The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1880-07-02
return to the veneering policy OF that

campaign.
Mcclellan was nominated In the face
OF the violent protest of the Copperheads
OF Ohio and Maryland, and he received
only twenty-one electoral votes out of
total of 233. In the convention of
1868 Hancock fell naturally in the line of
succession, but the experience with
military candidate had been so disas-
trous that the convention, abandoning
the veneering policy, went back to first
principles and nominated that old Bour-
bon, Horatio Seymour. The campaign
was made on the theory that military
man was dangerous to the country.
Seymour received seventy-one electoral
votes, to 214 for Grant.
III the convention of 1872 Hancock
was again mentioned, but the hook was
baited with Greeley, an old Republican,
and again the Democratic campaign
was made on the idea of hostility to a
military candidate. Mr. Greeley carried
six States, giving sixty-two electoral
votes, and Grant received 286 electoral
votes.
Discouraged by this experiment, the
convention Of 1876 turned again to
Bourbonism and nominated Tilden. In
1880 the party that tried Mcclellan in
1864, Seymour in 1868, Greeley in 1872,
and Tilden in 1876, decides with re-
markable unanimity to call out the re-
serve candidate in the person of Gen.
Hancock, and, in so doing, decides to
abandon the war cries of the last three
campaigns
The men who opposed Grant because
he was military man are now asked to
vote for Hancock, not because he ever
framed or supported a Democratic meas
ure, but because he is a noted soldier.
The men who raised the cry of no mill
tary candidate when Garfield was nomi-
mated are commanded now to catch
step, and declare they always wanted
military leader.
The Democratic party, despairing of
succ ess under the old flag of Bourbon
ism, Lopes to sneak into power under
cover of Hancock's military record.
Fearing reputation at the hands of the
people, the solid South puts forward
Hancock just as the anti-war or peace
at-any-price Democrats did Mcclellan
in 1864.
It will not do. Hancock cannot
change the spirit Of the Democratic
party. He cannot stretch his splendid
record as soldier, as he would man
tie, to cover all the sins of his party.
His work at Gettysburg, placed side by
side with the work of the Democrats in
Congress, makes painful contrast.
Principles and motives come to the
l. IL.
rear. The party that dominates him is
the party that makes the fight against
the election laws in Congress is the
party that organized the White League
and rifle clubs in the South; Is the
party that bulldozed and DISTINGUISHED
the colored people in Alabama, Missis-
sippi, South Carolina, and Louisiana.
Hancock may lend himself to the party
just as Mcclellan did, but he cannot
alter its record, change its purpose,
modify its programme, or save it from
defeat. His fame as q Union General
weighs little against the domination of
men like Wade Hampton, Hamburg
Butler, Ben Hill, and others of that
class.
The nomination is weak one, not be-
cause the man is not strong in his way
but because the rank and file of the
party never have been in sympathy with
him, and will not support him. His
name will have no talismanic influence
among the Bourbon herds in New York,
and will not call out the old Golden
Circle men in Indiana The fact of his
nomination being in the nature OF a
concession to the strength Of the Repub-
l1can candidate, will aid the Republicans
in making telling points against his
party. His personal record, standing in
contrast with the record of the party
leaders who push him to the front, is in
the nature of finger-board directing
public attention to the principles at
stake in the contest. The spectacle of
even so reputable soldier as Gen.
Hancock playing cat to pull the chest
nuts of the Democratic monkey out of
the fire may grieve the people in the old
loyal States, but it will not excite their
sympathy, or turn them aside from the
merits of the contest.
Hancock is simply new experiment
Of party that has tried many schemes
for deceiving the people. He may carry
the solid South, simply because the old
Confederate leaders will it. But he will
lose Indiana and New York, because, SIS
against the Legislative and other govern
mental experience Of Gen. Garfield, he
has only his military record to present
to men who have protested for sixteen
years to be violently opposed to all mill
tary men.
On one side is Gen. Garfield, thor
oughly identified with the principles
and measures of the Republican party.
On the other side is the fgure-head,
Hancock, making vain endeavor to di-
vert attention from the measures and
principles of his party. It is a fight for
principle, and men of principle will
fight it to the end Garfield is just the
man to put Republican principles to the
front in a way to attract attention,
while Hancock is not the man to turn
public attention away from Democratic
policy.
prnIOuUnd Gfn0NinW.0vor. Wn,L