The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1882-11-22

people opposed to the ~ar?' Did
they disapprove of the emancipation
proclamation? Were they dissatls.
tied With the removal of Mcclellan?
Or did the people of the great war
States distrust President Linsoln ?
However it might be, there was
one man who made NO complaint
and INDUCED in no recrimination'
That man was President Lincoln,
and he went on doing the best he
could, and murmuring not at the
dissatisfaction of the people. And
the people themselves after that ex-
hibiilon of irritableness became so
heartily ashamed of themselves that
in 1868 every one of the states NAM
ed above gave overwhelming Repub-
lican lDajorities, and in 1864 every
one voting squarely on the issue OF
1862 (the policy of Lincoln as against
that of McClellan) gave tremendous
malorities for the man for whom II
was said the rebuke of 1862 had
been intended. The plain truth was
that the people were dissatisfied In
1862 because they could not under
stand the President nor comprehend
the difficulties in his way nor the
magnitude of his undertaking.
In 1866 and 1857 Johnson's change
of policy threw the Republican par
ty for time into such confusion as
promised certain distress, but the
people separated the man from the
party and rebuked Johnson by tri-
umphantly electing Grant in 1868.
In 1874 there was a reaction from
the intense party feeling of 1872.
and through indifference or dissatis-
faction on the part of Republicans,
Massachusetts, Indiana, New York,
Onio and Pennsylvania gave Demo-
cratic majoriiies. This was then re-
garded as "a rebuke to Grant, but Gu
riously enough in 1915 Massachus-
etts, Pennsylvania and Ohio gave
Republican maJorities.
In 1876 the factions of the party
made a treaty of peace over the NOM
ination of Hayes, and in 1877 New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Mas
sachusetts went squarely against the
party that had elected him. The
dissatisfaction then was with the
Presidents Southern policy and
when the cause had been removed
the party got in good shape for the
fight in 1880, and, after a bitter
fight among the factions, buried the
hatchet in the nomination OF Gar
field.
The revolt of 1882, however, is
like none that preceded it. While
some of the reliable Republican
States have slipped their cables, no
two have had the same reason for
indulging in the eccentricity. St.
John was not defeated in Kansas for
the same reason that Folger was in
New York and certainly the Repub-
lican candidate for Governor in
Michigan was not slaughtered for
the same reason that Beaver was in
Pennsylvania. The quarrel in Ohio
was not between administration men
and anti-administration men, nor
was it in Indiana or Kansas or Mich
igan.
There was several States on the
sick list, and each will require a diff
ferent medicine in the shape of a
restorative. The New York experts
who know all about their own sore
spots should not insist in pouring
their medicine down the throats of
Republicans in Indiana or Michigan
or Kansas. Every possible expert
ment in the way of high jinks has
been tried, and if Republicans are
not heartily ashamed of the record
made, they ought to be. The hope
for 1884 lies in the probability that
the party, having gone to extremes
in the way of old capers, will now
settle down to business.