The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1871-08-26

A very pleasant and harmless
which has amused us
has taken up quarters
in the minds of some of the crit
les of the TELEGRAPH to the eff
feet that we are endeavoring to
treat the "new departure policy
of vallandigham and others with
silence and avoid in this way an
expression Of opinion not deemed
popular with the masses. We
may as well confess that we have
in part purposely maintained 81
lence, in order to heighten the
curiosity and conceit Of our crit
les and to see what these politi-
cal Solons would say. 1t perhaps
did appear little strange to them
that an independent journal,
having the reputation for candor,
should ignore the discussion of
a political question attracting so
much attention as the New De-
parture, and the truth is, it has
been almost impossible for us to
refrain from telling the critics ex-
actly what we thought of this So
called departure. Shall we ex-
plain our position now7 We will
try. :.
In the first place, then, we have
failed to be impressed with the
Importance of disputing and
wrangling over fixed facts, and
of raising great hub-bub in the
Democratic ranks over an issue
impractical and uncalled-for. We
recollect the memorable campaign
Of 1860, when the Democratic
party broke up and went to the
'demnition bow-wows," because
a great many good people had
got it into their heads that sQuatte''
sovereignity, as preached by
Douglas, and by Buchanan and
Breckenridge before him, would
be the ultimate ruin of Southern
political interests. And so it was,
by splitting the Democratic par
ty, which eventuated in Lincoln's
election, the war, the South's de-
feat, and the total abolition of
slavery.
And what was squatter sove-
reignityf Nothing more nor less
than a recognition of the great
natural and material fact that
slavery would go where it was
profitable, and where it was not
profitable it would not go. Fight
ing this palpable law of labor and
values, the Southern people in
the end saw slavery go from them
altogether, never to return. Can
there be any doubt that prejudice
against a single phrase-not Ger
tainly against a law of political
economy-broke up the Demo
ocratic party and gave the Black
Republicans the victory in 1902
Are we to repeat this folly in
1922
We are not arguing now for or
against the New Departure, but
for harmony and practical pur-
suit of victory. But what is this
New Departure about which
whole libraries have been writ
ten7 Neither its advocates nor
those opposing itseem able to sat
isfy each other in regard to its
significance, and they have Ger
tainly not led us into the light of
what is to be gained or lost by
taking Or refusing to take the
New Departure. AS we under
stood acknowledgements programme
when first enunciated, it was pro-
posed to recognize the X1Vth
and XVIII Amendments as parts
of the Constitution, and to abide
by them, until they were stricken
out in the manner provided in
that instrument, or declared null
by the proper judicial tribunal.
Now, what other course can any
citizen of the country pursue 2
1t is absurd to say these Amend
ments are not parts Of the Con-
stitution; they have been SO de-
clared in due form by the Secre-