The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1880-08-05

ter Cow boys and Skinners during tn,
Revolution. But the party having
nominated for the Presidency SOL
der whose sole distinction is his SER
vice IN war which his party SANDER
ed and opposed, it is amusing to see
the Democratic zeal for a cause which
it tried to defeat, and its present
proud assumption of a patriotism
which it derided. 1t now appears
that it was the Republican lamb
which muddied the waters. 1t was
the wicked Republicans who brought
on the war, which was horribly bun
gled by the Republican administra-
ton, but which was brought to a tri-
umphant result by Democratic mill
tary valor, although the victory
bought by Democratic devotion has
been turned to naught by Republican
misconduct Of the Government. The
Republican party, indeed controls the
great Northern States; it is peculiar
ly representative Of the intelligence.
industry, and distinctive American
character, enterprise, and progress,
and except for that party the Ameri-
can republic would have been degrad-
ed into slave empire. The Demo-
cratic party is strong only in the
Southern States-in society trained
in theories subversive of nationality
and of equal rights, among traditions
of the most inhuman form of slavery
and injustice, and a people secluded
and ignorant. Take from that party
those who fought for the overthrow
of the Union, and those who sympa-
thized with them. and the party would
disappear. Yet this, it now seems, is
the true Union party of liberty, ma
tionality, equal rights, and progress,
and nothing is more outrageous than
the Republican claim to have been
the party Of the war, the Union, and
the Constitution. This ludicrous
Democratic allegation is made neces-
sary by the nomination of a Union
soldier. But is it because he is I'm
ion soldier that General Hancock is an
acceptable candidate to the Democrat
ic party, or because, being a Union
soldier, he enables the party to assert
its loyalty? General Grant was
Democrat before the war. When the
war ended, why did the Republicans
instead of the Democrats nominate
him for the Presidency? Why did
the great. loyal, patriotic, and war
Democratic party, instead of nominat-
ing the chief General of the war, NOM
mate the chief "Copperhead'? Why,
indeed, but that it was not a war
party, and that its present assertions
are absurd. General Hancock is ac-
ceptable to the Democrats because, as
a soldier of the Union, his mantle
covers their nakedness.
But happily the country knows
which is which. It will not intrust
the Government to the party which
as opposed every great measure of
since 1860, merely because
t has nominated a Union soldier.
General Hancock, indeed, is no more
4 Union soldier than General Garfield,
and General Garfield has the infinite
advantage of being the representative
IF the party Of the Union, and in per-
feet accord and sympathy with the
ruling principles and the chief mea-
,ures of the last twenty years. There
S no conceivable reason for voting
eor General Hancock as against Gen
,ral Garfield except that the voter
links the Democratic party to be
better guardian Of the principles es-
;ablished by the war. In his order
lpon taking command of the Fifth
District, including Louisiana and Tex
Is, General Hancock said,
Of X qry ths Of
al rights opersons and the rights of property must
,e preserved.
These words are now warmly prais-
ID by the Democrats, who have Bit
5erly opposed fair and equal juries,
and whose history is the tale of the
destruction of the natural rights of
persons, of freedom of speech, and lib
erty of the press. But the principles
which General Hancock declared must
De preserved are the original Republi-
,an principles. Will anybody point
put why they are likely to be safer
with their hereditary enemies than
with their traditional friends? Are
he right of trial by jury, aid Of the
nabeas corpus, the liberty of the
press, the freedom Of speech, the nat
lral rights of persons, and the rights
IF property more likely to be protect
I'd and preserved in the interior OF
Arkansas and Alabama and Mississip-
oi by General Hancock and his ku-
klux and White League and Tamma-
nv and Tilden supporters, than by
General Garfield and the Republican
party? The Democratic campaign
this year, as in every Presidential
election for the last sixteen years, Is
4 huge sham and pretense. The par
ty has practically abandoned its plat
form of fraud by discarding the can
lidate who was in himself that plat
form; and without principles or poll
cies of its own, quotes Republican
from a Union General, and
him upon them as a plat
form. The Republican party was the
Union party, which directed the war
and General Hancock. The Republl-
can party was the party of the princl-
pies which General Hancock announc-
ed in his Louisiana order. He was re-
Iieved at his own request, not because
he enforced those principles, but be-
cause he was believed from his con-
duct not to be in sincere sympathy
with them. The Democratic party,
as the defender of the natural rights
of persons, of liberty Of speech and
the press, of the habeas corpus and of
Jury trial, and assuming to be the
party of the war, is as great sham
as the Democratic party nominating
Horace Greeley in 1872, and shouting
reform in 1875.
The Sunday School VS.. Tobacco.
There ought to be pretty vigorous