Page images
PDF
EPUB

purposes-trampled it under foot, and commit ted it to the flames, these impious forerunners of the "New Dispensation" that "is to be" set up the negro, as Moses did the serpent in the wilderness, and expect the people are to 'look and live." A specimen of this impious negro worship we find in the New York Independent of January, 1863:

"Congress is in dispute over a bill to arm and equip 150,000 negroes to serve in the war. Let it [Congress] stop the debate. The case is settled; the problem is solved; the argument is done. Let the recruiting sergeants beat their drums! The next levy of troops must not be made in the North, but on the plantations! Marshal them into line by regiments and brigades! The men that have picked cotton, must now pick flints! Gather the great third army. For two years the government has been searching in an enemy's country for a path to victory-only the negro can find it. Give him gun and bayonet, and let him point the way. The future is fair-God and the negro are to save the Republic! [The army is nowhere in this programme.]

"The interval between the destruction and salvation of the Republic is measured by two step-one is emancipation-the other military success. The first is taken-the other delays. How is it to be achieved? There is but one answer-by the negro.

"The negroes are the final reliance of the Government. They are the forlorn hope of the Republic! They are the last safe keepers of the good cause. We must make alliance with them, or our final success is imperiled!"

Thus does this religio-political apostle hold up the negro as our only Savior. Look to him and live, all ye "loyal" sons of freedom! Great God, what mockery! In the light of the civilized world, for twenty millions of white men, with abundance of wealth, power, intelligence, and prestige of the old government to back them, cowardly acknowledging their impotence before eight millions of "paupers," and calling on the semi-savage, down-trodden sons of Ham to come to their relief, lest they perish.

|

made a speech in Washington, in which he gave utterance to the following bloodthirsty sentiments:

"I would like to live long enough to see every white man in South Carolina, in hell, and the negroes inheriting their territory. [Loud applause.]

"It would not wound my feelings any day to find the dead bodies of rebel sympathizers [this is the term applied by the radicals to all democrats] pierced with bullet holes in every street and alley of Washington. [Applause.] Yes, I would regret this, for I would not like to witness all this waste of powder and lead. I would rather have them hung, and the ropes saved! Let them dangle until their stinking bodies rot and fall to the ground piece by piece. [Laughter and applause.]

THE

1

UNION "HATED BY EVERY PATRIOT." The Chicago Tribune thus puts on record its detestation of the Constitution and Union:

"The Union as it was will never bless the vision of any pro-slavery fanatic or secession sympathizer, and it never ought to! It is a thing of the past, HATED BY EVERY PATRIOT, and destined never to CURSE an honest people, or BLOT THE PAGE OF HISTORY AGAIN!"

"Better recognize the Southern Confederacy at once, and stop this effusion of blood, than continue this ruinous policy, or have even a restoration of the Union as it was."-Cassius M. Clay.

[ocr errors][merged small]

This is what is now aimed at by the radicals. Many conservative Republicans still revolt at the idea, but time, and the "policy" of the "powers" and coming events will cure them of that, as it has of former repungance to many other radical "ideas" they now swear by. In But, the Independent has an object—and that a speech by WENDELL PHILLIPS, in 1863, that object is to invest the negro with undue impor-leader of this progressive age," came out tance, to the end that he may have his full political weight in the political part of this conflict. This is the drama we are now playing to "crowded houses." It is for the benefit of po

litical tricksters.

BLOODTHIRSTY VENOM OF THE "LOYALISTS."

During the summer of 1863, according to the Washington Chronicle, JIM LANE, a Republican United States Senator from Kansas,

flat-footed for amalgamation.

FRED DOUGLAS, whom the Tiltonians prefer to MCCLELLAN, for President, addressed a Republican meeting at Brooklyn, in 1863, on the subject of amalgamation, in which he said:

"There is not much prejudice against color now, because, in coming down Broadway, the other day, I saw a white lady riding beside a colored man. It is true the colored man had a bit of tinsel around his hat, but nobody

[ocr errors]

seemed to notice it, and the lady did not show any signs of disgust. A few days since a white lady asked me to walk down Broadway with her, and insisted on taking my arm. On walking along, every one we met stared at us as if we were some curious animals. What was the reason the people did not stare at the coachman in the same manner. Simply because he was a servant, and I was walking with a friend. By and by you will get over all this nonsense. (Cheers.) You ought to see me in London, walking down Broadway with a white lady on each arm, and nobody stared at us, as if they thought it strange. And it will soon be so here, and then we will be all the nobler and better. (Cheers.)"

WENDELL PHILLIPS, at the Tremont Temple, Boston, said:

[ocr errors]

"Thank God, for McClellan, for Cameronthank God for defeat. With a man for President, we should have put down the Rebellion in ninety days, and left slavery where it was!' SALMON P. CHASE, the present Secretary of the Treasury, made a speech in Ohio, August 19, 1854, in which he said:

"We have rights which the Federal Government must not invade-rights superior to its power, on which our sovereignty depends, and we do mean to assert these rights against all tyrannical assumptions of authority."

In 1854, in speaking of the delivering up of BURNS, the fugitive, the New York Tribune said:

"There is power enough in the anti-fugitive law masses of Massachusetts, when properly directed, to defy the whole force of the national government, if that force were exerted for the enforcement of the statute."

BEN. WADE WILLING TO LET THE SOUTH GO. The Hon. BENJ. WADE, Republican U. S. Senator from Ohio, made a speech in the Senate, December 4, 1856, in which he coined the following:-[Cong. Globe, 3d Sess. 34th Cong.

p. 25.

basis of our political movements, which declares that any people when their Government ceases to protect their rights-when it is so subverted from the true purposes of Government as to oppose them, have the right to recur to fundamental principles, and if need be, to destroy the Government under which they live, and to erect on its ruins another more condusive to their welfare. I hold that they have this right. I will not blame any people for exercising it, whenever they think the contingency has come. * . * * You cannot forcibly hold men in this Union, for the attempt to do so, it seems to me would subvert the first principles of the Government under which we live."

If this be the correct doctrine, we cannot see what objection Mr. Senator WADE can have to the following response to his own doctrine:

"We, the people of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, that the 23d day of May, A. D. 1788, whereby the Conordinance adopted by us in convention, on the stitution of the United States of America, was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, and the Union now existing between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved"-ayes 169, noes 0.

And if this does not satisfy the Honorable bama Act of Secession, which is a perfect Senator, let us copy the Preamble to the Alatranscript of the substance of the Senator's remarks:

"Whereas, The election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice President of the United States of America by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions, and to the peace and security of the people of the State and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of Alabama, following upon the heels of many of the United States [This is the language of "But Southern gentleman stand here and in the ordinance of secession of Wisconsin-resalmost all their speeches, speak of the dissolu-olutions of 1859] by many of the states and tion of the Union, as an element of every argument, as though it were a peculiar condescension on their part that they permitted the Union to stand at all. If they do not feel interested in upholding the Union-if it really trenches on their rights—if it endangers their institutions to such an extent that they cannot feel secure under it-if their interests are violently assailed by means of this Union, I am not one of those who expect that they will long continue under it. I am not one of those who would ask them to continue in such a Union.

It would be doing violence to the platform of the party to which I belong. We have adopted the old Declaration of Independence as the

people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character, as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, "Therefore, be it ordained," &c.

Now, had not South Carolina, Alabama, and others, a right to infer from the speech of Senator WADE, that they would not be molested in. their withdrawal from the Union? WADE certainly announced the doctrine before they acted on it. He gave the license, based on his party's "platform". ty's "platform"-a license which they also

[ocr errors]

found in Mr. LINCOLN's speech in 1848-a ilcense in the secession speeches, editorials, memorials sermons, resolves, &c., of Massachusetts forty-nine years ago—and of Wisconsin five years ago. Still, all of these should not have induced the secession of the Southorn states. They ought to have been more politic than to have followed the example of the Northern secessionists.

SPOT THE UNION AS IT WAS."?

CASSIUS M. CLAY, a pet of the Administration, made a speech at Brooklyn, New York, during the canvass in 1862, and this is the way he manifested his revolutionary spirit:

"So far from finding fault with Abraham Lincoln, he rather found fault with him that he had not suspended the habeas corpus-not by a dash of the pen, but by ropes round the necks of the traitors.

"A voice-We'll hang them yet. "Mr. Clay-Yes, sir, the hanging of such men as Seymour and Wood would have saved thousands of honest lives.

"A voice-That is so.

"Mr. Clay—That is true philosophy. (Applause and laughter.)"

Quite in keeping with this Robesperrean spirit from this Republican expounder, in the same speech:

"It was a delusion to suppose that liberty could be established on this continent, when the President of the United States and the people of the United States had not the courage to do what was right. Therefore, spot not Gen. Boyle; spot the President of the United States; spot the heads of the Departments; spot your military chieftains; spot those who would have the Union as it was!"

IS THE PRESIDENT THE GOVERNMENT?

This question is thus settled by that pious thunderer, in Plymouth Church, the Rev. Political HENRY WARD BEECHER:

"I know it is said that the President is not the government; that the Constitution is the government. What! a sheepskin parchment a government? I should think it was a very fit one for some men that I hear and see sometimes. What is a government in our country? It is a body of living men ordained by the people to administer public affairs according to laws that are written in a constitution and in the statute books, and the government is the living men that are administering in a certain method the affairs of the nation. [The elementary writers say a govecnment is the system of laws by which a nation is governedbut then the elementary writers don't know much!] It is not a dry writing or a book. President Lincoln, his Cabinet, the heads of

the executive departments, are the government, and men have got to take their choice whether they will go against their government or go with them."

The first object of tyrants who seize power, is to show that they do it legitimately. No despotism was ever erected over any people, except through a slow. yet sure process of false reasoning and plausible pretexts. ROBESPERRIE, DANTON, ST. JUST, and other despots, who figured in the French Revolution, and were the authors of that Reign of Terror that caused the soil of France to drink up the blood of five millions of innocent victims, pleaded their justification in public-in "Military Necessity"-all to preserve the "liberties of France." "Necessity" has been the tyrant's plea the world over, to build despotisms on the ruins of constitutional government.

We cannot do better, in this connection, than to quote the following just sentiments from DANIEL WEBSTER, the "Great Expounder," who in speaking of the value and sacredness of our constitution said:

[ocr errors]

"The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. On the long list of champions of human freedom, there is not one name dimmed by the reproach of advocating the extension of Executive authority. [Mr. W. had evidently not studied Beecher.] On the contrary, the uniform and steady purpose of all such champions has been to limit and restrain it. Through all the history of the contest for liberty, executive power has been regarded as a lion that must be caged. So far as being the object of enlightened, popular trust; so far as being considered the natural protection of popular right, it has been dreaded as the great object of danger.

"Our security is our watchfulness of Executive power. It was the construction of this department which was infinitely the most difficult in the great work of erecting our government. To give to the Executive such power as should make it useful, and yet not dangerous; efficient, independent, strong, and yet prevent it from sweeping away everything by its military and civil power, by the influence of patronage and favor; this, indeed, was difficult. They who had the work to do saw this difficulty, and we see it If we would maintain our system, we should act wisely, by using every restraint, every guard the Constitution has provided-when we and those who come after us, have done all we can do, and all they can do, it will be well for us and them, if the Executive, by the power of patronage and party, shall not prove an overmatch for all other branches of Government. I will not acquiesce in the reversal of the principles of all

just ideas of Government. I will not degrade the character of popular representation. I will not blindly confide, when all my experience admonishes to be jealous. I will not trust Executive power, vested in a single magistrate, to keep the virgils of liberty. Encreachment must be resisted at every step, whether the consequence be prejudicial or not, if there be an illegal exercise of power, it must be resisted in the proper manner. We are not to wait till great mischief comes; till the Government is overthrown, or liberty itself put in extreme jeopardy. We would be unworthy sons of our fathers were we so to regard questions affecting freedom."

In 1862 the Racine (Wis.) Journal, in an article looking to the "new order of things," said:

"Let the main disposition be to aid the army, the Congress, the Cabinet and the President, in every bold and proper method to put down the rebellion. The Democrats must not clamor for the Union ac it was. The thing is absurd and never will be seen again.?'

MOULDING PUBLIC OPINION.

Says the Boston Liberator:

"The Republican party is moulding public sentiment in the right direction for the specific work the Abolitionists are striving to accomplish, viz: the dissolution of the Union, and the abolition of slavery throughout the land."

[merged small][ocr errors]

'

Mr. LINCOLN made a speech at Peoria, Illinois, on the 16th of October, 1854, in which

he said:

"What I do say is this: that no man is good enough to govern another man without the other's consent.--Howell's Life of Lincoln, p. 279.

MR. SEWARD AND VIOLENCE.

Mr. SEWARD, in the Senate, March, 1858, one year before the John Brown raid, said: "The interests of the white race demand the ultimate emancipation of all men. Whether that consummation shall be allowed to take effect with needful and wise precautions against sudden change and disaster, or be hurried on by violence, is all that remains for you to "decide."

MR. SEWARD ON THE LAST STAGE OF CONFLICT."

Mr. SEWARD made speech at Boston, 1860, in which he thus foreshadowed the purpose of the Abolition party :

"What a commentary upon the history of man is the fact that eighteen years after the death of John Quincy Adams, the people have for their standard bearer, Abraham Lincoln, conferring the obligations of the Higher Law,

which the Sage of Quincy proclaimed, and contending for weal or woe, for life or death, in the impressible conflict between freedom and slavery, I desire only to say that we are in the last stage of the conflict, before the great triumphant inauguration of this policy into the government of the United State." MR. SEWARD'S JUSTIFICATION FOR DISUNION. Mr. SEWARD, in the Senate, threw this firebrand at the South:

"Then the Free States and Slave States of the Atlantic, divided and warring with each other, would disgust the Free States of the Pacific, and they would have abundant cause and justification for withdrawing from the Union, productive no longer of peace, safety, and liberty to themselves," &c.

[blocks in formation]

BANKS PREDICTS A MILITARY GOVERNMENt. N. P. BANKS, in a speech in Massachusetts, in 1856, thus predicts a "Military Dictatorial Government":

"I can conceive of a time when this Constitution shall not be in existence-when we shall

have an absolute military dictatorial Government, transmitted from age to age, with men commission, or who claim an hereditary right at its head who are made rulers by military to govern those over whom they are placed."

CARL SCHURZ ON REVOLUTION.

Mr. SCHURZ, in 1860, said:

"May the God in human nature be aroused and pierce the very soul of our nation with an energy that shall sweep, as with the besom of destruction, this abomination (slavery) from the land. You call this revolution. It is. In this we need revolution; we must, we will have Let it come!'

it.

JOHN P. HALE ON DISSOLUTION.

On the 12th of July, 1848, JOHN P. HALE said:

"All the terrors of dissolution I can look steadfastly in the face, before I could look to that moral Union which must fall upon us when we can so far prostitute ourselves as to become the pioneers of slavery in the territories."

In the Senate, February 26, 1856, Mr. HALE in speaking of the conflict said:

"Good! good! Sir, I hope it will come, and if it comes to blood, let it come. No, sir, if that issue must come, let it come, and it cannot come too soon."

GENERAL BEN. BUTLER FOR "MODERN IMPROVEMENTS."

An "ovation" was given to General BUTLER, on his return from New Orleans, by the Republicans, in New York. The General of course made a speech, and of course took ground which pleased his admirers. He said: "And now my friends, I do not know but that I shall commit some heresy; but as a Democrat, and as an Andrew Jackson Democrat, [God save the mark.] I say, I am not for the Union as it was, I have the honor to say, as a Democrat, that I am not for the Union to be again as it was. * I am not for the reconstouction of the Union as it was. I have spent tears and blood enough on it, in conjunction with my fellow citizens, to make it a little better. * * The old house was good enough for me, but as they have pulled down the early part, I propose that we rebuild it, with all the modern improvements!" [That is the "Strong Government" Abolition" "imaprovements."]

[ocr errors]

this-that wherever the anti-slavery sentiment is introduced into politics and made the sole base of party organization and action, it becomes abolitionism. (prolonged applause.) It may not be altogether such in the outset, but that is its tendency, and must of necessity be its result."

At this period, be it remembered, the Republicans indignantly spurned the idea that they had any sympathy with abolitionism; but let us see how very like its father Mr. THAYER perceived their likeness.

"The anti-slavery sentiment as a moral conviction and opinion in the minds and consciences of men, no matter how strong is a passive sentiment, and remains such, until introduced into politics. It then becomes an active agency, and if it alone constitutes a party-if there is nothing of the party but what is based on this, then we must see what is its antagonism-what it is directed against-for every party is an active, opposing force, formed for positive and aggressive action. Now, will you tell me what there is for a party, based solely on anti-slavery to oppose, to fight against? Not certainly the extension of slavery in the territories-that contest is ended. (Applause.) Not the revival of the slave trade for this finds too few advocates to make an issue. (Applause.) Then certainly it must oppose slavery, as it exists, or its office is at an end-"Othello's occupation is gone." (Applause.) [How strictly this has been verified.] There will of course be many classes under this general head- -as many different shades of Abolitionists as there are colors in the African race-varying from real jet of Mrs. Stowe's Uncle Tom' to the Octoroon of Bourcicault. (Applause.) Some, only a

THE OBJECTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ABOLI- few, I hope, if they would not engage in it,

TION AGITATION.

The Hon. ELI THAYER, an "old line Whig" and a conservative Republican, addressed a Union meeting in New York, in 1859, in which he set forth the objects and consequences of t

slavery agitation in its true light. We make room here for a valuable extract, as showing the well grounded fears of the conservative Union men of that day, in reference to this "wolf," which JEFFERSON said we had "by the ears, and can neither hold him nor safely let him go," and also to show that the agitators of that day had their eyes open--that knowing the consequences, they persisted in the course of dissolution-as we believe using the slavery imbroglio as a means to effect their ends-the dissolution of the Union. Mr. THAYER said:

"To come, then, squarely up to the issue, to grapple with it fiercely and without parleywhat is the present aspect and position of the slavery question between the South and the North? I think that it is comprehended in

would countenance an insurrection, [see John Brown raid at a sample] would furnish arms, if they did not use them. [Just what they did do.] Many will intensify and inflame the bitter hatred to slavery and slave bolders, [this they did do] till the very weight of animosity and aversion engendered will make the Union unbearable! "'

No prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah ever proved more true than this. Indeed, all penetrative minds could not have failed at that time, to have seen the result from causes then matur

ing. The radicals knew that envy would be the parent of hate-that hate would beget crimination,—that crimination would propogate its own species, and that the progeny of all these would be dissolution. They knew this fact. They could not have been ignorant of it. It was the main count in the indictment, and the Supreme Court of History will render its verdict of "guilty"—guilty in the first degree, of attempting to compass the life. of their country.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »