The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-11-08
COALITIONS.


Coalitions between opposing political
parties have been unquestionably produc-
tive of much good to the country, but
they cannot he defended upon any ideas of
principle, or be participated in with any
degree of honor We do not refer, of
course, to those unions, which may be,
strictly speaking, called coalitions,
which are founded upon real principle.
Such coalition was the union of wings,
ircc-soilcrs and abolitionists, III 1854, and
which soon ceased to be coalition, but
became compact, single party. Neither
can the coalitions sormcd between the hon
est republicans and democrats in the CITY,
and some parts of the state of New York
in 1871 and 1872, come under the class first
referred to; because it, like the other, was
founded upon principle. The parties COM
posing it differed widely upon national
questions, and it was formed for Il tempo
rary purpose. That purpose-the throwing
off of the calling yoke of corrupt Tam
many-liftcd it out of the ordinary run of
coalitions and cnnobled i, as few political
movements in this country were ever en-
nobled. We refer rather to that shameless
coalition in Vermont, in 1853, between the
simon-pure- ational-p ro-slavery democrats
and the equally simon pure sectional-be-
cause it was sectional then although, thank
God, it is national ow-aboitionists,
which resulted in an election clearly demon
strating the irresistible force of the cohe-
sivc power Of public plumber and office
seeking, and the little worth or attraction
of professed political principle. OF the
same kind was the coalition in Massachu-
sets, IL 1850 and 1851, which sent Robert
Rantoul-who died too early for his coun-
try's good-and Charles Sumner to the
Senate of the United States. Rantoul to
be sure, was not known to be the true. ster-
ling man he soon proved himself to be, and
therefore, the democrats could vote for him
without violation of principle, but how
with the abolitionists 1t turned out that
the abolitionists couldn't have voted for a
better man if they had tried, but they did
it unwttingly and at the expense of COM
plete abandonment of principle, because
they believed HIM to be northern dough-
face and pro-slavcry democrat.
When, however, the democrats of Mas
sachusetts named Charles Sumner as their
choice for Senator, they stultifed them
selves, violated every principle they pro-
fessed, and went back on their party. That
arch-demagogue, Benjamin F. Butler then
most intense for his love for southern men
and institutions, and most bitter in his de-
nunciaton of northern statesmen, who
would not be the tools of the southern
''chiyalry, and Of every measure looking
to the restrictions of slavery further extern
sion, was prime mover and chief actor
in that bargain and sale-although he was
not then member of the legislature--and
urged the vote for Sumner with the same
readiness that, ten years, or so, later he
voted for jeff DAYS.. Charles Sumner was
the bitterest foe to these men that there
was in Massachusetts,, yet they sent him to
the United States Senate, where he could
do-if their professed principles were cor
rect or honestly entertained they well
knew, the most harm. They did this wit
tingly and knowingly, for the purpose of
obtaining a few petty state and county
offices. We do not pretend to say that any
injury was occasoned to the laws, legisla-
ton or institutions of Vermont by its one
years barren coalition rule. We know
not that Massachusetts, suffered any detri-
mcnt from her coalition, but we do know
that the country has been benefited there
by Was it, however, worth the sacrifice ?
The result was attained by an abandon
ment Of principle and sacrifice of honor.
The cohesive power of Office alone had any
part or lot in the matter. We have
said good resulted therefrom, but was it
any more than putting Sumner in the Sen
ate two or three years earlier than would
have, otherwise, been done Three years
thereafter the republican party was in
force, fully organized, with Sumner in the
front ranks. and his time would then have
surely come. But this makes no difference
1t isnever right to do wrong that good may
come of it, or because good does come of
it. A sacrifice of principles, honestly en-
tertaned, is no more honest in politics than
IN Tie ordinary transactions of life. Where
IN Is the difference, in morals, between
placing one, opposed to you in politics, in
nomination Tor particular Office and vot-
ing Tor HIM, that he and his friends may
vote Tor you or the candidate of your
choice, and buying the votes of the same
man and his political friends with money !?
Inc votes are bought and sold as much in
one case as in the other. This is not
question of whose OK is goIed. A coalition
between republicans and Apollo Hall is
just as honest, and no more or no less so,
than one between republicans and Tam
many, or between Tammany and Apollo.
Politics, as we have often said, should not
enter into local affairs. but local offices
should be distributed without regard there.
to. Combinations and agreements NAV be
necessary for this end, and these NAV bc
called coalitions" but they involve no
abandonment of principle. The right man
Tor the right place, and an agreement look
ing to that cannot DO included with the