The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1880-07-15
IN. Y. Independent.l
The Democratic Ticket.

all their prominent men-thelr Ill
dens, their Thurmans, their Bayards,
their Paynes, and their Randalls-
nominated General Hancock as. their
candidate for President and Mr.. VIM.
H. English, Of Indiana, for the Sec
ond place on the ticket. General
Hancock, now fifty-six years old, was
educated at West Point, and since his
graduation he has spent his whole
life simply as a soldier. His record
in this character is in every way cred
liable. He did valiant service i'll help
ing to put down the Rebellion, and
showed bravery and kfdelity to his
country on many hard-fought field.
He was a War Democrat. There is,
so far as we know, no stain upon his
personal character. We cheerfully
pay this tribute to the soldier candi-
date, upon whom the Democrats have
agreed, in the failure to agree upon
anybody else, and whom we shall by
all proper means seek to defeat.
Unlike General Garfield, who was
also a soldier during the war and
equally true to his country, General
Hancock, as a civilian, legislator, a
statesman, an administrator in the
discharge of civil functions is wholly
untried man. Here he has absolutely
no record whatever, in either the way
Of education or practice; and here he
appears at a great disadvantage as
compared with his distinguished COM
petitor. He is simply a soldier, and
that is all. He never helped to frame
d law, and never voted for OF against
a law, and never executed law except
as military man. What his politi-
cal principles are nobody knows, ex-
cept as they may be indicated by the
general fact that he is a Democrat.
His views, if he has any, Of the great
practical questions now before the
country are yet to be enunciated.
There is nothing IN his record to show
them. The Democrats have taken
him from the army without a civil
record, because they hoped that his
military fame would make him popu-
lar as candidate, just as they took
Horace Greeley, in 1872, in the hope
that Liberal Republicanism would
help them into power. We are by no
means sure that they have not done
the best thing they could do; and yet
that best thing has not given them
candidate that will at all compare
with General Garfield, whose career in
civic life proves him to be one of the
ablest statesman of the land. What
he thinks on public questions it needs
no letter Of acceptance to inform the
people. What kind of a President he
would be, if elected, is already dem
onstrated fact.
The comparative merits of the two
furnish by no means the
strongest and, practically, the most
contrast between them
We cannot separate them from the
political parties which they practically
General Hancock, if cleo
ted, would be a Democratic President,
mainly dependent on the "Solid
South" for his election; and, as such,
he would be no better, and probably
no worse, than his party. He would
be expected to carry out the princi-
pies of the Democracy, and would un-
doubtedly do So So, also, General
if elected, would be Repub-
lican President; and no one doubts
that his election would continue, in
the executive branch of the Govern
ment, the ascendency of the policy
and great principles of the Republi-
can party. The question, then, is not
simply choice between candidates,
considered with reference to their
character and qualifications, but also
a choice between parties. The latter
is by far the larger phase Of the ques-
ton. Much as we admire General
Garfield, we should be compelled to
oppose his election if he were the
Democratic candidate. The truth is,
it was impossible for the Democrats
to nominate any man whom Repub-
licans ought to support. Those voters
make a very grave mistake who vote
simply for men, and forget the prin-
ciples which they represent.
We shall in this canvas, while en-
deavoring to defeat him, also endeavor
to practice all due courtesy toward
General Hancock; but the party with
which he is allied, and whose repre-
sentative he is candidate, and to
whose principles he would give effect,
if elected, has, as party, record
that deserves no courtesy. For years
before the war it was in most init
mate alliance with slavery, and lent
itself to the perpetuation and extern
sion Of that nefarious iniquity. The
Democratic party at the South got up
the Rebellion and brought on the
war, simply for slavery, and under
false theory of state rights; and the
Democratic party at the North, as a
political organization, sympathized
with it. The Democratic party at the
North, in 1864, declared the war "a
failure and proposed to negotiate
with armed rebals The Dem )cratic
party, both North and South, resisted
the constitutional amendments, and
all legislation to carry them into
effect, and declared the latter to be
unconstitutionally passed. The same
party, both North and South, propos-
ed, in 1868, to pay the public debt in
greenbacks, which are part Of that
debt. This same party, in 1872,
adopted for its candidate lifelong
hater in the person of Horace Gree
ley, accepting a platform made for it,
and, for the time being, forswearing
all its professed principles. This
party at the South has trampled the
Constitution under foot in substan-
TALLY suppressing the Negro vote.
The Solid South of to-day, as the
consequence of this process, IS to-day,
the main reliance of the Democratic
party of the nation. As to the great
questions of the hour, relating to cur
rency and finance, the Democratic
party, after having in 1876 denounced