LAST DITCH OF DEMOCRACY - Majority Rights

his chief advisors if elected? There’s the rub. I need mention no names
but will suggest that the least objectionable of his pet supporters are the
Tribune supporters of Greeley in 1872, accusers of Blaine in 1876 and
1880, charging him with bribery and other penitentiary crimes. With no
pronounced issues between the two great parties, we can safely afford to
yield temporary executive control at this time.
It is vastly more important to good government that the Republican
Party be restored to supremacy in Congress than that the administration
of law be entrusted to an unworthy partisan surrounded by bad counsel.
The N.Y. Times commented on the letter thus: that Blaine’s advocate
will be amazed to see how formidable is the list of his offenses and how
small a part the Mulligan letters (sufficient in themselves) play in the
arraignment.
You will say: why rake it all up? Hasn’t Woodward summed it all up
very neatly? It was an unfortunate choice. Blaine was thoroughly tarred
with financial scandals. The worst of it was that the public knew all
about his slippery doings. He declared during the campaign that his life
was an open book. It was, indeed, but it had been opened by somebody
else. For the first time in our history a major political party nominated as
its candidate a man who was known to be dishonest. All of which is,
indeed, past history, and could have been let alone were it not that a
Democratic administration, the Morgenthau-Lehman administration, has
run a commemoration of a defeated Republican candidate. Now isn’t
that odd, just a bit odd? It is just part of [the] process of falsification of
history.
I hope my little bit of reminiscence may shed a side light, and even back
up Woodward’s summary. He is sometimes laconic.
#77 (April 1843) U.K.(C35)
CANUTE