{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-9:speech-at-indianapolis-1868",
  "slug": "speech-at-indianapolis-1868",
  "title": "Speech at Indianapolis (1868)",
  "subtitle": "Attorney-General of Illinois, Rink, Indianapolis.",
  "excerpt": "Ingersoll as Attorney-General of Illinois — a full defense, before a Republican crowd in Indianapolis, of the Lincoln administration's wartime suspension of habeas corpus and of Grant as the party's candidate.",
  "year": 1868,
  "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/speech-at-indianapolis-1868/",
  "wordCount": 7517,
  "body": "• Hon. Robert G. Ingersoll, Attorney-General of Illinois,\n    spoke at the Rink last night to a large and appreciative\n    audience among whom were many ladies. The distinguished\n    speaker was escorted to the Rink by the battalion of the\n    Fighting Boys in Blue. Col. Ingersoll spoke at a great\n    disadvantage in having so large a hall to fill, but he has a\n    splendid voice and so overcame the difficulty. The audience\n    liberally applauded the numerous passages of eloquence and\n    humor in Col. Ingersoll's speeeh, and listened with the best\n    attention to his powerful argument, nor could they have done\n    otherwise, for the speaker has a national reputation and did\n    himself full justice last night—The Journal, Indianapolis,\n    Indiana, September 23, 1868.\n\nGrant Campaign\n\nTHE Democratic party, so-called, have several charges which they make\nagainst the Republican party. They give us a variety of reasons why the\nRepublican party should no longer be entrusted with the control of this\ncountry. Among other reasons they say that the Republican party\nduring the war was guilty of arresting citizens without due process of\nlaw—that we arrested Democrats and put them in jail without indictment,\nin Lincoln bastiles, without making an affidavit before a Justice\nof the Peace—that on some occasions we suspended the writ of _habeas\ncorpus_, that we put some Democrats in jail without their being\nindicted. I am sorry we did not put more. I admit we arrested some\nof them without an affidavit filed before a Justice of the Peace. I\nsincerely regret that we did not arrest more. I admit that for a few\nhours on one or two occasions we interfered with the freedom of the\npress; I sincerely regret that the Government allowed a sheet to exist\nthat did not talk on the side of this Government.\n\nI admit that we did all these things.\n\nIt is only proper and fair that we should answer these charges.\nUnless the Republican party can show that they did these things\neither according to the strict letter of law, according to the highest\nprecedent, or from the necessity of the case, then we must admit that\nour party did wrong. You know as well as I that every Democratic\norator talks about the fathers, about Washington and Jackson, Madison,\nJefferson, and many others; they tell us about the good old times when\npoliticians were pure, when you could get justice in the courts, when\nCongress was honest, when the political parties differed, and differed\nkindly and honestly; and they are shedding crocodile tears day after\nday—praying that the good old honest times might return again. They\ntell you that the members of this radical party are nothing like the men\nof the Revolution. Let us see.\n\nI lay this down as a proposition, that we had a right to do anything to\npreserve this Government that our fathers had a right to do to found\nit. If they had a right to put Tories in jail, to suspend the writ of\nhabeas corpus, and on some occasions corpus, in order to found this\nGovernment, we had a right to put rebels and Democrats in jail and to\nsuspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to preserve the Government\nthey thus formed. If they had a right to interfere with the freedom of\nthe press in order that liberty might be planted upon this soil, we had\na right to do the same thing to prevent the tree from being destroyed.\nIn a word, we had a right to do anything to preserve this Government\nwhich they had a right to do to found it.\n\nDid our fathers arrest Tories without writs, without indictments—did\nthey interfere with the personal rights of Tories in the name of\nliberty—did they have Washington bastiles, did they have Jefferson\njails—did they have dungeons in the time of the Revolution in which\nthey put men that dared talk against this country and the liberties of\nthe colonies? I propose to show that they did—that where we imprisoned\none they imprisoned a hundred—that where we interfered with personal\nliberty once they did it a hundred times—that they carried on a war\nthat was a war—that they knew that when an appeal was made to\nforce that was the end of law—that they did not attempt to gain their\nliberties through a Justice of the Peace or through a Grand Jury; that\nthey appealed to force and the God of battles, and that any man who\nsought their protection and at the same time was against them and their\ncause they took by the nape of the neck and put in jail, where he ought\nto have been.\n\nThe old Continental Congress in 1774 and 1776 had made up their minds\nthat we ought to have something like liberty in these colonies, and the\nfirst step they took toward securing that end was to provide for the\nselection of a committee in every county and township, with a view to\nexamining and finding out how the people stood touching the liberty of\nthe colonies, and if they found a man that was not in favor of it, the\npeople would not have anything to do with him politically, religiously,\nor socially. That was the first step they took, and a very sensible step\nit was.\n\nWhat was the next step? They found that these men were so lost to every\nprinciple of honor that they did not hurt them any by disgracing them.\n\nSo they passed the following resolution which explains itself:\n\nResolved. That it be recommended to the several provincial assemblies\nor conventions or councils, or committees of safety, to arrest and\nsecure every person in their respective colonies whose going at\nlarge, may, in their opinion, endanger the safety of the colony or the\nliberties of America.—Journal of Congress, vol. 1, page 149.\n\nWhat was the Committee of Safety? Was it a Justice of the Peace? No. Was\nit a Grand Jury? No. It was simply a committee of five or seven persons,\nmore or less, appointed to watch over the town or county and see that\nthese Tories were attending to their business and not interfering with\nthe rights of the colonies. Whom were they to thus arrest and secure?\nEvery man that had committed murder—that had taken up arms against\nAmerica, or voted the Democratic or Tory ticket? No. \"Every person whose\ngoing at large might in their opinion, endanger the safety of the\ncolony or the liberties of America.\" It was not necessary that they\nhad committed any overt act, but if in the opinion of this council of\nsafety, it was dangerous to let them run at large they were locked up.\nSuppose that we had done that during the last war? You would have had to\nbuild several new jails in this county. What a howl would have gone up\nall over this State if we had attempted such a thing as that, and yet we\nhad a perfect right to do anything to preserve our liberties, which our\nfathers had a right to do to obtain them.\n\nWhat more did they do? In 1777 the same Congress that signed the\nimmortal Declaration of Independence (and I think they knew as much\nabout liberty and the rights of men as any Democrat in Marion county)\nadopted another resolution:\n\nResolved. That it be recommended to the Executive powers of the\nseveral States, forthwith to apprehend and secure all persons who have\nin their general conduct and conversation evinced a disposition inimical\nto the cause of America, and that the persons so seized be confined in\nsuch places and treated in such manner as shall be consistent with their\nseveral characters and security of their persons.—-Journal of Congress,\nvol. 2, p. 246.\n\nIf they had talked as the Democrats talked during the late war—if\nthey had called the soldiers, \"Washington hirelings,\" and if when they\nallowed a few negroes to help them fight, had branded the struggle for\nliberty as an abolition war, they would be \"apprehended and confined\nin such places and treated in such manner as was consistent with their\ncharacters and security of their persons,\" and yet all they did was to\nshow a disposition inimical to the independence of America. If we had\npursued a policy like that during the late war, nine out of ten of the\nmembers of the Democratic party would have been in jail—there would\nnot have been jails and prisons enough on the face of the whole earth to\nhold them. .\n\nNow, when a Democrat talks to you about Lincoln bastiles, just quote\nthis to him:\n\nWhereas, The States of Pennsylvania and Delaware are threatened with\nan immediate invasion from a powerful army, who have already landed at\nthe head of Chesapeake Bay; and whereas, The principles of sound\npolicy and self-preservation require that persons who may be reasonably\nsuspected of aiding or abetting the cause of the enemy may be prevented\nfrom pursuing measures injurious to the general weal,\n\nResolved, That the executive authorities of the States of Pennsylvania\nand Delaware be requested to cause all persons within their respective\nStates, notoriously disaffected, to be apprehended, disarmed and secured\nuntil such time as the respective States think they may be released\nwithout injury to the common cause.—-Journal of Congress, vol. 2, p.\n240.\n\nThat is what they did with them. When there was an invasion threatened\nthe good State of Indiana, if we had said we will imprison all men who\nby their conduct and conversation show that they are inimical to our\ncause, we would have been obliged to import jails and corral Democrats\nas we did mules in the army. Our fathers knew that the flag was never\nintended to protect any man who wanted to assail it.\n\nWhat more did they do? There was a man by the name of David Franks, who\nwrote a letter and wanted to send it to England. In that letter he gave\nit as his opinion that the colonies were becoming disheartened and sick\nof the war. The heroic and chivalric fathers of the Revolution violated\nthe mails, took the aforesaid letter and then they took the aforesaid\nDavid Franks by the collar and put him in jail. Then they passed\na resolution in Congress that inasmuch as the said letter showed a\ndisposition inimical to the liberties of the United States, Major\nGeneral Arnold be requested to cause the said David Franks to be\nforthwith arrested, put in jail and confined till the further order of\nCongress. (Jour. Cong., vol. 3, p. 96 and 97.)\n\nHow many Democrats wrote letters during the war declaring that the North\nnever could conquer the South? How many wrote letters to the soldiers in\nthe army telling them to shed no more fraternal blood in that suicidal\nand unchristian war? It would have taken all the provost marshals in the\nUnited States to arrest the Democrats in Indiana who were guilty of that\noffence. And yet they are talking about our fathers being such good men,\nwhile they are cursing us fordoing precisely what they did, only to a\nless extent than they did.\n\nWe are still on the track of the old Continental Congress. I want you to\nunderstand the spirit that animated those men. They passed a resolution\nwhich is particularly applicable to the Democrats during the war:\n\nWith respect to all such unworthy Americans as, regardless of their duty\nto their Creator, their country, and their posterity, have taken part\nwith our oppressors, and, influenced by the hope or possession of\nignominious rewards, strive to recommend themselves to the bounty of\nthe administration by misrepresenting and traducing the conduct and\nprinciples of the friends of American liberty, and opposing every\nmeasure formed for its preservation and security,\n\nResolved, That it be recommended to the different assemblies,\nconventions and committees or councils of safety in the United Colonies,\nby the most speedy and effectual measures, to frustrate the mischievous\nmachinations and restrain the wicked practices of these men. And it is\nthe opinion of this Congress that they ought to be disarmed and the\nmore dangerous among them either kept in safe custody or bound with\nsufficient sureties for their good behavior.\n\nAnd in order that the said assemblies, conventions, committees or\ncouncils of safety may be enabled with greater ease and facility to\ncarry this resolution into execution,\n\nResolved, That they be authorized to call to their aid whatever\nContinental troops stationed in or near their respective colonies\nthat may be conveniently spared from their more immediate duties, and\ncommanding officers of such troops are hereby directed to afford the\nsaid assemblies, conventions, committees or councils of safety, all such\nassistance in executing this resolution as they may require, and which,\nconsistent with the good of the service, may be supplied—Journal of\nCongress, vol. i, p. 22,\n\nDo you hear that, Democrat? The old Continental Congress said to these\ncommittees and councils of safety: \"Whenever you want to arrest any\nof these scoundrels, call on the Continental troops.\" And General\nWashington, the commander-in-chief of the army, and the officers under\nhim, were directed to aid in the enforcement of all the measures adopted\nwith reference to disaffected and dangerous persons. And what had these\npersons done? Simply shown by their conversation, and letters directed\nto their friends, that they were opposed to the cause of American\nliberty. They did not even spare the Governors of States. They were not\nappalled by any official position that a Tory might hold. They simply\nsaid, \"If you are not in favor of American liberty, we will put you\n'where the dogs won't bite you.'\" One of these men was Governor Eden of\nMaryland. Congress passed a resolution requesting the Council of Safety\nof Maryland to seize and secure his person and papers, and send such of\nthem as related to the American dispute to Congress without delay. At\nthe same time the person and papers of another man, one Alexander Ross,\nwere seized in the same manner. Ross was put in jail, and his papers\ntransmitted to Congress.\n\nThere was a fellow by the name of Parke and another by the name of\nMorton, who presumed to undertake a journey from Philadelphia to New\nYork without getting a pass. Congress ordered them to be arrested and\nimprisoned until further orders. They did not wait to have an affidavit\nfiled before a Justice of the Peace. They took them by force and put\nthem in jail, and that was the end of it. So much for the policy of the\nfathers, in regard to arbitrary arrests.\n\nDuring the war there was a great deal said about our occasionally\ninterfering with the elections. Let us see how the fathers stood upon\nthat question.\n\nThey held a convention in the State of New York in Revolutionary times,\nand there were some gentlemen in Queens County that were playing the\nrole of Kentucky—they were going to be neutral—they refused to vote to\nsend deputies to the convention—they stood upon their dignity just as\nKentucky stood upon hers—a small place to stand on, the Lord knows.\nWhat did our fathers do with them? They denounced them as unworthy to be\nAmerican citizens and hardly fit to live. Here is a resolution adopted\nby the Continental Congress on the 3d of January, 1776:\n\nResolved, That all such persons in Queens County aforesaid as voted\nagainst sending deputies to the present Convention of New York, and\nnamed in a list of delinquents in Queens County, published by the\nConvention of New York, be put out of the protection of the United\nColonies, and that all trade and intercourse with them cease; that none\nof the inhabitants of that county be permitted to travel or abide in any\npart of these United Colonies out of their said colony without a\ncertificate from the Convention or Committee of Safety of the Colony of\nNew York, setting forth that such inhabitant is a friend of the American\ncause, and not of the number of those who voted against sending deputies\nto the said Convention, and that such of the inhabitants as shall be\nfound out of the said county without such certificate, be apprehended\nand imprisoned three months.\n\nResolved, That no attorney or lawyer ought to commence, prosecute or\ndefend any action at law of any kind, for any of the said inhabitants of\nQueens County, who voted against sending deputies to the Convention\nas aforesaid, and such attorney or lawyer as shall countenance this\nrevolution, are enemies to the American cause, and shall be treated\naccordingly.\n\nWhat had they done? Simply voted against sending delegates to the\nconvention, and yet the fathers not only put them out of the protection\nof law, but prohibited any lawyer from appearing in their behalf in a\ncourt. Democrats, don't you wish we had treated you that way during the\nwar?\n\nWhat more did they do? They ordered a company of troops from\nConnecticut, and two or three companies from New Jersey, to go into the\nState of New York, and take away from every person who had voted against\nsending deputies to the convention, all his arms, and if anybody refused\nto give up his arms, they put him in jail. Don't you wish you had lived\nthen, my friend Democrat? Don't you wish you had prosecuted the war as\nour fathers prosecuted the Revolution?\n\nI now want to show you how far they went in this direction. A man by the\nname of Sutton, who lived on Long Island, had been going around giving\nhis constitutional opinions upon the war. They had him arrested, and\nwent on to resolve that he should be taken from Philadelphia, pay the\ncost of transportation himself, be put in jail there, and while in jail\nshould board himself. Wouldn't a Democrat have had a hard scramble for\nvictuals if we had carried out that idea? Just see what outrageous and\nterrible things the fathers did. And why did they do it? Because they\nsaw that in order to establish the liberties of America it was necessary\nthey should take the Tory by the throat just as it was necessary for us\nto take rebels by the throat during the late war.\n\nThey had paper money in those days—shin-plasters—and some of the\nDemocrats of those times had legal doubts about this paper currency. One\nof these Democrats, Thomas Harriott, was called before a Committee of\nSafety of New York, and there convicted of having refused to receive in\npayment the Continental bills. The committee of New York conceiving that\nhe was a dangerous person, informed the Provincial Congress of the facts\nin the case, and inquired whether Congress thought he ought to go at\nlarge. Upon receipt of this information by Congress an order for the\nimprisonment of the offender was passed, as follows:\n\nResolved, That the General Committee of the city of New York be\nrequested and authorized, and are hereby requested and authorized to\ndirect that Thomas Harriott be committed to close jail in this city,\nthere to remain until further orders of this Congress.—Amer. Archives,\n4th series, vol. 6, P. i, 344.\n\nAnd yet all that he had done was to refuse to take Continental money.\nHe had simply given his opinion on the legal tender law, just as the\nDemocrats of Indiana did in regard to greenbacks, and as a few circuit\njudges decided when they declared the Legal Tender Act unconstitutional.\nIt would have been perfectly proper and right that they, every man of\nthem, should be, like Thomas Harriott, \"committed to close jail, there\nto remain until further orders.\"\n\nDid our forefathers ever interfere with religion? Yes, they did with\na preacher by the name of Daniels, because he would not pray for the\nAmerican cause. He thought he could coax the Lord to beat us. They said\nto him, \"You pray on our side, sir.\" He would not do it, and so they put\nhim in jail and gave him work enough to pray himself out, and it took\nhim some time to do it. They interfered with a lack of religion. They\nbelieved that a Tory or traitor in the pulpit was no better than anybody\nelse. That is the way I have sometimes felt during the war. I have\nthought that I would like to see some of those white cravatted gentlemen\n\"snaked\" right out of the pulpits where they had dared to utter their\ntreason, and set to playing checkers through a grated window.\n\nIt is not possible that our fathers ever interfered with the writ of\nhabeas corpus, is it? Yes sir. Our fathers advocated the doctrine\nthat the good of the people is the supreme law of the land. They also\nadvocated the doctrine that in the midst of armies law falls to the\nground; the doctrine that when a country is in war it is to be governed\nby the laws of war. They thought that laws were made for the protection\nof good citizens, for the punishment of citizens that were bad, when\nthey were not too bad or too numerous; then they threw the law-book down\nwhile they took the cannon and whipped the badness out of them; that is\nthe next step, when the stones you throw, and kind words, and grass have\nfailed. They said, why did we not appeal to law? We did; but it did no\ngood. A large portion of the people were up in arms in defiance of law,\nand there was only one way to put them down, and that was by force of\narms; and whenever an appeal is made to force, that force is governed by\nthe law of war.\n\nThe fathers suspended the writ in the case of a man who had committed\nan offence in the State of New York. They sent him to the State of\nConnecticut to be confined, just as men were sent from Indiana to Fort\nLafayette. The attorneys came before the convention of New York to hear\nthe matter inquired into, but the committee of the convention to whom\nthe matter was referred refused to inquire into the original cause of\ncommitment—a direct denial of the authority of the writ. The writ of\nhabeas corpus merely brings the body before the judge that he may\ninquire why he is imprisoned. They refused to make any such inquiry.\nTheir action was endorsed by the convention and the gentleman was sent\nto Connecticut and put in jail. They not only did these things in one\ninstance, but in a thousand. They took men from Maryland and put them in\nprison in Pennsylvania, and they took men from Pennsylvania and confined\nthem in Maryland, Whenever they thought the Tories were so thick at\none point that the rascals might possibly be released, they took them\nsomewhere else.\n\nThey did not interfere with the freedom of the press, did they? Yes,\nsir. They found a gentleman who was speaking and writing against the\nliberties of the colonies, and they just took his paper away from him,\nand gave it to a man who ran it in the interest of the colonies, using\nthe Tory's type and press. [A voice—That was right.] Right! of course\nit was right. What right has a newspaper in Indiana to talk against the\ncause for which your son is laying down his life on the field of battle?\nWhat right has any man to make it take thousands of men more to crush a\nrebellion? What right has any man protected by the American flag to do\nall in his power to put it in the hands of the enemies of his country?\nThe same right that any man has to be a rascal, a thief and traitor—no\nother right under heaven. Our fathers had sense enough to see that, and\nthey said, \"One gentleman in the rear printing against our noble cause,\nwill cost us hundreds of noble lives at the front.\" Why have you a right\nto take a rebel's horse? Because it helps you and weakens the enemy.\nThat is by the law of war. That is the principle upon which they seized\nthe Tory printing press. They had the right to do it. And if I had had\nthe power in this country, no man should have said a word, or written a\nline, or printed anything against the cause for which the heroic men of\nthe North sacrificed their lives. I would have enriched the soil of this\ncountry with him before he should have done it. A man by the name of\nJames Rivington undertook to publish a paper against the country. They\nwould not speak to him; they denounced him, seized his press, and made\nhim ask forgiveness and promise to print no more such stuff before they\nwould let him have his sheet again. No person but a rebel ever thought\nthat was wrong. There is no common sense in going to the field to fight\nand leaving a man at home to undo all that you accomplish.\n\nOur fathers did not like these Tories, and when the war was over they\nconfiscated their estates—took their land and gave it over to good\nUnion men.\n\nHow did they do it? Did they issue summons, and have a trial? No, sir.\nThey did it by wholesale—they did it by resolution, and the estates of\nhundreds of men were taken from them without their having a day in court\nor any notice or trial whatever. They said to the Tories: \"You cast\nyour fortunes with the other side, let them pay you. The flag you fought\nagainst protects the land you owned and it will prevent you from having\nit.\" Nor is that all. They ran thousands of them out of the country away\nup into Nova Scotia, and the old blue-nosed Tories are there yet.\n\nIn his letter to Governor Cooke of Rhode Island, Washington enumerates\nan act of that colony, declaring that \"none should speak, write, or act\nagainst the proceedings of Congress or their Acts of Assembly, under\npenalty of being disarmed and disqualified from holding any office,\nand being further punished by imprisonment,\" as one that met his\napprobation, and which should exist in other colonies. There is the\ndoctrine for you Democrats. So I could go on by the hour or by the\nday. I could show you how they made domiciliary visits, interfered\nwith travel, imprisoned without any sort of writ or affidavit—in other\nwords, did whatever they thought was necessary to whip the enemy and\nestablish their independence.\n\nWhat next do they charge against us? That we freed negroes. So we did.\nThat we allowed those negroes to fight in the army. Yes, we did,\nThat we allowed them to vote. We did that too. That we have made them\ncitizens. Yes, we have, and what are you Democrats going to do about it?\n\nNow, what did our fathers do? Did they free any of the negroes? Yes,\nsir. Did they allow any of them to fight in the army? Yes, sir. Did they\npermit any of them to vote? Yes, sir. Did they make them citizens? Yes,\nsir. Let us see whether they did or not.\n\nBefore we had the present Constitution we had what were called Articles\nof Confederation. The fourth of those articles provided that every\nfree inhabitant of the colony should be a citizen. It did not make any\ndifference whether he was white or black; and negroes voted by the side\nof Washington and Jefferson. Just here the question arises, if negroes\nwere good enough in 1787 and 1790 to vote by the side of such men,\nwhether rebels and their sympathizers are good enough now to vote\nalongside of the negro.\n\nDid they let any of these negroes fight? In 1750, when Massachusetts had\nslaves, there appeared in the Boston Gazette the following notice:\n\n\"Ran away from his master, Wm. Brown, of Framingham, on the 30th\nSeptember last, a mulatto fellow, about 27 years of age, named Crispus,\nabout 6 feet high, short curly hair, had on a light colored bear-skin\ncoat, brown jacket, new buckskin breeches, blue yarn stockings and check\nwoolen shirt,\" etc.\n\nThis \"mulatto fellow\" did not come back, and so they advertised the next\nweek and the week following, but still the toes of the blue yarn socks\npointed the other way. That was in 1750. 1760 came and 1770, and the\npeople of this continent began to talk about having their liberties. And\nwhile wise and thoughtful men were talking about it, making petitions\nfor popular rights and laying them at the foot of the throne, the King's\ntroops were in Boston. One day they marched down King street, on their\nway to arrest some citizen. The soldiery were attacked by a mob, and at\nits head was a \"mulatto fellow\" who shouted \"here they are,\" and it was\nobserved that this \"mulatto fellow\" was about six feet high—that his\nknees were nearer together than common, and that he was about 47 years\nof age. The soldiers fired upon the mob and he fell, shot through\nwith five balls—the first man that led a charge against British\naggression—the first martyr whose blood was shed for American liberty\nupon this soil. They took up that poor corpse, and as it lay in Faneuil\nHall it did more honor to the place than did Daniel Webster defending\nthe Fugitive Slave Law.\n\nThey allowed him to fight. Would our fathers have been brutal enough,\nif he had not been killed, to put him back into slavery? No! They would\nhave said that a man who fights for liberty should enjoy it. If a man\nfights for that flag it shall protect him. Perish forever from the\nheavens the flag that will not defend its defenders, be they white or\nblack.\n\nThus our fathers felt. They raised negro troops by the company and the\nregiment, and gave his liberty to every man that fought for liberty. Not\nonly that, but they allowed them to vote. They voted in the Carolinas,\nin Tennessee, in New York, in all the New England States. Our fathers\nhad too much decency to act upon the Democratic doctrine.\n\nIn the war of 1812, negroes fought at Lake Erie and at New Orleans, and\nthen the fathers, as in the Revolution, were too magnanimous to turn\nthem back into slavery. You need not get mad, my Democratic friends,\nbecause you hate Ben. Butler. Let me read you an abolition document.\n\nYou will all say it is right; you cannot say anything else when you hear\nit. Butler, you know, was down in New Orleans, and he made some of those\nrebels dance a tune that they did not know, and he made them keep pretty\ngood time too:\n\nTo the Free Colored Inhabitants of Louisiana:\n\nThrough a mistaken policy you have heretofore been deprived of a\nparticipation in the glorious struggle for national rights in which our\ncountry is engaged. This shall no longer exist. As sons of freedom\nyou are now called upon to defend our most inestimable blessing. As\nAmericans, your country looks with confidence to her adopted children\nfor a valorous support as a faithful return for the advantages enjoyed\nunder her mild and equitable government. As fathers, husbands and\nbrothers you are summoned to rally around the standard of the eagle—to\ndefend all which is dear in existence. Your country, although calling\nfor your exertions, does not wish you to engage in her cause without\namply remunerating you for the services rendered. Your intelligent minds\ncan not be led away by false representations. Your love of honor would\ncause you to despise a man who should attempt to deceive you. In the\nsincerity of a soldier and the language of truth I address you. To every\nnoble-hearted, generous free man of color volunteering to serve during\nthe present contest and no longer, there will be paid the same bounty in\nmoney and lands now received by the white soldiers of the United\nStates, viz: $124 in money and one hundred and sixty acres of land. The\nnoncommissioned officers and privates will also be entitled to the\nsame monthly pay and daily rations and clothing furnished any American\nsoldier.\n\nOn enrolling yourselves in companies, the Major General commanding will\nselect officers for your government from your white fellow-citizens.\nYour non-commissioned officers will be appointed from among yourselves.\nDue regard will be paid to their feelings as freemen and soldiers.\nYou will not by being associated with white men in the same corps,\nbe exposed to improper companions or unjust sarcasm. As a distinct\nbattalion or regiment pursuing the path of glory, you will undivided\nreceive the applause and gratitude of your countrymen.\n\nTo assure you of the sincerity of my intentions and my anxiety to engage\nyour valuable services to our country, I have communicated my wishes\nto the Governor of Louisiana, who is fully informed as to the manner of\nenrollment, and give you every necessary information on the subject of\nthis address.\n\nThis is a terrible document to a Democrat. Let us look back over it a\nlittle. \"Through a mistaken policy.\" We had not sense enough to let the\nnegroes fight during the first part of the war. \"As sons of freedom\" we\nhad got sense by this time. \"Americans.\" Oh! shocking! Think of calling\nnegroes Americans. \"Your country!\" Is that not enough to make a Democrat\nsick? \"As fathers, husbands, brothers.\" Negro brothers. That is too\nbad. \"Your intelligent minds.\" Now, just think of a negro having an\nintelligent mind. \"Are not to be led away by false representations.\"\nThen precious few of them will vote the Democratic ticket. \"Your sense\nof honor will lead you to despise the man who should attempt to deceive\nyou.\" Then how they will hate the Democratic party. Then he goes on to\nsay that the same bounty, money and land that the white soldiers receive\nwill be paid to these negroes. Not only that, but they are to have the\nsame pay, clothing and rations. Only think of a negro having as much\nland, as much to eat and as many clothes to wear as a white man. Is\nnot this a vile abolition document? And yet there is not a Democrat in\nIndiana that dare open his mouth against it, full of negro equality as\nit is. Now, let us see when and by whom this proclamation was issued.\nYou will find that it is dated, \"Headquarters 7th Military District,\nMobile, September 21st, 1814,\" and signed \"Andrew Jackson, Major General\nCommanding.\"\n\nOh, you Jackson Democrats. You gentlemen that are descended from\nWashington and Jackson—great heavens, what a descent! Do you think.\nJackson was a Democrat? He generally passed for a good Democrat; yet\nhe issued that abominable abolition proclamation and put negroes on an\nequality with white men. That is not the worst of it, either; for after\nhe got these negroes into the army he made a speech to them, and what\ndid he say in that speech? Here it is in full:\n\nTo the Men of Color:\n\nSoldiers—From the shores of Mobile I called you to arms. I invited\nyou to share in the perils and to divide the glory with your white\ncountrymen. I expected much from you, for I was not uninformed of those\nqualities which must render you so formidable to an invading foe. I knew\nthat you could endure hunger, thirst, and all the hardships of war. I\nknew that you loved the land of your nativity, and that like ourselves\nyou had to defend all that is most dear to man. But you surpass\nmy hopes. I have found in you united to these qualities that noble\nenthusiasm which impels to great deeds. Soldiers, the President of the\nUnited States shall be informed of your conduct on the present occasion\nand the voice of the representatives of the American nation shall\napplaud your valor as your General now praises your ardor. The enemy\nis near. His sails cover the lakes. But the brave are united, and if he\nfinds' us contending among ourselves, it will be only for the prize of\nvalor, its noblest reward.\n\nThere is negro equality for you. There is the first man since the heroes\nof the Revolution died that issued a proclamation and put negroes on an\nequality with white men, and he was as good a Democrat as ever lived in\nIndiana. I could go on and show where they voted, and who allowed them\nto vote, but I have said enough on that question, and also upon the\nquestion of their fighting in the army, and of their being citizens, and\nhave established, I think conclusively, this:\n\nFirst. That our fathers, in order to found this Government, arrested\nmen without warrant, indictment or affidavit by the hundred and by the\nthousand; that we, in order to preserve the Government that they thus\nfounded, arrested a few people without warrant.\n\nSecond. That our fathers, for the purpose of founding the Government,\nsuspended the writ of habeas corpus; that we, for the purpose of\npreserving the same Government, did the same thing.\n\nThird. That they, for the purpose of inaugurating this Government,\ninterfered with the liberty of the press; that we, on one or two\noccasions, for the purpose of preserving the Government, interfered with\nthe liberty of the press.\n\nFourth. That our fathers allowed negroes to fight in order that they\nmight secure the liberties of America; that we, in order to preserve\nthose liberties, allow negroes to fight.\n\nFifth. That our fathers, out of gratitude to the negroes in the\nRevolutionary war, allowed them to vote; that we have done the same.\nThat they made them citizens, and we have followed their example.\n\nAs far as I have gone, I have shown that the fathers of the Revolution\nand the War of 1812 set us the example for everything we have done.\nNow, Mr. Democrat, if you want to curse us, curse them too. Either quit\nyawping about the fathers, or quit yawping about us.\n\nNow, then, was there any necessity, during this war, to follow the\nexample of our fathers? The question was put to us in 1861: \"Shall\nthe majority rule?\" and also the balance of that question: \"Shall the\nminority submit?\" The minority said they would not. Upon the right of\nthe majority to rule rests the entire structure of our Government. Had\nwe, in 1861, given up that principle, the foundations of our Government\nwould have been totally destroyed. In fact there would have been no\nGovernment, even in the North. It is no use to say the majority shall\nrule if the minority consents. Therefore, if, when a man has been\nduly elected President, anybody undertakes to prevent him from being\nPresident, it is your duty to protect him and enforce submission to the\nwill of the majority. In 1861 we had presented to us the alternative,\neither to let the great principle that lies at the foundation of our\nGovernment go by the board, or to appeal to arms, and to the God of\nbattles, and fight it through.\n\nThe Southern people said they were going out of the Union; we implored\nthem to stay, by the common memories of the Revolution, by an apparent\ncommon destiny; by the love of man, but they refused to listen to\nus—rushed past us, and appealed to the arbitrament of the sword; and\nnow I, for one, say by the decision of the sword let them abide.\n\nNow, I want to show how mean the American people were in 1861. The vile\nand abominable institution of slavery had so corrupted us that we did\nnot know right from wrong. It crept into the pulpit until the sermon\nbecame the echo of the bloodhound's bark. It crept upon the bench,\nand the judge could not tell whether the corn belonged to the man that\nraised it, or to the fellow that did not, but he rather thought it\nbelonged to the latter. We had lost our sense of justice. Even the\npeople of Indiana were so far gone as to agree to carry out the Fugitive\nSlave Law. Was it not low-lived and contemptible? We agreed that if we\nfound a woman ninety-nine one hundredths white, who, inspired by the\nlove of liberty, had run away from her masters, and had got within\none step of free soil, we would clutch her and bring her back to the\ndominion of the Democrat, the bloodhound and the lash. We were just mean\nenough to do it. We used to read that some hundreds of years ago a lot\nof soldiers would march into a man's house, take him out, tie him to a\nstake driven into the earth, pile fagots around him, and let the\nthirsty flames consume him, and all because they differed from him about\nreligion. We said it was horrible; it made our blood run cold to think\nof it; yet at the same time many a magnificent steamboat floated down\nthe Mississippi with wives and husbands, fragments of families torn\nasunder, doomed to a life of toil, requited only by lashes upon the\nnaked back, and branding irons upon the quivering flesh, and we thought\nlittle of it. When we set out to put down the Rebellion the Democratic\nparty started up all at once and said, \"You are not going to interfere\nwith slavery, are you?\" Now, it is remarkable that whenever we were\ngoing to do a good thing, we had to let on that we were going to do a\nmean one. If we had said at the outset, \"We will break the shackles from\nfour millions of slaves\" we never would have succeeded. We had to come\nat it by degrees. The Democrats scented it out. They had a scent keener\nthan a bloodhound when anything was going to be done to affect slavery.\n\"Put down rebellion,\" they said, \"but don't hurt slavery.\" We said, \"We\nwill not; we will restore the Union as it was and the Constitution as it\nis.\" We were in good faith about it. We had no better sense then than\nto think that it was worth fighting for, to preserve the cause of\nquarrel—the bone of contention—so as to have war all the time. Every\nblow we struck for slavery was a blow against us. The Rebellion was\nsimply slavery with a mask on. We never whipped anybody but once so long\nas we stood upon that doctrine; that was at Donelson; and the victory\nthere was not owing to the policy, but to the splendid genius of the\nnext President of the United States. After a while it got into our\nheads that slavery was the cause of the trouble, and we began to edge up\nslowly toward slavery. When Mr. Lincoln said he would destroy slavery\nif absolutely necessary for the suppression of the Rebellion, people\nthought that was the most radical thing that ever was uttered. But the\ntime came when it was necessary to free the slaves, and to put muskets\ninto their hands. The Democratic party opposed us with all their might\nuntil the draft came, and they wanted negroes for substitutes; and I\nnever heard a Democrat object to arming the negroes after that.\n    [The speaker from this point presented the history of the\n    Republican policy of reconstruction, and touched lightly on\n    the subject of the national debt. He glanced at the\n    finances, reviewing in the most scathing manner the history\n    and character of Seymour, paid a most eloquent tribute to\n    the character and public services of General Grant, and\n    closed with the following words: ]\n\nThe hero of the Rebellion, who accomplished at Shiloh what Napoleon\nendeavored at Waterloo; who captured Vicksburg by a series of victories\nunsurpassed, taking the keystone from the rebel arch; who achieved at\nMissionary Ridge a success as grand as it was unexpected to the country;\nwho, having been summoned from the death-bed of rebellion in the West,\nmarched like an athlete from the Potomac to the James, the grandest\nmarch in the history of the world. This was all done without the least\nflourish upon his part. No talk about destiny—without faith in a\nstar—with the simple remark that he would \"fight it out on that line,\"\nwithout a boast, modest to bashfulness, yet brave to audacity, simple as\nduty, firm as war, direct as truth—this hero, with so much common\nsense that he is the most uncommon man of his time, will be, in spite of\nExecutive snares and Cabinet entanglements, of competent false witnesses\nof the Democratic party, the next President of the United States. He\nwill be trusted with the Government his genius saved.\n"
}