those under him; their repeated and persistent arbitrary arrests, the suspension of habeas corpus, the violation of freedom of the mails, of the private house, of the press, and of speech, and all the other multiplied wrongs and outrages upon public liberty and private right, which have made this country one of the worst despotisms on earth for the past twenty months, and I will continue to rebuke and denounce them to the end; and the people, thank God, have at last heard and heeded, and rebuked them too. To the record and to time I appeal again for my justification.

CARL SCHURZ,

OF WISCONSIN.

(BORN 1829.)

ON THE DEMOCRATIC WAR POLICY; ACADEMY OF MUSIC, MILWAUKEE, OCTOBER 28, 1864.

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS: My experience leads me to believe that the party arrayed against the Government of the Republic in this crisis contains a large number of people who honestly mean to do right, but who by force of habit are following their accustomed leaders without questioning the consistency of their conduct and the candor and truthfulness of their representations. principal failing is that they are too careless to think for themselves, for a little independence of mind joined to their good intentions would certainly lead them to see what is right, and to act accordingly. It is to them that I will address myself. From the Democratic leaders I

Their

I shall

will appeal to the Democratic masses. abstain from all attempts to captivate their senses with oratorical display, and address myself to their common-sense with the simplest language at my command.

The object of our struggle with the rebellious people of the South is and ought to be to restore the Union, and to make it a permanent institution. * * Our disagreement seems to be about the means and measures by which the common object is to be achieved. Let us review the points of difference.

* * *

Your leaders tell you that negro slaves are property just in the same measure and manner as horses and cattle and provisions are property. Granted for argument's sake. As our armies penetrated into the enemy's country, a large quantity of that negro property fell into their hands. What were we to do with the captured negroes? Send them back to their masters? or keep them, feed them, clothe them for the purpose of returning them at some future time? We captured also cavalry horses and beeves. Who would have thought of sending them back to their owners, or of feeding and grooming them without using them? The captured cattle property was butchered and distributed in

the shape of rations; upon the captured horse property we mount our cavalrymen; why, then, in the name of common-sense, should we not put the captured negro property to such use as it was capable of? Do you see how absurd it would be to object to this? And, mark you well, Democrats, this property theory is yours, and I have abstained from discussing the matter from the standpoint of my own principles.

But the principal thing against which your leaders protested was that the negroes were armed and employed as soldiers in the field. Keep in mind I am still for argument's sake speaking of the negro as a mere species of property. Why, then, should negro property not be used for fighting purposes? It is reasonable, nay, it is necessary, that when engaged in war we should put all our means and instruments of warfare to the highest measure of usefulness. We want our rifles and our artillery to have as much power of destruction as possible. If we could procure a cannon that would demolish a whole regiment at one blow, would we not use it? If we could make our horses fight, instead of merely letting them carry our cavalrymen, would we not do so? Why, then, not put the negro to the highest

measure of his

usefulness? If he is able to fight, instead of merely driving teams or carrying bundles, why should we not make him fight? Would it not be folly to abstain from doing so? Do not the rebels make the savage Indian fight against civilized Union soldiers? Would they not make alligators fight in their ranks if alligators were capable of discipline? Why, then, in the name of common-sense, was it not better to make the negro fight for the Union, instead of obliging him to work for the rebellion? I repeat it, Democrats, and I do not want you to forget it: in reasoning thus I have placed myself upon your own ground, and I mean to hold you to the logical consequences of your own position; if the negro is the property of our enemies, what reason is there that we should not use him as the enemy's property captured in war?

But your leaders tell you that this measure has so irritated our Southern brethren, that reconciliation has become impossible unless we abandon it. Emancipation and the arming of negroes irritated the rebels. I doubt it not. You will find generally that that irritates them most which hurts them most. Look at our military and naval leaders. Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Farragut have irritated the reb