Democratic victories in the Middle States in 1862 did to the then existing Republican Administration. They were significant, not as showing that the country was becoming Democratic, but that a great many Republicans were dissatisfied with the course of public events, and with the actions of their own party leaders.
But what of the future? It is plain that if Congress, at its session of 1867-'8, does nothing to reform the Internal Revenue Department, if the business of the country is to go from bad to worse, and if no practicable scheme be proposed for pacifying the South and restoring the Southern States to the Union, the Republican party must expect to be defeated at the Presidential election. There is, however, every reason to infer from the tone of the Republican press and of those of its leaders who have spoken since the late elections, that it will profit by the reverses of 1867 as the administration of President Lincoln did by those of 1862. Whatever may be said against the Republican organization, it must be owned that it has shown itself to be a very flexible party, and willing to adapt itself to the varying phases of public opinion. Its history is full of records of its changes, not only in name, but in doctrines. Originally composed of diverse elements, such as Whigs, Democrats and Know Nothings, it incorporated Barnburners, Free Soilers, Anti-Nebraska Democrats, and every section of the Democratic party that showed a disposition to revolt was encouraged so to do, and its leaders given positions of profit and honor. The case is far different with the Democratic party. It has not only retained its name for more than a generation, but has been intolerant of dissent, and has permitted no modifications of its platform save such as it could not help or were forced upon it by its opponents. Once the movement party, during the great slavery agitation and the ensuing war it became the conservative party. Mr. John Stuart Mill has called the conservatives of England, as compared with their opponents, "the stupidest party"—an epithet which is true in a certain sense of the Democratic party of the United States. Not that its leaders are stupid or that it does not include a great many very clever men, but, from the position which it is compelled to occupy, it necessarily embraces nearly all the stolid and ignorant voters, especially such as are influenced by prejudice of race. As a party, it has shown no flexibility, its leadership has been very unwise, and its position during the war was, to say the least, unfortunate. History will yet do justice to its defence of personal rights and of the liberty of the press during the progress of an exasperating civil war; but upon its contemporaries its action has been unfortuate for its reputation, however undeserved that reputation may be. It is safe to say that this party does not contain to-day one statesman who has the comprehensive ideas, breadth of view, suggestiveness and mental grasp, to fitly lead a great party in a Presi-
