Suppose England, instead of being a little island in the sea, had been

the half of a great continent full of raw material, capable of an

internal commerce which would rival the commerce of all the rest of the

world.

Suppose every year new millions were flocking to her shores, and every

one of those new millions in a few years, as soon as they tasted the

delights of a broader life, would become as great a consumer as any one

of her own people.

Suppose that these millions, and the 70,000,000 already gathered under

the folds of her flag, were every year demanding and receiving a higher

wage and therefore broadening her market as fast as her machinery could

furnish production. Suppose she had produced cheap food beyond all her

wants, and that her laborers spent so much money that whether wheat was

sixty cents a bushel or twice that sum hardly entered the thoughts of

one of them, except when some Democratic tariff bill was paralyzing his

business.

Suppose that she was not only but a cannon shot from France, but that

every country in Europe had been brought as near to her as Baltimore is

to Washington--for that is what cheap ocean freights mean between us

and European producers. Suppose all those countries had her machinery,

her skilled workmen, her industrial system, and labor forty per cent

cheaper. Suppose under that state of facts, with all her manufacturers

proclaiming against it, frantic in their disapproval, England had been

called upon by Cobden to make the plunge into free trade, would she

have done it? Not if Cobden had been backed by the angelic host.

History gives England credit for great sense.

SPEECH OF CHARLES F. CRISP

I assume that the cause of protection has no more able advocate than

the gentleman from Maine. I assume that the argument for protection can

be put in no more alluring form than that to which we have listened to-

day. So assuming, I shall ask you calmly and dispassionately to examine

with me that argument, to see upon what it is based, and then I shall

invoke the unprejudiced judgment of this House as to whether the cause

attempted to be sustained by the gentleman from Maine has been

sustained, or can be before any tribunal where the voice of reason is

heard or the sense of justice is felt.

The gentleman from Maine, with a facility that is unequaled, when he

encounters an argument which he is unable to answer passes it by with

some bright and witty saying and thereby invites and receives the

applause of those who believe as he does. But the gentleman does not

attempt, the gentleman has not to-day attempted, to reply to the real

arguments that are made in favor of freer trade and greater liberty of

commerce.

The gentleman points to the progress of the United States, he points to

the rate of wages in the United States, he points to the aggregated

wealth of the United States, and claims all this is due to protection.

But he does not explain how we owe these blessings to protection. He

says, we have protection in the United States, wages are high in the

United States; therefore protection makes high wages.

When we ask the gentleman from Maine to give us a reason why a high

protective tariff increases the rate of wages he points to the glory,

the prosperity, and the honor of our country. We on this side unite

with him in every sentiment, in every purpose, in every effort that has

for its object the advancement of the general welfare of the people of

the United States, but we differ from him as to the method of promoting

their welfare. The gentleman belongs to that school who believe that

scarcity is a blessing, and that abundance should be prohibited by law.

We belong to that school who believe that scarcity is a calamity to be

avoided, and that abundance should be, if possible, encouraged by law.

The gentleman belongs to that class who believe that by a system of

taxation we can make the country rich. He believes that it is possible

by tax laws to advance the prosperity of all the industries and all the

people in the United States.

Either, Mr. Speaker, that statement is an absurdity upon its face, or

it implies that in some way we have the power to make some persons not

resident of the United States pay the taxes that we impose. I insist

that you do not increase the taxable wealth of the United States when

you tax a gentleman in Illinois and give the benefit of that tax to a

gentleman in Maine. Such a course prevents the natural and honest

distribution of wealth, but it does not create or augment it.

SOUTH CAROLINA AND MASSACHUSETTS

Delivered in the United States Senate, January, 1830

BY ROBERT Y. HAYNE

The gentleman has made a great flourish about his fidelity to

Massachusetts. I shall make no profession of zeal for the interests and

honor of South Carolina; of that my constituents shall judge. If there

be one State in the Union, Mr. President (and I say it not in a

boastful spirit), that may challenge comparison with any other for a

uniform, zealous, ardent, and uncalculating devotion to the Union, that

State is South Carolina. Sir, from the very commencement of the

Revolution up to this hour there is no sacrifice, however great, she

has not cheerfully made, no service she has ever hesitated to perform.

She has adhered to you in your prosperity; but in your adversity she

has clung to you with more than filial affection. No matter what was

the condition of her domestic affairs, though deprived of her

resources, divided by parties, or surrounded with difficulties, the

call of the country has been to her as the voice of God. Domestic

discord ceased at the sound; every man became at once reconciled to his

brethren, and the sons of Carolina were all seen crowding together to

the temple, bringing their gifts to the altar of their common country.

What, sir, was the conduct of the South during the Revolution? Sir, I

honor New England for her conduct in that glorious struggle. But great

as is the praise which belongs to her, I think at least equal honor is

due to the South. They espoused the quarrel of their brethren with a

generous zeal, which did not suffer them to stop to calculate their

interest in the dispute. Favorites of the mother country, possessed of

neither ships nor seamen to create a commercial rivalship, they might

have found in their situation a guaranty that their trade would be

forever fostered and protected by Great Britain. But, trampling on all

considerations either of interest or of safety, they rushed into the

conflict, and, fighting for principle, periled all in the sacred cause

of freedom. Never were there exhibited in the history of the world

higher examples of noble daring, dreadful suffering, and heroic

endurance than by the Whigs of Carolina during the Revolution. The

whole State, from the mountains to the sea, was overrun by an

overwhelming force of the enemy. The fruits of industry perished on the

spot where they were produced, or were consumed by the foe. The "plains

of Carolina" drank up the most precious blood of her citizens. Black

and smoking ruins marked the places where had been the habitations of

her children. Driven from their homes into the gloomy and almost

impenetrable swamps, even there the spirit of liberty survived, and

South Carolina (sustained by the example of her Sumters and her

Marions) proved by her conduct that, though her soil might be overrun,

the spirit of her people was invincible.

REPLY BY DANIEL WEBSTER

The eulogium pronounced by the honorable gentleman on the character of

the State of South Carolina for her Revolutionary and other merits

meets my hearty concurrence. I shall not acknowledge that the honorable

member goes before me in regard for whatever of distinguished talent,

or distinguished character, South Carolina has produced. I claim part

of the honor, I partake in the pride, of her great names. I claim them

for countrymen, one and all,--the Laurenses, the Rutledges, the

Pinckneys, the Sumters, the Marions, Americans all, whose fame is no

more to be hemmed in by State lines than their talents and patriotism

were capable of being circumscribed within the same narrow limits. In

their day and generation they served and honored the country, and the

whole country; and their renown is of the treasures of the whole

country. Him whose honored name the gentleman himself bears,--does he

esteem me less capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for

his sufferings, than if his eyes had first opened upon the light of

Massachusetts instead of South Carolina? Sir, does he suppose it in his

power to exhibit a Carolina name so bright as to produce envy in my

bosom? No, sir, increased gratification and delight, rather. I thank

God that, if I am gifted with little of the spirit which is able to

raise mortals to the skies, I have yet none, as I trust, of that other

spirit which would drag angels down. When I shall be found, sir, in my

place here in the Senate or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit because

it happens to spring up beyond the little limits of my own State or

neighborhood; when I refuse, for any such cause, or for any cause, the

homage due to American talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere

devotion to liberty and the country; or, if I see an uncommon endowment

of Heaven, if I see extraordinary capacity and virtue in any son of the

South, and if, moved by local prejudice or gangrened by State jealousy,

I get up here to abate the tithe of a hair from his just character and

just fame,--may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!

Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in

refreshing remembrance of the past; let me remind you that, in early

times, no States cherished greater harmony, both of principle and

feeling, than Massachusetts and South Carolina. Would to God that

harmony might again return! Shoulder to shoulder they went through the

Revolution; hand in hand they stood round the administration of

Washington, and felt his own great arm lean on them for support. Unkind

feeling, if it exist, alienation and distrust, are the growth,

unnatural to such soils, of false principles since sown. They are

weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm never scattered.

Mr. President, I shall enter on no encomium upon Massachusetts; she

needs none. There she is. Behold her, and judge for yourselves. There

is her history; the world knows it by heart. The past, at least, is

secure. There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill;

and there they will remain forever. The bones of her sons, falling in

the great struggle for independence, now lie mingled with the soil of

every State from New England to Georgia; and there they will lie

forever. And, sir, where American liberty raised its first voice, and

where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives in the

strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit. If discord and

party strife shall succeed in separating it from that Union by which

alone its existence is made sure,--it will stand in the end by the side

of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked, and it will fall at

last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory

and on the very spot of its origin.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

BY JOHN HAY

Our platform is before the country. Perhaps it is lacking in novelty.

There is certainly nothing sensational about it. Its principles have

been tested by eight years of splendid success and have received the

approval of the country. It is in line with all our platforms of the

past, except where prophecy and promise in those days have become

history in these. We stand by the ancient ways which have proved good.

We come before the country in a position which cannot be successfully

attacked in front, or flank, or rear. What we have done, what we are

doing, and what we intend to do--on all three we confidently challenge

the verdict of the American people. The record of fifty years will show

whether as a party we are fit to govern; the state of our domestic and

foreign affairs will show whether as a party we have fallen off; and

both together will show whether we can be trusted for a while longer.

I want to say a word to the young men whose political life is

beginning. Any one entering business would be glad of the chance to

become one of an established firm with years of success behind it, with

a wide connection, with unblemished character, with credit founded on a

rock. How infinitely brighter the future when the present is so sure,

the past so glorious! Everything great done by this country in the last

fifty years has been done under the auspices of the Republican Party.

Is not this consciousness a great asset to have in your mind and

memory? As a mere item of personal comfort is it not worth having?

Lincoln and Grant, Hayes and Garfield, Harrison and McKinley--names

secure in the heaven of fame--they all are gone, leaving small estates

in worldly goods, but what vast possessions in principles, memories,

sacred associations! It is a start in life to share that wealth. Who

now boasts that he opposed Lincoln? who brags of his voting against

Grant? though both acts may have been from the best of motives. In our

form of government there must be two parties, and tradition,

circumstances, temperament, will always create a sufficient opposition.

But what young man would not rather belong to the party that does

things, instead of one that opposes them; to the party that looks up,

rather than down; to the party of the dawn, rather than of the sunset?

For fifty years the Republican Party has believed in the country and

labored for it in hope and joy; it has reverenced the flag and followed

it; it has carried it under strange skies and planted it on far-

receding horizons. It has seen the nation grow greater every year and

more respected; by just dealing, by intelligent labor, by a genius for

enterprise, it has seen the country extend its intercourse and its

influence to regions unknown to our fathers. Yet it has never abated

one jot or tittle of the ancient law imposed on us by our God-fearing

ancestors. We have fought a good fight, but also we have kept the

faith. The Constitution of our fathers has been the light to our feet;

our path is, and will ever remain, that of ordered progress, of liberty

under the law. The country has vastly increased, but the great-brained

statesmen who preceded us provided for infinite growth. The discoveries

of science have made miraculous additions to our knowledge. But we are

not daunted by progress; we are not afraid of the light. The fabric our

fathers builded on such sure foundations will stand all shocks of fate

or fortune. There will always be a proud pleasure in looking back on

the history they made; but, guided by their example, the coming

generation has the right to anticipate work not less important, days

equally memorable to mankind. We who are passing off the stage bid you,

as the children of Israel encamping by the sea were bidden, to Go

Forward; we whose hands can no longer hold the flaming torch pass it on

to you that its clear light may show the truth to the ages that are to

come.

NOMINATING ULYSSES S. GRANT

BY ROSCOE CONKLING

In obedience to instructions I should never dare to disregard--

expressing, also, my own firm convictions--I rise to propose a

nomination with which the country and the Republican party can grandly

win. The election before us is to be the Austerlitz of American

politics. It will decide, for many years, whether the country shall be

Republican or Cossack. The supreme need of the hour is not a candidate

who can carry Michigan. All Republican candidates can do that. The need

is not of a candidate who is popular in the Territories, because they

have no vote. The need is of a candidate who can carry doubtful States.

Not the doubtful States of the North alone, but doubtful States of the

South, which we have heard, if I understand it aright, ought to take

little or no part here, because the South has nothing to give, but

everything to receive. No, gentlemen, the need that presses upon the

conscience of this Convention is of a candidate who can carry doubtful

States both North and South. And believing that he, more surely than

any other man, can carry New York against any opponent, and can carry

not only the North, but several States of the South, New York is for

Ulysses S. Grant. Never defeated in peace or in war, his name is the

most illustrious borne by living man.

His services attest his greatness, and the country--nay, the world--

knows them by heart. His fame was earned not alone in things written

and said, but by the arduous greatness of things done. And perils and

emergencies will search in vain in the future, as they have searched in

vain in the past, for any other on whom the nation leans with such

confidence and trust. Never having had a policy to enforce against the

will of the people, he never betrayed a cause or a friend, and the

people will never desert nor betray him. Standing on the highest

eminence of human distinction, modest, firm, simple, and self-poised,

having filled all lands with his renown, he has seen not only the

highborn and the titled, but the poor and the lowly, in the uttermost

ends of the earth, rise and uncover before him. He has studied the

needs and the defects of many systems of government, and he has

returned a better American than ever.

His integrity, his common-sense, his courage, his unequaled experience,

are the qualities offered to his country. The only argument, the only

one that the wit of man or the stress of politics has devised is one

that would have dumbfounded Solomon, because he thought there was

nothing new under the sun. Having tried Grant twice and found him

faithful, we are told that we must not, even after an interval of

years, trust him again. My countrymen! my countrymen! what

stultification does not such a fallacy involve! Is this an

electioneering juggle, or is it hypocrisy's masquerade? There is no

field of human activity, responsibility, or reason, in which rational

beings object to an agent because he has been weighed in the balance

and not found wanting. There is, I say, no department of human reason

in which sane men reject an agent because he has had experience making

him exceptionally competent and fit.

This Convention is master of a supreme opportunity. It can name the

next President. It can make sure of his election. It can make sure not

only of his election, but of his certain and peaceful inauguration.

Gentlemen, we have only to listen above the din and look beyond the

dust of an hour to behold the Republican party advancing with its

ensigns resplendent with illustrious achievements, marching to certain

and lasting victory with its greatest Marshal at its head.

THE CHOICE OF A PARTY

From a speech delivered in New York, 1880. Depew's "Library of

Oratory," E. J. Bowen and Company, New York, publishers.

BY ROSCOE CONKLING

We are citizens of a republic. We govern ourselves. Here no pomp of

eager array in chambers of royalty awaits the birth of boy or girl to

wield an hereditary scepter. We know no scepter save a majority's

constitutional will. To wield that scepter in equal share is the duty

and the right, nay, the birthright, of every citizen. The supreme, the

final, the only peaceful arbiter here, is the ballot box; and in that

urn should be gathered and from it should be sacredly recorded the

conscience, the judgment, the intelligence of all. The right of free

self-government has been in all ages the bright dream of oppressed

humanity,--the sighed-for privilege to which thrones, dynasties, and

power have so long blocked the way. In the fullness of freedom the

Republic of America is alone in the earth; alone in its grandeur; alone

in its blessings; alone in its promises and possibilities, and

therefore alone in the devotion due from its citizens.

The time has come when law, duty, and interest require the nation to

determine for at least four years its policy in many things. Two

parties exist; parties should always exist in a government of

majorities, and to support and strengthen the party which most nearly

holds his views is among the most laudable, meritorious acts of an

American citizen; and this whether he be in official or in private

station. Two parties contend for the management of national affairs.

The question is, Which of the two is it safer and wiser to trust? It is

not a question of candidates. A candidate, if he be an honest, genuine

man, will not seek and accept a party nomination to the presidency,

vice presidency, or Congress, and after he is elected become a law unto

himself. The higher obligations among men are not set down in writing

and signed or sealed; they reside in honor and good faith. The fidelity

of a nominee belongs to this exalted class, and therefore the candidate

of a party is but the exponent of a party. The object of political

discussion and action is to settle principles, policies, and issues. It

is a paltry incident of an election affecting fifty million people that

it decides for an occasion the aspirations of individual men. The

Democratic party is the Democratic candidate, and I am against the

ticket and all its works.

A triumphant nationality--a regenerated constitution--a free Republic--

an unbroken country--untarnished credit--solvent finances--unparalleled

prosperity--all these are ours despite the policy and the efforts of

the Democratic party. Along with the amazing improvement in national

finances, we have amazing individual thrift on every side. In every

walk of life new activity is felt. Labor, agriculture, manufactures,

commerce, enterprises, and investments, all are flourishing, content

and hopeful. But in the midst of this harmony and encouragement comes a

harsh discord crying, "Give us a change--anything for a change." This

is not a bearing year for "a change." Every other crop is good, but not

the crop of "change"--that crop is good only when the rest are bad. The

country does not need nor wish the change proposed, and to the pressing

invitation of our Democratic friends a good-natured but firm "No, I

thank you," will be the response at the polls.

Upon its record and its candidates the Republican party asks the

country's approval, and stands ready to avow its purposes for the

future. It proposes to rebuild our commercial marine. It proposes to

foster labor, industry, and enterprise. It proposes to stand for

education, humanity, and progress. It proposes to administer the

government honestly, to preserve amity with all the world, observing

our own obligations with others and seeing that others observe theirs

with us, to protect every citizen in his rights and equality before the

law, to uphold the public credit and the sanctity of engagements; and

by doing these things the Republican party proposes to assure to

industry, humanity, and civilization in America the amplest welcome and

the safest home.

NOMINATING JOHN SHERMAN

From a speech nominating a candidate for President of the United States

at the Republican National Convention, 1880

BY JAMES A. GARFIELD

I have witnessed the extraordinary scenes of this Convention with deep

solicitude. Nothing touches my heart more quickly than a tribute of

honor to a great and noble character; but as I sat in my seat and

witnessed this demonstration, this assemblage seemed to me a human

ocean in tempest. I have seen the sea lashed into fury and tossed into

spray, and its grandeur moves the soul of the dullest man; but I

remember that it is not the billows, but the calm level of the sea,

from which all heights and depths are measured. When the storm has

passed and the hour of calm settles on the ocean, when the sunlight

bathes its peaceful surface, then the astronomer and surveyor take the

level from which they measure all terrestrial heights and depths.

Public Speaking: Principles and Practice · 第 19 / 27 段