It is only proper and fair that we should answer these charges.
Unless the Republican party can show that they did these things
either according to the strict letter of law, according to the highest
precedent, or from the necessity of the case, then we must admit that
our party did wrong. You know as well as I that every Democratic
orator talks about the fathers, about Washington and Jackson, Madison,
Jefferson, and many others; they tell us about the good old times when
politicians were pure, when you could get justice in the courts, when
Congress was honest, when the political parties differed, and differed
kindly and honestly; and they are shedding crocodile tears day after
day--praying that the good old honest times might return again. They
tell you that the members of this radical party are nothing like the men
of the Revolution. Let us see.
I lay this down as a proposition, that we had a right to do anything to
preserve this Government that our fathers had a right to do to found
it. If they had a right to put Tories in jail, to suspend the writ of
_habeas corpus_, and on some occasions _corpus_, in order to found this
Government, we had a right to put rebels and Democrats in jail and to
suspend the writ of _habeas corpus_ in order to preserve the Government
they thus formed. If they had a right to interfere with the freedom of
the press in order that liberty might be planted upon this soil, we had
a right to do the same thing to prevent the tree from being destroyed.
In a word, we had a right to do anything to preserve this Government
which they had a right to do to found it.
Did our fathers arrest Tories without writs, without indictments--did
they interfere with the personal rights of Tories in the name of
liberty--did they have Washington bastiles, did they have Jefferson
jails--did they have dungeons in the time of the Revolution in which
they put men that dared talk against this country and the liberties of
the colonies? I propose to show that they did--that where we imprisoned
one they imprisoned a hundred--that where we interfered with personal
liberty once they did it a hundred times--that they carried on a war
that _was_ a war--that they knew that when an appeal was made to
force that was the end of law--that they did not attempt to gain their
liberties through a Justice of the Peace or through a Grand Jury; that
they appealed to force and the God of battles, and that any man who
sought their protection and at the same time was against them and their
cause they took by the nape of the neck and put in jail, where he ought
to have been.
The old Continental Congress in 1774 and 1776 had made up their minds
that we ought to have something like liberty in these colonies, and the
first step they took toward securing that end was to provide for the
selection of a committee in every county and township, with a view to
examining and finding out how the people stood touching the liberty of
the colonies, and if they found a man that was not in favor of it, the
people would not have anything to do with him politically, religiously,
or socially. That was the first step they took, and a very sensible step
it was.
What was the next step? They found that these men were so lost to every
principle of honor that they did not hurt them any by disgracing them.
So they passed the following resolution which explains itself:
_Resolved_. That it be recommended to the several provincial assemblies
or conventions or councils, or committees of safety, to arrest and
secure every person in their respective colonies whose going at
large, may, in their opinion, endanger the safety of the colony or the
liberties of America.--Journal of Congress, vol. 1, page 149.
What was the Committee of Safety? Was it a Justice of the Peace? No. Was
it a Grand Jury? No. It was simply a committee of five or seven persons,
more or less, appointed to watch over the town or county and see that
these Tories were attending to their business and not interfering with
the rights of the colonies. Whom were they to thus arrest and secure?
Every man that had committed murder--that had taken up arms against
America, or voted the Democratic or Tory ticket? No. "Every person whose
going at large might in their opinion, endanger the safety of the
colony or the liberties of America." It was not necessary that they
had committed any overt act, but if in the opinion of this council of
safety, it was dangerous to let them run at large they were locked up.
Suppose that we had done that during the last war? You would have had to
build several new jails in this county. What a howl would have gone up
all over this State if we had attempted such a thing as that, and yet we
had a perfect right to do anything to preserve our liberties, which our
fathers had a right to do to obtain them.
What more did they do? In 1777 the same Congress that signed the
immortal Declaration of Independence (and I think they knew as much
about liberty and the rights of men as any Democrat in Marion county)
adopted another resolution:
_Resolved_. That it be recommended to the Executive powers of the
several States, forthwith to apprehend and secure all persons who have
in their general conduct and conversation evinced a disposition inimical
to the cause of America, and that the persons so seized be confined in
such places and treated in such manner as shall be consistent with their
several characters and security of their persons.---Journal of Congress,
vol. 2, p. 246.
If they had talked as the Democrats talked during the late war--if
they had called the soldiers, "Washington hirelings," and if when they
allowed a few negroes to help them fight, had branded the struggle for
liberty as an abolition war, they would be "apprehended and confined
in such places and treated in such manner as was consistent with their
characters and security of their persons," and yet all they did was to
show a disposition inimical to the independence of America. If we had
pursued a policy like that during the late war, nine out of ten of the
members of the Democratic party would have been in jail--there would
not have been jails and prisons enough on the face of the whole earth to
hold them. .
Now, when a Democrat talks to you about Lincoln bastiles, just quote
this to him:
_Whereas_, The States of Pennsylvania and Delaware are threatened with
an immediate invasion from a powerful army, who have already landed at
the head of Chesapeake Bay; and whereas, The principles of sound
policy and self-preservation require that persons who may be reasonably
suspected of aiding or abetting the cause of the enemy may be prevented
from pursuing measures injurious to the general weal,
_Resolved_, That the executive authorities of the States of Pennsylvania
and Delaware be requested to cause all persons within their respective
States, notoriously disaffected, to be apprehended, disarmed and secured
until such time as the respective States think they may be released
without injury to the common cause.---Journal of Congress, vol. 2, p.
240.
That is what they did with them. When there was an invasion threatened
the good State of Indiana, if we had said we will imprison all men who
by their conduct and conversation show that they are inimical to our
cause, we would have been obliged to import jails and corral Democrats
as we did mules in the army. Our fathers knew that the flag was never
intended to protect any man who wanted to assail it.
What more did they do? There was a man by the name of David Franks, who
wrote a letter and wanted to send it to England. In that letter he gave
it as his opinion that the colonies were becoming disheartened and sick
of the war. The heroic and chivalric fathers of the Revolution violated
the mails, took the aforesaid letter and then they took the aforesaid
David Franks by the collar and put him in jail. Then they passed
a resolution in Congress that inasmuch as the said letter showed a
disposition inimical to the liberties of the United States, Major
General Arnold be requested to cause the said David Franks to be
forthwith arrested, put in jail and confined till the further order of
Congress. (Jour. Cong., vol. 3, p. 96 and 97.)
How many Democrats wrote letters during the war declaring that the North
never could conquer the South? How many wrote letters to the soldiers in
the army telling them to shed no more fraternal blood in that suicidal
and unchristian war? It would have taken all the provost marshals in the
United States to arrest the Democrats in Indiana who were guilty of that
offence. And yet they are talking about our fathers being such good men,
while they are cursing us fordoing precisely what they did, only to a
less extent than they did.
We are still on the track of the old Continental Congress. I want you to
understand the spirit that animated those men. They passed a resolution
which is particularly applicable to the Democrats during the war:
With respect to all such unworthy Americans as, regardless of their duty
to their Creator, their country, and their posterity, have taken part
with our oppressors, and, influenced by the hope or possession of
ignominious rewards, strive to recommend themselves to the bounty of
the administration by misrepresenting and traducing the conduct and
principles of the friends of American liberty, and opposing every
measure formed for its preservation and security,
_Resolved_, That it be recommended to the different assemblies,
conventions and committees or councils of safety in the United Colonies,
by the most speedy and effectual measures, to frustrate the mischievous
machinations and restrain the wicked practices of these men. And it is
the opinion of this Congress that they ought to be disarmed and the
more dangerous among them either kept in safe custody or bound with
sufficient sureties for their good behavior.
And in order that the said assemblies, conventions, committees or
councils of safety may be enabled with greater ease and facility to
carry this resolution into execution,
_Resolved_, That they be authorized to call to their aid whatever
Continental troops stationed in or near their respective colonies
that may be conveniently spared from their more immediate duties, and
commanding officers of such troops are hereby directed to afford the
said assemblies, conventions, committees or councils of safety, all such
assistance in executing this resolution as they may require, and which,
consistent with the good of the service, may be supplied--Journal of
Congress, vol. i, p. 22,
Do you hear that, Democrat? The old Continental Congress said to these
committees and councils of safety: "Whenever you want to arrest any
of these scoundrels, call on the Continental troops." And General
Washington, the commander-in-chief of the army, and the officers under
him, were directed to aid in the enforcement of all the measures adopted
with reference to disaffected and dangerous persons. And what had these
persons done? Simply shown by their conversation, and letters directed
to their friends, that they were opposed to the cause of American
liberty. They did not even spare the Governors of States. They were not
appalled by any official position that a Tory might hold. They simply
said, "If you are not in favor of American liberty, we will put you
'where the dogs won't bite you.'" One of these men was Governor Eden of
Maryland. Congress passed a resolution requesting the Council of Safety
of Maryland to seize and secure his person and papers, and send such of
them as related to the American dispute to Congress without delay. At
the same time the person and papers of another man, one Alexander Ross,
were seized in the same manner. Ross was put in jail, and his papers
transmitted to Congress.
There was a fellow by the name of Parke and another by the name of
Morton, who presumed to undertake a journey from Philadelphia to New
York without getting a pass. Congress ordered them to be arrested and
imprisoned until further orders. They did not wait to have an affidavit
filed before a Justice of the Peace. They took them by force and put
them in jail, and that was the end of it. So much for the policy of the
fathers, in regard to arbitrary arrests.
During the war there was a great deal said about our occasionally
interfering with the elections. Let us see how the fathers stood upon
that question.
They held a convention in the State of New York in Revolutionary times,
and there were some gentlemen in Queens County that were playing the
role of Kentucky--they were going to be neutral--they refused to vote to
send deputies to the convention--they stood upon their dignity just as
Kentucky stood upon hers--a small place to stand on, the Lord knows.
What did our fathers do with them? They denounced them as unworthy to be
American citizens and hardly fit to live. Here is a resolution adopted
by the Continental Congress on the 3d of January, 1776:
_Resolved_, That all such persons in Queens County aforesaid as voted
against sending deputies to the present Convention of New York, and
named in a list of delinquents in Queens County, published by the
Convention of New York, be put out of the protection of the United
Colonies, and that all trade and intercourse with them cease; that none
of the inhabitants of that county be permitted to travel or abide in any
part of these United Colonies out of their said colony without a
certificate from the Convention or Committee of Safety of the Colony of
New York, setting forth that such inhabitant is a friend of the American
cause, and not of the number of those who voted against sending deputies
to the said Convention, and that such of the inhabitants as shall be
found out of the said county without such certificate, be apprehended
and imprisoned three months.
_Resolved_, That no attorney or lawyer ought to commence, prosecute or
defend any action at law of any kind, for any of the said inhabitants of
Queens County, who voted against sending deputies to the Convention
as aforesaid, and such attorney or lawyer as shall countenance this
revolution, are enemies to the American cause, and shall be treated
accordingly.
What had they done? Simply voted against sending delegates to the
convention, and yet the fathers not only put them out of the protection
of law, but prohibited any lawyer from appearing in their behalf in a
court. Democrats, don't you wish we had treated you that way during the
war?
What more did they do? They ordered a company of troops from
Connecticut, and two or three companies from New Jersey, to go into the
State of New York, and take away from every person who had voted against
sending deputies to the convention, all his arms, and if anybody refused
to give up his arms, they put him in jail. Don't you wish you had lived
then, my friend Democrat? Don't you wish you had prosecuted the war as
our fathers prosecuted the Revolution?
I now want to show you how far they went in this direction. A man by the
name of Sutton, who lived on Long Island, had been going around giving
his constitutional opinions upon the war. They had him arrested, and
went on to resolve that he should be taken from Philadelphia, pay the
cost of transportation himself, be put in jail there, and while in jail
should board himself. Wouldn't a Democrat have had a hard scramble for
victuals if we had carried out that idea? Just see what outrageous and
terrible things the fathers did. And why did they do it? Because they
saw that in order to establish the liberties of America it was necessary
they should take the Tory by the throat just as it was necessary for us
to take rebels by the throat during the late war.
They had paper money in those days--shin-plasters--and some of the
Democrats of those times had legal doubts about this paper currency. One
of these Democrats, Thomas Harriott, was called before a Committee of
Safety of New York, and there convicted of having refused to receive in
payment the Continental bills. The committee of New York conceiving that
he was a dangerous person, informed the Provincial Congress of the facts
in the case, and inquired whether Congress thought he ought to go at
large. Upon receipt of this information by Congress an order for the
imprisonment of the offender was passed, as follows:
_Resolved_, That the General Committee of the city of New York be
requested and authorized, and are hereby requested and authorized to
direct that Thomas Harriott be committed to close jail in this city,
there to remain until further orders of this Congress.--Amer. Archives,
4th series, vol. 6, P. i, 344.
And yet all that he had done was to refuse to take Continental money.
He had simply given his opinion on the legal tender law, just as the
Democrats of Indiana did in regard to greenbacks, and as a few circuit
judges decided when they declared the Legal Tender Act unconstitutional.
It would have been perfectly proper and right that they, every man of
them, should be, like Thomas Harriott, "committed to close jail, there
to remain until further orders."
Did our forefathers ever interfere with religion? Yes, they did with
a preacher by the name of Daniels, because he would not pray for the
American cause. He thought he could coax the Lord to beat us. They said
to him, "You pray on our side, sir." He would not do it, and so they put
him in jail and gave him work enough to pray himself out, and it took
him some time to do it. They interfered with a _lack_ of religion. They
believed that a Tory or traitor in the pulpit was no better than anybody
else. That is the way I have sometimes felt during the war. I have
thought that I would like to see some of those white cravatted gentlemen
"snaked" right out of the pulpits where they had dared to utter their
treason, and set to playing checkers through a grated window.
It is not possible that our fathers ever interfered with the writ of
_habeas corpus_, is it? Yes sir. Our fathers advocated the doctrine
that the good of the people is the supreme law of the land. They also
advocated the doctrine that in the midst of armies law falls to the
ground; the doctrine that when a country is in war it is to be governed
by the laws of war. They thought that laws were made for the protection
of good citizens, for the punishment of citizens that were bad, when
they were not too bad or too numerous; then they threw the law-book down
while they took the cannon and whipped the badness out of them; that is
the next step, when the stones you throw, and kind words, and grass have
failed. They said, why did we not appeal to law? We did; but it did no
good. A large portion of the people were up in arms in defiance of law,
and there was only one way to put them down, and that was by force of
arms; and whenever an appeal is made to force, that force is governed by
the law of war.
The fathers suspended the writ in the case of a man who had committed
an offence in the State of New York. They sent him to the State of
Connecticut to be confined, just as men were sent from Indiana to Fort
Lafayette. The attorneys came before the convention of New York to hear
the matter inquired into, but the committee of the convention to whom
the matter was referred refused to inquire into the original cause of
commitment--a direct denial of the authority of the writ. The writ of
_habeas corpus_ merely brings the body before the judge that he may
inquire why he is imprisoned. They refused to make any such inquiry.
Their action was endorsed by the convention and the gentleman was sent
to Connecticut and put in jail. They not only did these things in one
instance, but in a thousand. They took men from Maryland and put them in
prison in Pennsylvania, and they took men from Pennsylvania and confined
them in Maryland, Whenever they thought the Tories were so thick at
one point that the rascals might possibly be released, they took them
somewhere else.
They did not interfere with the freedom of the press, did they? Yes,
sir. They found a gentleman who was speaking and writing against the
liberties of the colonies, and they just took his paper away from him,
and gave it to a man who ran it in the interest of the colonies, using
the Tory's type and press. [A voice--That was right.] Right! of course
it was right. What right has a newspaper in Indiana to talk against the
cause for which your son is laying down his life on the field of battle?
What right has any man to make it take thousands of men more to crush a
rebellion? What right has any man protected by the American flag to do
all in his power to put it in the hands of the enemies of his country?
The same right that any man has to be a rascal, a thief and traitor--no
other right under heaven. Our fathers had sense enough to see that, and
they said, "One gentleman in the rear printing against our noble cause,
will cost us hundreds of noble lives at the front." Why have you a right
to take a rebel's horse? Because it helps you and weakens the enemy.
That is by the law of war. That is the principle upon which they seized
the Tory printing press. They had the right to do it. And if I had had
the power in this country, no man should have said a word, or written a
line, or printed anything against the cause for which the heroic men of
the North sacrificed their lives. I would have enriched the soil of this
country with him before he should have done it. A man by the name of
James Rivington undertook to publish a paper against the country. They
would not speak to him; they denounced him, seized his press, and made
him ask forgiveness and promise to print no more such stuff before they
would let him have his sheet again. No person but a rebel ever thought
that was wrong. There is no common sense in going to the field to fight
and leaving a man at home to undo all that you accomplish.
Our fathers did not like these Tories, and when the war was over they
confiscated their estates--took their land and gave it over to good
Union men.
How did they do it? Did they issue summons, and have a trial? No, sir.
They did it by wholesale--they did it by resolution, and the estates of
hundreds of men were taken from them without their having a day in court
or any notice or trial whatever. They said to the Tories: "You cast
your fortunes with the other side, let them pay you. The flag you fought
against protects the land you owned and it will prevent you from having
it." Nor is that all. They ran thousands of them out of the country away
up into Nova Scotia, and the old blue-nosed Tories are there yet.
In his letter to Governor Cooke of Rhode Island, Washington enumerates
an act of that colony, declaring that "none should speak, write, or act
against the proceedings of Congress or their Acts of Assembly, under
penalty of being disarmed and disqualified from holding any office,
and being further punished by imprisonment," as one that met his
approbation, and which should exist in other colonies. There is the
doctrine for you Democrats. So I could go on by the hour or by the
day. I could show you how they made domiciliary visits, interfered
with travel, imprisoned without any sort of writ or affidavit--in other
words, did whatever they thought was necessary to whip the enemy and
establish their independence.
What next do they charge against us? That we freed negroes. So we did.
That we allowed those negroes to fight in the army. Yes, we did,
That we allowed them to vote. We did that too. That we have made them
citizens. Yes, we have, and what are you Democrats going to do about it?
Now, what did our fathers do? Did they free any of the negroes? Yes,
sir. Did they allow any of them to fight in the army? Yes, sir. Did they
permit any of them to vote? Yes, sir. Did they make them citizens? Yes,
sir. Let us see whether they did or not.
Before we had the present Constitution we had what were called Articles
of Confederation. The fourth of those articles provided that every
free inhabitant of the colony should be a citizen. It did not make any
difference whether he was white or black; and negroes voted by the side
of Washington and Jefferson. Just here the question arises, if negroes
were good enough in 1787 and 1790 to vote by the side of such men,
whether rebels and their sympathizers are good enough now to vote
alongside of the negro.
Did they let any of these negroes fight? In 1750, when Massachusetts had
slaves, there appeared in the Boston Gazette the following notice:
"Ran away from his master, Wm. Brown, of Framingham, on the 30th
September last, a mulatto fellow, about 27 years of age, named Crispus,
about 6 feet high, short curly hair, had on a light colored bear-skin
coat, brown jacket, new buckskin breeches, blue yarn stockings and check
woolen shirt," etc.
This "mulatto fellow" did not come back, and so they advertised the next
week and the week following, but still the toes of the blue yarn socks
pointed the other way. That was in 1750. 1760 came and 1770, and the
people of this continent began to talk about having their liberties. And
while wise and thoughtful men were talking about it, making petitions
for popular rights and laying them at the foot of the throne, the King's
troops were in Boston. One day they marched down King street, on their
way to arrest some citizen. The soldiery were attacked by a mob, and at
its head was a "mulatto fellow" who shouted "here they are," and it was
observed that this "mulatto fellow" was about six feet high--that his
knees were nearer together than common, and that he was about 47 years
of age. The soldiers fired upon the mob and he fell, shot through
with five balls--the first man that led a charge against British
aggression--the first martyr whose blood was shed for American liberty
upon this soil. They took up that poor corpse, and as it lay in Faneuil
Hall it did more honor to the place than did Daniel Webster defending
the Fugitive Slave Law.
They allowed him to fight. Would our fathers have been brutal enough,
if he had not been killed, to put him back into slavery? No! They would
have said that a man who fights for liberty should enjoy it. If a man
fights for that flag it shall protect him. Perish forever from the
heavens the flag that will not defend its defenders, be they white or
black.
Thus our fathers felt. They raised negro troops by the company and the
regiment, and gave his liberty to every man that fought for liberty. Not
only that, but they allowed them to vote. They voted in the Carolinas,
in Tennessee, in New York, in all the New England States. Our fathers
had too much decency to act upon the Democratic doctrine.
In the war of 1812, negroes fought at Lake Erie and at New Orleans, and
then the fathers, as in the Revolution, were too magnanimous to turn
them back into slavery. You need not get mad, my Democratic friends,
because you hate Ben. Butler. Let me read you an abolition document.
You will all say it is right; you cannot say anything else when you hear
it. Butler, you know, was down in New Orleans, and he made some of those
rebels dance a tune that they did not know, and he made them keep pretty
good time too:
_To the Free Colored Inhabitants of Louisiana:_
Through a mistaken policy you have heretofore been deprived of a
participation in the glorious struggle for national rights in which our
country is engaged. This shall no longer exist. As sons of freedom
you are now called upon to defend our most inestimable blessing. As
Americans, your country looks with confidence to her adopted children
for a valorous support as a faithful return for the advantages enjoyed
under her mild and equitable government. As fathers, husbands and
brothers you are summoned to rally around the standard of the eagle--to
defend all which is dear in existence. Your country, although calling
for your exertions, does not wish you to engage in her cause without
amply remunerating you for the services rendered. Your intelligent minds
can not be led away by false representations. Your love of honor would
cause you to despise a man who should attempt to deceive you. In the
sincerity of a soldier and the language of truth I address you. To every
noble-hearted, generous free man of color volunteering to serve during
the present contest and no longer, there will be paid the same bounty in
money and lands now received by the white soldiers of the United
States, viz: $124 in money and one hundred and sixty acres of land. The
noncommissioned officers and privates will also be entitled to the
same monthly pay and daily rations and clothing furnished any American
soldier.
On enrolling yourselves in companies, the Major General commanding will
select officers for your government from your white fellow-citizens.
Your non-commissioned officers will be appointed from among yourselves.
Due regard will be paid to their feelings as freemen and soldiers.
You will not by being associated with white men in the same corps,
be exposed to improper companions or unjust sarcasm. As a distinct
battalion or regiment pursuing the path of glory, you will undivided
receive the applause and gratitude of your countrymen.
To assure you of the sincerity of my intentions and my anxiety to engage
your valuable services to our country, I have communicated my wishes
to the Governor of Louisiana, who is fully informed as to the manner of
enrollment, and give you every necessary information on the subject of
this address.
This is a terrible document to a Democrat. Let us look back over it a
little. "Through a mistaken policy." We had not sense enough to let the
negroes fight during the first part of the war. "As sons of freedom" we
had got sense by this time. "Americans." Oh! shocking! Think of calling
negroes Americans. "Your country!" Is that not enough to make a Democrat
sick? "As fathers, husbands, brothers." Negro brothers. That is too
bad. "Your intelligent minds." Now, just think of a negro having an
intelligent mind. "Are not to be led away by false representations."
Then precious few of them will vote the Democratic ticket. "Your sense
of honor will lead you to despise the man who should attempt to deceive
you." Then how they will hate the Democratic party. Then he goes on to
say that the same bounty, money and land that the white soldiers receive
will be paid to these negroes. Not only that, but they are to have the
same pay, clothing and rations. Only think of a negro having as much
land, as much to eat and as many clothes to wear as a white man. Is
not this a vile abolition document? And yet there is not a Democrat in
Indiana that dare open his mouth against it, full of negro equality as
it is. Now, let us see when and by whom this proclamation was issued.
You will find that it is dated, "Headquarters 7th Military District,
Mobile, September 21st, 1814," and signed "Andrew Jackson, Major General
Commanding."
Oh, you Jackson Democrats. You gentlemen that are descended from
Washington and Jackson--great heavens, what a descent! Do you think.
Jackson was a Democrat? He generally passed for a good Democrat; yet
he issued that abominable abolition proclamation and put negroes on an
equality with white men. That is not the worst of it, either; for after
he got these negroes into the army he made a speech to them, and what
did he say in that speech? Here it is in full:
_To the Men of Color:_
Soldiers--From the shores of Mobile I called you to arms. I invited
you to share in the perils and to divide the glory with your white
countrymen. I expected much from you, for I was not uninformed of those
qualities which must render you so formidable to an invading foe. I knew
that you could endure hunger, thirst, and all the hardships of war. I
knew that you loved the land of your nativity, and that like ourselves
you had to defend all that is most dear to man. But you surpass
my hopes. I have found in you united to these qualities that noble
enthusiasm which impels to great deeds. Soldiers, the President of the
United States shall be informed of your conduct on the present occasion
and the voice of the representatives of the American nation shall
applaud your valor as your General now praises your ardor. The enemy
is near. His sails cover the lakes. But the brave are united, and if he
finds' us contending among ourselves, it will be only for the prize of
valor, its noblest reward.
There is negro equality for you. There is the first man since the heroes
of the Revolution died that issued a proclamation and put negroes on an
equality with white men, and he was as good a Democrat as ever lived in
Indiana. I could go on and show where they voted, and who allowed them
to vote, but I have said enough on that question, and also upon the
question of their fighting in the army, and of their being citizens, and
have established, I think conclusively, this:
_First_. That our fathers, in order to found this Government, arrested
men without warrant, indictment or affidavit by the hundred and by the
thousand; that we, in order to preserve the Government that they thus
founded, arrested a few people without warrant.
_Second_. That our fathers, for the purpose of founding the Government,
suspended the writ of _habeas corpus_; that we, for the purpose of
preserving the same Government, did the same thing.
_Third_. That they, for the purpose of inaugurating this Government,
interfered with the liberty of the press; that we, on one or two
occasions, for the purpose of preserving the Government, interfered with
the liberty of the press.
_Fourth_. That our fathers allowed negroes to fight in order that they
might secure the liberties of America; that we, in order to preserve
those liberties, allow negroes to fight.
_Fifth_. That our fathers, out of gratitude to the negroes in the
Revolutionary war, allowed them to vote; that we have done the same.
That they made them citizens, and we have followed their example.
As far as I have gone, I have shown that the fathers of the Revolution
and the War of 1812 set us the example for everything we have done.
Now, Mr. Democrat, if you want to curse us, curse them too. Either quit
yawping about the fathers, or quit yawping about us.
Now, then, was there any necessity, during this war, to follow the
example of our fathers? The question was put to us in 1861: "Shall
the majority rule?" and also the balance of that question: "Shall the
minority submit?" The minority said they would not. Upon the right of
the majority to rule rests the entire structure of our Government. Had
we, in 1861, given up that principle, the foundations of our Government
would have been totally destroyed. In fact there would have been no
Government, even in the North. It is no use to say the majority shall
rule if the minority consents. Therefore, if, when a man has been
duly elected President, anybody undertakes to prevent him from being
President, it is your duty to protect him and enforce submission to the
will of the majority. In 1861 we had presented to us the alternative,
either to let the great principle that lies at the foundation of our
Government go by the board, or to appeal to arms, and to the God of
battles, and fight it through.
The Southern people said they were going out of the Union; we implored
them to stay, by the common memories of the Revolution, by an apparent
common destiny; by the love of man, but they refused to listen to
us--rushed past us, and appealed to the arbitrament of the sword; and
now I, for one, say by the decision of the sword let them abide.
Now, I want to show how mean the American people were in 1861. The vile
and abominable institution of slavery had so corrupted us that we did
not know right from wrong. It crept into the pulpit until the sermon
became the echo of the bloodhound's bark. It crept upon the bench,
and the judge could not tell whether the corn belonged to the man that
raised it, or to the fellow that did not, but he rather thought it
belonged to the latter. We had lost our sense of justice. Even the
people of Indiana were so far gone as to agree to carry out the Fugitive
Slave Law. Was it not low-lived and contemptible? We agreed that if we
found a woman ninety-nine one hundredths white, who, inspired by the
love of liberty, had run away from her masters, and had got within
one step of free soil, we would clutch her and bring her back to the
dominion of the Democrat, the bloodhound and the lash. We were just mean
enough to do it. We used to read that some hundreds of years ago a lot
of soldiers would march into a man's house, take him out, tie him to a
stake driven into the earth, pile fagots around him, and let the
thirsty flames consume him, and all because they differed from him about
religion. We said it was horrible; it made our blood run cold to think
of it; yet at the same time many a magnificent steamboat floated down
the Mississippi with wives and husbands, fragments of families torn
asunder, doomed to a life of toil, requited only by lashes upon the
naked back, and branding irons upon the quivering flesh, and we thought
little of it. When we set out to put down the Rebellion the Democratic
party started up all at once and said, "You are not going to interfere
with slavery, are you?" Now, it is remarkable that whenever we were
going to do a good thing, we had to let on that we were going to do a
mean one. If we had said at the outset, "We will break the shackles from
four millions of slaves" we never would have succeeded. We had to come
at it by degrees. The Democrats scented it out. They had a scent keener
than a bloodhound when anything was going to be done to affect slavery.
"Put down rebellion," they said, "but don't hurt slavery." We said, "We
will not; we will restore the Union as it was and the Constitution as it
is." We were in good faith about it. We had no better sense then than
to think that it was worth fighting for, to preserve the cause of
quarrel--the bone of contention--so as to have war all the time. Every
blow we struck for slavery was a blow against us. The Rebellion was
simply slavery with a mask on. We never whipped anybody but once so long
as we stood upon that doctrine; that was at Donelson; and the victory
there was not owing to the policy, but to the splendid genius of the
next President of the United States. After a while it got into our
heads that slavery was the cause of the trouble, and we began to edge up
slowly toward slavery. When Mr. Lincoln said he would destroy slavery
if absolutely necessary for the suppression of the Rebellion, people
thought that was the most radical thing that ever was uttered. But the
time came when it was necessary to free the slaves, and to put muskets
into their hands. The Democratic party opposed us with all their might
until the draft came, and they wanted negroes for substitutes; and I
never heard a Democrat object to arming the negroes after that.
[The speaker from this point presented the history of the
Republican policy of reconstruction, and touched lightly on
the subject of the national debt. He glanced at the
finances, reviewing in the most scathing manner the history
and character of Seymour, paid a most eloquent tribute to
the character and public services of General Grant, and
closed with the following words: ]
The hero of the Rebellion, who accomplished at Shiloh what Napoleon
endeavored at Waterloo; who captured Vicksburg by a series of victories
unsurpassed, taking the keystone from the rebel arch; who achieved at
Missionary Ridge a success as grand as it was unexpected to the country;
who, having been summoned from the death-bed of rebellion in the West,
marched like an athlete from the Potomac to the James, the grandest
march in the history of the world. This was all done without the least
flourish upon his part. No talk about destiny--without faith in a
star--with the simple remark that he would "fight it out on that line,"
without a boast, modest to bashfulness, yet brave to audacity, simple as
duty, firm as war, direct as truth--this hero, with so much common
sense that he is the most uncommon man of his time, will be, in spite of
Executive snares and Cabinet entanglements, of competent false witnesses
of the Democratic party, the next President of the United States. He
will be trusted with the Government his genius saved.