The Newberry herald. [volume] (Newberry, S.C.) 1865-1884, 1880-09-29
No. 40.

plate. But this is a direct argu-
ment in favor ola permanent gov
ernment-a permanent office-hold-
ing dynasty.
If we cannot afford to change
the ruling party because that
means the change Of 100000 office.
holders, we shall certainly be
much less able to doso four, eight
or twelve years hence, when the
power and number of these office.
holders will be much greater. In
my opinion a change of admins
tration does not imply change
in every office ofthe country. Nor
would such sweeping changes be
desirable. But to hold that the
country cannot afford to elect
Hancock simply because Of the
ofice-holde1s who would lose their
places is to give up the very
spirit Of our institutions, the
character Of a representative re-
public based upon government BY
political parties, their accoanta-
bility to the people and frequent
changes. II we cannot have a
change now we can never have
one. If Mr.. Schurzs argument
against a change because it would
put the ins out and the outs in is
good to-day,it will be still better
in the future, and we might as
we'll settle down to the idea OF q
permanent party dynasty as ire.
movable and irresponsible as it is
reproachable - the monarchical
idea in Republican clothes.
THE SOLID SOUTH.
Point No. 4 is the cry about the
solid South. l understand the Re-
publican position to be this-that
it is q great political crime for ten
Southern States to be all Demo
cratic, but it would be the highest
political virtue for twenty-five
Northern States to be all Repub-
lican. A solid South is monstrous,
a solid North misunderstanding
to Republican logic. Now, what
is there in all this cry? When
the war closed every Southern
State was made Republican by
force. They were put under mil
itary rule. Next they were put
under the rule of thievlDg carpet
baggers. To make Republican
rule permanent a million negroes
just emerged from slavery were
made voters and masters over the
disfTanchised whites. What en-
sued you know-the most mon
strous misgovernment, robbery
and corruption, probably, the
world ever saw. Then the South
was solid for the Republicans. But
a reaction had to come. It came.
Gradually these Southern States
regained local self.government. To
them Republicanism meant rob-
berry, oppression, and government
from Washington, government set
up by bayonets and kept up by
bribery. Democracy meant local
selfgovernment. There was no
alternative-they had to become
Democratic. There was no other
place to 90 to, and the Republican
party itself is alone responsible for
it. There is not a single State in
the North that would not have
done the same thing under the
same circumstances. The Repub-
lican party had the South at its
feet and could have made out Of it
what it pleased. Had it acted
with real craftsmanship and wis.
dom it could have saved it. But
in it's anxiety to force the South
to be Republican it employed and
tolerated methods so gross and ro-
voting that they produced a re-
action. If there is a solid South
to-day the Republican policy and
leaders are responsible for it.
Now what has the South done
since 1868, when it was Republi
can ? lfyou believe partisan lies:
the Southern people are exclu-
sively engaged in buli-dozing, kill
ing negroes, organizing for an
other rebellion and general thrift
lessness and depopulation. But
the highest Republican authority
pronounces this infamous. No
less than
GENERAL GRANT,
returning from his last trip
through the South.
Now, what deed or crime, | ask,
has she com mitted since she ceased
to be Republican to deserve so