Year: 1868

Il.


extension of Slavery, and the voters who
elected him to the perpetual abandonment OF
their principles. Had this blunder been fol-
lowed, it would have been established that
the defeated party at Presidential election
can always reverse the political effect of the
election by threatening to secede. This is
Mexican statesmanship-not American. 1t is
the craftsmanship of brigands and riOters-not
of Senates and Parliamentary bodies of ruff
fianism-not democracy. If Mr. Seymour had
ever studied much, he would not have placed
himself so exactly on par with men VINO
have never studied at ALL But if Mr.. Seymour
had studied the Crittenden Compromise so far
as to inquire whether the South were willing
10 accent ito remain in the Union provided
the successful party should repudiate and back
down from the principles on which the people
elected Lincoln-he would have found that the
South nowhere voted for it, and would never
have accepted it. Hence, Mr.. Seymou's states
manship is not that of study, even of the most
superficial kind. Again, at the outbreak OIL
the war, Mr.. Seymour declared that he had no
faith that the Union could be maintained Dy
force that he had examined the Montgomery
Constitution; that it was better than our own;
and that the better way was for New-YOrk
and the other Northern States to come under
it, Was this craftsmanship Is the cringing
spaniel, the fawning cur, the whipped and yelp-
ing hound Our beau ideal of statesmansmpf


Again, in 1923, he denied the constitutions
atty of the Draft laws, argued that Union
restored by coercion would be as great crime
as the rebellion taught that only Republicans
should fight for the Union, and contended that
emancipation was tho death-knell of the Union.
In 1864 he, in the Chicago platform, denounced
the war as n failure in the midst of the smoke
and heat of the contest, encouraging the Rebels
to persevere though they were already whip
ped, and predicting defeat for the Union armies
who were already victorious. Was this states
manshipf Had the country assented to Sey-
mour's doctrine in 1860, that the rebellion could
not be subdued or in 1884 that hostilitles should
cease, our Union would have been dissolved,
and the Northern States would have been
plunged into q war among themselves by the
efforts of Seymour and his friends to carry out
the policy he had advised, of seeding from
the Union and joining the Confederacy. In
these commissions, the army Of the independent
Rebel COnfederacy under Lee would have
stood ready to march into the Northern States
and aid the efforts of the Democrats to carry
these States over to tho COnfederacy and
Slavery mp to the Canadian line. In short,
seymour's policies would have given us a
united and independent South, divided aud
conflicting North and country at war from
one end to the other, after all hope of re-
storing the Union or destroying Slavery had
disappeared. Since Seymours policies indicate
neither experience nor study of craftsmanship
if he be statesman ho can only be so by
character, having been born such. But people
who are born to the possession of great wealth
of any kind financial or intellectual, seldom
live to the age of ffty-seven years without
making it manifest Mr.. Seymour, however,
has never proposed a policy or inauguratcd a
measure of any kind. He has been a mere
critic of the doings of active men, carper,
not to say slanderer, of those whose familiar
ity with public affairs he has had no opportu-
nifty to attain, and with whose practical states
manshp he has never been brought into H.
valry.