The Portland daily press., 1880-06-30
The Nomination Of Hancock
A Lost Opportunity.
tChicago Times Dem.)l

lChicago Times DemO
The nomination of General Hancock Is not
one that can be said to fulfil the party's oppor-
tunity. The Democracy never had moro
favorable opportunity to bring to the front
new political leader, one who would give prom
Use of leading the party out of the old political
graveyard and onward to new and hopeful
future of political activity. General Hancock
has furnished no evidence of good capacity for
political leadership. He is nothing but SOL
dier, and not a very brilliant one at that.
Educated for the profession of arms, he has
always pursued that profession, and rose by
personal gallantry during the civil war to the
rank of a msjor-general, though he never held
an independent command and never gained a
victory. 1t was when commander of the mill
tary district of New Orleans, in 1867. that he
chiefly gained public note by the tenor Of his
military orders, declaring that the true func-
tion of the military, after armed rebellion had
been put down, was to uphold the civil power
in the normal exercise of its functions. This,
he said, would be the guiding principle of his
action; but he at the same time announced
that any forcible obstruction of the laws would
be INSTANTLY suppressed by arms These
orders were put forth with good deal of de-
clamatory flourish about "free institutions
and ''the great principles Of American liberty
"a style of superfuous magniloquence that
greatly tickled the effusive Southerners and
led them to regard General Hancock as
Northern man with Southern ideas" Ever
since the Southern politicians have been favor
ably inclined toward him as presidential
possibility circumstance not likely to
strengthen his candidacy at the North. His
name was brought before the convention of
1868, but the objection of presenting a man
who was nothing but soldier in opposition to
one who, though also nothing but soldier,
was more famous one, caused 1t to be re-
ceived with little favor. 1t was then believed
to be the true policy Of the party to present an
eminent civilian, of known capacity for politi-
cal leadership. The foundation of that belief
was good in 1868, and is equally good now. If
the party at Cincinnati had fulfilled its oppor-
tunity, it would have chosen for its leader
statesman not mere soldier. 4-erg I,.ssE
As regards the military record of the two
men, General Hancock and Mr.. Garfield may
be regarded as standing on the same platform.
Their military records are perhaps equally
good. But, while one stands on nothing but
his military record, the other has gained his
widest repute as one of the foremost among
the ablest of our living statesmen. The NOM
ination of a soldier with good war record,
whose fidelity to the national cause Is unas-
sailable, will go far to suppress any "bloody-
shirt character of the canvass. The rejection
of Mr.. Tilden takes the hypocritical fraud
issue" out of the combat. What remains?
There remain the important political questions
that have been raised by the action, or at
tempted reaction of this Congress. Upon
these political questions it is more than ever
likely the presidential canvass will be con-
Quoted. Evidently, in such controversy,
the party that has taken for its leader o states
man who has shown himself to be one of its
ablest leaders will enter the contest with an
important advantage over the party that has
NOS hv al re cto ,Ay.o md for ifo
standard-bearer a soldier with no experience
or known faculty of political leadership. g.
Therefore it is that the nomination of Gen.
eral Hancock is mistake, if not a blunder.
He is not the man for leader Of a political
party in this, or in any other political emer-
pancv.