NOT A DEFEAT OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN’S REPUBLICAN PARTY.
The “Grand Old Party,” which sprang from American intelligence and the
advancement of civilization, fully armed, like Minerva from the brain
of Jupiter!
That transcendent glory which will ever surround the name of the
Republican party with a halo, was not forever submerged beneath the
flood of indignant votes, November 8, 1892. That party which, by its
deeds, shall ever live in the grateful recollection of the American
heart, was not vanquished in the fight November last.
The symmetry, beauty, and virtues so pre-eminent in the party of
Abraham Lincoln in 1860, will ever present a spectacle for the
admiration of the “plain” “Common People” of America. They loved the
Republican party in 1860, and cast their votes for it because it
represented them--the plain “Common People”; because the candidate of
the Republican party, Abraham Lincoln, was one of them, the “Common
People”; because in the right hand of the Republican party was carried
the standard of _equality and emancipation_; because in their
standard-bearer, Abraham Lincoln, the plain people recognized a typical
man of the “Common People.” “Mudsillism” was synonymous to them with
the term “Common People.” The industrial and laborial North was aroused
to righteous indignation by the assumption of a social superiority on
the part of the cavaliers, the believers in “caste,” in the South.
The Republican party, led by that wonderful creation of the American
soil and the air of freedom, Abraham Lincoln, won the battle of the
equality of man in 1861-65. Following still the guiding star which had
left its reflected glory upon the horizon even after it had descended
into the tomb made by the assassin, the people of the Union elected the
victorious general, Ulysses S. Grant, to the office of Chief Executive
of the nation. Believing in and trusting the man who had been a friend
to Abraham Lincoln, when he was surrounded by a multitude of dangers,
they cheerfully re-elected the victorious General Grant to be the
President of the people for a second term.
Slowly, but none the less surely, had been going on, during General
Grant’s administration, the disintegration of those principles that
made the party of Abraham Lincoln _great_ in the eyes of the “Common
People” of the Union. After twice enjoying the exalted position of
Chief Magistrate of the nation, General Grant was called upon to
surrender his office to a successor. So great had been the inroads
of decay upon that sterling honesty of the Republican party--that
Republican party which had been planted by the loving hands of Lincoln
in the breasts of the American people--that President Hayes succeeded
General Grant, as a Republican President, only by concessions made in
the interests of peace by a great statesman, Samuel J. Tilden.
The weakening influence of the barnacles growing upon that stalwart
tree of Republicanism, and which had been washed there by the ocean
tide of prosperity that had surged upon our nation, was felt in
the campaign between Hayes and Tilden. And let all good Americans,
Republicans as well as Democrats, uncover their heads in speaking of a
man like Tilden, who was a man of the people, thought of the people,
and of the horrors of civil war. Each succeeding administration tended
but to weaken the hold of that good old Republican party, that Grand
Old Party! (and it gives us pleasure to say it) upon the hearts of
the American people, because the barnacles which had clung on to the
life-giving roots of the stalwart oak of Republicanism and the Grand
Old Party--those barnacles of sham aristocracy, believers in “caste”
and class distinction, the wealthy--had managed to sap the strength of
the vigorous young tree planted by Abraham Lincoln, until, deformed,
it presented a spectacle obnoxious to the eyes of the “Common People”
of America.
The first decisive evidence of the dissatisfaction of the people was
given in the election of Grover Cleveland in 1884.
While Burchard, with that remarkable alliteration, “Rum, Romanism, and
Rebellion,” is accredited with having caused the defeat of James G.
Blaine, the impression made upon the “Common People” by the spectacle
of that dinner of millionaires, called the “Belshazzar feast,” at which
the nominee of the Republican party, James G. Blaine, occupied a seat,
was much greater than the howling of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion,” by
an obscure preacher.
The Republican party had ceased to represent to the minds of the plain
“Common People” what it had originally represented. There had grown
upon that party the fruit of evil, in the shape of a moneyed class, who
assumed to be better than the plain “Common People” of America. Hence,
James G. Blaine, with all his personal popularity, magnetism, and
magnificent record, was unable to secure, from the ranks of the “Common
People,” the votes necessary to elect him President.
The defeat of Grover Cleveland by President Harrison was brought about
(and there can be no doubt of it) largely by the use of money, secured
as contributions from the moneyed class to perpetuate the control of
the Republican party in the Federal Government, thinking that by so
doing the power and assumption of social superiority upon the part of
believers in “caste,” who cared nothing about the principles of the
original Abraham Lincoln Republican party, and who were as far beneath
it in patriotism, honesty, and truth as the earth is beneath the
heavens, would also be perpetuated.
There is not a shadow of doubt, and even the most prejudiced slave of
political “bossism” will be forced to admit, that President Harrison
has filled his high office with dignity; that he is an honest,
patriotic, representative American. He has kept faith with the American
public, as far as was possible for him to do so, in the execution
of the laws enacted by the legislative bodies of the nation. His
renomination was but the natural consequence of his administration.
The Republican party certainly entered the campaign of 1892 opposed
by a divided Democratic press, a divided Democratic party, upon the
supposed and alleged great issue of the campaign--that is, Protection
and Free Trade.
To illustrate that point, compare the New York _Sun_, believing in
Protection, with the New York _World_, believing in Free Trade.
The American people for intelligence will average as highly as the
people of any other nation, but they are not all political economists.
They had not, even during the four years and with all “the campaign of
education,” become sufficiently instructed to form a decided opinion
upon the information acquired by them with regard to the questions of
political economy involved in the discussion of Protection and Free
Trade.
It is perfectly ridiculous to hear it asserted that the people of the
United States voted against the Republican party in sufficient numbers
to create a political revolution by reason of the fact that they had
learned sufficient to become convinced, founding their conviction upon
information and reason, that Free Trade was preferable to Protection.
The average American voter would be as lost in an argument upon the
subject of political economy as would a disputant regarding a legal
proposition who had never heard of Blackstone or Kent, because the
average American citizen has never read one line of Adam Smith, John
Stewart Mill, or, in fact, any of the hand-books of political economy.
The conclusion to be drawn from the assertion that the people of the
United States had become convinced that it was beneficial to them to
have Free Trade is groundless. The Republican party had certainly the
advantage in the argument, because, under the existing state of our
tariff laws, the country is and was prosperous, wages were higher, a
greater sum of money was deposited in the savings banks by the laboring
classes than ever before in the history of our country. Now, these good
things, representing a prosperous condition, actually existed and do
exist under the Protection policy of the Republican party. It is hard
to believe that the mass of our fellow-citizens would be led away by
the simple desire for an “experimental change.” It is hard to convince
any man (when you select an individual) that he shall forsake a
business or occupation which he knows furnishes him with a competency,
to embark into some new and untried venture, forsaking that which he
already knows furnishes him with a sufficiency, for that which is
speculative.
Now, this is exactly what the Republican party, as represented by the
Republican newspapers, is trying to preach as the cause of the defeat
of the Republican party last November. In other words, the press of the
Republican party assumes that, collectively, the people of the Union
are more utterly ignorant, stupid, and absurd than they would be when
acting as individuals, which, of course, is ridiculous.
It was not a question of the pocketbook with the masses. It was not a
question whether they were doing better by reason of the Protective
policy of the Republican party than they could hope to do under
the Free Trade policy enunciated by the Democratic party. It was a
clear-cut proposition: Shall we allow longer the accumulation of
money in the hands of a few families, who are assuming before us and
flaunting in our faces their claim to a social superiority, making a
sham aristocracy, “caste,” in our country? It was not the pocketbook,
for with regard to that proposition there can be no doubt that the
American characteristic, “shrewdness in business,” would have inclined
every voter to let well enough alone.
The Republican party and the principles enunciated at Minneapolis with
regard to Protection had certainly the best of the argument. From a
business standpoint, what was and is, is well. What may be in the
future, under the Free Trade theories of the Democratic party, from
a business standpoint, is problematical. But the voter remembered
the snubs, sneers, and insults inflicted upon his wife and family
by would-be social superiors, whom he associated in his mind, in an
unmistakable manner, with the Republican party.
It was not a defeat upon the principles of the Republican party. It
was a defeat of _class_, “caste,” and sham aristocracy. It was not a
defeat because of the pocketbook.
On November 5th, the _Mail and Express_, of New York City, published
the following editorial, which is absolutely truthful:--
BUSINESS AND POLITICS.
“Here it is the last week before the Presidential election, and so
sound are all the conditions that people seem to have little time
to talk politics. Never before in the history of the country has
business gone right on with so much more than usual activity for
the season. Money has been easy and the volume of exchanges, as
shown by the Clearing House returns, unprecedented for the season.
Anxiety over the result of next Tuesday’s election has neither
interfered with the ordinary trend of trade nor has it checked its
activity.
“The fact that wheat has this week sold at the lowest price ever
known at New York (73½ cents) must interest the farmer in the
cry of English cheap labor. If the Englishman comes to this
country because he can live better here, he increases the demand
for bread, and the farmer can certainly get a better return for
his produce when he sells it to a workingman at home instead of
sending it 3,000 miles across the ocean, paying freight room in a
foreign steamship to support a foreign workman.
“It is rather surprising that this cry should have been raised
just at this time. If the consumer and the producer are brought
closer together, is it not better for both? They save the cost of
the transfer from one to the other. If the English weaver can come
to this country and work, so that his product does not have to
cross the ocean, and then get his wheat, flour, and meal without
having to pay the additional cost, do not both profit? The country
is so large that we can well afford to increase its population
when we can reduce to a minimum the cost of the exchange of
necessary means of life.
“The market for iron is better all around, from the fact that
stocks are being taken up faster than ever at this season of the
year. This is due very largely to the even weather, which has been
so favorable to building projects, the number of working days in
October being probably more than in the same month for years, and
now, in the first week of November, work is going on just the same.
“This will be apparent to every one who has watched the progress
of work and seen new buildings reach the fifth or sixth story
when, if the season had been adverse, they might not have been
half as high at this time. The railroads have also contributed to
consumption, for they are forehanded in placing early orders for
the large increase in the equipment that they will have to have
for next year.
“The voluntary advance in wages by the Fall River manufacturers
is another suggestive indication. The South has had three years
of steadily increasing cotton crops. The country has not only
exported more than ever, but it has consumed more, and out of this
great crop the proportion spun and woven in the United States has
advanced even more rapidly. The figures will show that domestic
consumption has increased proportionately faster than the crops.
“There is no better proof of prosperity than the ability of the
people to buy clothes. Food they must have, but they can wear old
clothes. Now, the woolen factories are full of work, and yet,
thus late in the season, the orders are so large that the cotton
manufacturers make a second advance in wages within three months.
There is no idleness in the boot and shoe factories, and the
rubber mills are as fully occupied.
“The country never was more prosperous on the eve of election.”
It is impossible for a truthful man, who is not talking for the
benefit of “the galleries,” or as a political demagogue, to dispute
the facts recited in the above article in the _Mail and Express_.
That argument and the facts therein recited, ought to have had great
weight; but did they? No! And the reason? The _Mail and Express_ is
owned by Colonel Shepard--doubtless a most worthy gentleman--but,
unfortunately for any effect that might be created by the utterances
of Colonel Shepard; unfortunately for the influence looked for by
articles published in the _Mail and Express_ upon this occasion, it
is well and thoroughly understood that Colonel Shepard is a very
wealthy man, a son-in-law of the Vanderbilts; that he represents the
money power of the Vanderbilt family. The people of New York City
(and Colonel Shepard and the _Mail and Express_ is but an example)
said to Colonel Shepard, to the _Mail and Express_, in no hesitating
manner, November 8th, We will not dispute the facts that you publish
concerning our prosperity and the advantages that we enjoy under the
Protective policy. You appeal forcibly to our pocketbooks. But it is
now the turn of the people to say to Colonel Shepard, the _Mail and
Express_, and all the representatives of capital--The truth of your
argument, so far as our pocketbooks are concerned, to the contrary
notwithstanding, you, Colonel Shepard, representing that _class_ of
which your father-in-law was a prominent member, and to quote from his
magnificent rhetoric--you, Colonel Shepard, _Mail and Express_, and
representatives of “caste” and sham aristocracy, now in turn we say
it, “You be damned!” as Vanderbilt a few years ago said “The public be
damned.”
We have been Republicans, we, the “Common People,” until the party for
which we voted in 1860, and which, under the leadership of that great
Commoner, Abraham Lincoln, forever silenced the claim of the Southerner
to social superiority. We have been good Republicans until _you_ have
fostered and aggravated the ulcerous sore of a sham aristocracy,
defiling the healthy and vigorous body of the Republican party. You
may have the best of the argument on Protection; it may benefit our
pocketbooks, but we are not selling our birthright, the equality of
man, for a mess of pottage!
The _Mail and Express_, at great trouble, and, doubtless, expense,
furnished plausible excuses for the defeat of the Republican party, and
disliking to admit the _true cause_, for in admitting that true cause,
it would be necessary to hold the father-in-law of the proprietor
of the newspaper responsible for his share of this “Waterloo.” (In
fact, W. H. Vanderbilt was to the Republican party what Grouchy was
to Napoleon at Waterloo.) With great care did the _Mail and Express_,
saving no expense, ascertain the opinions of the various newspapers
in the State of New York, concerning the cause of the defeat of the
Republican party.
Its columns were filled with the opinions of editors throughout the
Empire State. Many and various were the reasons given. The defeat
was blamed upon the “stay-at-homes”; the defection of the farmers
on account of the McKinley Bill; the Saxton Ballot Law; a simple
desire for a “change”; lack of organization; and a few correspondents
intimated that the “Common People,” tired of accumulations of wealth,
voted the Democratic ticket in the hope of securing relief and equality
thereby.
Could not one editor have been found by the inquiring representatives
of the _Mail and Express_ who possessed sagacity sufficient, coupled
with enough frankness, to say, directly, that it was not against the
policy of the Republican party, their platform, nor candidate, that
the people voted November 8th, but that it was against that element
in society which the proprietor of the _Mail and Express_ represents
so ably as the son-in-law of W. H. Vanderbilt, the sham aristocracy,
snobbery, and the believers in “caste”?
It is not so much a matter of astonishment that the editors of
Republican newspapers should have misjudged with regard to the cause of
the social revolution as it is to find that eminently representative
American, General Benjamin Harrison, the candidate of the Republican
and the present President of the United States, giving expression to
ideas so erroneous as those accredited to him in an interview published
in the New York _World_, November 13, 1892.
The American people will always regard with kindly feeling the present
President of the United States, General Benjamin Harrison, as a citizen
of the Union, who was elevated to the position of Chief Executive of
the nation, and who has kept faith with those by whom he was elected.
It is well for a President, upon leaving the White House, to feel
that he carries with him into his reabsorption in the mass of the
people, the respect and confidence of his fellow-citizens. President
Harrison, personally, has the respect and admiration of every patriotic
American citizen in this broad land of ours. He may feel justly that
satisfaction which is the reward of services well rendered to the
Republic. Had his party, or, rather, the party which nominated him,
the Republican party, not been cursed with the crime of “caste,”
doubtless he would have been re-elected, for he enjoys the confidence,
irrespective of political affiliation, of each individual voter in the
Federal Union.
In the day of disaster to the party by which he had been nominated, in
the bewilderment arising from the overwhelming defeat of the Republican
party, President Harrison may reasonably be excused for his erroneous
judgment as to the cause of the disaster to the Republican party.
That he should seek for an excuse, standing upon the vantage ground
of truth itself, in the idea that the people of the Union had become
Free Traders, possibly may be justifiable. At the same time, President
Harrison is so thoroughly American that we would have expected a
nearer approach upon his part to the real cause of the defeat of the
Republican party.
That the Republican party had the best of the argument, so far as sound
finance is concerned, there can be no question or doubt. There lingers
yet, in the minds of many voters, recollections of the debased currency
in use prior to the National Banking Act, passed by the Republican
party. A bill issued now by a bank has the guarantee of the credit of
the Federal Government behind it. Such would not be the case should
the penalty tax of ten per cent. upon State banks be repealed. Every
dollar of currency to-day in use in America is worth a hundred cents.
And a lively picture to the contrary is presented by the experience
of those older citizens who endured all the inconveniences of a
State bank currency. The most ardent Democrat (meaning member of the
Democratic party) would hardly have temerity sufficient to assert that
the financial policy, as advocated by the Democratic platform, adopted
at the Chicago National Convention, is superior to the sound money
existing by reason of the legislation enacted under the Republican
administration of the finances of the Federal Government.
But the people said, November 8, 1892, it matters not whether the
currency be debased or not. We, the plain “Common People,” will not
be debased into social inferiority! It matters not whether there be
thousands of counterfeits in the currency of the community. We would
rather have counterfeited currency than counterfeited aristocracy! The
dollar to-day, guaranteed by the faith of the Federal Government,
may be worth a hundred cents, and we’ll make it worth only fifty
cents, as guaranteed by each State in the Union, but the position,
socially and otherwise, of each man and citizen of the Union must be
worth a _hundred cents_. And we are weary at the attempt made by sham
aristocrats to depreciate the value of that doctrine, which is dearer
to the American than dollars and cents--the EQUALITY OF MAN.
With regard to the Force Bill, the Republican party had the best of
the argument. Their platform, as adopted in Minneapolis, only indorsed
the idea of a fair, free, and honest election, all of which was
but the reiteration of part of that Rock of Ages for the patriotic
American--the Constitution of the United States. Can any man argue
that, as a good citizen of the Union, it is proper for him to believe
in anything other than a fair, honest election? If there be such, he
is not to be found in the ranks of the plain, common, honest people,
who absolutely abhor any fraud upon their franchise as citizens of the
United States.
So that, in point of fact, apparently the three great issues to be
decided in the last campaign by the American people were: Protection
_versus_ Tariff; National Banks _versus_ State Banks; Fair Elections
_versus_ Frauds on the Franchise.
Without a moment’s hesitation, the American people would have decided
that the Republican party should continue in control of the affairs
of the nation, especially when that Republican party had for its
standard-bearer a man who, like Benjamin Harrison, possessed the
confidence of the American people--a man in whom the American people
recognized every patriotic principle inherent in the breasts of the
common, plain people of America.
But the Republican party of 1892 had become lost in the mist arising
from the exhalations from the manure heap of sham aristocracy and
“caste.” Figures looming out of the gloom of the present, hardly
compare favorably with those giants who cultivated the soil in which
was planted the Republican oak tree.
Through the miasma arising from the rotting present of the Republican
party, the picture of Thomas Platt appears. In the pellucid atmosphere
of the Republican party of the past, we see the picture of Seward.
Amidst the odoriferous present we find the likeness of the skillful,
the Honorable Matthew S. Quay. Upon the clear sky of the past is
mirrored the majestic Roscoe Conkling.
Amidst the hurly-burly and charlatan parade of the present, we
perceive that prince of clowns and jesters, Chauncey M. Depew, king
of after-dinner speech-makers, the witty buffoon who represents the
princely Vanderbilts, the man who was never heard of except when
clothed, either in dress suit or imported English clothing. By the side
of this figure of the present, look back and see the picture of that
man of the Republican party who met Stephen A. Douglas on the stump in
Illinois, whose jests were filled with the meat of common-sense, whose
heart was an out-gushing spring of kindness towards his fellow-men,
the “Common People.” Place the present picture, Chauncey M. Depew, in
dress suit, supported by the Vanderbilts’ millions, beside the long,
angular figure of that Illinoisian, Abraham Lincoln, supported by the
people--but pause; this is sacrilege!
Republicans, you know why your party was defeated. Be frank; be brave;
be manly, and charge it upon the proper cause--“caste!” affectation!
sham aristocracy! degeneracy!