Now, I do not mean to say, that all the Democratic leaders have done all these things, but what I do say is this, that the men who have done these things are combined together, and constitute the real leaders of the Democratic party. The few moderate men of the party have been stripped of all power and influence, and are carried along with it merely for numbers and policy, while the living and aggressive element which controls it are the “Sons of Liberty” and those who acted in sympathy and concert with them.
They are the men who have perverted the word Democracy, from its once honorable meaning, to be a shield and cover for rebellion, and for every crime that attaches to a causeless and atrocious civil war.
WHO CALL THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS.
Every unregenerate rebel, lately in arms against his Government calls himself a Democrat.
Every “bounty jumper,” every “deserter,” every “sneak,” who ran away from the draft, calls himself a Democrat. Bowles, Milligan, Walker, Dodd, Horsey and Humphreys call themselves Democrats. Every “Son of Liberty” who conspired to murder, burn, rob arsenals, and release rebel prisoners calls himself a Democrat. John Morgan, Sue Mundy, Champ Ferguson, Wirz, Payne and Booth proclaimed themselves Democrats. Every man who labored for the rebellion in the field, who murdered Union prisoners by cruelty and starvation, who conspired to bring about civil war in the loyal States, who invented dangerous compounds to burn steamboats and Northern cities, who contrived hellish schemes to introduce into Northern cities the wasting pestilence of yellow fever calls himself a Democrat. Every dishonest contractor who has been convicted of defrauding the Government—every dishonest paymaster or disbursing officer who has been convicted of squandering the public money at the gaming table or in gold gambling operations—every officer in the army who was dismissed for cowardice or disloyalty, calls himself a Democrat. Every wolf in sheep’s clothing, who pretends to preach the gospel, but proclaims the righteousness of man-selling and slavery—every one who shoots down negros in the streets, burns negro school houses and meeting houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat. Every New York rioter in 1863, who burned up little children in colored asylums—who robbed, ravished and murdered indiscriminately in the midst of a blazing city for three days and nights, called himself a Democrat. In short the Democratic party may be described as a common sewer and loathsome receptacle, into which is emptied every element of treason North and South, and every element of inhumanity and barbarism which has dishonored the age.
And this party, composed of the men and elements I have described, in defiance of truth and decency asserts itself as the special champion of the Constitution and the Union, which but a short sixteen months ago it was in arms to destroy; and proclaims to an astonished world that the only effect of vanquishing armed rebels in the field, is to return them to seats in Congress, and to restore them to political power. Having failed to destroy the Constitution by force, they seek to do it by construction, and assume to have made the remarkable discovery that rebels who fought to destroy the Constitution were its true friends, and that the men who shed their blood and gave their substance to preserve it were its only enemies.
DEMOCRATIC PURPOSES AND POLICY.
And now let us inquire what measures the Democratic party are for affirmatively. It is and has been opposed to whatever the Union party is in favor of, but it has also a positive and affirmative policy, which it is important that the people should understand. The great and leading measure of its policy is the immediate and unconditional admission of a full representation in both Houses of Congress from the rebel States; that the test oath shall be repealed; that there shall be no punishments; that there shall be no political or civil disabilities imposed upon any man who has been engaged in the rebellion; that there shall be no amendment to the Constitution to make it conform to the changed circumstances of the nation; that there shall be no legislation to prevent the recurrence of future rebellions; but that Union men and rebels, Union soldiers and rebel soldiers, shall be put upon a perfect equality before the law, and that no honors or rewards shall be extended to the one which are not equally bestowed upon the other. In proof of this last position, let me refer you to the notorious fact that, in their speeches and newspapers they bestow brilliant and glowing panegyrics upon the genius and virtues of General Lee, but are significantly silent about Grant, Sherman and Sheridan. They weep copiously over the memory of Stonewall Jackson, but have not a tear to shed for the untimely deaths of Lyon, Kearney, McPherson and Hackleman. They mourn from day to day over the fictitious sufferings of Jeff Davis, but have never yet expressed a regret for the murdered thousands at Andersonville and Salisbury.
These things point to their feelings and their policy with the unerring certainty of the needle to the pole, and leave the rational mind without a shadow of doubt as to what they would do should they again come into control of the Government. They are opposed to equalizing the representation North and South, because it would diminish the power of the rebels in the Government. They are opposed to prohibiting the assumption of the rebel war debt, for that would be to prevent them from doing just what they intend to do should they get the power.
We are able to predict with absolute certainty what would be their first measures should the great calamity happen that they come into power. They would assume the rebel war debt, and put the owners of it upon the same footing with the holders of the stocks of the United States; they would pension rebel soldiers and the families of rebel soldiers, bestowing upon them equal honors and emoluments with those who belonged to the loyal armies of the Nation; they would as nearly as possible reduce the freedmen of the South back to the condition of slavery by depriving them of all protection and civil rights. They would harrass and oppress Union men both North and South, by subjecting them to vindictive law suits, and to the brutal vengeance of rebels whom they had defeated in arms.
And most important of all, they would proclaim the right of secession, and bid the Southern States to go if they yet wished to do so, and tell the States of the Northwest to go in peace and form a Northwestern Confederacy, if such was their desire. There is not an active Democratic leader in the Northwest to-day who has not from the beginning of the war asserted that the people of the North were the aggressors, and that the people of the South were standing justly in defense of their constitutional rights.
COPPERHEAD INSULTS TO SOLDIERS.
While the war was in progress Copperhead politicians denounced Union soldiers as “Lincoln hirelings,” as mercenaries, and as fighting for pay and plunder, and not for principle, and their treatment of Union soldiers now is precisely upon that theory. They appear to believe that the adherence of soldiers to the Union party, is for the sole purpose of getting office and official rewards, and if it happens that a soldier fails to receive a nomination for an office, an hundred Copperheads run after him and whisper treason in his ear, assert that he has been betrayed, and assure him that if he will but desert to his enemies, and join the ranks of those who fought against him, they will not only forgive the fact that he was a Union soldier, but will take him to their arms and cover him with rewards, just as the Devil offered our Savior, all the kingdoms of the world if he would but fall down and worship him, when in point of fact the lying old rascal was only a tenant at will himself and hadn’t a foot of land to give. How the gallant soldier who periled his life for his country, and has returned maimed and shattered from the battle, must feel dishonored and humiliated when he finds himself treated as a mere mercenary, and is approached by Copperheads with arguments and temptations which stain his manhood and insult the memory of the dead who fell in battle by his side. Themselves regarding office getting, as the sole business of life, and that Governments were established only to provide hungry politicians with lucrative places, they are unable to conceive the idea of the patriot soldier, who loving his country more than wealth, luxury, and the comforts of home, laid all these together with his life, as a
cheerful sacrifice upon the National altar.
A WORD TO YOUNG MEN.
And here let me address a word to the young men of Indiana. You are just starting in life, with the world all before you, where and how to choose. Beware how you connect your fortunes with a decayed and dishonored party, indelibly stained with treason, and upon whose tombstone the historian will write, “false to liberty, false to its country, and false to the age in which it lived.” The Democratic party has committed a crime for which history has no pardon, and the memories of men no forgetfulness; whose colors grow darker from age to age, and for which the execrations of mankind become more bitter from generation to generation. It committed treason against liberty in behalf of slavery; against civilization in behalf of barbarism; and its chronicles will be written in the same volume which records the most dangerous and malignant factions that have ever afflicted government or retarded the progress of mankind. The rebellion was born of the Democratic party; cradled in its lap, nursed from its breast, and cherished and sustained by it, until it perished by the avenging sword of the nation, and it must soon be followed to the tomb by its guilty parent.
The Federal party opposed the war of 1812, and died from the effects of it in a few years. The Whig party opposed the Mexican war in 1846, and lived but six years longer; yet these parties meditated no treason, and when the conflict began did not sympathize with the enemy, or give him aid and comfort, but gave their earnest and hearty support to the government and the army. How, then, shall it be with the Democratic party? the parent of the rebellion, who, while the southern wing was in arms against the government, the northern wing gave to it material aid and comfort, and cheered it on in the deadly contest.
June 20, 1866
THE NEW ORLEANS RIOT:
LOUISIANA, AUGUST 1866
Philip H. Sheridan to Ulysses S. Grant
OFFICE UNITED STATES MILITARY TELEGRAPH,
Headquarters, War Department.
The following telegram received in cipher, 6.15 P. M. August 1, 1866, from New Orleans, Louisiana, August 1, 1866:
U. S. GRANT, General:
You are doubtless aware of the serious riot which occurred in this city on the 30th. A political body styling themselves the convention of 1864 met on the 30th for, as it is alleged, the purpose of remodelling the present constitution of the State. The leaders were political agitators and revolutionary men, and the action of the convention was liable to produce breaches of the public peace. I had made up my mind to arrest the head men, if the proceedings of the convention were calculated to disturb the tranquillity of the department, but I had no cause for action until they committed the overt act. In the mean time official duty called me to Texas, and the mayor of the city, during my absence, suppressed the convention by the use of the police force, and in so doing attacked the members of the convention and a party of two hundred negroes with fire-arms, clubs and knives, in a manner so unnecessary and atrocious as to compel me to say that it was murder. About forty whites and blacks were thus killed, and about one hundred and sixty wounded. Everything is now quiet, but I deem it best to maintain a military supremacy in the city for a few days until the affair is fully investigated. I believe the sentiment of the general community is great regret at this unnecessary cruelty, and that the police could have made any arrest they saw fit without sacrificing lives.
P. H. SHERIDAN,
Major General Commanding.
August 1, 1866
OFFICE UNITED STATES MILITARY TELEGRAPH,
Headquarters, War Department.
The following telegram received in cipher, 6 P. M. August 2, 1866, from New Orleans, Louisiana, August 2, 1866:
General U. S. GRANT, Washington, D. C.:
The more information I obtain of the affair of the 30th in this city the more revolting it becomes. It was no riot; it was an absolute massacre by the police, which was not excelled in murderous cruelty by that of Fort Pillow. It was a murder which the mayor and police of this city perpetrated without the shadow of a necessity; furthermore, I believe it was premeditated, and every indication points to this. I recommend the removing of this bad man. I believe it would be hailed with the sincerest gratification by two-thirds of the population of the city. There has been a feeling of insecurity on the part of the people here on account of this man, which is now so much increased that the safety of life and property does not rest with the civil authorities, but with the military.
P. H. SHERIDAN,
Major General Commanding.
August 2, 1866
THE PRESIDENT’S RESPONSIBILITY:
NEW YORK, AUGUST 1866
Harper’s Weekly:
The Massacre in New Orleans
THE late tragedy in New Orleans, terrible as it was, will be of the most salutary effect. Thirty years ago slavery shot LOVEJOY in Alton for defending the right of free speech. Year after year slavery insulted, threatened, and mobbed Northern men for preaching the Declaration of Independence. For five and six years past slavery has exiled, tortured, hung, and burned Southern men for fidelity to the Union. But the sure mills of God grind slowly on, and slavery is abolished.
We have entered upon a new era. Already men are shot by stealth in the late slave States because they declare justice to be the best policy. Already school-houses are burned and teachers hunted away because they seek to enlighten the minds which slavery had darkened. Already the New York World and the other Northern lackeys of slavery denounce Southern men who were true to the Union through fire and flood as “cravens and cowards.” In Memphis hatred of the principle of equal rights before the law massacres the most friendless and unfortunate part of the population; and in New Orleans the advocates of the same principle, meeting to discuss the subject, are ferociously murdered. But still the slow mills of God grind on. The seed of equal rights will be watered, not drowned, by the blood of the sowers. It will surely grow into a harvest which no storm can destroy. It will bear its natural fruit of national peace and prosperity; and in the happy day of its ripening those who sought to destroy the seed, whatever their station, whatever their temporary power, will be remembered only as the murderers of LOVEJOY and the assassin of LINCOLN are remembered.
It is of no importance whether the members of the Louisiana Convention of 1864 were wise or unwise, fanatical or moderate. Any body of men, any where in the country, have the unquestionable right of assembling under any call whatever to consider public affairs. The desire of discussion is their authority. Any number of citizens of the State of New York may lawfully meet any where in the State to propose a new Constitution. One man alone may lawfully proclaim a new Constitution. There is no law against debate or against propositions of any kind, however sweeping or radical they may be. But when men proceed from debating to enforcing their propositions they become amenable to the law and must answer for their overt acts. The Secession Conventions of 1860–61 were properly tolerated as the disunion arguments of the abolitionists had been previously properly tolerated. The Fenian meetings to found an Irish republic were perfectly lawful. But when the secessionists passed from declarations to deeds, and fired upon the forts, and seized the navy-yards, and stole custom-houses; and when the Fenians attempted with arms to make war upon a peaceful neighbor, the United States justly interfered.
The President knew, as every body else knew, the inflamed condition of the city of New Orleans. He had read, as we had all read, the fiery speeches of both parties. He knew, unless he had chosen willfully to ignore, the smothered hatred of the late rebels toward the Union men of every color. He may have considered the “Conservatives” wise, humane, and peaceful. He may have thought the Radicals wild and foolish. He knew that the Mayor was a bitter rebel, whom he had pardoned into office. He knew that the courts had denounced the Convention, and he was expressly informed that they meant to indict the members. He could not affect ignorance of the imminent danger of rioting and bloodshed. Still, if, as he constantly asserts, Louisiana is rightfully in the same relation to the
Union that New York is, he had no authority to say a word or to do an act in that State except “on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive when the Legislature can not be convened.” Why did he presume, then, to judge of the authority of the Convention? What has the President of the United States to do with the manner in which delegates to a State Convention are selected? If his own assertion be correct as to the present relation of Louisiana to the Union, the President convicts himself of the most extraordinary and passionate act of executive usurpation and federal centralization recorded in our history.
If, however, he had any right whatever to intervene in the absence of a demand from the Legislature or the Governor, it was derived from the fact that Louisiana is held by the military power of the United States, in which case her present relation to the Union is not what the President declares it to be, and he has ample and absolute power to do in that State whatever is necessary to keep the peace. And he knew, as he knew his own existence, that a simple word to the military commander to preserve the peace at all hazards would prevent disorder and save lives. He did not speak that word. Assuming to plant himself upon the Constitution, which by his very act he violated, he telegraphed to the Attorney-General of the State. He threw his whole weight upon the side of those from whom he knew in the nature of things the disorder would proceed, and from whom it did proceed. He knew the city was tinder, and he threw in a spark. Every negro hater and every disloyal ruffian knew from the President’s dispatch that the right of the citizens to assemble and declare their views would not be protected. The Mayor’s proclamation was a covert but distinct invitation to riot. He announced to a city seething with passionate hatred of the Convention, that it would “receive no countenance from the President.” It was simply saying, “The Convention is at your mercy.”
Reconstruction Page 32
