Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-08-21
Aamraster f,ltelllgenrcr.
SATURDAY EVENING. AUG. 2l, $780,
Hancock and the South.

The Republicans who SO eagerly en-
brace the forgery of Senator Hampton's |
speech at Staunton, Virginia, made by |
the Valley Tirginiaa, a Republican paper |
Of that place, are entitled to a measure
Of sympathy at our hands, which will 60 |
far to cause us to forgive them their gull
libility. There is so little offered them
to encourage their canvass, and the truth
is SO relentlessly against them everywhere
they turn. that they are positively driven
to lies to keep up even the scmblance of
a fight. And then, when they do lie,
how rcsolutely do they turn to the bloody
shirt for consolation! What Senator
Hampton says to the Virginians about
Lee and jackson, and the principles they
fought for, is hardly very good evidence
against Hancock to show that
he is the representative now of these
principles. And yet this mus, he
the object of the language attributed
to Hampton by the Republicans if
they expect it to have any weight i'll de-
Gliding the case between Hancock and
Garfield. These men are SD prone to
wave the tomahawk over their once re-
belliOus Southern brethren, and to thrust
their treason down their thrOats, that
they actually cannot persuade them
selves to fOrbcar when these SOuthernerS
are proposing to cast i solid vote for one
of the generals who fought against them
in the rebellion. One would think that
it would he apparent to the stupidest un-
dcrstanding that it would he of no avail
to seek to fire the Northern heart with
an alleged declaration Of Wade Hampton
that the principles that Hancock advo-
Gates and represents are the same for
which he and Jackson fought and yet
it is positively true that this is the decla-
ration which leading Republican news
papers keep standing ut the head of their
columns rs great campaign argument
against Hancock, and think SO much OF
it that they cling to it even after Senator
Hampton has positively declared that he
never said it.
OF course We believe that he never
said it, and SO probably do the Republi.
Can newspapers that persist in attributinG
it to him. We believe him because 4
United States senator of good character
is entitled to he believed; and further.
more, because he would have been rs big
Il fool to make such declaration Us the
Republicans are who seek to use it as
Il campaign argument against Hancock
lie could not have said that Lee and
Jackson and Hancock fought in the wal
of the rebellion for ''thc same princi-
plcs,'' for no one suspects either Of these
great generals of being faithleSs to thu
cause for which he fought. The MAJ
who believes that Senator Hampton
said what he is charged with say
inc must consider him to be entirel!
without sense; and the Republican wl'
believes that Hancock represents th'
principles of the rebellion must be with
out sense himself.
II is strange that these Republican
newspapers, that SO eagerly seize upol
this forged declaration for campaign
thunder, do not sec how it must burr
their fingers. tit was Il really good sOli'
point they were making we would for
give their feeling clleerfully in view o
their desperate strait but we regret tina
we have to yield our forgiveness SO col
temptuously as we must in this case
1t is not pleasant to have even your enc
my exhibit too gross folly. The tasl
OF overcoming him becomes too easy ant
loses its interest with its glory. 1t is al
ways plcasantcr to defeat one for who's
capacity you are compelled to feel re
spct than to overcome weakness that 1
palpable. Sarcly it is absurd in the high
est degree to seek to make the loyalty o
General Hancock an issue in this can
vass and if his loyalty is imprcgnabl
what matters it how disloyal the South
ern Democrats were ? Does not every
BODY know that they were rebels
and do they not admit it? AM
if they are charged with bein!
of the same opinion still, how III
they encouraged in that state of mind b.
the election of one of the generals VIII
subdued them ? and how can it be salt
they manifest such disposition by votin:
themselves for that general? Ccrtainl.
if there is one thing that the Republican
orators may profitably avoid discussing
it is the loyalty question, while llancocl
leads those who were rebels. 1t is pre-
cisely this fact that forms one of tn
strongest reasons why he should he elect
ell. if it is for the country's good that
loyal devotion to the Union shall b
made to reign all over the nation.
The difficulty which surrounds tn
essay to impede the coming Democrati
triumph by charging that Hancock lead
those who were once rebels is absOlutel
insurmountable. Mast makes IN essa
at the same argument in the curren
number of Hdrper's Weekly, in which II
represents General Hancock rs surveyin
graveyard full of Confederate dead an
apparently regretting the loss of so man
votes. But how can it be reprOach
him or them that they would have vote
for him? Surely it is to the creates
honor of both. Those who were enemit
are now ut peace; and we seek 4 unite
country. If the men whom Hancock d.
feated now vote him the chief magi.
how can those he led to victory Withhold
r,o,,, I,;,,, fl,n;r c,,unN,.f