Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-11-09
The Fate of "a "war Democrat"

The majority against Gen. Tuttle. in Iowa,
will, it is said. be 2O 600 The later returns only
serve to swell the majority for Col Stone, the
Abolition candidate The Colonel is a "brick,"
and deserves his success he proclaimed from the
stump that he had rather eat with a niger,
live with nigger. sleep with niger" than
with a white man-unless the white man were an
Abolitionist He is entitled to an eection-un-
der the present order of things; and no one need
feel any surprise that his opponent who went
strongly for the war and the men who conduct il,
should have been worse beaten than any Demo
crat of the season The truth IS Gen. Tuttle,
who was forced upon the Democracy of Iowa as
War Democrat" under which paradoxial
term he was to get the votes OF majority of the
"soldiers" as well as thousands of the Admins
tration party, found it losing business to try to
compete with the Abolitonists at their own
trade when they had already got the run of
the business Other things being equal,
that party will generally vote for one of their
own men rather than a so called Democrat who
bids for their votes We do not know that Gen.
Tuttle did this; we are bound 10 believe him an
honorable man, and he is known TO be brave
soldier He may, for aught we know, be utterly
opposed TO such course; but his position was
certainly an unfortunate one. His "war" prin
ciples did not him, any more than "Yar"
candidate would have saved the Connecticut
election to the Democracy last spring, if they
had done what the New York Tribune (after the
election) said they should have done in order to
carry the State-namely, put upa less thoroughly
anti war candidate than Gov Sesmour. The
Infamous conduct of the Administration party
here in removing from the Bench. for purely
partizan purpose, two such able jurists and
unobectionable men as Judge Seymour
and Judge Waldo, quite conclusvely
disproves the claim that with what are
called moderate men, on the war question for
their candidates the Democracy would secure any
considerable portion of the Republican vote. If
the spotless integrity and deservedly high char
acter of two such Judge Waldo and
Judge Seymour could not avail to save them
from the relentless partisan prescription of aboli
tionism, nor the Bench from being transformed
into partisan tribunal, wi at could be expected
of any man, in any position? Least of all could
there be reasonable hope of ele ting Demo
crat in Iowa merely on the strength OF his war"
principles. such position hurts, not helps him,
even with his own party Ana as for abolition
ISM it fights no more fercely Valandigham in
Ohio than it does Seymour in New York. In
deed, the latter gentleman has been quite BIT
teriy and unjustly assailed by these Jacobins as
ever Vallandigham was. Ii shows that it is a
great mistake for Democrats to imagine that they
can pIacate the bowling iend, abolitionism. or
gain even dearly purchased ephemeral success,
by putting up distinctive "war men for their
candidates. The Democracy have ever stood on
principle, and they can least afford nov, of all
times TO make any concessions TO their opponents,
which only have the effect to diminish their own
vantage ground and make their defeat at all times
more complete. They can afford to bide their
time. They have the proud consciousness of
having al,oays been the friends Of the Union and
| the uuholders Of the Constitution-now, in this
midnight tempest Of Abolition tyranny and CEN
tralization, in the days before the outbreak of
the war, when they were sEeercd at as "Union.
savers" by those who at present arrogate to
themselves all the "loyalty" and all the friend
ship for the Union. Is IL for the Democrats to
try TO compete with their sectional opponents in
bids for the votes of such a partyf To do so
would be to abandon not only the hope. but the
means, Of restoring the eUnion.-Hartford Times