Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1881-11-23
SECTIONALLSM AND PARTY.
ISM.

, ] h1AaN 4 4 OAN u A4Ihoah u ~ ~ L u n 4 /
, ISM.
In this great country, and under
our free and bcnefciont institutions,
why cannot we have harmonious and
happy people, accustomed to speak in
terms OF respect and confidence OF
each other in all sections of the coun.
try? Why should such sectional and
partisan bitterness and malignity exist
as that manifested in our political dis,
cusslons and newspaper publications i?
Why should representative men be
tolerated IN saying that anything boU-
eUer immm0ral or criminal would bo
IjuafdJie, if necessary to keep political
opponents out of Office? After the war
and the abolition of slavery, and that,
too, at the expense Of the Southern
people, every dictate of proprioty,
policy and wisdom required that OBJ.
livion should bo thro,vn Oyor tho I'M
happy events Of the war
The lapse Of time has been sufficient
to abate the passions and animosities
Of the war. yet tho Radical clamor and
abuse Of the Southern people, the
argument of the "bloody shirt" is as
rife and as vociferusly proclaimed
now as it was the first year after the
war If We cannot have a harmonious
Union; if the Southern States cannot
bo trusted as equals with tho other
States in the Union according to the
Constitution, then the war was q fail.
ure, terrific failure, in which the loss
of life and treasure, the desolaton and
destruction, tho mourning, sorrow and
suffering caused by it were all IN vain.
Politicians and newspapers in the
Northern States have undertaken to
show that there was not, and could not
be, hOmogeneity between the people
Of the Northern and Southern States
that the people Of these several sec.
tons were so different in civilization
and habits that 90 use the expression
Of one Of their Radical organs) "they
were as wide apart as heaven is IRON
hell Hence, according to the Radical
doctrine, q harmonious Union of the
Northern and Southern States would
bo impracticable. The land OF Wash.
ington, and Of Jefferson, and Of Jack
son, and Of Clay not homogeneous with
the people Of tho Northern States
Whence and how came this? The
people of the Northern and Southern
States fought the battles of liberty and |
independence side by side in the war
Of the Revolution. The Southern and |
Northern soldiers fought side by side
for the rights and honor of the United |
States in every war until discord was
produced by the radical Republicans. |
Want Of homogeneity, indeed The |
Northern and Southern people speak |
the same language, are educated |
in the same literature, and are of the |
same religious belief, and have been ex.
tremists, who carry out, or seek to
carry ont their dogmas to their ulti.
mate consequences, without deviation
or modification, regardless OF their I
ultimate consequences, without dcvia.
tion or modification, regardless of the
wrongs and human sufferings conso
quent upon their dire result In both
religion and politics all abstract doc.
trnes have to bo modified in their
practical operations for adaptation to
mans frail condition. In religion they
are qualified and tempered by charity
and a benevolent regard for the weak
ness and frailty Of human nature. In
politics all civil government in It's best
forms is hut compromise, in which
man surrenders part tof his rights for
the protection Of the balance, and in
its wisest administration conservative
measures and conservative views are
essential to accomplish the highest aims
of true craftsmanship which has al,
ways IN view the happiness and well
fare Of the governed. But radicalism,
regardless OF the existing condition of
things, and all charitable and humane
considerations, tramples down with
atrocity and violence existing lnstitu.
tions, and attempts to attain its ends
even through bloodshed and suiferlngs.
In the name Of religion, radicalism has
stretched man upon the rack of tor
ture, and drenched human blood In
tho name Of liberty, radicalism has, at
different periods of the world, torn
down the essential safeguards of hu.
man happiness, and made countless
millions mourn in struggles to establish
lmpracticable dogmas and now, here
in these United States, radicalism,
rather than be displaced from power,
would pervort the truth, deceive and
mislead the public mind, defeat the
popular voice by chicanery and fraud,
and subvert popular government, and
establish an imperial monarchy upon
its ruins.
A distinguished author on national
ethics said "The greatest dangers are
not always the mostapparent; but few
observers can doubt that the gravest
dangernow threatening us, as a Nation,
is the supplanting OF our cherished
theory Of government Qf, by, and for
the people, by new system namely,
Of, by, and for a party.
In fact, party has already usurped the
throne, and the dictates of a spurious
party morality are loudly pre- claimed
as tho doctrines of national ethics"
This is strictly applicable to the Re
publican party under the rule Of its
OF Radicals. They haze
been IN nower so long that they hogin
to think that the Government belongs
to them as a matter Of exclusive right.
The theory that the Government origin.
ated from the people, was made by
them, and for them, has been perverted,
and according to the ethics of thisparty |
the Government is from and by and for
this political party. When the ques.
tion OF any public measure arises with
tho highest officials Of this party, the
inquiry made IS not, is 1t required by
the welfare and sdiety Of the country
aud authorized by the Constitution,
but the chief inquiry made is, will II
advance the interests Of the Bcpubli.
ran party or tend to secure ls success
Ii IL will do this, then il is all right,
Washington, in bis farewell address,
the country in the most
solemn manner against the dangers OF
parties, and the baleiul effects
)f party spirit, said:
The alternate domination Of ono
action over another, sharpened by the
'pirit Of revenge natural to party dis
iunsions, which, in different ages and
Countries has perpetrated the most
lorrid onormities, is itself q irightiul
icspotism. But this leads at length to
! moro formal and permanent despot.