Harper's Weekly Editorials on Carl Schurz/Mr. Carl Schurz and the Democratic Party

by Harper's Weekly

MR. CARL SCHURZ AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

The honors which have been recently offered to Mr. Carl Schurz have a greater public than personal significance. His career has made him the representative of the general desire of reform in political methods and spirit which prevails in the country, and those who are bent upon that reform greet Mr. Schurz with continuous enthusiasm. In his speeches he maintains the necessary supremacy of conscience in politics, and his accomplishments and readiness and eloquence enable him to speak to the sympathy and hope of all patriotic men. The first of the recent dinners given to him on the eve of his departure for Europe was an assembly of gentlemen of various political parties, but, as was natural, the lead was taken by those who, with the exception of Mr. Evarts, were identified with the Cincinnati movement of 1872, and who have probably little faith in the recovery of the Republican party. Indeed, Mr. C. F. Adams, Jun., announced that the company were independent voters, now Republicans with Blaine, and now Democrats with Bayard. Are there, then, no political principles in government? Is is wholly a matter of personal character? May an American now be for colonial taxation with Grenville, and now for independence with Sam Adams? now for slavery with Calhoun, and now for freedom with Garrison? now for protection with Greeley, and now for free trade with Bryant? If an American is a Republican with Blaine, he can not be a Democrat with Bayard; and if in a free country he has great political objects at heart, he must seek them by the usual political methods.

But the important result of this demonstration was the declaration made by Mr. Schurz himself, the accepted leader of the “independent” or “liberal” body, that the political reform and purification of administration so earnestly desired are not to be found in the Democratic party. Indeed, there is no duller joke than the claims of that perfectly familiar party to be the sole hope of progress and reform. It is not for us to say how agreeable this declaration of their leader may have been to Cincinnati men of '72, like Mr. D. A. Wells and Mr. Lafayette S. Foster, who have gone over to the democrats, or to Mr. Algernon S. Sullivan, Mr. J. J. Cisco, and the other Tammany Hall and Manhattan Club Democrats who are named among the conspicuous guests at the dinner. But however agreeable it may have been, it is strictly true. Mr. Schurz himself has proved it by his own experience. If there was a distinctive “reformer” in the Senate, it was he. He also maintained upon many questions the side taken by Democratic Senators, and with infinitely more force than all of them, because of his independent position. But when the “Reform Democracy” came to choose his successor, it did not offer Mr. Schurz even a complimentary vote, but elected a man wholly unknown, except for the fact that he led troops to overthrow the government and secure slavery. While the “Reform Democracy” could use Mr. Schurz to divide Republicans and alienate the German vote, it flattered him as a great statesman. When it saw that he was patriotic, not partisan, that he meant reform as a fact, not as an election “gag,” it derided him as impracticable and foolish.

The same Democracy three or four years ago was equally overcome with admiration of Mr. Charles Francis Adams as a great statesman. But Mr. Adams came to New York, and in his eulogy upon Mr. Seward described the Democratic party as a conspiracy against human rights, which little piece of truth-telling has lost him Democratic countenance, except when it is hoped that he may be used to hurt Republicans. So also with Mr. Sumner. The contempt lavished upon him by the Democratic press, the scorn with which the ridiculous gnats of that party sought to sting him during all the great and humane labor of his life, suddenly ceased in 1872, when it was supposed that praise of him would promote Democratic success. But when he died the “Reform Democracy” instinctively returned to its vomit of ribald insult. Mr. Schurz, of course, has the same experience. He has told a few truths of the party which those who really suppose that any real reform is to be expected from it may well ponder. In his speech at the American dinner he said:

“The question has been asked why we did not go over to the Democrats. I shall answer for myself with entire candor, and without the least intention to be offensive to any body. I did not go over to the Democrats for reasons similar to those which separated us from the interests controlling the Republican organization — the reason that many of the necessary reforms I spoke of seemed at the hands of the Democrats to have just as little chance of accomplishment; that in many of the States where they had obtained control their performances contrasted strikingly with their professions; and also because it was to be feared that a distinct, unalloyed Democratic victory would, even against the desire of the best of their leaders, unchain an overbearing partisan spirit, apt to encourage something of the composing elements of the party to venture upon attempts partially to disturb existing settlements — attempts which would, indeed, certainly be fruitless, but calculated to lead to confusion and provoke rebounds tending to bring forth a still more dangerous centralization of power.”

And at the German dinner, on the next evening, he said, with the faith in America and want of faith in the “Reform Democracy” which show his great good sense:

“Corruption is the greatest evil which can afflict a free people. There are pessimists who look at the surface of our national affairs, and say that corruption is every where supreme. He who knows the American people knows, however, that they are sound at the core. They are also strong enough to battle all their evils. The people who could stand Pierce's and Buchanan's administration, who could withstand the rebellion, could also bear up under the burden of eight years of Grant's administration.”

Mr. Schurz has undoubtedly changed the opinion which he held in 1871, and which probably determined in some degree his subsequent action, that the Democratic party is extinct. He has discovered that it is not only alive, but unchanged, and in full sympathy with the tendencies and purposes which are most fatal to popular liberty and Republican progress. If he had cherished any lingering doubts upon the subject, Mr. Murat Halstead's humorous tale of the character and consequences of Democratic ascendency in Ohio must have effectually disposed of them. “I am afraid,” says Mr. Halstead, “we have gone about as far in putting the Democratic party into power in the State of Ohio as is strictly necessary as a reformatory measure.” In these few words he exactly describes the situation. The elections of last autumn put the Democratic party in power in many quarters. Has that success had any other result than that which is indicated by Mr. Halstead and Mr. Schurz, namely, that hope of reform does not lie in that direction? The two banquets to Mr. Schurz, the American and the German, represent a sentiment and support that naturally belong to the Republican party, and that gravitate toward it even now. Shall that support be rejected, sure as the rejection would be to destroy the party and elect a Democrat? Or shall 1876 find all who naturally prefer the Republican spirit and tendency and aim once more heartily united in a Republican triumph? That is a question not for Republican leaders, but for the mass of Republicans who lead the leaders.