San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1890-08-09
TOO LATE IN THE DAY.


that the democratic party saved the
union, and cites that ARTICLES state
ment that Grant, Mcclellan, Han
cock, Buell., Sherman and others
were democrats. Yes, it is true
they were democrats, just as Jesus,
the Nazarene, was a Jew. Party acts,
not individual, make up party
record. The Post knows, and every
instructed democrat, including even
the Bedford magazine writer, knows
that every resolution declaring
the war failure, protesting
against it's continuance and de
nouncing its further prosecu-
ton emanated from democratic
sources. Every vote in congress, IA
voring the Withholding of money and
men. and designed to hamper the
administration in its conduct of
the war, was a democratic
vote. Had democratic counsels, and
democratic resolutions. and demo-
cratic votes prevailed the war would
have ended in less than two years
with the union dismemb ered, seces-
sion triumphant, slavery fixed con-
dition of the colored people and re-
publlcanism as form of government
an unsuccessful experiment. The
Post does not choose to remember that
while there were republicans and
democrats among the union generals,
and that while the policy and con-
duct of the war was purely republi-
can, there were only democrats and
no republicans among the confederate
generals, and that the administration
of the confederation of seeded states
was purely democratic. 1t is not true
that Grant and Sherman were demo-
Gratis during the war, they were DEM
Gratis before the war, and the same
may be said of thousands and tens of
thousands who voted the democratic
ticket before the war but who have
never voted it since. The republican
party was in it's infancy before the
war. 1t was its conduct of
the war that made of it
the national party, the party of union
as distinct from the party of secession,
and gave it control of the country. 1t
could not be otherwise. There were
but two parties in this country. The
party that favored the prosecution of
the war until the seeded states that
had appealed to arms should be sub
dued by arms; and the party opposed
to the war. There were some demo-
Gratis who favored fighting it out on
that line, if it took all summer, but
the democratic party did not, and in
its national convention of 1864 de-
clared the war a failure. The special
plea of a magazine writer, that there
were democratic generals and demo-
cratic soldiers in the Union army,
cannot vitiate all the facts of history.
These men were in the army, not be-
cause they were democrats, but
because, in spite of the declarations
of democrats in state and nationol
conventions, they were more union
than democrat. The headquarters OF
the democracy during the war were
at the seat of the Confederate gov.
eminent; the headquarters of the
republican party were at the seat
of the national government, and these
facts fix forever and irrevocably the
status of democrat aud republican sc
far as their attitude to the war is con.
cerned. The republican party in 1856
was very small host. In 1860 it had
grown strong enough to hold the bal
ance of power, and it secured posses
sion of the national government. The
shot that was aimed at Sumpter con
verified tens of thousands of demo
Gratis, who as democrats could no
support the national government
| into union soldiers who repudiateC
| party lOF pdtTloGlC seTNlCe. ISeturuluS
from the war, tens of thousands o
these soldiers cast their ballots To-
the republican nominees and hav,
been since lost to the democratic par.
ty. AS fact, the democratic cente
and stronghold is in the southern
states today as it was during the war
and cut off from the solid south TIN
northern democracy have no NOR
possibility of controlling national
affairs than the Post has of convinc