|WHEN, on the 15th of April, 1861, Abraham Lincoln, as President of the
United States, called for 75,000 men, for three months, to suppress the
rebellion, he did it after repeated consultations with every member
of his Cabinet, both when assembled in council and privately with each
individual member. That Cabinet was one of the ablest, if not the very
ablest, that any President of the United States ever had about him.
William H. Seward had been Governor of New York, had long been United
States Senator, and understood the strength and resources of each
individual State, and of the whole Union, as well, probably, as any man
then living. Salmon P. Chase had been Governor of Ohio, long a United
States Senator, was a thorough statistician, mathematician, and
financier, and had made the resources of both States and nation a long
and faithful study. Simon Cameron had been a statistician and banker
nearly his whole life, had long been a United States Senator, was a man
of unusually strong common sense, and had, from a political stand-point,
made the Southern States and their peculiar institutions and resources a
special study. Wells and Smith were good, strong, practical-sensed men;
while Blair and Bates were both Southern men, were thoroughly conversant
with the institutions, with the leading men, with the wealth, and with
the resources of every Southern State.
One would have thought the combined wisdom of such a body of men as near
perfection, as near certainty in political prophecy, as it was possible
for men to attain, when judging of the future by inferences drawn from
actual knowledge of the past and present; and yet, subsequent events
proved that never were men wider from the mark than were these men in
advising the President to call out 75,000 men for three months to subdue
the rebellion. Why this great error of calculation and judgment?
Those who have carefully read the preceding chapters of this book will
have the answer, in part, but not the whole answer. Of course, President
Lincoln and his Cabinet thoroughly understood the sympathy which existed
between English cotton-spinners and American cotton-growers, and, in
their calculations, made due allowance for this feeling. They also
understood thoroughly the sympathy existing between the aristocracy
of England and king cotton of America; for they well knew that the
aristocracy of England were largely the owners of those cotton-mills or
furnished the capital with which to run them. For this, then, they
also made due allowance in all their calculations; and, with a view
to checkmate this influence as far as possible, sent Thurlow Weed on a
secret mission to England. They understood the business relations of the
Pacific Mail Steamship Company with the Southern States, as well as the
relations of other incorporated companies, and of merchants generally,
with the South. They knew of the debt that was then owing--nearly
two hundred millions of dollars--from Southern merchants to Northern
merchants, and fully comprehended the sympathy which such community of
interests would naturally create between the parties; and for all this
made due allowance. They understood, of course, the love of gain natural
to every man, and that merchants, manufacturers, and others, by the
thousands, would be on the constant lookout to make money out of the
war in any possible way commensurate with their own safety; and for this
made due allowance in their calculations as to what was to be overcome.
And last, but not least, they well understood the general sympathy
which was felt by the Democratic party of the North for the people and
peculiar institutions of the South, and how ready some of the leaders of
that party would be to aid the South in any way they could with safety
to themselves; but they also understood that a very large number of
the followers of the masses--of the bone and sinew of that party--were
patriotic; while another portion, and a very large portion, would be
ready to hire themselves to do whatever would pay best, and that if
large monthly pay and large bounties were offered, these men would be
as ready to hire themselves to kill their fellow-men as to slaughter
cattle; and with these two elements (the patriotic and the mercenary),
they believed the party could be so far controlled as to prevent it from
doing any material injury to the Union cause.
But while comprehending all these things, and making due allowance
for them all, they did not comprehend nor make allowance for the
deep-seated, desperate, condemnable villany that was hid away in the
hearts of these same Democratic leaders, and that would come forth from
its hiding-places whenever and wherever it could do so with the hope of
gain to itself, or with the hope of so crippling the Union cause that it
would finally fail, when the affairs of the government would again fall
into the hands of the Democratic party.
They did not comprehend, nor was it possible for any human foresight
to have conceived any one of the many secret devices recorded in the
preceding chapters of this volume, whereby men could and would serve the
rebellion in the guise of Unionism; whereby men would, while playing
the patriot, really be the most desperate rebels At heart; whereby
men could, while receiving pay as generals in the Union army, do acts
whereby millions of dollars were lost to loyal merchants; whereby
transportation companies would, through its leading officers, while
receiving large pay from the United States government for services
legitimately rendered, be all the while aiding the rebellion by
furnishing ships and money with which to exchange cotton for war
materials and army supplies; whereby, in a word, the Democratic party,
as a party would so exercise its influence that vice disguised would
seem virtue personified; that the promise of a candidacy to the office
of President would so change the heart and paralyze the arm of a
Union general as to make him favor the rebel cause by delays, and by
transferring (through the closing of a provost-court) the sinews of
war (millions of dollars) from Union pockets to rebel coffers; that
steamship companies, while receiving the protection of Union arms,
would be all the while aiding the rebel cause; and that men, otherwise
regarded as honorable, high-minded gentlemen, would, because of old
political prejudice and present gain, meet in secret conclaves in
New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, and then and there
concoct the most desperate measures in aid of rebellion. These were
secrets which no human eye could penetrate, exigencies against which no
human foresight could provide, and hence it cannot be said in truth that
these men failed in judgment, since they only failed upon points which
were entirely outside of all human calculation.
But for these things, three months' service of 75,000 men would have
been amply sufficient to crush the rebellion, and from this we draw our
first inference--which no one can pronounce otherwise than fair--that
whatever time it took beyond three months to crush the rebellion,
whatever men it took beyond 75,000, whatever money it cost beyond the
pay of 75,000 for three months, together with collateral expenses for
the same time, and whatever lives it cost beyond what would have
been the probable mortality among the 75,000, are chargeable, fairly
chargeable, unquestionably chargeable, to the Democratic party as a
party. We are careful to say as a party, for we know many individuals
of that party who are as honorable, as pure, as patriotic as any in the
Republican party, and who only continue their connection with that party
(for they know its past sins and present corruptions quite as well as we
do) either because their fathers were Democrats' and they do not wish
to be regarded as "turn-coats," or because they think the chances of
political preferment are better in the Democratic than in the Republican
party; or, as they have sometimes replied to us, half in jest and half
in earnest, "the more corrupt the party is as a party, the greater
necessity is there to have some good men remain in it, to prevent it
from doing greater injury to the country."
As historian, and as readers searching after truth, our next inquiry
will naturally be--First. How much more time did it take to subdue
the rebellion? Second. How many more men did it take? Third. How
much additional did it cost? Fourth. How many additional lives were
sacrificed? All these we regard as properly belonging to "Secrets of the
Late Rebellion, now Revealed for the First Time," for the reason that
no one heretofore has ever made researches in this particular direction,
and while the facts have existed ever since they came into being (just
as the continent of America existed long before Columbus discovered
it), yet they have never until now been revealed to the public in the
relations and connections to which they historically belong.
I. Though both North and South had been making preparations months
before, the actual beginning of open war may be dated from the firing
upon Fort Sumter, on the 12th of April, 1861. The close of the war
may be reckoned from the surrender of General Lee to General Grant, at
Appomattox Court-House, on April 9th, 1865, though it was months after
before all the volunteer troops were disbanded and had reached their
homes. From the firing on Fort Sumter to the surrender was three years,
eleven months, and twenty-eight days; or, to make the calculation still
finer, from the calling out of the seventy-five thousand troops to Lee's
surrender was three years, eleven months, and twenty-five days. Now,
deduct from this three months, and you have the extra time consumed in
crushing the rebellion, every month, every week, and every day of which
is justly chargeable to the Democratic party.
II. The records of the War Department show that 2,688,523 men were
called into the national service from the beginning to the end of the
war. Deduct from this number 75,000, and you have the additional number
called into service because of the secret machinations and villa-nies
heretofore spoken of., viz, 2,613,523, every man of whom is chargeable,
fairly chargeable, unquestionably chargeable to the Democratic party.
III. At the close of the fiscal year (June 30th) for 1861, the Treasurer
reported the debt of the United States to be $90,867,828. On the 31st of
March, 1865, the Treasurer reported the public debt of the United
States to be $2,423,437,001, showing an increase during the war of
$2,332,567,173. This increase of debt of the general government by no
means represents the sum-total cost of the war; for, meanwhile, the
people had been paying immensely increased taxes every year, and beside
this every State, every county, every large city, and almost every
township of the North had been issuing bonds with which to pay bounties
and other war expenses, so that in 1865 the amount of bounties paid
by States and local authorities, so far as returned to the general
government, amounted to $285,941,036. Add this to the government
debt and you have the sum of $2,709,378,037. It is difficult, if not
impossible, for any mind to really comprehend so large a sum, and
the only way to appreciate it is to divide it among families, or
individualize it. In 1860 the United States census returns show for the
eighteen Northern States 18,855,831. In 1870 the returns show for the
same States 24,035,359. There being no census returns for 1865 (as the
United States census is only taken at the close of each ten years), the
only way to approximate the population then is to divide the increase
between 1860 and 1870. This indicates a population in these eighteen
States for 1865 to have been about 21,445,595. Now the average estimate
for each family is five. This would give us 4,289,119 families as
existing in these States at that time. Next, divide the number of
families into the number of dollars of public debt, and you show
that upon each family was saddled, at the close of the war, a debt of
$631.68. Or, to individualize it, divide this sum by five, and you have
the sum of $126.33 as the average debt then owing by every mart, woman,
and child then residing in the eighteen Northern States. Thus, it
mattered not how poor a man was, or how many children he had, a ticket
of indebtedness for the sum of $126.33 was plastered on the forehead of
each. "Oh, well," some one may say, "that was easy enough for rich men
to pay, and of course the poor never paid it, nor never will, since many
of the very poor never handle as much money as that in all their lives.
Why, to a man with ten children (and the poor, you know, generally have
the most) that would have made a debt of $1515.96, which of course he
could never pay, in addition to supporting his family." Ah! but, my
friend, there is just where you are most mistaken; for it is just
that class of men, together with farmers, who do pay much the larger
proportion of public debts. True, they never pay it, nor would try to
pay it, in dollars and cents to the tax-gatherer; but they pay it in the
increased price they pay the merchant for the tea and coffee they drink,
for the muslins and woollens, and hats and shoes they wear; they pay it
in increased rents and decreased wages; and the farmer pays it not
only in every article that he purchases, but in increased taxes and in
decreased receipts for what he raises to sell. And what these fail
to pay, the rich have to pay in increased taxes for State, county,
township, or municipal purposes.
Now let us apply these facts to the solving of the problem (third)--How
much additional did it cost?
This we can only do approximately by stating the problem thus: If
to bring into the field 2,688,523 men for forty-seven months cost
$2,709,378,037, how much would it have cost to bring in 75,000 for three
months? Deduct this sum, amounting to $4,824,369 from the whole cost,
and we have remaining the sum of $2,704,553,668 as the additional
cost of the war because of the secret machinations and most desperate
villanies described in the previous chapters of this book--every dollar
of which, every penny of which, is justly chargeable to the Democratic
party as a party. Or, to make the matter still plainer, more than
three-fourths of all the taxes which the poor man, or farmer, or rich
man has heretofore paid, or will hereafter pay, whether upon what he
eats and drinks and wears, or upon cash paid tax-collector, is directly
chargeable to the Democratic party.
IV. How many additional lives were sacrificed? This, like the last
question, can only be answered approximately, and by the same process of
reasoning.
The reports made to the War Department, during the war, show the total
loss to have been 280,420 men--the very sight of which figures makes
the heart sink in agony and sicken over the thought, and yet there is no
escaping their terrible reality.
To get at the additional sacrifice, the proposition may be stated thus:
If in a war lasting forty-seven months, with 2,688,523 men in service
(of whom 1,500,000 it is estimated were in battles), the sacrifice of
life amounted to 280,420 men, what would have been the sacrifice had the
war lasted only three months, with 75,000 men in service? The answer to
this problem is 499 lives. Now take this number from the former, and
you have as the additional number 279,921 lives--the loss of which is as
fairly attributable to the Democratic party as though it had by sentence
condemned, and by its own power had executed, every one of these men.
The remains of thousands and tens of thousands who died in the service
never were gathered, but to-day lie in Southern swamps, scattered
over Southern cotton-fields, or at the bottom of the deep, blue sea,
"unknown, unhonored, and unwept;" but the remains of other thousands and
tens of thousands have been gathered, and now lie in National cemeteries
at Arlington Heights, at Gettysburg, at Antietam, at Beverly, and at
many other places throughout the length and breadth of our land.
The above calculations show--and figures never lie when correctly
placed--that if upon ninety-five out of every one hundred headstones
erected to the memory of these departed heroes in the National and
private cemeteries of our country were written the words, _Died by the
hands of the Democratic party_, the record would be as true as anything
now written upon those headstones.
We are fully aware of the terrible character of this indictment. We know
already how many thousands will hold up their hands in holy horror and
exclaim, Oh, this cannot be so! These are not the words of a historian,
but of a politician, who allows his prejudices to get the better of his
reason! But hold, my friend, hold, and think twice before you
condemn once. Are they not words of truth and soberness? Examine each
proposition just as carefully as you would examine one of Euclid's
problems (for this is just what we have tried to do), and see if it is
possible to reach any other conclusion. Republican though we certainly
are, yet, in examining these questions as a historian, we have tried to
divest our mind of every particle of political prejudice, and though
the results of our researches and calculations are as astounding, as
terrible, as sickening-of-heart to us as they can possibly be to any one
of our readers, yet the figures would show no other, and we have had to
accept them as veritable.
And yet the secret is only half out--the story, as yet, but half told.
The losses of time, of money, and of lives heretofore spoken of relate
only to the North--the Southern side of the story remains yet to be
told; for in this volume we are writing no less for the information of
Southern than of Northern men, nor would we in this record do any less
justice to the South than to the North.
Jefferson Davis, however wild and mistaken politically, was never other
than a high-minded, chivalrous gentleman. He was just as honest in his
advocacy of slavery as Paul was in his advocacy of Phariseeism; and
when Davis went forth to catch, imprison, and, if need be, to slay the
enemies of slavery, he did it as conscientiously as Paul did, or
meant to do, his work, in going to Damascus with the commission of a
high-priest in his pocket Not only so, but President Davis was a man of
deep knowledge, a thorough statistician, a cool calculator, and one who
never took a step without first carefully counting the cost. He was the
farthest possible remove from a reckless man. When a young man in the
United States army and with the troops in Mexico, he never struck a
blow, or made the least move, without first considering all the chances.
In this respect he was almost as careful and as prudent as his renowned
father-in-law, General Zachary Taylor. As a United States Senator he was
remarkable for his caution and foresight, and though he sometimes took
part in sharp debate, his general political tactics were conservative,
watch for chances, investigate thoroughly, and then strike with effect.
Now, we have it only second-handed from President Davis's own lips that
he would never have thought of a war with the North--never would have
recommended such a war--never would have engaged in such a war--"_but
for encouragement given him, and actual pledges made him, by leading
Democrats of the Northern States_." He had once been Secretary of War;
he had been a United States Senator for several years preceding the
rebellion; he thoroughly understood the resources, not only of the
general government, but of each individual State, and would, as he
said, have thought it perfect madness for the South to have attempted a
separate confederation, "_but for the pledges of assistance made him
and others by leading Democrats of the Northern States_." Of this, as
an historical fact, there is no more doubt than that there was a war.
Outside of President Davis's own word, the facts heretofore related
in this volume, and a thousand others which might be adduced, are
confirmatory of these statements. .
Again, the men whom President Davis had about him as a Cabinet and as
outside advisers were generally men of marked intelligence and large
experience, one of whom (John Tyler) had been President of the United
States; some had been United States Senators; others, Congressmen;
others had all their lives been connected with the army or navy; and
scarcely one of all but what thoroughly understood the strength and
resources, not only of the general government, but of each State, North
and South. Is it to be presumed that a single one of these men would
have ever thought of rebellion, or said one word to encourage it, _but
for the assurances they had from leading Northern Democrats that the
party, as a party, would sustain them in such a movement?_
If these facts be admitted, and this inference be conceded, does it
not follow as an inevitable conclusion that the _Democratic party, as a
party_, is responsible before God, and should be held responsible before
all men, for the _time wasted, the money squandered, and the lives
sacrificed_ by the South in their attempt to establish a separate
confederacy?
We cannot give the exact figures, for the archives of the Confederate
government were mostly destroyed when the rebels fled and the Union army
took possession of Richmond; but think, reader, think how many weary
days, and weeks, and months, and years of untold suffering that was
caused by that mad and murderous attempt; think of the houses burned,
homes desolated, plantations ruined, by the frenzy and fury of reckless
demagogues; think of the thousands of affluent families made homeless
and penniless by this mad attempt, and of the thousands upon thousands
who were once comfortable now turned out as beggars to die, through the
efforts of a band of conspirators; think of the millions upon millions
of hard-earned dollars squandered, worse than squandered, by this mad
attempt; think of the thousands upon thousands of wives made widows,
children made fatherless, parents made childless, by this foul treason;
and then think--for if you are honest with your own conscience, and can
rid yourself of political prejudice, you must think it--that all this
waste of time, all this squandering of money, all this sacrifice
of lives, all this suffering of wives, of children, of parents, _is
unquestionably chargeable_ to the _Democratic party;_ and, with this
last thought, ask yourself the question, What should be thought of--what
should be the fate of--a party guilty of such unparalleled wickedness?
Of course, to this last question there could be but one answer, and yet
the party feebly lives! Why it lives--for what purpose it lives--would
be the next question which would naturally arise with every searcher
after truth. To these inquiries we will try to give an answer, not an
opinion merely, but an answer founded upon accredited history, as have
been all the answers heretofore given.
It is well known to every student of history that, as far back as 1817,
the leading sovereigns and princes of Europe, in their solemn conclaves
and secret treaties with each other, formed the determination to subvert
the liberties of the United States. Much of what was said and done at
that time leaked out, and was duly communicated by our ministers and
consuls abroad to the general government; but so conscious was our
government of its own strength in the hearts of the people, that all
such threats passed them by like the idle wind. When, however, the Duke
of Richmond died in Montreal in 1819--a man whom everybody knew to be a
sagacious and wise statesman, and whose many high employments had made
him intimate with all the sovereigns and politics of Europe, and
whose deep personal interests at stake gave to his opinions immense
weight--and when he declared, a short time before his death, that "The
surplus population of Europe, when not wanted for the armies and navies
of their own land, would be permitted to flock here, and would be
entitled to vote; and, mingling in the elections without a knowledge or
a love of the laws, or even the language, of the country, will be tools
for demagogues, and create a disturbing influence, which the government
cannot withstand;" and when to this he added, "I have conversed with
many of the princes and sovereigns of Europe, particularly with George
III. and Louis XVIII., and they have unanimously expressed these
opinions relative to the government of the United States, and their
determination to subvert it"--when, we say, these were published and
became generally known shortly after his death, they did for a little
while create some excitement, and both government officials and the
people had something to say about these statements; but such was the
confidence felt in our own strength, that the words of the Duke were
soon forgotten, and were laid away with the "mouldering past."
Only three years thereafter (in A. d. 1822) the great powers of Europe
held a congress at Vienna, and among the conclusions then and there
reached, and which formed a part of their treaty stipulations, the two
following cannot but strike Americans with great force:
"Article I. The high contracting powers being convinced that the
system of representative governments is equally as incompatible with
monarchical principles, as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people
with the divine right of kings, engage mutually, in the most solemn
manner, to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of
representative governments in Europe, and to prevent its being
introduced into those countries where it is not known.
"Article II. As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the press is
the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights
of nations to the detriment of those princes, the high contracting
powers promise reciprocally to adopt all proper means to suppress it."
The representatives of this government in Europe got hold of these
articles soon after, and duly communicated them to the State Department
at Washington; and the newspapers of this country also got hold of
them, and for awhile had considerable to say about them; but erelong the
excitement of both government and people died out, and things went on in
their usual way. How many times since then the powers of Europe have
met in secret conclave and reaffirmed what they then said, and adopted
secret measures whereby to carry out these resolves, is not generally
known, for the reason that the excitement following their first
promulgation gave them warning that whatever they said or did in that
direction thereafter had better be with closed doors, and under the most
sacred pledges of profound secrecy.
The congress at Vienna was held soon after they had lodged the First
Napoleon safely at St. Helena, and when all the world seemed to be
applauding them for the act, and hence their outspoken boldness in
denouncing representative forms of government and the liberty of the
press. Indeed, in view of what they had all just witnessed, and some of
them severely felt, it was not at all unnatural that they should have
adopted the two articles quoted; and that they should have ever since
felt that there was an irrepressible conflict between the "divine right
of kings" and representative forms of government--between the absolute
rule of kings and the liberty of the press, and that one or the other
must eventually supersede the other. Hence, with them it became a
question of self preservation--the very first law of nature--and under
such circumstances it was not at all wonderful that they resolved just
as they did.
They had recently witnessed the final act of a French drama and tragedy
combined--the French Revolution, and the career of Napoleon as a
consequence thereof--which they regarded as results of a representative
form of government and of the liberty of the press; but which were
results rather of irresponsible personal government and license of the
press. They had seen or read of the assembling of a French parliament
that had refused to register the royal edicts; they had witnessed or
read of the disputes between the king and parliament, and the death soon
after of Louis XV.; from thence they had observed the spread of liberal
opinions and the accession of Louis XVI. to the throne of France; next,
they had seen or read of the calling together of the States-General, and
how they, soon after assembling, had assumed the name of the "National
Assembly;" they knew of the dismissal of Neckar; the destruction of the
Bastile; the abolishment of the privileges of the nobles and clergy,
and of the first insult offered to the king and royal family; of
Robespierre's government and the dreadful disorders accompanying it; of
Lafayette's resignation; of the trial and execution of Louis XVI. and
of his queen, Marie Antoinette, and of the Duke of Orleans; of the
Convention's abjuration of the Catholic religion and substitution of
reason in its place; of the abolition of the Sabbath; of the tens of
thousands beheaded, or otherwise slaughtered, in Paris; of how Napoleon
Bonaparte had finally appeared upon the scene, and for a while seemed
to still the troubled waters; but how he erelong not only usurped the
crown, but commenced war upon almost every nation of Europe; how in a
hundred battles fought by him, at Austerlitz and elsewhere, he had been
successful in almost every one; how he had finally invaded Russia and
thus defeated himself; how he was afterwards made to resign and sent in
banishment to Elba; how he had again reappeared in France and resumed
power; how all the allied powers of Europe then determined upon his
destruction; how he was defeated at the battle of Waterloo; how he
afterwards surrendered himself into the hands of the English; and how,
on the 17th of October, 1815, he was landed at St. Helena a prisoner of
war.
All this they knew, and all this they set down as the natural results
of a representative form of government and the liberty of the press, and
hence it was that the first two articles of the treaty, from which we
have heretofore quoted, were specially aimed against them; and a solemn
pledge made, each to the other, that they must be destroyed. Of course,
no mention was made in that treaty of the United States; for to have
done so would have been virtually a declaration of war; but as it was
then generally believed among the sovereigns and princes of Europe that
the French Revolution of 1789 was a natural outgrowth from the
American Revolution of 1776, and that Lafayette was at the bottom of it
all--having imbibed the ideas from George Washington, John Adams, John
Hancock, and other revolutionists of America,--the inference is plain
and unmistakable that those two articles were aimed at the United
States, and that the word "Europe"--where it reads they "engage
mutually, in the most solemn manner, to use all their efforts to put
an end to the system of representative governments in Europe"--was only
meant as a blinder.
But, it may next be asked, allowing all this to be so, have they been
doing anything since that time whereby to carry out any such intention?
To this inquiry, we answer yes, and will now proceed to show, briefly
but unmistakably, how they have been carrying out such intentions; and
this, too, comes legitimately under the head of "Secrets of the Late
Rebellion, now Revealed for the First Time," since no one, to our
knowledge, has ever heretofore shown the close relationship and unity of
purpose between these same European governments and the Democratic
party of the United States; and how, in the late rebellion (as in
many instances before that time), they joined hands to destroy this
government, and to break down the liberty of the press.
The first two political parties in the United States were known as
_Federal_ and _Republican_. In 1800, John Adams was the candidate of
the Federalists for a second presidential term, and Thomas Jefferson the
candidate of the Republicans. Jefferson was elected, and took his seat
as President of the United States on the 4th of March, 1801. After a
time, these two names gave way to Whig and Democratic. These continued
until the name Republican took the place of Whig, in 1856-60. In its
earlier days the Democratic party, as a party, was as pure and patriotic
as any party that ever existed in this or any other country; but when
the question of "Protection to Home Industry" (of which Henry Clay was
the leading champion in his time) became a prime question in American
politics; and when, because that this question involved the interests
of European capitalists and manufacturers, Augustus Belmont, of New York
city (a European by birth, a Jew, and the agent in this country of the
Rothschilds', the great Jew banking-house of Europe, to whom almost
every sovereign in Europe was indebted for loans), became the Chairman
of the National Democratic Executive Committee--from that moment the
Democratic party, as a party, became as completely in the interests of
European sovereigns, capitalists, and manufacturers, as though every
member of the party, as well as its head and front, had been born
a European. We are not, of course, attempting to write a history of
parties. To do so would require a volume of itself, and a large one at
that. We have only made this running sketch that those not familiar
with general history may readily see and understand the unmistakable
historical relationship which exists, and which has existed for some
forty years past, between the Democratic party, as a party, and European
governments, European capitalists, and European manufacturers.
With this fact in mind, it is easy to understand why ninety out of
every one hundred European emigrants who come to this country attach
themselves to the Democratic party; easy to understand why the
entire influence of the Roman Catholic Church (which is the church of
nine-tenths of the sovereigns of Europe) should be thrown in favor of
the Democratic party; easy to understand why more than ninety-five out
of every one hundred Jews who come to this country from Europe attach
themselves to the Democratic party; and easy to understand why, in
the late rebellion, the Democratic party, as a party, cooperated with
English lords, with English capitalists, and with English manufacturers
(as shown in previous chapters of this volume), in trying to break down
this government, and establish a slaveocracy in its stead--the leaders
(not the masses) well knowing that this would soon give way to a yet
more concentrated form of government in order to hold their slaves
in subjection--neither a landed and family aristocracy, like that of
England, or an absolute monarchy, like that of Austria, in either of
which cases a representative or republican form of government and the
liberty of the press would have been effectually and forever suppressed.
The answer, then, to the two questions, Why it lives? For what purpose
it lives? are, to the first, Because of the additions made to the party
from year to year from foreign emigration; and to the second the answer
is, For the purpose of playing into the hands of European sovereigns,
European capitalists, and European manufacturers, with a view to set
aside a representative form of government, and destroy the liberty
of the press in this country; and these answers we give, it will
be observed, not from a political, but from a historical,
stand-point--facts which cannot be controverted, and deductions from
those facts as natural and as undeniable as that we know arsenic to be
a poison, because it invariably kills when taken in certain doses. And
that the Democratic party, as a party, is as deadly a poison as arsenic
we know to be true, because it has killed its thousands and tens of
thousands, than which we want no other or better proof than is furnished
by the preceding chapters of this volume.