Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1871-10-26
"The New Departure. .

=
ocrat, in the following able com
municatiUn to the Columbia States
man, discusses the 50 called "neV
departure" over the signature Of
I"H." 1t will attract attention fol
the clearuess of cogency of its ar.
gument:
The Radical partJ, like children
think if they can nickname
an opponent, or apply ugly word:
to his conduct. they have utterly
demolished him. Children do il
from weakness, Radicals do it from
weakness also, but meanness is
likewise at the bottom of their
habit. Since the close of the war,
their staple reply to every one who
has arraigned the Radical party
for its stupidity and cupidity has
been, she is not loyal, he was a
rebel" and this was sufficient, and
passed curreut with the hosts of
asses that brayed after their lead
ers, as an extinguisher.
When Frank Blair, in Lis can
vass Of Missouri, exposed their cor
ruption and dealt them such blows
as made them reel and stagger
like drunken men, the stupid
ldolts could make no response but
that Frank Blair 11as a rebel.
When Andrew Johnson, as pres
ident, from a sense of duty, inter
posed his veto against their legis-
lative infamies, and exposed them
in arguments convincing 10 think
ing men, he was answered, even
by senator's, with the epithet,
''rebel" and"traitor."
Strike these, and a few other
kindred words, from their vocabu-
larry, and they would stand, splut-
terinS saliva like idiots, without a
word to parry any assault that
might be made upon them.
A Democratic convention in
Ohio recently adopted platform,
simply declaring what no Demo
crat shcu!d dissent from, what all
Democratic teaching would lead
to, and the Radicals caught up the
words "new departure" and every
cross-road Radical politician, every
Radical newspaper and even Radl-
cal congressman and governors,
gaped and marvelled, and such
as had sense enough TO appreciate
the Democratic position, trembled
at the new departure, and de.
nounccd as apostacy, in the Dem
ocralic party, a doctrine in har-
mony with what Democracy has
always taught, from Jefferson
down TO the present time.
When did the Democratic party !
counsel the violation of law, or a !
resort to violence 10 secure q right,
or obtain redress for wrong2 New !
er in It's whole history. When, in
Gen. JackSon's administration,
South Carolina threatened resist.
ance against a law OF congress,
which her ablest and purest states
man, and many able and pure
statesmen outside of South Caro-.
lima, believed to be unconstitution-
al, Gen. Jackson told them in
plain terms, that they must submit |
to the law, and not take it upon |
to decide whether it
was constitutional or not and the
old hero was sustained by the
Democratic party, thousands OF
whom believed, with Mr.. Calhoun,
that the law was null and void.
Congress, while South Carolina
was in an attitude of defiance of
the federal government, modified
the tariff, not in its protective fta-
lures, but in the reduction OF Its
rates, and thus paci6ed South
Carolina, and the states in SYM
pathy with her, and prevented a
which, in all probability, {
would have involved the whole
country in a civil war. In this {
compromise act, the Democratic
party acquiesced, believing at the i
same time, as they still believe, {
that it was unconstitutional. 7
Whep, on the application of /
Missouri for admission into the I
Union as state, congress restrict {
ed slavery to certain limits, inhib-
ting it in certain portions of the
territory of the United States, the
Democratic party, although be- {
ieving the act to be unconstitu- I
:ional and unjust, acquiesced in S
hat settlement of a bitter contro- I
versy, rather than keep it alive to I
The enlargement of the peace of {
The country. How many Demo
Gratis in the United States, North
Or South, from 1920 to Its appeal, {
proposed TO declare tia nnllity ? !
None. L
Radical slang had not then come