Blue-grass blade., 1891-02-14
The Parallel Between the Ab0.
liiiOn and the Prohibition
Parties.

Much is said about the analogy
between the course of the old cru
SADIE against American slavery
and the present one against the
liquor traffic.
AS the. first one succeeded, a
striking similarity between the
experience of that party, up to a
corresponding length of time in
the experience of the Prohibition
party, ought to be very encour.
aging to Prohibitionists.
The similarity thus far is more
striking than Prohibitionists gen.
orally are probably aware of.
IT we can only double our Fisk
and Brooks vote in '92, it would
almost be perfecting the analogy
for the Prohibition party to 60
into power in 90.
The only failure in the anology
so far is in favor of Prohibition.
1t is a fact that in one Presiden-
tial canvass the Abolition party
fell back in its vote.
The course of the Abolition
party was as follows:
In 1910 it polled for Birney
1000 votes; in 1914 for Birney
again 81, 900; 1913 for Van Buren,
29l 900, in 1852 for John p. Hale
it fell back to 10000, in 1856 for
Fremont 1,343,000; and in 1850
for Lincoln it counted 1866, 900.
The record of the Prohibition
party thus far is as follows:
The first Presidential conven-
ton was held in Columbus, Ohio,
February 22,1S72 This conven-
ton nominated James Black, of
Pennsylvania, for President, and
John Russell, of Michigan, for
Vice President. These candi-
dates received $500 votes.
In 1876 the second national
convention of the Prohibition
party was held in Cleveland,
Ohio, and the following nominees
were made: For President, Hon.
Green Clay Smith, of Kentucky;
for Vice President, Hon. G. T..
Stewart, of Ohio. They received
1922 votes. The third national
convention was held in Cleveland,
1880, and nominated for Presi-
dent, Gen. Neal Dow, of Maine;
for Vice President, Rev. IL. A.
Thompson, Of Ohio. They re.
ceived 10,305 votes.
The fourth convention was held
in Pittsburg, July 23, 1884. Its
platform was practically the same
as had obtained from the begin
ming. Its candidates were ex-
Gov. st. John, of Kansas, and
Hon. William Daniel, of Mary
land. Four years earlier eleven
States were represented in the
convention, this year thirty-one.
These facts prophesied a greatly
increased vote in the fall of 1884,
which was realized by $50, 0OU,
against something over 10000
four years earlier.
In 1888 Gen. Clinton B. Fisk
and DR.. John A. Brooks became
our standard bearers, and even
their enemies could bring no ac-
cusation them that was not at
once proven to be "for revenue
only The great convention at
Indianapolis numbered 1920 del
egates.
1t was quite natural that a par
ty in such minority should not
be accredited with its full vote,
but the old parties admitted for
the Prohibition party 100000
votes.
The Abolitionists elected their
candidate in two Presidential
canvasses after Hale got l5G, 900,
and the Prohibitionists will start
with 100000 for st. John as COM
pared with the 10000 OF the
Abolition candidate Hale.
Though the Prohibitionists
have not increased 50 rapidly as
the Abolltionists, they increased
with each Presidential election,
which the Abolitionists did not
do.
A fact in favor of the Prohibi-
tionists, in the comparison, is
that they have the encourage
ment and support of the Supreme
Court OF the United States. while
the Abolitionists were directly
opposed by that Court.
The division between the
breckenridge and Douglas fac
tons OF Democracy that secured
the success OF Lincoln, is almost