Harper's Weekly Editorials on Carl Schurz/The Missouri Senator

telegraph states that Senator , of Missouri, and some other gentlemen have returned to that State to defeat as a candidate for the Senate of the United States. The reason which is understood to determine their action is one of general interest, upon which it is worth while to say a word. It was urged, during the canvass in General district, that his election was a local matter with which it was extremely impertinent for “outsiders” to interfere. We should like to know what citizen of the United States is an “outsider” in regard to the Congress that is to make laws to govern him. There is no citizen of the Essex District more interested in the course of its representative upon national questions than any citizen of California or New York. Moreover, as the Republican party is a national party, every member of it has an equal interest in its general policy, and an equal right to express his opinions of the expediency of its nominations; while citizens of the United States and honest men will not hesitate in the highest public interest to criticise public men and their conduct every where and always. If knavery is any where proposed, if improper candidates are any where nominated, if political corruption is any where favored, it will not be suffered to plead that it is local, so long as there is an independent press in the country.

We say this much, not because we insinuate or suspect any foul play in the opposition to Mr., but to dispose of a very foolish fancy that our political interests in candidates expire at our State lines. When the State of New York sends Representatives and Senators to Congress it sends them as much for Missouri as for itself. They are not to legislate for New York, but for the country; and if in their characters or views, or the grounds upon which they are supported or resisted, there be points of general public concern, we trust that they will be presented, in Missouri as in New York, with the utmost force.

The reason of the opposition to Mr. is understood to be the resolutions which he introduced as supplementary to the Chicago Platform, and which were unanimously adopted. These resolutions commended the conduct of men like General and others, who, having served in the rebellion, now frankly co-operate in reconstruction upon the basis of justice and equal rights, and favored the removal of all political disabilities as fast as may be consistent with the safety of the loyal people. Mr. certainly never appeared to greater advantage than in the chair of the temporary Presidency of the last National Republican Convention. His address was dignified, temperate, lofty, and wise. It set the key of the proceedings of that most sagacious political Convention; and the resolutions which we have mentioned admirably completed the Platform, and did as much as any part of the work of the Convention to commend the party to the renewed confidence of the country. They expressed then, and they express even more forcibly now, the prevailing sentiment of the party and of its elected President. That sentiment is equally removed from vindictiveness and sentimentality. It recognizes the necessity which the second of the resolutions of Mr. expresses, of making the principles of the Declaration of Independence the true foundations of the Government, with such exceptions only in the application as are absolutely necessary.

It is certainly only by a resolute ingenuity of misconception that such sentiments as those contained in the resolutions should be supposed to favor “traitors,” or to aim at giving political supremacy to the late rebels. Does the Republican party favor “traitors?” Exactly as much as Mr., for it enthusiastically approved his views. Did we all conduct the late campaign upon the ground of promoting “rebels” to power? Exactly as much as Mr. , and he no more than the rest of us. We all cordially supported the platform of which his resolutions were an essential part and a chief ornament. We are all in the same category. If he is guilty, so is General, so are all the rest of us. If we are innocent of laboring to promote “rebels”, so is Mr.. If he is unworthy to sit in the Senate because of his regard for the allies of Messrs. and &mdash; two gentlemen formerly known in our politics &mdash; then Senator should be sent home again, and must be rejected as hopelessly “conservative.”

Such an objection in itself is futile. It is important only as it may affect those who do not reflect closely upon the situation and upon the words in which the Chicago resolutions were expressed. If, indeed, there are those who would perpetually disfranchise any considerable number of citizens, without regard to the condition of the country and with no reference to the public safety, they are merely blind or vindictive partisans who are not to be counted in the Republican party, and whom its Convention has excluded by the terms of its platform. They only can be considered Republicans in the party sense who substantially accept the party declaration of principle and policy. That demands the removal of all disability as fast as is consistent with the safety of the loyal people. Every Republican Senator is honorably pledged to that policy, while every one must, of course, determine for himself when the time has arrived, and what is the best method for removing disabilities. But unless Senator and Mr. are to be suspected as “traitors,” certainly Mr., whose opinions the party has expressly ratified, may pass untainted. The Republican serves his party best who aims to remove all political disabilities of every kind just as fast as the welfare of the loyal people permits and no faster. That does not seem to us a reason for excluding a man otherwise qualified from the Senate, but for sending him to it.


 * Page Image at Wikimedia Commons