{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-9:brooklyn-speech",
  "slug": "brooklyn-speech",
  "title": "Brooklyn Speech",
  "subtitle": "Brooklyn Academy of Music, introduced by Henry Ward Beecher.",
  "excerpt": "The famous Brooklyn rally at which the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher presided and introduced Ingersoll to six thousand people at the Academy of Music.",
  "year": 1880,
  "volume": 9,
  "category": "Political",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/brooklyn-speech/",
  "wordCount": 13934,
  "body": "• The Rev. Henry Ward Beecher and Colonel Robert G.\n    Ingersoll spoke from the same platform last night, and the\n    great preacher introduced the great orator and free-thinker\n    to the grandest political audience that was ever assembled\n    in Brooklyn. The reverend gentleman presided over the\n    Republican mass meeting held in the Academy of Music. When\n    he introduced Ingersoll he did it with a warmth and\n    earnestness of compliment that brought the six thousand\n    lookers-on to their feet to applaud. When the expounder of\n    the Gospel of Christ took the famous atheist by the hand,\n    and shook it fervently, saying that while he respected and\n    honored him for the honesty of his convictions and his\n    splendid labors for patriotism and the country, the\n    enthusiasm knew no bounds, and the great building trembled\n    and vibrated with the storm of applause. With such a scene\n    to harmonize the multitude at the outstart it is not strange\n    that the meeting continued to the end such a one as has no\n    parallel even in these days of feverish political excitement\n    and turmoil. The orator spoke in his best vein and his\n    audience was responsive to the wonderful magical spell of\n    his eloquence. And when his last glowing utterance had lost\n    its echo in the wild storm of applause that rewarded him at\n    the close, Mr. Beecher again stepped forward and, as if to\n    emphasize the earnestness of his previous compliments,\n    proposed a vote of thanks to the distinguished speaker. The\n    vote was a roar of affirmation, whose voice was not stronger\n    when Mr. Ingersoll in turn called upon the audience to give\n    three cheers for the great preacher. They were given, and\n    repeated three times over. Men waved their ats and\n    umbrellas, ladies, of whom there were many hundreds present,\n    waved their handkerchiefs, and men, strangers to each other,\n    shook hands with the fervency of brotherhood. It was indeed\n    a strange scene, and the principal actors in it seemed not\n    less than the most wildly excited man there to appreciate\n    its peculiar import and significance. Standing at the front\n    of the stage, underneath a canopy of nags, at either side\n    great baskets of flowers, they clasped each other's hands,\n    and stood thus for several minutes, while the excited\n    thousands cheered themselves hoarse and applauded wildly.\n    As Mr. Beecher began to speak, however, the applause that\n    broke out was deafening.\n    In substance Mr. Beecher spoke as follows:—\"I am not\n    accustomed to preside at meetings like this; only the\n    exigency of the times could induce me to do It. I am not\n    here either to make a speech, but more especially to\n    introduce the eminent orator of the evening.   * I stand\n    not as a minister, but as a man among men, pleading the\n    cause of fellowship and equal rights. We are not here as\n    mechanics, as artists, merchants, or professional men, but\n    as fellow-citizens. The gentleman who will speak to-night is\n    in no Conventicle or Church. He is to speak to a great body\n    of citizens, and I take the liberty of saying that I respect\n    him as the man that for a full score and more of years has\n    worked for the right in the great, broad field of humanity,\n    and for the cause of human rights. I consider it an honor to\n    extend to him, as I do now, the warm, earnest, right hand of\n    fellowship.\" (As Mr. Beecher said this he turned to Mr.\n    Ingersoll and extended his hand. The palms of the two men\n    met with a clasp that was heard all over the house, and was\n    the signal for tumultuous cheering and applause, which\n    continued for several minutes.)\n    \"I now introduce to you,\" continued Mr. Beecher, leading Mr.\n    Ingersoll forward, \"a man who—and I say it not\n    flatteringly—is the most brilliant speaker of the English\n    tongue of all men on this globe. But as under the brilliancy\n    of the blaze or light we find the living coals of fire,\n    under the lambent flow of his wit and magnificent antithesis\n    we find the glorious flame of genius and honest thought.\n    Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Ingersoll.\"—New York Herald,\n    October 81st, 1880.\n\n(Garfield Campaign.)\n\n1880.\n\nLADIES and Gentlemen: Years ago I made up my mind that there was no\nparticular argument in slander. I made up my mind that for parties, as\nwell as for individuals, honesty in the long-run is the best policy.\nI made up my mind that the people were entitled to know a man's honest\nthoughts, and I propose to-night to tell you exactly what I think. And\nit may be well enough, in the first place, for me to say that no party\nhas a mortgage on me. I am the sole proprietor of myself. No party, no\norganization, has any deed of trust on what little brains I have, and as\nlong as I can get my part of the common air I am going to tell my honest\nthoughts. One man in the right will finally get to be a majority. I am\nnot going to say a word to-night that every Democrat here will not know\nis true, and, whatever he may say, I will compel him in his heart to\ngive three cheers.\n\nIn the first place, I wish to admit that during the war there were\nhundreds of thousands of patriotic Democrats. I wish to admit that if it\nhad not been for the War Democrats of the North, we never would have put\ndown the Rebellion. Let us be honest. I further admit that had it\nnot been for other than War Democrats there never would have been a\nrebellion to put down. War Democrats!\n\nWhy did we call them War Democrats? Did you ever hear anybody talk about\na War Republican? We spoke of War Democrats to distinguish them from\nthose Democrats who were in favor of peace upon any terms.\n\nI also wish to admit that the Republican party is not absolutely\nperfect. While I believe that it is the best party that ever existed,\nwhile I believe it has, within its organization, more heart, more brain,\nmore patriotism than any other organization that ever existed beneath\nthe sun, I still admit that it is not entirely perfect. I admit, in its\ngreat things, in its splendid efforts to preserve this nation, in its\ngrand effort to keep our flag in heaven, in its magnificent effort to\nfree four millions of slaves, in its great and sublime effort to save\nthe financial honor of this Nation, I admit that it has made some\nmistakes. In its great effort to do right it has sometimes by mistake\ndone wrong. And I also wish to admit that the great Democratic party,\nin its effort to get office has sometimes by mistake done right. You see\nthat I am inclined to be perfectly fair.\n\nI am going with the Republican party because it is going my way; but if\nit ever turns to the right or left, I intend to go straight ahead.\n\nIn every government there is something that ought to be preserved, in\nevery government there are many things that ought to be destroyed.\nEvery good man, every patriot, every lover of the human race, wishes to\npreserve the good and destroy the bad; and every one in this audience\nwho wishes to preserve the good will go with that section of our common\ncountry—with that party in our country that he honestly believes will\npreserve the good and destroy the bad. It takes a great deal of trouble\nto raise a good Republican. It is a vast deal of labor. The Republican\nparty is the fruit of all ages—of self-sacrifice and devotion. The\nRepublican party is born of every good thing that was ever done in\nthis world. The Republican party is the result of all martyrdom, of\nall heroic blood shed for the right. It is the blossom and fruit of the\ngreat world's best endeavor. In order to make a Republican you have to\nhave schoolhouses. You have to have newspapers and magazines. A good\nRepublican is the best fruit of civilization, of all there is of\nintelligence, of art, of music and of song. If you want to make\nDemocrats, let them alone. The Democratic party is the settlings of\nthis country. Nobody hoes weeds. Nobody takes especial pains to raise\ndog-fennel, and yet it grows under the very hoof of travel, The seeds\nare sown by accident and gathered by chance. But if you want to raise\nwheat and corn you must plough the ground. You must defend and you must\nharvest the crop with infinite patience and toil. It is precisely that\nway—if you want to raise a good Republican you must work. If you wish\nto raise a Democrat give him wholesome neglect. The Democratic party\nflatters the vices of mankind. That party says to the ignorant man, \"You\nknow enough.\" It says to the vicious man, \"You are good enough.\"\n\nThe Republican party says, \"You must be better next year than you are\nthis.\" A Republican takes a man by the collar and says, \"You must do\nyour best, you must climb the infinite hill of human progress as long as\nyou live.\" Now and then one gets tired. He says, \"I have climbed enough\nand so much better than I expected to do that I do not wish to travel\nany farther.\" Now and then one gets tired and lets go all hold, and he\nrolls down to the very bottom, and as he strikes the mud he springs upon\nhis feet transfigured, and says: \"Hurrah for Hancock!\"\n\nThere are things in this Government that I wish to preserve, and there\nare things that I wish to destroy; and in order to convince you that you\nought to go the way that I am going: it is only fair that I give to\nyou my reasons. This is a Republic founded upon intelligence and\nthe patriotism of the people, and in every Republic it is absolutely\nnecessary that there should be free speech. Free speech is the gem of\nthe human soul. Words are the bodies of thought, and liberty gives to\nthose words wings, and the whole intellectual heavens are filled with\nlight. In a Republic every individual tongue has a right to the general\near. In a Republic every man has the right to give his reasons for the\ncourse he pursues to all his fellow-citizens, and when you say that a\nman shall not speak, you also say that others shall not hear. When\nyou say a man shall not express his honest thought you say his\nfellow-citizens shall be deprived of honest thoughts; for of what use\nis it to allow the attorney for the defendant to address the jury if the\njury has been bought? Of what use is it to allow the jury to bring in a\nverdict of \"not guilty,\" if the defendant is to be hung by a mob? I ask\nyou to-night, is not every solitary man here in favor of free speech? Is\nthere a solitary Democrat here who dares say he is not in favor of free\nspeech? In which part of this country are the lips of thought free—in\nthe South or in the North? Which section of our country can you trust\nthe inestimable gem of free speech with? Can you trust it to the\ngentlemen of Mississippi or to the gentlemen of Massachusetts? Can you\ntrust it to Alabama or to New York? Can you trust it to the South or\ncan you trust it to the great and splendid North? Honor bright—honor\nbright, is there any freedom of speech in the South? There never was and\nthere is none to-night—and let me tell you why.\n\nThey had the institution of human slavery in the South, which could\nnot be defended at the bar of public reason. It was an institution that\ncould not be defended in the high forum of human conscience. No man\ncould stand there and defend the right to rob the cradle—none to defend\nthe right to sell the babe from the breast of the agonized mother—none\nto defend the claim that lashes on a bare back are a legal tender for\nlabor performed. Every man that lived upon the unpaid labor of another\nknew in his heart that he was a thief. And for that reason he did not\nwish to discuss that question. Thereupon the institution of slavery\nsaid, \"You shall not speak; you shall not reason,\" and the lips of free\nthought were manacled. You know it. Every one of you. Every Democrat\nknows it as well as every Republican. There never was free speech in the\nSouth.\n\nAnd what has been the result? And allow me to admit right here, because\nI want to be fair, there are thousands and thousands of most excellent\npeople in the South—thousands of them. There are hundreds and hundreds\nof thousands there who would like to vote the Republican ticket. And\nwhenever there is free speech there and whenever there is a free ballot\nthere, they will vote the Republican ticket. I say again, there are\nhundreds of thousands of good people in the South; but the institution\nof human slavery prevented free speech, and it is a splendid fact in\nnature that you cannot put chains upon the limbs of others without\nputting corresponding manacles upon your own brain. When the South\nenslaved the negro, it also enslaved itself, and the result was an\nintellectual desert. No book has been produced, with one exception, that\nhas added to the knowledge of mankind; no paper, no magazine, no poet,\nno philosopher, no philanthropist, was ever raised in that desert. Now\nand then some one protested against that infamous institution, and\nhe came as near being a philosopher as the society in which he lived\npermitted. Why is it that New England, a rock-clad land, blossoms like a\nrose? Why is it that New York is the Empire State of the great Union?\nI will tell you. Because you have been permitted to trade in ideas.\nBecause the lips of speech have been absolutely free for twenty years.\n\nWe never had free speech in any State in this Union until the Republican\nparty was born. That party was rocked in the cradle of intellectual\nliberty, and that is the reason I say it is the best party that ever\nexisted in the wide, wide world. I want to preserve free speech, and, as\nan honest man, I look about me and I say, \"How can I best preserve\nit?\" By giving it to the South or North; to the Democracy or to the\nRepublican party? And I am bound, as an honest man, to say free speech\nis safest with its earliest defenders. Where is there such a thing as\na Republican mob to prevent the expression of an honest thought? Where?\nThe people of the South are allowed to come to the North; they are\nallowed to express their sentiments upon every stump in the great East,\nthe great West, and in the great Middle States; they go to Maine, to\nVermont, and to all our States, and they are allowed to speak, and we\ngive them a respectful hearing, and the meanest thing we do is to answer\ntheir arguments.\n\nI say to-night that we ought to have the same liberty to discuss these\nquestions in the South that Southerners have in the North. And I say\nmore than that, the Democrats of the North ought to compel the Democrats\nof the South to treat the Republicans of the South as well as the\nRepublicans of the North treat them. We treat the Democrats well in the\nNorth; we treat them like gentlemen in the North; and yet they go into\npartnership with the Democracy of the South, knowing that the Democracy\nof the South will not treat Republicans in that section with fairness. A\nDemocrat ought to be ashamed of that.\n\nIf my friends will not treat other people as well as the friends of the\nother people treat me, I'll swap friends.\n\nFirst, then, I am in favor of free speech, and I am going with that\nsection of my country that believes in free speech; I am going with\nthat party that has always upheld that sacred right. When you stop\nfree speech, when you say that a thought shall die in the womb of the\nbrain,—why, it would have the same effect upon the intellectual world\nthat to stop springs at their sources would have upon the physical\nworld. Stop the springs at their sources and they cease to gurgle,\nthe streams cease to murmur, and the great rivers cease rushing to the\nembrace of the sea. So you stop thought. Stop thought in the brain in\nwhich it is born, and theory dies; and the great ocean of knowledge to\nwhich all should be permitted to contribute, and from which all should\nbe allowed to draw, becomes a vast desert of ignorance.\n\nI have always said, and I say again, that the more liberty there is\ngiven away, the more you have. I endeavor to be consistent in my life\nand action. I am a believer in intellectual liberty, and wherever the\ntorch of knowledge burns the whole horizon is filled with a glorious\nhalo. I am a free man. I would be less than a man if I did not wish\nto hand this flame to my child with the flame increased rather than\ndiminished.\n\nWhom will we trust to take care of free speech? Let us consider and be\nhonest with one another. The gem of the brain is the innocence of the\nsoul.\n\nI am not only in favor of free speech, but I am also in favor of an\nabsolutely honest ballot. There is only one emperor in this country;\nthere is one czar; only one supreme crown and king, and that is the\nwill, the legally expressed will of the majority. Every American citizen\nis a sovereign. The poorest and humblest may wear that crown, the beggar\nholds in his hand that sceptre equally with the proudest and richest,\nand so far as his sovereignty is concerned, the poorest American, he\nwho earns but one dollar a day, has the same voice in controlling the\ndestiny of the United States as the millionaire. The man who casts an\nillegal vote, the man who refuses to count a legal vote, poisons the\nfountain of power, poisons the springs of justice, and is a traitor\nto the only king in this land. The Government is upon the edge of\nMexicanization through fraudulent voting. The ballot-box is the throne\nof America; the ballot-box is the ark of the covenant. Unless we see to\nit that every man who has a right to vote, votes, and unless we see\nto it that every honest vote is counted, the days of this Republic are\nnumbered.\n\nWhen you suspect that a Congressman is not elected; when you suspect\nthat a judge upon the bench holds his place by fraud, then the people\nwill hold the law in contempt and will laugh at the decisions of courts,\nand then come revolution and chaos.\n\nIt is the duty of every good man to see to it that the ballot-box is\nkept absolutely pure. It is the duty of every patriot, whether he is\na Democrat or Republican—and I want further to admit that I believe\na large majority of Democrats are honest in their opinions, and I know\nthat all Republicans must be honest in their opinions. It is the duty,\nthen, of all honest men of both parties to see to it that only honest\nvotes are cast and counted. Now, honor bright, which section of this\nUnion can you trust the ballot-box with?\n\nDo you wish to trust Louisiana, or do you wish to trust Alabama that\ngave, in 1872, thirty-four thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight\nRepublican majority and now gives ninety-two thousand Democratic\nmajority? And of that ninety-two thousand majority, every one is a lie!\nA contemptible, infamous lie! Because if every voter had been allowed\nto vote, there would have been forty thousand Republican majority.\nHonor bright, can you trust it with the masked murderers who rode in\nthe darkness of night to the hut of the freedman and shot him down,\nnotwithstanding the supplication of his wife and the tears of his babe?\nCan you trust it to the men who since the close of our war have killed\nmore men, simply because those men wished to vote, simply because they\nwished to exercise a right with which they had been clothed by the\nsublime heroism of the North—who have killed more men than were killed\non both sides in the Revolutionary war; than were killed on both sides\nduring the War of 1812; than were killed on both sides in both wars?\nCan you trust them? Can you trust the gentlemen who invented the\ntissue ballot? Do you wish to put the ballot-box in the keeping of the\nshot-gun, of the White-Liners, of the Ku Klux? Do you wish to put the\nballot-box in the keeping of men who openly swear that they will not be\nruled by a majority of American citizens if a portion of that majority\nis made of black men? And I want to tell you right here, I like a black\nman who loves this country better than I do a white man who hates it. I\nthink more of a black man who fought for our flag than for any white man\nwho endeavored to tear it out of heaven!\n\nI say, can you trust the ballot-box to the Democratic party? Read the\nhistory of the State of New York. Read the history of this great and\nmagnificent city—the Queen of the Atlantic—read her history and tell\nus whether you can implicitly trust Democratic returns? Honor bright!\n\nI am not only, then, for free speech, but I am for an honest ballot;\nand in order that you may have no doubt left upon your minds as to which\nparty is in favor of an honest vote, I will call your attention to this\nstriking fact. Every law that has been passed in every State of this\nUnion for twenty long years, the object of which was to guard the\nAmerican ballot-box, has been passed by the Republican party, and in\nevery State where the Republican party has introduced such a bill for\nthe purpose of making it a law; in every State where such a bill has\nbeen defeated, it has been defeated by the Democratic party. That ought\nto satisfy any reasonable man to satiety.\n\nI am not only in favor of free speech and an honest ballot, but I am in\nfavor of collecting and disbursing the revenues of the United States. I\nwant plenty of money to collect and pay the interest on our debt. I want\nplenty of money to pay our debt and to preserve the financial honor of\nthe United States. I want money enough to be collected to pay pensions\nto widows and orphans and to wounded soldiers. And the question is,\nwhich section in this country can you trust to collect and disburse that\nrevenue? Let us be honest about it. Which section can you trust? In the\nlast four years we have collected four hundred and sixty-eight million\ndollars of the internal revenue taxes. We have collected principally\nfrom taxes upon high wines and tobacco, four hundred and sixty-eight\nmillion dollars, and in those four years we have seized, libeled and\ndestroyed in the Southern States three thousand eight hundred and\nseventy-four illicit distilleries. And during the same time the Southern\npeople have shot to death twenty-five revenue officers and wounded\nfifty-five others, and the only offence that the wounded and dead\ncommitted was an honest effort to collect the revenues of this country.\nRecollect it—don't you forget it. And in several Southern States\nto-day every revenue collector or officer connected with the revenue is\nfurnished by the Internal Revenue Department with a breech-loading\nrifle and a pair of revolvers, simply for the purpose of collecting the\nrevenue.\n\nI don't feel like trusting such people to collect the revenue of my\nGovernment.\n\nDuring the same four years we have arrested and have indicted seven\nthousand and eighty-four Southern Democrats for endeavoring to defraud\nthe revenue of the United States. Recollect—three thousand eight\nhundred and seventy-four distilleries seized. Twenty-five revenue\nofficers killed, fifty-five wounded, and seven thousand and eighty-four\nDemocrats arrested. Can we trust them?\n\nThe State of Alabama in its last Democratic convention passed a\nresolution that no man should be tried in a Federal Court for a\nviolation of the revenue laws—that he should be tried in a State Court.\nThink of it—he should be tried in a State Court! Let me tell you how it\nwill come out if we trust the Southern States to collect this revenue. A\ncouple of Methodist ministers had been holding a revival for a week, and\nat the end of the week one said to the other that he thought it time to\ntake up a collection. When the hat was returned he found in it pieces of\nslate-pencils and nails and buttons, but not a single solitary cent—not\none—and his brother minister got up and looked at the contribution, and\nsaid, \"Let us thank God!\" And the owner of the hat said, \"What for?\" And\nthe brother replied, \"Because you got your hat back.\" If we trust the\nSouth we shan't get our hats back.\n\nI am next in favor of honest money. I am in favor of gold and silver,\nand paper with gold and silver behind it. I believe in silver, because\nit is one of the greatest of American products, and I am in favor of\nanything that will add to the value of an American product. But I want\na silver dollar worth a gold dollar, even if you make it or have to make\nit four feet in diameter. No government can afford to be a clipper of\ncoin. A great Republic cannot afford to stamp a lie upon silver or gold.\nHonest money, an honest people, an honest Nation. When our money is only\nworth eighty cents on the dollar, we feel twenty per cent, below par.\nWhen our money is good we feel good. When our money is at par, that is\nwhere we are. I am a profound believer in the doctrine that for nations\nas well as men, honesty is the best policy, always, everywhere, and\nforever.\n\nWhat section of this country, what party, will give us honest\nmoney—honor bright—honor bright? I have been told that during the war,\nwe had plenty of money. I never saw it. I lived years without seeing a\ndollar. I saw promises for dollars, but not dollars. And the greenback,\nunless you have the gold behind it, is no more a dollar than a bill\nof fare is a dinner. You cannot make a paper dollar without taking a\ndollar's worth of paper. We must have paper that represents money. I\nwant it issued by the Government, and I want behind every one of these\ndollars either a gold or silver dollar, so that every greenback under\nthe flag can lift up its hand and swear, \"I know that my redeemer\nliveth.\"\n\nWhen we were running into debt, thousands of people mistook that for\nprosperity, and when we began paying they regarded it as adversity. Of\ncourse we had plenty when we bought on credit. No man has ever starved\nwhen his credit was good, if there were no famine in that country. As\nlong as we buy on credit we shall have enough. The trouble commences\nwhen the pay-day arrives. And I do not wonder that after the war\nthousands of people said, \"Let us have another inflation.\" Which party\nsaid, \"No, we must pay the promise made in war\"? Honor bright! The\nDemocratic party had once been a hard money party, but it drifted from\nits metallic moorings and floated off in the ocean of inflation, and you\nknow it. They said, \"Give us more money;\" and every man that had bought\non credit and owed a little something on what he had purchased, when the\nproperty went down commenced crying, or many of them did, for inflation.\nI understand it.\n\nA man, say, bought a piece of land for six thousand dollars; paid five\nthousand dollars on it; gave a mortgage for one thousand dollars, and\nsuddenly, in 1873, found that the land would not pay the other thousand.\nThe land had resumed, and then he said, looking lugubriously at his note\nand mortgage, \"I want another inflation.\" And I never heard a man call\nfor it that did not also say, \"If it ever comes, and I don't unload, you\nmay shoot me.\"\n\nIt was very much as it is sometimes in playing poker, and I make this\ncomparison knowing that hardly a person here will understand it. I have\nbeen told that along toward morning the man that is ahead suddenly\nsays, \"I have got to go home. The fact is, my wife is not well.\" And the\nfellow who is behind says, \"Let us have another deal; I have my opinion\nof the fellow that will jump a game.\" And so it was in the hard times\nof 1873. They said: \"Give us another deal; let us get our driftwood back\ninto the centre of the stream.\" And they cried out for more money.\nBut the Republican party said: \"We do want more money, but not more\npromises. We have got to pay this first, and if we start out again\nupon that wide sea of promise we may never touch the shore.\" A thousand\ntheories were born of want; a thousand theories were born of the fertile\nbrain of trouble; and these people said, \"After all, what is money? Why,\nit is nothing but a measure of value, just the same as a half bushel or\nyardstick.\" True; and consequently it makes no difference whether your\nhalf bushel is of wood or gold or silver or paper; and it makes no\ndifference whether your yardstick is gold or paper. But the trouble\nabout that statement is this: A half bushel is not a measure of value;\nit is a measure of quantity, and it measures rubies, diamonds and pearls\nprecisely the same as corn and wheat. The yardstick is not a measure of\nvalue; it is a measure of length, and it measures lace worth one hundred\ndollars a yard precisely as it does cent tape. And another reason why it\nmakes no difference to the purchaser whether the half bushel is gold or\nsilver, or whether the yardstick is gold or paper, you do not buy the\nyardstick; you do not get the half bushel in the trade. And if it were\nso with money—if the people that had the money at the start of the\ntrade, kept it after the consummation of the bargain—then it would not\nmake any difference what you made your money of. But the trouble is the\nmoney changes hands. And let me say to-night, money is a thing—it is a\nproduct of nature—and you can no more make a \"fiat\" dollar than you\ncan make a fiat star. I am in favor of honest money. Free speech is the\nbrain of the Republic; an honest ballot is the breath of its life, and\nhonest money is the blood that courses through its veins.\n\nIf I am fortunate enough to leave a dollar when I die, I want it to be\na good one. I do not wish to have it turn to ashes in the hands of\nwidowhood, or become a Democratic broken promise in the pocket of the\norphan; I want it money. I want money that will outlive the Democratic\nparty. They told us—and they were honest about it—they said, \"When\nwe have plenty of money, we are prosperous.\" And I said, \"When we are\nprosperous, we have plenty of money.\" When we are prosperous, then we\nhave credit, and credit inflates the currency. Whenever a man buys a\npound of sugar and says, \"Charge it,\" he inflates the currency; whenever\nhe gives his note, he inflates the currency; whenever his word takes the\nplace of money, he inflates the currency. The consequence is that when\nwe are prosperous, credit takes the place of money, and we have what we\ncall \"plenty.\"\n\nBut you cannot increase prosperity simply by using promises to pay.\nSuppose you should come to a river that was about dry, so dry that the\nturtle had to help the catfish over the shoals, and there you would see\nthe ferryboat, and the gentleman who kept the ferry, up on the sand,\nhigh and dry, and the cracks all opening in the sun, filled with\nloose oakum, looking like an average Democratic mouth listening to a\nconstitutional argument, and you should say to him, \"How is business?\"\nAnd he would say, \"Dull.\" And then you would say to him, \"Now, what you\nwant is more boat.\" He would probably answer, \"If I had a little more\nwater I could get along with this one.\"\n\nSuppose I next came to a man running a railroad, complaining of hard\ntimes. \"Why,\" said he, \"I did a million dollars' worth of business the\nfirst year and used five hundred thousand dollars' worth of grease. The\nsecond year I did five hundred thousand dollars' worth of business and\nused four hundred thousand dollars' worth of grease.\" \"Well,\" said\nI, \"the reason your road fell off was because you did not use enough\ngrease.\"\n\nBut I want to be fair, and I wish to-night to return my thanks to the\nDemocratic party. You did a great and splendid work. You went all over\nthe United States and you said upon every stump that a greenback was\nbetter than gold. You said, \"We have at last found the money of the poor\nman. Gold loves the rich; gold haunts banks and safes and vaults; but we\nhave money that will go around inquiring for a man that is dead broke.\nWe have finally found money that will stay in a pocket with holes in\nit.\" But, after all, do you know that money is the most social thing\nin this world? If a fellow has one dollar in his pocket, and he meets\nanother with two, do you know that dollar is absolutely homesick until\nit gets where the other two are? And yet the Greenbackers told us that\nthey had finally invented money that would be the poor mans friend. They\nsaid, \"It is better than gold, better than silver,\" and they got so many\nmen to believe it that when we resumed and said, \"Here is your gold for\nyour greenback,\" the fellows who had the greenback said, \"We don't want\nit. The greenbacks are good enough for us.\" Do you know, if they had\nwanted it we could not have given it to them? And so I return my thanks\nto the Greenback party. But allow me to say in this connection, the days\nof their usefulness have passed forever.\n\nNow, I am not foolish enough to claim that the Republican party resumed.\nI am not silly enough to say that John Sherman resumed. But I will tell\nyou what I do say. I say that every man who raised a bushel of corn or a\nbushel of wheat or a pound of beef or pork for sale helped to resume. I\nsay that the gentle rain and the loving dew helped to resume. The soil\nof the United States impregnated by the loving sun helped to resume. The\nmen that dug the coal and the iron and the silver and the copper and the\ngold helped to resume. And the men upon whose foreheads fell the light\nof furnaces helped to resume. And the sailors who fought with the waves\nof the seas helped to resume.\n\nI admit to-night that the Democrats earned their share of the money\nto resume with. All I claim is that the Republican party furnished the\nhonesty to pay it over. That is what I claim; and the Republican party\nset the day, and the Republican party worked to the promise. That is\nwhat I say. And had it not been for the Republican party this Nation\nwould have been financially dishonored. I am for honest money, and I am\nfor the payment of every dollar of our debt, and so is every Democrat\nnow, I take it. But what did you say a little while ago? Did you say we\ncould resume? No; you swore we could not, and you swore our bonds would\nbe worthless as the withered leaves of winter. And now when a Democrat\ngoes to England and sees an American four per cent, quoted at one\nhundred and ten he kind of swells up, and says: \"That's the kind of man\nI am.\" In that country he pretends he was a Republican in this. And I do\nnot blame him. I do not begrudge him enjoying respectability when away\nfrom home. The Republican party is entitled to the credit for keeping\nthis Nation grandly and splendidly honest. I say, the Republican party\nis entitled to the credit of preserving the honor of this Nation.\n\nIn 1873 came the crash, and all the languages of the world cannot\ndescribe the agonies suffered by the American people from 1873 to 1879.\nA man who thought he was a millionaire came to poverty; he found\nhis stocks and bonds ashes in the paralytic hand of old age. Men who\nexpected to live all their lives in the sunshine of joy found themselves\nbeggars and paupers. The great factories were closed, the workmen were\ndemoralized, and the roads of the United States were filled with tramps.\nIn the hovel of the poor and the palace of the rich came the serpent\nof temptation and whispered in the American ear the terrible word\n\"Repudiation.\" But the Republican party said, \"No; we will pay every\ndollar. No; we have started toward the shining goal of resumption and we\nnever will turn back.\" And the Republican party struggled until it had\nthe happiness of seeing upon the broad shining forehead of American\nlabor the words \"Financial Honor.\"\n\nThe Republican party struggled until every paper promise was as good\nas gold. And the moment we got back to gold then we commenced to rise\nagain. We could not jump until our feet touched something that they\ncould be pressed against. And from that moment to this we have been\ngoing, going, going higher and higher, more prosperous every hour. And\nnow they say, \"Let us have a change.\" When I am sick I want a change;\nwhen I am poor I want a change; and if I were a Democrat I would have a\npersonal change. We are prosperous to-day, and must keep so. We are back\nto gold and silver. Let us stay there; and let us stay with the party\nthat brought us there.\n\nNow, I am not only in favor of free speech and an honest ballot-box and\nan honest collection of the revenue of the United States, and an honest\nmoney, but I am in favor of the idea, of the great and splendid\ntruth, that this is a Nation one and indivisible. I deny that we are a\nconfederacy bound together with ropes of cloud and chains of mist. This\nis a Nation, and every man in it owes his first allegiance to the grand\nold flag for which more brave blood was shed than for any other flag\nthat waves in the sight of heaven. There is another thing; we all want\nto live in a land where the law is supreme. We desire to live beneath a\nflag that will protect every citizen beneath its folds. We desire to be\ncitizens of a Government so great and so grand that it will command\nthe respect of the civilized world. Most of us are convinced that our\nGovernment is the best upon this earth. It is the only Government\nwhere manhood, and manhood alone, is not made simply a condition of\ncitizenship, but where manhood, and manhood alone, permits its possessor\nto have his equal share in control of the Government. It is the only\nGovernment in the world where poverty is upon an exact equality with\nwealth, so far as controlling the destiny of the Republic is concerned.\nIt is the only Nation where the man clothed in rags stands upon an\nequality with the one wearing purple. It is the only country in the\nworld where, politically, the hut is upon an equality with the palace.\n\nFor that reason every poor man should stand by this Government, and\nevery poor man who does not is a traitor to the best interests of his\nchildren; every poor man who does not is willing his children should\nbear the badge of political inferiority; and the only way to make this\nGovernment a complete and perfect success is for the poorest man to\nthink as much of his manhood as the millionaire does of his wealth. A\nman does not vote in this country simply because he is rich; he does\nnot vote in this country simply because he has an education; he does\nnot vote simply because he has talent or genius; we say that he votes\nbecause he is a man, and that he has his manhood to support; and we\nadmit in this country that nothing can be more valuable to any human\nbeing than his manhood, and for that reason we put poverty on an\nequality with wealth. We say in this country manhood is worth more than\ngold. We say in this country that without Liberty the Nation is not\nworth preserving. Now, I appeal to-day to every poor man; I appeal\nto-day to every laboring man, and I ask him, is there another country on\nthis globe where you can have equal rights with others? There is another\nthing; do you want a Government of law or of brute force? In which part\nof this country do you find law supreme? In which part of this country\ncan a man find justice in the courts; in the North or in the South?\nWhere is crime punished? Where is innocence protected, in the North or\nin the South? Which section of this country will you trust?\n\nYou can tell what a man is by the way he treats persons in his power,\nand the man that will sneak and crawl in the presence of greatness, will\ntrample the weak when he gets them in his power. What class of people\ndoes the State have in its power? Criminals and creditors; and you\ncan judge of a State by the way it treats its criminals and creditors.\nGeorgia is the best State in the South. They have a penitentiary system\nby which they hire out their convict labor. Only two years ago the whole\nthing was examined by a friend of mine, Col. Allston. He had been in the\nrebel army and was my good friend. He used to come to my house day after\nday to see me. He got converted and had the grit to say so. Being\na member of the Legislature, he had a committee of investigation\nappointed. Now, in order that you may understand the difference, you\nmust know that in the Northern penitentiaries the average annual death\nrate is one per cent.; that is, of one thousand convicts, ten will\ndie in a year, on the average. That low death rate is because we are\ncivilized, because we do not kill; but in the Georgia penitentiary it\nwas as high as fifteen, twenty-seven and forty-seven per cent., at a\ntime when there was no typhoid or yellow fever, or epidemic of any kind.\nThey died for four months at a rate of ten per cent, per month. They\ncrowded the convicts in together, regardless of sex. They treated them\nprecisely as wild beasts, and many of them were shot down. Persons high\nin authority, Senators of the United States, held interests in those\ncontracts, and Robert Allston denounced them. When on a visit he said,\n\"I believe when I get home I shall be killed.\" I told him not to go\nback to Georgia, but to stay in the civilized North; but no, he would go\nback, and on the very day of his arrival he was murdered in cold blood.\nDo you want to trust such men?   *\n\nThe Southern people say this is a Confederacy and they are honest in it.\nThey fought for it, they believed it. They believe in the doctrine of\nState Sovereignty, and many Democrats of the North believe in the same\ndoctrine. No less a man than Horatio Seymour—standing it may be at the\nhead of Democratic statesmen—said, if he has been correctly reported,\nonly the other day, that he despised the word \"Nation.\" I bless that\nword. I owe my first allegiance to this Nation, and it owes its first\nprotection to me. I am talking here to-night, not because I am protected\nby the flag of New York. I would not know that flag if I should see it.\nI am talking here, and have the right to talk here, because the flag of\nmy country is above us. I have the same right as though I had been born\nupon this very platform. I am proud of New York because it is a part of\nmy country. I am proud of my country because it has such a State as\nNew York in it, and I will be prouder of New York on a week from next\nTuesday than ever before in my life. I despise the doctrine of State\nSovereignty. I believe in the rights of the States, but not in the\nsovereignty of the States. States are political conveniences. Rising\nabove States, as the Alps above valleys, are the rights of man. Rising\nabove the rights of the Government, even in this Nation, are the sublime\nrights of the people. Governments are good only so long as they protect\nhuman rights. But the rights of a man never should be sacrificed upon\nthe altar of the State, or upon the altar of the Nation.\n\nLet me tell you a few objections that I have to State Sovereignty. That\ndoctrine has never been appealed to for any good. The first time it was\nappealed to was when our Constitution was made. And the object then was\nto keep the slave-trade open until the year 1808. The object then was\nto make the sea the highway of piracy—the object then was to allow\nAmerican citizens to go into the business of selling men and women and\nchildren, and feed their cargo to the sharks of the sea, and the sharks\nof the sea were as merciful as they. That was the first time that the\nappeal to the doctrine of State Sovereignty was made, and the next time\nwas for the purpose of keeping alive the interstate slave-trade, so that\na gentleman in Virginia could sell the slave who had nursed him, and rob\nthe cradles of their babes. Think of it! It was made so they could rob\nthe cradle in the name of law. Think of it! Think of it! And the next\ntime they appealed to the doctrine of State Sovereignty was in favor of\nthe Fugitive Slave Law—a law that made a bloodhound of every Northern\nman; that made charity a crime; a law that made love a state-prison\noffence; that branded the forehead of charity as if it were a felon.\nThink of it!\n\nIt is a part of my honor to hate such principles. I have no respect\nfor any man who is so mean, cruel and wicked, as to allow himself to be\ntransformed into a bloodhound to bay upon the tracks of innocent human\nprey. I will follow my logic, no matter where it goes, after it has\nconsulted with my heart. If you ever come to a conclusion without\ncalling the heart in, you will come to a bad conclusion.\n\nA good man is pretty apt to be right; a perfectly honest man is like the\nsurface of the stainless mirror, that gives back by simply looking at\nhim, the image of the one who looks.\n\nThe next time they appealed to the doctrine of State Sovereignty was to\nincrease the area of human slavery, so that the bloodhound, with clots\nof blood dropping from his loose and hanging jaws, might traverse the\nbillowy plains of Kansas. Think of it!\n\nThe Democratic party then said the Federal Government had a right to\ncross the State line. And the next time they appealed to that infamous\ndoctrine was in defence of secession and treason; a doctrine that cost\nus six thousand millions of dollars; a doctrine that cost four hundred\nthousand lives; a doctrine that filled our country with widows, our\nhomes with orphans. And I tell you, the doctrine of State Sovereignty\nis the viper in the bosom of this Republic, and if we do not kill that\nviper it will kill us.\n\nThe Democrats tell us that in the olden time the Federal Government had\na right to cross a State line to put shackles upon the limbs of men. It\nhad the right to cross a State line to trample upon the rights of human\nbeings, but now it has no right to cross those lines upon an errand\nof mercy or justice. We are told that now, when the Federal Government\nwishes to protect a citizen, a State line rises like a Chinese wall,\nand the sword of Federal power turns to air the moment it touches one of\nthose lines. I deny it and I despise, abhor and execrate the doctrine of\nState Sovereignty. The Democrats tell us if we wish to be protected by\nthe Federal Government we must leave home. I wish they would try it for\nabout ten days. They say the Federal Government can defend a citizen\nin England, France, Spain or Germany, but cannot defend a child of the\nRepublic sitting around the family hearth. I deny it. A Government that\ncannot protect its citizens at home is unfit to be called a Government.\nI want a Government with an ear so good that it can hear the faintest\ncry of the oppressed wherever its flag floats. I want a Government with\nan arm long enough and a sword sharp enough to cut down treason wherever\nit may raise its serpent head. I want a Government that will protect\na freedman, standing by his little log hut, with the same alacrity and\nwith the same efficiency that it would protect Vanderbilt, living in a\npalace of marble and gold. Humanity is a sacred thing, and manhood is a\nthing to be preserved. Let us look at it. For instance, here is a war,\nand the Federal Government says to a man, \"We want you,\" and he says,\n\"No, I don't want to go,\" and then they put a lot of pieces of paper in\na wheel and on one of those pieces is his name, and another man turns\nthe crank, and then they pull it out and there is his name, and\nthey say, \"Come,\" and so he goes. And they stand him in front of the\nbrazen-throated guns; they make him fight for his native land, and when\nthe war is over he goes home and he finds the war has been unpopular\nin his neighborhood, and they trample on his rights, and he says to the\nFederal Government, \"Protect me.\" And he says to the Government, \"I owe\nmy allegiance to you. You must protect me.\" What will you say of\nthat Government if it says to him, \"You must look to your State for\nprotection\"? \"Ah, but,\" he says, \"my State is the very power trampling\nupon me,\" and, of course, the robber is not going to send for the\npolice, It is the duty of the Government to defend even its drafted\nmen; and if that is the duty of the Government, what shall I say of the\nvolunteer, who for one moment holds his wife in a tremulous and agonized\nembrace, kisses his children, shoulders his musket, goes to the field\nand says, \"Here I am, ready to die for my native land\"? A Nation that\nwill not defend its volunteer defenders is a disgrace to the map of this\nworld. This is a Nation. Free speech is the brain of the Republic; an\nhonest ballot is the breath of its life; honest money is the blood of\nits veins; and the idea of nationality is its great, beating, throbbing\nheart. I am for a Nation. And yet the Democrats tell me that it is\ndangerous to have centralized power. How would you have it? I believe in\nthe localization of power; I believe in having enough of it localized in\none place to be effectively used; I believe in a localization of brain.\nI suppose Democrats would like to have it spread all over your body, and\nthey act as though theirs was.\n\nThere is another thing in which I believe: I believe in the protection\nof American labor. The hand that holds Aladdin's lamp must be the hand\nof toil. This Nation rests upon the shoulders of its workers, and I want\nthe American laboring man to have enough to wear; I want him to have\nenough to eat:\n\nI want him to have something for the ordinary misfortunes of life; I\nwant him to have the pleasure of seeing his wife well-dressed; I want\nhim to see a few blue ribbons fluttering about his children; I want him\nto see the flags of health flying in their beautiful cheeks; I want him\nto feel that this is his country, and the shield of protection is above\nhis labor.\n\nAnd I will tell you why I am for protection, too. If we were all farmers\nwe would be stupid. If we were all shoemakers we would be stupid. If\nwe all followed one business, no matter what it was, we would become\nstupid. Protection to American labor diversifies American industry,\nand to have it diversified touches and develops every part of the human\nbrain. Protection protects ingenuity; it protects intelligence; and\nprotection raises sense; and by protection we have greater men, better\nlooking women and healthier children. Free trade means that our laborer\nis upon an equality with the poorest paid labor of this world. And allow\nme to tell you that for an empty stomach, \"Hurrah for Hancock!\" is a\npoor consolation. I do not think much of a Government where the people\ndo not have enough to eat. I am a materialist to that extent; I want\nsomething to eat. I have been in countries where the laboring man had\nmeat once a year; sometimes twice—Christmas and Easter. And I have seen\nwomen carrying upon their heads a burden that no man in this audience\ncould carry, and at the same time knitting busily with both hands,\nand those women lived without meat; and when I thought of the American\nlaborer, I said to myself, \"After all, my country is the best in the\nworld.\" And when I came back to the sea and saw the old flag flying, it\nseemed to me as though the air from pure joy had burst into blossom.\n\nLabor has more to eat and more to wear in the United States than in\nany other land of this earth. I want America to produce everything that\nAmericans need. I want it so that if the whole world should declare war\nagainst us, if we were surrounded by walls of cannon and bayonets and\nswords, we could supply all our material wants in and of ourselves. I\nwant to live to see the American woman dressed in American silk; the\nAmerican man in everything, from hat to boots, produced in America by\nthe cunning hand of American toil. I want to see the workingman have\na good house, painted white, grass in the front yard, carpets on the\nfloor, pictures on the wall. I want to see him a man, feeling that he is\na king by the divine right of living in the Republic. And every man here\nis just a little bit a king, you know. Every man here is a part of the\nsovereign power. Every man wears a little of purple; every man has a\nlittle of crown and a little of sceptre; and every man that will sell\nhis vote for money or be ruled by prejudice is unfit to be an American\ncitizen.\n\nI believe in American labor, and I will tell you why. The other day a\nman told me that we had produced in the United States of America one\nmillion tons of steel rails. How much are they worth? Sixty dollars a\nton. In other words, the million tons are worth sixty million dollars.\nHow much is a ton of iron worth in the ground? Twenty-five cents.\nAmerican labor takes twenty-five cents worth of iron in the ground and\nadds to it fifty-nine dollars and seventy-five cents. One million tons\nof rails, and the raw material not worth twenty-four thousand dollars!\nWe build a ship in the United States worth five hundred thousand\ndollars, and the value of the ore in the earth, of the trees in the\ngreat forest, of all that enters into the composition of that ship\nbringing five hundred thousand dollars in gold is only twenty thousand\ndollars; four hundred and eighty thousand dollars by American labor,\nAmerican muscle, coined into gold; American brains made a legal tender\nthe world round.\n\nI propose to stand by the Nation. I want the furnaces kept hot. I want\nthe sky to be filled with the smoke of American industry, and upon that\ncloud of smoke will rest forever the bow of perpetual promise. That is\nwhat I am for. Where did this doctrine of a tariff for revenue only come\nfrom? From the South. The South would like to stab the prosperity of the\nNorth. They would rather trade with Old England than with New England.\nThey would rather trade with the people who were willing to help them in\nwar than with those who conquered the Rebellion. They knew what gave us\nour strength in war. They knew that all the brooks and creeks and rivers\nof New England were putting down the Rebellion. They knew that every\nwheel that turned, every spindle that revolved, was a soldier in the\narmy of human progress. It won't do! They were so lured by the greed of\noffice that they were willing to trade upon the misfortunes of a Nation.\nIt won't do! I do not wish to belong to a party that succeeds only when\nmy country fails. I do not wish to belong to a party whose banner went\nup with the banner of rebellion. I do not wish to belong to a party that\nwas in partnership with defeat and disaster. I do not. And there is not\na Democrat here who does not know that a failure of the crops this year\nwould have helped his party. You know that an early frost would have\nbeen a godsend to them. You know that the potato-bug could have done\nthem more good than all their speakers.\n\nI wish to belong to that party which is prosperous when the country is\nprosperous. I belong to that party which is not poor when the golden\nbillows are running over the seas of wheat. I belong to that party which\nis prosperous when there are oceans of corn, and when the cattle are\nupon the thousand hills. I belong to that party which is prosperous when\nthe furnaces are aflame, and when you dig coal and iron and silver; when\neverybody has enough to eat; when everybody is happy; when the children\nare all going to school, and when joy covers my Nation as with a\ngarment. That party which is prosperous then, is my party.\n\nNow, then, I have been telling you what I am for. I am for free speech,\nand so ought you to be. I am for an honest ballot, and if you are not\nyou ought to be. I am for the collection of the revenue. I am for honest\nmoney. I am for the idea that this is a Nation forever. I believe in\nprotecting American labor. I want the shield of my country above every\nanvil, above every furnace, above every cunning head and above every\ndeft hand of American labor.\n\nNow, then, which section of this country will be the more apt to carry\nthese ideas into execution? Which party will be the more apt to achieve\nthese grand and splendid things? Honor bright? Now we have not only\nto choose between sections of the country; we have to choose between\nparties. Here is the Democratic party, and I admit there are thousands\nof good Democrats who went to the war, and some of those that stayed at\nhome were good men; and I want to ask you, and I want you to tell me\nin reply what that party did during the war when the War Democrats were\naway from home. What did they do? That is the question. I say to you,\nthat every man who tried to tear our flag out of heaven was a Democrat.\nThe men who wrote the ordinances of secession, who fired upon Fort\nSumter; the men who starved our soldiers, who fed them with the crumbs\nthat the worms had devoured before, they were Democrats. The keepers\nof Libby, the keepers of Andersonville, were Democrats—Libby and\nAndersonville, the two mighty wings that will bear the memory of the\nConfederacy to eternal infamy! The men who wished to scatter yellow\nfever in the North and who tried to fire the great cities of the\nNorth—they were all Democrats. He who said that the greenback would\nnever be paid and he who slandered sixty cents out of every dollar of\nthe Nation's promises were Democrats. Who were joyful when your brothers\nand your sons and your fathers lay dead on a field of battle that the\ncountry had lost? They were Democrats. The men who wept when the old\nbanner floated in triumph above the ramparts of rebellion—they were\nDemocrats. You know it. The men who wept when slavery was destroyed, who\nbelieved slavery to be a divine institution, who regarded bloodhounds as\napostles and missionaries, and who wept at the funeral of that infernal\ninstitution—they were Democrats. Bad company—bad company!\n\nAnd let me implore all the young men here not to join that party. Do not\ngive new blood to that institution. The Democratic party has a yellow\npassport. On one side it says \"dangerous.\" They imagine they have not\nchanged, and that is because they have not intellectual growth. That\nparty was once the enemy of my country, was once the enemy of our flag,\nand more than that, it was once the enemy of human liberty, and that\nparty to-night is not willing that the citizens of the Republic should\nexercise all their rights irrespective of their color. And allow me to\nsay right here that I am opposed to that party.\n\nWe have not only to choose between parties, but to choose between\ncandidates. The Democracy have put forward as the bearers of their\nstandard General Hancock and William H. English. The Democrats have at\nlast nominated a Union soldier. They nominated George B. McClellan once,\nbecause he failed to whip the South; they nominated Mr. Greeley, when\nthey despised him, and now they have nominated General Hancock. Do they\nthink the South loves him? At Gettysburg they say he fought against\nthem, and that is one great reason why he should be President—that he\nshot rebels. Do the men that fought at Gettysburg still believe in\nState Sovereignty? Wade Hampton says, \"We must vote as Lee and Jackson\nfought.\" They fought for State Sovereignty. Has the South changed?\nHancock went to kill them then; they want to vote for him now. Who\nhas changed? [A voice: \"Hancock.\"] I think so. They are using him as a\nfigure-head. They have dressed him in the noble blue, with the patriotic\ncoat and Union buttons, and they do not like him any better than they\ndid at Gettysburg. It would be just as consistent for the Republicans\nto have nominated Wade Hampton. Did General Hancock believe in State\nSovereignty when he was at Gettysburg? If he did, he was a murderer, and\nnot a Union soldier—he was killing men he believed to be in the right,\nand a man cannot fight unless his conscience approves of what his sword\ndoes, and if he was honest at that time, he did not believe in State\nSovereignty, and it seems to me he would hate to have the men who tried\nto destroy this Government cheering him. All the glory he ever got was\nin the service of the Republican party, and if he does not look out\nhe will lose it all in the service of the Democratic party. He had\na conversation with General Grant. It was a time when he had\nbeen appointed at the head of the Department of the Gulf. In that\nconversation he stated to General Grant that he was opposed to \"nigger\ndomination.\" Grant said to him, \"We must obey the laws of Congress.\nWe are soldiers.\" And that meant, the military is not above the civil\nauthority. And I tell you to-night, that the army and the navy are the\nright and left hands of the civil power. Grant said to him: \"Three or\nfour million ex-slaves, without property and without education, cannot\ndominate over thirty or forty millions of white people, with education\nand property.\" General Hancock replied to that: \"I am opposed to 'nigger\ndomination.'\" Allow me to say that I do not believe any man fit for\nthe presidency of the great Republic, who is capable of insulting a\ndown-trodden race. I never meet a negro that I do not feel like asking\nhis forgiveness for the wrongs that my race has inflicted on his. I\nremember that from the white man he received for two hundred years agony\nand tears; I remember that my race sold a child from the agonized breast\nof a mother; I remember that my race trampled with the feet of greed\nupon all the holy relations of life; and I do not feel like insulting\nthe colored man; I feel rather like asking the forgiveness of his race\nfor the crimes that my race have put upon him. \"Nigger domination!\" What\na fine scabbard that makes for the sword of Gettysburg! It won't do!\n\nWhat is General Hancock for, besides the presidency? How does he stand\nupon the great questions affecting American prosperity? He told us the\nother day that the tariff is a local question. The tariff affects every\nman and woman, live they in hut, hovel or palace; it affects every man\nthat has a back to be covered or a stomach to be filled, and yet he says\nit is a local question. So is death. He also told us that he heard\nthat question discussed once, in Pennsylvania. He must have been\neavesdropping. And he tells us that his doctrine of the tariff will\ncontinue as long as Nature lasts. Then Senator Randolph wrote him a\nletter. I do not know whether Senator Randolph answered it or not; but\nthat answer was worse than the first interview; and I understand\nnow that another letter is going through a period of incubation at\nGovernor's Island, upon the great subject of the tariff. It won't do!\n\nThey say one thing they are sure of, he is opposed to paying Southern\npensions and Southern claims. He says that a man that fought against\nthis Government has no right to a pension. Good! I say a man that fought\nagainst this Government has no right to office. If a man cannot earn\na pension by tearing our flag out of the sky, he cannot earn power. [A\nVoice—\"How about Longstreet?\"] Longstreet has repented of what he did.\nLongstreet admits that he was wrong. And there was no braver officer in\nthe Southern Confederacy. Every man of the South who will say, \"I made a\nmistake\"—I do not want him to say that he knew he was wrong—all I\nask him to say is that he now thinks he was wrong; and every man of the\nSouth to-day who says he was wrong, and who says from this day forward,\nhenceforth and forever, he is for this being a Nation.\n\nI will take him by the hand. But while he is attempting to do at the\nballot-box what he failed to accomplish upon the field of battle, I am\nagainst him; while he uses a Northern general to bait a Southern trap,\nI won't bite. I will forgive men when they deserve to be forgiven; but\nwhile they insist that they were right, while they insist that State\nSovereignty is the proper doctrine, I am opposed to their climbing into\npower.\n\nHancock says that he will not pay these claims; he agrees to veto a\nbill that his party may pass; he agrees in advance that he will defeat\na party that he expects will elect him; he, in effect, says to the\npeople, \"You can not trust that party, but you can trust me.\" He says,\n\"Look at them; I admit they are a hungry lot; I admit that they haven't\nhad a bite in twenty years; I admit that an ordinary famine is satiety\ncompared to the hunger they feel. But between that vast appetite known\nas the Democratic party, and the public treasury, I will throw the\nshield of my veto.\" No man has a right to say in advance what he will\nveto, any more than a judge has a right to say in advance how he\nwill decide a case. The veto power is a distinction with which the\nConstitution has clothed the Executive, and no President has a right to\nsay that he will veto until he has heard both sides of the question. But\nhe agrees in advance.\n\nI would rather trust a party than a man. Death may veto Hancock, and\nDeath has not been a successful politician in the United States.\nTyler, Fillmore, Andy Johnson—I do not wish Death to elect any more\nPresidents; and if he does, and if Hancock is elected, William H.\nEnglish becomes President of the United States. No, no, no! All I need\nto say about him is simply to pronounce his name; that is all. You do\nnot want him. Whether the many stories that have been told about him are\ntrue or not I do not know, and I will not give currency to a solitary\nword against the reputation of an American citizen unless I know it to\nbe true. What I have against him is what he has done in public life.\nWhen Charles Sumner, that great and splendid publicist—Charles Sumner,\nthe philanthropist, one who spoke to the conscience of his time and to\nthe history of the future—when he stood up in the United States Senate\nand made a great and glorious plea for human liberty, there crept into\nthe Senate a villain and struck him down as though he had been a wild\nbeast. That man was a member of Congress, and when a resolution was\nintroduced in the House, to expel that man, William H. English voted\n\"No.\" All the stories in the world could not add to the infamy of that\npublic act. That is enough for me, and whatever his private life may be,\nlet it be that of an angel, never, never, never would I vote for a man\nthat would defend the assassin of free speech. General Hancock, they\ntell me, is a statesman; that what little time he has had to spare from\nwar he has given to the tariff, and what little time he could spare\nfrom the tariff he has given to the Constitution of his country;\nshowing under what circumstances a Major-General can put at defiance the\nCongress of the United States. It won't do!\n\nBut while I am upon that subject it may be well for me to state that he\nnever will be President of the United States. Now, I say that a man who\nin time of peace prefers peace, and prefers the avocations of peace; a\nman who in the time of peace would rather look at the corn in the air of\nJune, rather listen to the hum of bees, rather sit by his door with his\nwife and children; the man who in time of peace loves peace, and yet\nwhen the blast of war blows in his ears, shoulders a musket and goes to\nthe field of war to defend his country, and when the war is over goes\nhome and again pursues the avocations of peace—that man is just as\ngood, to say the least of it, as a man who in a time of profound peace\nmakes up his mind that he would like to make his living killing other\nfolks. To say the least of it, he is as good.\n\nThe Republicans have named as their standard bearers James A. Garfield\nand Chester A. Arthur. James A. Garfield was a volunteer soldier, and\nhe took away from the field of Chickamauga as much glory as any one\nman could carry. He is not only a soldier—7-he is a statesman. He has\nstudied and discussed all the great questions that affect the prosperity\nand well-being of the American people. His opinions are well known, and\nI say to you tonight that there is not in this Nation, there is not in\nthis Republic a man with greater brain and greater heart than James A.\nGarfield. I know him and I like him. I know him as well as any other\npublic man, and I like him. The Democratic party say that he is not\nhonest. I have been reading some Democratic papers to-day, and you would\nsay that every one of their editors had a private sewer of his own into\nwhich has been emptied for a hundred years the slops of hell. They tell\nme that James A. Garfield is not honest. Are you a Democrat? Your\nparty tried to steal nearly half of this country. Your party stole the\narmament of a nation. Your party was willing to live upon the unpaid\nlabor of four millions of people. You have no right to the floor for the\npurpose of making a motion of honesty. James A. Garfield has been at the\nhead of the most important committees of Congress; he is a member of the\nmost important one of the whole House. He has no peer in the Congress of\nthe United States. And you know it. He is the leader of the House.\nWith one wave of his hand he can take millions from the pocket of one\nindustry and put it into the pocket of another; with a motion of his\nhand he could have made himself a man of wealth, but he is to-night a\npoor man. I know him and I like him. He is as genial as May and he is as\ngenerous as Autumn. And the men for whom he has done unnumbered favors,\nthe men whom he had pity enough not to destroy with an argument, the men\nwho, with his great generosity, he has allowed, intellectually, to live,\nare now throwing filth at the reputation of that great and splendid man.\n\nSeveral ladies and gentlemen were passing a muddy place around which\nwere gathered ragged and wretched urchins. And these little wretches\nbegan to throw mud at them; and one gentleman said, \"If you don't stop\nI will throw it back at you.\" And a little fellow said, \"You can't do it\nwithout dirtying your hands, and it doesn't hurt us anyway.\"\n\nI never was more profoundly happy than on the night of that 12th day\nof October when I found that between an honest and a kingly man and his\nmaligners, two great States had thrown their shining shields. When Ohio\nsaid, \"Garfield is my greatest son, and there never has been raised in\nthe cabins of Ohio a grander man\"—and when Indiana held up her hands\nand said, \"Allow me to indorse that verdict,\" I was profoundly happy,\nbecause that said to me, \"Garfield will carry every Northern State;\"\nthat said to me, \"The Solid South will be confronted by a great and\nsplendid North.\"\n\nI know Garfield—I like him. Some people have said, \"How is it that you\nsupport Garfield, when he was a minister?\" \"How is it that you support\nGarfield when he is a Christian?\" I will tell you. There are two\nreasons. The first is I am not a bigot; and secondly, James A. Garfield\nis not a bigot. He believes in giving to every other human being every\nright he claims for himself. He believes in freedom of speech and\nfreedom of thought; untrammeled conscience and upright manhood. He\nbelieves in an absolute divorce between church and state. He believes\nthat every religion should rest upon its morality, upon its reason,\nupon its persuasion, upon its goodness, upon its charity, and that love\nshould never appeal to the sword of civil power. He disagrees with me in\nmany things; but in the one thing, that the air is free for all, we do\nagree. I want to do equal and exact justice everywhere.\n\nI want the world of thought to be without a chain, without a wall, and I\nwish to say to you, [turning toward Mr. Beecher and directly addressing\nhim] that I thank you for what you have said to-night, and to\ncongratulate the people of this city and country that you have\nintellectual horizon enough, intellectual sky enough to take the hand\nof a man, howsoever much he may disagree in some things with you, on the\ngrand platform and broad principle of citizenship. James A. Garfield,\nbelieving with me as he does, disagreeing with me as he does, is\nperfectly satisfactory to me. I know him, and I like him.\n\nMen are to-day blackening his reputation, who are not fit to blacken\nhis shoes. He is a man of brain. Since his nomination he must have made\nforty or fifty speeches, and every one has been full of manhood and\ngenius. He has not said a word that has not strengthened him with the\nAmerican people. He is the first candidate who has been free to express\nhimself and who has never made a mistake. I will tell you why he does\nnot make a mistake; because he spoke from the inside out. Because he was\nguided by the glittering Northern Star of principle. Lie after lie has\nbeen told about him. Slander after slander has been hatched and put in\nthe air, with its little short wings, to fly its day, and the last lie\nis a forgery.\n\nI saw to-day the fac-simile of a letter that they pretend he wrote upon\nthe Chinese question. I know his writing; I know his signature; I am\nwell acquainted with his writing. I know handwriting, and I tell you\nto-night, that letter and that signature are forgeries. A forgery\nfor the benefit of the Pacific States; a forgery for the purpose of\nconvincing the American workingman that Garfield is without heart. I\ntell you, my fellow-citizens, that cannot take from him a vote. But Ohio\npierced their centre and Indiana rolled up both flanks and the rebel\nline cannot re-form with a forgery for a standard. They are gone!\n\nNow, some people say to me, \"How long are you going to preach the\ndoctrine of hate?\" I never did preach it. In many States of this Union\nit is a crime to be a Republican. I am going to preach my doctrine until\nevery American citizen is permitted to express his opinion and vote\nas he may desire in every State of this Union. I am going to preach my\ndoctrine until this is a civilized country. That is all.\n\nI will treat the gentlemen of the South precisely as we do the gentlemen\nof the North. I want to treat every section of the country precisely as\nwe do ours-. I want to improve their rivers and their harbors; I want\nto fill their land with commerce; I want them to prosper; I want them to\nbuild schoolhouses; I want them to open the lands to immigration to all\npeople who desire to settle upon their soil. I want to be friends with\nthem; I want to let the past be buried forever; I want to let bygones\nbe bygones, but only upon the basis that we are now in favor of absolute\nliberty and eternal justice. I am not willing to bury nationality or\nfree speech in the grave for the purpose of being friends. Let us\nstand by our colors; let the old Republican party that has made this a\nNation—the old Republican party that has saved the financial honor of\nthis country—let that party stand by its colors.\n\nLet that party say, \"Free speech forever!\" Let that party say, \"An\nhonest ballot forever!\" Let that party say, \"Honest money forever! the\nNation and the flag forever!\" And let that party stand by the great men\ncarrying her banner, James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur. I\nwould rather trust a party than a man. If General Garfield dies, the\nRepublican party lives; if General Garfield dies, General Arthur will\ntake his place—a brave, honest, and intelligent gentleman, upon whom\nevery Republican can rely. And if he dies, the Republican party lives,\nand as long as the Republican party does not die, the great Republic\nwill live. As long as the Republican party lives, this will be the\nasylum of the world. Let me tell you, Mr. Irishman, this is the only\ncountry on the earth where Irishmen have had enough to eat. Let me tell\nyou, Mr. German, that you have more liberty here than you had in the\nFatherland. Let me tell you, all men, that this is the land of humanity.\n\nOh! I love the old Republic, bounded by the seas, walled by the wide\nair, domed by heaven's blue, and lit with the eternal stars. I love the\nRepublic; I love it because I love liberty. Liberty is my religion, and\nat its altar I worship, and will worship.\n"
}