[Illustration: (end of chapter icon)]
THAT LEXINGTON IMPUDENCE.
An Arraignment of the Democratic Party on Account of its Platform
During the Garfield Campaign.
Written on a Bed of Sickness by Thomas J. Ford, and Published in the
Newspapers of Bloomington, Ill., November, 1880.
To the Editor: In your account of the Democratic rally at Lexington
I noticed that mention is made of the delegation from Merna carrying
a banner with the inscription "Irish of Merna all for Hancock." I
assume the authority to say that the "Irish of Merna are not all for
Hancock," although the Democratic speakers of Bloomington have made
several speeches at Merna, telling what distress the country is now
in under the bad management of the Republican party.
About the surplus. They say that there are one hundred millions of
dollars in the United States treasury, and bring that in as an act
of stealing from the people. Where is the nation, where is the
state, county or town, where is the church, the school or one of the
different societies that does not boast of it when they have money in
their treasury? Should Democracy get control I fear the money would
not be in the treasury very long. How much money was in the treasury
when Buchanan and his Democratic cabinet left the White House and
turned over this government to the Republican party, all tattered and
torn and nearly in a state of insurrection?
Should the Democratic party get into power this fall the reins of
this government will be peaceably placed in their hands, with the
ship of state sailing in a clear channel. About the tariff. The
Democratic speakers tell their audience that boots and shoes are too
high, and that a change in the administration will be the adoption
of free trade, which will compel the manufacturers of this country
to bring down their prices or close up business. The Republican
party don't want to close up the manufacturing business of this
country by adopting any such measures, for England can undersell any
other nation on the globe. Her labor costs little or nothing, and
I believe that I know that the majority of the people of the United
States do not want to give England a chance to bring her old store
goods and land them on our shores free from tariff for the purpose of
under-selling our own tradesmen.
The effect on Ireland. In or about the year 1800 Ireland was one of
the most prosperous manufacturing countries in Europe. She continued
such until about the year 1820, when England succeeded in persuading
the Irish Parliament to adopt the free-trade system. As soon as that
was accomplished, England unloaded her cargoes of goods free from
tariff on Ireland's shores, and down went Ireland's manufacturing
establishments. Look at the condition in which the Democratic party
left this country in 1860-61. It took fifty bushels of good sound
corn (not soft whisky corn) delivered in Bloomington to buy a pair
of $5 boots; farm hands husked corn for 50 cents a day; thousands
of farms were under mortgage; there was no money to pay with; the
situation was terrible in the extreme until the Republican party,
fully competent to meet the emergency, issued the greenback dollar
that was welcomed by the laborer and the farmer and drove out the
Democratic stump-tail currency, but was despised by the capitalists,
who had their money loaned on farms and on other real estate on
mortgages drawn payable in gold coin. They refused to take the
greenback for a dollar, but the Republican party said this is a
dollar and you must take it, which filled with joy the hearts of many
a father, wife and mother. Men that I know, and many of them who
had very close picking to live under the Democratic administration,
are now, by industry, close attention to business, and with the
Republican flag of freedom floating over their heads, marching along
unmolested in their business, yes, protected in their industries and
enterprises until they are now wealthy. If they had to pay off their
mortgages in gold coin money a poor man would have lost his home, for
it took about three dollars in greenbacks to buy one gold dollar. I
am one of the many that once went to pay off a mortgage of that kind,
the amount being five hundred and fifty dollars, including interest,
due to a well-known capitalist of Bloomington. I tendered the money
to him in greenbacks. He said, "No, sir, I want about sixteen
hundred dollars of them things or five hundred and fifty in gold."
I insisted that he should take the greenbacks. He said he would see
his attorney, George O. Robinson, a well-known lawyer of Bloomington,
and after so doing he accepted my money and released the mortgage.
And this is only one instance in thousands of such cases all over the
United States. When the Southern majority of the Democratic party
rebelled against the Union they took what gold they could get hold of
to Richmond and left us but very little to meet our obligations. And
now, after twenty years of Republican administration, faithful and
true to their trust, and to the people of all sections and classes,
they, by economy and good management, have succeeded in being able
to place in the treasury of the United States the sum of over four
hundred millions of gold dollars to the credit of the people of the
United States, ready when called upon to be paid out to the just
claimant. That is the way every honest man meets his just debts.
He always has it ready if he possibly can. There are a great many
first voters and other young men that, of course, have no personal
knowledge of how a Democratic administration would suit them,
because they have had no experience with the party. They have never
seen the party in control of the government. If they would look back
just as far as they can remember and notice the progress this country
has made for the last twenty years they must say that the Republican
administration was good, was a great deal better than good, taking
into consideration the deplorable condition that the Democratic
administration had left it in: Shooting down loyal men in the South,
tearing the Stars and Stripes, the flag of this country, into pieces
and trampling it under their feet, while the riotous Democrats of the
North formed into howling mobs against the Federal Government, and by
so doing gave the rebel cause more encouragement than if they were in
the rebel ranks fighting for the rebel cause. These are incidents in
the history of the Democratic party; with all these facts in view and
facts that they know to be true, they have the cheek every four years
to come to the front and claim that they are the party that should
hold the reins of this government. It remains for the voters of the
United States to answer at the coming election.
Now, Mr. Editor, in answer to that false inscription displayed at
Lexington. I have been ill in bed for seven weeks, but am now able to
be out-doors, and if I am alive on election day I will be one of the
many Irishmen of Merna, Towanda Township, McLean County, Illinois,
that will vote for Garfield and Arthur, for they are the nominees of
the party that has always proved itself true to the people and the
nation and the nation's credit. The time has not yet arrived when a
change of administration would be best for the public good, and the
voters of the United States will see to it at the coming election
that the reins of this government will be held and guided by its
friends and not by its enemies.
[Illustration: (end of chapter icon)]
SHOULD EDUCATION BE COMPULSORY?
Why a Liberal Allowance Should be Made for our Schools, while Leaving
Attendance Optional.
Debate at Smith Grove (Illinois) School-House, February 4, 1878,
Participated in by Thomas J. Ford.
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen and Honorable Judges: The
question before you, "Should Education Be Compulsory?" is a question
of much importance, both to the citizen and the public. To insist
that every child in Illinois should attend school a certain number
of years would require that much of our legislation and many of our
customs should be changed. We can safely say that any interference
with a man's private affairs is contrary to the spirit of our
American institutions, and for this reason any attempt to introduce
an argument from the practice in Europe is not a good one, for the
reason that man has been more completely governed in the Old World.
We must look at the case as it will affect our own condition, and not
as it affects others. It is illogical for me to say to my neighbor,
have your child educated, and he must be, although you are in bed
sick and that child is your only support. Only the greatest reasons
will justify that interference with the rights of the individual
citizen. Every parent is naturally constituted the guardian of his
children, and is most capable to tell what is for their benefit.
Every father by nature seeks the welfare of his children, and any
attempt by law to make him do it is apt to prove useless. But we are
met with the argument that the good of the state requires that each
citizen be educated. Granted, but let the state furnish facilities
for education, and there its duty stops. The last speaker told us
that ignorance is the cause of crime and that most of our jails and
prisons are filled with ignorant and uneducated people. You cannot
prove this to be true, for it is utterly exploded by facts. The
inmates of our jails and prisons are in the majority educated people.
You cannot say that each one of the inmates of our jails and prisons
has no education any more than you can say that ignorance is the
cause of crime, for most of the expert criminals that are in our
jails and prisons are educated men. Herbert Spencer, one of the best
Social Science philosophers living, has shown this to be true, and
has shown that the educated criminal can stare you out of countenance
every day in the week. You can no more prove that ignorance is a
cause of crime than the neglect to use soap is a cause. The truth
is, deviltry is born in a man, and you cannot educate it out of him
one time in a hundred. You must look for a better argument, for
that is utterly exploded by facts. Should education be compulsory,
then, for the benefit of the child? The welfare of posterity is a
great question and worthy of your consideration. But we can safely
assume that in this day and country everyone that wants an education
can get it; and when you come right down to the facts in the case,
the man who is educated is the man who thirsts for knowledge. All
the cramming you can give will not make an educated man. Many a man
who has never been inside of a school-house is better educated than
some who have gone through college and hold diplomas. But the minute
you say that the youth of the land must be educated, you involve
yourself in absurdity. You cannot logically say that he must go to
school till he is fourteen years old, as the law is in Germany, for
it is clear to all that some will learn much more in that time than
others. Some may be sick so as not to be able to keep up with their
grades. If education should be compulsory then it is manifest that
you should have a certain amount. For instance, the pupil should
understand the common school learning, to make a good citizen under
the compulsory law; he should understand the constitution of his
state and the United States and the laws and spirit of American
institutions. He should understand the laws of health, so as to
preserve his own life and the life of others. Church people might
insist that the welfare of the state and the individual demands
that he understand how to preach. Here you have the student that
is through our public schools, a lawyer, a doctor and a preacher,
or three learned men rolled into one. It would take a pretty good
lifetime to make a complete citizen under the law of compulsory
education. You may say that what I propose is an absurdity, but
it is an absurdity into which your own argument leads you; it is
the natural conclusion of your own logic. The fact is, that the
same reasoning that will justify compulsory education will justify
a state church and compulsory attendance at such church. In both
cases the good of the citizen and the safety of the state are the
objects sought, and both are illogical, un-American and tyrannical
in their tendencies. If you have compulsory education who shall say
how far it shall go--you have no more right to say than I have. Now,
I want you to understand that I am not opposed to general, universal
education. I am in favor of it, but to compel it is improper and
unjust. By adopting compulsory education you take away the support of
the widow, even if she be in bed sick with her bony fingers unable
to support herself. Adopt compulsory education then and you begin to
rob the citizen of his liberty. If you can say how much or whether
he shall be educated, then you can say what she shall eat and wear.
All arguments for compulsory education are dangerous to individual
liberty, and for these reasons, while I am in favor of liberal and
general education, I am utterly opposed to its being compulsory.
WASHINGTON AND LINCOLN.
The Memory of the Father of His Country More Lasting than that of the
Defender of Liberty.
Discussion at Phenix School House, Towanda Township, McLean County,
Ill., February 12, 1878. Affirmative taken by Thomas J. Ford, in
whose favor the judges awarded their decision.
Ladies and Gentlemen and Honorable Judges: The question before us
is, "Resolved, That George Washington has done more for the American
people than Abraham Lincoln." My feelings for Abraham Lincoln will
not allow me to say anything that would have a tendency to deprive
him of the merits which he deserves.
Abraham Lincoln was a good, honest old gentleman, but my heart is
with George Washington, the Father of this country, who was "first
in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen."
Whatever I shall say on the subject before you, I will say, not
from a desire to win the decision of the judges, but from a sincere
belief of the truth of the resolution, that Washington has done
more for the American people than Lincoln. Whatever I say will be
without malice toward Abraham Lincoln, but with greater reverence
for George Washington, for, in common with all citizens of the
State of Illinois, I admire the merits of the grandest man Illinois
ever furnished; and right here, honorable judges, I want to ask you
to cast aside that prejudice that must be in the heart of every
resident of this state. Let your mind be as equal between the two
men as a delicate balance, for unless it is you cannot reach a valid
conclusion and whatever either side would say would be useless.
Another thing. You must forget the tragic end of Lincoln's life
to arrive at a correct decision, for that martyrized him and gave
him a martyr's fame and a martyr's crown, and threw a hallowed
glamour over every previous act of his life. You must separate what
he actually accomplished from the stage effects surrounding what
he did. The play that is read to you in the parlor leaves no such
impression on your mind as the same play presented to you on the
stage with fine scenery and blue and red lights; the one is a kind
of a dream, the other a living actuality. So with the two great
men whose works we are discussing to-night, the history of one is
a misty recollection of the past, the history of the other some of
us helped to make. I have for one, and have reason to sigh for the
blood that I lost and the pain that I endure at times. One of the men
we have never seen; the other some of us have clasped by the hand.
Washington lived nearly a thousand miles from here, and nearly a
hundred years ago. Lincoln lived within a few hours' journey, and but
a few years ago. Washington lived in a time when the steam printing
press, the daily papers and the telegraph were not dreamed of,
while the great facilities for gathering news have made us familiar
with every incident in Lincoln's life. We must divest ourselves
of the unconscious prejudice we possess from our more intimate
acquaintance with Lincoln. Future generations must and will form
the correct estimate between the two men; future generations will
see the difference between the man who hewed out a new road in the
forest and the one who merely kept it in repair. Be assured, ladies
and gentlemen, they will give palm to the pioneer. In the one case
you see a man at the head of an army, sparse in numbers, ill armed,
poorly fed and clothed and confronted by the army of the strongest
nation on earth. George Washington was at the head of an army whose
soldiers too often sighed after the flesh-pots of their homes and
firesides that they had left, an army whose generals were tempted
by British gold and English honors, an army only kept together
by the faith, enthusiasm and moral courage of its leader. And on
the other hand you see Abraham Lincoln at the head of a nation,
the commander-in-chief, by virtue of his office, of an army far
outnumbering that of the Rebellion, with a land full of plenty and
wealth, with a people enthusiastic in the defense of their homes and
cherished institutions. Washington had supplies grudgingly voted him
by the factious Continental Congress, while Lincoln had a treasury
filled with funds supplied to overflowing by a willing people and a
united Congress.
Washington lived in a land of poverty; Lincoln lived in a land of
wealth. Washington was beset by obstacles, danger, poverty and
the uncertainty attending all new ventures, while Lincoln, though
confronted by dangers, merely kept the ship of state running in the
same channel. Washington was the Columbus who discovered the new
nation, who built, manned and navigated a new ship of state over
an unknown sea, while Lincoln was merely the captain of the onward
steamer, which is as certain of reaching its post as we are of going
to Bloomington when we start in times when the roads are better than
they are now.
Washington was the creator, Lincoln merely the engineer who kept the
machine running. If Lincoln deserves the laurel wreath, Washington
deserves the crown of honor.
AS TO PENSIONS.
Veterans of the Late War Should be Rewarded, but the Pension List
Should not be Published.
A Letter Addressed to the Editor of the Evening Wisconsin, Milwaukee,
by Thomas J. Ford, December 13, 1897.
Editor Wisconsin: The statement in your article on publishing the
pension list that "the influence of the Loyal Legion and of many
members of the Grand Army of the Republic is said to be back of the
measure," may or may not be true. But it is true that there seems to
be considerable agitation in the minds of many as to the propriety
of granting pensions to those who periled their lives and lost
their health and limb and received wounds that shadow the light and
intellect, that otherwise might have shone forth in its splendor and
glory. The loss of a man's health, whether it be caused by wounds or
other disabilities, is a very sad affair to the good soldier, who
bears his sufferings in quiet; and, like everything else, the older
the soldiers get the more reason they have to complain, and the less
sympathy there is for them. The fact is, Mr. Editor, every soldier
that went through active field service ought to have a pension.
There is not one man in a thousand in that class of soldiery but is
physically disabled in some way or other.
Think of it--an army wading rivers up to their breast in water
at sundown in the months of December and January, and lying down
in their wet clothes on the bare ground, with an allowance of
one-quarter rations, already eaten up the day before! Think of the
Battle of Chickamauga, when, hemmed in in the Valley of Chattanooga,
for two months and four days with railroad and river communications
cut off by rebel forces, men forced by hunger ate horses and mules
that had actually died for the want of food. Think of the many good
men and soldiers that lost their health in rebel prisons. And then
ask yourself if it is right to post them up in printed form for
the public gaze and the calumny of men who would rather sympathize
with a rebel than to give a Union soldier a pension. Look at the
generous pension bill passed some few years ago under a Democratic
administration--a sweeping pension bill giving every soldier that
served in the Mexican war a pension of twelve dollars a month--no
proof required only proof of service; no examining board--just send
in your discharge with proof that you are the man, and you got your
pension without further trouble. But to please the calamity-howlers
and the rebel cause sympathizers you must post your good men and true
that saved your country for you. They must be posted up for public
inspection. You say the pensions are paid by taxation. I pay a few
dollars taxes. I never saw anything in my receipt for pension taxes.
Your Washington correspondent says a pension is a badge of honor. It
ain't much honor for a soldier to get a pension and have his name
published to be unjustly criticised by men who have no knowledge of
the fact of his being worthy to receive a pension or not. With my
experience in getting a pension I don't see how there could be one
single impostor on the pension rolls; and if there is it is the duty
of the government to hunt them up and prosecute them for falsifying,
forgery and perjury, as any citizen should be prosecuted for such a
crime, and not be harassing and annoying your good old boys who wore
the blue to save this country and protect our country's flag for you.
I heard Paul Vandervoort, ex-Commander-in-Chief of the G. A. R.,
say that the pension pay roll was the purest pay roll in the United
States to-day, and I believe him, and I also believe that they got
the least pay for the work done of any men that were ever or are
now in the United States employment. And now they must be posted up
because they get a few dollars pension.
Let Congress hunt up the deficiency in other branches of government
business and employes and not be tantalizing the old warriors with
publishing documents. Be more liberal with the pensions and if you
want to economize cut off 10 per cent. of the big salaries of all our
high officials, and if you do that you will come more in line with
justice and honor than by publishing the pension list. Yours,
THOMAS J. FORD.
DEPARTURE OF THOMAS J. FORD.
The Well-Known Farmer and Politician will Make Milwaukee His Home.
From the Bloomington Bulletin, December 21st, 1891.
Mr. T. J. Ford, of Merna, has gone to Milwaukee to reside. This will
be unwelcome news to his myriads of friends in McLean County, who
admired him for his honorable principles and friendly bearing. Mr.
Ford was born in Boston, Mass. When he was aged 12 he emigrated with
his father to Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. When a very young man he
enlisted in the army, and did such valiant service in the Union ranks
that he was made sergeant. He carries to this day a ball in his left
breast, which tells of his heroism more eloquently than sheepskin can
portray. In 1866 he came to McLean County and located near Merna,
where he owned a large tract of as fine a land as is in fertile
Illinois.
Mr. Ford has one weakness, and it is a conspicuous fault, that of
being a Republican. It is conspicuous because of his enthusiasm. He
has taken so much interest in politics that he has frequently been
called upon to make speeches, and on the stump he made a rousing
impression by the wit and tone that he injected into his discourse.
Though wayward enough to be a Republican, he had warm friends among
all classes, who respected him for the staunch manner in which he
spoke his convictions. Mr. Ford's wife died recently, and that broke
the ties to his old home on the farm. Some days ago he had an immense
sale, from which he realized large cash. This, it seems, was the
preparatory step to his leaving. He bid farewell to the community in
which he was such a prominent benefactor and left for the scenes of
his boyhood. He has the best wishes of all who know him.
COMMENDED BY HIS SUPERIORS.
The Officers of the 24th Wisconsin Infantry Speak Highly of Thomas J.
Ford.
Headquarters Company H, Twenty-fourth Regiment,
Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry; Second
Division, Fourth Army Corps.
Loudon, Tenn., Feb. 17th, 1864.