Volume 20 — GREELEY OR GRANT?

Speech intended to be delivered at Faneuil Hall, Boston, September 3, 1872.

Liberal Republican Head-Quarters, Boston, August 24, 1872.

My Dear Sir,—I am directed by the Liberal Republican State Committee to communicate to you a vote of which the following is a copy:—

“Voted, That the Chairman, in the name of the Liberal Republican State Committee, invite the Hon. Charles Sumner to address his constituents on Public Affairs in Faneuil Hall, at the earliest day that may suit his convenience.”

Allow me to add my earnest personal wishes that you will be able to comply with the request. “The great soul of the world is just,” and the sober second thought of the people of Massachusetts will, I doubt not, sustain you in the position you have taken in favor of Reform and Reconciliation, and therefore of the election of Greeley and Brown.

Very faithfully yours,

F. W. Bird.

Hon. Charles Sumner.

Boston, August 30, 1872.

Dear Sir,—I have been honored by your communication of August 24th, inviting me in the name of the Liberal Republicans of Massachusetts, to speak in Faneuil Hall. It is with inexpressible pain and regret that I feel constrained to decline this flattering opportunity.

I had confidently hoped, on returning home, to meet my fellow-citizens in that venerable forum, so dear to us all, and to speak once more on great questions involving the welfare of our country; but recurring symptoms of a painful character warn me against any such attempt. My physician advises that I must not for the present make any public effort, and he prescribes rest. Valued friends, familiar with my condition, unite with the excellent physician.

In submitting most reluctantly to these admonitions, I cannot renounce the privilege of communicating with my fellow-citizens, and therefore hand you a copy of what, with the blessing of health, I hoped to say. In the House of Representatives undelivered speeches are sometimes ordered to be printed. You may follow this precedent with mine, or do with it as you please. Meanwhile accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

Charles Sumner.

Hon. Francis W. Bird, Chairman, etc.

SPEECH.

FELLOW-CITIZENS,—It is on the invitation of the State Committee of Liberal Republicans that I have the honor of addressing you. I shall speak directly on the issue before us. If I am frank and plain, it will be only according to my nature and the requirement of duty at this time. But nothing can I say which is not prompted by a sincere desire to serve my country, and especially to promote that era of good-will, when the assent of all shall be assured to the equal rights of all.

THE TWO CANDIDATES.

At the approaching Presidential Election the people are to choose between two candidates. By the operation of our electoral system, and the superadded dictation of National Conventions, the choice is practically limited to President Grant and Horace Greeley; so that no preference for another can be made effective. One of these must be taken. Preferring Horace Greeley, I have no hesitation in assigning the reasons which lead me to this conclusion.

Believing the present incumbent unfit for the great office to which he aspires for a second time, and not doubting that a vote for him would be regarded as the sanction of abuses and pretensions unrepublican in character, I early saw the difficulty of taking any part for his reëlection. Long ago I declared, that, while recognizing party as an essential agency and convenience, I could not allow it to constrain my conscience against what seemed the requirements of public good. Regarding always substance rather than form, I have been indifferent to the name by which I might be called. Nor was I impressed by the way in which the candidate was urged. Supporters, while admitting his failure, and even the abuses and pretensions so notorious in his civil life, commended his reëlection as necessary to uphold the party with which I have been associated. But it is easy to see that a vote for such a candidate on such a reason was “to do evil that good might come,” which is forbidden in politics as in morals.

Two courses seemed open. One was to abstain from voting,—and I confess that this was my first inclination. But it is not easy for me to be neutral,—certainly where wrong-doing is in question; nor is it my habit to shrink from responsibility. But the doubt that beset me was removed when I saw the Democratic Party adopt the candidate opposed to President Grant, being an original Republican already nominated by a Republican Convention, and at the same time accept the Republican platform on which he was nominated. An old party, which had long stood out against the Republican cause, now placed itself on a Republican platform, the best ever adopted, with a Republican candidate, who was the most devoted Republican ever nominated,—thus completely accepting the results of the war, and offering the hand of reconciliation. At once the character of the contest changed. This was no common event. Pardon me, if I say that to me it was of peculiar interest. For years I have sought to establish in the National Government the great principles of the Declaration of Independence, avowing always that when this was done nobody should surpass me in generosity towards former Rebels. Not only by the logic of my life, but by constant speeches, was I bound to welcome those who placed themselves on this glorious platform. The extent of this obligation will appear before I close. And now its performance harmonizes with opposition to the prolonged misrule of the present incumbent.

TWO REASONS IN FAVOR OF GREELEY.

Evidently I am not at liberty to abstain from voting. In considering the reasons in favor of Horace Greeley, I find two, differing in character, but of chief importance: first, that he represents a reformed civil service, beginning with the One-Term principle, without which this reform is too much like a sham; and, secondly, that he represents reconciliation, not only between the two sections, but between the two races, which is essential to the repose of the country and the safeguard of Equal Rights.

To these must be added, that he does not represent those personal pretensions, so utterly inconsistent with Republican government, which are now known as Grantism. In voting for Horace Greeley you will not sustain nepotism, you will not sustain gift-taking and repayment by official favor, and you will not lend your sanction to the San Domingo machination, with its unconstitutional usurpations, its violations of International Law, and its indignity to the Black Republic. Elsewhere I have considered these fully,[177] and I am not aware of any answer to the undeniable facts. I shall only glance at them now.

NEPOTISM.

Nepotism is already condemned by history, and most justly; for it is obviously a form of self-seeking, hostile to purity of government, and strangely out of place in a Republic. Nothing for self, but all for country and mankind, should be the rule of our President. If the promptings of his inner nature fail, then must he feel the irresistible obligation of his position. As he does, so will others do; and therefore must his example be such as to elevate the public service. Nothing in Washington’s career has shone with more constant light than his refusal to confer office on his relations. Even at the time, it arrested attention not only at home but abroad, landing praise in England. Of this there is a striking illustration. The “Register of the Times,” published at London in 1795, in an article entitled “Interesting and Authentic Documents respecting the United States of America,” records its homage:—

“The execution of the office of the Chief Magistrate has been attended through a term of four years with a circumstance which to an admiring world requires no commentary. A native citizen of the United States, transferred from private life to that station, has not, during so long a term, appointed a single relation to any office of honor or emolument.”[178]

With such confession an admiring world looked on. Something would I do—something, I trust, the American people will do at the coming election—to secure this beautiful praise yet again for our country.

GIFT-TAKING.

Like nepotism, the taking of gifts by a public servant is condemned by history. No honest nature can uphold it. How well did our late General Thomas, so admirable in character, rebuke this abuse, when he replied to an offer of $100,000, as I am told, “Let it go to my men”! If not a form of bribery, it is kindred in nature,—and this has long been recognized, from the Bible down to our day. According to the old scriptures it is destructive: “The king by judgment stablisheth the land; but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it.”[179] Here again is the example of Washington brightly lighting the true republican pathway. The same President who would not appoint a relation would not take a gift, even when out of office. His example was in harmony with the lesson of Colonial days. As long ago as April 20, 1703, Queen Anne, in a communication to Lord Cornbury, Governor of New York and New Jersey, laid down the following rule: that neither the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Commander-in-Chief, or President of the Council “do receive any gift or present from the Assembly or others on any account or in any manner whatsoever, upon pain of our highest displeasure, and of being recalled from that our Government.”[180] This rule is as good for our day as for that in which it was ordained by royal authority.

There is another instance, which should not be forgotten. It is that of Lord Wellesley, the accomplished brother of the Duke of Wellington. A work so common as that of Smiles on “Self-Help” records, that, while Governor-General of India, he positively refused a present of £100,000 from the Directors of the East India Company on the conquest of Mysore; and here the terms of his refusal are important:—

“It is not necessary for me to allude to the independence of my character and the proper dignity attaching to my office; other reasons besides these important considerations lead me to decline this testimony, which is not suitable to me. I think of nothing but our army. I should be much distressed to curtail the share of those brave soldiers.”[181]

His refusal remained unalterable. At a later period, when nearly eighty years of age, embarrassed by debts, and entirely withdrawn from public life, he allowed the Company to vote him a much smaller sum in consideration of his signal services.[182]

GIFT-MAKERS APPOINTED TO OFFICE.

The allowances voted by Parliament to Marlborough and Wellington on account of their victories can be no precedent for the acceptance of gifts from fellow-citizens. The distinction is clear. But the case against the present incumbent is not only that while holding high office he accepted gifts from fellow-citizens, but subsequently appointed the gift-makers to office,—thus using the Presidency to pay off his own personal obligations. Please bear this in mind; and when some apologist attempts to defend the taking of gifts, let him know that he must go still further, and show that the Presidency, with all its patronage, is a perquisite to be employed for the private advantage of the incumbent.

SAN DOMINGO.

Next in illustration of the prevailing misrule is the San Domingo business, with its eccentricities of wrong-doing; and this, too, is now in issue. At the thought of this unprecedented enormity, where wrong assumes such various forms, it is hard to be silent; but I shall be brief. The case is clear, and stands on documents which cannot be questioned. I keep within the line of moderate statement, when I say, that, from the beginning of our Government, nothing in our foreign relations has been so absolutely indefensible. It will not do to call it simply a fault and an insolence; it was an elaborate contrivance, conceived in lust of territory, pursued in ignorance, maintained in open violation of the National Constitution, pushed forward in similar violation of International Law in fundamental principles, and crowned by intolerable indignity to the Black Republic, even to the extent of menacing hostilities and the sinking of its ships,—all without authority of Congress, and by Presidential prerogative alone. In this drama the President, like a favorite actor, assumed every part. In negotiating the treaty he was President; in declaring war he was Congress; in sending ships and men he was Commander-in-Chief; and then in employing private influence with Senators to promote his scheme—according to the promise in the protocol with Baez, signed in his name by Orville E. Babcock, entitled therein “Aide-de-Camp to his Excellency General Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of America”—he was lobbyist. That such things can be done by a President without indignant condemnation, loud and universal, shows a painful demoralization in the country. That their author can be presented for reëlection to the Presidency, whose powers he has thus misused, shows a disheartening insensibility to public virtue.

Here I remark, that, so long as the President confined himself to negotiation, he was strictly within the line of the Constitution. Even if indiscreet in character and impolitic in object, it was not unconstitutional. But in seizing war powers without the authority of Congress, in upholding the usurper Baez that he might sell his country, in menacing the Black Republic, and then in playing the lobbyist to promote the contrivance, the President did what no other President ever did before, and what, for the sake of Republican Institutions, should be rebuked by the American people. It was the knowledge of these proceedings that changed essentially my relations to the question.

PERSONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS.

I allude with hesitation to personal misrepresentations on the matter. It has been said that I promised originally to support the treaty. This is a mistake. I knew nothing of the treaty, and had no suspicion of it, until several months after the protocol, and some time after the negotiation was completed; and then my simple promise was that it should have from me “the most careful and candid consideration”; and such I gave it most sincerely. At first my opposition was reserved and without allusion to the President. It was only when the strange business was fully disclosed in official documents communicated in confidence to the Senate, and it was still pressed, that I felt impelled to a sterner resistance. Especially was I constrained, when I found how much the people of Hayti suffered. It so happened that I had reported the bill acknowledging their independence and establishing diplomatic relations between our two countries, assuring that equality which had been violated. Not unmoved could I witness the wrong inflicted upon them. And has it come to this, that the President of the Great Republic, instead of carrying peace and good tidings to Africans commencing the experiment of self-government, should become to them an agent of terror?

It is difficult to see how I could have done otherwise. Anxious to excuse the anger towards me, it has been said that I opposed the treaty because Mr. Motley was unceremoniously removed from the mission at London; and here you will see the extent to which misrepresentation has gone. It so happens that Mr. Motley was removed on the day immediately following the rejection of the treaty. Evidently my opposition was not influenced by the removal: was the removal influenced by my opposition?

Equally absurd is the story that I am now influenced by personal feelings. I am a public servant, trained to duty; and now, as always before, I have yielded only to this irresistible mandate. With me there is no alternative. The misconduct of the President, so apparent in the San Domingo device, became more conspicuous in the light of illustrative facts, showing it to be part of a prevailing misrule, which, for the sake of our country, should not be prolonged. As a patriot citizen, anxious for the national welfare and renown, am I obliged to declare these convictions.

I am now brought to those two chief measures to be advanced by the election of Horace Greeley, each of controlling importance,—one looking directly to purity and efficiency in the government, and the other to the peace and welfare of our country.

ONE-TERM PRINCIPLE.

The principle of One Term for President is the corner-stone of a reformed civil service. So plain is this to my apprehension, that I am at a loss to understand how any one sincerely in favor of such reform can fail to insist upon this principle. All experience shows that the employment of the appointing power to promote the personal ends of the President is the great disturbing influence in our civil service. Here is the comprehensive abuse which envelops all the offices of the country, making them tributary to one man, and subordinate to his desires. Let this be changed, and you have the first stage of reform, without which all other measures are dilatory, if not feeble and inefficient. How futile to recommend, as is done by the Commissioners on Civil Service, “an honest competitive examination,” while the rules for this system are left to the discretion of a President seeking reëlection! “Lead us not into temptation” is part of the brief prayer we are all taught to repeat; nor are Presidents above the necessity of this prayer. The misuse of the appointing power to advance ambitious aims is a temptation to which a President must not be exposed. For his sake, and for the sake of the country, this must not be.

In attributing peril to this influence, I speak not only from my own careful observation, but from the testimony of others whose words are authoritative. You do not forget how Andrew Jackson declared that the limitation of the office to one term was required, in order to place the President “beyond the reach of any improper influences” and “uncommitted to any other course than the strict line of constitutional duty,”[183]—how William Henry Harrison announced, that, with the adoption of this principle, “the incumbent would devote all his time to the public interest, and there would be no cause to misrule the country,”[184]—how Henry Clay was satisfied, after much observation and reflection, “that too much of the time, the thoughts, and the exertions of the incumbent are occupied during his first term in securing his reëlection,”[185]—and how my senatorial associate of many years, Benjamin F. Wade, after denouncing the reëligibility of the President, said, “There are defects in the Constitution, and this is among the most glaring.”[186] According to this experienced Senator, the reëligibility of the President is not only a defect in the Constitution, but one of its most glaring defects.

And such also was the declared opinion of the present incumbent before his election and the temptation of a second term. It has been stated by one who conferred with him at the time, that immediately before his nomination General Grant said, in the spirit of Andrew Jackson, “The liberties of the country cannot be maintained without a One-Term Amendment of the Constitution”; and another writes me, that while on a walk between the White House and the Treasury, just at the head of the steps, near the fountain, the General paused a moment, and said, “I am in favor of restricting the President to a single term, and of abolishing the office of Vice-President.” By the authority of this declaration, the “Morning Chronicle,”[187] the organ of the Republican party at Washington, proclaimed of its Presidential candidate, “He is, moreover, an advocate of the One-Term principle, as conducing toward the proper administration of the law”; and then at a later date,[188] after calling for the adoption of this principle, the same Republican organ said, “General Grant is in favor of it.” Unquestionably at that time, while the canvass was proceeding, he allowed himself to be commended as a supporter of this principle. That he should now disregard it gives new reason for the prayer, “Lead us not into temptation.”

Never before was the necessity for this beneficent Amendment more apparent; for never before was the wide-spread abuse from the reëligibility of the President more grievously conspicuous. De Tocqueville, the illustrious Frenchman, who saw our institutions with a vision quickened by genius and chastened by friendly regard, discerned the peril, when he said:—

“Intrigue and corruption are the natural vices of elective government; but when the head of the State can be reëlected, these evils rise to a great height and compromise the very existence of the country. When a simple candidate seeks to rise by intrigue, his manœuvres must be limited to a very narrow sphere; but when the Chief Magistrate enters the lists, he borrows the strength of the Government for his own purposes.… If the representative of the Executive descends into the combat, the cares of Government dwindle for him into second-rate importance, and the success of his election is his first concern.”[189]

Nothing can be more true than these remarkable words, which are completely verified in what we now behold. The whole diversified machinery of the National Government in all its parts, operating in State, District, Town, and Village, is now at work to secure the reëlection of the President, as for some time before it worked to secure his renomination,—the whole being obedient to the central touch.

Look for a moment at this machinery, or, if you please, at this political hierarchy, beginning with Cabinet officers, and reaching to the pettiest postmaster, every one diligent to the single end of serving Presidential aspiration. The Jeffersonian rule was, “Is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitution?” But this is now lost in the mightier law, “Is he faithful to reëlection?” This failing, all merit fails. Every office-holder, from highest to lowest, according to his influence, becomes propagandist, fugleman, whipper-in. Members of the Cabinet set the example, and perambulate the country, instructing the people to vote for reëlection. Heads of Bureaus do likewise. Then, in their respective localities, officers of the Customs, officers of the Internal Revenue, marshals with their deputies, and postmasters, each and all, inspired from the National Capitol, are all calling for reëlection. This organized power, variously estimated at from sixty to eighty thousand in number, all paid by the Government, and overspreading the whole country in one minute network, has unprecedented control at this moment, partly from increased facilities of communication, and partly from the military drill which still survives the war, but more, perhaps, from the determined will of the President, to which all these multitudinous wills are subjugated. This simple picture, which nobody can question, reveals a tyranny second only to that of the Slave Power itself,—which Jefferson seems to have foreseen, when, after portraying the Legislature as most to be feared in his day, he said, “The tyranny of the Executive will come in its turn.”[190] Even his prophetic vision did not enable him to foresee the mournful condition we now deplore, with the One-Man Power lording itself through all the offices of the country.

The recent election in North Carolina made this practically manifest. Even without a telescope, all could discern the operations of the field. Postmasters and officers of Internal Revenue were on hand, each in his place; then came the Marshal, with files of deputies, extemporized for the occasion; while, ranging over the extensive circuit, was the Supervisor of the Revenue; the whole instructed and animated by members of the Cabinet, who abandoned their responsible duties to help reëlection, which for the time was above all departments of Government and all exigencies of the public service. In the same way the chief Custom-Houses of the country have been enlisted. Each has become a political centre whose special object is reëlection. Authentic evidence before a Congressional Committee shows that Thomas Murphy, while Collector of New York, acting as Lieutenant of the President, sought to control the Republican State Convention by tendering office to four men, in consideration of the return of certain delegates, promising that “he would immediately send their names on to Washington and have them appointed”; and by way of enforcing the Presidential supremacy, he announced with startling effrontery that “President Grant was the representative and head of the Republican party, and all good Republicans should support him in all his measures and appointments, and any one who did not do it should be crushed out.”[191] If this were not authenticated under oath, it would be hard to believe. But the New Orleans Custom-House has a story much worse. Here Presidential pretension is mixed with unblushing corruption, in which the Collector, a brother-in-law, is a chief actor. And all for reëlection.[192]

This prostitution of the offices of the country to the Presidential will can be upheld only by unhesitating partisan zeal, discarding reason and patriotism. Already it has been condemned in an official Report made to the House of Representatives, November 25, 1867, by Mr. Boutwell, as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and signed by him. His direct object was to arraign Andrew Johnson; but these words declare a rule applicable to all Presidents:—

“The presence and active participation of two of the Heads of Departments in a political convention at Philadelphia, having for its object the organization of a party to sustain the policy of the President and defeat the will of Congress and the people, and one of those functionaries the prime agent in the removals from and appointments to office for ‘political reasons,’ is a fact well known to the country. The like had not happened before in its history. In the view of right-minded men, it was something more than a public scandal.”[193]

The Report adduces the authority of John Locke, the eminent philosopher, as declaring “the employment of ‘the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt the representatives, or openly to preëngage the electors, and prescribe what manner of persons shall be chosen,’ as among those breaches of trust in the executive magistrate which amounts to a dissolution of the Government; for ‘what is it,’ he says, ‘but to cut up the Government by the roots, and poison the very fountains of public security?’”[194] But all this we witness here. The offices are employed to preëngage the electors, and prescribe the persons to be chosen. Nor do I see any corrective of this undoubted abuse, especially after the example now set in high quarters, so long as the President is a candidate for reëlection.

Therefore, to arrest a flagrant tyranny, and to secure purity in the Government, also to save the President from himself, should this Amendment be adopted; and since Horace Greeley is known to be its strenuous supporter, we have an unanswerable reason in his behalf.

RECONCILIATION.

From the practical question of Civil Service Reform I pass to Reconciliation, being the most important issue ever presented to the American people,—reconciliation not only between the two once warring sections, but also between the two races. This issue, so grand and beautiful, was distinctly presented, when Horace Greeley, in accepting the Republican nomination at Cincinnati, wrote these memorable words:—

“In this faith, and with the distinct understanding, that, if elected, I shall be the President, not of a party, but of the whole people, I accept your nomination,—in the confident trust that the masses of our countrymen, North and South, are eager to clasp hands across the bloody chasm which has too long divided them, forgetting that they have been enemies, in the joyful consciousness that they are, and must henceforth remain, brethren.”[195]

The issue was again presented, when thereafter the Democratic Party in National Convention, acting under an irresistible movement of the people, nominated the author of these words.

It is difficult to see how this noble aspiration can find other than a generous response. Nothing but a party spirit which forgets the obligations of Christian duty could treat it with indifference, much less make it the occasion of misrepresentation. By no effort of ingenuity or malignity can it be tortured into anything but an offer of reconciliation, while the very letter of acceptance, where it appears, declares the established supremacy of Equal Rights. Observe also that it is made only when the work of Reconstruction is ended. Here is the testimony of a Senator of South Carolina, in a speech in the Senate, January 22, 1872:—

“The last of the Southern States is admitted to its full privileges as a member of the brotherhood of States; the Constitutional Amendments intended to secure the principles established by the war and subsequent events have been accepted as valid. There can be no fear or danger of their being disturbed.”[196]

But these things are forgotten; the Sermon on the Mount is forgotten also; the Beatitudes are put aside. A great writer of the Middle Ages, after dwelling on what is best for us, says:—

“Hence it is that not riches, not pleasures, not honors, not length of life, not health, not strength, not comeliness, was sung to the shepherds from on high, but peace.”[197]

The supporters of reëlection will not hearken to this song, and the proffered hand is rejected. If not war, they would preserve at least the passions of war, and instead of peace would scatter distrust and defiance. The old fable is renewed:—

For me there can be but one course on this issue, and the moment it was presented I seemed to behold, for the first time, the dawn of that better era in our country when the Equal Rights of All should be placed under the safeguard of assured Peace and Reconciliation. Had I failed to sympathize with this endeavor, I should have been false to the record of my life. My first public utterance, as far back as July 4, 1845, was to commend the cause of Peace, which from that early day, amidst the contentions of public duty and the terrible responsibilities of war, has never been absent from my mind. While insisting on the Abolition of Slavery, while urging Enfranchisement, while vindicating the Equal Rights of All, and while pressing Reconstruction, I have constantly declared that all these were for no purpose of vengeance or punishment, but only for the security of the citizen and the establishment of government on just foundations, and that when this was done nobody should outdo me in those generosities that become the conqueror more than his conquest.

PERSONAL RECORD.

Here the testimony is complete. If I open it now, it is less to show the obligations which constrain me personally than to make these witnesses plead again the cause which from the beginning I have had at heart. I follow the order of time, letting each speak in a few words.

There are some among us who may remember that early speech before the Republican State Convention at Worcester, October 1, 1861, which excited at the time so much discussion, when, after calling for Emancipation, I united this cause with Peace:—

“Two objects are before us, Union and Peace, each for the sake of the other, and both for the sake of the country; but without Emancipation how can we expect either?”[199]

Thus at the beginning was I mindful of Peace.

Then again, in the same strain, at the Cooper Institute, New York, November 27, 1861, after showing Slavery to be the origin and main-spring of the Rebellion, I pleaded for Emancipation, and at the same time first sounded the key-note of Reconciliation:—

“Perversely and pitifully do you postpone that sure period of reconciliation, not only between the two sections, not only between the men of the North and the men of the South, but, more necessary still, between slave and master, without which the true tranquillity we all seek cannot be permanently assured. Believe it, only through such reconciliation, under sanction of freedom, can you remove all occasions of conflict hereafter.”[200]

Thus early was reconciliation associated with my most earnest efforts; nor did I at any moment hesitate in this work.

The same spirit was manifest in opposition to perpetuating the memory of victories over fellow-citizens. The question arose on a dispatch of General McClellan, where, after announcing the capture of Williamsburg, he inquired whether he was “authorized to follow the example of other generals, and direct the names of battles to be placed on the colors of regiments.”[201] This being communicated to the Senate, I felt it my duty to move, May 8, 1862, the following resolution:—

“Resolved, That in the efforts now making for the restoration of the Union and the establishment of peace throughout the country, it is inexpedient that the names of victories obtained over our fellow-citizens should be placed on the regimental colors of the United States.”[202]

Here again was anxiety for peace. Mr. Wilson, my colleague, did not agree with me, and he made haste to introduce a counter-resolution;[203] but no further action was had upon it. The usage of civilized nations is against placing on regimental colors the names of victories gained over fellow-countrymen. In France, the most military country of the world, the principle was carefully discarded by King Louis Philippe, when, in preparing the Museum at Versailles, he excluded every picture or image of civil war. Everything to arouse and gratify the patriotic pride of Frenchmen, of all Frenchmen, is there, but nothing to exhibit Frenchmen warring with each other.

Then came the bills for Confiscation, which I supported chiefly with a view to Emancipation. While enforcing this object, May 19, 1862, I said:—

“People talk flippantly of the gallows as the certain doom of the Rebels. This is a mistake. For weal or woe, the gallows is out of the question. It is not possible as a punishment for this rebellion.”

Then declaring our supreme object to be Peace, I said:

“In this work it is needless to say there is no place for any sentiment of hate or any suggestion of vengeance. There can be no exaction and no punishment beyond the necessity of the case,—nothing harsh, nothing excessive. Lenity and pardon become the conqueror more even than victory. ‘Do in time of peace the most good, and in time of war the least evil possible: such is the Law of Nations.’ These are the admirable words of an eminent French magistrate and statesman. In this spirit it is our duty to assuage the calamities of war, and especially to spare an inoffensive population.”[204]

Shortly afterwards, June 27th, while the same subject was under consideration, I returned to it again:—

“But I confess frankly that I look with more hope and confidence to Liberation than to Confiscation. To give freedom is nobler than to take property, and on this occasion it cannot fail to be more efficacious, for in this way the rear-guard of the Rebellion will be changed into the advance-guard of the Union. There is in Confiscation, unless when directed against the criminal authors of the Rebellion, a harshness inconsistent with that mercy which it is always a sacred duty to cultivate, and which should be manifest in proportion to our triumphs, ‘mightiest in the mightiest.’ But Liberation is not harsh; and it is certain, if properly conducted, to carry with it the smiles of a benignant Providence.”[205]

At last the country was gladdened by the Proclamation of Emancipation, which here in Faneuil Hall, October 6, 1862, I vindicated as a measure of peace; and then I said:—

“In the old war between King and Parliament, which rent England, the generous Falkland cried from his soul, Peace! Peace!—and History gratefully records his words. Never did he utter this cry with more earnestness than I do now. But how shall the blessing be secured?”[206]

By Emancipation, was my answer.

Then came the bill creating the Freedmen’s Bureau. In opening the debate on this interesting subject, June 8, 1864, I said:—

“It is for the Senate to determine, under the circumstances, what it will do. My earnest hope is that it will do something. The opportunity must not be lost of helping so many persons now helpless, and of aiding the cause of Reconciliation, without which peace cannot be assured.”[207]

Here again Reconciliation is announced as an ever-present object.

In the same spirit, I deemed it my duty to oppose the efforts made in the winter of 1865 to authorize Retaliation, differing from valued friends. The proposition for Retaliation was met by the following declaration, moved by me, January 24th:—

“The United States … call upon all to bear witness that in this necessary warfare with Barbarism they renounce all vengeance and every evil example, and plant themselves firmly on the sacred landmarks of Christian civilization, under the protection of that God who is present with every prisoner, and enables heroic souls to suffer for their country.”[208]

Then came the effort, favored by President Lincoln, to receive Louisiana with a Constitution which failed to recognize the equal rights of colored fellow-citizens. Here again, February 25th, I encountered the proposition by a resolution, where it is declared:—

“That such an oligarchical government is not competent at this moment to discharge the duties and execute the powers of a State; and that its recognition as a legitimate government will tend to enfeeble the Union, to postpone the day of Reconciliation, and to endanger the national tranquillity.”[209]

Mark, if you please, “the day of Reconciliation.”

Then came the question of perpetuating the memory of our victories. February 27th, the Senate having under consideration an appropriation for a picture in the National Capitol, I moved as an amendment,—

“That in the National Capitol, dedicated to the National Union, there shall be no picture of a victory in battle with our own fellow-citizens.”[210]

Mr. Wilson again made haste to announce that he “disagreed with his colleague altogether,”—saying, according to the “Congressional Globe,”[211] “I do not believe in that doctrine.”

In the eulogy on President Lincoln, pronounced before the municipal authorities of Boston, June 1, 1865, the great object of Reconciliation was presented as dependent on the establishment of our ideas. After insisting upon Emancipation and the Equal Suffrage, these words occur:—

“Such a vengeance will be a kiss of reconciliation, for it will remove every obstacle to peace and harmony. The people where Slavery once ruled will bless the blow that destroyed it. The people where the kindred tyranny of Caste once prevailed will rejoice that this fell under the same blow. They will yet confess that it was dealt in no harshness, in no unkindness, in no desire to humiliate, but simply and solemnly, in the name of the Republic and of Human Nature, for their good as well as ours,—ay, for their good more than ours.

“By ideas, more than by armies, we have conquered. The sword of the Archangel was less mighty than the mission he bore from the Lord. But if the ideas giving us the victory are now neglected, if the pledges of the Declaration, which the Rebellion openly assailed, are left unredeemed, then have blood and treasure been lavished for nought.”

Then I proceeded to ask:—

“How shall these ideas be saved? How shall the war waged by Abraham Lincoln be brought to an end, so as to assure peace, tranquillity, and reconciliation?”[212]

In the speech at Worcester, before the Republican State Convention, September 14, 1865, I insisted upon guaranties for the national freedman and the national creditor; and until these were accomplished, proposed to exclude the Rebel from political power:—

“I ask not his punishment. I would not be harsh. There is nothing humane that I would reject. Nothing in hate. Nothing in vengeance. Nothing in passion. I am for gentleness. I am for a velvet glove; but for a while I wish the hand of iron. I confess that I have little sympathy with those hypocrites of magnanimity whose appeal for the Rebel master is only a barbarous indifference towards the slave; and yet they cannot more than I desire the day of Reconciliation.”[213]

Thus constantly did this idea return.

And yet again, in a letter to the “Evening Post” of New York, dated September 28, 1865, after insisting upon “supplementary safeguards” for the protection of the freedman, I used these words:—

“Without this additional provision, I see small prospect of that peace and reconciliation which are the objects so near our hearts.”[214]

Again it appeared in a telegraphic dispatch to President Johnson, dated November 12, 1865, and afterwards published. Asking the President to suspend his “policy towards the Rebel States,” I said:—

“I should not present this prayer, if I were not painfully convinced that thus far it has failed to obtain any reasonable guaranties for that security in the future which is essential to peace and reconciliation.… The Declaration of Independence asserts the equality of all men, and that rightful government can be founded only on the consent of the governed. I see small chance of peace, unless these great principles are practically established. Without this, the house will continue divided against itself.”[215]

Here Reconciliation is associated with Reconstruction on the basis of the Equality of All Men.

Shortly afterwards, in the “Atlantic Monthly” for December, 1865, p. 758, I pleaded again:—

“The lesson of Clemency is of perpetual obligation.… Harshness is bad. Cruelty is detestable. Even Justice may relent at the prompting of Mercy. Fail not, then, to cultivate the grace of Clemency.…

“There must be no vengeance upon enemies; but there must be no sacrifice of friends. And here is the distinction never to be forgotten: Nothing for vengeance; everything for justice. Follow this rule, and the Republic will be safe and glorious.”[216]

Then again in the Senate speech, February 5 and 6, 1866, while dwelling at length upon Equal Suffrage without distinction of color, I thus spoke for the Southern people:—

“The people there are my fellow-citizens, and gladly would I hail them, if they would permit, as no longer a section, no longer the South, but an integral part of the Republic, under a Constitution which, knowing no North and no South, cannot tolerate sectional pretension. Gladly, in all sincerity, do I offer my best effort for their welfare. But I see clearly that there is nothing in the compass of mortal power so important to them in every respect, morally, politically, and economically—that there is nothing with such certain promise to them of beneficent result—that there is nothing so sure to make their land smile with industry and fertility,—as the decree of Equal Rights I now invoke.… This is our retaliation. This is our only revenge.”[217]

In an address at the Music Hall, in Boston, October 2, 1866, entitled “The One-Man Power vs. Congress,” I declared that the Reconstruction I sought was one where “the Rebel region, no longer harassed by controversy and degraded by injustice, will enjoy the richest fruits of security and reconciliation,”—and then added, “To labor for this cause may well tempt the young and rejoice the old.”[218]

Then, in the same address, I said:—

“Our first duty is to provide safeguards for the future. This can be only by provisions, sure, fundamental, and irrepealable, fixing forever the results of the war, the obligations of the Government, and the equal rights of all. Such is the suggestion of common prudence and of self-defence, as well as of common honesty. To this end we must make haste slowly. States which precipitated themselves out of Congress must not be permitted to precipitate themselves back. They must not enter the Halls they treasonably deserted, until we have every reasonable assurance of future good conduct. We must not admit them, and then repent our folly.…

“But, while holding this ground of prudence, I desire to disclaim every sentiment of vengeance or punishment, and also every thought of delay or procrastination. Here I do not yield to the President, or to any other person. Nobody more anxious than I to see this chasm closed forever.

“There is a long way and a short way. There is a long time and a short time. If there be any whose policy is for the longest way or for the longest time, I am not of the number. I am for the shortest way, and also for the shortest time.”[219]

Then in considering Reconstruction in the Senate, March 16, 1867, I said:—

“But I ask nothing in vengeance or unkindness. All that I propose is for their good, with which is intertwined the good of all. I would not impose any new penalty or bear hard upon an erring people. Oh, no! I simply ask a new safeguard for the future, that these States, through which so much trouble has come, may be a strength and a blessing to our common country, with prosperity and happiness everywhere within their borders. I would not impose any new burden; but I seek a new triumph for civilization. For a military occupation bristling with bayonets I would substitute the smile of Peace.”

I then said:—

“But this cannot be without Education. As the soldier disappears, his place must be supplied by the schoolmaster. The muster-roll will be exchanged for the school-register, and our head-quarters will be in a school-house.”

And I accompanied this with a proposition to require in the reconstructed States “a system of public schools open to all, without distinction of race or color,” which was lost by a tie vote, being 20 to 20.[220]

The subject recurred again in the Senate July 13, 1867, when, after declaring regret at the inadequacy of the pending measure, especially in not securing a system of Public Education, and not excluding Rebel influence, I remarked:—

“In saying this, I desire to add, that, in my judgment, all exclusions belong to what I call the transition period. When Reconstruction is accomplished, the time will come for us to open the gates.”[221]

In these few words will be found the ruling principle which I have recognized in Reconstruction.

The address, “Are We a Nation?” made at the Cooper Institute, November 19, 1867, testifies again to Reconciliation. After showing how the national supremacy in the guardianship of equal rights is consistent with local self-government, and vindicating the two in their respective spheres, it says:—

“There will be a sphere alike for the States and Nation. Local self-government, which is the pride of our institutions, will be reconciled with the national supremacy in maintenance of human rights, and the two together will constitute the elemental principles of the Republic. The States will exercise a minute jurisdiction required for the convenience of all; the Nation will exercise that other paramount jurisdiction required for the protection of all. The reconciliation—God bless the word!—thus begun will embrace the people, who, forgetting past differences, will feel more than ever that they are one.”[222]

Then again, in addressing the Republican State Convention at Worcester, September 22, 1869, I said:—

“Do not think me harsh; do not think me austere. I am not. I will not be outdone by anybody in clemency; nor at the proper time will I be behind any one in opening all doors of office and trust.… Who can object, if men recently arrayed against their country are told to stand aside yet a little longer, until all are secure in their rights? Here is no fixed exclusion,—nothing of which there can be any just complaint,—nothing which is not practical, wise, humane,—nothing which is not born of justice rather than victory. In the establishment of Equal Rights conquest loses its character, and is no longer conquest,—

PERSONAL DUTY.

Here I suspend this testimony. Such is the simple and harmonious record, showing how from the beginning I was devoted to peace,—how constantly I longed for reconciliation,—how with every measure of Equal Rights this longing found utterance,—how it became an essential part of my life,—how I discarded all idea of vengeance or punishment,—how Reconstruction was to my mind a transition period,—and how earnestly I looked forward to the day, when, after the recognition of Equal Rights, the Republic should again be one in reality as in name. If there are any who ever maintained a policy of hate, I was never so minded; and now in protesting against any such policy, I only act in obedience to the irresistible promptings of my soul.

In embracing the opportunity unexpectedly presented at this election, I keep myself still in harmony with the past. Unable to vote a second time for President Grant, and confident that the choice of Horace Greeley will tend to assure that triumph of peace which has occupied so much of my desires, it only remains to vote for him. I would not expect too much; but, knowing something of the spirit in which the Democratic party has adopted him as its candidate, and knowing something also of his eminent character, I cannot doubt that with his election there will be a new order of things, where the harsh instrumentalities of power will yield to a sentiment of good-will, and surviving irritations will be lost in concord. The war is ended. There must be an end also to belligerent passions; and the freedman, assured in rights, must enter upon a new career of happiness and prosperity. Such, at least, is the object I now seek. Even those differing from me in faith at this critical moment will not deny that such a result would mark an epoch in American history. And now, in the hope of its accomplishment, I forget personal consequences, and think only of the inestimable good.

PREJUDICE AND INVENTION.

The partisans of Reëlection, resorting to prejudice and invention, insist, first, that the Democratic party, which has adopted as its candidate an original Republican on a Republican platform, will prove untrue, and, secondly, that the candidate himself will prove untrue,—as if the Democratic party were not bound now to the very principles declared at Philadelphia, without the viscous alloy of Grantism, and as if the life and character of the candidate were not a sufficient answer to any such slander.

ADHESION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Evidently there are individuals, calling themselves Democrats, who feel little sympathy with the movement, and there are others who insist upon the old hates, whether towards the North or towards the freedman. Unhappily, this is only according to human nature. It must be so. Therefore, though pained in feeling, my trust is not disturbed by sporadic cases cited in newspapers, or by local incidents. This is clear: in spite of politicians, and against their earnest efforts, the people represented in the Democratic Convention adopted a Republican nomination and platform. Baltimore answered to Cincinnati. A popular uprising, stirred by irresistible instinct, triumphed over all resistance. The people were wiser than their leaders,—illustrating again the saying of the French statesman, so experienced in human affairs, that above the wisdom of any individual, however great, is the wisdom of all. But this testifies to that Providence which shapes our ends:

Plainly in recent events there has been a presiding influence against which all machinations have been powerless. Had the Convention at Philadelphia nominated a good Republican, truly representing Republican principles without drawback, there is no reason to believe that Horace Greeley would have been a candidate. The persistence for President Grant dissolved original bonds, and gave practical opportunity to the present movement. The longing for peace, which in existing antagonisms of party was without effective expression, at last found free course.

Accordingly the original Republican who had announced himself ready to “clasp hands” in peace was accepted on a Republican platform, declaring support of the three Constitutional amendments, and placing in the foreground the great truth that all men are equal before the law. Such is the historic fact. That the party will be disloyal to this act, that it will turn its back on its covenants, and seek through a Republican President to reverse these safeguards, or in any way impair their efficacy, is not only without probability, but to imagine it is absolutely absurd.

Beyond the unequivocal adhesion of the party in its corporate capacity is that of eminent members who volunteer as individuals in the same declarations, so that personal pledge unites with party obligation. I quote two instances at hand.

Mr. Hendricks, so well known for his service in the National Senate, said recently in the Democratic State Convention of Indiana, on his nomination for Governor:—

“We have this day substantially turned our backs upon the Past. We now stand in the Present, and look forward to the great Future. The Past is gone.”

Nobody in the country can speak for his party with more authority; nor could there be better words to denote the change that has occurred.

Mr. Kerr, also of Indiana, an able Democratic Representative in Congress, and now Congressional candidate at large, bears the same testimony. In a recent speech this distinguished Democrat says:—

“The best impulse, the most patriotic sentiment, the most intelligent judgment of the wisest and the best men of the country now demand that the accomplished results of our great civil war, as they are crystallized in the Amendments to the Constitution, shall stand as parts of the fundamental law of the country, to be obeyed and maintained in good faith, without evasion, denial, or diminution, in favor of all classes of the people. The Democratic party, in the most authoritative and solemn manner, accepts this judgment.”

Nothing could be more complete. All the Amendments are “to be obeyed and maintained in good faith, without evasion, denial, or diminution, in favor of all classes of the people”; and this is the covenant of the Democratic party, countersigned by their Representative. Not content with this unequivocal adhesion, the speaker proceeds:—

“Any intelligent citizen, in public or private life, who charges that the Democratic party, if invested with power, would reëstablish slavery, or pay for slaves, or assume or pay Confederate debts, and take suffrage from colored men, or do other acts in defiance of the Constitution, must be a hypocrite and a demagogue, and he can have no higher aim than to slander and deceive.”

It is easy to pardon the indignation with which this Democrat repels the calumnies employed to sow distrust.

In strictest harmony with these authorities is the public press entitled to speak for the Democratic party. Out of innumerable testimonies I content myself with two.

The Cincinnati “Enquirer,” a leading Democratic journal, of August 1st, alluding to myself, says:—

“His confidence in the honor of the Democratic party is not misplaced. It will stand by the position which it assumed at Baltimore, and maintain it under any and all circumstances. Upon that he may depend.”

Then again the same Democratic organ says:—

“It pleases some of the Grant papers to speak of Mr. Greeley as a Democratic candidate, because he was nominated by a Democratic Convention. They ignore the fact that he had been previously nominated by a Republican Convention,—that he has always been a Republican, and never cast a Democratic ballot in his life. None of them have answered our query, whether they would have considered General Grant the Democratic candidate, if he had been nominated at Baltimore; and if not, why do they make the difference between him and Greeley?”

The Washington “Patriot,” the Democratic journal at the national capital, of August 7th, thus explicitly pronounces:—

“The Democratic party have loyally and honorably conditioned to uphold the Cincinnati platform and all its obligations. They mean to fulfil that bond in good faith and to the last letter. Hence not a word was altered at Baltimore, not a letter changed, not a comma erased. We took it in the exact sense and in all the spirit of the several declarations, with entire knowledge of the duty which they enjoined, and an honest purpose to perform it at any cost. So far from regarding that acceptance as a sacrifice, it was welcomed everywhere with joy.”

Are these speakers and these newspapers united in conspiracy to deceive, or are they dupes? Spurning the idea of dishonest conspiracy, I cannot doubt that they believe what they say, and that what they say is true. Again I insist that the sallies of local disaffection or of personal brutality, however painful or discreditable, cannot interfere to change the open adhesion of the party, followed by declarations so authentic in form. On this open adhesion and these declarations I act, and to the complete fulfilment of all the obligations assumed I feel that I may confidently hold the party.

MOTIVES TO KEEP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TRUE.

But why should the Democratic party be untrue to the covenants it has assumed? This imputation, so insulting to a great political organization, and to the distinguished members who have openly united in its adhesion, cannot be accepted without some ground of reason, or at least of presumption. But all reason and every presumption are the other way. Men act according to their supposed interests,—this is a law of human nature; but every interest of former Rebels is for peace. Under the influence of uncontrolled passion, and for the sake of Slavery, they went into rebellion; but now that passion has abated and Slavery has ceased, they see that nothing is gained by prolonging the animosities it engendered. Peace has become their absorbing interest. So obvious is the advantage from this assured possession, that it is unreasonable to suppose them indifferent when it is within reach; it is absurd to imagine them professing peace as a cover for war,—war in which they know they must fail. This explains the promptitude with which they seized the opportunity now presented. At once they declared their desire and offered the hand of fellowship, at the same time announcing their acceptance of those great measures by which the Equal Rights of All are assured.

The motives naturally governing former Rebels, in accepting Horace Greeley and a Republican platform, are plain. There is, first, the general prostration of their region, which they would see improved; but this can be only by the establishment of peace undisturbed, so that all men, white and black, may live in security. This is an essential condition. Violence breeds a kindred crop; nor can distrust exist without detriment to all. Let either appear, and the most fertile fields will fail in productive power. Men will not mingle their sweat with the soil, becoming colaborers with the sun,—they will not sow and plough,—unless assured in the enjoyment of what the generous earth is ready to yield. Above all, those truest allies so essential to prosperous industry, capital and immigration, will turn away from the land that is not blessed by peace. Security is a constant invitation and encouragement. There must be security in all things,—security in life, security in property, and security in rights, including Liberty and Equality, the great promises of the Declaration of Independence. Let any of these be in any peril, let any shadow rest upon their enjoyment, and the whole community must suffer. Therefore by the impulse of self-interest, now clearly manifest, are the people of the South moved to the present effort for peace.

This same motive assumes another form in the desire to escape from existing misrule, which has left such traces in the disordered finances of the Southern States. So colossal has been the scale of plunder that even authentic report seems like fable. Second only to the wide-spread devastations of war are the robberies to which these States have been subjected,—I am sorry to say, under an Administration calling itself Republican, at Washington, and with local governments deriving their animating impulse from the party in power, with the President as its dominant head. Surely the people in these communities would have been less than men, if, sinking under the intolerable burden, they did not turn for help to a new party, promising reform and honesty. They have seen custom-houses used to maintain the plunderers in power; they have seen all available political forces pressed to procure the renewed rule of the President under whom they have suffered so much; and they have seen this very President teach by example that every office-holder should begin by looking out for himself. It would be a wonder, if they did not join the present movement and maintain its declared purposes to the end.

It is easy to see that under these promptings, where personal and local interests were so strong, Horace Greeley was commended as a candidate, and then sincerely accepted. They knew him as the steadfast enemy of Slavery so long as it existed, dealing against it hard and constant blows; they knew him as the faithful ally of the freedman, insisting promptly upon his equal right to suffrage, which he vindicated with persuasive power; and they knew him also as the devoted friend of the colored race, never failing in effort for their welfare: but they knew also that he was a lover of peace and honesty, whose soul had been transfigured in works, and that, as sincerely as he had striven for the colored race, he now strove to mitigate those other burdens which had reduced them to a new slavery, being a debt which was like chain and manacle upon their industry; and they were assured that with him the great office for which he is a candidate would be a trust and not a personal perquisite, so that his example would be constant testimony to industry, integrity, and fidelity in the discharge of public duties, thus fixing a standard for all. These things being evident, how could they hesitate?

FAITH IN HORACE GREELEY.

The partisans of Reëlection dwell much on the position and character of Mr. Greeley, insisting that he cannot be trusted in the Presidency,—partly because helped into power by Democrats, and partly from an alleged want of stability. It is difficult to hear these barefaced allegations, in utter disregard of the prodigious testimony afforded by his long career, without wonder at the extent to which prejudice and invention can be carried. Had he been presented at Philadelphia with the saving sanction of a regular nomination, the same partisans who now seek to exhibit him as a tool or an imbecile would dwell with pride on his eminent qualities, making him, by the side of his competitor, an angel of light. Knowing them both, his superiority I may affirm. To say that under him Slavery can in any way be revived, or that the Rebel debt or the pension of Rebel soldiers or compensation for slaves can find favor, or that the equal rights of the freedmen, to which he is so solemnly pledged, can in any way be impaired,—all this is simply atrocious. Nothing of the kind can be done without violation of the Constitution as amended,—not to speak of the departure from that rule of life which he has ever followed. There is no Democrat sympathizing with his nomination who would not spurn the infamous treachery. I dismiss the whole partisan extravagance to the contempt it deserves.

The imputation that his election will be the return to power of the old Democratic party is much like saying that he will cease to be himself, and that his surpassing individuality, making him so conspicuous, will be lost. They who make the imputation forget that this old party, if it has not ceased to exist, is changed in character. Standing on a Republican platform, and with a Republican candidate, it may look the Republican party in the face, claiming for itself the Future, if not the Past. Plainly it is not that Democratic party against which Republicans have contended. If Democrats have influence with Horace Greeley, it will be because they have sincerely placed themselves by his side on a platform which distinctly announces all that Republicans have ever claimed.

Against all pretended distrust I oppose the open record of his life. By this let him be judged. And here it will be observed, that, while sometimes differing from others in methods, he has never, at any moment, ceased to be a champion, being always the same. Here is a private letter, which has only recently appeared, being a gleam of sunlight from his soul, which the dark days of the war could not quench:—

Office of the Tribune, New York, June 26, 1863.

My Dear Sir,—In God’s good time this is to be a land of real freedom, where equal rights and equal laws shall banish rebellion, treason, and riot, and all manner of kindred diabolisms. I hardly hope to live to see that day, but hope that those who may remember me, when I am gone, will believe that I earnestly tried to hasten its coming.

Yours,

Horace Greeley.

To suppose, that, under any circumstances of pressure or temptation, he can fail in loyalty to the cause he has served so constantly, is an offence to reason and to decency. In his two letters of acceptance this loyalty is nobly conspicuous. Replying to the nomination at Cincinnati, he drew the wise line between “local self-government” and “centralization,” asserting the former as our true policy, “subject to our solemn constitutional obligation to maintain the equal rights of all citizens,”[224]—thus placing these under national safeguard, and making them absolutely the same in all parts of the country. Replying to the nomination at Baltimore, made after the enunciation of this master principle, he announces his “hope and trust that the first century of American Independence will not close before the grand elemental truths on which its rightfulness was originally based by Jefferson and the Continental Congress of 1776 will have become the universally accepted and honored foundations of our political fabric.”[225] And thus is his great record crowned.

Living so entirely in the public eye, all know his life, which speaks for him now. Who so well as himself could stand the trial? The “Tribune,” in its career of more than thirty years, speaks for him also. Those opponents who in the work of disparagement assert that he wants executive ability, I point to this journal, begun by Horace Greeley in 1841, without partner or business associate, with a cash capital of only one thousand dollars, and with but six hundred subscribers. And yet, under his individual effort, by his amazing industry and through his rare intelligence, with his determined nature animating all, the enterprise prospered, until he found himself at the head of one of the first newspapers of the world, completely organized intellectually and mechanically, with writers for every subject, with correspondents everywhere at home and abroad, and with a constantly increasing influence never surpassed in newspaper history. A President with the ability that did all this would impart new energy to the public service, impressing it with his own faithful character, and assuring, on a larger scale, a corresponding success, so that the whole country would be gainer. Again, those opponents who assert that Horace Greeley wants fidelity, or that he can be easily swayed against life-long convictions, I point to this same journal, which from the beginning, and throughout the whole course of its existence, has been an unwavering representative of the liberal cause, foremost always in warfare with Slavery, prompt in support of reform, inflexible in honesty, and a beacon-flame to all struggling for human advancement.

Not to put faith in Horace Greeley is to act not only without evidence, but against evidence so manifest and constant in unbroken continuity as to seem like a law of Nature. As well distrust the sun in its appointed course.

ANSWER TO TWO OBJECTIONS.

Such is the easy answer to objectors who cry out, that Democrats uniting with Republicans on a Republican platform cannot be trusted, and that the candidate himself cannot be trusted. The wantonness of partisanship is too apparent in this pretension. I have considered it carefully, as a lover of truth, and you have my conclusion. Therefore do I say, Be not deterred from voting for Horace Greeley because Democrats will also vote for him, but rather rejoice. Their votes will be a new bond of peace, and a new assurance for the great principles declared by our fathers at our birth as a nation.

THE OLIVE-BRANCH AND EQUAL RIGHTS.

And has not the time arrived when in sincerity we should accept the olive-branch? Is it not time for the pen to take the place of the sword? Is it not time for the Executive Mansion to be changed from a barrack cesspool to a life-giving fountain? Is it not time for a President who will show by example the importance of reform, and teach the duty of subordinating personal objects to the public service? Is it not time for the Head of the National Government to represent the idea of peace and reconciliation, rather than of battle and strife? Is it not time for that new era, when ancient enemies, forgetting the past, shall “clasp hands” in true unity with the principles of the Declaration of Independence as the supreme law? Deploring the fate of Poland and of Ireland, I seize the earliest moment to escape from similar possibility here. Mindful that the memories of the Past can only yield to a happy Present, something would I do to promote this end. Anxious for the Equal Rights of All, and knowing well that no text of Law or Constitution is adequate without a supporting sentiment behind, I cannot miss the opportunity afforded by the present election of obtaining this strength for our great guaranties.

Reconstruction is now complete. Every State is represented in the Senate, and every District is represented in the House of Representatives. Every Senator and every Representative is in his place. There are no vacant seats in either Chamber; and among the members are fellow-citizens of the African race. And amnesty, nearly universal, has been adopted. In this condition of things I find new reason for change. The present incumbent knows little of our frame of government. By military education and military genius he represents the idea of Force; nor is he any exception to the rule of his profession, which appreciates only slightly a government that is not arbitrary. The time for the soldier has passed, especially when his renewed power would once more remind fellow-citizens of their defeat. Victory over fellow-citizens should be known only in the rights it assures; nor should it be flaunted in the face of the vanquished. It should not be inscribed on regimental colors, or portrayed in pictures at the National Capitol. But the present incumbent is a regimental color with the forbidden inscription; he is a picture at the National Capitol recalling victories over fellow-citizens. It is doubtful if such a presence can promote true reconciliation. Friendship does not grow where former differences are thrust into sight. There are wounds of the mind as of the body; these, too, must be healed. Instead of irritation and pressure, let there be gentleness and generosity. Men in this world get only what they give,—prejudice for prejudice, animosity for animosity, hate for hate. Likewise confidence is returned for confidence, good-will for good-will, friendship for friendship. On this rule, which is the same for the nation as for the individual, I would now act. So will the Republic be elevated to new heights of moral grandeur, and our people will manifest that virtue, “greatest of all,” which is found in charity. Above the conquest of others will be the conquest of ourselves. Nor will any fellow-citizen suffer in rights, but all will find new safeguard in the comprehensive fellowship.