Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-11-14
STATE POLITICS.
Views Of Our Tennessee Exchanges.
From the MurfreesborO Monitor.


A recent writer in the Nashville Ban
ner discusses the political situation in
Tennessee from an Independent or
Johnsonian standpoint. He argues
that before there can be a union be-
tween the Democrats and the Johnson
men of last year, they must understand
each other, and know what the line of
policy is to be. Or in other words the
Democrats are asked to make Conces-
sions. abandon their organization and
surrender the offices for the sake of a
union with those who are determined
to rule or ruin. Farther on the writer
says, 1.-The johnson men sincerely be
lieve Mr.. Johnson's services, if they
could be had, would be invaluable to
the country" He then adds:
1.-The worst sore, and the one most
difficult to heal, is the one made by the
fight against Mr.. johnson for the SEN
ate, not that he was not elected, but
all his friends understood lin this they
may be MISTAKEN that combination
was formed between the leaders of
both parties in Tennessee, to beat him
with anybody who could do it, and that
the question of qualification for the
Office had little or nothing to do in
making the selection.
We now wish to state fact not readi-
ly admitted by the johnson men, viz:
The johnson men of to-day were the
men who combined against and defeat
ed Mr.. johnson for the Senate nearly
four years ago. The Nashville Banner,
which supported Mr.. johnson last year,
and is now regarded as a johnson or
Independent organ, was his bitterest
and most relentless opponent for the
United States Senate. 1t was one Of
the Banner editors that nominated Mr..
Cooper in caucus for the position, and
they had much to do in forming the
coalition that finally defeated Mr.. john
son. On the other hand the Democrats
stood almost as a unit for Mr.. johnson
to the last. This proves that the hide
pendents are disorganizers, unmindful
of the best interests of the people, and
have no higher object than to secure Of
fee.
The Democrats of the State made no
war on Mr.. johnson until he and his
friends arrayed themselves against the
party and attempted to supersede it.
Therefore the Democrats are In no
wise responsible for the inharmonious
elements now in this State opposed to
the Republican party, view the subject
from either Johnsonian or Independ-
ent stand point.
Surprising that Democrats were will
ing to abandon their party name and
organization, what assurance would
they have that new party would be
more acceptable to the people or sue
cessful in harmonizing the conservative
elements of the State? The principles
of the present party appear to be salts
factory to all opponents of the Repubh-
can party. But the trouble seems to be
that Mr.. Johnson wants office, Mr. Col
var wants Office, and many other indie
pendents want Offices; and the Nashville
Banner, Memphis Avalanche, and few
other journals of less caliber aspire to
be recognized as party organs.
The present Democratic party is not
a proscriptive party. 1t has ever been
most liberal. Gov. Brown, as well as
many other officers elected as Demo-
Gratis, were formerly old line Wings.
Mr.. johnson himself commenced his
war with the party. And the Banner
and the Avalanche have been treated
most kindly. And what assurance can
the Independents give that their lead
ers would be more satisfactory to the
people than the leaders of the Demo
Gratis? or that the offices of the State
would be filed by better or more hon.
orable men? or that the affairs of the
State would be administered more wise
ly and economically? Until such as
surances can be given, is it not pre-
sumption in the Independents to ask
the Democrats to disband their organ
ization to be superseded by new and
untried party of their own?