Chapter XIII: Appendix (2)

The act also sets forth the manner in which the people of any one
of the rebel States could form a State constitution, and the terms
on which the State would be fully restored to proper relations with
the Union. The most important provisions are those relating to the
qualifications of voters, and the one requiring the adoption of the
amendment to the constitution proposed by the Thirty-ninth
Congress, known as article fourteen. The right of suffrage is given
to all men of suitable age and residence, without distinction of
race or color, except a limited number who are excluded for
participation in the rebellion.

In pursuance of these acts, the district of Louisiana and Texas
was placed under the command of General Sheridan; Arkansas and
Mississippi under General Ord; Alabama, Georgia, and Florida under
General Pope; North Carolina and South Carolina under General
Sickles; and Virginia under General Schofield. The merits of this
plan are obvious.

1. It places the rebels again under the control of the power which
conquered them, and of the very officers to whom they surrendered.

2. It is well calculated to afford protection to all loyal people,
white or colored, against those who would oppress or injure them on
account of their loyalty.

3. It places the new State governments of the South upon the solid
basis of justice and equal rights.

This plan received in Congress the support of many members of
Congress who did not uniformly vote with the Union party, and was
acceptable to some of its most distinguished adversaries. In the
Senate, Reverdy Johnson, a Maryland Democrat, voted for it, and
made effective speeches in its support. The loyal press of the
North, without exception, upheld it.

In the South, its success was everywhere gratifying and unexampled.
Its enemies had said that it would organize anarchy in the rebel
States--that it would immediately inaugurate a war of races between
whites and blacks--and compared the condition of the South under it
to the condition of India under English oppression, and to Hungary
under the despotism of Austria.

But the course of the public press, and the conduct, the letters,
and speeches of public men in the rebel States, vindicated the
wisdom and justice of the measure. I will quote only from rebel
sources.

In Virginia, the Charlottesville _Chronicle_ addressed its readers
as follows:

"FOR WHITE FOLKS AND COLORED FOLKS.--Every colored person may now
go where and when he pleases. He is a free man and a full citizen.
This is not all; by another bound they have become voters. They
will take part in the government of the country. No people was ever
so suddenly, so rapidly lifted up.

"Shall we all live happily together, or shall we hate each other,
and quarrel and bear malice?

"Let us all try and get on together. The land is big enough. Let
the whites accommodate themselves to the new state of things. Let
them be polite and kind to all, and be always ready to accord to
every man, whether white or colored, his full rights. We make bold
to say that the behavior of the colored people of this State, since
they were set free, has surprised all fair-minded white people. We
do not believe the white people, under the same circumstances,
would have behaved so well by twenty per cent. They have shown the
greatest moderation. They have passed from plantation hands to
freedom and the ballot without outward excitement."

The Richmond _Examiner_, the organ of the fire-eaters, says of the
colored people:

"This class of our population, as a general thing, manifest a
disposition to prepare themselves for the altered political
condition in which the events of the past two years have placed
them. The sudden abolition of slavery did not, as most persons
expected, turn their heads. They have been, in the main, orderly
and well behaved. They have not presumed upon their newly-acquired
freedom to commit breaches of the peace or to be guilty of any acts
calculated to sow dissension between the two races. The utmost good
feeling is felt by the white people of this city toward the
negroes. There is not one particle of bitterness felt for them."

In South Carolina, Wade Hampton addressed a mixed assembly of
whites and colored people at Columbia, in which he quoted from a
former speech to his old soldiers:

"There is one other point on which there should be no
misunderstanding as to our position--no loop on which to hang a
possible misconstruction as to our views--and that is the abolition
of slavery. The deed has been done, and I, for one, do honestly
declare that I never wish to see it revoked. Nor do I believe that
the people of the South would now remand the negro to slavery, if
they had the power to do so unquestioned.

"Under our paternal care, from a mere handful, he grew to be a
mighty host. He came to us a heathen; we made him a Christian.
Idle, vicious, savage in his own country, in ours he became
industrious, gentle, civilized. As a slave, he was faithful to us;
as a freeman, let us treat him as a friend. Deal with him frankly,
justly, kindly, and, my word for it, he will reciprocate your
kindness. If you wish so see him contented, industrious, useful,
aid him in his efforts to elevate himself in the scale of
civilization, and thus fit him not only to enjoy the blessings of
freedom, but to appreciate his duties."

After stating the provisions of the "military bill," as he calls
the reconstruction law, he said to the colored people:

"But suppose the bill is pronounced unconstitutional; how then? I
tell you what I am willing to see done. I am willing to give the
right of suffrage to all who can read and who pay a certain amount
of taxes; and I agree that this qualification shall bear on white
and black alike. You would have no right to complain of a law which
would put you on a perfect political equality with the whites, and
which would put within your reach and that of your children the
privilege enjoyed by any class of citizens."

In Georgia, the prevailing sentiment is indicated by the following.
The Atlanta _New Era_ says:

"We freely accept the Sherman platform as the only means whereby to
rescue the country from total destruction, and if we mistake not,
our backbone will prove sufficiently strong to enable us to look
the issue full in the face, without a shudder. It is our bounden
duty, and that of every other patriot and well-wisher of the South,
to at once signify an unconditional acceptance of the measures
perfected by Congress for our restoration to the Union, and
heartily co-operate with the United States authorities in securing
that most desirable end."

The Augusta _Press_, alluding to the recent meeting of negroes at
Columbia, S. C., and the fact that speeches were made by General
Wade Hampton and others, states that--

"All good citizens all over the South entertain precisely the same
kind feelings for the colored people that were exhibited by these
eminent Carolinians, and it is unfortunate that these sentiments
are not more widely manifested in meetings for public counsel with
them. 'Representative men' in every community should be prompt and
earnest in signifying their wish to co-operate with the colored
people in the administration of the laws and the preservation of
harmony and good will. To this end, we deem it our duty to urge
that in every community public meetings be held, in which the two
races may take friendly counsel together."

In Florida, Hon. R. S. Mallory, a former Democratic United States
Senator, is reported to have said, at a large meeting composed of
whites and blacks, in Pensacola, that--

"The recent legislation of Congress ought to be submitted to in
good faith; that, as the negro was now entitled to vote, it was the
interest of the State that he should be educated and enlightened,
and made to comprehend the priceless value of the ballot, and the
importance to himself and to the State of its judicious use.

"Let us fully and frankly acknowledge, as well by deeds as by
words, their equality with us, before law, and regard it as no less
just to ourselves and them than to our State and her best interests
to aid in their education, elevation, and enjoyment of all the
rights which follow their new condition."

Governor Patton, of Alabama, says:

"It seems to me that it is the true feeling of the Southern people
to contribute their best influence in favor of an early
organization of their respective States, in accordance with the
requirements of the recent reconstruction act. Congress claims the
right to control this whole question. In my humble judgment, it is
unwise to contend longer against its power, or to struggle further
against its repeatedly expressed will."

* * * * *

"The freedmen are now to vote the first time. We should cherish
against them no ill-feeling. The elective franchise is conferred
upon them; let them exercise it freely, and in their own way. No
effort should be made to control their votes, except such as may
tend to enable them to vote intelligently, and such as may be
necessary to protect them against mischievous influences to which,
from their want of intelligence, they may possibly be subjected.
Above all things, we should discourage everything which may tend to
generate antagonism between white and colored voters."

In Mississippi, Albert G. Brown, a former Democratic United States
Senator, and a rebel, says:

"To those who think it most becoming men in my situation to keep
quiet, I am free to say 'that is very much my own opinion.'"

"As I speak reluctantly, you will not be surprised if I say as
little as possible."

* * * * *

"The negro is a fixture in this country. He is not going out of
it; he is not going to die out, and he is not going to be driven
out. Nor is his exodus from the country desirable. I am frank in
saying if they, every one of them, could be packed in a balloon,
carried over the water, and emptied into Africa, I would not have
it done, unless, indeed, it were already arranged that the balloon
should return by the way of Germany, Ireland, Scotland, etc., and
bring us a return cargo of white laborers. If the negro is to stay
here, and it is desirable to have him do so, what is the duty of
the intelligent white man toward him? Why, to educate him, admit
him, when sufficiently instructed, to the right of voting, and as
rapidly as possible prepare him for a safe and rational enjoyment
of that 'equality before the law' which, as a free man, he has a
right to claim, and which we can not long refuse to give."

The Mississippi _Index_ says:

"There are some laws on our statute-book respecting negroes that
are of no practical use, and will have to be done away with some
day. The sooner we dispense with them the better. But in the matter
of educating the negro we can accomplish more toward convincing the
people of the North that we have been misrepresented and slandered
than by legislative action. Let us take the work of education out
of the hands of the Yankees among us. We can do this by encouraging
the establishment of negro schools and placing them in the charge
of men and women whom we know to be competent and trustworthy."

In Louisiana, General Longstreet, one of the most distinguished of
the rebel Generals, says:

"The striking feature, and the one that our people should keep in
view, is, that we are a conquered people. Recognizing this fact
fairly and squarely, there is but one course left for wise men to
pursue--accept the terms that are offered us by the conquerors.
There can be no discredit to a conquered people for accepting the
conditions offered by their conquerors. Nor is that any occasion
for a feeling of humiliation. We have made an honest, and I hope
that I may say, a creditable fight, but we have lost. Let us come
forward, then, and accept the ends involved in the struggle.

"Our people earnestly desire that the constitutional government
shall be re-established, and the only means to accomplish this is
to comply with the requirements of the recent Congressional
legislation."

* * * * *

"The military bill and amendments are peace offerings. We should
accept them as such, and place ourselves upon them as the
starting-point from which to meet future political issues as they
arise."

"Like other Southern men, I naturally sought alliance with the
Democratic party, merely because it was opposed to the Republican
party. But, as far as I can judge, there is nothing tangible about
it, except the issues that were staked upon the war and lost.
Finding nothing to take hold of except prejudice, which can not be
worked into good for any one, it is proper and right that I should
seek some standpoint from which good may be done."

Quotations like these from prominent Democratic politicians, from
rebel soldiers, and from influential rebel newspapers, might be
multiplied indefinitely. Enough have been given to show how
completely and how exactly the Reconstruction Acts have met the
evil to be remedied in the South. My friend, Mr. Hassaurek, in his
admirable speech at Columbus, did not estimate too highly the
fruits of these measures. Said he:

"And, sir, this remedy at once effected the desired cure. The poor
contraband is no longer the persecuted outlaw whom incurable rebels
might kick and kill with impunity; but he at once became 'our
colored fellow-citizen,' in whose well-being his former master
takes the liveliest interest. Thus, by bringing the negro under the
American system, we have completed his emancipation. He has ceased
to be a pariah. From an outcast he has been transformed into a
human being, invested with the great National attribute of
self-protection, and the re-establishment of peace, and order, and
security, the revival of business and trade, and the restoration of
the Southern States on the basis of loyalty and equal justice to
all, will be the happy results of this astonishing metamorphosis,
provided the party which has inaugurated this policy remains in
power to carry it out."

The Peace Democracy generally throughout the North oppose this
measure. In Ohio they oppose it especially because it commits the
people of the Nation in favor of manhood suffrage. They tell us
that if it is wise and just to entrust the ballot to colored men
in the District of Columbia, in the Territories, and in the rebel
States, it is also just and wise that they should have it in Ohio
and in the other States of the North.

Union men do not question this reasoning, but if it is urged as an
objection to the plan of Congress, we reply: There are now within
the limits of the United States about five millions of colored
people. They are not aliens or strangers. They are here not by the
choice of themselves or of their ancestors. They are here by the
misfortune of their fathers and the crime of ours. Their labor,
privations, and sufferings, unpaid and unrequited, have cleared and
redeemed one-third of the inhabited territory of the Union. Their
toil has added to the resources and wealth of the nation untold
millions. Whether we prefer it or not, they are our countrymen, and
will remain so forever.

They are more than countrymen--they are citizens. Free colored
people were citizens of the colonies. The Constitution of the
United States, formed by our fathers, created no disabilities on
account of color. By the acts of our fathers and of ourselves, they
bear equally the burdens and are required to discharge the highest
duties of citizens. They are compelled to pay taxes and to bear
arms. They fought side by side with their white countrymen in the
great struggle for independence, and in the recent war for the
Union. In the revolutionary contest, colored men bore an honorable
part, from the Boston massacre, in 1770, to the surrender of
Cornwallis, in 1781. Bancroft says: "Their names may be read on the
pension rolls of the country side by side with those of other
soldiers of the revolution." In the war of 1812 General Jackson
issued an order complimenting the colored men of his army engaged
in the defense of New Orleans. I need not speak of their number or
of their services in the war of the rebellion. The Nation enrolled
and accepted them among her defendants to the number of about two
hundred thousand, and in the new regular army act, passed at the
close of the rebellion, by the votes of Democrats and Union men
alike, in the Senate and in the House, and by the assent of the
president, regiments of colored men, cavalry and infantry, form
part of the standing army of the Republic.

In the navy, colored American sailors have fought side by side with
white men from the days of Paul Jones to the victory of the
Kearsarge over the rebel pirate Alabama. Colored men will, in the
future as in the past, in all times of National peril, be our
fellow-soldiers. Tax-payers, countrymen, fellow-citizens, and
fellow-soldiers, the colored men of America have been and will be.
It is now too late for the adversaries of nationality and human
rights to undertake to deprive these tax-payers, freemen, citizens,
and soldiers of the right to vote.

Slaves were never voters. It was bad enough that our fathers, for
the sake of Union, were compelled to allow masters to reckon
three-fifths of their slaves for representation, without adding
slave suffrage to the other privileges of the slaveholder. But free
colored men were always voters in many of the Colonies, and in
several of the States, North and South, after independence was
achieved. They voted for members of the Congress which declared
independence, and for members of every Congress prior to the
adoption of the Federal Constitution; for the members of the
convention which framed the Constitution; for the members of many
of the State conventions which ratified it, and for every president
from Washington to Lincoln.

Our government has been called the white man's government. Not so.
It is not the government of any class, or sect, or nationality, or
race. It is a government founded on the consent of the governed,
and Mr. Broomall, of Pennsylvania, therefore properly calls it "the
government of the governed." It is not the government of the native
born, or of the foreign born, of the rich man, or of the poor man,
of the white man, or of the colored man--it is the government of
the freeman. And when colored men were made citizens, soldiers, and
freemen, by our consent and votes, we were estopped from denying to
them the right of suffrage.

General Sherman was right when he said, in his Atlanta letter, of
1864: "If you admit the negro to this struggle for any purpose, he
has a right to stay in for all; and, when the fight is over, the
hand that drops the musket can not be denied the ballot."

Even our adversaries are compelled to admit the Jeffersonian rule,
that "the man who pays taxes and who fights for the country is
entitled to vote."

Mr. Pendleton, in his speech against the enlistment of colored
soldiers, gave up the whole controversy. He said: "Gentlemen tell
us that these colored men are ready, with their strong arms and
their brave hearts, to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution,
and to defend the integrity of the Union, which in our hands to-day
is in peril. What is that Constitution? It provides that every
child of the Republic, every citizen of the land is before the law
the equal of every other. It provides for all of them trial by
jury, free speech, free press, entire protection for life and
liberty and property. It goes further. It secures to every citizen
the right of suffrage, the right to hold office, the right to
aspire to every office or agency by which the government is carried
on. Every man called upon to do military duty, every man required
to take up arms in its defense, is by its provisions entitled to
vote, and a competent aspirant for every office in the government."

The truth is, impartial manhood suffrage is already practically
decided. It is now merely a question of time. In the eleven rebel
States, in five of the New England States, and in a number of the
Northwestern States, there is no organized party able to
successfully oppose impartial suffrage. The Democratic party of
more than half of the States are ready to concede its justice and
expediency. The Boston _Post_, the able organ of the New England
Democracy, says:

"Color ought to have no more to do with the matter (voting) than
size. Only establish a right standard, and then apply it
impartially. A rule of that sort is too firmly fixed in justice and
equality to be shaken. It commends itself too clearly to the good
sentiment of the entire body of our countrymen to be successfully
traversed by objections. Once let this principle be fairly
presented to the people of the several States, with the knowledge
on their part that they alone are to have the disposal and
settlement of it, and we sincerely believe it would not be long
before it would be adopted by every State in the Union."

The New York _World_, the ablest Democratic newspaper in the Union,
says:

"Democrats in the North, as well as the South, should be fully
alive to the importance of the new element thrust into the politics
of the country. We suppose it to be morally certain that the new
constitution of the State of New York, to be framed this year, will
confer the elective franchise upon all adult male negroes. We have
no faith in the success of any efforts to shut the negro element
out of politics. It is the part of wisdom frankly to accept the
situation, and get beforehand with the Radicals in gaining an
ascendancy over the negro mind."

The Chicago _Times_, the influential organ of the Northwestern
Democracy, says:

"The word 'white' is not found in any of the original
constitutions, save only that of South Carolina. In every other
State negroes, who possessed the qualifications that were required
impartially of all men, were admitted to vote, and many of that
race did vote, in the Southern as well as in the Northern States.
And, moreover, they voted the Democratic ticket, for it was the
Democratic party of that day which affirmed their right in that
respect upon an impartial basis with white men. All Democrats can
not, even at this day, have forgotten the statement of General
Jackson, that he was supported for the presidency by negro voters
in the State of Tennessee.

"The doctrine of impartial suffrage is one of the earliest and most
essential doctrines of Democracy. It is the affirmation of the
right of every man who is made a partaker of the burdens of the
State to be represented by his own consent or vote in its
government. It is the first principle upon which all true
republican government rests. It is the basis upon which the
liberties of America will be preserved, if they are preserved at
all. The Democratic party must return from its driftings, and stand
again upon the immutable rock of principles."

In Ohio the leaders of the Peace Democracy intend to carry on one
more campaign on the old and rotten platform of prejudice against
colored people. They seek in this way to divert attention from the
record they made during the war of the rebellion. But the great
facts of our recent history are against them. The principles of the
fathers, reason, religion, and the spirit of the age are against
them.

The plain and monstrous inconsistency and injustice of excluding
one-seventh of our population from all participation in a
government founded on the consent of the governed in this land of
free discussion is simply impossible. No such absurdity and wrong
can be permanent. Impartial suffrage will carry the day. No low
prejudice will long be able to induce American citizens to deny to
a weak people their best means of self-protection for the unmanly
reason that they are weak. Chief Justice Chase expressed the true
sentiment when he said "the American Nation can not afford to do
the smallest injustice to the humblest and feeblest of her
children."

Much has been said of the antagonism which exists between the
different races of men. But difference of religion, difference of
nationality, difference of language, and difference of rank and
privileges are quite as fruitful causes of antagonism and war as
difference of race. The bitter strifes between Christians and Jews,
between Catholics and Protestants, between Englishmen and Irishmen,
between aristocracy and the masses are only too familiar. What
causes increase and aggravate these antagonisms, and what are the
measures which diminish and prevent them, ought to be equally
familiar. Under the partial and unjust laws of the Nations of the
Old World men of one nationality were allowed to oppress those of
another; men of one faith had rights which were denied to men of a
different faith; men of one rank or caste enjoyed special
privileges which were not granted to men of another. Under these
systems peace was impossible and strife perpetual. But under just
and equal laws in the United States, Jews, Protestants, and
Catholics, Englishmen and Irishmen, the former aristocrat and the
masses of the people, dwell and mingle harmoniously together. The
uniform lesson of history is that unjust and partial laws increase
and create antagonism, while justice and equality are the sure
foundation of prosperity and peace.

Impartial suffrage secures also popular education. Nothing has
given the careful observer of events in the South more
gratification than the progress which is there going on in the
establishment of schools. The colored people, who as slaves were
debarred from education, regard the right to learn as one of the
highest privileges of freemen. The ballot gives them the power to
secure that privilege. All parties and all public men in the South
agree that, if colored men vote, ample provision must be made in
the reorganization of every State for free schools. The ignorance
of the masses, whites as well as blacks, is one of the most
discouraging features of Southern society. If Congressional
reconstruction succeeds, there will be free schools for all. The
colored people will see that their children attend them. We need
indulge in no fears that the white people will be left behind.
Impartial suffrage, then, means popular intelligence; it means
progress; it means loyalty; it means harmony between the North and
the South, and between the whites and the colored people.

The Union party believes that the general welfare requires that
measures should be adopted which will work great changes in the
South. Our adversaries are accustomed to talk of the rebellion as
an affair which began when the rebels attacked Fort Sumter in 1861,
and which ended when Lee surrendered to Grant in 1865. It is true
that the attempt by force of arms to destroy the United States
began and ended during the administration of Mr. Lincoln. But the
causes, the principles, and the motives which produced the
rebellion are of an older date than the generation which suffered
from the fruit they bore, and their influence and power are likely
to last long after that generation passes away. Ever since armed
rebellion failed, a large party in the South have struggled to make
participation in the rebellion honorable and loyalty to the Union
dishonorable. The lost cause with them is the honored cause. In
society, in business, and in politics, devotion to treason is the
test of merit, the passport to preferment. They wish to return to
the old state of things--_an oligarchy of race and the sovereignty
of States._

To defeat this purpose, to secure the rights of man, and to
perpetuate the National Union, are the objects of the Congressional
plan of reconstruction. That plan has the hearty support of the
great generals (so far as their opinions are known)--of Grant, of
Thomas, of Sheridan, of Howard--who led the armies of the Union
which conquered the rebellion. The statesmen most trusted by Mr.
Lincoln and by the loyal people of the country during the war also
support it. The Supreme Court of the United States, upon formal
application and after solemn argument, refuse to interfere with its
execution. The loyal press of the country, which did so much in the
time of need to uphold the patriot cause, without exception, are in
favor of the plan.

In the South, as we have seen, the lessons of the war and the
events occurring since the war have made converts of thousands of
the bravest and of the ablest of those who opposed the National
cause. General Longstreet, a soldier second to no living corps
commander of the rebel army, calls it "a peace offering," and
advises the South in good faith to organize under it. Unrepentant
rebels and unconverted Peace Democrats oppose it, just as they
opposed the measures which destroyed slavery and saved the nation.

Opposition to whatever the Nation approves seems to be the policy
of the representative men of the Peace Democracy. Defeat and
failure comprise their whole political history. In laboring to
overthrow reconstruction they are probably destined to further
defeat and further failure. I know not how it may be in other
States, but if I am not greatly mistaken as to the mind of the
loyal people of Ohio, they mean to trust power in the hands of no
man who, during the awful struggle for the Nation's life, proved
unfaithful to the cause of liberty and of Union. They will continue
to exclude from the administration of the government those who
prominently opposed the war, until every question arising out of
the rebellion relating to the integrity of the Nation and to human
rights shall have been firmly settled on the basis of impartial
justice.

They mean that the State of Ohio, in this great progress, "whose
leading object is to elevate the condition of men, to lift
artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of
laudable pursuits for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a
fair chance in the race of life," shall tread no step backward.

Penetrated and sustained by a conviction that in this contest the
Union party of Ohio is doing battle for the right, I enter upon my
part of the labors of the canvass with undoubting confidence that
the goodness of the cause will supply the weakness of its
advocates, and command in the result that triumphant success which
I believe it deserves.

_Speech of_ GENERAL R. B. HAYES, _delivered at Sidney, Ohio, Wednesday, September 4, 1867._

_Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens:_

It was very plain at the beginning of the pending canvass in Ohio
that the leading speakers of the peace party of the State were
desirous to persuade the people that at this election they were to
pass upon different issues from those which have been considered
in former elections. They undertook at the beginning, generally, to
discuss questions which have not heretofore been much considered.
They told the people that the old issues were settled, and that in
this canvass in particular, there would be no propriety in
discussing the record made by men during the war; that the war was
over; that bygones ought to be permitted to be bygones; and they
started a considerable number of subjects for discussion, which I
claim are either unimportant matters, or are matters which are in
no sense party questions. For example, Judge Ranney, in a very
elaborate speech at Mansfield, of great length, discussed perhaps a
dozen or fifteen topics, almost all of which are in no sense party
questions. For example, he talked about the land grants that had
been made to the railroads, particularly to the Pacific Railroad,
during the last few years, and of the subsidies of money that by
law have been given to the railroad companies. Now, this is but a
specimen of the topics discussed by Judge Ranney. It is enough to
say, in regard to the railroads, that they were voted for
indiscriminately by Union men and by Democrats--peace Democrats and
war Democrats--and that they were finally made laws by the
signature of Andrew Johnson. They are in no sense, therefore, party
issues; and the only purpose of discussing them is, so far as I can
see, to mislead the people, and to withdraw their attention from
the main issues before them.

Judge Thurman has discussed the subject of a standing army. He has
spoken of the great expense of keeping up a standing army, and, as
I think, has greatly exaggerated the sum requisite--naming two
hundred and fifty millions as the annual expense of it. I suppose
that is three or four, or perhaps five times as great as the actual
amount: but I do not stop to argue that matter with him. I say to
him, in regard to it, that Democrats voted for it in both houses,
and it became a law by the signature of the president whom he
supports. It is not, therefore, a party issue.

I can not, in any reasonable length of time, even name the various
topics that have been discussed in this way. Perhaps none has
attracted more attention than the subject of finances, and the main
issue presented by our Democratic friends on that subject has been
this--namely, that it is for the interest of the people to pay off
the whole of the present bonded debt by an issue of greenbacks. At
the beginning of the canvass, the Cincinnati _Enquirer_, and, I
think, the leading peace party paper at Columbus, and Mr.
Vallandigham, presented this as the leading question before the
people. The _Enquirer_ told us that Democratic conventions in forty
counties had resolved in favor of it; and certainly if any one of
the topics which have been presented in this way may be regarded as
a party topic, that is one. If they have succeeded in making a new
issue, that is one. On the 20th of last month, I spoke at Batavia,
and I referred to that subject. I said that Judge Thurman was
plainly committed against the issue of more greenbacks; that when
we were in the midst of the war, and the necessities of the country
were such that it was necessary to get money by every means in our
power, he had told the people there was no constitutional authority
to issue greenbacks. I said further, that in his speech at Waverly
he had spoken of this currency as a currency of rags; and that,
therefore, I was authorized to say he was opposed to this new
scheme of the Cincinnati _Enquirer_. That speech of mine was
reported in the Cincinnati _Commercial_ of the next morning. On the
following day, the 22d of August, the _Enquirer_ noticed my speech.
I will read you the whole of the _Enquirer's_ article on that
subject. I do this because I think, in this county as well as
elsewhere, Democrats are claiming the votes of Union men on the
ground that it is wise to pay off the bonded debt by an issue of
greenbacks, and I wish to show that Judge Thurman is opposed to the
scheme. Therefore, it is no party issue, because no party State
convention has resolved in favor of it, and the peace party
candidate for governor is against it. The _Enquirer_ says, under
the caption of "Judge Thurman and the bondholders:"

"In his speech at Batavia, Clermont county, on Tuesday, General
Hayes, while discussing the payment of the public debt question,
said:

"Judge Thurman has not yet spoken distinctly on this question. But
his well-known opinion, that even the necessities of the war did
not authorize, under our constitution, the issue of the
legal-tender currency, coupled with the fact that he speaks of it
in his Waverly speech as a currency of 'rags--only rags'--warrants
me in saying that he is probably opposed, on grounds both of
constitutional law and of expediency, to the financial scheme of
Mr. Vallandigham and of the Cincinnati _Enquirer_. Judge Ranney and
Judge Jewett are also evidently unwilling to accept the inflation
theories of the _Enquirer_. They are both opposed to taking up the
greenbacks now in circulation by an issue of bonds bearing
interest, and repeat the same arguments against this policy of
Johnson's administration which were urged by the Cincinnati
_Gazette_ and by Thaddeus Stevens and Judge Kelley, with much more
cogency, a year or two ago."

Commenting on the above, the _Enquirer_ says, editorially:

"This will render it necessary for Judge Thurman to do what he
ought to have done in his first (Waverly) speech, define his
position distinctly on this question. As one of his friends and
supporters, we call upon him to put a stop to these representations
of General Hayes by giving the people his views.

"Is he for the bondholders or the people? Does he believe that the
debts due the bondholders should be paid in any other than the
government money, which pays all other debts and liabilities, even
those which were contracted in gold?

"Is he for one currency for the bondholders and another and
different currency for the people?

"The Democracy of more than forty counties in Ohio have spoken out
on this question, and we have no doubt the example will be followed
by every county in the State. In some counties no other resolutions
have been passed.

"The time has passed when the people kept step to the music of
candidates. The latter must now march with and not against the
people. Will Judge Thurman define his position, for thousands of
votes may depend upon it?"

On the 27th of August, at Wapakoneta, Judge Thurman made a speech,
which I hold in my hand--as you see, a very long speech, covering
all of one side of the _Commercial_, and parts of two others. One
would suppose that, a week having elapsed since the speech to which
his attention was called had been made, that in this speech, at
least, if this was an important issue of the canvass, we should
have his position plainly and clearly defined. Of that long speech
he devotes to that important question, which the _Enquirer_ says is
the real question, and which many of your speakers doubtless here
say is the real question, precisely eleven lines--one short
paragraph. And the pith of that paragraph is contained in these two
lines: "I am sorry that what I have to say on that subject for
publication I must reserve for some future time."

I think that this satisfactorily shows where my friend Judge
Thurman stands on that issue, and that we therefore need no longer
discuss it--in short, that, as a party question, it is abandoned by
the candidate of the Democratic party. There is another phase of
the financial question. Judge Ranney and Judge Jewett are telling
the people that it is the policy of Secretary McCulloch to take up
the greenback currency and issue in its stead interest-bearing
bonds, not taxable, principal and interest, both payable in coin at
the option of the secretary. That is true. That was the policy, and
is the policy of Secretary McCulloch. But they go further, and say
they are authorized to say that this is the policy of the Union
party. I take issue with them on that statement. They offer no
proof that it is true, except the fact that it is the policy of the
Johnson administration; and I submit to an intelligent audience
that the fact that Johnson and his administration are in favor of a
measure is no evidence whatever that the Union party supports it.
It is not for me to prove a negative, but I am prepared,
nevertheless, to prove it. The very measure which was intended to
carry out this policy of Secretary McCulloch to enable him to take
up the greenback currency with interest-bearing bonds was
introduced in Congress in March, 1866. I have here the votes upon
that question, and I say to you that the Democratic party in both
houses--all the members of the Democratic party in both
houses--voted for Senator McCulloch's plan, and that Mr. Julian,
Judge Schofield, Mr. Lawrence, all of whom I see here, and myself,
a majority of the Republican members of Congress, voted against the
scheme, and it became a law because a minority of the Union party,
with the unanimous vote of the Democratic party, supported it; and
because, when it was submitted to Andrew Johnson, instead of
vetoing it, as he did all Union party measures, he wrote his name,
on the 12th of April, at the bottom of it, "Approved, Andrew
Johnson." Now, it is under that measure, and by virtue of that law,
voted for by Mr. Finck and and Mr. LeBlond, of the Democratic party
of Ohio, in the House of Representatives; it is by virtue of that
law that to-day Secretary McCulloch is issuing interest-bearing
bonds, not taxable, to take up the greenback currency of the
country. I think, then, I am authorized in saying that these
gentlemen are mistaken when they accuse the Union party of being in
favor of taking up the greenback currency and putting in the place
of it interest-bearing, non-taxable bonds.

This investigation of two or three of the leading questions
presented to the people at the beginning of this canvass by the
advocates of the peace party of Ohio is, I think, sufficient to
warrant me in saying that all of the side issues presented are
merely urged on the people to withdraw their minds from the great
main issue which ought to engage the attention of the American
Nation. What is that great issue? It is reconstruction. That is the
main question before us, and until it is settled, and settled
rightly, all other issues sink into insignificance in comparison
with it. Fortunately for the Union party of Ohio, events are
occurring every day at Washington which tend more and more clearly
to define the exact question before the people, showing that the
main question is whether the Union shall be reconstructed in the
interests of the rebellion or in the interests of loyalty and
Union; whether that reconstruction shall be carried on by men who,
during the war, were in favor of the war and against the rebellion,
or by men who in the North were against the war, and who in the
South carried on the rebellion. On one side of this question we see
Andrew Johnson, Judge Black, and the other leaders of the peace
party of the North and the unrepentant rebels of the South; and on
the other side is the great war secretary, Stanton, with General
Grant, General Sheridan, General Thomas, General Howard, and the
other Union commanders engaged in carrying out the reconstruction
acts of Congress. This presents clearly enough the question before
the people. General Grant, in one paragraph of his letter to the
president, said to him:

"General Sheridan has performed his civil duties faithfully and
intelligently. His removal will only be regarded as an effort to
defeat the laws of Congress. It will be interpreted by the
unreconstructed element in the South--those who did all they could
to break up this government by arms, and now wish to be the only
element consulted as to the method of restoring order--as a
triumph. It will embolden them to renewed opposition to the will of
the loyal masses, believing that they have the executive with
them."

This presents exactly the question before the people. We want the
loyal people of the country, the victors in the great struggle we
have passed through, to do the work; we want reconstruction upon
such principles, and by means of such measures that the causes
which made reconstruction necessary shall not exist in the
reconstructed Union; we want that foolish notion of State rights,
which teaches that the State is superior to the Nation--that there
is a State sovereignty which commands the allegiance of every
citizen higher than the sovereignty of the nation--we want that
notion left out of the reconstructed Union; we want it understood
that whatever doubts may have existed prior to the war as to the
relation of the State to the National government, that now the
National government is supreme, anything in the constitution or
laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Again, as one of
the causes of the rebellion, we want slavery left out, not merely
in name, but in fact, and forever; we want the last vestige, the
last relic of that institution, rooted out of the laws and
institutions of every State; we want that in the South there shall
be no more suppression of free discussion. I notice that in the
long speech of my friend, Judge Thurman, he says that for nearly
fifty years, throughout the length and breadth of the land, freedom
of speech and of the press was never interfered with, either by the
government or the people. For more than thirty years,
fellow-citizens, there has been no such thing as free discussion in
the South. Those moderate speeches of Abraham Lincoln on the
subject of slavery--not one of them--could have been delivered
without endangering his life, south of Mason and Dixon's line. We
want in the reconstructed Union that there shall be the same
freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the States of the
South that there always has been in the States of the North. Again,
we want the reconstructed Union upon such principles that the men
of the South who, during the war, were loyal and true to the
government, shall be protected in life, liberty, and property, and
in the exercise of their political rights. It becomes the solemn
duty of the loyal victors in the great struggle to see that the men
who, in the midst of difficulties, discouragements, and dangers in
the South were true, are protected in these rights. And, in order
that our reconstruction shall be carried out faithfully and
accomplish these objects, we further want that the work shall be in
the hands of the right men. Andrew Johnson, in the days when he was
loyal, said the work of reconstruction ought to be placed
absolutely in the hands of the loyal men of the State; that rebels,
and particularly leading rebels, ought not to participate in that
work; that while that work is going on they must take back seats.
We want that understood in our work of reconstruction. How
important it is to have the right men in charge of this work
appears upon the most cursory examination of what has already been
done. President Lincoln administered the same laws
substantially--was sworn to support the same constitution with
Andrew Johnson--yet how different the reconstruction as carried out
by these two men. Lincoln's reconstruction in all the States which
he undertook to reorganize gave to those States loyal governments,
loyal governors, loyal legislatures, judges, and officers of the
law. Andrew Johnson, administering the same constitution and the
same laws, reconstructs a number of States, and in all of them
leading rebels are elected governors, leading rebels are members of
the legislature, and leading rebels are sent to Congress. It makes,
then, the greatest difference to the people of this country who it
is that does the work.

This, my friends, brings me to a proposition to which I call the
attention of every audience that I have occasion to address, and
that is this, that until the work of reconstruction is complete,
until every question arising out of the rebellion relating to the
integrity of the Nation and to human rights has been settled, and
settled rightly, no man ought to be trusted with power in this
country, who, during the struggle for the Nation's life, was
unfaithful to Union and liberty. That is the proposition upon which
I go before the people of Ohio. At the beginning of the canvass, as
I have said, the gentlemen who are engaged in advocating the claims
of the peace party of Ohio did not desire to have this record
discussed. I am happy to know by this long Wapakoneta speech of
Judge Thurman that at last they have found it necessary to come to
the discussion of the true question. Judge Thurman, in that speech,
invites us to the discussion of it. He says:

"I give all of them this bold and unequivocal defiance, that there
is no one act of my life, or one sentence ever uttered by me that I
am not prepared to have investigated by the American people; and I
wish them to stand up to the same rule, that I may see what is in
their past record, and see how it tallies with what they say to the
American people at the present time."

He proceeds to do this. He proceeds to examine the record of
various gentlemen connected with the Union party. Now, I am not in
the habit of giving challenges or accepting challenges, but I
desire, for a few minutes, to ask the attention of this audience to
the record of my friend, Judge Thurman. He under-takes to justify
the course he took as a leader of the peace party of Ohio, by
telling us what Mr. Lincoln said in 1848. Now, what is it that Mr.
Lincoln said? He made a speech during the Mexican war as to the
title which Texas had to certain lands in dispute between the State
of Texas and Mexico, or rather between the United States and
Mexico. He laid down the doctrine that a revolutionary government
is entitled to own just as much of the property of the former
government as it has succeeded in conquering; and he says, in the
course of that speech, that it is the right of every people to
revolutionize; that the right of revolution, in short, belongs to
every people; that it was the right exercised by our forefathers in
1776. Now, that is all true--that is all correct; but how does my
friend Judge Thurman find any justification for the rebellion in
that? What is the right of revolution? It is the right to resist a
government under which you live, if that government is guilty of
intolerable oppression or injustice, but not otherwise. And that is
the doctrine of Abraham Lincoln. Now, in order to make that a
precedent for the rebellion, Judge Thurman is bound to take the
position that, in the case of the rebel States, there had been acts
of intolerable oppression and injustice done to that part of the
country which went into rebellion. I know that the rebels, for the
most part, did not put the rebellion upon that ground; but Judge
Thurman now does it for them. He makes it out--or must make it out
to sustain himself--that it was a case of revolution, growing out
of the exercise of that right which our fathers exercised in 1776.
Now, if Judge Thurman can show that there was justification for the
rebellion, he has made out his case. If that rebellion was not
justified by such circumstances--if there was no such intolerable
injustice and oppression--he has failed in his precedent. He goes
further, and says that Mr. Wade, Chief Justice Chase, Secretary
Stanton, and General Butler all held sentiments before the war the
same as the sentiments which he held then, and holds now, on the
subject of the rights of the States. Suppose they did--suppose they
belonged to the same party before the war--is that any defense of
his conduct during the war? They saw fit, after the war had broken
out, to rally to the side of their country, notwithstanding any
notions or theories they might have held with regard to the rights
of the States.

I do not stop now to discuss the correctness of Judge Thurman's
opinions as to the course of these men prior to the war. It is
enough for me to say that the question I make--the question which
the people of Ohio make--is, What was your conduct after it was
found that there was a conspiracy to break up the Union, after war
was upon us, and armies were raised--what was your conduct then?
That is the question before the people. And I ask of an intelligent
audience, what was the duty of a good citizen after that war for
the destruction of the government and the Union had begun? Need I
ask any old Jackson Democrat what is his duty when the Union is at
stake? In 1806, Aaron Burr proposed this matter to Andrew Jackson,
of making a new confederacy in the Southwest. Jackson said:

"I hate the Dons, and I would like to see Mexico dismembered; but
before I would see one State of this Union severed from the rest, I
would die in the last ditch."

That was Jackson's Democracy. Douglass said: