Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1880-07-07
Gen. Hancock's Strength.

The Chicago Times tells Its friends of
the Democratic party some wholesome
truths concerning both the weakness of
their Presidential candidate and the in
herent feebleness of their political char.
acter. 1t scouts the idea that Gen. HAN
COCK is a strong man, but admitting for
the sake of argument, that he is, it shows
Whist ridiculous attitude the Democracy
is placed in if this idea be followed to its
logical sequence:
All the organs of the Cincinnati party
are declaring with great positiveness that
Gen. Hancock is ."the strongest man the
party could have nominated" This
declaration, considered in the light of
we'll known facts, implies very singular
state of things, Every one knows that
Gen. Hancock has been, from his youth,
In the profession of soldier; that he
has not been educated for any pursuit of
civil life, and has never entered upon any
civil pursuit; that he has no political
knowledge other than may have been
gained as casual student of political
literature; that he has no experience in
civil affairs, either administrative or
legislative; that he is In no sense a states
man or publicist, and has never shown,
never having had an opportunity to show,
any particular capabllity or fitness for
political leadership. In word, he is a
man without any political record or
standing whatsoever. It is in the pres
ence of these facts that he is said to be
''the strongest man the party could
have nominated" for its political
leader. The statement may be per-
fectly true; but, if true, what is the
inference it obviously warrants and in.
vites? 1t implies that any of the states
men who have been long conspicuous as
leading men of the party, who have given
shape and direction to its political &C.
tons, and are widely known as lis repre-
sentative men,-men who represent its
policies and political aims,-would not
be strong candidates; and it implies that
their weakness as candidates would dwell
in the fact that they would be recognized
as among its foremost representative men.
Gen. Hancock, on the other hand, not be.
ing recognized as among its representa-
tive men, is exempt from this cause of
weakness. He is the strongest man the
party could have named, because he Is
less ldeptifed with the party, less repre-
sentative of its politics and political reru-
tation. than any other the party would
have named. In other words, his strength
as the party's chosen leader consists in
the fact that he Is not and has never been
amongfi its leaders, not known as possess.
ing any of the requisite qualifications for
it's leadership.
What other meaning is conveyed by the
statement that General Hancock is the
strongest man the party could have chosen
What other inference does that statement
warrant or permit, than that the party's
weakness is in its own political character,
and its strength in the concealment of its
character behind the name Of man who
is not known as representative OF it, nor
of any political character whatever, but
only as respectable soldier?
Generally it is a rational opinion that
the strongest man political party could
take for its political leader would be its
best known, most popular, most represen-
tatlve statesman. Ii there be any excep.
ton to this general rule, must it not be
when the party stands In mortal terror OF
itself?