Jasper County Democrat, Volume 1, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 November 1898 — DEMOCRATS AND THE WAR [ARTICLE]

DEMOCRATS AND THE WAR

They Vied With the Republicans In Giving the Administration Financial Support. McKinley’* Lack of Diplomacy and Vigor In Dealing Wltb Spain Wan Roundly Criticised by the Republicans—Chairman Hernly Would Slake a Nonpartisan War a State Issue to Bolster Up HU Party. It ought to be remembered, because it is true, that the Democratic party was the real war party of the nation. It was in favor of the war with Spain for humanitarian considerations. It believed that Spain’s rule in Cuba was brutal, savage, horrible, and it believed that the Cubans ought to enjoy liberty and independence. So persistent were Democrats in demanding a declaration of war against Spain that the remark was often made: “This is a Democratic war. ” It is a matter of record that when it became apparent that war with Spain was inevitable and the administration wanted the means for war purposes, Democrats in congress vied with Republicans in giving to the administration all the money it demanded and $50,000,000 was voted and placed in the hands of tin president to be expeuded as be might deem proper. If Democrats doubted the policy of issuing interest bearing bonds to supply war revenue, it was .not because of any hostility to the war, or for the purpose of embarrassing the administration, but, rather because they believed the time had not arrived making it necessary to burden the people with an additional tonded debt and taxation. They believed that the war would be of short duration, that tne reserves of the treasury were ample to carry ou the war, even if it should continue to December, when, if bonds were required, the facts would be before the country, and a bond loan conld speedily bo made to meet all emergencies. In a word, the Democrats, in and out of congress, with patriotic unanimity have sought in every possible way to uphold the hands of the administration in conducting the war. If there were criticisms of Mr. McKinley’s diplomacy and of his lack of vigor in dealing with Spain, it should be stated that Republicans were even more pronounced iu their complaints than were Democrats. And it will be remembered that it required heroic efforts ou the part of Republican whips to restrain Republioau members of congress from breaking through all restraints and openly condemning Mr. McKinley’s dilatory policy. The Democratic party studiously declined to drag the war into politios. It was not, in its origin, a party war. If Mr. McKinley was obnoxious to criticism, it was because he "decested” war, and exhibited the greatest reluctance in beginning hostilities. In his owu language he desired to be satisfied that a war with Spain would be a “righteous war,” and even the sinking of the battleship Maine did not arouse him from his lethargy. And the facts show that Republicans were more censorious than Democrats over such exhibitions of supineness. And in this connection it is worthy of mention that the Democracy of Indiana, in state convention assembled, in putting forth their platform, ignored the war as a political issue. There was not one word in the platform arraigniug Mr. McKinley’s administration for anything done or omitted iu conducting the war. On the contrary, the platform gave only expression of patriotic sentiments. The war plank of the platform was iu the highest degree eulogistic of the war, army and navy. Indeed, in each regards its indorsement of the wax was even more pronouuced than the declarations of the Republioau platform. To still further demonstrate that the Democratic party was opposed to dragging the war into politics, on Aug. 17 Hon. Parks M. Martin, chairman of the state Democratic central committee, gave expression to his views in an interview iu the Indianapolis Sentiuel on the war as a political issue, and is reported as follows: “As I said, 1 don’t believe that the war should be made an issue in this state campaign. It was not a political war. It was waged in the interest of humanity to snccor the down-trodden, starving people of Cuba. The Democrats are not disposed to bring the war into the state campaign, not that they’re afraid to, for if the Republicans show a disposition to make it a campaign matter we are going to take care of oarsalves all right. If they are going to make this a war campaign it is not patting it too strong to say that we will handle them without gloves. We might he able to show, for instanoe, that the war was brought about by the Democrats in congress, assisted by a few Republicans, and that if it had been left to President MoKinley and his advisers we would probably never have had a war. Ido not say this in the way of criticism and I am opposed to trying to make campaign material out ot a war that was supported loyally by all parties and all sections.” •' —t 7 This completely disposes all the shallow talk o? the Republican press regarding the position oi the Democratic party on the war as a political issue in the campaign in Indiana. Bnt, Mr. Hernly, chairman of the ReEiblioan state central committee, in an terview published in the Indianapolis Behtinel on Aug. 18, the day following the appearance of Mr. Martin’s interview, took occasion to insist that war should be and ought to be an issue in the campaign in Indiana. Evidently, Mr. Hernly beljeved the war issue would be highly conducive to Republican success. and is reported as saying: “I read The Sentinel’s interview with Parks Martin in which he said that the war should not. be made an issue in this campaign, bnt tint the Democrats are ready to meet it if the Republicans

. spring it. Ido not agree with Mr. Martin that we who happen to be in positions of party responsibility can make the issues of this or of any campaign. The people make the issues. They know what they are vitally interested in, and unless the stump speaker talks of these things he will find himself without aodienees. Just now the people want to have the story of the war told them. It is a story in which they are vitally interested. They waut it told from the stnmp by the stomp speakers. They are interested iu the question of territorial expansion and the thonsand-and-one questions growing out of the war, and they want to know what our public men think about them. The people of Indiauu have decreed that the war shall be an issue in the caini paign. i “While we Republicans do not claim ' the sole credit for having brought on this war, we are all proud of the master--1 ly way in which the war was conducted by President McKinley, and we see no ! harm in saying so from from the stump. * * * * * * “The Republicans are forced to make | the war question an issue, even though j they were not inclined. The Republican party was the party iu power dfting this war crisis. It has many things |to explain to the people. It has to explain why it was necessary to issue bonds; why it was necessary to establish a war revenue, and it has to answer j to the people for all the steps of the campaign. It will try to answer to the people of Indiana this fall. ” It will be observed that Mr. Hern- ! ly, speaking for his party, declared in favor of making the war a campaign issue, besides, it will be observed that ; Mr. Heruly declares that "the Republicans are forced to make the war question an issae even though they were not ; inclined,” and that the Republicans j “have many things to explain.” Let it be understood that the war by itself considered—that is Ur say the 1 declaration of war mid the battles of the \ war on the land and on the sea—is not and cannot be made a partisau political ! issue, since all parties and all sections favored the war. i Mr. Hernly sounded a keynote when he said. "The Republican party has j many things to explain,” and it is \ doubtless truo that the people, if they . have made the issue,-it- is with the uu- ' derstandiug that Republicans shall “ex- ! plain many things”—uot about “bonds” . nor any of the laud or naval battles, ! since they have been explained by ofli- | cers in Qomqmpd. What, then? The l question is answered by the appoint- | meut of a commission by the president and his instructions to that commission, iu which he said: “There has been, in many quarters, severe criticism of the conduct of the war with Spain. Charges of criminal neglect of the soli diersincamp and field and hospital and ; in transports, have been so persistent, that, whether true or false, they have a deep impression upon the connWho made these charges which Republicans must explain? Mr. Hernly says “the Republican party was the party iu power during this war crisis.” And the Republican party mast explain. Certainly, Democrats did not make the charges. The Democratic party was not iu power “daring this war crisis.” No part of the infamy charged, and which, as Mr. McKinley says, has “made a deep impression upon the country,” attaohes to the Democratic party. These charges have been made by soldiers, by offioers wearing the insignia of generals, by correspondents of journals of the highest character for prudent statements, by army chaplains, and, to the extent they dared to talk, by private soldiers. This pelting storm of charges, growing more fieroe as the days went by, horrified the people. Nor was it required for the private soldiers, who returned alive from pestilential camps, to talk. To see them, as Colonel Studebaker said of his splendid regiment —the One Hundred and Fiftyseventh Indiana—“with fever in their very bones,” weqk, wasted and but a shadow of their former selves, was a speech more terribly eloquent than Mark Anthony made over the dead body of Uuesar.

True, they were not in the battle at Santiago nor Manila—they were not in war at all. Their battles were for life in the camps assigued them by the administration, by McKinley’s war secretary. They were in American camps within a lew hoars’ travel by rail of Washington, they were within reach of telegraph and telephone, and yet they suffered and many died for want of medicines, food and care. Suffered by criminal neglect and criminal inoompctency, the result of the lowest degree of partisan politics in making appointments. Mr. MoKiuley, in his instructions to the investigating commission, among other things, said: “I cannot impress upon yon too strongly my wish that your investigation shall be so thorough and complete that yonr report when made will fix the responsibility for any fatlnre or fault by reason of neglect, inoompetenoy or maladministration upon the offioers and bureaus responsible therefor—if it be found that the evils complained of have existed. “The people of the oonntry are entitled toknow whether or not the citizens who so promptly responded to the oall of duty have been neglected or misused or maltreated by the government to which they so willingly gave their services. If there have been wrongs committed, the wrongdoers must not escape conviction and punishment.”. These are brave words, aud, peradventure, like stray chickens, he may find them coming home to roost The war department has had charge ot the army, and at the head of this department is Secretary Alger, for whose appointment President McKinley is solely responsible. Hence, the traoki of the criminal blunders of that department point to the white house as certainly as the hoofprints of Phil Armour's cattle point to the slaughterhouse. The nation believes that the first criminal blunder was the appointment of Alger as secretary of war. If die people are right in this, the mnltipUed wrongs of whioh the people complain, the investigating commission may bold William McKinley, president of the United States, responsible. In the relentless search for wrong doers it may be in order to track them to their hiding places, but it is in oonsonauoe with the eternal fitness of things to find, if possible, the one man, the higher hie position the more important the investigation, who is responsible, and when found stand him up before the pitiless gaze of the world and say to him, as Nathan said to David, “Thou art the man.”