. 1t is still. as it has to a great
degree ever been, political machine con-
trolled by the manipulations of a few lead
ers; and hence it was only hoped by the
friends of the Union movement, to draw
off from the Democratic organization,
those minds in it sufficiently patriotic and
independent TO throw off party trammels
in defiance of party dictation, and unite
in the grand movement to consolidate all
the Union sentiment of the State into a
harmonious body. This is what the Union
Party hoped to do. This it did do, and
carried the election with a sweeping ma
jority, in spite of Democratic hostility,
aud can as easily do il again. Asa result,
Ohio, through her Legislative and Exec
utive authorities, has ably and freely
sustained the war policy of the National
Administration. In the Legislature, last
winter, everything hostile to the Presi-
dents policy was crushed out by the unit
ed action of the Union members of that
body, who manfllly did their duty, un-
biased 10y former political predictions.
What more could honorably be claimed
than what has been done by the Union
Party? And now that all have proved
themselves true, would If not be rank in
justice to Ostracise that minority of the
Union party recruited from the Demo
cratic ranks? We put the question plain
", but we think it is to the point. That
is what the policy of the Leader is de-
signed to practically effect. We are con-
fident the great mass Of the Union Party
are averse TO a step so suicidal to its in
t~erests and so distasteful to the truly pat
riotic.
Further. if there are not as urgent rca-
sons fog carrying on the Union movement
this year, as there were for organizing it
last year, we should like tohlre il demon
strated. The country is certainly in quite