Chapter LXV: Book III: Great Speeches on Great Issues (16)

When I made an incidental allusion of that kind in the joint discussion over at Charleston some weeks ago, Lincoln, in replying, said that I, Douglas, had charged him with voting against supplies for the Mexican war, and then he reared up, full length, and swore that he never voted against the supplies—that it was a slander—and caught hold of Ficklin, who sat on the stand, and said, “Here, Ficklin, tell the people that it is a lie.” Well, Ficklin, who had served in Congress with him, stood up and told them all that he recollected about it. It was that when George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, brought forward a resolution declaring the war unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust, that Lincoln had voted for it. “Yes,” said Lincoln, “I did.” Thus he confessed that he voted that the war was wrong, that our country was in the wrong, and consequently that the Mexicans were in the right; but charged that I had slandered him by saying that he voted against the supplies. I never charged him with voting against the supplies in my life, because I knew that he was not in Congress when they were voted. The war was commenced on the 13th day of May, 1846, and on that day we appropriated in Congress ten millions of dollars and fifty thousand men to prosecute it. During the same session we voted more men and more money, and at the next session we voted more men and more money, so that by the time Mr. Lincoln entered Congress we had enough men and enough money to carry on the war, and had no occasion to vote for any more. When he got into the House, being opposed to the war, and not being able to stop the supplies, because they had all gone forward, all he could do was to follow the lead of Corwin, and prove that the war was not begun on the right spot, and that it was unconstitutional, unnecessary, and wrong. Remember, too, that this he did after the war had been begun. It is one thing to be opposed to the declaration of a war, another and very different thing to take sides with the enemy against your own country after the war has been commenced. Our army was in Mexico at the time, many battles had been fought; our citizens, who were defending the honor of their country’s flag, were surrounded by the daggers, the guns and the poison of the enemy. Then it was that Corwin made his speech in which he declared that the American soldiers ought to be welcomed by the Mexicans with bloody hands and hospitable graves; then it was that Ashmun and Lincoln voted in the House of Representatives that the war was unconstitutional and unjust; and Ashmun’s resolution, Corwin’s speech, and Lincoln’s vote, were sent to Mexico and read at the head of the Mexican army, to prove to them that there was a Mexican party in the Congress of the United States who were doing all in their power to aid them. That a man who takes sides with the common enemy against his own country in time of war should rejoice in a war being made on me now, is very natural. And in my opinion, no other kind of a man would rejoice in it.

Mr. Lincoln has told you a great deal to-day about his being an old line Clay Whig. Bear in mind that there are a great many old Clay Whigs down in this region. It is more agreeable, therefore, for him to talk about the old Clay Whig party than it is for him to talk Abolitionism. We did not hear much about the old Clay Whig party up in the Abolition districts. How much of an old line Henry Clay Whig was he? Have you read General Singleton’s speech at Jacksonville? You know that Gen. Singleton was, for twenty-five years, the confidential friend of Henry Clay in Illinois, and he testified that in 1847, when the Constitutional Convention of this State was in session, the Whig members were invited to a Whig caucus at the house of Mr. Lincoln’s brother-in-law, where Mr. Lincoln proposed to throw Henry Clay overboard and take up Gen. Taylor in his place, giving, as his reason, that if the Whigs did not take up Gen. Taylor the Democrats would. Singleton testifies that Lincoln, in that speech, urged, as another reason for throwing Henry Clay overboard, that the Whigs had fought long enough for principle and ought to begin to fight for success. Singleton also testifies that Lincoln’s speech did have the effect of cutting Clay’s throat, and that he (Singleton) and others withdrew from the caucus in indignation. He further states that when they got to Philadelphia to attend the National Convention of the Whig party, that Lincoln was there, the bitter and deadly enemy of Clay, and that he tried to keep him (Singleton) out of the Convention because he insisted on voting for Clay, and Lincoln was determined to have Taylor. Singleton says that Lincoln rejoiced with very great joy when he found the mangled remains of the murdered Whig statesman lying cold before him. Now, Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is an old line Clay Whig! Gen. Singleton testifies to the facts I have narrated, in a public speech which has been printed and circulated broadcast over the State for weeks, yet not a lisp have we heard from Mr. Lincoln on the subject, except that he is an old Clay Whig.

What part of Henry Clay’s policy did Lincoln ever advocate? He was in Congress in 1848–9, when the Wilmot proviso warfare disturbed the peace and harmony of the country, until it shook the foundation of the Republic from its centre to its circumference. It was that agitation that brought Clay forth from his retirement at Ashland again to occupy his seat in the Senate of the United States, to see if he could not, by his great wisdom and experience, and the renown of his name, do something to restore peace and quiet to a disturbed country. Who got up that sectional strife that Clay had to be called upon to quell? I have heard Lincoln boast that he voted forty-two times for the Wilmot proviso, and that he would have voted as many times more if he could. Lincoln is the man, in connection with Seward, Chase, Giddings, and other Abolitionists, who got up that strife that I helped Clay to put down. Henry Clay came back to the Senate in 1849, and saw that he must do something to restore peace to the country. The Union Whigs and the Union Democrats welcomed him the moment he arrived, as the man for the occasion. We believed that he, of all men on earth, had been preserved by Divine Providence to guide us out of our difficulties, and we Democrats rallied under Clay then, as you Whigs in nullification time rallied under the banner of old Jackson, forgetting party when the country was in danger, in order that we might have a country first, and parties afterward.

And this reminds me that Mr. Lincoln told you that the slavery question was the only thing that ever disturbed the peace and harmony of the Union. Did not nullification once raise its head and disturb the peace of this Union in 1832? Was that the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln? Did not disunion raise its monster head during the last war with Great Britain? Was that the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln? The peace of this country has been disturbed three times, once during the war with Great Britain, once on the tariff question, and once on the slavery question. His argument, therefore, that slavery is the only question that has ever created dissension in the Union falls to the ground. It is true that agitators are enabled now to use this slavery question for the purpose of sectional strife. He admits that in regard to all things else, the principle that I advocate, making each State and Territory free to decide for itself, ought to prevail. He instances the cranberry laws, and the oyster laws, and he might have gone through the whole list with the same effect. I say that all these laws are local and domestic, and that local and domestic concerns should be left to each State and each Territory to manage for itself. If agitators would acquiesce in that principle, there never would be any danger to the peace and harmony of the Union.

Mr. Lincoln tries to avoid the main issue by attacking the truth of my proposition, that our fathers made this Government divided into free and slave States, recognizing the right of each to decide all its local questions for itself. Did they not thus make it? It is true that they did not establish slavery in any of the States, or abolish it in any of them; but finding thirteen States, twelve of which were slave and one free, they agreed to form a government uniting them together, as they stood divided into free and slave States, and to guaranty forever to each State the right to do as it pleased on the slavery question. Having thus made the government, and conferred this right upon each State forever, I assert that this Government can exist as they made it, divided into free and slave States, if any one State chooses to retain slavery. He says that he looks forward to a time when slavery shall be abolished everywhere. I look forward to a time when each State shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business—not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government, the right of the people to rule, than I do for all the negroes in Christendom. I would not endanger the perpetuity of this Union, I would not blot out the great inalienable rights of the white men for all the negroes that ever existed. Hence, I say, let us maintain this Government on the principles that our fathers made it, recognizing the right of each State to keep slavery as long as its people determine, or to abolish it when they please. But Mr. Lincoln says that when our fathers made this Government they did not look forward to the state of things now existing; and therefore he thinks the doctrine was wrong; and he quotes Brooks, of South Carolina, to prove that our fathers then thought that probably slavery would be abolished by each State acting for itself before this time. Suppose they did; suppose they did not foresee what has occurred,—does that change the principles of our Government? They did not probably foresee the telegraph that transmits intelligence by lightning, nor did they foresee the railroads that now form the bonds of union between the different States, or the thousand mechanical inventions that have elevated mankind. But do these things change the principles of the Government? Our fathers, I say, made this Government on the principle of the right of each State to do as it pleases in its own domestic affairs, subject to the Constitution, and allowed the people of each to apply to every new change of circumstances such remedy as they may see fit to improve their condition. This right they have for all time to come.

Mr. Lincoln went on to tell you that he did not at all desire to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists, nor does his party. I expected him to say that down here. Let me ask him then how he expects to put slavery in the course of ultimate extinction every where, if he does not intend to interfere with it in the States where it exists? He says that he will prohibit it in all the Territories, and the inference is, then, that unless they make free States out of them he will keep them out of the Union; for, mark you, he did not say whether or not he would vote to admit Kansas with slavery or not, as her people might apply (he forgot that as usual, etc.); he did not say whether or not he was in favor of bringing the Territories now in existence into the Union on the principle of Clay’s Compromise measures on the slavery question. I told you that he would not. His idea is that he will prohibit slavery in all the Territories and thus force them all to become free States, surrounding the slave States with a cordon of free States and hemming them in, keeping the slaves confined to their present limits whilst they go on multiplying until the soil on which they live will no longer feed them, and he will thus be able to put slavery in a course of ultimate extinction by starvation. He will extinguish slavery in the Southern States as the French general did the Algerines when he smoked them out. He is going to extinguish slavery by surrounding the slave States, hemming in the slaves, and starving them out of existence, as you smoke a fox out of his hole. He intends to do that in the name of humanity and Christianity, in order that we may get rid of the terrible crime and sin entailed upon our fathers of holding slaves. Mr. Lincoln makes out that line of policy, and appeals to the moral sense of justice and to the Christian feeling of the community to sustain him. He says that any man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the position of the king who claimed to govern by divine right. Let us examine for a moment and see what principle it was that overthrew the Divine right of George the Third to govern us. Did not these colonies rebel because the British parliament had no right to pass laws concerning our property and domestic and private institutions without our consent? We demanded that the British Government should not pass such laws unless they gave us representation in the body passing them,—and this the British government insisting on doing,—we went to war, on the principle that the Home Government should not control and govern distant colonies without giving them representation. Now, Mr. Lincoln proposes to govern the Territories without giving them a representation, and calls on Congress to pass laws controlling their property and domestic concerns without their consent and against their will. Thus, he asserts for his party the identical principle asserted by George III. and the Tories of the Revolution.

I ask you to look into these things, and then tell me whether the Democracy or the Abolitionists are right. I hold that the people of a Territory, like those of a State (I use the language of Mr. Buchanan in his letter of acceptance), have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. The point upon which Chief Justice Taney expresses his opinion is simply this, that slaves being property, stand on an equal footing with other property, and consequently that the owner has the same right to carry that property into a Territory that he has any other, subject to the same conditions. Suppose that one of your merchants was to take fifty or one hundred thousand dollars’ worth of liquors to Kansas. He has a right to go there under that decision, but when he gets there he finds the Maine liquor law in force, and what can he do with his property after he gets it there? He cannot sell it, he cannot use it, it is subject to the local law, and that law is against him, and the best thing he can do with it is to bring it back into Missouri or Illinois and sell it. If you take negroes to Kansas, as Col. Jeff. Davis said in his Bangor speech, from which I have quoted to-day, you must take them there subject to the local law. If the people want the institution of slavery they will protect and encourage it; but if they do not want it they will withhold that protection, and the absence of local legislation protecting slavery excludes it as completely as a positive prohibition. You slaveholders of Missouri might as well understand what you know practically, that you cannot carry slavery where the people do not want it. All you have a right to ask is that the people shall do as they please; if they want slavery let them have it; if they do not want it, allow them to refuse to encourage it.

My friends, if, as I have said before, we will only live up to this great fundamental principle, there will be peace between the North and the South. Mr. Lincoln admits that under the Constitution on all domestic questions, except slavery, we ought not to interfere with the people of each State. What right have we to interfere with slavery any more than we have to interfere with any other question? He says that this slavery question is now the bone of contention. Why? Simply because agitators have combined in all the free States to make war upon it. Suppose the agitators in the States should combine in one-half of the Union to make war upon the railroad system of the other half? They would thus be driven to the same sectional strife. Suppose one section makes war upon any other peculiar institution of the opposite section and the same strife is produced. The only remedy and safety is that we shall stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, obey the laws as they are passed, while they stand the proper test and sustain the decisions of the Supreme Court and the constituted authorities.

Speech of Hon. Jefferson Davis, Senator from Mississippi,

_On retiring from the United States Senate. Delivered in the Senate
Chamber January 21, 1861_.

I rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States. Under these circumstances, of course my functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce that fact to my associates, and I will say but very little more. The occasion does not invite me to go into argument; and my physical condition would not permit me to do so if it were otherwise, and yet it seems to become me to say something on the part of the State I here represent, on an occasion so solemn as this. It is known to Senators who have served with me here, that I have for many years advocated as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.

I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession so often confounded are indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union and against the agents of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a State, assuming to judge for itself denies the right of the agent thus to act and appeals to the other States of the Union for a decision; but when the States themselves and when the people of the States have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.

A great man who now reposes with his fathers and who has been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union advocated the doctrine of Nullification because it preserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of the severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other States, that Mr. Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgment.

Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again when a better comprehension of the theory of our government and the inalienable rights of the people of the States will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.

I therefore say I concur in the action of the people of Mississippi, believing it to be necessary and proper, and should have been bound by their action if my belief had been otherwise; and this brings me at the important point which I wish, on this last occasion, to present to the Senate. It is by this confounding of nullification and secession that the name of a great man whose ashes now mingle with his mother earth, has been invoked to justify coercion against a seceding state. The phrase “to execute the laws” was an expression which General Jackson applied to the case of a State refusing to obey the laws while yet a member of the Union. That is not the case which is now presented. The laws are to be executed over the United States, and upon the people of the United States. They have no relation with any foreign country. It is a perversion of terms, at least it is a great misapprehension of the case, which cites that expression for application to a State which has withdrawn from the Union. You may make war on a foreign State. If it be the purpose of gentlemen they may make war against a State which has withdrawn from the Union; but there are no laws of the United States to be executed within the limits of a Seceded State. A State finding herself in the condition in which Mississippi has judged she is; in which her safety requires that she should provide for the maintenance of her rights out of the Union, surrenders all the benefits, (and they are known to be many) deprives herself of the advantages, (they are known to be great) severs all the ties of affection (and they are close and enduring) which have bound her to the Union; and thus divesting herself of every benefit, taking upon herself every burden, she claims to be exempt from any power to execute the laws of the United States within her limits.

I well remember an occasion when Massachusetts was arraigned before the Bar of the Senate, and when then the doctrine of coercion was rife, and to be applied against her because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in Boston. My opinion then was the same as it is now. Not in the spirit of egotism, but to show that I am not influenced in my opinion because the case is my own, I refer to that time and that occasion as containing the opinion which I then entertained and on which my present conduct is based. I then said, if Massachusetts, following her through a stated line of conduct, chooses to take the last step which separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her back; but will say to her, “God speed,” in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other States. It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union, of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack on her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born—to use the language of Mr. Jefferson—booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal—meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III. was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do—to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal how was it the Prince was to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men—not even upon that of paupers and convicts, but so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste only to be represented in a numerical proportion of three-fifths.

Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny to us, the right to withdraw from a government which thus prevented, threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard. This is done not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit, but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children.

I find in myself, perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents towards yours. I am sure I feel no hostility to you, Senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, “I wish you well,” and such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent towards those whom you represent. I therefore feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope for peaceful relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country; and if you will have it thus, we will invoke the God of our fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the ravages of the bear, and thus, putting our trust in God, and to our firm hearts and strong arms we will vindicate the right as best we may.

In the course of my service here, associated at different times with a great variety of Senators, I see now around me some with whom I have served long; there have been points of collision, but whatever of offense there has been to me I leave here; I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you an apology for any harm which, in the heat of discussion, I have inflicted. I go hence unencumbered of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered.

Mr. President and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu.

Speech of the Hon. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts

_In the canvass against Horace Greeley at Richmond, Ind., August 3,
1872_.

AN ABSTRACT.

Gentlemen, standing here to-day, in this presence, among these liberty-loving, patriotic men and women of Wayne county, I want to call your attention for a few moments to what we have struggled for in the past.

Nearly forty years ago, when the slave power dominated the country—when the dark shadow of human slavery fell upon us all here in the North—there arose a body of conscientious men and women who proclaimed the doctrine that emancipation was the duty of the master and the right of the slave; they proclaimed it to be a duty to let the oppressed go free. Rewards were offered—they were denounced, mobbed—violence pervaded the land. Yet these faithful ones maintained with fidelity, against all odds, the sublime creed of human liberty. The struggle, commencing forty years ago against the assumptions and dominations of the slave power, went on from one step to another—the slave power went right on to the conquest of the country—promises were broken, without regard to constitutions or laws of the human race. The work went on till the people, in their majesty, in 1860, went to the ballot-box and made Abraham Lincoln President of the United States. [Cheers.] Then came a great trial; that trial was whether we should do battle for the principles of eternal right, and maintain the cause of liberty, or surrender; whether we would be true to our principles or false. We stood firm—stood by the sacred cause—and then the slave power plunged the country into a godless rebellion.

Then came another trial, testing the manhood, the courage, the sublime fidelity of the lovers of liberty in the country. We met that test as we had met every other test—trusting in God, trusting in the people—willing to stand or fall by our principles. Through four years of blood we maintained those principles; we broke down the rebellion, restored a broken Union, and vindicated the authority and power of the nation. In that struggle Indiana played a glorious part in the field, and her voice in the councils of the nation had great and deserved influence. [Cheers.]

Now, gentlemen, measured by the high standard of fidelity to country, of patriotism, the great political party to which we belong to-day was as true to the country in war as it had been in peace—true to the country every time, and on all occasions.

Not only true to the country, but the Republican party was true to liberty. It struck the fetters from the bondman, and elevated four and a half millions of men from chattel-hood to manhood; gave them civil rights, gave them political rights, and gave them part and parcel of the power of the country. [Applause.]

Now, gentlemen, here to-day, I point to this record—this great record—and say to you, that, measured by the standard of patriotism—one of the greatest and grandest standards by which to measure public men, political organizations or nations—measured by that standard which the whole world recognizes, the Republican party of the United States stands before the world with none, to accuse it of want of fidelity to country. [Cheers.] Measured by the standard of liberty, equal, universal, impartial liberty—liberty to all races, all colors and all nationalities—the Republican party stands to-day before the country pre-eminently the party of universal liberty. [Loud cheers.] Measured by the standard of humanity—that humanity that stoops down and lifts up the poor and lowly, the oppressed and the castaways, the poor, struggling sons and daughters of toil and misfortune—measured by that standard, the Republican party stands before this country to-day without a peer in our history, or in the history of any other people. [Renewed and general applause.] We have gone further, embraced more, lifted up lowlier men, carried them to a higher elevation, labored amid obloquy and reproach to lift up the despised and lowly nations of the earth than any political organization that the sun ever shone upon.

And then, gentlemen, tested by the support of all the great ideas that tend to lift up humanity, to pull none down, to lift all up, to carry the country upward and forward, ever toward God, the Republican party of the country has been, and now is, to-day, in advance of any political organization the world knows.

Gentlemen, I am not here to maintain that this great party, with its three and a half millions of voters, tested and tried as it has been during twelve years—I am not here to say that it has made no mistakes. We have committed errors; we could not always see what the right was; we failed sometimes; but, gentlemen, take our record—take it as it stands—it is a bright and glorious record, that any man, or set of men, may be proud of. We have stood, and we stand to-day, on the side of man, and on the side of the ideas God has given us in His Holy Word. [Applause.] There has not been a day since by the labors, the prayers and the sacrifices of the old anti-slavery men and women of the country, from 1830 to 1855—during twenty-five years—I say to you, gentlemen, here, to-day, that this party, the product of these prayers, and these sacrifices, and these efforts—with all its faults—has been true to patriotism, true to liberty, true to justice, true to humanity, true to Christian civilization. [Cheers.]

I say to you here to-day, that all along during this time, the Democratic party carried the banners of slavery. Whenever the slave power desired anything they got it. They wielded the entire power of the nation, until, in their arrogance, when we elected Abraham Lincoln, they plunged the country into the fire and blood of the greatest civil war recorded in history. After the war all the measures inaugurated for emancipation—to make the country free—to lift an emancipated race up—to give them instruction and make them citizens—to give them civil rights and make them voters—to put them on an equality with the rest of the people—to every one of that series of thirty or forty measures the Democratic party gave their President unqualified and united opposition. Well, now, we have been accustomed to say that they were mistaken, misinformed, that they were honest—that they believed what they did; but, gentlemen, if they have believed what they have said, that they have acted according to their convictions from 1832 to 1872—a period of forty years—can they be honest, to-day, in indorsing the Cincinnati platform—in supporting Horace Greeley? [“No, no!”]

Why, we have read of sudden and miraculous conversions. We read of St. Paul’s conversion, of the light that shone around him, but I ask you, in the history of the human family have you ever known three millions of men—three millions of great sinners for forty years—[laughter]—three millions of men, all convicted, all converted, and all changed in the twinkling of an eye. [Renewed laughter.] Why, gentlemen, if it is so, for one I will lift up my eyes and my heart to God, that those sinners, that this great political party that has been for forty years, every time and all the time, on every question and on all questions pertaining to the human race and the rights of the colored race, on the wrong side—on the side of injustice, oppression and inhumanity—on the side that has been against man, and against God’s holy word; I say, gentlemen, that I will lift up my heart in gratitude to God that these men have suddenly repented.

Why, I have been accustomed to think that the greatest victory the Republican party would ever be called upon to win—and I knew it would win it, because the Republican party, as Napoleon said of his armies, are accustomed to sleep on the field of victory. The Republican party—that always won—always ought to win, because it is on the right side; and when it is defeated, it only falls back to gather strength to advance again. [Applause.] I did suppose that the greatest task it would ever have, greater than putting down the rebellion, greater than emancipating four millions of men, greater than lifting them up to civil rights—greater than all its grand deeds—would be the conviction and conversion of the Democratic party of the United States. [Laughter and cheers.] Just as we are going into a Presidential election—when it was certain that if the Republican party said and affirmed, said by its members, said altogether, that its ideas, its principles, its policy, its measures, were stronger than were the political organization of the Democrats. I say, just as we are going into the contest, when it was certain that we would break down and crush out its ideas, and take its flags and disband it, and out of the wreck we would gather hundreds of thousands of changed and converted men, the best part of the body—just at that time some of our men are so anxious to embrace somebody that has always been wrong that they start out at once in a wild hunt to clasp hands with our enemies and to save the Democratic party from absolute annihilation. [Laughter.] To do what they want us is to disband. Well, gentlemen, I suppose there are some here to-day that belonged to the grand old Army of the Potomac. If when Lee had retreated on Richmond, and Phil. Sheridan sent back to Grant that if he pushed things he would capture the army—if, instead of sending back to Sheridan, as Grant did, “Push things,” he had said to him, “Let us disband the Army of the Potomac; don’t hurt the feelings of these retreating men; let us clasp hands with them,” what would have been the result? I suppose there are some of you here to-day that followed Sherman—that were with him in his terrible march from Chattanooga to Atlanta—with him in that great march from Atlanta to the sea—what would you have thought of him if, when you came in sight of the Atlantic ocean, you had had orders to disband before the banners of the rebellion had disappeared from the Southern heavens?

I tell you, to-day, this movement of a portion of our forces is this and nothing more. I would as soon have disbanded that Army of the Potomac after Sheridan’s ride through the valley of the Shenandoah, or when Sherman had reached the sea, as to disband the Republican party to-day. The time has not come. [Loud and continued applause.]

I am not making a mere partisan appeal to you. I believe in this Republican party, and, if I know myself, rather than see it defeated to-day—rather than see the government pass out of its hands—I would sacrifice anything on earth in my possession, even life itself. [Loud applause] I have seen brave and good men—patriotic, liberty-loving, God-fearing men—I have seen them die for the cause of the country—for the ideas we profess, and I tell you to-day, with all the faults of the Republican party—and it has had faults and has made some mistakes—I say to you that I believe upon my conscience its defeat would be a disaster to the country, and would be a stain upon our record. It would bring upon us—we might say what we pleased, our enemies would claim it, and the world would record it—that this great, patriotic, liberty-loving Republican party of the United States, after all its great labors and great history, had been weighed in the balances and found wanting, and condemned by the American people.

Well, gentlemen, I choose, if it is to fall, to fall with it. I became an anti-slavery man in 1835. In 1836 I tied myself, pledged myself, to do all I could to overthrow the slave power of my country. During all these years I have never given a vote, uttered a word, or written a line that I did not suppose tended to this result. I invoke you old anti-slavery men here to-day—and I know I am speaking to men who have been engaged in the cause—I implore you men who have been true in the past, no matter what the men or their natures are, to stand with the grand organization of the Republican party—be true to its cause and fight its battles—if we are defeated, let us accept the defeat as best we may; if we are victorious, let us make our future more glorious than the past. If we fail, let us have the proud consciousness that we have been faithful to our principles, true to our convictions; that we go down with our flag flying—that we go down trusting in God that our country may become, what we have striven to make it, the foremost nation on the globe. [Immense applause.]

Speech of Senator Oliver P. Morton, of Indiana,

_On the National Idea, at Providence, R. I._

The distinguished orator was introduced by Senator Anthony, and made an extended speech, from which we take the more pertinent paragraphs:

From this proposition two corollaries have been adduced from time to time, and I must say with great force of logic. The first is that this Union is composed of sovereign and independent States who have simply entered into a compact for particular purposes, and the government is merely their agent; that any State has the right to withdraw from the Union at pleasure, or whenever in its judgment the terms of the compact have been violated, or the interests of the State require its withdrawal. The second is that each State has the right to nullify any law of Congress which, in the judgment of the State, is in violation of the compact by which the government was formed. This doctrine has been the evil genius of the country from the foundation of our government. It may be said to be the devil in our political system. It has been our danger from the first. It is the rock in the straits, and we fear that the end is not yet. Now what can we oppose to this doctrine? We oppose what we call “the national idea.” We assume that this government was formed by the governments of the United States in their aggregate and in their primary capacity. We assume that, instead of there being thirty-seven nations, there is but one; instead of there being thirty-seven sovereignties, there is but one sovereignty. We assume that the States are not sovereign, but that they are integral and subordinate parts of one great country. I may be asked the question here, “Are there no State rights? Would you override the States? Would you obliterate State lines?” I answer, “No.” I answer that this doctrine is the only doctrine that can preserve the peace of this nation and preserve the rights of the States. I answer that there is a vast body of State rights guaranteed and secured by the Constitution of the United States, by the same Constitution that created and upholds the government of the United States; that these State rights have the same guarantee that the rights of the National Government have, equally entitled to the protection of the Supreme Court, springing out of the same instrument, and that one set of rights are just as sacred as the other. Some confound the idea of State sovereignty and State rights as being one and the same thing. Others seem to suppose that State rights are only consistent with State sovereignty, and cannot exist except upon the theory of State sovereignty; while I assume that State rights are consistent with National sovereignty, and are safest under the protection of the nation. The Constitution gives one class of rights to the government of the United States. They are specified, and they carry with them all the rights that are indispensable and necessary to their full execution and enjoyment. The rest are to be held and enjoyed by the States, or reserved to the people. The States have their rights by the agreement of the nation. That seems to be the important truth that is so often overlooked, that the rights of the States, sacred and unapproachable, are sacred by the agreement of the nation, as much so as are the powers that are conferred upon the government of the United States, that the States derive their powers from the same source, viz: The Constitution of the United States. That Constitution says that the government shall have one class of powers, and that other powers shall be gained by the States, to be enjoyed by them or reserved to the people. In the consideration of this question, we must reflect that the nation had assembled in convention in 1787, and there formed a government, there declared what rights should be given to the National Government, and what rights should be reserved to the States, and that, in either case, the grant and guarantee is an act of national sovereignty by the people in convention assembled. When we shall embrace this idea fully, all the danger of centralization will pass away, though we discard the idea of State sovereignty.

I do not differ so much with many gentlemen in regard to what the rights of the States are. I differ with them in regard to the titles by which they hold them. I say that so far as State rights are concerned, and the rights of the government, that we are not to go back beyond the period of 1787, when the Constitution was formed. The rights of the elder States, and of Rhode Island as she has them now, are to be dated from the formation of the Constitution. Then they came into convention. They had the right to make any sort of government they pleased, and they did. And in that government they guarantied and secured to the States the great body of rights in regard to local and domestic government, but it was the agreement of the nation at that time. So far as the new States are concerned, they are to come in on an equality. They are to have the same rights with the old; and this theory would be impossible of execution except upon the idea that the rights of the States and of the National Government are to be determined from the action that was taken at that time. The difficulty had been in regard to this theory of State sovereignty, and the assumed right of secession and of nullification was the result. They assumed that these States existed as nations separate and distinct before that time, and that they only loaned a portion of their rights for a particular purpose. This is the base of that theory; while we assume that the people were acting together at that time in their aggregate capacity, raising a system of government, giving the United States certain powers, and providing that the States should hold and enjoy the rest, excepting those that were reserved to the people. The preservation of local self-government is essential to the liberties of this nation. Nobody endorses that sentiment more strongly than I do. Nobody will stand by the rights of the States more firmly than I will. I hold that their rights are consistent with national sovereignty, and that national sovereignty is consistent with the rights of the States, and I deny that these rights are the result of inherent original State sovereignty. In other words, we differ in regard to the title. What the States should have, and what the government should have, was settled by the act of the nation in convention in 1787, changed to some extent by the adoption of amendments since that time. It is not enough for a party to deny the right of secession. It is not enough for a party to deny the right of nullification. They must go further. They must deny the doctrine of State sovereignty; for as long as that doctrine is admitted, these other things will spring up spontaneously from it, and whenever the occasion allows it. If we were to admit that the States were sovereign, then we would be bound to say that Webster did not answer Hayne, and that Webster and Hayne never answered Calhoun. If once it is admitted that the States are sovereign, it is hard to resist the corollaries to which I have referred, that they have the right to secede, and that they have the right to nullify.

The doctrine of nationality planted deep in the hearts of the American people is our only sheet-anchor of safety for the future. Our country is greatly extended, from the tropical to the arctic regions, with every variety of climate, soil, and productions, with different commercial and manufacturing interests. The States on the Pacific slopes are separated from those on this side of the Rocky Mountains by fifteen hundred miles of mountain and desert. They have a different commerce from what you have, almost an independent commerce. Their commerce will be with China, Japan, Australia, the western countries of South America, and the islands of the Southern Pacific. It is now but in its infancy, but it bids fair to develop into colossal proportions, and may change the commercial aspect of the world. We know not what feelings of independence may arise in those States in time to come. It is difficult to deny the effect that may be produced by the separation of vast States with a different commerce acting in conjunction with forced theories of the origin and laws of our government. In saying this I will cast no imputation upon the loyalty of those States. They are now as loyal as any, and were during the war. But we can imagine that what has been may be again. And we can understand what may be the danger of this doctrine, if it should still maintain its hold in the minds of the American people, when conflicting interests arise, and conflicting notions arise as to what may be the interests of the people; as in 1812 a war was brought about which was regarded as being fatal to the interests of the New England States, they took their position upon it. We have had a law which was regarded in South Carolina as being fatal to her interests, and she took her position upon it. This doctrine was again seized by slavery in 1861, and the rebellion was brought on. And what may happen in the far future upon the eastern and western coasts, upon the northern and southern extremities of our nation, we cannot tell.