OCR Text |
Show SESATOR BLAINE'S SECTIONALISM. Senator Blaine of Maine utilized the 4th of July by an attack upon the Mexican policy of the administration. He said tbe order of President Hayes to General Ord to; cro;s the border tended to war and annexation, aud he recalled the days of theTexas and other annexations to show that nearly all of th additions to the territory of the United States havo been made under southern presidents and mainly for southern interests. Blaine admitted admit-ted that Canada would comprise a valuable addition to our territory, but it was oot proposed to annex it .it ttresent. Harping on the subject of annexation annexa-tion of territory, now that slavery is dead and there is nothing to be gained sectionally ly advocating or opposing tho incorporation of new territory terri-tory into tho Union, seems rather a remarkable stroke of policy on the part of the Maine 'statesman. There is no evidence of the existence of an annexation party perse in this cjuntry, though thero may be a ffw filibusters and other interested individuals indi-viduals who might favor a war for this purpose. The government in its resolution to put a stop to tbe Mexi can raids acroes our borders has taken a position that nhould havo been adopted years ago. The citizens of Texas have not received the protection protec-tion to which they arc entitled, to the shame be it said of the late adminis tration and ot Senator Blaine, as one ot the leading Btateimcn of the dominant party. It is hardly probable prob-able that any consiJerabla number ot senntors or representatives will be in clintd to oppose tho administration for its praiseworthy determination to protect the territory of tho United States and tho rights of its citizens, and Senator Blaino seems to have been unusually unfortnnato in bis selection of a topic on which to antagonize an-tagonize President Hayes. .Blaine's ill-timed attack upon the south as a section shows the animus of his policy. He Bees in a united south tho death blow to eustern sectionalism sec-tionalism ami the doctrine of American Ameri-can provincialism and New England rule. The country having accepted the declaration which Mr. Hayes has so gracefully put iu . practice, that sectional war policies no longer exist, Blaine comes to the rescue ol his party with the old issue of sectional antagonism to annexation, on the ground that tho touth is already too formidable and must still bo curbed and restrained. Ho claims that the south iB lapsing back to her old slate rights dogmas, and that her antagon ism consists in an opposition to American nationality, winch should not be strengthened by annexation. No American atatesman has ever exhibited a narrower view of thu character aud destiny of the United States than this. It reminds ono ol the resolutions of tho old Hartford conventionists, ol the unreasoning opposition of the whigs to the annexation annex-ation of Texas and the Mexican war, and the subsequent annexation of the empire obtained from Mexico. That these grand achievements were made by the democratic party and under southern auspices is true, but the fact should leavo no sling in the memory of any patriotic American. Democrats may well honor tho saga city of Mr. Seward for h'u purchase1 and annexation of Alaska to the United States, and no one can now glance at the territory this country has acquired and witness its progress and prosperity under American rule without with-out feclingBof gratitude to the wise statesmen who have enlarged the borders of the country and increased its usefulness. Tho arguments of Mr. Blaine arc alto a confession of judgment o gainst the republican party. What in its sixtceu years rule has it accomplished that will tell as a permanent bequest to tho greatnesa of tho republic save tho forced abolition of slavery through an enormous and impoverishing war? Even Alaska was purchased under Andrew Johnson," a president whom the republican party impeached |