Year: 1876

ocracy declared what was already done, "un-


constitutional, revolutionary and void" deny
ing the validity of even the thirteenth and


fourteenth amendments. But they asserted,


nevertheless, that they alone could reunite the
country, part of which was still oppressed as


they said by a 'military despotism."


The Republicans, on the other hand,


contended that in case of a Demo-


cratic victory the fruits of the war


would be lost and that the blood and treas


ure expended in four years struggle would


be worse than wasted. Who now disputes or


can dispute these propositions? Had Sey-


mour been elected over Grant with the au-


thor of the Broadhead letter as Vice Presi-


dent, the fifteenth amendment would never


have been proposed, the fourteenth would


certainly have been annulled or practically dis


regarded and the South would not now have


even the present necessity of frightening or


shooting the freedman to prevent his voting.


1t is now clear TO all, Republicans and Demo-


Gratis alike, that more instead OF less unhappy


results than were anticipated would have fol-


lowed from Seymour's election. There is a


virtual confession of this fact in the express


ratification of the whole body of reconstruc-


tion legislation in the next Democratic ma


tional platform. There is another confess


sion Of it in the Democratic platform


the present year which says no


more about the taxation of government


bonds and their payment in greenbacks


which were such conspicuous features of the
platform of eight years ago. There are now
few loyal men left in the country so mad as
to desire such financial legislation as would
have followed as matter of course from the
elevation of Seymour.


Any thoughtful observer can now see that
the country had another escape from grave
disaster in 1872. Yet the Democratic posi-
tion OF that year was so plausible as to seduce
a considerable body of Republicans from their
old party associations. The Democrats gave
us for candidates two men of unimpeachable
war record, one of them claiming to be a Re-
publican. They promised to guard the new
constitutional guarantees OF liberty. Would
they have done so? With Democratic
President in the chair,-nobody knows who,
such have been the singular ravages of death
in the regular line of succession, lit is i'm
possible to imagine anything too extravagant
for the present Confederate House to at
tempt. Under such circumstances what pre-.
tence of impartial suffrage would there now
be at the South? How many white immi-
grants from the North would now be living
south of the restored Mason's and Dlxon's
line? How much safer would it be for a
loyal man to visit Charleston in 1876 than it
was in 1861? Judging from the success of the
chivalry even under Republican administra-
ton in restoring The worst features of the
ante bellan era, how much liberty or secu-
rty would have been left to the freedman un-
der a President elected by Democratic
votes?


And now the Democracy come once more,
saying to the people, "Give us your votes
and all will be WE'LL" This time they do not
feel il necessary to offer Republican candi-
dates, on the contrary their ticket is COM
posed of men who stood with Seymour in
1868 in denouncing as unconstitutional and
void all that had been done to destroy human
bondage and to preserve the Union. Their
supporters are at this moment riding through
The Southland, practically nullifying the four
teenth and fifteenth amendments and carry
ing into effect the Seymour instead of the
Tilden platform. Is it safe, judging from the
past, to trust them with more power than
they now possess?