Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1872-01-10
SHALL TIE DEMOCRATIC f1kTY
NOMINATE A kEPUBLICAN
FOR TIE PRESIDENCY.


Of the passive policy to refute the
facts, arguments and figures embodi-
cd in the article. Let them read,
Consider and abandon the insane idea,
"no Democratic nomination"
Suppose a foreign enemy to have in
vadcd our country for the purpose of
conquest, aud had defeated our ar
mics frequently, and suppose that
then some of our Statesmen aud
politicians were to propose, that we
should discard our own native patri-
otto generals, and invite one Of the
ememy's Generals (pcrhaps dissatisfi-
ed) to take command of. our forces
and cXpcl the invader.
We apprchend that the authors OF
such proposition, if they escaped
arrest aud punishment, would be
generally esteemed enemies in dis.
guise. If not denounced as traitors,
they would be disposed as fools.
The proposition ofseme speculative
politicians, (vcry wise III their own
cOnceit) that the Democratic party
should 20 into the camp of their OPP.
ponents to select a candidate fol-
President, is similar in character to
that above supposed.
The novelty, if not the preposter'
Gus a~trocity of the proposition seem.
to have gained it some friends, as we
sometimes see, the most sflagitiou.
criminals will have their apologistE,
Though not worthy of it, We never,
thcless deem IL expcdicnt to expose
i'll detail the utter absurtity Of this
passive Policy"
The authors of this passive policy
assert that if the Democratic party
will take "a their candidate for Prcsi,
dent. in 1877, an anti-Grant Rcpubli.
can. he would receive the whole
Democratic vote, and, in addition
enough Republican votes to elect hin
-apd that. if their policy be not
adopted, the Democratic party i.
certain to be defeated.
Let Us examine the probable effect
on the Democratic party, of the adop.
ton of this policy, and hen enquire
from the past history ofPresidentlal
elections what are the chances OF
Democratic success If the policy b,
rejected.
First--lt is utterly impracticablc tt
induce the Democratic party, as
wllole,t to sanction the proposed policy
In a single State Gas in Missouri) sucl
a thing might succeed. Bat in State
where the Democrats have a majorit,
or believe, with a candidate ofthci
own, they will have Il majority-th,
proposed policy would be spurnee
with contempt.
New Hampshire, New York, Con
nectirut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Mary land. Delaware, West Virginia
Kentucky and other Southern States
would infinitely prefer, to prcserv,
within their respective limits, til,
Democratic party in full undiminish
Ell force and organization, to IN,
election of any anti-Grant Rcpubli
can, Whose success would be accompa
MED by the disOrganization OF tn,
party MS a national party, and its dc
moralization in all the States.
The acceptance of NJ anti-Gran
Republican as our candidate woul'
carry dismay and dc>pondG. c int
the masses of the people everywhere
1t " ould be equivalent to the surrcl
der of Il conquered foe. 1t woul,
drive thousands of true friends int
the ranks of the enemy. Hundred
Of thousands of Dcmocrats,if they di'
not decline voting, would vote 70
Grant in preference to voting for
renegade Republican.
From these causcs we should los
our members of Congress in man,
Districts, aud probably many Legisla
lures of the States in which we may
or might have majorities.
1t would be impossible therefore t
rally the whole Democratic party I
; the support of such a candidate, an
the effort to elect him would be
disastrous failure.
We will now consider whether an,
auxiliary contribution of Iicpublical
voters would be drawn into the Dem
ocratic ranks to help elect an anti
Grant Republican President.
Nothing is more true than tina
former friends, when they quarrc'
arc more bitter in their enmities tina
, all others. "A leading Republican &C
} cepting q Democratic nomination 70
President, would be denounced b,
the Republican press as a traitor
His desertion of his party would b
attributed to ambitious persona
motives, and not to principle O
patriotism. There are without domb
. several prominent anti-(irant Re
! pubiicans, such AS Greeley, Fenton
Sprague, Sumner, Schurz, Geo
! Wilkes, Chase, Trumbull, Logan.
I Schurz is ineligible as a candidat
$ for President, but he is the only Oh
, among the above named who coul,
! carry his own party with him in hi
own State. None OF them have aiI,
! strength or following outside of thei
> respective States. And, all Of then
rs soon as they declared thcmse]vc
in favor of all anti-Grant candilat
would be deserted by all bat a fey
personal friends. There is no ana
Grant organization in tile Republican
party. Suppose Mr.. Trumbull to b
the anti-(irant Republican candidat
adopted by the Democratic party
what portion OF the Republican part
in Massachusetts, would Mr.. Sumnc
, rally to his support? or what strcngt
, could Greeley or Fenton give him i
New York? Suppose all the gentle
men above named were TO agree I
, support Trumbull, would they brini
anything like enough Rcpublica'
voters to mako up the losses VIC SHOULD
= sustained Democrats who woul'
vote for Grant, or would abstain iron
voting!
80 "