Page images
PDF
EPUB

SPEECH AT YOUNG MEN'S MASS CONVENTION,

IN

SYRACUSE, SEPTEMBER 3D, 1863.

Ir was my good fortune to be in the Convention when the President's admirable and unanswerable letter was read-was so well read-so dramatically and effectively read. I felt at the close of it, that we could afford to adjourn the Convention at that moment sine die. I felt that we would be warranted in returning to our homes and telling our neighbors that we had been in the best Convention we had ever been in; and that the President's letter was of itself a full feast for the patriotic heart. But the Convention desired speaking also. They have had from Lieut.-Governor Noble a speech that kindled their patriotism to the highest pitch, and that convulsed them with its abounding wit. The man who follows him with a plain speech is at no little disadvantage. Nevertheless, it is wholesome to have a little plain fare mixed up with our rich fare. There is another embarrassment that I am under. I am so delighted" with the President's letter that I do not know that I shall be able to compose myself to make a sober speech; and I should be sorry to have my speech marked with the intoxication of joy.

We read that on a certain occasion Moses stood and said: "Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me." He did not ask: "Who is of the tribe of Judah or Benjamin, or who is of any other tribe--who is of this party or that-who has these views or those?" His simple and sole inquiry was: "Who is on the

Lord's side ?"

And so when traitors have risen up to destroy our nation, there is but one question for us to put. It is: "Who is on the side of the country?" By the way, none who at such a time do not hasten to the side of their country, can give much evidence of being on the Lord's side.

Why is it, gentlemen, that I am here? It is thirty-five years this year since I have taken part in a Democratic, or a Whig, or a Republican meeting; and I never in my life was in a Native American meeting. If only because one of my grand-parents was born in Ireland, it would be ungracious in me to countenance a

meeting which is a meeting against the foreign-born. I am here, gentlemen, because I heard you call: "Who is on the side of the country?" Once some of you were members of the Democratic party; and your call then was: "Who is on the side of the Democratic party?" Once some of you were of the Republican party; and your call then was: "Who is on the side of the Republican party ?" For one I did not listen to either call. I was too much interested in other things to be much interested in party politics. But now when your call is, "Who is on the side of the country ?"—now, when I see you have sunk party in patriotism and are making more account of country than of the sum total of all other earthly interests-now, I am quick to hear you and glad to come to you. Now, I am with you arm and soul." Now my lot is cast in with yours. And now I exclaim from the heart: “Una spes unaque salus ambobus erit.”

66

I commend you, gentlemen, for your giving up of party. I say not that political party should never be. On the contrary, I admit that honest and wide differences of opinion in regard to the proper character and conduct of Government, may render party justifiable, if not indeed necessary, in time of peace. But in time of war, when the question is whether there will be a Government left us to differ about-nay, whether there will be so much as a country left us to govern-then clearly all should give up party, and join hands to save the country. The Republican party has done well to disband. Alas! that the Democratic party did not also disband!

Party in time of war is the greatest of all evils and the heaviest of all curses. I am so old as to remember the war of 1812–15; and to remember how party then divided the country and her councils; and how party interests, and the Hartford Convention, and other party measures brought the country to the brink of ruin. Of course we all remember how quick was party in our present war to raise its snaky, hissing, hated head. No sooner had the President called for the seventy-five thousand men to save the country from the traitors who were threatening to march upon it, than party sent up the cry that the war was unconstitutional. While patriotism was calling out earnestly to save the country, party was calling out hypocritically to save the Constitution. The really humane would save the drowning man. The pretendedly humane are very solicitous to save his hat. The conventional and fashion-bound Englishman would not rescue the drowning man, because he had not been introduced to him. The Englishman's order of doing things was, first to be introduced to the man and afterward to save him. With no less absurdity do these demagogues put the saving of the Constitution before the saving of the country. For a quarter of a century I have spoken and written abundantly for that instrument-for that instrument just as it isline for line and letter for letter. But now, when my country is in such fearful peril, my absorbing concern is to save her. I would save her with the Constitution if I could; but with or without the

Constitution I would save her. The country is more than the Constitution. Much do I love the Constitution; but I love my country infinitely more. Let me, however, here say, that I know not that the Government has claimed any unconstitutional power in the prosecution of this war. It certainly did not need to. The Constitution gives all needed power for the most effective prosecution of the war.

It was the Democratic party that was appealed to (and alas so successful!) by this cry to save the Constitution. I am not saying that this party was less worthy than the Republican party. Had the Democratic party been in power when the war broke out, it would, I trust, have conducted the war loyally and vigorously, and successfully; and the Republican party, had it in that case kept up its organization, would, I fear, have proved as factious and disloyal as the Democratic party has proved itself. I care not what party it is-Republican or Democratic-if it keeps up its organization in time of war, it will soon show that it sets party above the country. This will be emphatically true if it is a party against those who are carrying on the war. Nothing has gone further to show the selfishness, baseness, and treasonableness of the Democratic party than its incessant claim through this war, that the war can never be brought to a successful close but by the Democratic party. How we are disgraced in the eyes of Europe by this declaration, that our country can be saved not by the country, but by party! And how much encouragement it has ministered to the rebels!

But some of you may be disposed to remind me that the old Democratic party kept up its organization during the last war. It did, and the blame of it was due quite as much to the Federal party as to the Democratic. The keeping up of the Federal organization provoked the keeping up of the Democratic. The truth is, that neither of these parties was what it should be. The Democratic party favored France and the Federal party favored England. The Democratic party followed the fortunes of the elder Napoleon, and the Federal party was not yet weaned from its degrading partiality for England. Not until after our last war with England were our political parties above serving foreign powers. Let us glance at some of the evils that have sprung from the maintenance of party organization during this war.

First, during the whole war, party has been calling on the government to compromise with the rebels and patch up a peace with them. And this, too, notwithstanding the rebels have incessantly replied that they would consent to no peace with us but on the condition of their being allowed to dismember the nation and become entirely independent of us. Party has even gone so far as to propose that we come under the Southern or Montgomery Constitution. But even at this point she has spurned us. On no terms, however advantageous to herself or humiliating to us, would she consent to live with us. The degrading attitude toward her, during this war, of many of our Northern politicians.

has very much increased her contempt of us. She always despised us for our truckling to her.

And what if the rebels were willing to make peace with us, could we consent to make peace with them, whilst as yet they have arms in their hands, without covering our nation with infamy, and sinking it in ruin? Certainly not. We are not now to make peace with them; but we are to insist on their unconditional submission; and we are to keep on pursuing and pressing and punishing them until we have brought them to it. Unconditional must be our opposition to the rebels, and unconditional must be their submission to us. We are to carry on the war, stipulating for nothing in behalf of our Democratic, or Republican, or Abolition party, or tariffs, or aught else; and they are to lay down their arms, stipulating for nothing in behalf of their houses, or lands, or slaves, or free trade, or aught else.

The question is often put whether we would consent to receive back a Rebel State. Certainly we would. On what conditions? it is asked. On the condition of her unconditional surrender. But on what conditions beyond that? it is asked. We rejoin that we have not one word to say, nay, hardly one thought to think about further conditions until the first one has been complied with and she has surrendered absolutely. When our child has revolted against our parental authority, he is first to submit to it ere he is entitled to even the least intimations of what will be our subsequent treatment of him. It will be time enough after her submission to say, and perhaps time enough even to think, what we shall do with her after her submission. To take up that question now is but to multiply divisions among ourselves, and to make it uncertain whether we shall be able to compel her submission. The rebels, guilty, without the least provocation, of attempting to destroy our nation, are surely entitled to know nothing of what we shall do with them after we have conquered them. They must resign themselves to our measure of justice, generosity, and forgiveness; and I trust, that they will not find us greatly lacking in these virtues. For one I have never taken pleasure in this talk about banishing, imprisoning and hanging the rebels. Our Southern brethern some of them are very wicked, and more of them deeply deluded. But they are our brethren still; and I hope that should we succeed in conquering them, we shall be disposed to make every concession to them which is compatible with their safety and ours, their welfare and ours.

I notice that the Democratic leaders are very desirous to save Slavery. I admit that we should be very desirous to save every very good thing; and I am not denying that Slavery is a very good thing. But these leaders go further and insist that in the putting down of the Rebellion, Slavery shall be saved. In this, however, they are as wrong as are those abolitionists who insist that the putting down of the Rebellion shall be conditioned on the putting down of Slavery. But the true doctrine on this point is that the Rebellion shall go down, whether Slavery shall or shall

not go down with it. Our one common work is to put down the Rebellion; and no part of that one common work is to put up or to put down Slavery. I readily admit that a people may suffer wrongs so deep as to justify them in breaking up their national relations. But the only wrong we ever did the South was, to indulge her and let her have her own way. I confess that we did in this wise contribute largely to spoil her. This is our only of fense against her.

I proceed in my mention of some of the evils which have grown out of the maintenance of party during this war. From the first, party has been so unpatriotic and insane as to object to our accepting the help of the negro. Whenever it has been proposed to let him fight for us, party, playing upon the popular prejudice against the negro, has objected to turning the war into a war for the negro. I admit that it is not a war for the negro, and that it is not a war for the abolition of Slavery. I admit that it is a war for nothing else than to put down a base, brutal, abominable, causeless, accursed Rebellion. But how disingenuous, how wicked, how absurd to say that letting the negro fight for us is turning the war into a war for the negro! As well might it be said that letting the Indians fight for us is turning it into a war for the Indians. I have seen within a few days that the Kansas Indians offer us their assistance in punishing the plundering and murderous invaders of Kansas. Shall we decline this assistance for fear that accepting it will give the Democrats another occasion for charging us with perverting the war?

Common-sense teaches us that we should get the negro to help us if we can; and the Indian also if we can; and the devil himself if we can. I would that we could succeed in getting our harness upon his back and in making him work for us. It would by the way, be doing a great favor to the old rascal to make him serve a good cause once in his life. To serve so good a cause as ours would improve even so bad a character as the devil's.

And here let me say that had the Government brought negroes into the Army as fast as it should, (and it should have brought them in as fast as it could,) there would have been no need of this draft, which is so trying to the North. Very trying it is, if only because our innumerable departments of industry, which are all so especially active at this time, can not well spare any laborers. Why did not the Government take the black man who wanted to fight for us, and spare the white man who preferred to remain in his family and business? I blame the Government at this point. It is true that I blame the Democratic party for keeping up its clamor against using the black man, and for thus making the Government afraid to use him. But I blame the Government also for allowing itself to be frightened out of its duty. I admit that the Government has shown itself strong at many points. But there is one point where it has been wont to show itself weak. I refer to its excessive desire to propitiate the Democratic party and

« PreviousContinue »