Evidently there are individuals, calling themselves Democrats, who
feel little sympathy with the movement, and there are others who
insist upon the old hates, whether towards the North or towards the
freedman. Unhappily, this is only according to human nature. It must
be so. Therefore, though pained in feeling, my trust is not disturbed
by sporadic cases cited in newspapers, or by local incidents. This is
clear: in spite of politicians, and against their earnest efforts, the
people represented in the Democratic Convention adopted a Republican
nomination and platform. Baltimore answered to Cincinnati. A popular
uprising, stirred by irresistible instinct, triumphed over all
resistance. The people were wiser than their leaders,--illustrating
again the saying of the French statesman, so experienced in human
affairs, that above the wisdom of any individual, however great, is the
wisdom of all. But this testifies to that Providence which shapes our
ends:
“So Providence for us, high, infinite,
Makes our necessities its watchful task.”
Plainly in recent events there has been a presiding influence against
which all machinations have been powerless. Had the Convention at
Philadelphia nominated a good Republican, truly representing Republican
principles without drawback, there is no reason to believe that Horace
Greeley would have been a candidate. The persistence for President
Grant dissolved original bonds, and gave practical opportunity to the
present movement. The longing for peace, which in existing antagonisms
of party was without effective expression, at last found free course.
Accordingly the original Republican who had announced himself ready
to “clasp hands” in peace was accepted on a Republican platform,
declaring support of the three Constitutional amendments, and placing
in the foreground the great truth that all men are equal before the
law. Such is the historic fact. That the party will be disloyal to this
act, that it will turn its back on its covenants, and seek through a
Republican President to reverse these safeguards, or in any way impair
their efficacy, is not only without probability, but to imagine it is
absolutely absurd.
Beyond the unequivocal adhesion of the party in its corporate capacity
is that of eminent members who volunteer as individuals in the same
declarations, so that personal pledge unites with party obligation. I
quote two instances at hand.
Mr. Hendricks, so well known for his service in the National Senate,
said recently in the Democratic State Convention of Indiana, on his
nomination for Governor:--
“We have this day substantially turned our backs upon the Past. We
now stand in the Present, and look forward to the great Future. The
Past is gone.”
Nobody in the country can speak for his party with more authority; nor
could there be better words to denote the change that has occurred.
Mr. Kerr, also of Indiana, an able Democratic Representative in
Congress, and now Congressional candidate at large, bears the same
testimony. In a recent speech this distinguished Democrat says:--
“The best impulse, the most patriotic sentiment, the most
intelligent judgment of the wisest and the best men of the country
now demand that the accomplished results of our great civil war,
as they are crystallized in the Amendments to the Constitution,
shall stand as parts of the fundamental law of the country, to be
obeyed and maintained in good faith, without evasion, denial, or
diminution, in favor of all classes of the people. The Democratic
party, in the most authoritative and solemn manner, accepts this
judgment.”
Nothing could be more complete. All the Amendments are “to be obeyed
and maintained in good faith, without evasion, denial, or diminution,
in favor of all classes of the people”; and this is the covenant of the
Democratic party, countersigned by their Representative. Not content
with this unequivocal adhesion, the speaker proceeds:--
“Any intelligent citizen, in public or private life, who
charges that the Democratic party, if invested with power,
would reëstablish slavery, or pay for slaves, or assume or pay
Confederate debts, and take suffrage from colored men, or do other
acts in defiance of the Constitution, must be a hypocrite and
a demagogue, and he can have no higher aim than to slander and
deceive.”
It is easy to pardon the indignation with which this Democrat repels
the calumnies employed to sow distrust.
In strictest harmony with these authorities is the public press
entitled to speak for the Democratic party. Out of innumerable
testimonies I content myself with two.
The Cincinnati “Enquirer,” a leading Democratic journal, of August 1st,
alluding to myself, says:--
“His confidence in the honor of the Democratic party is not
misplaced. It will stand by the position which it assumed at
Baltimore, and maintain it under any and all circumstances. Upon
that he may depend.”