Now came the work of reconstruction. The leaders of the Peace

Democracy, who had failed in every measure, in every plan, in every

opinion, and in every prediction relating to the war, were promptly

on hand, and with unblushing cheek were prepared to take exclusive

charge of the whole business of reorganization and reconstruction.

They had a plan all prepared--a plan easily understood, easily

executed, and which they averred would be satisfactory to all

parties. Their plan was in perfect harmony with the conduct and

history of its authors and friends during the war. They had been in

very close sympathy with the men engaged in the rebellion, while

their sympathy for loyal white people at the South was not strong,

and they were bitterly hostile to loyal colored people both North

and South. Their plan was consistent with all this.

According to it, the rebels were to be treated in the same manner

as if they had remained loyal. All laws, State and National, all

orders and regulations of the military, naval, and other

departments of the government, creating disabilities on account of

participation in the rebellion, were to be repealed, revoked, or

abolished. The rebellious States were to be represented in Congress

by the rebels without hindrance from any test oath. All

appointments in the army, in the navy, and in the civil service,

were to be made from men who were rebels, on the same terms as from

men who were loyal. The people and governments in the rebellious

States were to be subjected to no other interference or control

from the military or other departments of the general government

than exists in the States which remained loyal. Loyal white men and

loyal colored men were to be protected alone in those States by

State laws, executed by State authorities, as if they were in the

loyal States.

There were to be no amendments to the constitution, not even an

amendment abolishing slavery. In short, the great rebellion was to

be ignored or forgotten, or, in the words of one of their orators,

"to be generously forgiven." The war, whose burdens, cost, and

carnage they had been so fond of exaggerating, suddenly sank into

what the Rev. Petroleum V. Nasby calls "the late unpleasantness,"

for which nobody but the abolitionists were to blame. Under this

plan the States could soon re-establish slavery where it had been

disturbed by the war. Jefferson Davis, Toombs, Slidell, and Mason

could be re-elected to their old places in the Senate of the United

States; Lee could be re-appointed in the army, and Semmes and Maury

could be restored to the navy. Of course this plan of the Peace

Democracy was acceptable to the rebels of the South.

But the loyal people, who under the name of the Union party fought

successfully through the war of the rebellion, objected to this

plan as wrong in principle, wrong in its details, and fatally wrong

as an example for the future. It treats treason as no crime and

loyalty as no virtue; it contains no guarantees, irreversible or

otherwise, against another rebellion by the same parties and on the

same grounds. It restores to political honor and power in the

government of the Nation men who have spent the best part of their

lives in plotting the overthrow of that government, and who for

more than four years levied public war against the United States;

it allows Union men in the South, who have risked all--and many of

whom have lost all but life in upholding the Union cause--to be

excluded from every office, State and National, and in many

instances to be banished from the States they so faithfully

laboured to save; it abandons the four millions of colored people

to such treatment as the ruffian class of the South, educated in

the barbarism of slavery and the atrocities of the rebellion, may

choose to give them; it leaves the obligations of the Nation to her

creditors and to the maimed soldiers and to the widows and orphans

of the war, to be fulfilled by men who hate the cause in which

those obligations were incurred; it claims to be a plan which

restores the Union without requiring conditions; but, in conceding

to the conquered rebels the repeal of laws important to the

Nation's welfare, it grants conditions which they demand, while it

denies to the loyal victors conditions which they deem of priceless

value.

In the meantime, President Johnson having declared that "the

rebellion, in its revolutionary progress, had deprived the people

of the rebel States of all civil government," proceeded by military

power to set up provisional State governments in those States, and

to require them to declare void all ordinances of secession, to

repudiate the rebel debt, and to adopt the thirteenth amendment of

the constitution, proposed by the Union party, abolishing slavery

throughout the United States. The Peace Democracy opposed all

conditions, and, instinctively unsound upon human rights, opposed

the amendment abolishing slavery. The elections of 1865 settled

that question against them, and deprived them of New Jersey, the

last free State which adhered to their fallen fortunes.

At the session of Congress of 1865-66, the president, finding that

his co-called State governments in the rebel States--created by

military power alone and without the sanction of the legislative

power of the government--had accepted his conditions; insisted that

those States were fully restored to their former proper relations

with the general government, and that they were again entitled to

representation in the same manner with the loyal States. This plan

accorded with the wishes of all unrepentant rebels, and as a matter

of course received the support of their allies of the Peace

Democracy.

The Union party, at the sacrifice of all of the power and patronage

of the administration they had elected, firmly opposed and finally

defeated this project. They required, before the complete

restoration of the rebel States, that the fourteenth amendment of

the constitution should be adopted, which was framed to secure

civil rights to the colored people, equal representation between

the free States and the former slave States, the disqualification

for office of leading rebels, the payment of the loyal obligations

to creditors, to maimed soldiers, and to widows and orphans, and

the repudiation of the rebel debt, and of claims to payment for

slaves. On the adoption of this amendment turned the elections of

1866. After the amplest debates before the people the Union party

carried the country in favor of the amendment, electing more than

three-fourths of the members of the House of Representatives. They

also secured the adoption of the amendment in twenty-one out of the

twenty-four States now represented, which have acted upon it by an

average vote in the State legislature of more than four to one.

In striking contrast with this was the action of the rebel States.

Tennessee alone ratified the amendment. The other ten promptly and

defiantly rejected it by an average majority in their State

legislatures of more than fifty to one. When, therefore, the

Thirty-ninth Congress met in the session of 1866-67 they found the

work of reconstruction in those ten States still unaccomplished.

Now, in what condition were those ten rebel States? In the first

place all political power in those States was in the hands of

rebels, and for the most part of leading and unrepentant rebels.

Their governors, their members of legislature, their judges, their

county and city officers, and their members of Congress, with rare

exceptions, were rebels. Such was their political condition.

What was their condition with respect to the preservation of order,

the suppression of crime, and the redress of private grievances?

After the suppression of the rebellion the next plain duty of the

National government was to see that the lives, liberty, and

property of all classes of citizens were secure, and especially to

see that the loyal white and colored citizens who resided or might

sojourn in those States did not suffer injustice, oppression, or

outrage because of their loyalty. Loyal men, without distinction of

race or color, were clearly entitled to the full measure of

protection usually found in civilized countries, if in the nature

of things it was possible for the Nation to furnish it.

Inquiring as to the condition of things in the South, I waive the

uniform current of information derived from the press and other

unofficial sources from all parts of the South, and rely

exclusively on the official reports of army officers like Grant,

Thomas, Sheridan, and Howard--officers of clear heads, of strong

sense, and of spotless integrity, whose business it is to know the

facts, and who all united in warning the Nation that Union men,

either white or colored, were not safe in the South.

General Grant says that the class at the South who "will

acknowledge no law but force" is sufficiently formidable to justify

the military occupation of that territory.

General Sheridan, in an official report, says the "trial of a white

man for the murder of a freedman in Texas would be a farce; and, in

making this statement, I make it because truth compels me, and for

no other reason.... Over the killing of many freedmen nothing is

done." General Sheridan cites cases in which our National soldiers

wearing the uniform of the Republic have been deliberately shot

"without provocation" by citizens, and the grand jury refused to

find a bill against the murderers. Even in Virginia, General

Schofield was compelled to resort to a military tribunal because "a

gentleman" who shot a negro dead in cold blood "was instantly

acquitted by one of the civil courts."

General Ord reports in Arkansas fifty-two murders of freed persons

by white men in the past three or four months, _and no reports have

been received that the murderers have been imprisoned or

punished_.... "The number of murders reported is not half the

number committed."

General Sickles says that in South Carolina, "in certain counties,

such as Newberry, Edgecombe, and Laurens, so much countenance was

given to outrages on freedmen by the indifference of the civil

authorities and by the population, who made themselves accomplices

in the crimes, that other measures became necessary."

In Mississippi, General Thomas calls attention to the legislation

in regard to colored people. "It is oppressive, unjust, and

unconstitutional." The laws as to buying real estate, bearing arms,

making contracts, and the like, are of such a character "that the

constitutional gift of freedom is not much more than a name."

General Sheridan, speaking of Louisiana, says: "Homicides are

frequent in some localities. Sometimes they are investigated by a

coroner's jury, which justifies the act and releases the

perpetrator; in other cases, ... the parties are held to bail in a

nominal sum; but the trial of a white man for the killing of a

freedman can, in the existing state of society in this State, be

nothing more or less than a farce."

General Thomas, in February last, in relation to the display of the

rebel flag in Rome, Georgia, said: "The sole cause of this and

similar offenses lies in the fact that certain citizens of Rome,

and a portion of the people of the States lately in rebellion, do

not and have not accepted the situation, and that is that the late

civil war was a rebellion, and history will so record it....

Everywhere in the States lately in rebellion treason is respectable

and loyalty odious. This the people of the United States who ended

the rebellion and saved the country will not permit; and all

attempts to maintain this unnatural order of things will be met by

decided disapproval."

Upon these official reports, showing not merely that atrocious

crimes were everywhere committed against loyal people, but that

the civil authorities did not even attempt to prevent them by the

punishment of the perpetrators, it became the plain duty of

Congress to adopt measures "to enforce peace and good order in the

rebel States, until loyal and Republican State governments could be

legally established." How well this duty was performed will appear

from a brief examination of the reconstruction acts which were

passed by Congress in March last, and by the auspicious results

which followed their adoption and execution.

By these acts, the ten rebel States were divided into five military

districts, subject to the military authority of the United States;

and it was made the duty of the president to assign military

officers, not below the rank of brigadier-general, to command each

of said districts, and to detail a sufficient military force to

enable such officers to perform their duties. The duties of

military commanders were defined as follows, in the 3d section of

the act:

"Sec. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be the duty of

each officer assigned as aforesaid, to protect all persons in their

rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder,

and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all

disturbers of the public peace and criminals; and to this end he

may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try

offenders; or when, in his judgment, it may be necessary for the

trial of offenders, he shall have power to organize military

commissions or tribunals for that purpose; and all interference,

under color of State authority, with the exercise of military

authority under this act shall be null and void."

The act also sets forth the manner in which the people of any one

of the rebel States could form a State constitution, and the terms

on which the State would be fully restored to proper relations with

the Union. The most important provisions are those relating to the

qualifications of voters, and the one requiring the adoption of the

amendment to the constitution proposed by the Thirty-ninth

Congress, known as article fourteen. The right of suffrage is given

to all men of suitable age and residence, without distinction of

race or color, except a limited number who are excluded for

participation in the rebellion.

In pursuance of these acts, the district of Louisiana and Texas

was placed under the command of General Sheridan; Arkansas and

Mississippi under General Ord; Alabama, Georgia, and Florida under

General Pope; North Carolina and South Carolina under General

Sickles; and Virginia under General Schofield. The merits of this

plan are obvious.

1. It places the rebels again under the control of the power which

conquered them, and of the very officers to whom they surrendered.

2. It is well calculated to afford protection to all loyal people,

white or colored, against those who would oppress or injure them on

account of their loyalty.

3. It places the new State governments of the South upon the solid

basis of justice and equal rights.

This plan received in Congress the support of many members of

Congress who did not uniformly vote with the Union party, and was

acceptable to some of its most distinguished adversaries. In the

Senate, Reverdy Johnson, a Maryland Democrat, voted for it, and

made effective speeches in its support. The loyal press of the

North, without exception, upheld it.

In the South, its success was everywhere gratifying and unexampled.

Its enemies had said that it would organize anarchy in the rebel

States--that it would immediately inaugurate a war of races between

whites and blacks--and compared the condition of the South under it

to the condition of India under English oppression, and to Hungary

under the despotism of Austria.

But the course of the public press, and the conduct, the letters,

and speeches of public men in the rebel States, vindicated the

wisdom and justice of the measure. I will quote only from rebel

sources.

In Virginia, the Charlottesville _Chronicle_ addressed its readers

as follows:

"FOR WHITE FOLKS AND COLORED FOLKS.--Every colored person may now

go where and when he pleases. He is a free man and a full citizen.

This is not all; by another bound they have become voters. They

will take part in the government of the country. No people was ever

so suddenly, so rapidly lifted up.

"Shall we all live happily together, or shall we hate each other,

and quarrel and bear malice?

"Let us all try and get on together. The land is big enough. Let

the whites accommodate themselves to the new state of things. Let

them be polite and kind to all, and be always ready to accord to

every man, whether white or colored, his full rights. We make bold

to say that the behavior of the colored people of this State, since

they were set free, has surprised all fair-minded white people. We

do not believe the white people, under the same circumstances,

would have behaved so well by twenty per cent. They have shown the

greatest moderation. They have passed from plantation hands to

freedom and the ballot without outward excitement."

The Richmond _Examiner_, the organ of the fire-eaters, says of the

colored people:

"This class of our population, as a general thing, manifest a

disposition to prepare themselves for the altered political

condition in which the events of the past two years have placed

them. The sudden abolition of slavery did not, as most persons

expected, turn their heads. They have been, in the main, orderly

and well behaved. They have not presumed upon their newly-acquired

freedom to commit breaches of the peace or to be guilty of any acts

calculated to sow dissension between the two races. The utmost good

feeling is felt by the white people of this city toward the

negroes. There is not one particle of bitterness felt for them."

In South Carolina, Wade Hampton addressed a mixed assembly of

whites and colored people at Columbia, in which he quoted from a

former speech to his old soldiers:

"There is one other point on which there should be no

misunderstanding as to our position--no loop on which to hang a

possible misconstruction as to our views--and that is the abolition

of slavery. The deed has been done, and I, for one, do honestly

declare that I never wish to see it revoked. Nor do I believe that

the people of the South would now remand the negro to slavery, if

they had the power to do so unquestioned.

"Under our paternal care, from a mere handful, he grew to be a

mighty host. He came to us a heathen; we made him a Christian.

Idle, vicious, savage in his own country, in ours he became

industrious, gentle, civilized. As a slave, he was faithful to us;

as a freeman, let us treat him as a friend. Deal with him frankly,

justly, kindly, and, my word for it, he will reciprocate your

kindness. If you wish so see him contented, industrious, useful,

aid him in his efforts to elevate himself in the scale of

civilization, and thus fit him not only to enjoy the blessings of

freedom, but to appreciate his duties."

After stating the provisions of the "military bill," as he calls

the reconstruction law, he said to the colored people:

"But suppose the bill is pronounced unconstitutional; how then? I

tell you what I am willing to see done. I am willing to give the

right of suffrage to all who can read and who pay a certain amount

of taxes; and I agree that this qualification shall bear on white

and black alike. You would have no right to complain of a law which

would put you on a perfect political equality with the whites, and

which would put within your reach and that of your children the

privilege enjoyed by any class of citizens."

In Georgia, the prevailing sentiment is indicated by the following.

The Atlanta _New Era_ says:

"We freely accept the Sherman platform as the only means whereby to

rescue the country from total destruction, and if we mistake not,

our backbone will prove sufficiently strong to enable us to look

the issue full in the face, without a shudder. It is our bounden

duty, and that of every other patriot and well-wisher of the South,

to at once signify an unconditional acceptance of the measures

perfected by Congress for our restoration to the Union, and

heartily co-operate with the United States authorities in securing

that most desirable end."

The Augusta _Press_, alluding to the recent meeting of negroes at

Columbia, S. C., and the fact that speeches were made by General

Wade Hampton and others, states that--

"All good citizens all over the South entertain precisely the same

kind feelings for the colored people that were exhibited by these

eminent Carolinians, and it is unfortunate that these sentiments

are not more widely manifested in meetings for public counsel with

them. 'Representative men' in every community should be prompt and

earnest in signifying their wish to co-operate with the colored

people in the administration of the laws and the preservation of

harmony and good will. To this end, we deem it our duty to urge

that in every community public meetings be held, in which the two

races may take friendly counsel together."

In Florida, Hon. R. S. Mallory, a former Democratic United States

Senator, is reported to have said, at a large meeting composed of

whites and blacks, in Pensacola, that--

"The recent legislation of Congress ought to be submitted to in

good faith; that, as the negro was now entitled to vote, it was the

interest of the State that he should be educated and enlightened,

and made to comprehend the priceless value of the ballot, and the

importance to himself and to the State of its judicious use.

"Let us fully and frankly acknowledge, as well by deeds as by

words, their equality with us, before law, and regard it as no less

just to ourselves and them than to our State and her best interests

to aid in their education, elevation, and enjoyment of all the

rights which follow their new condition."

Governor Patton, of Alabama, says:

"It seems to me that it is the true feeling of the Southern people

to contribute their best influence in favor of an early

organization of their respective States, in accordance with the

requirements of the recent reconstruction act. Congress claims the

right to control this whole question. In my humble judgment, it is

unwise to contend longer against its power, or to struggle further

against its repeatedly expressed will."

* * * * *

"The freedmen are now to vote the first time. We should cherish

against them no ill-feeling. The elective franchise is conferred

upon them; let them exercise it freely, and in their own way. No

effort should be made to control their votes, except such as may

tend to enable them to vote intelligently, and such as may be

necessary to protect them against mischievous influences to which,

from their want of intelligence, they may possibly be subjected.

Above all things, we should discourage everything which may tend to

generate antagonism between white and colored voters."

In Mississippi, Albert G. Brown, a former Democratic United States

Senator, and a rebel, says:

"To those who think it most becoming men in my situation to keep

quiet, I am free to say 'that is very much my own opinion.'"

"As I speak reluctantly, you will not be surprised if I say as

little as possible."

* * * * *

"The negro is a fixture in this country. He is not going out of

it; he is not going to die out, and he is not going to be driven

out. Nor is his exodus from the country desirable. I am frank in

saying if they, every one of them, could be packed in a balloon,

carried over the water, and emptied into Africa, I would not have

it done, unless, indeed, it were already arranged that the balloon

should return by the way of Germany, Ireland, Scotland, etc., and

bring us a return cargo of white laborers. If the negro is to stay

here, and it is desirable to have him do so, what is the duty of

the intelligent white man toward him? Why, to educate him, admit

him, when sufficiently instructed, to the right of voting, and as

rapidly as possible prepare him for a safe and rational enjoyment

of that 'equality before the law' which, as a free man, he has a

right to claim, and which we can not long refuse to give."

The Mississippi _Index_ says:

"There are some laws on our statute-book respecting negroes that

are of no practical use, and will have to be done away with some

day. The sooner we dispense with them the better. But in the matter

of educating the negro we can accomplish more toward convincing the

people of the North that we have been misrepresented and slandered

than by legislative action. Let us take the work of education out

of the hands of the Yankees among us. We can do this by encouraging

the establishment of negro schools and placing them in the charge

of men and women whom we know to be competent and trustworthy."

In Louisiana, General Longstreet, one of the most distinguished of

the rebel Generals, says:

"The striking feature, and the one that our people should keep in

view, is, that we are a conquered people. Recognizing this fact

fairly and squarely, there is but one course left for wise men to

pursue--accept the terms that are offered us by the conquerors.

There can be no discredit to a conquered people for accepting the

conditions offered by their conquerors. Nor is that any occasion

for a feeling of humiliation. We have made an honest, and I hope

that I may say, a creditable fight, but we have lost. Let us come

forward, then, and accept the ends involved in the struggle.

"Our people earnestly desire that the constitutional government

shall be re-established, and the only means to accomplish this is

to comply with the requirements of the recent Congressional

legislation."

* * * * *

"The military bill and amendments are peace offerings. We should

accept them as such, and place ourselves upon them as the

starting-point from which to meet future political issues as they

arise."

"Like other Southern men, I naturally sought alliance with the

Democratic party, merely because it was opposed to the Republican

party. But, as far as I can judge, there is nothing tangible about

it, except the issues that were staked upon the war and lost.

Finding nothing to take hold of except prejudice, which can not be

worked into good for any one, it is proper and right that I should

seek some standpoint from which good may be done."

Quotations like these from prominent Democratic politicians, from

rebel soldiers, and from influential rebel newspapers, might be

multiplied indefinitely. Enough have been given to show how

completely and how exactly the Reconstruction Acts have met the

evil to be remedied in the South. My friend, Mr. Hassaurek, in his

admirable speech at Columbus, did not estimate too highly the

fruits of these measures. Said he:

"And, sir, this remedy at once effected the desired cure. The poor

contraband is no longer the persecuted outlaw whom incurable rebels

might kick and kill with impunity; but he at once became 'our

colored fellow-citizen,' in whose well-being his former master

takes the liveliest interest. Thus, by bringing the negro under the

American system, we have completed his emancipation. He has ceased

to be a pariah. From an outcast he has been transformed into a

human being, invested with the great National attribute of

self-protection, and the re-establishment of peace, and order, and

security, the revival of business and trade, and the restoration of

the Southern States on the basis of loyalty and equal justice to

all, will be the happy results of this astonishing metamorphosis,

provided the party which has inaugurated this policy remains in

power to carry it out."

The Peace Democracy generally throughout the North oppose this

measure. In Ohio they oppose it especially because it commits the

people of the Nation in favor of manhood suffrage. They tell us

that if it is wise and just to entrust the ballot to colored men

in the District of Columbia, in the Territories, and in the rebel

States, it is also just and wise that they should have it in Ohio

and in the other States of the North.

Union men do not question this reasoning, but if it is urged as an

objection to the plan of Congress, we reply: There are now within

the limits of the United States about five millions of colored

people. They are not aliens or strangers. They are here not by the

choice of themselves or of their ancestors. They are here by the

misfortune of their fathers and the crime of ours. Their labor,

privations, and sufferings, unpaid and unrequited, have cleared and

redeemed one-third of the inhabited territory of the Union. Their

toil has added to the resources and wealth of the nation untold

millions. Whether we prefer it or not, they are our countrymen, and

will remain so forever.

They are more than countrymen--they are citizens. Free colored

people were citizens of the colonies. The Constitution of the

United States, formed by our fathers, created no disabilities on

account of color. By the acts of our fathers and of ourselves, they

bear equally the burdens and are required to discharge the highest

duties of citizens. They are compelled to pay taxes and to bear

arms. They fought side by side with their white countrymen in the

great struggle for independence, and in the recent war for the

Union. In the revolutionary contest, colored men bore an honorable

part, from the Boston massacre, in 1770, to the surrender of

Cornwallis, in 1781. Bancroft says: "Their names may be read on the

pension rolls of the country side by side with those of other

soldiers of the revolution." In the war of 1812 General Jackson

issued an order complimenting the colored men of his army engaged

in the defense of New Orleans. I need not speak of their number or

of their services in the war of the rebellion. The Nation enrolled

and accepted them among her defendants to the number of about two

hundred thousand, and in the new regular army act, passed at the

close of the rebellion, by the votes of Democrats and Union men

alike, in the Senate and in the House, and by the assent of the

president, regiments of colored men, cavalry and infantry, form

part of the standing army of the Republic.

In the navy, colored American sailors have fought side by side with

white men from the days of Paul Jones to the victory of the

Kearsarge over the rebel pirate Alabama. Colored men will, in the

future as in the past, in all times of National peril, be our

fellow-soldiers. Tax-payers, countrymen, fellow-citizens, and

fellow-soldiers, the colored men of America have been and will be.

It is now too late for the adversaries of nationality and human

rights to undertake to deprive these tax-payers, freemen, citizens,

and soldiers of the right to vote.

Slaves were never voters. It was bad enough that our fathers, for

the sake of Union, were compelled to allow masters to reckon

three-fifths of their slaves for representation, without adding

slave suffrage to the other privileges of the slaveholder. But free

colored men were always voters in many of the Colonies, and in

several of the States, North and South, after independence was

achieved. They voted for members of the Congress which declared

independence, and for members of every Congress prior to the

adoption of the Federal Constitution; for the members of the

convention which framed the Constitution; for the members of many

of the State conventions which ratified it, and for every president

from Washington to Lincoln.

Our government has been called the white man's government. Not so.

It is not the government of any class, or sect, or nationality, or

race. It is a government founded on the consent of the governed,

and Mr. Broomall, of Pennsylvania, therefore properly calls it "the

government of the governed." It is not the government of the native

born, or of the foreign born, of the rich man, or of the poor man,

of the white man, or of the colored man--it is the government of

the freeman. And when colored men were made citizens, soldiers, and

freemen, by our consent and votes, we were estopped from denying to

them the right of suffrage.

General Sherman was right when he said, in his Atlanta letter, of

1864: "If you admit the negro to this struggle for any purpose, he

has a right to stay in for all; and, when the fight is over, the

hand that drops the musket can not be denied the ballot."

Even our adversaries are compelled to admit the Jeffersonian rule,

that "the man who pays taxes and who fights for the country is

entitled to vote."

Mr. Pendleton, in his speech against the enlistment of colored

soldiers, gave up the whole controversy. He said: "Gentlemen tell

us that these colored men are ready, with their strong arms and

their brave hearts, to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution,

and to defend the integrity of the Union, which in our hands to-day

is in peril. What is that Constitution? It provides that every

child of the Republic, every citizen of the land is before the law

the equal of every other. It provides for all of them trial by

jury, free speech, free press, entire protection for life and

liberty and property. It goes further. It secures to every citizen

the right of suffrage, the right to hold office, the right to

aspire to every office or agency by which the government is carried

on. Every man called upon to do military duty, every man required

to take up arms in its defense, is by its provisions entitled to

vote, and a competent aspirant for every office in the government."

The truth is, impartial manhood suffrage is already practically

decided. It is now merely a question of time. In the eleven rebel

States, in five of the New England States, and in a number of the

Northwestern States, there is no organized party able to

successfully oppose impartial suffrage. The Democratic party of

more than half of the States are ready to concede its justice and

expediency. The Boston _Post_, the able organ of the New England

Democracy, says:

"Color ought to have no more to do with the matter (voting) than

size. Only establish a right standard, and then apply it

impartially. A rule of that sort is too firmly fixed in justice and

equality to be shaken. It commends itself too clearly to the good

sentiment of the entire body of our countrymen to be successfully

traversed by objections. Once let this principle be fairly

presented to the people of the several States, with the knowledge

on their part that they alone are to have the disposal and

settlement of it, and we sincerely believe it would not be long

before it would be adopted by every State in the Union."

The New York _World_, the ablest Democratic newspaper in the Union,

says:

"Democrats in the North, as well as the South, should be fully

alive to the importance of the new element thrust into the politics

of the country. We suppose it to be morally certain that the new

constitution of the State of New York, to be framed this year, will

confer the elective franchise upon all adult male negroes. We have

no faith in the success of any efforts to shut the negro element

out of politics. It is the part of wisdom frankly to accept the

situation, and get beforehand with the Radicals in gaining an

ascendancy over the negro mind."

The Chicago _Times_, the influential organ of the Northwestern

Democracy, says:

"The word 'white' is not found in any of the original

constitutions, save only that of South Carolina. In every other

State negroes, who possessed the qualifications that were required

impartially of all men, were admitted to vote, and many of that

race did vote, in the Southern as well as in the Northern States.

And, moreover, they voted the Democratic ticket, for it was the

Democratic party of that day which affirmed their right in that

respect upon an impartial basis with white men. All Democrats can

not, even at this day, have forgotten the statement of General

Jackson, that he was supported for the presidency by negro voters

in the State of Tennessee.

"The doctrine of impartial suffrage is one of the earliest and most

essential doctrines of Democracy. It is the affirmation of the

right of every man who is made a partaker of the burdens of the

State to be represented by his own consent or vote in its

government. It is the first principle upon which all true

republican government rests. It is the basis upon which the

liberties of America will be preserved, if they are preserved at

all. The Democratic party must return from its driftings, and stand

again upon the immutable rock of principles."

In Ohio the leaders of the Peace Democracy intend to carry on one

more campaign on the old and rotten platform of prejudice against

colored people. They seek in this way to divert attention from the

record they made during the war of the rebellion. But the great

facts of our recent history are against them. The principles of the

fathers, reason, religion, and the spirit of the age are against

them.

The plain and monstrous inconsistency and injustice of excluding

one-seventh of our population from all participation in a

government founded on the consent of the governed in this land of

free discussion is simply impossible. No such absurdity and wrong

can be permanent. Impartial suffrage will carry the day. No low

prejudice will long be able to induce American citizens to deny to

a weak people their best means of self-protection for the unmanly

reason that they are weak. Chief Justice Chase expressed the true

sentiment when he said "the American Nation can not afford to do

the smallest injustice to the humblest and feeblest of her

children."

Much has been said of the antagonism which exists between the

different races of men. But difference of religion, difference of

nationality, difference of language, and difference of rank and

privileges are quite as fruitful causes of antagonism and war as

difference of race. The bitter strifes between Christians and Jews,

between Catholics and Protestants, between Englishmen and Irishmen,

between aristocracy and the masses are only too familiar. What

causes increase and aggravate these antagonisms, and what are the

measures which diminish and prevent them, ought to be equally

familiar. Under the partial and unjust laws of the Nations of the

Old World men of one nationality were allowed to oppress those of

another; men of one faith had rights which were denied to men of a

different faith; men of one rank or caste enjoyed special

privileges which were not granted to men of another. Under these

systems peace was impossible and strife perpetual. But under just

and equal laws in the United States, Jews, Protestants, and

Catholics, Englishmen and Irishmen, the former aristocrat and the

masses of the people, dwell and mingle harmoniously together. The

uniform lesson of history is that unjust and partial laws increase

and create antagonism, while justice and equality are the sure

foundation of prosperity and peace.

Impartial suffrage secures also popular education. Nothing has

given the careful observer of events in the South more

gratification than the progress which is there going on in the

establishment of schools. The colored people, who as slaves were

debarred from education, regard the right to learn as one of the

highest privileges of freemen. The ballot gives them the power to

secure that privilege. All parties and all public men in the South

agree that, if colored men vote, ample provision must be made in

the reorganization of every State for free schools. The ignorance

of the masses, whites as well as blacks, is one of the most

discouraging features of Southern society. If Congressional

reconstruction succeeds, there will be free schools for all. The

colored people will see that their children attend them. We need

indulge in no fears that the white people will be left behind.

Impartial suffrage, then, means popular intelligence; it means

progress; it means loyalty; it means harmony between the North and

the South, and between the whites and the colored people.

The Union party believes that the general welfare requires that

measures should be adopted which will work great changes in the

South. Our adversaries are accustomed to talk of the rebellion as

an affair which began when the rebels attacked Fort Sumter in 1861,

and which ended when Lee surrendered to Grant in 1865. It is true

that the attempt by force of arms to destroy the United States

began and ended during the administration of Mr. Lincoln. But the

causes, the principles, and the motives which produced the

rebellion are of an older date than the generation which suffered

from the fruit they bore, and their influence and power are likely

to last long after that generation passes away. Ever since armed

rebellion failed, a large party in the South have struggled to make

participation in the rebellion honorable and loyalty to the Union

dishonorable. The lost cause with them is the honored cause. In

society, in business, and in politics, devotion to treason is the

test of merit, the passport to preferment. They wish to return to

the old state of things--_an oligarchy of race and the sovereignty

of States._

To defeat this purpose, to secure the rights of man, and to

perpetuate the National Union, are the objects of the Congressional

plan of reconstruction. That plan has the hearty support of the

great generals (so far as their opinions are known)--of Grant, of

Thomas, of Sheridan, of Howard--who led the armies of the Union

which conquered the rebellion. The statesmen most trusted by Mr.

Lincoln and by the loyal people of the country during the war also

support it. The Supreme Court of the United States, upon formal

application and after solemn argument, refuse to interfere with its

execution. The loyal press of the country, which did so much in the

time of need to uphold the patriot cause, without exception, are in

favor of the plan.

In the South, as we have seen, the lessons of the war and the

events occurring since the war have made converts of thousands of

the bravest and of the ablest of those who opposed the National

cause. General Longstreet, a soldier second to no living corps

commander of the rebel army, calls it "a peace offering," and

advises the South in good faith to organize under it. Unrepentant

rebels and unconverted Peace Democrats oppose it, just as they

opposed the measures which destroyed slavery and saved the nation.

Opposition to whatever the Nation approves seems to be the policy

of the representative men of the Peace Democracy. Defeat and

failure comprise their whole political history. In laboring to

overthrow reconstruction they are probably destined to further

defeat and further failure. I know not how it may be in other

States, but if I am not greatly mistaken as to the mind of the

loyal people of Ohio, they mean to trust power in the hands of no

man who, during the awful struggle for the Nation's life, proved

unfaithful to the cause of liberty and of Union. They will continue

to exclude from the administration of the government those who

prominently opposed the war, until every question arising out of

the rebellion relating to the integrity of the Nation and to human

rights shall have been firmly settled on the basis of impartial

justice.

They mean that the State of Ohio, in this great progress, "whose

leading object is to elevate the condition of men, to lift

artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of

laudable pursuits for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a

fair chance in the race of life," shall tread no step backward.

Penetrated and sustained by a conviction that in this contest the

Union party of Ohio is doing battle for the right, I enter upon my

part of the labors of the canvass with undoubting confidence that

the goodness of the cause will supply the weakness of its

advocates, and command in the result that triumphant success which

I believe it deserves.

_Speech of_ GENERAL R. B. HAYES, _delivered at Sidney, Ohio, Wednesday,

September 4, 1867._

_Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens:_

It was very plain at the beginning of the pending canvass in Ohio

that the leading speakers of the peace party of the State were

desirous to persuade the people that at this election they were to

pass upon different issues from those which have been considered

in former elections. They undertook at the beginning, generally, to

discuss questions which have not heretofore been much considered.

They told the people that the old issues were settled, and that in

this canvass in particular, there would be no propriety in

discussing the record made by men during the war; that the war was

over; that bygones ought to be permitted to be bygones; and they

started a considerable number of subjects for discussion, which I

claim are either unimportant matters, or are matters which are in

no sense party questions. For example, Judge Ranney, in a very

elaborate speech at Mansfield, of great length, discussed perhaps a

dozen or fifteen topics, almost all of which are in no sense party

questions. For example, he talked about the land grants that had

been made to the railroads, particularly to the Pacific Railroad,

during the last few years, and of the subsidies of money that by

law have been given to the railroad companies. Now, this is but a

specimen of the topics discussed by Judge Ranney. It is enough to

say, in regard to the railroads, that they were voted for

indiscriminately by Union men and by Democrats--peace Democrats and

war Democrats--and that they were finally made laws by the

signature of Andrew Johnson. They are in no sense, therefore, party

issues; and the only purpose of discussing them is, so far as I can

see, to mislead the people, and to withdraw their attention from

the main issues before them.

Judge Thurman has discussed the subject of a standing army. He has

spoken of the great expense of keeping up a standing army, and, as

I think, has greatly exaggerated the sum requisite--naming two

hundred and fifty millions as the annual expense of it. I suppose

that is three or four, or perhaps five times as great as the actual

amount: but I do not stop to argue that matter with him. I say to

him, in regard to it, that Democrats voted for it in both houses,

and it became a law by the signature of the president whom he

supports. It is not, therefore, a party issue.

I can not, in any reasonable length of time, even name the various

topics that have been discussed in this way. Perhaps none has

attracted more attention than the subject of finances, and the main

issue presented by our Democratic friends on that subject has been

this--namely, that it is for the interest of the people to pay off

the whole of the present bonded debt by an issue of greenbacks. At

the beginning of the canvass, the Cincinnati _Enquirer_, and, I

think, the leading peace party paper at Columbus, and Mr.

Vallandigham, presented this as the leading question before the

people. The _Enquirer_ told us that Democratic conventions in forty

counties had resolved in favor of it; and certainly if any one of

the topics which have been presented in this way may be regarded as

a party topic, that is one. If they have succeeded in making a new

issue, that is one. On the 20th of last month, I spoke at Batavia,

and I referred to that subject. I said that Judge Thurman was

plainly committed against the issue of more greenbacks; that when

we were in the midst of the war, and the necessities of the country

were such that it was necessary to get money by every means in our

power, he had told the people there was no constitutional authority

to issue greenbacks. I said further, that in his speech at Waverly

he had spoken of this currency as a currency of rags; and that,

therefore, I was authorized to say he was opposed to this new

scheme of the Cincinnati _Enquirer_. That speech of mine was

reported in the Cincinnati _Commercial_ of the next morning. On the

following day, the 22d of August, the _Enquirer_ noticed my speech.

I will read you the whole of the _Enquirer's_ article on that

subject. I do this because I think, in this county as well as

elsewhere, Democrats are claiming the votes of Union men on the

ground that it is wise to pay off the bonded debt by an issue of

greenbacks, and I wish to show that Judge Thurman is opposed to the

scheme. Therefore, it is no party issue, because no party State

convention has resolved in favor of it, and the peace party

candidate for governor is against it. The _Enquirer_ says, under

the caption of "Judge Thurman and the bondholders:"

"In his speech at Batavia, Clermont county, on Tuesday, General

Hayes, while discussing the payment of the public debt question,

said:

"Judge Thurman has not yet spoken distinctly on this question. But

his well-known opinion, that even the necessities of the war did

not authorize, under our constitution, the issue of the

legal-tender currency, coupled with the fact that he speaks of it

in his Waverly speech as a currency of 'rags--only rags'--warrants

me in saying that he is probably opposed, on grounds both of

constitutional law and of expediency, to the financial scheme of

Mr. Vallandigham and of the Cincinnati _Enquirer_. Judge Ranney and

Judge Jewett are also evidently unwilling to accept the inflation

theories of the _Enquirer_. They are both opposed to taking up the

greenbacks now in circulation by an issue of bonds bearing

interest, and repeat the same arguments against this policy of

Johnson's administration which were urged by the Cincinnati

_Gazette_ and by Thaddeus Stevens and Judge Kelley, with much more

cogency, a year or two ago."

Commenting on the above, the _Enquirer_ says, editorially:

"This will render it necessary for Judge Thurman to do what he

ought to have done in his first (Waverly) speech, define his

position distinctly on this question. As one of his friends and

supporters, we call upon him to put a stop to these representations

of General Hayes by giving the people his views.

"Is he for the bondholders or the people? Does he believe that the

debts due the bondholders should be paid in any other than the

government money, which pays all other debts and liabilities, even

those which were contracted in gold?

"Is he for one currency for the bondholders and another and

different currency for the people?

"The Democracy of more than forty counties in Ohio have spoken out

on this question, and we have no doubt the example will be followed

by every county in the State. In some counties no other resolutions

have been passed.

"The time has passed when the people kept step to the music of

candidates. The latter must now march with and not against the

people. Will Judge Thurman define his position, for thousands of

votes may depend upon it?"

On the 27th of August, at Wapakoneta, Judge Thurman made a speech,

which I hold in my hand--as you see, a very long speech, covering

all of one side of the _Commercial_, and parts of two others. One

would suppose that, a week having elapsed since the speech to which

his attention was called had been made, that in this speech, at

least, if this was an important issue of the canvass, we should

have his position plainly and clearly defined. Of that long speech

he devotes to that important question, which the _Enquirer_ says is

the real question, and which many of your speakers doubtless here

say is the real question, precisely eleven lines--one short

paragraph. And the pith of that paragraph is contained in these two

lines: "I am sorry that what I have to say on that subject for

publication I must reserve for some future time."

I think that this satisfactorily shows where my friend Judge

Thurman stands on that issue, and that we therefore need no longer

discuss it--in short, that, as a party question, it is abandoned by

the candidate of the Democratic party. There is another phase of

the financial question. Judge Ranney and Judge Jewett are telling

the people that it is the policy of Secretary McCulloch to take up

the greenback currency and issue in its stead interest-bearing

bonds, not taxable, principal and interest, both payable in coin at

the option of the secretary. That is true. That was the policy, and

is the policy of Secretary McCulloch. But they go further, and say

they are authorized to say that this is the policy of the Union

party. I take issue with them on that statement. They offer no

proof that it is true, except the fact that it is the policy of the

Johnson administration; and I submit to an intelligent audience

that the fact that Johnson and his administration are in favor of a

measure is no evidence whatever that the Union party supports it.

It is not for me to prove a negative, but I am prepared,

nevertheless, to prove it. The very measure which was intended to

carry out this policy of Secretary McCulloch to enable him to take

up the greenback currency with interest-bearing bonds was

introduced in Congress in March, 1866. I have here the votes upon

that question, and I say to you that the Democratic party in both

houses--all the members of the Democratic party in both

houses--voted for Senator McCulloch's plan, and that Mr. Julian,

Judge Schofield, Mr. Lawrence, all of whom I see here, and myself,

a majority of the Republican members of Congress, voted against the

scheme, and it became a law because a minority of the Union party,

with the unanimous vote of the Democratic party, supported it; and

because, when it was submitted to Andrew Johnson, instead of

vetoing it, as he did all Union party measures, he wrote his name,

on the 12th of April, at the bottom of it, "Approved, Andrew

Johnson." Now, it is under that measure, and by virtue of that law,

voted for by Mr. Finck and and Mr. LeBlond, of the Democratic party

of Ohio, in the House of Representatives; it is by virtue of that

law that to-day Secretary McCulloch is issuing interest-bearing

bonds, not taxable, to take up the greenback currency of the

country. I think, then, I am authorized in saying that these

gentlemen are mistaken when they accuse the Union party of being in

favor of taking up the greenback currency and putting in the place

of it interest-bearing, non-taxable bonds.

This investigation of two or three of the leading questions

presented to the people at the beginning of this canvass by the

advocates of the peace party of Ohio is, I think, sufficient to

warrant me in saying that all of the side issues presented are

merely urged on the people to withdraw their minds from the great

main issue which ought to engage the attention of the American

Nation. What is that great issue? It is reconstruction. That is the

main question before us, and until it is settled, and settled

rightly, all other issues sink into insignificance in comparison

with it. Fortunately for the Union party of Ohio, events are

occurring every day at Washington which tend more and more clearly

to define the exact question before the people, showing that the

main question is whether the Union shall be reconstructed in the

interests of the rebellion or in the interests of loyalty and

Union; whether that reconstruction shall be carried on by men who,

during the war, were in favor of the war and against the rebellion,

or by men who in the North were against the war, and who in the

South carried on the rebellion. On one side of this question we see

Andrew Johnson, Judge Black, and the other leaders of the peace

party of the North and the unrepentant rebels of the South; and on

the other side is the great war secretary, Stanton, with General

Grant, General Sheridan, General Thomas, General Howard, and the

other Union commanders engaged in carrying out the reconstruction

acts of Congress. This presents clearly enough the question before

the people. General Grant, in one paragraph of his letter to the

president, said to him:

"General Sheridan has performed his civil duties faithfully and

intelligently. His removal will only be regarded as an effort to

defeat the laws of Congress. It will be interpreted by the

unreconstructed element in the South--those who did all they could

to break up this government by arms, and now wish to be the only

element consulted as to the method of restoring order--as a

triumph. It will embolden them to renewed opposition to the will of

the loyal masses, believing that they have the executive with

them."

This presents exactly the question before the people. We want the

loyal people of the country, the victors in the great struggle we

have passed through, to do the work; we want reconstruction upon

such principles, and by means of such measures that the causes

which made reconstruction necessary shall not exist in the

reconstructed Union; we want that foolish notion of State rights,

which teaches that the State is superior to the Nation--that there

is a State sovereignty which commands the allegiance of every

citizen higher than the sovereignty of the nation--we want that

notion left out of the reconstructed Union; we want it understood

that whatever doubts may have existed prior to the war as to the

relation of the State to the National government, that now the

National government is supreme, anything in the constitution or

laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Again, as one of

the causes of the rebellion, we want slavery left out, not merely

in name, but in fact, and forever; we want the last vestige, the

last relic of that institution, rooted out of the laws and

institutions of every State; we want that in the South there shall

be no more suppression of free discussion. I notice that in the

long speech of my friend, Judge Thurman, he says that for nearly

fifty years, throughout the length and breadth of the land, freedom

of speech and of the press was never interfered with, either by the

government or the people. For more than thirty years,

fellow-citizens, there has been no such thing as free discussion in

the South. Those moderate speeches of Abraham Lincoln on the

subject of slavery--not one of them--could have been delivered

without endangering his life, south of Mason and Dixon's line. We

want in the reconstructed Union that there shall be the same

freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the States of the

South that there always has been in the States of the North. Again,

we want the reconstructed Union upon such principles that the men

of the South who, during the war, were loyal and true to the

government, shall be protected in life, liberty, and property, and

in the exercise of their political rights. It becomes the solemn

duty of the loyal victors in the great struggle to see that the men

who, in the midst of difficulties, discouragements, and dangers in

the South were true, are protected in these rights. And, in order

that our reconstruction shall be carried out faithfully and

accomplish these objects, we further want that the work shall be in

the hands of the right men. Andrew Johnson, in the days when he was

loyal, said the work of reconstruction ought to be placed

absolutely in the hands of the loyal men of the State; that rebels,

and particularly leading rebels, ought not to participate in that

work; that while that work is going on they must take back seats.

We want that understood in our work of reconstruction. How

important it is to have the right men in charge of this work

appears upon the most cursory examination of what has already been

done. President Lincoln administered the same laws

substantially--was sworn to support the same constitution with

Andrew Johnson--yet how different the reconstruction as carried out

by these two men. Lincoln's reconstruction in all the States which

he undertook to reorganize gave to those States loyal governments,

loyal governors, loyal legislatures, judges, and officers of the

law. Andrew Johnson, administering the same constitution and the

same laws, reconstructs a number of States, and in all of them

leading rebels are elected governors, leading rebels are members of

the legislature, and leading rebels are sent to Congress. It makes,

then, the greatest difference to the people of this country who it

is that does the work.

This, my friends, brings me to a proposition to which I call the

attention of every audience that I have occasion to address, and

that is this, that until the work of reconstruction is complete,

until every question arising out of the rebellion relating to the

integrity of the Nation and to human rights has been settled, and

settled rightly, no man ought to be trusted with power in this

country, who, during the struggle for the Nation's life, was

unfaithful to Union and liberty. That is the proposition upon which

I go before the people of Ohio. At the beginning of the canvass, as

I have said, the gentlemen who are engaged in advocating the claims

of the peace party of Ohio did not desire to have this record

discussed. I am happy to know by this long Wapakoneta speech of

Judge Thurman that at last they have found it necessary to come to

the discussion of the true question. Judge Thurman, in that speech,

invites us to the discussion of it. He says:

"I give all of them this bold and unequivocal defiance, that there

is no one act of my life, or one sentence ever uttered by me that I

am not prepared to have investigated by the American people; and I

wish them to stand up to the same rule, that I may see what is in

their past record, and see how it tallies with what they say to the

American people at the present time."

He proceeds to do this. He proceeds to examine the record of

various gentlemen connected with the Union party. Now, I am not in

the habit of giving challenges or accepting challenges, but I

desire, for a few minutes, to ask the attention of this audience to

the record of my friend, Judge Thurman. He under-takes to justify

the course he took as a leader of the peace party of Ohio, by

telling us what Mr. Lincoln said in 1848. Now, what is it that Mr.

Lincoln said? He made a speech during the Mexican war as to the

title which Texas had to certain lands in dispute between the State

of Texas and Mexico, or rather between the United States and

Mexico. He laid down the doctrine that a revolutionary government

is entitled to own just as much of the property of the former

government as it has succeeded in conquering; and he says, in the

course of that speech, that it is the right of every people to

revolutionize; that the right of revolution, in short, belongs to

every people; that it was the right exercised by our forefathers in

1776. Now, that is all true--that is all correct; but how does my

friend Judge Thurman find any justification for the rebellion in

that? What is the right of revolution? It is the right to resist a

government under which you live, if that government is guilty of

intolerable oppression or injustice, but not otherwise. And that is

the doctrine of Abraham Lincoln. Now, in order to make that a

precedent for the rebellion, Judge Thurman is bound to take the

position that, in the case of the rebel States, there had been acts

of intolerable oppression and injustice done to that part of the

country which went into rebellion. I know that the rebels, for the

most part, did not put the rebellion upon that ground; but Judge

Thurman now does it for them. He makes it out--or must make it out

to sustain himself--that it was a case of revolution, growing out

of the exercise of that right which our fathers exercised in 1776.

Now, if Judge Thurman can show that there was justification for the

rebellion, he has made out his case. If that rebellion was not

justified by such circumstances--if there was no such intolerable

injustice and oppression--he has failed in his precedent. He goes

further, and says that Mr. Wade, Chief Justice Chase, Secretary

Stanton, and General Butler all held sentiments before the war the

same as the sentiments which he held then, and holds now, on the

subject of the rights of the States. Suppose they did--suppose they

belonged to the same party before the war--is that any defense of

his conduct during the war? They saw fit, after the war had broken

out, to rally to the side of their country, notwithstanding any

notions or theories they might have held with regard to the rights

of the States.

I do not stop now to discuss the correctness of Judge Thurman's

opinions as to the course of these men prior to the war. It is

enough for me to say that the question I make--the question which

the people of Ohio make--is, What was your conduct after it was

found that there was a conspiracy to break up the Union, after war

was upon us, and armies were raised--what was your conduct then?

That is the question before the people. And I ask of an intelligent

audience, what was the duty of a good citizen after that war for

the destruction of the government and the Union had begun? Need I

ask any old Jackson Democrat what is his duty when the Union is at

stake? In 1806, Aaron Burr proposed this matter to Andrew Jackson,

of making a new confederacy in the Southwest. Jackson said:

"I hate the Dons, and I would like to see Mexico dismembered; but

before I would see one State of this Union severed from the rest, I

would die in the last ditch."

That was Jackson's Democracy. Douglass said:

"This is no time for delay. The existence of a conspiracy is now

known; armies are raised to accomplish it. There can be but two

sides to the question. A man must be either for the United States

or against the United States. There can be no neutrals in this

war--only patriots and traitors."

There is the Douglass doctrine. But I need not go back to Jackson

and Douglass. I have the opinions of the very gentlemen who now

lead the peace party on this subject. Let me read you a resolution,

introduced and passed through a Democratic convention, in 1848, by

Clement L. Vallandigham:

"_Resolved_, That whatever opinions might have been entertained of

the origin, necessity or justice, by the Tories of the

revolutionary war, by the Federalists of the late war with England,

or by the Whigs and Abolitionists of the present war with Mexico,

the fact of their country being engaged in such a war ought to have

been sufficient for them and to have precluded debate on that

subject till a successful termination of the war, and that in the

meantime the patriot could have experienced no difficulty in

recognizing his place on the side of his country, and could never

have been induced to yield either physical or moral aid to the

enemy."

I will quote also from Judge Thurman himself. In a speech lecturing

one of his colleagues, who thought the Mexican war was unnecessary,

he says:

"It is a strange way to support one's country, right or wrong, to

declare after war has begun, when it exists both in law and in

fact, that the war is aggressive, unholy, unrighteous, and damnable

on the part of the government of that country, and on that

government rests its responsibility and its wrongfulness. It is a

strange way to support one's country right or wrong in a war, to

tax one's imagination to the utmost to depict the disastrous

consequences of the contest; to dwell on what it has already cost

and what it will cost in future; to depict her troops prostrated by

disease and dying with pestilence; in a word, to destroy, as far as

possible, the moral force of the government in the struggle, and

hold it up to its own people and the world as the aggressor that

merits their condemnation. It was for this that I arraigned my

colleague, and that I intend to arraign him. It was because his

remarks, as far as they could have any influence, were evidently

calculated to depress the spirits of his own countrymen, to lessen

the moral force of his own government, and to inspire with

confidence and hope the enemies of his country."

He goes on further to say:

"What a singular mode it was of supporting her in a war to bring

against the war nearly all the charges that were brought by the

peace party Federalists against the last war, to denounce it as an

unrighteous, unholy, and damnable war; to hold up our government to

the eyes of the world as the aggressors in the conflict; to charge

it with motives of conquest and aggrandizement; to parade and

portray in the darkest colors all the horrors of war; to dwell upon

its cost and depict its calamities."

Now, that was the doctrine of Judge Thurman as to the duties of

citizens in time of war--in time of such a war as the Mexican war

even, in which no vital interest of the country could by

possibility suffer. Judge Thurman says that General Hayes, in his

speech, has a great many slips cut from the newspapers, and that

he must have had some sewing society of old ladies to cut out the

slips for him. I don't know how he found that out. I never told it,

and you know the ladies never tell secrets that are confided to

them. I hold in my hand a speech of Judge Thurman, from which I

have read extracts, and I find that he has in it slips cut from

more than twenty different prints, sermons, newspapers, old

speeches, and pamphlets, to show how, in the war of 1812, certain

Federalists uttered unpatriotic sentiments. I presume he must have

acquired his slips on that day in the way he says I acquired mine

now.

Now, my friends, I propose to hold Judge Thurman to no severe rule

of accountability for his conduct during the war. I merely ask that

it shall be judged by his own rule: "Your country is engaged in

war, and it is the duty of every citizen to say nothing and do

nothing which shall depress the spirits of his own countrymen,

nothing that shall encourage the enemies of his country, or give

them moral aid or comfort." That is the rule. Now, Judge Thurman,

how does your conduct square with it? I do not propose to begin at

the beginning of the war, or even just before the war, to cite the

record of Judge Thurman. I am willing to say that perhaps men might

have been mistaken at that time. They might have supposed in the

beginning a conciliatory policy, a non-coercive policy, would in

some way avoid the threatened struggle. But I ask you to approach

the period when the war was going on, when armies to the number of

hundreds of thousands of men were ready on one side and the other,

and when the whole world knew what was the nature of the great

struggle going on in America. Taking the beginning of 1863, how

stands the conflict? We have pressed the rebellion out of Kentucky

and through Tennessee. Grant stands before Vicksburg, held at bay

by the army of Pemberton; Rosecranz, after the capture of

Nashville, has pressed forward to Murfreesboro, but is still held

out of East Tennessee by the army of Bragg. The army of the Potomac

and the army of Lee, in Virginia, are balanced, the one against the

other. The whole world knows that that exhausting struggle can not

last long without deciding in favor of one side or the other. That

the year 1863 is big with the fate of Union and of liberty, every

intelligent man in the world knows--that on one side it is a

struggle for nationality and human rights. There is not in all

Europe a petty despot who lives by grinding the masses of the

people, who does not know that Lincoln and the Union are his

enemies. There is not a friend of freedom in all Europe who does

not know that Lincoln and the loyal army are fighting in the cause

of free government for all the world. Now, in that contest, where

are you, Judge Thurman? It is a time when we need men and money,

when we need to have our people inspired with hope and confidence.

Your sons and brothers are in the field. Their success depends upon

your conduct at home.

The men who are to advise you what to do have upon them a dreadful

responsibility to give you wise and patriotic advice. Judge

Thurman, in the speech I am quoting from, says:

"But now, my friends, I shall not deal with obscure newspapers or

obscure men. What a private citizen like Allen G. Thurman may have

said in 1861 is a matter of indifference."

Ah, no, Judge Thurman, the Union party does not propose to allow

your record to go without investigation because you are a private

citizen. I know you held no official position under the government

at the time I speak of; but, sir, you had for years been a leading,

able, and influential man in the great party which had often

carried your State. You were acting under grave responsibilities.

More than that, during that year 1863, you were more than a private

citizen. You were one of the delegates to the State convention of

that year; you were one of the committee that forms your party

platform in that convention; you were one of the central committee

that carries on the canvass in the absence of your

standard-bearers; and you were one of the orators of the party. No,

sir, you were not a private citizen in 1863. You were one of the

leading and one of the ablest men in your party in that year,

speaking through the months of July, August, September, and

October, in behalf of the candidate of the peace party. You can not

escape as a private citizen.

Well, sir, in the beginning of that eventful year, there rises in

Congress the ablest member of the peace party, to advise Congress

and to advise the people, and what does he say?

"You have not conquered the South. You never will. It is not in the

nature of things possible, especially under your auspices. Money

you have expended without limit; blood you have poured out like

water."

Now, mark the taunt--the words of discouragement that were sent to

the people and to the army of the Union:

"Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers--these are your trophies. Can

you get men to enlist now at any price?"

Listen again to the words that were sent to the army and to the

loyal people:

"Ah, sir, it is easier to die at home."

We knew that, Judge Thurman, better than Mr. Vallandigham knew it.

We had seen our comrades falling and dying alone on the mountain

side and in the swamps--dying in the prison-pens of the Confederacy

and in the crowded hospitals, North and South. Yet he had the face

to stand up in Congress, and say to the people and the world, "Ah,

sir, it is easier to die at home." Judge Thurman, where are you at

this time? He goes to Columbus to the State convention, on the 11th

of June of that year, in all the capacities in which I have named

him--as a delegate, as committeeman, and as an orator--and he

spends that whole summer in advocating the election of the man who

taunted us with the words, "Defeat, debt, taxation,

sepulchers--these are your trophies."

In every canvass you know there is a key-note. What was the

key-note of that canvass? Who sounded it? It came over to us from

Canada. On the 15th of July, 1863, Mr. Vallandigham wrote,

accepting the nomination of that convention of Judge Thurman's. He

said, in his letter:

"If this civil war is to terminate only by the subjugation or

submission of the South to force and arms, the infant of to-day

will not live to see the end of it. No; in another way only can it

be brought to a close. Traveling a thousand miles and more, through

nearly half of the Confederate States, and sojourning for a time at

widely different points, I met not one man, woman, or child who was

not resolved to perish, rather than yield to the pressure of arms,

even in the most desperate extremity. And whatever may and must be

the varying fortune of the war, in all of which I recognize the

hand of Providence pointing visibly to the ultimate issue of this

great trial of the States and people of America, they are better

prepared now, every way, to make good their inexorable purpose than

at any period since the beginning of the struggle."

That was the key-note of the campaign. It was the platform of the

candidate in behalf of whom Judge Thurman went through the State of

Ohio--all over the State--in July, August, and September, up to the

night of the 12th of October--making his last speech just

twenty-four hours before the glad news went out to all the world,

over the wires, that the people of Ohio had elected John Brough by

over one hundred thousand majority, in preference to the author of

the sentiment, "Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers."

And how true was that sentiment which had been endorsed by the

peace party. I do not question the motives of men in any of my

speeches. I merely ask as to the facts. "Better prepared," said he,

"than ever before," on the 15th of July. On that theory, they went

through the canvass to the end. What was the fact? On the 15th of

July, 1863, Grant had captured Vicksburg. That gallant, glorious

son of Ohio, who perished afterward in the Atlanta campaign, and

whose honored remains now sleep near his old home on the lake

shore, General James B. McPherson, on the 4th of July, had ridden

at the head of a triumphant host into Vicksburg. On the 7th of

July, Banks had captured Port Hudson. A few days afterward, a party

of serenaders, calling upon Mr. Lincoln, saw that good man, who had

been bowed down with the weight and cares of office; they saw his

haggard face lit up with joy and cheer, and he said to them: "At

last, Grant is in Vicksburg. The Father of Waters, the Mississippi,

again flows unvexed to the sea."

On the 15th of July, what else had happened? The army of Lee,

defiantly crowding up into Pennsylvania, and claiming to go where

it pleased, and take what it pleased, only doubting whether they

would first capture Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, or New

York, and concluding finally that it was a matter of military

strategy first to capture the Army of the Potomac--that army, which

had invaded Pennsylvania under such flattering auspices, was, on

the 15th of July, when Mr. Vallandigham's letter was written,

straggling back over the swollen waters of the Potomac, glad to

escape from the pursuing armies of the Union, with the loss of

thirty thousand of its bravest and best, killed, wounded, and

captured, and utterly unable ever after during the war to set foot

upon free soil except in such fragments as were captured by our

armies in subsequent battles. That was the condition of the two

great armies when Mr. Vallandigham uttered that sentiment; and on

that sentiment my friend, Judge Thurman, argued his case through

all that summer.

But wisdom was not learned even at the close of 1863 by this peace

party. Things were greatly changed in the estimation of every loyal

man. We had now not merely got possession of the Mississippi

river--we had not merely driven the army of Lee out of

Pennsylvania, never again to return, but the battle of Mission

Ridge and the battle of Knoxville had been fought. That important

strategic region, East Tennessee, was now within our lines. From

that abode of loyalty, the mountain region of East Tennessee, we

could pierce to the very heart of the Southern Confederacy. We were

now in possession of the interior lines, giving us an immense

advantage, and we were in a condition to march southeast to Atlanta

and northeast to Richmond; yet with this changed state of affairs,

where is my friend Judge Thurman? Advising the people? What is he

advising them to do? He says Allen G. Thurman was a private

citizen. Not so. He held no official position, I know, under the

government. Fortunately for the people of this country, they were

not giving official positions in Ohio to men of his opinions and

sentiments at that time. [A voice, "They won't now, either."] But

he was made delegate at large from the State of Ohio to the

convention to meet at Chicago to nominate a president and form a

platform on which that nominee should stand. Mr. Vallandigham was a

district delegate and one of the committee to form a platform, and

he drew the most important resolution. The principal plank of that

platform is of his construction. You are perfectly familiar with

it. It merely told the people that the war had been for four years

a failure, and advised them to prepare to negotiate with this

Confederate nation on our Southern borders. Well, when this advice

was given to the Nation, we were still in the midst of the war, and

were prosecuting it with every prospect of success. What had been

accomplished in 1863 enabled us, with great advantages, to press

upon the rebellion. I remember well when I first read that

resolution declaring the war a four years' failure. It came to the

army in which I was serving on the same day that the news came to

us that Sherman had captured Atlanta. We heard of both together.

The war a four years' failure, said the Chicago convention. I well

remember how that evening our pickets shouted the good news to the

pickets of the enemy. What good news? News that a convention

representing nearly one-half of the people of the North had

concluded that the war was a failure? No such news was shouted from

our-picket line. The good news that they shouted was that Sherman

had captured Atlanta.

This, my friends, is a part of that record which we are invited to

examine by my friend Judge Thurman. I ask you to apply to it the

principle that whoever, during the great struggle, was unfaithful

to the cause of the country is not to be trusted to be one of the

men to harvest and secure the legitimate fruits of the victory,

which the Union people and the Union army won during the rebellion.

In the great struggle in 1863 in Ohio, I had not an opportunity to

hear the eloquent voice of John Brough, which I knew stirred the

hearts of the people like the sound of a trumpet, but I read, as

occasion offered, his speeches, and I saw not one in which he did

not warn the young men--warn the Democrats of Ohio--that if they

remained through that struggle opposed to this country, the conduct

particularly of leading men would never be forgotten, and never

forgiven. Now, in this canvass, I merely have to ask the people to

remember the prediction of honest John Brough, and see that that

prediction is made good.

It is not worth while now to consider, or undertake to predict,

when we shall cease to talk of the records of those men. It does

seem to me that it will, for many years to come, be the voice of

the Union people of the State that for a man who as a leader--as a

man having control in political affairs--that for such a man who

has opposed the interests of his country during the war, "the post

of honor is the private station." When shall we stop talking about

it? When ought we to stop talking about that record, when leading

men come before the people? Certainly not until every question

arising out of the rebellion, and every question which is akin to

the questions which made the rebellion, is settled. Perhaps these

men will be remembered long after these questions are settled;

perhaps their conduct will long be remembered. What was the result

of this advice to the people? It prolonged the war; it made it

impossible to get recruits; it made it necessary that we should

have drafts. They opposed the drafts, and that made rioting, which

required that troops should be called from all the armies in the

field, to preserve the peace at home. From forty to a hundred

thousand men in the different States of this Union were kept within

the loyal States to preserve the peace at home. And now, when they

talk to you about the debt and about the burden of taxation,

remember how it happened that the war was so prolonged, that it was

so expensive, and that the debt grew to such large proportions.

There are other things, too, to be remembered. I recollect that at

the close of the last session of Congress, I went over to

Arlington, the estate formerly of Robert E. Lee, and I saw there

the great National cemetery into which that beautiful place has

been converted. I saw the graves of 18,000 Union soldiers, marked

with white head-boards, denoting the name of each occupant, and his

regiment and company. Passing over those broad acres, covered with

the graves of the loyal men who had died in defense of their

country, I came upon that which was even more touching than these

18,000 head-boards. I found a large granite, with this inscription

upon it:

"Beneath this stone repose the remains of two thousand one hundred

and eleven unknown soldiers, gathered, after the war, from the

field of Bull Run and the route to the Rappahannock. Their remains

could not be identified, but their names and deaths are recorded in

the archives of their country, and its grateful citizens honor them

as of their noble army of martyrs. May they rest in peace.

September, 1866."

I say to those men who were instrumental and prominent in

prolonging the war, by opposing it, that when honeyed words and

soft phrases can erase from the enduring granite inscriptions like

these, the American people may forget their conduct; but I believe

they will not do so until some such miracle is accomplished.

That is all I desire to say this afternoon upon the record of the

peace party of Ohio. A few words upon another topic that is much

discussed in this canvass, and that is the proposed amendment to

the constitution of the State of Ohio. At the beginning, I desire

to say, that there may be no misunderstanding--and I suppose there

is no misunderstanding upon that subject--that I am in favor of the

adoption of that amendment, and I trust that every Union man, and

every Democrat too, will vote for it next October. And why do I say

this? Let us discuss it a moment. It consists of four parts.

First, it disfranchises any man who becomes a resident of the State

of Ohio, or who was a citizen of Ohio, who fought in the rebellion

against the country. Isn't that right? If you want that to go into

your constitution, vote for the amendment. It disfranchises every

man who, being liable to the draft, when the country needed them at

the front--when the soldiers doing their duty at the front were

anxiously looking for their aid--it disfranchises every man who, at

such time, ran away to escape the draft. Isn't that right? In the

next place, it disfranchises every man who deserted his comrades at

the front, and ran away to vote the peace party ticket at the rear.

Isn't that right? It disfranchises him whether he voted that ticket

or not, I may observe. If you want these provisions in your State

constitution, vote for the amendment. In the next place, it gives

the right of suffrage to all the negroes of Ohio. Mark the phrase:

I have not said impartial suffrage or manhood suffrage. I wish to

be understood. It gives the suffrage to the negroes of Ohio upon

the same terms that it is given to white men. The reason I am in

favor of that is because it is right.

Let me have the ears of my Democratic friends on that question a

moment. If Democracy has any meaning now that is good--any

favorable meaning--it is that Democracy is a government of the

people, by the people, and for the people. It is a government in

which every man who has to obey the laws has a part in making the

laws, unless disqualified by crime. Then the proposition I am for

is a Democratic proposition. Again, it is according to the

principles upon which good men have always desired to see our

institutions placed, namely, that all men are entitled to equal

rights before the law. They are not equal in any other respect.

Nobody claims that they are. But we propose to give to each man the

same rights which you want for yourself. It is, in short, obeying

the rule of the Great Teacher: "Do unto others as ye would that

others should do unto you." Abraham Lincoln said: "No man is good

enough to govern another without that other man's consent." Is not

that true? Good as you think you are, are you good enough

absolutely to govern another man without that other man's consent?

If you really think so, just change shoes with that other man, and

see if you are willing to be governed yourself, without your

consent, by somebody else. The declaration of independence says

governments derive their just powers from the consent of the

governed. Now, don't you see there is no way by which one man can

give consent to be governed by another man in a republican

government except by the ballot? There is no way provided by which

you can consent to give powers to a government except by the

ballot. Therefore every man governed under our system is entitled

to the ballot.