Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1868-08-19
Is Mr.. Seymour a Statesman 2

Seymours claims to be styled statesman
Statesmanship mu be made up of character,
study: and experience. Napoleon was a
statesman by nature John Stuart Mill tbe-
fore entering the House of lommons) by
study; Palmerston by experience. Mr.. Sey-
mour has never held a national office, and
so far as national politics are concerned he
cannot be statesman by experience. In
the State Offices he has held, his only evi-
dence of craftsmanship is his veto of pro-
hibitory liquor law. 1t does not require a
gifted imagination to conceive that General
Grant, in the same circumstances, must
either have shown equal craftsmanship by
vctoing it, or superior craftsmanship by
signing it. He might have done more He
could no5 have done less
Those who have ever troubled themselves
to learn anything about politics will not ac-
cuse Horatio Seymour of being a statesman
by study He never studies. If he did he
could not lie to so great advantange as he
does in his public speeches. He skins the
surface of history for half truths, knowing
That lie which is half truth is the black
est of lies.
That lie which is all a lie, may be met and
fought outr ght,
But lie which part truth is harder matter
to fight
If he stumbles on a whole truth, he cuts
it in two, dropping the kernel and feeding
on the husk. Let US see how far his states
manship would have availed us. During
the agitation of the Slave question, he re-
commended throwing open the National
Territories to Slavery, so that the Slave
Power could have been strengthened in the
Senate by the votes of all the present and
future States west of the Missouri River,
from Texas to British America He argued,
also, that Shareholders should be allowed to
| sojourn with their slaves, for all transient
! purposes, in the Free States, to stop with
them at the Springs, and to travel with them
| for pleasure or business. He would have
| given shareholders eternal sway over the
National Territories, and temporary sway
wherever they went in the Northern States
Suppose Mr.. Seymour craftsmanship had
prevailed, would the Slave Powerhave been
less tyrannical Would the ultimate sue
cess of free principles at the North have
L =
policy have strengthened the Rebellion in
advance, and so insured the final and ire
vocable dissolution of the Union?
Then Mr.. Seymour advocated the Critten-
den Compromise. e., he wanted the
North, after electing President on the
basis of no further extension of Slavery"
to agree that, if the South would haul down
the Rebel flag and allow Mr. Lincoln to be
President, and the Union to stand then
Mr.. Lincoln should consent to the indefinite
extension of Slavery, and the voters who
elected him to the perpetual abandonment
Ioiio''e~, az sos.,s. hn,S h..i.' >ss-.,ss..,,.
that the defeated party at a Presidential
election can always reverse the political eff
feet of the election by threatening to secede. !
This is Mexican statesmanship-notA Amer |
ican. 1t Is the craftsmanship of brigands |
and rioters-not of Senates and Parliamen- |
tary bodies of ruffianism-not democracy. |
Ii Mr.. Seymour had ever studied much. he |
would not have placed himself so exactly on a /
par with men WHO never studied at ALL But /
If Mr. Seymour had studied the Crittenden |
Compromise so far as TO enquire whether
the South were willing to accept ito re
main in the Union provided the successful
party should repudiate and back down from
the principles on which the people elected
Lincoln-he would have found that the South
nowhere voted for it, and would never have
accepted it. Hence, Mr.. SEYMOUR states
manship is not that of study, even of the
most superficial kind. Again, at the out
break OF the war, Mr.. Seymour declared
that he had no faith that the Union could
be maintained ly force that he had ex-
amined the Montgomery Constitution that
it was better than our own; and that the
better way was for New York and other
Northern States to come under it. Was
this craftsmanship Is the cringing span
iei, the tawning cur, the whipped and yelping
hound, our beau ideal OF craftsmanship? +?
Again, in 1923 he enied the constitu-
tionality of the Draft laws, argued that
Union restored by coercion would be as great
a crime as the rebellion, taught that only Re
publicans should fight for the Union, and
contended that emancipation was the death
kneil of the Union. In 1864 he, in the
Chicago platform, denounced the war fail
ure in the midst of the smoke and heat of
the contest, encouraging the Rebels to per
severe though they were already whipped.
and predicting defeat for the Union armies
who were already victorious. Was this
craftsmanship? Had the country assented
to Seymour's doctrine in 1860, that the
rebellion could not be subdued, or in 1864
that hostllitieS should cease, our Union
would have been dissolved and the North
ern States would have been plunged into a
war among themselves by the efforts of Sey- !
nOur and his friends to carry out the policy !
he had advised, of seeding from the Union I
and joining the Confederacy. In these con-
7ulsIons, the army of the independent Rebel
Confederacy under Lee would have stood
'eady TO march into the Northern States
Ind aid the efforts of the Democrats to car :
Y these States over to the Confederacy and {
Slavery up to the Canadian line. In short.
Seymour policies would have given Us 4 Z
lnited and independent South, divided L
md conflicting North, and a country at war t
RON, ppn .pI m III q z