The mountain Democrat., 1863-10-03
sustain the Administration in all cOnstitu.

-.-4.-S> 'f.-s>- &eSSSStIse the laws OF the
Union" and suppress insurrectiOn."
All that l concede, and much more /;
and yet | deny that the breaking out Of
the rebellion made it the duty OF Demo-
Gratis to give up their party organization.
On the point in controversy, Admins.
tratiOn logic is generally to the effect fol-
lowing:
Everybody is for the Union, or against
il: therefore, ell who are for the Union,
should unite IN one Union party
Everybody is for or against murder.
robbery, perjury, theft and forgery, but
it would surely be novel proposition,
that we must have separate party Organi-
cations on all those issues.
Everybody is for the Constitution Of
the United States or against it. Willthe
friends Of the Administration tell US which
side Of that question they Occupy2
But it will, perhaps, be said that it is
not proposed to form political parties ex-
cept with reference to matters Of general,
great and overShadowing importance, and
that the preservation Of the Union was so
important as to justify the organization o.
aparty upen the paramount issue, "Shall
the Union be preserved ?" ,,.
How, on the breaking out of the rebel
ion, was such a theory to be carried
out in practice? Who was to do the
thinking for the party? Was one man to
think for the whole party? Were de-
signated few to think for it? Or was ev.
cry man in the party to do his own share
Of thinking? If one man did all the
thinking, and he chose to "give up the
Union to dissolution" the party, of course,
would concur. The same result might
follow il the thinking were done by de.
Signated few. If every man in the party
thought for himself there would be di'
verSity Of opinion which would be unfa.
vOrable to unity Of plan and concert Of
action.
Among those who wished the war car
ried on, some we're not for prosecuting it
unless to put down rebellion, and others
were not for prosecuting it unless to put
down slavery. How we're they TO unite ?
How we're Democrats. Republicans and
Abolitionists to unite? Were they to
join together each man retaining his opin.
ions? Ifso, what sort of a party would
it be? If opinions were to be given up,
who was to make the surrender? Were
Democrats to turn Abolitionists, or Abo
litioniStS to turn Democrats? Could any
man change his mode Of thinking merely
in consequence Of the formation Of q new
party? Would there not be as much d.
versity Of thought after as before the for
nation of the party? What progress,
then, would be made towards unity oil
pau ouu uCtiOuT
The Democracy had, from the very be.
ginning opposed the principles Of the Alb
olition and Republican parties. Again
and again, had they demonstrated against
iaUsc principles SSendange. iag S2Se Union
Again and again had the Republicans and
Abolitionists denied that the success ot
their principles would bring on a war
Upon the breaking out Of the rebellion.
they stood convicted before the public as
having been deceived themselves, or as
having wilfully deceived the people, -
Had they themselves been deceived, with
out unblushing impudencc they could not
again ask the people to confide in their
judgment. Had they been wilful deceiv-
ers, no confidence was to be placed in
their "eracity. The war. therefore, in.
stead of furnishing additional evidence in
favor Of Republicanism and Abolitionism,
afforded q strong argument the other way.
The Republicans and Abolitionists
we're under strong necessity Of diverting
public attention from themselves. They,
therefore, chose to change their names,
and to call themselves Union men," If
! were to call myself "John Smith,"
would certainly remain the same man |
am at present. The Republican or Abo-
litionist who calls himself "Union mar" "
is just the same man he was before. 1t
should be borne in mind that the men as
suming the new name, do not claim to
have abandoned an opinion or principle.
The change, therefore, has been in name
only.
Not only has the Administration car.
ried out, in practice, all that was ever
deemed Objectionable in the Chicago
platform, but by aboIishing slavery in
the District of Columbia, recommending q
system Of compensated emancipation, and
issuing the emancipation proclamation, It
has adopted an Abolition policy. The is
sue, therefore, is distinctly made up A
choice must be made between Democratic
and Abolition policy the former policy
that has always tended to Union; the
latter, policy that has always tended to
disunion. '--
To erring Democrats, who argue that
we ought to give up our organization, |
have few questions to propound:
Are not Dem ocrAtic principles as good
now as they ever wereS Have they not
been as good since the breaking out of
therebellion as they were before? While
.,a,, a. roka ~