The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-10-21
THE lie Es AND THE DEMOCRACY.

The West and South would not De satlsueu oy
the withdrawal of Gen. Blair II Gev. Seymour
we're IN remain on the ticket In order TO satisfy
Ali sections and at the same time show the undi-
minished confidence Of the Democratic cheftains
in the two gentlemen selected by the New York
convention to champion the cause OF the people
in the approaching presidential contest, we
would respectfully suggest to the Democracy OF
the land the propriety of leaving to Gov. Sey-
mour and Gen. Blair the high honor of selecting
their own successors 10 the canvass. Had the
choice been left to them at first they would not
have SO far miscalculated public opinion as to
have committed the error now too obviously ap
parent. They are good men and true, but It Is
feared that they are not able to carry with them
20 large share of public confidence as to insure
tuccess.
There is nothing equivocal, nothing contin-
gent in this. 1t assumes that the Democratic
ticket must be changed, and asserts, by neces-
sary implication, that the country can be
satisfied only by the withdrawal Of both OF the
Democratic candidates. In consideration OF
its undiminished confidence in those gentle
men, as private citizens, and its total want OF
confidence in them as party leaders, the
Times kindly consents to extend to them the
privilege of political hari-kari, by allowing
them to be their own executioners. 1t Will be
seen that in all this there is no pretence of
consultation with Gov. Seymour and Gen.
Blair, except so far as to permit them to
designate their successors. In fact, those
gentlemen are as coolly whistled down the
wind as if the Times were not only the rep
resentative of universal Democratic opinion,
but the Democratic party ITSELF
On Sunday the Times was still more en-
phatic. In its issue Of that day it said {;
Desperate ailments require desperate remedies.
their present candidates is now universally ad.
mitted that they may succeed with judciOus
change of command is not only possible but pro-
bable. What patriot, then, will permit his own
selfish considerations of policy or propriety to in-
terfere with contamination SO devoutly to be
wished? Tilden, Belmont and Schell telegraph
that the proposed change is impracticable, and
would be equivalent to disbanding of the Demo-
cratic forces. That is all nonsense. In less than
the two weeks we have now before US the destinies
and dynasties of empires have been wholly
changed. The Democratic forces-that is to say,
the rank and file of the party-are too well drilled
and too steIny devoted to principle to become
demoralzed by q change Of command under exist
ing circumstance. TIE only trouble Is that such
men as Tiden. Belmont and Schell might find
their own local schemes disarranged by the
change proposed, and they are unwilling to sa-
criice their petty individual advantages for in
terests which are merely national and in which
the common people of the Countrywide hard
handed toilers-are alone concerned. II the
Democratic party submit longer to the dictum of
such men, they must expect to be disappointed.
When the voice of the people is subordinated to
that of few scheming leaders, the result can
only by accident prove satisfactory.
SiDce the above was written, we learn by tel
egrsm from New York that there will be no change
of candidates.
We cannot but regard this determination as
suicidal mistake, which, ere three weeks pass,
will become apparent. Thus will it ever be when
party cliques assume to control and override the
voice OF the people.
Here we are told that it is universally
admitted that the Democratic party cannot
succeed with their present candidates." but
that "they may succeed with a judicious
change of command" We are told, likewise,
that the Democratic party is under the con-
troll of selfish clique, who insist on retaining
the ticket, for the benefit of their own
''local schemes" The Times does not inform
ne in what manner IFS proposed change was
to be effected; but as it could not be accom-
plished without the consent of the actual
candidates. it must be to those candidates
that the Times refers when it says that the
voice of the people is subordinated to few
scheming leaders" When it became evident
that the Times had mistaken its own clamors
for the voice of the people, it suddenly
changed its position, and proceeded to eat its
own words with relish entirely inconceiva-
bic to people who are not in the habit of
indulging in such repasts. On Monday even
ing it declared thus:
Our views in reference to a change of candi.
dates were based on the proposition assumption
that the candidates already in the field might, in
the interest of the party. decline, and suggest the
names of others, whom they might regard as hav-
ing better chance than themselves of obtaining
a certain vote which will never be cast for Sey
mour and Blair. We never contemplated the set
ting aside of candidates, already nominated, IN
less they were willing, or of abandoning the con.
test in case they declined. But the suggestion
emanating from the supposed friends of Mr.. Sey.
mour that Gen. Blair's name should be retired
from the ticket led to suspect that Mr.. Seymour
himself would set the example of retiring, and
that both gentlemen would unite in recommending
ticket which would be elected. We believed
that such course gave the only hope for a
triumph. 1t was in no disparagement of seymour
and Blair, in fact, it proceeded from our conf
dence ia the stsunch Democracy and patriotism
Of these gentlemen that we threw out these sug-
gestions.
In one day the Times had forgotten what
it had said about the voice of the people,
and selfish cliques," and obviously declared
that it only meant to set aside the Democratic
candidates with their own consent. This sug-
gestion it affirms, was very fattering to
Messrs. Seymour and Blair, inasmuch as it
was based on the assumption that the
''staunch Democracy and patriotism of these
gentlemen" would induce them to resign their
positions on the Democratic ticket Whence
it follows, of course, that as they did not
choose to resign, the Times no longer has any
confidence in.their "staunch Democracy and
patriotism.
But yesterday the Times discovered another
motive for its course. 1t Inelc that General
Blair's resignation was in the hands of his
it says that all "doubts regarding the policy
friends, and in another part of the same paper
of changing the nominees of the Democratic
party because of defeat in the recent cleo
tons, must now be set at rest since it is
proved that both Gov. Seymour and Gen.
Blair actually suggested and advised it them
selves, and that ''their designations were in
the hands of tho