Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-07-12
THE WAR ON ANDREW JOHN
son,
A DeEan. CItizsatuiss From HOii
George w. Jones.

A DeGan. CItiSaatufss From Hon.
George w. Jones.
We find the following communication
in the SheIbyrillc Comnerriclo of Friday:
The cry Of the wculd-be leaders. in
public ciIairs is for harmony and uni
ted action of all the elements opposed
to the Radical party the Civil Rights
party. This party, which some are so
exceedingly anxious to unite and har-
monize, IL called sometimes the Demo.
cratic party and by theirs, the Cohser-
yative psTty am Democrat, but l
an not d Conservative. co not wish
to conserve and continue the present
state Of things. Being Democrat l
am led to the iuquiry-is there Dem
ocratic party? If SO who compose its
And where are theys In 1872 what
was termed the Democratic party Of
Tennessee net in convention in Nash
vile, resolved itself into the Liberal
Republican party, under the leadership
of Horace Greeley, of New York, who
never had Democratic sentiment or
emotion in his life, nor did he ever
draw a Democratic breath. On the
contrary he was the bitter reviler, the
slanderer and .vilifer of that old party
ali the days Of his.life, and that contin-
ually.
The so-called Democratic National
Convention of 1872 met in Baltimore,
and there adopted, without the altera-
ton of a single letter or word, that
which Horace Greeley declared was the
''Blost Intense Republican platform erer
put forth by a National CoHrentiOn, "
and upon that platform nominated
Horace Greeley as their candidate for
President of the United States. The
world in all its history hes never wit
messed such abandonment of principle
and party organization before, and 1t
is hoped never will again. Then where,
oh, where, is the Democratic party?
Merged in the Republican party and
the dead Greeley, whose soul is still
marching, it may be, on to still greater
confusion and more sure destruction, if
possible.
But it is said that the Democratic
party is divided. If 50, when and
where did that division have its origin:
The best If not the only way to rectlfy
evils and adjust discord and division is
TO remove the cause. If the cause can
be ascertained, by its removal harmony
and united action will be secured.
In the Tennessee Legislature of 1869
there was a clear majority of Demo
Gratis and anti Radicals. Andrew john
son and Emerson Etheridge were can
didates for the United States Senate.
The anti-Radical enemies of johnson
would not meet the other opponents of
the Radicals in caucus to nominate
candidate for the Senate. johnson
lacked but two or three votes of an
election against the combined forces OF
his enemies, and Radicals II that Leg
islature, ambition, envy and treason
combined. a fusion was arranged be-
tween a portion Of those elected as anti
Radicals and the Radicals, and actirg
in concert. Henry Cooper was elected
United States Senator from Tennessee
over Andrew johnson. Then the split,
the division, the breach which some are
now 50 anxious to heal over and blot
from the memory of the present. Can
that be done by continuing the pro-
scriptive and vindictive warfare upon
Andrew johnson? Scarcely. Let gen
tlemen beware. Let them review and
reflect upon the times and. results of
1869 and 1872, and be cautious how
they act in 1874.
There may be no johnson men and
no Cheatham men now, but there are
Democrats who have never bowed their
heads nor lowered their banner to Re
publicanism, Radicalism, nor Civil
Rights fanaticism for success nor for
place; they are a power in the State,
which may be felt before the ides OF
November. q. w. JONES.
The following editorial article ap-
pears in the same issue Of the CONNER
rigl-