The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1873-08-11
DAVID FULTz,
ELECTION DAY:
TUESDAY. NOVEMBER A, 1878.

CtDHeiUy tieHlSclNeS lllto u NlCtOiy III NO-
vember next. by means Of imaginary fig
ures. 1t was the old practice of the DEM
ocrats to work hard for voters all the time,
and not to count the figures until after the
election had been held. This was prac-
tice which the Conservatives might
very well adopt in the present canvass.
There are in fact no reliable data on
which an arithmetical calculation can be
made for the coming election. 1t is not
on principles of arithmetic that the election
will turn, but on ideas; such controlling
ideas as have reference to the relations
of parties to great questions of public in
terest.
Virginia is the central state on the Allan
tic seaboard Of this Union. Its geographi.
cal position makes 1t the ground over
which the great artificial channels of trade
from the interior must pass. On her
territory the debouches of these channels
must be. The state is geographically
national it is in material and commercial
interests national; and 1t must sooner
or later sympathize in its politics with the
nation at large, and especially with the
central regions Of the Union.
The sympathies of the Virginia people are
additionally national. For while the ne
cessties of slavery-poltics made them Sec
tional; but since the abolition of slavery,
the tendency Of the popular predictions
has been Enthusiastically national. Even
before secession the ancient loyalty of the
Virginia people rose superior to party
domination and sectional passion, and as
serted itself in the election for delegates to
the convention Of February, 1861, called to
pass upon the measure of secession. Then
the people elected delegates who were two
to one in favor Of preserving the relations
Of Virginia with the Union. The popu-
lar sentiment, thus emphatically express
ed, was overborne by partisan machina-
ton at the capital; but in their heart of
hearts the Virginia people were opposed to
secession. The election of February, 1861,
went two to one for national men against
sectional men.
We have had but two general elections
in the state since 1861. One of these was
held in 1869, and the other in 1872.
Was not the former Of these proof of
the latent attachment of the Virginia PEG.
pie to the Union of Washington and Jefler-
son? What was the object of withdrawing
the Withers ticket, but the Cancellation of
national sentiment which the Democrats
had outraged in the canvass of 1868? The
politicians who desired control of public
affairs in the state were obliged to furl
their sectional flag, withdraw their sectional
candidates, put aside their sectional plat
form, set up true" Republican carpet
Dagger for governor, and pretend to the
people that they were more national than
the regular Republicans themselves. The
withdrawal of Withers was an homage
paid to the national sentiment of the popu-
lar masses of the state.
The necessities of the case and the tao
tics of the politicians were the same in
1872. Was there any hope of carrying
Virginia then, upon the ideas of the De-
mocracy? There was none; and the
acceptance of the " liberal" Republican
platform of Cincinnati. and support given
to Greeley by our Conservative leaders, was
an homage again paid in Virginia to the
deep-seated Union sen timent which is ma
tive, latent and irrepressible in the Virginia
heart.
In the light Of these cogent and most
admonitory facts of 1861, 1869 and 1879,
of what avail or worth are the imaginary
figures Ingeniously invented by our op.
ponents, as indications of the voting which
we are to have in November next?
What does their new platform declare on
the great question of attachment to the
Union and reverence for its laws? Does
it repeat the declaration of the Walker
party in 1863, that wisdom and sound
policy alike, demand that we shall accept
and cary out, in good faith, the measures
proposed by Congress for the reconstruc-
ton of the southern states, and we are
DESTROYS of adopting the great principles
enunciated by the Republican party of
the country?o The new Conservative
platform is wholly silent on this vital
subject.
Does it repeat the pledge of last years
Cincinnati platform, "to maintain the
union of these states, emancipation, en-
franchisement, and to oppose any reopen
ing of the questions settled by the thir-
tenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amend
ments of the constitution" Not at all.
On the contrary, it takes pains not to make
this pledge. This platform of 1878 makes
no reference to those of 1869 and 1872
whatever, either express or implied. 1t |
studiously ignores them. 1t was drawn
by MIR. James Barbour, of Culpeper, who
Indignantly spurned the Walker movement
and platform in 1863, and the Greeley
movement and platform in 1872. It was
drawn by man who would sooner his
right hand had been cut off, than by the |
remotest implication to have endorsed those |
two movements.
No the convanf;on Of Iae+ x,,o.l- \.