The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1864-10-27
The Democracy and the Union
The LinCOIniteS and Slavery.

\ recent editorial of the New York
Times, the Lincoln organ of that city,
Contains the following statement:
There has never been time when Val
landigham, and Fernando Wood, and
Seymour did not profess an unalterable
determination never to give up the Union.
Ga that matter we can cheeriully bear
witness that their record is clear from the
start. They have always protested the
necessity of keeping the Union unbroken.
Of course these men
are for contir led union with the South.
They are not such fools as not to know that
their only chance fer future political pow
er lies in the support Of the South. The
Democratic party. for generation, has
had its chief strength N the South. Gut
the South loose from the Union, ana the
old hulk OF the party wouit shoot 10 the
bottom IN an instant and carry down with
1t every copperhead of every stripe 1t Is
no part Of the eopperhead plan to conn., II
any suicide. We conceGe hat the whole
species-those that are spotted and those
that are all OF color, those with straight
tongues and those with forked tongues.
those that cast their skin every season and
those that don't--are all alike for the
Union"
The above statement and admission of
the Times, says the Cincinnati Enquirer,
will strike most Lincoinites With amaze
men.. They have been taught the very
reverse ever since the war began. What,
Yallandigharn for the Union . Fernando
Wood for the Union. Seymour for the
Union "Of course" SAYS the Times,
"these men are for a continued Union
with the South "They are not such
fools as not to know that thier only chance
for future political power lie. in the support
of the South ~
Had any of the blatant fools among the
Linco.nites, who haze been denouncing
Democrats as ''disunionists, and as "anx-
.ous for separation, been possessed of a
grain of sense, and grain of honesty, they
would have seen and acknowledged that it
was not for the interests of the Democratic
party to have the Union dissolved; on the
contrary, that it was for its interest to keep
the Union unbroken. They would also
have seen and acknowledged. that it was
for the interests of the Republican purity
TO have the Union dissolved; so that it
could forever remain in power at the North
The Democratic party has always been
the Union party in this country. To such
an extent did it sacrifice its sentiments to
preserve the Union, that previous to the
war il was sneered at by the Republican
presses, stump speakers, and pulpit IRA
tors, as the "Union saving party" and its
members as Union savers" The great
difference between the Democratic and
Republican parties, during the campaign
was, that the former preferred the Union
with slavery rather than dissolution and
civil war to destroy slavery; the latter
preferred the destruction of slavery thro'
civil war rather than the union with sla-
very. The Republicans, not by majority
of the people, but through the forms of
the Constitution, unfortunately got the
opportunity to carry out their preference,
and the country is now rsaping in misery
the fruits of abolition policy.
The Democratic party is anxious now,
as heretofore, to preserve the Union. They
are willing that slavery shall remain unit
the people of the South in their own good
time shall abolish it rather than not have
the Union; and they prefer the Union be
fore slavery. Tie Union with them is the
first consideration; slavery is secondary
matter. Therein they differ from the
Lincoln party, which prefers the over
throw of slavery to the Union; and viii
not have the Union unless slavery is abol
i,hed. Which is really the better Unior
psrty--the Democratic or the Lincoln
rsrte-r sot hard "a is,srmins