The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-08-27
General Grant and the DemOcracy-Th
... Lessons of Past Elections. #...

General Grant and the Democracy The
-..H Lessons of Past Elections. #.H.
Front the ~. Y. Herald.
The Democracy, in fighting the unparalleled
assumptions of power, extravagances, corrup.
uons, and grinding taxations Of the present
radical Congress, have sufficient material for a
vigorous and effective campaign against the
Republican party and its Presidential ticket of
Grant and Colfax. Very few of the Demo
cratic leaders, orators, or organs, however
have the sagacity or prudence to seize the
advantages which are offered them in the usur-
pations and crimes and plumbers of the radi-
Gals, while avoiding the dangers of attempting
to disparage the public services and blaokeu
the character of General Grant. But no poll
tical party can safely ignore or disregard the
lessons OF past elections in reference to the
merits of principles or candidates.
For instance, in the campaign Of 1928, be-
tween Jackson and Adams-a campaign which
marked new organization Of parties-the
Adams party unwisely adopted the policy Of
general hue and cry against Jackson, as
man whose personal record and character
would make his election lasting disgrace to
the country. Thus he was presented in the
administration newspapers in pamphlets, aud
bandbills, including coffin handbills, and on
the stump, as one Of the most infamous cha
racters that ever existed. As a soldier he
was denounced as a tyrsnt and butcher, and
also as an impostor, for his victories, it was
contended, were due to other men. AS a
civilian his qualifications were below medic
Gritty. He was an ignoramus, who could
not write single sentence correctly,
and who knew but little more Of affairs of
state than an untamed Choctaw. As a citi-
zen his character was that of a Southern
backswood rufian, ever seeking occasion for
the exercise Of pistol or bowie knife, and dan.
IN frto de md II
over, represented as duellist guilty of deli
berate murder, a shameless adulterer, and a
rowdy hero of cross-road taverns, horse races,
and political barbecues. In short, II the sup
porters of Adams could be believed, a more
scandalous and detestable nomination could
not have been made for the Presidency than
that of Andrew Jackson. Yet he was elected
by a very decisive popular and electoral ma
jority over Adams, the model of all the vir-
tues, because the people thought it proper to
rebuke this scandalous partisan abuse of de-
serving patriot; and thus the very means en-
ployed to defeat Jackson insured his triumph
ant election. .
Such was the lesson given to the adverse
party in the election of 1928. The same popu-
lar spirit of fair play against partisan perse-
cution contributed to the increase of the vote
for Jackson in 1882, although the bank ques-
tion was the controlling issue in that canvass.
Passing over the intervening elections for the
present. in turning to that of 1852 we have a
lesson of a character totally different from
that of 1928. General Scott, the first soldier
of his day. the hero of Chippewa, Lundy's
Lane, in the war of 1872, and of Vera Cruz
and all the bloody battles around the city of
Mexico in the war of 1S46-7, as a Presidential
candidate was overwhelmingly beaten in 1852
by New Hampshire county court lawyer and
local politician. And how ? Because, while
Greeley and his abolition faction of the Wing
party could do nothing better than "split upon
the platform of Scott which was the same
as that of Pierce, the Democrats fought their
battle squarely upon the great compromise
measures of peace on the slavery question
embraced in that platform and won the day.
Scandalous personal abuse and libels on the
character OF General Scott were generally
avoided, and his personal cause aud claims
were damaged only by his own imprudent
speeches and letters, drawbacks which are not
likely to damage General Grant.
Here, then, are two very important lessons
for our Democratic politicians-in the first
election of Jackson in 1925 and in the defeat
of Scott in 1852. In the one case against a
meritorious soldier we see that personal calum-
MES and abuse only served to enlarge his
claims in the estimation Of the people; in the
other case we see that against the highest mill
tary claims great public measures OF necessity
and sound policy will prevail, if no general
attempt is made to reduce the military candi-
date to the level of a rufian, a butcher, q
pretender, an ignoramus or drunkard. Com
mon sense, one would think, ought to have
prevailed with the Democrats in persuading
them to fight this fight not against General
| Grant, but against the measures and principles
of his party, in view of the election of 1852
but they seem determined upon a repetition Of
the foolish course of personal abuse against
Jackson which swamped the party Of Adams
| in 1928.