Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1872-04-06
PARTY INDEPENDENCE.


Last week we asked the Maine Standard
to explain how it happened that it saw so
much to admire in the independence of
party, manifested by certain republican
senators. and yet had never spoken word
Of commentator of democrats who left the
democratic party during the rebellion to
join the republicans.
We thought and still think that if any
men had good cause to exercise indepead-
ence in regard to parties, and were worthy
to be praised for such Independence, they
were the ones. We could not see the JUS
tice of landing Mr.. Sumner for independ-
ence and treating them with contempt for
the same reason. lift is virtue in his case
was il not in Theirs
But instead of answering our request
for explanation IN plain and straightfor-
ward manner. the Standard goes into a
defence Of, the democratic party for its
course during the rebellion, avoiding a
direct reply to our query, and praising
rather the democrats who remain in the
paRy. than those who left it. This of
course does not agree with its newly adopt
ed theory of the beauty and excellence of
political independence, but it was the best
the Standard could do under the circum-
stances How could it be, expected to
praise those men for independence, hon
esty and patriotism, whom it and its party
have looked upon with loathing and per-
scented with the vilest abuse, even to
hanging and burning in effigy. simply be-
cause they exercised their independence
in a time of EFFICIENCY and trial and left
the democratic party? Probably the
Standard had not thought Of this when its
article on independence was first publish
ed. The following extracts from the reply
OF the Standard win show how the subject
Is treated. 1t says: -
1t is true that some democrats of the Ben
Butler and Gen. Grant stripe changed their
pOlifics during the war and went from mi
n0fity in TO majority party, and have received
their reward, but the great mass of democrats
that vent into the war and survived it, came
ont of it democrats, and continue to be demo-
crats to this day.
I. The idea conveyed in the above is that
the motives of democrats who went into
the republicanpar were corrupt. There
are no eulogiums for them, though they
left their party at the call Of their country
y ~ heur Of trial, at the time when
Stephen A. Douglas said there could be
but two parties in the country-patriots and
traitors They went with the patriots ;
what party did the proprietors of the
Standard belong to then? The Standard
farther says: .a
Hasn't the Standard commended such men
e Generals Mcclellan, Hancock. Slocum,
Franklin, NcCook and Roberts, whs ssmarch,
ed side by side" with republicans con the bat
Tie field, Gel ela,fat
Yes, but for what? Was it for indepen-
denee in party aetionp Or was it because
lGlsey held to the democratic party Here
the rule of the Standard Is reversed, and
the sticking" not the INDEPENDENCE
Is the prAiseworthy principle, Indepen-
dence L 4 great and dear principle with
the Standard when it works fayorably to
democracy. but when it operates the OPP
aposite way the Standard holds that those
who exercise II are corrupt, turncoats,
rsnegades, and proper subjects for hang
ing in efigy.
- word now about the Standards de-
fence a the democratic party. The read.
discs with which IL fies against tho o. s,
charge of disloyalty betrays peculiar
sensitiveness. There is something in tho