Year: 1863

The majority against Gen. Tuttle. in Iowa,
will, it is said. be 2O 600 The later returns only
serve to swell the majority for Col Stone, the
Abolition candidate The Colonel is a "brick,"
and deserves his success he proclaimed from the
stump that he had rather eat with a niger,
live with nigger. sleep with niger" than


with a white man-unless the white man were an


Abolitionist He is entitled to an eection-un-
der the present order of things; and no one need


feel any surprise that his opponent who went
strongly for the war and the men who conduct il,


should have been worse beaten than any Demo


crat of the season The truth IS Gen. Tuttle,


who was forced upon the Democracy of Iowa as


War Democrat" under which paradoxial


term he was to get the votes OF majority of the


"soldiers" as well as thousands of the Admins


tration party, found it losing business to try to


compete with the Abolitonists at their own


trade when they had already got the run of


the business Other things being equal,


that party will generally vote for one of their


own men rather than a so called Democrat who


bids for their votes We do not know that Gen.


Tuttle did this; we are bound 10 believe him an


honorable man, and he is known TO be brave


soldier He may, for aught we know, be utterly


opposed TO such course; but his position was
certainly an unfortunate one. His "war" prin


ciples did not him, any more than "Yar"


candidate would have saved the Connecticut


election to the Democracy last spring, if they


had done what the New York Tribune (after the


election) said they should have done in order to


carry the State-namely, put upa less thoroughly


anti war candidate than Gov Sesmour. The


Infamous conduct of the Administration party


here in removing from the Bench. for purely


partizan purpose, two such able jurists and


unobectionable men as Judge Seymour
and Judge Waldo, quite conclusvely
disproves the claim that with what are
called moderate men, on the war question for
their candidates the Democracy would secure any


considerable portion of the Republican vote. If
the spotless integrity and deservedly high char


acter of two such Judge Waldo and


Judge Seymour could not avail to save them


from the relentless partisan prescription of aboli
tionism, nor the Bench from being transformed
into partisan tribunal, wi at could be expected
of any man, in any position? Least of all could
there be reasonable hope of ele ting Demo
crat in Iowa merely on the strength OF his war"
principles. such position hurts, not helps him,
even with his own party Ana as for abolition
ISM it fights no more fercely Valandigham in
Ohio than it does Seymour in New York. In
deed, the latter gentleman has been quite BIT
teriy and unjustly assailed by these Jacobins as


ever Vallandigham was. Ii shows that it is a
great mistake for Democrats to imagine that they
can pIacate the bowling iend, abolitionism. or
gain even dearly purchased ephemeral success,
by putting up distinctive "war men for their
candidates. The Democracy have ever stood on
principle, and they can least afford nov, of all
times TO make any concessions TO their opponents,
which only have the effect to diminish their own


vantage ground and make their defeat at all times
more complete. They can afford to bide their


time. They have the proud consciousness of
having al,oays been the friends Of the Union and
| the uuholders Of the Constitution-now, in this
midnight tempest Of Abolition tyranny and CEN


tralization, in the days before the outbreak of


the war, when they were sEeercd at as "Union.
savers" by those who at present arrogate to


themselves all the "loyalty" and all the friend


ship for the Union. Is IL for the Democrats to


try TO compete with their sectional opponents in


bids for the votes of such a partyf To do so


would be to abandon not only the hope. but the
means, Of restoring the eUnion.-Hartford Times