_Question_. Is it true, as rumored, that you intend to leave
Washington and reside in New York?
_Answer_. No, I expect to remain here for years to come, so far
as I can now see. My present intention is certainly to stay here
during the coming winter.
_Question_. Is this because you regard Washington as the pleasantest
and most advantageous city for a residence?
_Answer_. Well, in the first place, I dislike to move. In the
next place, the climate is good. In the third place, the political
atmosphere has been growing better of late, and when you consider
that I avoid one dislike and reap the benefits of two likes, you
can see why I remain.
_Question_. Do you think that the moral atmosphere will improve
with the political atmosphere?
_Answer_. I would hate to say that this city is capable of any
improvement in the way of morality. We have a great many churches,
a great many ministers, and, I believe, some retired chaplains, so
I take it that the moral tone of the place could hardly be bettered.
One majority in the Senate might help it. Seriously, however, I
think that Washington has as high a standard of morality as any
city in the Union. And it is one of the best towns in which to
loan money without collateral in the world.
_Question_. Do you know this from experience?
_Answer_. This I have been told [was the solemn answer.]
_Question_. Do you think that the political features of the incoming
administration will differ from the present?
_Answer_. Of course, I have no right to speak for General Garfield.
I believe his administration will be Republican, at the same time
perfectly kind, manly, and generous. He is a man to harbor no
resentment. He knows that it is the duty of statesmanship to remove
causes of irritation rather then punish the irritated.
_Question_. Do I understand you to imply that there will be a
neutral policy, as it were, towards the South?
_Answer_. No, I think that there will be nothing neutral about
it. I think that the next administration will be one-sided--that
is, it will be on the right side. I know of no better definition
for a compromise than to say it is a proceeding in which hypocrites
deceive each other. I do not believe that the incoming administration
will be neutral in anything. The American people do not like
neutrality. They would rather a man were on the wrong side than
on neither. And, in my judgment, there is no paper so utterly
unfair, malicious and devilish, as one that claims to be neutral.
No politician is as bitter as a neutral politician. Neutrality is
generally used as a mask to hide unusual bitterness. Sometimes it
hides what it is--nothing. It always stands for hollowness of head
or bitterness of heart, sometimes for both. My idea is--and that
is the only reason I have the right to express it--that General
Garfield believes in the platform adopted by the Republican party.
He believes in free speech, in honest money, in divorce of church
and state, and he believes in the protection of American citizens
by the Federal Government wherever the flag flies. He believes
that the Federal Government is as much bound to protect the citizen
at home as abroad. I believe he will do the very best he can to
carry these great ideas into execution and make them living realities
in the United States. Personally, I have no hatred toward the
Southern people. I have no hatred toward any class. I hate tyranny,
no matter whether it is South or North; I hate hypocrisy, and I
hate above all things, the spirit of caste. If the Southern people
could only see that they gained as great a victory in the Rebellion
as the North did, and some day they will see it, the whole question
would be settled. The South has reaped a far greater benefit from
being defeated than the North has from being successful, and I
believe some day the South will be great enough to appreciate that
fact. I have always insisted that to be beaten by the right is to
be a victor. The Southern people must get over the idea that they
are insulted simply because they are out-voted, and they ought by
this time to know that the Republicans of the North, not only do
not wish them harm, but really wish them the utmost success.
_Question_. But has the Republican party all the good and the
Democratic all the bad?
_Answer_. No, I do not think that the Republican party has all
the good, nor do I pretend that the Democratic party has all the
bad; though I may say that each party comes pretty near it. I
admit that there are thousands of really good fellows in the
Democratic party, and there are some pretty bad people in the
Republican party. But I honestly believe that within the latter
are most of the progressive men of this country. That party has
in it the elements of growth. It is full of hope. It anticipates.
The Democratic party remembers. It is always talking about the
past. It is the possessor of a vast amount of political rubbish,
and I really believe it has outlived its usefulness. I firmly
believe that your editor, Mr. Hutchings, could start a better
organization, if he would only turn his attention to it. Just
think for a moment of the number you could get rid of by starting
a new party. A hundred names will probably suggest themselves to
any intelligent Democrat, the loss of which would almost insure
success. Some one has said that a tailor in Boston made a fortune
by advertising that he did not cut the breeches of Webster's statue.
A new party by advertising that certain men would not belong to
it, would have an advantage in the next race.
_Question_. What, in your opinion, were the causes which led to
the Democratic defeat?
_Answer_. I think the nomination of English was exceedingly
unfortunate. Indiana, being an October State, the best man in that
State should have been nominated either for President or Vice-
President. Personally, I know nothing of Mr. English, but I have
the right to say that he was exceedingly unpopular. That was
mistake number one. Mistake number two was putting a plank in the
platform insisting upon a tariff for revenue only. That little
word "only" was one of the most frightful mistakes ever made by a
political party. That little word "only" was a millstone around
the neck of the entire campaign. The third mistake was Hancock's
definition of the tariff. It was exceedingly unfortunate, exceedingly
laughable, and came just in the nick of time. The fourth mistake
was the speech of Wade Hampton, I mean the speech that the Republican
papers claim he made. Of course I do not know, personally, whether
it was made or not. If made, it was a great mistake. Mistake
number five was made in Alabama, where they refused to allow a
Greenbacker to express his opinion. That lost the Democrats enough
Greenbackers to turn the scale in Maine, and enough in Indiana to
change that election. Mistake number six was in the charges made
against General Garfield. They were insisted upon, magnified and
multiplied until at last the whole thing assumed the proportions
of a malicious libel. This was a great mistake, for the reason
that a number of Democrats in the United States had most heartily
and cordially indorsed General Garfield as a man of integrity and
great ability. Such indorsements had been made by the leading
Democrats of the North and South, among them Governor Hendricks
and many others I might name. Jere Black had also certified to
the integrity and intellectual grandeur of General Garfield, and
when afterward he certified to the exact contrary, the people
believed that it was a persecution. The next mistake, number seven,
was the Chinese letter. While it lost Garfield California, Nevada,
and probably New Jersey, it did him good in New York. This letter
was the greatest mistake made, because a crime is greater than a
mistake. These, in my judgment, are the principal mistakes made
by the Democratic party in the campaign. Had McDonald been on the
ticket the result might have been different, or had the party united
on some man in New York, satisfactory to the factions, it might
have succeeded. The truth, however, is that the North to-day is
Republican, and it may be that had the Democratic party made no
mistakes whatever the result would have been the same. But that
mistakes were made is now perfectly evident to the blindest partisan.
If the ticket originally suggested, Seymour and McDonald, had been
nominated on an unobjectionable platform, the result might have
been different. One of the happiest days in my life was the day on
which the Cincinnati convention did not nominate Seymour and did
nominate English. I regard General Hancock as a good soldier, but
not particularly qualified to act as President. He has neither
the intellectual training nor the experience to qualify him for
that place.
_Question_. You have doubtless heard of a new party, Colonel.
What is your idea in regard to it?
_Answer_. I have heard two or three speak of a new party to be
called the National party, or National Union party, but whether
there is anything in such a movement I have no means of knowing.
Any party in opposition to the Republican, no matter what it may
be called, must win on a new issue, and that new issue will determine
the new party. Parties cannot be made to order. They must grow.
They are the natural offspring of national events. They must embody
certain hopes, they must gratify, or promise to gratify, the feelings
of a vast number of people. No man can make a party, and if a new
party springs into existence it will not be brought forth to gratify
the wishes of a few, but the wants of the many. It has seemed to
me for years that the Democratic party carried too great a load in
the shape of record; that its autobiography was nearly killing it
all the time, and that if it could die just long enough to assume
another form at the resurrection, just long enough to leave a grave
stone to mark the end of its history, to get a cemetery back of
it, that it might hope for something like success. In other words,
that there must be a funeral before there can be victory. Most of
its leaders are worn out. They have become so accustomed to defeat
that they take it as a matter of course; they expect it in the
beginning and seem unconsciously to work for it. There must be
some new ideas, and this only can happen when the party as such
has been gathered to its fathers. I do not think that the advice
of Senator Hill will be followed. He is willing to kill the
Democratic party in the South if we will kill the Republican party
in the North. This puts me in mind of what the rooster said to
the horse: "Let us agree not to step on each other's feet."
_Question_. Your views of the country's future and prospects must
naturally be rose colored?
_Answer_. Of course, I look at things through Republican eyes and
may be prejudiced without knowing it. But it really seems to me
that the future is full of great promise. The South, after all,
is growing more prosperous. It is producing more and more every
year, until in time it will become wealthy. The West is growing
almost beyond the imagination of a speculator, and the Eastern and
Middle States are much more than holding their own. We have now
fifty millions of people and in a few years will have a hundred.
That we are a Nation I think is now settled. Our growth will be
unparalleled. I myself expect to live to see as many ships on the
Pacific as on the Atlantic. In a few years there will probably be
ten millions of people living along the Rocky and Sierra Mountains.
It will not be long until Illinois will find her market west of
her. In fifty years this will be the greatest nation on the earth,
and the most populous in the civilized world. China is slowly
awakening from the lethargy of centuries. It will soon have the
wants of Europe, and America will supply those wants. This is a
nation of inventors and there is more mechanical ingenuity in the
United States than on the rest of the globe. In my judgment this
country will in a short time add to its customers hundreds of
millions of the people of the Celestial Empire. So you see, to
me, the future is exceedingly bright. And besides all this, I must
not forget the thing that is always nearest my heart. There is
more intellectual liberty in the United States to-day than ever
before. The people are beginning to see that every citizen ought
to have the right to express himself freely upon every possible
subject. In a little while, all the barbarous laws that now disgrace
the statute books of the States by discriminating against a man
simply because he is honest, will be repealed, and there will be
one country where all citizens will have and enjoy not only equal
rights, but all rights. Nothing gratifies me so much as the growth
of intellectual liberty. After all, the true civilization is where
every man gives to every other, every right that he claims for
himself.
--_The Post_, Washington, D. C., November 14, 1880.