The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1888-11-14
A Political Parallel.

The following from the New York
Independent has great force politically,
and in it there is much wholesome food
for reflection for temperance papers
who would be help and not hind
rance to true reform:
In the political campaign just closed the
prohibition party has distinguished itself
for its illogical and impracticabe position.
When told that it was hurting the cause of
prohibition by allying itself with the demo-
cratic party and drawing votes from the
only party which has ever done anything
for temperance, here in the north at least,
the constant answer has been, We are work
ing for the future; we are doing for temper
ance what the despised and weak liberty
party and free-sol party did for abolition.
If the parallel holds good they have a right
to sacrifice the republican party to the fu-
ture. But it does not hold good, as we have
abundantly shown. 1t is their notion that
the present republican party is to the pro-
hibtion party what the wing party was to
the liberty party. But there is no parallel
whatever. What had the wing party, as
such, done for anti-slavery? just nothing.
1t had talked and not voted. 1t had talked
very feebly and Intellectually. There was
no party that was doing anything for anti
slavery when the great wing leader, Web
ster, was supporting the fugitive slave law.
But the case is utterly different with the
matter of temperance. State after state,
under republican control, has passed strin-
gent prohibition laws or laws severely re-
stricting the sale of liquor. If the wing
party had done the 1.-THE for anti-slavery
what the republican parry has done for tenn
perance, there would never have been lib
erty party, and the wing party would have
gloriously carried through the war of the
rebellion.
But another very interesting point of diff
ference between the policy of the present
prohibitionists and the old liberty party
men is seen in the attitude of the two
toward restriction. The liberty party
men were practical men. They took all
they could get. They made steps for
ward just as fast as they could. They
did not ask for universal abolition of slavery
and refuse to take anything less. They
kept on restricting more and more as fast as
they could. They fought caste laws. one by
one. III they could not abolish slavery in
the United States, they would shut it out of
this bit of territory and that aud hem it in
as rapidly and closely AS they could. Their
rule was to get all they could; to go step
at time and hold their ground But it has
been the policy of the prohibitonists to ask
everything and take nothing less. They
want constitutional prohibition; and prohi-
bition by local option, or restriction which
simply dimnishes the number of gateways
of hell, they have no interest in. What
would the liberty party and free soil men
have ever done if they had demanded con-
stitutional amendment prohibiting slavery?
Such folly would never have accomplished
anything. But they We're practical people,
and they grew. The third party is composed,
mainly, of impracticables, who will not take
anything unless they can have the whole loaf
baked in their own oven. The American
people have no taste for that sort of policy,
and that is the reason for the slow growth
Of the third party. 1t is not needed IL is,
at least, a hindrance to true reform.