The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1869-10-19
COLUMBIA, S. G.
Tuesday Morning, October 10, 1869.
Tho Philosophy OF Party organizations.
Tho Ccnclusions Reached.

There are some men who, justly prid-
ing themselves upon their disposition to
think, Judge and decide for themselves,
are disposed to decry party organizations
as,1nconsistent with freedom of thought
and action. No one can possibly appre-
ciate more than ourselves the element of
Independence in thought and conduct.
We deem it an essential part of manhood,
and we would as soon part with life as
with our individuality. Now did party
connection or adhesion necessarily in
volve sacrifice of ones individuality.
we are free to say. that we could never
be of any political party whatever. But
i does not, and it Ia well for society and
country and family that it does not. For
were men of independent views and cha
raoter driven from the ranks of organized
parties, then would public affairs in coun-
tries under o popular government fau
under the control Of such elements as
would soon utterly wreck it, with all its
interests of public order and tranquility,
of religion educationand property. The
case is simply shiis.in nractical point
Of view In 0nr country, xarties are
necessity. Notonly do they preserve the
popular equihbriums mot Only do they
act rs checis andgbaiances, upon each
otherto the public advantage. but they
arei the actaal means whereby direction
is given to the standardization of public
affairs. II man has certain policy to
carry out, he must, GO rel necessitate, use
party instrumentalities to accomplish the
end in view. Again: In a popular 60
yernment, the people are apt logically
and naturally to divide into two great
divisions. Now, these grand divisions
existing, the citizen, desirous of partioi-
pating in public affairs and of o1erting
his influence in them. if he seeks to ef-
feet q practical result, must, perforce,
unite himself with one or the other of
these great parties, into which the mess
divide and fall. And if he cannot en-
dorse all the views held by either party,
he must, Of course. act with that one
that; approximates closest to his own
views Of policy and principles. He must
do this. or throw away his influence. To
be absolutely independent in action, in
such a case, is to be- political oypher.
4 man In such an instance, may be po-
htical fgure-head, but he will be THAT and
''nothing more" But one more point:
We proceed to show, that in identifying
himself in political action with the party
of his selection, he need not abdicate his
.individuality-need not surrender his in
dependence as man. When an intelli-
gent man proceeds to'act with the Demo
cratic or the Republican party. we do not
understand that he thereby and thence
forth adopts any and everything that is
pnt forth by the party with which he acts.
We are Democratic is, We adhere
to the Democratic party in its general
spirit and featnres-but we hold ourselves
free to criticize and even to oppose any
thing that we deem Objectionable, though
in Democratic dress. And such, we
presume, is the spirit that controls every
intelligent man, whether Democrat or
Republican. To take any other view of
the matter, is preposterous and absurd.
We certainly do not feel ourselves bound
to uphold any and all notions that Demo
cratic men, or journals, or conventions
may enunciate. If Democratic fool
says something that we do not approve,
we are no more expected to stand by
that, than we would expect an intelligent
radical to endorse all the fooleries and
absurdities that appear under radical
cloak. Fools, "who rush in where angels
fear to tread" may utter the senseless
cry-"Our party, right or sOrong." But
sensible mon, with due regard to truth
and decency, will say-"Ow party ,crong,
,oe aoM seek to make nrigM." Hence, our
conclusion:
1. That parties must exist in free coun-
tries.
2. That the voters naturally divide into
two great divisions.
8. That the voter must, for practical