The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-05-31
MIR. Seward and the Democrats.


From tBe WorLd.
The Times, in an article of more vigor than
often, in Mr.. Raymond's absence, appears in
its columns, undertakes to shield Mr.. Seward
from the charge of downright Hypocrisy
aimed in its former article at the World, but
shown by us to recoil, with red oubled effect, on
Mr.. Seward himself. The courteous tenor OF its
first article was that the Word was guilty of
downright hypocrisy" in its support of Presi-
dent johnson, inasmuch as it is spoken in a
strain of disparagement against Mr.. Seward,
who supports the President too. We retorted,
with logic practically confessed 10 be ire
sistible, that it was Mr.. Seward himself on
whom the stress Of the Times cenoure fell, in
asmuch as the occasion of our article was
speech IN which he held up the majority of
President Johnson's supporters TO public odium.
The Times being thus made to see that Mr..
Seward stood in the very focus OF its batteries,
lacerated and rijdled by their fire, makes a
desperate, but as will presently appear, unavail-
ing, attempt to rescue him. Virtually admit
ting that II Mr.. Seward did, in his Auburn
speech, cast odlum upon Democrats, he was
exposed TO the full severity OF its accusation
against us, the Times perceives that the only
shield it can nteIpose between him and its
coarse epithet- Is denial of the fact. On such
DENIAL, therefore, the Times is hardy enough
to venture.
TheIe is an old story many times repeated
| from ice Miller" OF an Englishman whO in
writing a letter in a coffee house, discovered
| that an Irishman was taking the same liberty
which Parmenio took with his friend Alexander.
! He thereupon wound up as folloWs-'l would
! say more, but there's a id tall Irishmen read
| ing over my shoulder every word that | write.n
| "YOu lie, you sCoundrel ~ was the indignant
response OF the selr-convicted Hibernian. What
was meant as denial, was an overwhelming
| confession of guilt. Thus il is with the Times
| hiph TpbuTG "a
mated the Democrats by quotation from his
| speech. mot a SENTENCE says the Times, "fell
| from the lips OF Mr.. Seward at Auburn of which
the most tastidious could complain. He was
| concil atory, not calumnious; gentle, and even
| generous in his references; throughout, culti-
| vating temper which a just opponent should
have been the first to appreciate, single
extract will enable us TO demonstrate the un nair-
| ness-shall we say the ialsity ?-Ot the alega-
! itself"
And here is the eXculpatory extract which
| the Times produces with such an ar of conf
| denCe:-
"HON could L emocTats and Rebels be converted to
| the support OF triumphant Union aGm nlstraton?
his was the qgestou everywhere put by the Jealous
leaders o. the Union party. IT was at that moment
that answered that question by asking Others,
| How could Democrats and Rebels avoid being con-
| vertedY Is it not their conversion that you con.
tended tor and that you now desrey expressed the
| Oplnlon that the condition of peace, with its new
| responsibilities, mUst theDce1orth be IN good faith
| accepted l advised prompt and complete recon,
cllauCn win the restoration at once OF the coHstl
| tuhoDal symmetry OF the Union. RejectiI the un-
! generous suspicion that the Rebes and their Demo-
| cratic atettorS were only Changing their political
strategy with traltorOus purposes, l argued that,
| with few and marked exceptions, they were now to
| be received and accepted as fellow citizens and
brethren i urged that this would be safe done,
If only the tired friends OF the administration, re.
maInInP united and aImoniOus and thus retaining
| their justly acquired prestige, should themselves
promptly and magnanimousy secure to the nation
the enjoy OF ardentlY desired peace and inds.
pensablv required prosperity "
Observe the calumnious coupling of names I!
"DemocIats and Rebels" And again: "Demo-
erats and Rebels.n And still again in the same
short paragraph: 'The Rebels and their Demo-
cratic abettors." And these odious classidca-
tons and charges, be it noted, are ali in the pas
sage selected by the Times tIcm the whole
| sIeccb to show that Mr.. Seward was "gentle
and even generous in his Teferences!" to prove
that he "cultiVated temper which lust oppo-
nent should have been the first to appreciate ~
BY what refinement OF studied malice could he
have rendered Democrats more odious to the
| Republican audience he was addressing? What
is it but reiteration, with the cool and passion
less malienity of deliberate afteTthought, of the
standing calumny by which Democrats were as
sailed throughout the war? ...
Suppose that Mr.. Bancroft IN his commemora-
tive oration, had spoken of General Scott in a
similar strain; suppose he had again and again
classed him in the same category with Jefferson
Davis; suppose he had never mentioned General
SCOTS name hut in this odious connect on; sup
pose he had spoken of ''the Rebels and General
Scott their dbftOr;" what friend of General Scott
but would have resented such language as an
imDudent and most outrageous Calumny ?, But
when Mr. Seward, in this manner holds Demo-
Gratis up to public odium, the Times thinks we
are bound, iorsooth, to admire the "gentleness
and even generosity of his references 20 They
are in the very spirit of the most VenomOus
electioreerinr Trades spoued ami spit at Demo.
Gratis during the war;