New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1872-04-25
Letter from Mississippi.

Letter from Mississippi.
TO the Editor Of the Ne,c National Era:
Those of us in the South are grieving to
see so much contention between our Repub.
lcan friends and the dear old leaders of oul
great party at the North. We have read
earnestly the discussions between the New
York Tribune, Ha,per's Weekly, The Golde,
Age, the New NATIONAL ERA, and the In
dependent during the past year as to the best
candidate for the next Presidency. And we
cannot conceal the fact that the waters are
troubled, and that there may be breakers
ahead. In several letters from leading men
in the North, and from members of Congress
representing Southern States, we were, and
are even now, asked: SLOW stands your
State on the Presidency?" There is no doubt
of Mississippi being thoroughly Republican,
and supporting the Philadelphia nomination,
whoever il may be. But we are forced to
ask the question, why this division? The
name of Charles Sumner is dear to our heart
of hearts, and we would prefer to sacrifice
any other in the party than him. Cannot
something be done to unite the leading men
of the party? Schurz, though having done
great good for freedom during and since the
war, we feel like condemning for his course
in the last Missouri campaign. But Sumner,
Greeley, FentOn, and those who signed the
New York pronunciamento, and others of
lesser lights, we certainly cannot afford to
lose. Grant has strong hold on the Repub-
licans OF this State on account of his victories
here; but the State would 60 for the party if
another were to receive the nomination. We
do not mean to unite in the clamor of de-
nouncing Grant. He has certainly fulfilled
his promises, especially those made to us, but
do these entitle him to denomination at the
risk of dividing the dear old party? Would
not Ben Wade, Senator Morton, Henry Will
son, Geo. S. Boutwell,, Schuyler Colfax, ex-
Governor Claflin, Ex-Governor Hawley, or
any of dozen other old leaders of the party
unite it and make it formidable for the next
Presidential campaign? We would have
named Charles Sumner in the above list, but
he is so prominent in the opposition fight that
we know he would not unite the party. Why
persist in nominating Grant? We are not
crossing such a rapid stream that another
could not take us safely across.
The Independent talks of reading Greeley
and others out of the Republican party if they
indorse the Cincinnati Convention. We are
not much of disciple of Greeley, but if we
are quick in reading some of the founders of
the party out of it, we had better take care
that we don't read the party itself out of ex-
istence. A remark Mr.. TiltOn made i'm last
weeks Golden Age seems to have some weight.
viz: If some other good, reliable, strong, and
well-knOwn Republican than Grant could be
spoken of for the nomination at Philadelphia,
the Cincinnati Convention would disband be-
fore it meets. If something could be done,
without sacrificing one iota of the principles
of the party, to unite it, and have all the dear
old leaders clasp hands and work shoulder to
shoulder during the Presidential campaign,
we would give the Democratic party its GER
tain death-blow, and send it hurting down the
stream of oblivion. But so long as there is
division among our leaders, we will be by our
own acts infusing new life into its decaying
carcass.
When Lincoln was renOminated we were
in the midst of terrible war, and it was not
safe to change hands at the helm; but now
we are at peace, and almost any one of a
dozen of the old leaders of the party could
carry on the good work now in progress. Do
not understand us as being opposed to Grant.
Our only fearis, that the party may be divided
by insisting upon his denomination, while
another may unite it. We have too much at
stake to see division in our ranks, and all we
ask is, for some measure to unite all the diff
fering elements. Mississippi may be depended
upon, however, for the nominee
In our last We were rejoicing over the pass
age of our civil rights bill. But while in the
clerks hands in the Senate, after its passage,
and just before going to the Governor for his
signature, some contemplate scOmdrel stole
it, and nothing can be found of it. Mr.. Carter,
OF this county, the originator and the prime
mover Ofthe bill, introduced another week or
ten days ago, got it through the House, but i'm
the excitement of the closing hours of the
Senate it failed to receive support and was
defeated.
So we shall have to bear insults and con-
tempt another year. At the next session,
however, another bill will surely be presented
and our friends will watch it more closely
When we wrote to you of the bill abOlishine
Alcom University, we were informed by one
Of our representatives Of its passage through
the House, and that it would certainly pass
the Senate but it did not succeed. 1t failed
in the Senate, and the University still exists
G.
WASHINGTON, April 81, 1872.
To the Editor Of the Ne,c National Era:
In your last issue, under your caveat
alleging that you do not hold yourself re-
spOnsible for the views expressed by CORE.
spondents, but that you gladly receive all well
written and interesting communications, no.
tice letter from d. A. S., which is one of the
most malicious and grossest ISLANDERS against
most honorable and worthy gentleman
..v.x T..