The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1863-06-25

country was engaged in war with Great Bri-
tain, there were as now two parties, war
party and a party opposed to the war. The
party that cordially supported the war did not
scruple TO denounce the members of the anti
war party as enemies of the country. From
that day to this the name "Federalist" has
been furnished, and considered by those who
sympathize with the war party of that day as
term of opprobrium, simply because it was
the party name of those who Withheld their
cordial sympathy from the government. stig-
matized the war as "Jim Madison's war;" and
by their GOODNESS and indifference if not by
acts of more overt character, sought to para
lyze the arm of the nation put forth to achieve
the independence of the seas-to vindicate
the great doctrines of "free trade and sailors
rights"
Again in 1857, when the government
was prosecuting war with Mexico, while
one OF the great political parties lent to the
government the full measure of its influence,
and was profuse in willingness to furnish men
and means, the other party, if it did not OPP
pose the war, at least did not willingly en-
dorse the policy which resulted in conflict of
arms, nor sing hallelujahs over the victories
that perched upon our banners. The motto
of the war party of that day was, "Our coun-
try, right or wrong" No language was too
severe or denupciatory to be used by the
friends Of the war against those who watched
its progress with Indifference. They were
charged with infidelity to their country, and
an American President in his annual message,
held them up as traitors-a class Of criminals
to whom our laws mete out the most extreme
punishment. ae7s
We need not say that in both of the wars
referred to, the Democratic party was the war
party; nor need we add, that from 1912 to
1850, the Democratic party boosted of being
always and invariably on the side of the coun-
try in time Of war, of never expressing sympa-
thy for the public enemy, and as often and as in
variably charged the opposition with being
"the war party in peace and the peace party
in war;" in other words, with being opposed
to the government, simply because it had SO
uniformly opposed the administration of that
government Every careful reader OF the po-
litical history Of our country, and every one
who has mixed freely in political circles, lis
tened to political discussions, or attended po-
litical campaign meetings, knows that this
fact OF the steadlastness of the Democratic
party to the government in time of war, has
been regarded as its browning glory.
Ask an old Democrat what fact stands out
more radiantly than any other in the long
history OF his party, and ten to one he will
point you to this. Every Democratic conven-
tion garnishes its resolutions with fulsome
praise of the loyalty of the party to the
country. Every platform laid down by the
party, from the time it crucfied the first prin-
ciple of Democracy-the majority rule-and
Martin Van Buren, together, on the two-thirds
plank, and inaugurated the reign of small and
obscure men, down to that which crucifed the
patriot Douglas and released the robber
Breckenridge, has been puttied up and var
nished over with this same boast of uniform
devotion to the country, and of unwavering
support of its cause in all times of calamity
and danger. Even now, in these times of rebel
lion, the same party claims that its principles,
its restoration to power and its authority can
alone restore peace, and place the country
once more on the high tide of prosperity;
and this claim is based on the alleged past
fidelity of the party to the country in seasons
of danger and trial.
Now, admitting that in all past wars the
Democratic party has supported the govern
ment, and done SO unwaveringly and persist
emily, we have practical question to propose.
Has that support been prompted by PATRIOT
ISM, or has it been simply the UNFOLDING OF
MERE PARTY PoLIcYp
This may seem like asingularly uncharitable
question, and old fogy Democrats may see in it
a sacrilegious attempt to tear from their brows
the garlands which they, Of all men, are enti-
tied to wear; but stin, we insist that the ques-
tion should be looked squarely in the face. Let
1t be borne in mind that never till now has the
patriotism Of the Democratic party been put
to practical test in time of war. In the wars
of the past-lS12-15 and ls46-7-Democratic
administrations were in power. The war of
1872 was declared by Democratic Congress
and the declaration was both recommended
and approved by Democratic President In
supporting that war the Democratic party
was only supporting a measure Of Its o,cn
chosen administration. TWAS actingexactly
in the line indicated by party policy. Their
support of the government looked to an out
slider like patriotism; perhaps it was patriot
ism; but then it was also precisely what par
ty demanded, and it might have been suggest
ed only by considerations of a purely partisan
character. On the other hand, the Federalists
of that day, who opposed the war, were out of
power, and in opposing the war, denying its
wisdom and justice, and Withholding from 1t
their sympathy and support, they might have
urged precisely the same plea put forth by the
opponents of the present war; that they loved
the government and would gladly uphold it,
and only opposed and withheld sympathy from
the administration.
So in 1867, the war was brought about I'M
der Democratic administration. A Demo-
cratic President approved it and urged its
claims upon the American people. A Demo
cratic Congress recognized it as "existing by
act of Mexico" and all the considerations of
party success and party pride combined to
make the Democratic party feel response
biity for and support the war. They might,
in standing by the country, have been actuat-
ed by patriotism, but it is equally true that
they might have been governed by no higher