The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-04-22
TEMPERANCE AND POLITICS.
To the Republican who Wrote Me an Open
Letter in the Journal.

My Dear Frend-A few weeks ago I addressed
you private letter suggesting that the state of
public feeling upon the liquor question required
us Republicans to take some notice of it in our
next State convention, to which you answer in
the journal of April 81 There can be no doubt
that the Democrats will take some notice of it.
nor can there be doubt as to the position they
will take There has been no variableness nor
shadow of turning on their part for thirty years
or more, and we may as well expect an Ethio-
plan to change his skin, or a leopard his spots as
to expect the Democratic party to go back on its
whisky record. If l remember correctly l sug
gested what 1 think is the proper thing to be
done in this emergency; first, because it is right
to do that; and. second because it is wise polite
ally Now, you and have stood side by side in
this temperance work for nigh unto half cen
tury, only differing in methods and results
Your method has been less aggressive than mine,
and, as you say there is no evidence at hand that
any one has been permanently benefited by it,
while | have abundant trophies of suecess-hun-
dreds of stars in my crown, all of which makes
me the more DESTROYS to continue the aggressive
policy, while do not wonder that your utter
failure as to results dscoTrages you from further
identification with the cause 1t is a frank con
fession which you make, that such measures as
seemed proper to you have done no good: but you
frank man.
Now, l do not allow you any other man to
be more Jealous Republican than am, or to
be more alive to the Importance of the coming
campaign. / can see thousand evils that must
troop in upon this nation if the Democrats come
into power; hence, wish US to take that course
that will most probably lead to sucoe}s IS, and to
my mind, this points to our recognizing existing
political facts and not in ignoring them or being
unkind to those who entertain peculiar views
but who are yet willing to work with us if we
will give them little encouragement
1lf.rnr
campaign of 1874 is exactly in point, but points
the wrong way for your case. The Democrats,
that year. true to their eternal instincts to be
the wrong side of every question that has a
moral significance, resolved nneqlivOcaly in
favor of annexing Texas; the Wings, true to
| their habit of lodging all such questions said
| never word on the subject but nominated Henry
Clay with platform not two inches long Mr.
Clay wrote his Raleigh letter opposing the
nexation. and sent his cousin, Cassus NJ, up
North to work the North on that line, and Cas-
sfus doing well when Clay's Mobile letter APP
peared saying that he was in favor of annexation
on certain conditions. Of course Polk was
elected, for there was no live question but the
Texas question before the people that year, and
! the Democrats had the advantage of being bold
and aggressive, though on the wrong side, while
| the Wings had the disadvantage of blowing hot
| and cold at the same time. The same was sub
| stantially true of the campaign of 1S4S. The
| Democrats being pronounced in the interest of
! slavery, and the Wings. begging pardon for hay
| ing to take a man as d candidate who not
| known to be Wing but who was known to be
| stakeholder. 1t was not till 1852 that the Wings
| became affirmative on the slavery question; they
! then affirmed that the fugitive slave law
| final settlement of the slave question, and that
| they would discourage any further agitation of
| it, and then 1t gave up the ghost as party The
| slavery question continued to be agitated, how
| ever. and the party that was foremost in that
agitation still lives, embracing within its folds
and recognizing as leaders some who even in
1860, were chief in the crusade against Mr.. Lin
coin and the young Republican party
hardly expected one SO clearheaded as you
| to fall into the common muddle Of mixing tenn
! perance with prohibition. Temperance is pure
ly moral question, and should never be
COMPOUNDED with prohibition, which is
a political question purely. Temperance
| ates to the conduct of the man. prohibition
refers only to the relation of the traffic to econ
! omic questions. In our anti slavery movements
the State never legislated as to the moral phase
| OF slavery. not even in the final proclamation
! 1t grappled with the economic phase only and
/ slavery abolished. mt because 1t was
morally wrong, but because it WAS politically
mischievous. No sensible temperance man asks
| legislation in behalf of temperance, but every
! taxpayer is interested in the direfu burden that
| the traffic inflicts upon the State, not to men
ton its influence in making drunkards; and it is
/ this that brings the question of prohibition to
the front and we can neither frown it down nor
/ pooh pooh it down
Now the thing that am most wrestling with
! is, what to do with this as a Republican. A
! Democrat has no such a WreStle. he falls back
on his time honored" custom Of giving full
swing TO liquor as he did to slavery.
| OF course 1 defer much to your Judgment
Though was a Republican long before you
were, have learned to look to you for counsel;
but there are more than 20, 900 names now on
! file calling for State convention if we do not
propose something. If they follow out their
| plans cannot carry the State, for the most of
these are Republicans. | am fully aware that
the Democrats are praying as much as Demo
Gratis ever pray, and they are willing to pay lib
orally too, TO have commit the blunder that
will drive these Prohibtionists into separate
| party. Now propose to render their prayers
Intellectual, and to let their money perish with
them by doing the right thing, and in the alb
sence of other evidences am always sure 1 am
right when squarely antagonizing anything that
the Democratic party proposes or approves.
| Il. A. GOODWIN.