{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-9:ratification-speech",
  "slug": "ratification-speech",
  "title": "Ratification Speech",
  "subtitle": "Harrison and Morton — Metropolitan Opera House, June 29, 1888.",
  "excerpt": "The 1888 Republican ratification speech for Harrison and Morton — Metropolitan Opera House, New York.",
  "year": 1888,
  "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/ratification-speech/",
  "wordCount": 8373,
  "body": "• Delivered at the Metropolitan Opera House, New York, June\n    29,1688.\n\nHarrison and Morton.\n\n1888.\n\nFELLOW-CITIZENS, Ladies and Gentlemen—The speaker who is perfectly\ncandid, who tells his honest thought, not only honors himself, but\ncompliments his audience. It is only to the candid that man can afford\nto absolutely open his heart. Most people, whenever a man is nominated\nfor the presidency, claim that they were for him from the very start—as\na rule, claim that they discovered him. They are so anxious to be with\nthe procession, so afraid of being left, that they insist that they got\nexactly the man they wanted.\n\nI will be frank enough with you to say that the convention did not\nnominate my choice. I was for the nomination of General Gresham,\nbelieving that, all things considered, he was the best and most\navailable man—a just judge, a soldier, a statesman. But there is\nsomething in the American blood that bows to the will of the majority.\nThere is that splendid fealty and loyalty to the great principle upon\nwhich our Government rests; so that when the convention reached its\nconclusion, every Republican was for the nominee. There were good men\nfrom which to select this ticket. I made my selection, and did the best\nI could to induce the convention to make the same. Some people think,\nor say they think, that I made a mistake in telling the name of the man\nwhom I was for. But I always know whom I am for, I always know what I am\nfor, and I know the reasons why I am for the thing or for the man.\n\nAnd it never once occurred to me that we could get a man nominated, or\nelected, and keep his name a secret. When I am for a man I like to stand\nby him, even while others leave, no matter if at last I stand alone. I\nbelieve in doing things above board, in the light, in the wide air.\nNo snake ever yet had a skin brilliant enough, no snake ever crawled\nthrough the grass secretly enough, silently or cunningly enough, to\nexcite my admiration. My admiration is for the eagle, the monarch of the\nempyrean, who, poised on outstretched pinions, challenges the gaze of\nall the world. Take your position in the sunlight; tell your neighbors\nand your friends what you are for, and give your reasons for your\nposition; and if that is a mistake, I expect to live making only\nmistakes. I do not like the secret way, but the plain, open way; and I\nwas for one man, not because I had anything against the others, who were\nall noble, splendid men, worthy to be Presidents of the United States.\n\nNow, then, leaving that subject, two parties again confront each other.\nWith parties as with persons goes what we call character. They have\nbuilt up in the nation in which they live reputation, and the reputation\nof a party should be taken into consideration as well as the reputation\nof a man. What is this party? What has it done? What has it endeavored\nto do? What are the ideas in its brain? What are the hopes, the emotions\nand the loves in its heart? Does it wish to make the world grander and\nbetter and freer? Has it a high ideal? Does it believe in sunrise, or\ndoes it keep its back to the sacred east of eternal progress? These\nare the questions that every American should ask. Every man should\ntake pride in this great Nation—America, with a star of glory in her\nforehead!—and every man should say, \"I hope when I lie down in death I\nshall leave a greater and grander country than when I was born.\"\n\nThis is the country of humanity. This is the Government of the poor.\nThis is where man has an even chance with his fellow-man. In this\ncountry the poorest man holds in his hand at the day of election the\nsame unit, the same amount, of political power as the owner of a hundred\nmillions. That is the glory of the United States.\n\nA few days ago our party met in convention. Now, let us see who we are.\nLet us see what the Republican party is. Let us see what is the spirit\nthat animates this great and splendid organization.\n\nAnd I want you to think one moment, just one moment: What was this\ncountry when the first Republican President was elected? Under the\nlaw then, every Northern man was a bloodhound, pledged to catch human\nbeings, who, led by the light of the Northern Star, were escaping\nto free soil. Remember that. And remember, too, that when our first\nPresident was elected we found a treasury empty, the United States\nwithout credit, the great Republic unable to borrow money from day to\nday to pay its current expenses. Remember that. Think of the glory and\ngrandeur of the Republican party that took the country with an empty\nexchequer, and then think of what the Democratic party says to-day of\nthe pain and anguish it has suffered administering the Government with a\nsurplus!\n\nWe must remember what the Republican party has done—what it has\naccomplished for nationality, for liberty, for education and for the\ncivilization of our race. We must remember its courage in war, its\nhonesty in peace. Civil war tests to a certain degree the strength, the\nstability and the patriotism of a country. After the war comes a greater\nstrain. It is a great thing to die for a cause, but it is a greater\nthing to live for it. We must remember that the Republican party not\nonly put down a rebellion, not only created a debt of thousands and\nthousands of millions, but that it had the industry and the intelligence\nto pay that debt, and to give to the United States the best financial\nstanding of any nation.\n\nWhen this great party came together in Chicago what was the first thing\nthe convention did? What was the first idea in its mind? It was to honor\nthe memory of the greatest and grandest men the Republic has produced.\nThe first name that trembled upon the lips of the convention was that of\nAbraham Lincoln—Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest and grandest men\nwho ever lived, and, in my judgment, the greatest man that ever sat\nin the presidential chair. And why the greatest? Because the kindest,\nbecause he had more mercy and love in his heart than were in the heart\nof any other President. And so the convention paid its tribute to the\ngreat soldier, to the man who led, in company with others, the great\narmy of freedom to victory, until the old flag floated over every inch\nof American soil and every foot of that territory was dedicated to the\neternal freedom of mankind.\n\nAnd what next did this convention do? The next thing was to send\nfraternal greetings to the Americans of Brazil. Why? Because Brazil\nhad freed every slave, and because that act left the New World, this\nhemisphere, without a slave—left two continents dedicated to the\nfreedom of man—so that with that act of Brazil the New World,\ndiscovered only a few years ago, takes the lead in the great march of\nhuman progress and liberty. That is the second thing the convention did.\nOnly a little while ago the minister to this country from Brazil, acting\nunder instructions from his government, notified the President of the\nUnited States that this sublime act had been accomplished—notified\nhim that from the bodies of millions of men the chains of slavery had\nfallen—an act great enough to make the dull sky of half the world glow\nas though another morning had risen upon another day.\n\nAnd what did our President say? Was he filled with enthusiasm? Did his\nheart beat quicker? Did the blood rush to his cheek? He simply said,\nas it is reported, \"that he hoped time would justify the wisdom of the\nmeasure.\" It is precisely the same as though a man should quit a life of\ncrime, as though some gentleman in the burglar business should finally\nannounce to his friends: \"I have made up my mind never to break into\nanother house,\" and the friend should reply: \"I hope that time will\njustify the propriety of that resolution.\"\n\nThat was the first thing, with regard to the condition of the world,\nthat came into the mind of the Republican convention. And why was that?\nBecause the Republican party has fought for liberty from the day of its\nbirth to the present moment.\n\nAnd what was the next? The next resolution passed by the convention was,\n\"that we earnestly hope, we shall soon congratulate our fellow-citizens\nof Irish birth upon the peaceful recovery of home rule in Ireland.\"\n\nWherever a human being wears a chain, there you will find the sympathy\nof the Republican party. Wherever one languishes in a dungeon for having\nraised the standard of revolt in favor of human freedom, there you will\nfind the sympathy of the Republican party. I believe in liberty for\nIreland, not because it is Ireland, but because they are human beings,\nand I am for liberty, not as a prejudice, but as a principle.\n\nThe man rightfully in jail who wants to get out is a believer in liberty\nas a prejudice; but when a man out of jail sees a man wrongfully in jail\nand is willing to risk his life to give liberty to the man who ought to\nhave it, that is being in favor of liberty as a principle. So I am in\nfavor of liberty everywhere, all over the world, and wherever one man\ntries to govern another simply because he has been born a lord or a duke\nor a king, or wherever one governs another simply by brute force, I say\nthat that is oppression, and it is the business of Americans to do all\nthey can to give liberty to the oppressed everywhere.\n\nIreland should govern herself. Those who till the soil should own the\nsoil, or have an opportunity at least of becoming the owners. A few\nlandlords should not live in extravagance and luxury while those\nwho toil live on the leavings, on parings, on crumbs and crusts. The\ntreatment of Ireland by England has been one continuous crime. There is\nno meaner page in history.\n\nWhat is the next thing in this platform? And if there is anything in it\nthat anybody can object to, we will find it out to-night. The next thing\nis the supremacy of the Nation.-Why, even the Democrats now believe in\nthat, and in their own platform are willing to commence that word with\na capital N. They tell us that they are in favor of an indissoluble\nUnion—just as I presume they always have been. But they now believe in\na Union. So does the Republican party. What else? The Republican party\nbelieves, not in State Sovereignty, but in the preservation of all the\nrights reserved to the States by the Constitution.\n\nLet me show you the difference: For instance, you make a contract with\nyour neighbor who lives next door—equal partners—and at the bottom of\nthe contract you put the following addition: \"If there is any dispute\nas to the meaning of this contract, my neighbor shall settle it, and any\nsettlement he shall make shall be final.\" Is there any use of talking\nabout being equal partners any longer? Any use of your talking about\nbeing a sovereign partner? So, the Constitution of the United States\nsays: \"If any question arises between any State and the Federal\nGovernment it shall be decided by a Federal Court.\" That is the end of\nwhat they call State Sovereignty.\n\nThink of a sovereign State that can make no treaty, that cannot levy\nwar, that cannot coin money. But we believe in maintaining the rights\nof the States absolutely in their integrity, because we believe in local\nself-government. We deny, however, that a State has any right to deprive\na citizen of his vote. We deny that the State has any right to violate\nthe Federal law, and we go further and we say that it is the duty of the\nGeneral Government to see to it that every citizen in every State shall\nhave the right to exercise all of his privileges as a citizen of the\nUnited States—\"the right of every lawful citizen,\" says our platform,\n\"native or foreign, white or black, to cast a free ballot.\"\n\nLet me say one word about that.\n\nThe ballot is the king, the emperor, the ruler of America; it is the\nonly rightful sovereign of the Republic; and whoever refuses to count\nan honest vote, or whoever casts a dishonest vote, is a traitor to the\ngreat principle upon which our Government is founded. The man poisons,\nor endeavors to poison, the springs of authority, the fountains of\njustice, of rightful dominion and power; and until every citizen can\ncast his vote everywhere in this land and have that vote counted, we are\nnot a republican people, we are not a civilized nation. The Republican\nparty will not have finished its mission until this country is\ncivilized. That is its business. It was born of a protest against\nbarbarism.\n\nThe Republican party was the organized conscience of the United States.\nIt had the courage to stand by what it believed to be right. There is\nsomething better even than success in this world; or in other words,\nthere is only one kind of success, and that is to be for the right. Then\nwhatever happens, you have succeeded.\n\nNow, comes the next question. The Republican party not only wants to\nprotect every citizen in his liberty, in his right to vote, but it wants\nto have that vote counted. And what else?\n\nThe next thing in this platform is protection for American labor.\n\nI am going to tell you in a very brief way why I am in favor of\nprotection. First, I want this Republic substantially independent of\nthe rest of the world. You must remember that while people are\ncivilized—some of them—so that when they have a quarrel they leave it\nto the courts to decide, nations still occupy the position of savages\ntoward each other. There is no national court to decide a question,\nconsequently the question is decided by the nations themselves, and you\nknow what selfishness and greed and power and the ideas of false glory\nwill do and have done. So that this Nation is not safe one moment from\nwar. I want the Republic so that it can live although at war with all\nthe world.\n\nWe have every kind of climate that is worth having. Our country embraces\nthe marriage of the pine and palm; we have all there is of worth; it\nis the finest soil in the world and the most ingenious people that ever\ncontrived to make the forces of nature do their work. I want this Nation\nsubstantially independent, so that if every port were blockaded we would\nbe covered with prosperity as with a mantle. Then, too, the Nation that\ncannot take care of itself in war is always at a disadvantage in peace.\nThat is one reason. Let me give you the next.\n\nThe next reason is that whoever raises raw material and sells it will be\neternally poor. There is no State in this Union where the farmer raises\nwheat and sells it, that the farmer is not poor. Why? He only makes one\nprofit, and, as a rule, that is a loss. The farmer that raises corn does\nbetter, because he can sell, not corn, but pork and beef and horses. In\nother words, he can make the second or third profit, and those farmers\nget rich. There is a vast difference between the labor necessary to\nraise raw material and the labor necessary to make the fabrics used\nby civilized men. Remember that; and if you are confined simply to raw\nmaterial your labor will be unskilled; unskilled labor will be cheap,\nthe raw material will be cheap, and the result is that your country will\ngrow poorer and poorer, while the country that buys your raw material,\nmakes it into fabrics and sells it back to you, will grow intelligent\nand rich. I want you to remember this, because it lies at the foundation\nof this whole subject. Most people who talk on this point bring forward\ncolumn after column of figures, and a man to understand it would have to\nbe a walking table of logarithms. I do not care to discuss it that\nway. I want to get at the foundation principles, so that you can give a\nreason, as well as myself, why you are in favor of protection.\n\nLet us take another step. We will take a locomotive—a wonderful\nthing—that horse of progress, with its flesh of iron and steel and\nbreath of flame—a wonderful thing. Let us see how it is made. Did you\never think of the deft and cunning hands, of the wonderfully accurate\nbrains, that can make a thing like that? Did you ever think about it?\nHow much do you suppose the raw material lying in the earth was worth\nthat was changed into that locomotive? A locomotive that is worth, we\nwill say, twelve thousand dollars; how much was the raw material worth\nlying in the earth, deposited there millions of years ago? Not as much\nas one dollar. Let us, just for the sake of argument, say five dollars.\nWhat, then, has labor added to the twelve thousand dollar locomotive?\nEleven thousand nine hundred and ninety-five dollars. Now, why? Because,\njust to the extent that thought is mingled with labor, wages increase;\njust to the extent you mix mind with muscle, you give value to labor;\njust to the extent that the labor is skilled, deft, apt, just to that\nextent or in that proportion, is the product valuable. Think about it.\nRaw material! There is a piece of canvas five feet one way, three the\nother. Raw material would be to get a man to whitewash it; that is raw\nmaterial. Let a man of genius paint a picture upon it; let him put in\nthat picture the emotions of his heart, the landscapes that have made\npoetry in his brain, the recollection of the ones he loves, the prattle\nof children, a mother's tear, the sunshine of her smile, and all the\nsweet and sacred memories of his life, and it is worth five thousand\ndollars—ten thousand dollars.\n\nNoise is raw material, but the great opera of \"Tristan and Isolde\" is\nthe result of skilled labor. There is the same difference between simple\nbrute strength and skilled labor that there is between noise and the\nsymphonies of Beethoven. I want you to get this in your minds.\n\nNow, then, whoever sells raw material gives away the great profit. You\nraise cotton and sell it; and just as long as the South does it and does\nnothing more the South will be poor, the South will be ignorant, and it\nwill be solidly Democratic.\n\nNow, do not imagine that I am saying anything against the Democratic\nparty. I believe the Democratic party is doing the best it can under the\ncircumstances. You know my philosophy makes me very charitable. You find\nout all about a man, all about his ancestors, and you can account for\nhis vote always. Why? Because there are causes and effects in nature.\nThere are sometimes antecedents and subsequents that have no relation\nto each other, but at the same time, all through the web and woof of\nevents, you find these causes and effects, and if you only look far\nenough, you will know why a man does as he does.\n\nI have nothing to say against the Democratic party. I want to talk\nagainst ideas, not against people. I do not care anything about their\ncandidates, whether they are good, bad or indifferent. What, gentlemen,\nare your ideas? What do you propose to do? What is your policy? That\nis what I want to know, and I am willing to meet them upon the field of\nintellectual combat. They are in possession; they are in the rifle pits\nof office; we are in the open field, but we will plant our standard, the\nflag that we love, without a stain, and under that banner, upon which\nso many dying men have looked in the last hour when they thought of\nhome and country—under that flag we will carry the Democratic\nfortifications.\n\nAnother thing; we want to get at this business so that we will\nunderstand what we are doing. I do not believe in protecting American\nindustry for the sake of the capitalist, or for the sake of any class,\nbut for the sake of the whole Nation. And if I did not believe that it\nwas for the best interests of the whole Nation I should be opposed to\nit.\n\nLet us take this next step. Everybody, of course, cannot be a farmer.\nEverybody cannot be a mechanic. All the people in the world cannot go at\none business. We must have a diversity of industry. I say, the greater\nthat diversity, the greater the development of brain in the country. We\nthen have what you might call a mental exchange; men are then pursuing\nevery possible direction in which the mind can go, and the brain is\nbeing developed upon all sides; whereas, if you all simply cultivated\nthe soil, you would finally become stupid. If you all did only one\nbusiness you would become ignorant; but by pursuing all possible\navocations that call for taste, genius, calculation, discovery,\ningenuity, invention—by having all these industries open to the\nAmerican people, we will be able to raise great men and great women; and\nI am for protection, because it will enable us to raise greater men and\ngreater women. Not only because it will make more money in less time,\nbut because I would rather have greater folks and less money.\n\nOne man of genius makes a continent sublime. Take all the men of wealth\nfrom Scotland—who would know it? Wipe their names from the pages of\nhistory, and who would miss them? Nobody. Blot out one name, Robert\nBurns, and how dim and dark would be the star of Scotland. The great\nthing is to raise great folks. That is what we want to do, and we want\nto diversify all the industries and protect them all. How much? Simply\nenough to prevent the foreign article from destroying the domestic. But\nthey say, then the manufacturers will form a trust and put the prices\nup. If we depend upon the foreign manufacturers will they not form\ntrusts? We can depend on competition. What do the Democrats want to do?\nThey want to do away with the tariff, so as to do away with the surplus.\nThey want to put down the tariff to do away with the surplus. If you put\ndown the tariff a small per cent, so that the foreign article comes to\nAmerica, instead of decreasing, you will increase the surplus. Where you\nget a dollar now, you will get five then. If you want to stop getting\nanything from imports, you want to put the tariff higher, my friend.\n\nLet every Democrat understand this, and let him also understand that I\nfeel and know that he has the same interest in this great country that I\nhave, and let me be frank enough and candid enough and honest enough\nto say that I believe the Democratic party advocates the policy it does\nbecause it believes it will be the best for the country. But we differ\nupon a question of policy, and the only way to argue it is to keep cool.\nIf a man simply shouts for his side, or gets mad, he is a long way from\nany intellectual improvement.\n\nIf I am wrong in this, I want to be set right. If it is not to the\ninterest of America that the shuttle shall keep flying, that wheels\nshall keep turning, that cloth shall be woven, that the forges shall\nflame and that the smoke shall rise from the numberless chimneys—if\nthat is not to the interest of America, I want to know it. But I believe\nthat upon the great cloud of smoke rising from the chimneys of the\nmanufactories of this country, every man who will think can see the bow\nof national promise.\n\n\"Oh, but,\" they say, \"you put the prices so high.\" Let me give you two\nor three facts: Only a few years ago I know that we paid one hundred and\ntwenty-five dollars a ton for Bessemer steel. At that time the tariff\nwas twenty-eight dollars a ton, I believe. I am not much on figures. I\ngenerally let them add it up, and I pay it and go on about my business.\nWith the tariff at twenty-eight dollars a ton, that being a sufficient\nprotection against Great Britain, the ingenuity of America went to work.\nCapital had the courage to try the experiment, and the result was that,\ninstead of buying thousands and thousands and thousands and tens of\nthousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of tons of steel from\nGreat Britain, we made it here in our own country, and it went down as\nlow as thirty dollars a ton. Under this \"rascally protection\" it went\ndown to one-fourth of what free trade England was selling it to us for.\n\nAnd so I might go on all night with a thousand other articles; all I\nwant to show you is that we want these industries here, and we want\nthem protected just as long as they need protection. We want to rock the\ncradle just as long as there is a child in it. When the child gets to\nbe seven or eight feet high, and wears number twelve boots, we will say:\n\"Now you will have to shift for yourself.\" What we want is not simply\nfor the capitalist, not simply for the workingmen, but for the whole\ncountry.\n\nIf there is any object worthy the attention of this or any other\ngovernment, it is the condition of the workingmen. What do they do? They\ndo all that is done. They are the Atlases upon whose mighty shoulders\nrests the fabric of American civilization. The men of leisure are simply\nthe vines that run round this great sturdy oak of labor. If there is\nanything noble enough, and splendid enough to claim the attention of a\nnation, it is this question, and I hope the time will come when labor\nwill receive far more than it does to-day. I want you all to think of\nit—how little, after all, the laboring man, even in America, receives.\n\n[A voice: \"Under protection.\"]\n\nYes, sir, even under protection. Take away that protection, and he is\ninstantly on a level with the European serf. And let me ask that good,\nhonest gentleman one question. If the laborer is better off in other\ncountries, why does not the American laborer emigrate to Europe?\n\nThere is no place in the wide world where, in my judgment, labor reaps\nits true reward. There never has been. But I hope the time will come\nwhen the American laborer will not only make a living for himself, for\nhis wife and children, but lay aside something to keep the roof above\nhis head when the winter of age may come. My sympathies are all with\nthem, and I would rather see thousands of... '' palaces of millionaires\nunroofed than to see desolation in the cabins of the poor. I know that\nthis world has been made beautiful by those who have labored and those\nwho have suffered. I know that we owe to them the conveniences of life,\nand I have more conveniences, I live a more luxurious life, than any\nmonarch ever lived one hundred years ago. I have more conveniences than\nany emperor could have purchased with the revenue of his empire one\nhundred years ago. It is worth something to live in this age of the\nworld.\n\nAnd what has made us such a great and splendid and progressive and\nsensible people?\n\n[A voice: \"Free thought.\"]\n\nFree thought, of course. Back of every invention is free thought. Why\ndoes a man invent? Slavery never invents; freedom invents. A slave\nworking for his master tries to do the least work in the longest space\nof time, but a free man, working for wife and children, tries to do the\nmost work in the shortest possible time. He is in love with what he is\ndoing, consequently his head and his hands go in partnership; muscle and\nbrain unite, and the result is that the head invents something to help\nthe hands, and out of the brain leaps an invention that makes a slave\nof the forces of nature—those forces that have no backs to be whipped,\nthose forces that shed no tears, those forces that are destined to work\nforever for the happiness of the human race.\n\nConsequently I am for the protection of American labor, American genius,\nAmerican thought. I do not want to put our workingmen on a level with\nthe citizens of despotisms. Why do not the Democrats and others want the\nChinese to come here? Are they in favor of being protected? Why is it\nthat the Democrats and others object to penitentiary labor? I will tell\nyou. They say that a man in the penitentiary can produce cheaper. He has\nno family to support, he has no children to look after; and they say, it\nis hardly fair to make the father of a family and an honest man compete\nwith a criminal within the walls of a penitentiary. So they ask to be\nprotected.\n\nWhat is the difference whether a man is in the penitentiary, or whether\nhe is in the despotism of some European state? \"Ah, but,\" they say, \"you\nlet the laborer of Europe come here himself.\" Yes, and I am in favor of\nit always. Why? This world belongs to the human race. And when they come\nhere, in a little while they have our wants, and if they do not their\nchildren do, and you will find the second generation of Irishmen or\nGermans or of any other nationality just as patriotic as the tenth\ngeneration from the first immigrant. I want them to come. Then they get\nour habits.\n\nWho wants free trade? Only those who want us for their customers, who\nwould like to sell us everything that we use—England, Germany, all\nthose countries. And why? Because one American will buy more than one\nthousand, yes, five thousand Asiatics. America consumes more to-day\nthan China and India, more than ten billion would of semi-civilized and\nbarbarous peoples. What do they buy—what does England sell? A little\npowder, a little whiskey, cheap calico, some blankets—a few things of\nthat kind. What does the American purchase? Everything that civilized\nman uses or that civilized man can want.\n\nEngland wants this market. Give her free trade, and she will become the\nmost powerful, the richest nation that ever had her territories marked\nupon the map of the world. And what do we become? Nobodies. Poor.\nInvention will be lost, our minds will grow clumsy, the wondrous,\ndeft hand of the mechanic paralyzed—a great raw material producing\ncountry—ignorant, poor, barbaric. I want the cotton that is raised in\nthis country to be spun here, to be woven into cloth. I want everything\nthat we use to be made by Americans. We can make the cloth, we can raise\nthe food to feed and to clothe this Nation, and the Nation is now only\nin its infancy.\n\nSomehow people do not understand this. They really think we are getting\nfilled up. Look at the map of this country. See the valley of the\nMississippi. Put your hand on it. Trace the rivers coming from the Rocky\nMountains and the Alleghanies, and sweeping down to the Gulf, and know\nthat in the valley of the Mississippi, with its wondrous tributaries,\nthere can live and there can be civilized and educated five hundred\nmillions of human beings.\n\nLet us have some sense. I want to show you how far this goes beyond the\nintellectual horizon of some people who hold office. For instance: We\nhave a tariff on lead, and by virtue of that tariff on lead nearly every\nsilver mine is worked in this country. Take the tariff from lead and\nthere would remain in the clutch of the rocks, of the quartz misers,\nfor all time, millions and millions of silver; but when that is put with\nlead, and lead runs with silver, they can make enough on lead and silver\nto pay for the mining, and the result is that millions and millions are\nadded every year to the wealth of the United States.\n\nLet me tell you another thing: There is not a State in the Union but\nhas something it wants protected. And Louisiana—a Democratic State,\nand will be just as long as Democrats count the votes—Louisiana has the\nimpudence to talk about free trade and yet it wants its sugar protected.\nKentucky says free trade, except hemp; and if anything needs protection\nit is hemp. Missouri says hemp and lead. Colorado, lead and wool; and so\nyou can make the tour of the States and every one is for free trade with\nan exception—that exception being to the advantage of that State, and\nwhen you put the exceptions together you have protected the industries\nof all the States.\n\nNow, if the Democratic party is in favor of anything, it is in favor of\nfree trade. If President Clevelands message means anything it means free\ntrade. And why? Because it says to every man that gets protection: If\nyou will look about you, you will find that you pay for something\nelse that is protected more than you receive in benefits for what is\nprotected of yours; consequently the logic of that is free trade. They\nbelieve in it I have no doubt. When the whole world is civilized, when\nmen are everywhere free, when they all have something like the same\ntastes and ambitions, when they love their families and their children,\nwhen they want the same kind of food and roofs above them—if that day\nshall ever come—the world can afford to have its trade free, but do not\nput the labor of America on a par with the labor of the Old World.\n\nNow, about taxes—internal revenue. That was resorted to in time of war.\nThe Democratic party made it necessary. We had to tax everything to beat\nback the Democratic hosts, North and South. Now, understand me. I know\nthat thousands and hundreds of thousands of individual Democrats were\nfor this country, and were as pure patriots as ever marched beneath the\nflag. I know that—hundreds of thousands of them. I am speaking of the\nparty organization that staid at home and passed resolutions that every\ntime the Union forces won a victory the Constitution had been violated.\nI understand that. Those taxes were put on in time of war, because it\nwas necessary. Direct taxation is always odious. A government dislikes,\nto be represented among all the people by a tax gatherer, by an official\nwho visits homes carrying consternation and grief wherever he goes.\nEverybody, from the most ancient times of which I have ever read, until\nthe present moment, dislikes a tax gatherer. I have never yet seen in\nany cemetery a monument with this inscription: \"Sacred to the memory of\nthe man who loved to pay his taxes.\" It is far better if we can collect\nthe needed revenue of this Government indirectly. But, they say, you\nmust not take the taxes off tobacco; you must not take the taxes off\nalcohol or spirits or whiskey. Why? Because it is immoral to take off\nthe taxes. Do you believe that there was, on the average, any more\ndrunkenness in this country before the tax was put on than there is now?\nI do not. I believe there is as much liquor drank to-day, per capita,\nas there ever was in the United States. I will not blame the Democratic\nparty. I do not care what they drink. What they think is what I have to\ndo with. I will be plain with them, because I know lots of fellows\nin the Democratic party, and that is the only bad thing about\nthem—splendid fellows. And I know a good many Republicans, and I am\nwilling to take my oath that that is the only good thing about them. So,\nlet us all be fair.\n\nI want the taxes taken from tobacco and whiskey; and why? Because it is\na war measure that should not be carried on in peace; and in the second\nplace, I do not want that system inaugurated in this country, unless\nthere is an absolute necessity for it, and the moment the necessity is\ngone, stop it.\n\nThe moral side of this question? Only a couple of years ago, I think\nit was, the Prohibitionists said that they wanted this tax taken from\nalcohol. Why? Because as long as the Government licensed, as long as the\nGovernment taxed and received sixty millions of dollars in revenue, just\nso long the Government would make this business respectable, just so\nlong the Government would be in partnership with this liquor crime. That\nis what they said then. Now we say take the tax off, and they say it is\nimmoral. Now, I have a little philosophy about this. I may be entirely\nwrong, but I am going to give it to you. You never can make great men\nand great women, by keeping them out of the way of temptation. You have\nto educate them to withstand temptation. It is all nonsense to tie a\nman's hands behind him and then praise him for not picking pockets. I\nbelieve that temperance walks hand in hand with liberty. Just as life\nbecomes valuable, people take care of it. Just as life is great, and\nsplendid and noble, as long as the future is a kind of gallery filled\nwith the ideal, just so long will we take care of ourselves and avoid\ndissipation of every kind. Do you know, I believe, as much as I believe\nthat I am living, that if the Mississippi itself were pure whiskey and\nits banks loaf sugar, and all the flats covered with mint, and all\nthe bushes grew teaspoons and tumblers, there would not be any more\ndrunkenness than there is now!\n\nAs long as you say to your neighbor \"you must not\" there is something in\nthat neighbor that says, \"Well I will determine that for myself, and you\njust say that again and I will take a drink if it kills me.\" There is no\nmoral question involved in it, except this: Let the burden of government\nrest as lightly as possible upon the shoulders of the people, and let it\ncause as little irritation as possible. Give liberty to the people. I\nam willing that the women who wear silks, satins and diamonds; that the\ngentlemen who smoke Havana cigars and drink champagne and Chateau Yquem;\nI am perfectly willing that they shall pay my taxes and support this\nGovernment, and I am willing that the man who does not do that, but is\nwilling to take the domestic article, should go tax free.\n\nTemperance walks hand in hand with liberty. You recollect that little\nold story about a couple of men who were having a discussion on\nthis prohibition question, and the man on the other side said to the\nProhibitionist: \"How would you like to live in a community where\nevery body attended to his own business, where every body went to bed\nregularly at night, got up regularly in the morning; where every man,\nwoman and child was usefully employed during the day; no backbiting,\nno drinking of whiskey, no cigars, and where they all attended divine\nservices on Sunday, and where no profane language was used?\" \"Why,\" said\nhe, \"such a place would be a paradise, or heaven; but there is no such\nplace.\" \"Oh,\" said the other man, \"every well regulated penitentiary is\nthat way.\" So much for the moral side of the question.\n\nAnother point that the Republican party calls the attention of the\ncountry to is the use that has been made of the public land. Oh, say the\nDemocratic party, see what States, what empires have been given away\nby the Republican party—and see what the Republican party did with it.\nRoad after road built to the great Pacific. Our country unified—the two\noceans, for all practical purposes, washing one shore. That is what\nit did, and what else? It has given homes to millions of people in a\ncivilized land, where they can get all the conveniences of civilization.\nAnd what else? Fifty million acres have been taken back by the\nGovernment. How was this done? It was by virtue of the provisions put in\nthe original grants by the Republican party.\n\nThere is another thing to which the Republican party has called the\nattention of the country, and that is the admission of new States where\nthere are people enough to form a State. Now, with a solid South, with\nthe assistance of a few Democrats from the North, comes a State, North\nDakota, with plenty of population, a magnificent State, filled with\nintelligence and prosperity. It knocks at the door for admission, and\nwhat is the question asked by this administration? Not \"Have you the\nland, have you the wealth, have you the men and women?\" but \"Are you\nDemocratic or Republican?\" And being intelligent people, they answer:\n\"We are Republicans.\" And the solid South, assisted by the Democrats\nof the North, says to that people: \"The door is shut; we will not have\nyou.\" Why? \"Because you would add two to the Republican majority in\nthe Senate.\" Is that the spirit in which a nation like this should be\ngoverned? When a State asks for admission, no matter what the politics\nof its people may be, I say, admit that State; put a star on the flag\nthat will glitter for her.\n\nThe next thing the Republican party says is, gold and silver shall both\nbe money. You cannot make every thing payable in gold—that would\nbe unfair to the poor man. You shall not make every thing payable in\nsilver—that would be unfair to the capitalist; but it shall be payable\nin gold and silver. And why ought we to be in favor of silver? Because\nwe are the greatest silver producing nation in the world; and the value\nof a thing, other things being equal, depends on its uses, and being\nused as money adds to the value of silver. And why should we depreciate\none of our own products by saying that we will not take it as money? I\nbelieve in bimetalism, gold and silver, and you cannot have too much\nof either or both. No nation ever died of a surplus, and in all the\nnational cemeteries of the earth you will find no monument erected to a\nnation that died from having too much silver. Give me all the silver I\nwant and I am happy.\n\nThe Republican party has always been sound on finance. It always knew\nyou could not pay a promise with a promise. The Republican party always\nhad sense enough to know that money could not be created by word\nof mouth, that you could not make it by a statute, or by passing\nresolutions in a convention. It always knew that you had to dig it out\nof the ground by good, honest work. The Republican party always knew\nthat money is a commodity, exchangeable for all other commodities, but a\ncommodity just as much as wheat or corn, and you can no more make money\nby law than you can make wheat or corn by law. You can by law, make a\npromise that will to a certain extent take the place of money until the\npromise is paid. It seems to me that any man who can even understand the\nmeaning of the word democratic can understand that theory of money.\n\nAnother thing right in this platform. Free schools for the education of\nall the children in the land. The Republican party believes in looking\nout for the children. It knows that the a, b, c's are the breastworks of\nhuman liberty. They know that every schoolhouse is an arsenal, a fort,\nwhere missiles are made to hurl against the ignorance and prejudice of\nmankind; so they are for the free school.\n\nAnd what else? They are for reducing the postage one-half. Why? Simply\nfor the diffusion of intelligence. What effect will that have? It will\nmake us more and more one people. The oftener we communicate with each\nother the more homogeneous we become. The more we study the same books\nand read the same papers the more we swap ideas, the more we become true\nAmericans, with the same spirit in favor of liberty, progress and the\nhappiness of the human race.\n\nWhat next? The Republican party says, let us build ships for\nAmerica—for American sailors. Let our fleets cover the seas, and let\nour men-of-war protect the commerce of the Republic—not that we can\nwrong some weak nation, but so that we can keep the world from doing\nwrong to us. This is all. I have infinite contempt for civilized people\nwho have guns carrying balls weighing several hundred pounds, who go and\nfight poor, naked savages that can only throw boomerangs and stones.\n\nI hold such a nation in infinite contempt.\n\nWhat else is in this platform? You have no idea of the number of things\nin it till you look them over. It wants to cultivate friendly feelings\nwith all the governments in North, Central and South America, so that\nthe great continents can be one—instigated, moved, pervaded, inspired\nby the same great thoughts. In other words, we want to civilize this\ncontinent and the continent of South America. And what else? This great\nplatform is in favor of paying—not giving, but paying—pensions to\nevery man who suffered in the great war. What would we have said at the\ntime? What, if the North could have spoken, would it have said to the\nheroes of Gettysburg on the third day? \"Stand firm! We will empty the\ntreasures of the Nation at your feet.\" They had the courage and the\nheroism to keep the hosts of rebellion back without that promise, and is\nthere an American to-day that can find it in his heart to begrudge\none solitary dollar that has found its way into the pocket of a maimed\nsoldier, or into the hands of his widow or his orphan?\n\nWhat would we have offered to the sailors under Farragut on condition\nthat they would pass Forts St. Phillip and Jackson? What would we have\noffered to the soldiers under Grant in the Wilderness? What to the\nfollowers of Sherman and Sheridan? Do you know, I can hardly conceive of\na spirit contemptible enough—and I am not now alluding to the President\nof the United States—I can hardly conceive of a spirit contemptible\nenough to really desire to keep a maimed soldier from the bounty of this\nNation. It would be a disgrace and a dishonor if we allowed them to\ndie in poorhouses, to drop by life's highway and to see their children\nmourning over their poor bodies, glorious with scars, maimed into\nimmortality. I may do a great many bad things before I die, but I give\nyou my word that so long as I live I will never vote for any President\nthat vetoed a pension bill unless upon its face it was clear that the\nman was not a wounded soldier.\n\nWhat next in this platform? For the protection of American homes. I am\na believer in the home. I have said, and I say again—the hearthstone is\nthe foundation of the great temple; the fireside is the altar where the\ntrue American worships. I believe that the home, the family, is the unit\nof good government, and I want to see the aegis of the great Republic\nover millions of happy homes.\n\nThat is all there is in this world worth living for. Honor, place, fame,\nglory, riches—they are ashes, smoke, dust, disappointment, unless there\nis somebody in the world you love, somebody who loves you; unless there\nis some place that you can call home, some place where you can feel the\narms of children around your neck, some place that is made absolutely\nsacred by the love of others.\n\nSo I am for this platform. I am for the election of Harrison and Morton,\nand although I did nothing toward having that ticket nominated, because,\nI tell you, I was for Gresham, yet I will do as much toward electing the\ncandidates, within my power, as any man who did vote on the winning\nside.\n\nWe have a good ticket, a noble, gallant soldier at the head; that is\nenough for me. He is in favor of liberty and progress. And you have\nfor Vice-President a man that you all know better than I do, but a good,\nsquare, intelligent, generous man. That is enough for me. And these\nmen are standing on the best platform that was ever adopted by the\nRepublican party—a platform that stands for education, liberty, the\nfree ballot, American industry; for the American policy that has made us\nthe richest and greatest Nation of the globe.\n"
}