Infonmation lor* the People. 
 
 | i 6 Pages, 
 
 <3 
 
 tko. a. 
 
 CAN THE NATION TRUST 
 
 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ? 
 
 Can the nation trust Democracy with the 
 administration of the Government ? This 
 question has already been answered by the 
 people four times—first in I860, second in 
 1864, third in 1868, fourth in 1872. Each 
 time the answer has been given by over¬ 
 whelming majorities : “ The Democratic 
 
 party cannot be trusted with the control of 
 the Government ! ” 
 
 Is there anything in the present condition 
 of the country, or the present character of 
 the Democratic party, to call for a change of 
 the popular verdict in 1876 ? 
 
 If there is, what is Its nature ? Have the 
 people become less loyal to the Union, or has 
 Democracy become more loyal ? To call for a 
 reversal of the verdict, rendered four times, 
 a radical change must be shown, either in 
 the sentiments of the people, or in the sen¬ 
 timents of the Democratic party. Has this 
 change taken place ? If so, when, where, 
 and under what circumstances ? 
 
 No friend of good government, who desires 
 peace and unity, could for a moment desire 
 the restoration of Democracy to power, if he 
 felt assured that its political principles were 
 the same as those held previous to the re¬ 
 bellion, during its existence and throughout 
 the period of reconstruction. 
 
 To believe otherwise, would be to believe 
 that good citizens could be found who would 
 be willing to reject the party whose wisdom, 
 patriotism, and courage saved the Govern¬ 
 ment, and accept the party whose energies 
 and influence were united in the effort to 
 overthrow* it. Fair-minded men will agree 
 on the two propositions. First, The man 
 who proves his friendship in the hour of 
 need ought not to be distrusted in the hour 
 of prosperity. Second, The man who showed 
 his enmity when friendship was needed, 
 has no claim to our confidence when his 
 enmity can no longer injure us. It is pos¬ 
 sible for a former friend to become an enemy, 
 and an old enemy to become a friend; but 
 the proof of the change must precede the 
 belief that it has actually taken place. 
 
 The rule holds good with parties, for par¬ 
 ties are but individuals in their collective 
 capacity ; and for this reason it may be laid 
 down as a rule, that whatever of sentiment 
 or principle characterizes individuals, will 
 aurely find reflection in the parties with 
 which they affiliate. 
 
 Therefore, the practical question for rea¬ 
 sonable men to ask and answer is, Is the 
 Democratic party, in principle and sentiment, 
 the same as it was in 1861 ? If it is, then it 
 cannot be trusted to-day. If it is not the 
 same, wherein does it differ ? Is the change a 
 radical one, so honestly and earnestly made 
 as to preclude the possibility of a recurrence 
 of troubles which were met and overcome by 
 
 the Nation hundreds of thousands of lives, 
 and millions of treasure ? 
 
 Before the people can consider, on equal 
 terms, the restoration of Democracy to power, 
 the proof must be submitted that a radical 
 change has taken place in its sentiments and 
 principles, its teachings and purposes. The 
 proof must be strong, so clear that he who 
 runs may read ; for on a question of such 
 vital importance to the future welfare of the 
 Republic, the people cannot afford to run any 
 risks. The preservation of the Government 
 has cost them too much to try any political 
 experiments in the management of its affairs. 
 The people know what the Republican party 
 has done, is now doing, and will do in the 
 future for the country. On the vital question 
 of unity and nationality, they are assured 
 that it can be trusted. True in war, they 
 know it cannot prove false in peace. True in 
 the past, they have every reason to believe 
 that it will continue true in the future. 
 Democracy having been false in the past, 
 they have the right to demand the strongest 
 guarantee that it will not be, if entrusted 
 with power, false in the future. 
 
 Can Democracy give such guarantee ? Has 
 it abandoned the fatal doctrine of State Rights 
 as preached by Calhoun, fought for by the 
 Southern Confederacy, and practically main¬ 
 tained by the Southern wing of the party 
 to-day ? If on these points the proof is clear 
 that a radical change has taken place, then 
 the issue is simply one of administration, 
 turning upon the relative character of men, 
 and not upon the principles which they hold. 
 The result, whatever it might be, would no 
 longer be experimental; for the people would 
 feel assured that a change of administration 
 would not imperil the peace and unity of the 
 Nation. 
 
 A careful review of the Democratic record 
 must be convincing to the unprejudiced 
 mind that no change has taken place in the 
 sentiments of Democracy. What it believed 
 in the days of Buchanan, it advocated in 1860, 
 endorsed in 1864, affirmed in 1868, re-affirmed 
 in 1S72, and, unless checked in its preten¬ 
 sions by the votes of the American people, 
 it will re-establish through a Democratic 
 administration in 1876. 
 
 DEMOCRACY, THE STATE RIGHTS PARTY. 
 
 For the past forty years, the Democratic 
 party has been controlled by men who ac¬ 
 cepted the fatal doctrine )f State Rights, as 
 preached by John C. Cal loun, as the basis 
 of our Federal Union. 
 
 Under this doctrine, th State was held to 
 be supreme. The Union was regarded as a 
 mere arrangement for convenience, to be 
 cast aside whenever it suited the pleasure or 
 interest of a State to so decide. 
 
 A State could obey or disobey the laws of 
 
who could have been brought to 
 
 a State Convention, could, under this doc¬ 
 trine, place the State outside of the national 
 authority. A simple resolution declaring 
 that the State had withdrawn from the Union 
 was all that was required to transform the 
 part into the whole, or the fraction of a 
 nation into a nation, supreme in its own 
 sovereignty. It was held by the advocates 
 of this State Rights doctrine, that a State, 
 entering the Union of its own free will, could 
 withdraw with equal freedom. Ih other 
 words, one party to a contract could break 
 it at his pleasure, because he entered it of 
 his own free will. 
 
 The sophism itself is, in the language of 
 Abraham Lincoln : 
 
 “ That any State of the Union may, con¬ 
 sistently with the national Constitution, and 
 therefore lawfully aDd peacefully , withdraw 
 from the Uni#n, without the consent of the 
 Union, or of any other State. The little dis¬ 
 guise that the supposed right is to be exer¬ 
 cised only for just cause, themselves to be the 
 sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit 
 any notice. With rebellion thus sugar- 
 coated, they have been drugging the public 
 mind of their section for more than thirty 
 years ; and until at length they have brought 
 many good men to a willingness to take up 
 arms against the Government the day after 
 some assemblage of men have enacted the 
 farcical pretense of taking their State out of 
 the Union, 
 
 no such thing the day before .” 
 
 President Lincoln, in his first message to 
 Congress, July 4, 1861, disposes of this pre¬ 
 tentious doctrine in the following words : 
 
 “ What is now combatted is the position 
 that secession is consistent with the Constitu¬ 
 tion—is lawful and peaceful. It is not con¬ 
 tended that there is any express law for it; 
 and nothing should ever be implied as law 
 which leads to unj ust or absurd consequences. 
 The Nation purchased with money the coun¬ 
 tries out of which several of these States were 
 formed. Is it just that they should go off, 
 without leave and without refunding ? The 
 Nation paid very large sums (in the aggre¬ 
 gate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to 
 relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is 
 it just that they should now be. off without 
 consent, or without making any return ? The 
 Nation is now in debt for money applied to 
 the benefit of these so-called seceding States, 
 ■ c ‘q common with the rest. Is it. just either that 
 reditors should go unpaid, or the remaining 
 tates pay the whole ? A part of the present 
 ational debt was contracted to pay the old 
 ebts of Texas. Is it just that she should 
 eave, and pay no part of this herself ? 
 
 “ Again, if one State may secede, so may 
 another ;■ and when all shall have seceded, 
 none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite 
 just to creditors? Did we notify them of 
 this sage view of ours when we borrowed 
 their money ? 
 
 “ If we now recognize this doctrine, by 
 allowing the seeeders to go in peace, it is 
 difficult to see what we can do if others 
 
 “ If all the States save one should assert 
 the power to drive that one out of the Union, 
 it is presumed the whole class of seceder 
 politicians would at once deny the power, and 
 denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon 
 State Rights. But suppose that precisely the 
 same act, instead of being called ‘ driving 
 the one out,’ should be called ‘ the seceding 
 of all the others from that one,’ it would be 
 exactly what the seeeders claim to do ; unless, 
 indeed, they make the point that the one, 
 because it is a minority, may rightfully do 
 what the others, because they are a majority, 
 may not rightfully do. These politicians are 
 subtle and profound on the rights of minori¬ 
 ties. They are not partial to that power which 
 made the Constitution, and speaks from the 
 preamble, calling itself, 1 We the People.’ 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 “Asa private citizen, the Executive could 
 gnot have consented that these institutions 
 r shall perish, much less could he in betrayal 
 of so vast and so sacred a trust as these free 
 people had confided to him. He felt that he 
 had no moral right to shrink, nor even to 
 count the chances of his own life, in what 
 might follow. In full view of his great re¬ 
 sponsibility, he has, so far, done what he has 
 deemed his duty. You will now, according 
 to your own judgment, perform yours.” 
 
 Through the courage and patriotism of the 
 American people, the Government has been 
 preserved. The practical issue now pre¬ 
 sented is, Shall the control of the Govern¬ 
 ment be taken from the loyal hands that 
 preserved it, and placed in the hands of 
 those who endeavored to destroy it ? 
 
 All other issues are secondary. Finance, 
 protection, or free trade, as national issues, 
 are unworthy of mention when compared 
 with the vital issue before the people, Shall 
 the Nation be ruled by those who have 
 proven their loyalty, or by those who e*n- 
 spired to betray it ? 
 
 On this plain issue, the vital one in the 
 pending campaign, the question is again 
 asked. Can the Nation trust the Democratic 
 party ? 
 
 We are asked to forget the past, to turn pur 
 back on the things that have been, and face 
 the things thai are to be. This is a human 
 impossibilit} 7- . The past is the index of the 
 future—the best light to guide individuals 
 or nations. To shut our eyes or ears to its 
 teachings, is to invite disasters which, its 
 wisdom directs us to avoid. 
 
 The deeds of the fathers are the pride of 
 our generation. We talk of them, glory 
 over them, and hold them up as examples to 
 make us better and wiser. Our Centennial 
 celebrations develop our sense of justice, 
 and prove that even the changes of a oentury 
 cannot obliterate from our hearts the grati¬ 
 tude which we owe to the memory of those 
 whose wisdom and patriotism gave birth to 
 the Republic. 
 
 The loyal people, through President Lin¬ 
 coln, their representatives in Congress, and 
 the armv and navy, nobly performed their 
 

 colve, was crushed after years of bloody 
 conflict. This conflict cost the nation at 
 least 500,0r>0 lives and $5,000,000,000. Great 
 as was the sacrifice, those who were called 
 upon to make it, never faltered in the per¬ 
 formance of their work, Shall those who 
 to-day are enjoying the fruits of their labor, 
 falter in the performance of a duty no less 
 sacred than the one that secured to humanity 
 the unity, integrity, and freedom of our great 
 Republic ? 
 
 Therefore, to forget the recent struggle, 
 to blind ourselves to that noble spirit of 
 loyalty which sacrificed life and treasure to 
 perpetuate the work of the early fathers, 
 would be to trample justice under foot, and 
 acknowledge ourselves unworthy the sacred 
 trust transmitted to us. To forgive our 
 enemies is a divine injunction; but even 
 divine forgiveness does not imply forgetful¬ 
 ness of right and wrong, nor require the 
 surrender of the right, or those who were 
 true to it, to the wrong, and those who up¬ 
 held it. 
 
 Reconciliation is desirable, but it should 
 be brought about on a national basis. The 
 spirit of reconciliation which demands, as a 
 condition, the restoration of the Democratic 
 State Rights party, would be not only 
 treacherous, but dangerous te the peace of 
 the nation. 
 
 The fatal heresy of State Rights ought to 
 have died with the Rebellion. The South¬ 
 ern Confederacy illustrated its full power, 
 and with its overthrow the doctrine should 
 have been buried from sight forever. 
 
 If Northern Democracy had been feee from 
 its influence, this would have been the case, 
 but it retained the old poison in its system. 
 It has never been free from it, and to-day, 
 united with the Bourbon Democracy of the 
 South, it is under the control of Calhounism, 
 and liable, if entrusted with power, to again 
 plunge the country, on some slight pretext, 
 into troubles even greater than those hitherto 
 endured. 
 
 THE DEMOCRATIC RECORD BEFORE THE WAR. 
 
 Through Democracy, the South, prior to 
 the war, practically controlled the Govern¬ 
 ment. It shaped the affairs of the nation to 
 suit its own interest. It filled its important 
 offices at home and abroad. It gave direc¬ 
 tion to national legislation ; it created the 
 policy of the Government, and when it could 
 no longer govern, it endeavored to destroy. 
 This statement is a correct one. It has 
 passed into history, and cannot be refuted. 
 
 Alexander H. Stephens, who afterward 
 became the Vice-President of the Southern 
 Confederacy, delivered a speech against the 
 policy of secession, before the State Conven¬ 
 tion of Georgia, January, 1861. He said : 
 
 ^ kat have we to gain by this proposed 
 change of our relation to the General Gov¬ 
 ernment ? 
 
 “ We have always had the control of it , and 
 can yet , ij we remain in it, and are as united 
 as we have been. We have had a majority of 
 the Presidents chesen from the South, as well 
 
 of Southern Presidents to their tweaty-four, 
 thus controlling the Executive Department. 
 So, of the judges of the Supreme Court, wo 
 have had eighteen from the Seutli, and hut 
 eleven from the North ; although nearly four- 
 fifths of the judicial business has arisen in the Free 
 States, yet a majority of the Court has always 
 been from the South. This we have required 
 so as to guard against any interpretation of 
 the Constitution unfavorable to us. In like 
 manner, we have been equally watchful t© 
 guard our interests in the Legislative branch 
 of Government. In choosing the presiding 
 Presidents ( pro tern) of the Senate, we have 
 had twenty-four to their eleven. Speakers 
 of the House, we have had twenty-three, 
 and they twelve. While the majority of the 
 Representatives, from their greater popula¬ 
 tion, have always been from the North, yet we 
 have generally secured the Speaker, because 
 he, to a great extent, shapes and controls the 
 legislation of the country. Nor hare we 
 had less control in every other Department 
 of the General Government. Attorney-Gen¬ 
 erals we have had fourteen, while the North 
 have had but five. Foreign Ministers, we 
 have had eighty-six and they but fifty-four. 
 While three-fourths of the business which demands 
 diplomatic agents abroad is clearly from the free 
 States, from their greater commercial inter¬ 
 ests, yet we have had the principal embassies 
 so as te secure the world-markets for onr 
 cotton, tobacco, and sugar, on the best pos¬ 
 sible terms. We have had a vast majority 
 of the higher eflieers of both army and navy, 
 while a larger portion of the soldiers and 
 sailors were drawn from the North. Equally 
 so of clerks, auditors, and comptrollers filling 
 the Executive Department, the records show 
 for the last fifty years, that ef the three 
 thousand thus employed, we have had more 
 than two-tliirds ef the same, while we have had 
 but one-third of the white population of the Re¬ 
 public. 
 
 “ Again, look at another item, and one, he 
 assured, in which we have a great and vital 
 interest: it is that of revenue, or means ©f 
 supporting Government. From official docu¬ 
 ments, we learn that a fraction over three- 
 J'ourths of the revenue collected for the support 
 of Government, has unifouily been raised 
 from the North. 
 
 “ The expense for the transportation of the 
 mail in the free States was, by the report of 
 the Postmaster General, for the year I860, a 
 little over $13,000,000, while the income was 
 $19,000,000. But in the slave States, the 
 transportation of the mail was $14,716,000, 
 while the revenue from the same was $8,001,- 
 026, leaving a deficit of $6,704,974, to be 
 supplied by the North for our accommodation , and 
 without it we must have been entirely out 
 off from this most essential branch of the 
 Government.” 
 
 This, be it remembered, is not the lan¬ 
 guage of a Republican, trying to paimt a pic¬ 
 ture for party efiect, but tlie words of the 
 Vice President of the late Confederacy, who 
 will he accepted as good authority by the 
 most ultra Democrat. 
 
4 
 
 1st. That the Democratic- party before the 
 war was under the control of the South, and 
 need its power to promote Southern interests 
 and ambition at the expense of the North. 
 
 2d. It shows that the South had no jus¬ 
 tification for its attempt to withdraw from 
 the Union. 
 
 3d. It proves the fallacy of its pretensions, 
 that it was driven into rebellion by Northern 
 oppression. 
 
 4th. It clearly indicates the treasonable 
 nature of the party that preferred to break 
 up a Government that it could no longer 
 control, rather than submit to constitutional 
 authority. 
 
 oth. It foreshadows the ascendancy of 
 Southern influence in all departments of the 
 Government under Democratic restoration. 
 
 The statement made by Mr. Stephens must 
 convince all who are open to conviction, that 
 the Southern States had no just cause for 
 complaint. The defeat of the State Rights 
 party, and through this defeat, the loss of 
 che controlling power, were the causes which 
 brought about secession. 
 
 Long before the election of Abraham Lin¬ 
 coln, the Democratic threat had been made, 
 both in the Nq^tli and the South, that the 
 slave States would not submit to a Republi¬ 
 can President. The threat was general 
 throughout the South, and was repeated by 
 Northern leaders on the stump, and by the 
 Democratic press, without a word of protest 
 or condemnation. On the contrary, every 
 encouragement was held out, that the Demo¬ 
 crats of the North would not only endorse 
 the threat of secession, but lend material 
 aid in carrying it out. 
 
 In December, 1860, Mr. Gregg, one of the 
 delegates to the South Carolina Convention, 
 said: 
 
 “If we wish to find the immediate cause 
 of the secession of South Carolina, the im¬ 
 mediate cause of all is the election of Abra¬ 
 ham Lincoln.” 
 
 In the same convention, Mr. Dargan said : 
 
 “It is not true, in point of fact, that all the 
 Northern people are hostile to the rights of 
 the South. t We have a Spartan hand in every 
 Northern State. It is due to them they should 
 know the reasons which influence us. Accord¬ 
 ing to our apprehension, the necessity which 
 exists for our immediate withdrawal from 
 association with the Northern States, is that 
 this hostile Abolition party have the control 
 of the Government.” 
 
 In November, 1860, Mr. Lawrence M. 
 Keitt delivered a speech in Charleston, S. C. 
 He said, in answer to an assertion that any 
 attempt to withdraw from the Union weuld 
 be met with force : 
 
 “ Let me tell you, there are a million of 
 Democrats in the North , who, when the Black 
 Republicans attempt to march upon the 
 Boutli, will be found a wall of fire in the front. ’ ’ 
 (Qries of “ That’s so 1 ” and applause.) 
 
 This was the feeling through the entire 
 South. Democracy had been regarded as 
 the State Rights party, and it was believed 
 that any attempt to interfere with a State 
 
 in its withdrawal from the Union, would! 
 unite Northern Democrats in armed oppo¬ 
 sition to it. This belief was encouraged by 
 prominent leaders of the Northern wing of 
 the party. 
 
 An extract from a letter, written January 
 6, 1860, by ex-President Pierce to Jefferson 
 Davis, and found in Davis’s home, in Missis¬ 
 sippi, when taken by our troops, reveals tko 
 grounds of the belief so confidently ex¬ 
 pressed by leading Southerners, that De¬ 
 mocracy would be a unit in their favor, in 
 case a rebellion should be inaugurated. 
 
 After referring to political matters, and ex¬ 
 pressing a desire to have Mr. Davis the Dem¬ 
 ocratic candidate for the Presidency, the ex- 
 President says : 
 
 “Let me suggest that, in the running de¬ 
 bates in Congress, full justice seems to me 
 not to have been done to the Democracy of 
 the North. 1 do not believe that our friends 
 at the South have any just idea of the state 
 of feeling, hurrying, at this moment, to the 
 pitch of intense exasperation, between those 
 who respect their political obligations, and 
 those who have apparently impelling 
 power but that which fanatical passion on 
 the subject of domestic slavery imparts. 
 Without discussing the question of right, of 
 abstract power, to secede, I have never be¬ 
 lieved that actual disruption of the Union 
 can occur without blood ; and if, through 
 the madness of Northern Abolitionism, that 
 dire calamity must come, the fighting will not 
 he along Mason's and Dixon's line , merely . It 
 loill he within our own borders—in our own streets 
 —between the two classes of citizens to whom 1 
 have referred .” 
 
 Is it to be wondered at, that such assur¬ 
 ance from so distinguished a Democrat as ex- 
 President Pierce, and repeated in private 
 letters and public speeches, by others of 
 equal prominence, should leave the impres¬ 
 sion upon the Southern mind that armed 
 hostility against the Government, on th« part 
 of the South, would receive the active sym¬ 
 pathy of Northern Democracy ? 
 
 In January, 1861, Fernando Wood, tli®n 
 Mayor of New York city, sent a message to 
 the Common Council, recommending th© 
 withdrawal of the city from the State. II® 
 favored “a free city,” as he termed it, and 
 liis scheme met with approval from many 
 leading Democrats. 
 
 About the same time (January 16), as if 
 it was a part of the Democratic programme, 
 a meeting of Democrats was held in National 
 Hall, Philadelphia. At this meeting a reso¬ 
 lution was adopted, favoring the withdrawal 
 of Pennsylvania from the Union, and ex¬ 
 pressing sentiments in keeping with thes® ef 
 the South. 
 
 It is well known that leading Democrats 
 of the North conspired, in the spring of 1861, 
 to carry their respective States out of the 
 Union. Ex-Governor Price, of New Jersey, 
 in a letter to L. W. Burnet, of Newark. N. 
 eJ sstid • 
 
 ’“ i believe the Southern Confederation 
 permanent. The proceeding has been taken 
 
■»*** 
 
 o 
 
 with forethought and deliberation—it is no 
 hurried impulse, but an irrevocable act, 
 based upon the sacred, as was supposed, 
 ‘equality of the States,’ and in my opinion, 
 every slave State will, in a short period of 
 time, be found united in one confederacy. 
 
 * * * What position for New Jersey will 
 
 best accord with her interests, honor, and 
 the patriotic instincts of her people ? I say 
 emphatically, she should go with the South, 
 from every wise, prudential, and patriotic 
 reason.” 
 
 In this letter, the ex-Governor also gives it 
 as his opinion that New York and Pennsyl¬ 
 vania will “ choose also to cast their lot with 
 the South,” and, after them, the Western 
 and Northwestern States. 
 
 If necessary, a volume could he filled with 
 unimpeachable evidence, tending to prove 
 tbat the Southern people were misled by 
 Democratic leaders. North and South. In 
 the fall and winter of I860, and the spring 
 of 1861, the air was filled with Democratic 
 threats and promises. Incendiary speeches 
 were made, and secret caucuses held at the 
 National Capital. The highest Government 
 officials—all Democrats—conspired with tbe 
 public enemies. Sven President Buckauan, 
 although he declared that “ the election of 
 any one of our fellow-citizens to the office of 
 President, does not of itself afford just cause 
 for dissolving the Union.” gave his official 
 encouragement to the dissolution, by stating 
 in bis last annual message, Dec. 4, 1860 : 
 
 “After much serious reflection, I have ar¬ 
 rived at the conclusion that the Constitution 
 has not delegated to Congress, nor to any 
 other department of the Federal Government, 
 the power to coerce a State into submission, 
 which i3 attempting to withdraw, or has 
 actually withdrawn from the confederacy.” 
 
 At an earlier date, Nov. 20,1860, Attorney 
 General Black had given his opinion to the 
 same effect. According to this view, the 
 Government could act only on the defensive. 
 It could repel an attack, but it had no Con¬ 
 stitutional right to assert its authority or 
 protect itself by any offensive measures. In 
 his own language, “The Union must utter¬ 
 ly perish at the moment when Congress shall 
 arm one part of the people against another 
 for any purpose beyond that of merely pro¬ 
 tecting the General Government in the exer¬ 
 cise of its proper Constitutional functions.” 
 
 If we need more convincing proof of Dem¬ 
 ocratic encouragement of the Southern re¬ 
 bellion, than what has already been present¬ 
 ed, jt may be found in the deliberate transfer 
 of arms from Northern to Southern arsenals, 
 by order of a Democratic Secretary of War, 
 Mr. Floyd. 
 
 From a report made by Mr. B. Stanton, 
 from the Committee on Military Affairs, in 
 the ftouse of Representatives, Feb. 18, 1861, 
 it is shown that, in the spring of 1860, the 
 following transfers of muskets were made 
 from the Springfield armory, and the Water- 
 town and Watervliet arsenals: 
 
 
 Percns- 
 
 sion 
 
 Muskets. 
 
 Altered 
 
 Muskets- 
 
 To Charleston Arse- 
 
 
 
 nal. 
 
 9,280 
 
 5,720 
 
 To North Carolina 
 
 
 i 
 
 Arsenal. 
 
 15,480 
 
 9,520 
 
 To Augusta Arsenal 
 
 12,380 
 
 7,620 
 
 To Mount Vernon 
 
 
 
 Arsenal. 
 
 9,280 
 
 5,720 
 
 To Baton Rouge Ar- 
 
 
 
 senal . 
 
 18,580 
 
 11,420 
 
 Total. 
 
 65,000 
 
 40,000 
 
 Rifles. 
 
 2,000 
 
 2,000 
 
 2,000 
 
 2,000 
 
 2 , 00 * 
 
 10,00(1 
 
 All these arms fell into the possession oi 
 the Confederate authorities, as it was known 
 they would by the Democratic Secretary of 
 War, when he ordered the transfer. 
 
 It was also shown in the same report, that 
 the Secretary of War ordered the transfer of 
 forty columbiads and four 32-pounders, to 
 unfinished forts on Ship Island, on the coast 
 of Mississippi, and seventy columbiads and 
 seven 32-pounders to be sent to Galveston, 
 Texas, where the fort to receive them had 
 just been commenced. So clear was tbe evi¬ 
 dence that these heavy guns were intended 
 for the use of the rebels, that a monster 
 mass meeting was held at Allegheny, Pa., 
 the place where the arsenal containing them 
 was located, and a protest was entered 
 against their removal. Through the action 
 of Judge Holt, the present Judge Advocate- 
 General, the transfer of the guns was pre¬ 
 vented. 
 
 In addition to the arms sent South by a 
 Democratic Secretary of War, upwards of 
 50,000 muskets were sold by the Government 
 to parties representing Southern interests. 
 These muskets were in good condition, and 
 yet were sold for $2.50. Add to the number 
 transferred and sold, tbe annual quota dis¬ 
 tributed to the Southern States for 1861, in 
 advance, and it will be found tbat not less 
 than 300,000 muskets were placed in the 
 hands of secessionists, by the direct order of 
 a Democratic Secretary of War. This is 
 what the Mobile Advertiser said at th* time : 
 
 “ During the past year, 135,430 muskets 
 have been quietly transferred from the North- 
 ; ern arsenal at Springfield alone, to those in 
 I the Southern States. We are much obliged 
 to Secretary Floyd for the foresight he has 
 thus displayed in disarming the North and 
 equipping the South for this emergency. There 
 is no telling the quantity of arms and muni¬ 
 tions which were sent South from other 
 Northern arsenals. There is no doubt but 
 that every man in tbe South who can carry 
 a gun can now be supplied from private or 
 public sources. The Springfield contribu¬ 
 tion alone would arm all the militiamen of 
 Alabama and Mississippi.” 
 
 Can any sane man doubt tbe effect of such 
 encouragement, coming from the highest 
 representatives of the Democratic party, upon 
 an excited people ? Is it surprising that tin 
 demagogues who fired the Southern hear 
 gave prominence to the pledge so often made 
 that the Democracy of the North woul< 
 stand by the South in its armed resista»c< 
 to Federal authority ? Yet this is the part} 
 
6 
 
 that now demands control of the Govern¬ 
 ment ; and some of the very men who led it 
 then are leaders now. They hold the same 
 views of Federal power; they endorse the 
 same fatal doctrine of State Rights ; if in¬ 
 trusted with power they would encourage, as 
 they did in 1860, the disruption of the Union. 
 Can the Nation trust this party ? Can it risk 
 its future peace and prosperity in its hands ? 
 These are questions of vital importance, and 
 no good citizen can avoid the responsibility 
 involved in their answer. 
 
 THE DEMOCRATIC RECORD DURING THE WAR. 
 
 From the record thus far presented, the 
 following deductions are made : 
 
 1. The Democratic party, as the State 
 Rights party, educated its followers to be¬ 
 lieve in the right of a State to withdraw from 
 the Union, at its pleasure. 
 
 2. It took no steps to counteract the fatal 
 tendencv of this doctrine when it assumed 
 the form of open resistance to the Federal 
 authority. 
 
 3. It had control of the Government when 
 the secession movement developed its pur¬ 
 pose to establish a Southern Confederacy, 
 and instead of promptly checking it, it vital¬ 
 ized it, by giving it official encouragement. 
 
 i. The Democratic party, through its lead¬ 
 ing officials, not only encouraged secession 
 by friendly expressions, but with a full 
 knowledge of its hostile intentions, deliber¬ 
 ately furnished its advocates with arms and 
 munitions of war belonging to the Federal 
 Government. 
 
 5. Judged by its record, the sympathy ex¬ 
 pressed, the promises given, the material 
 aid rendered, the unanimous action of its 
 Southern wing, the Democratic party stands 
 responsible for the slaveholders’ rebellion. 
 
 Democratic encouragement having made 
 the rebellion possible, what was its policy 
 during the war ? Did it endeavor to undo 
 the great wrong which it had committed, by 
 promptly responding to the calls made upon 
 the patriotism of the Nation ? As a party, it 
 did not. There were noble men who pro¬ 
 claimed themselves war Democrats, who re¬ 
 sponded with alacrity to the defence of the 
 Government. They laid aside the partizan 
 and became patriots, and by their sacrifices 
 made good their early professions of fidelity 
 to the Union and the Constitution. 
 
 But the Democratic party, as a political 
 organization, was hostile to the Government 
 and the efforts put forth for the suppression 
 of the rebellion. Its mass meetings, its 
 party caucuses, the correspondence of its 
 leaders, the riots incited by its followers, its 
 attitude in the elections, its undisguised ex¬ 
 pressions in Congress, its encouragement of 
 desertion, and defense of those who were 
 arrested for treasonable conduct, its contin- 
 aal clamors for peace in the face of the ene¬ 
 my,—all go to prove that its sympathies 
 were with the Southern Confederacy, and 
 against the cause of the Union. 
 
 On the 9th of January, 1861, Mr. Howard, 
 of Michigan, offered, in the House of Repre¬ 
 
 sentatives, a resolution calling for the ap¬ 
 pointment of a committee to inquire,— 
 
 1. Whether any executive officer of the 
 United States was treating with any person 
 or persons for the surrender of the forts or 
 other public property of the United States. 
 
 2. Whether any officer of the Government 
 had entered into any pledge, agreement, or 
 understanding,‘with any person or persons, 
 not to send reinforcements to the forts in 
 Charleston harbor. 
 
 3. What demand had been made for rein¬ 
 forcements, and why they had not been sent. 
 
 4. Where the ships of the navy were sta¬ 
 tioned. 
 
 5. What public property had been seized, 
 and the particulars of such seizure. 
 
 6. Wliat naval vessels had been seized, 
 and whether any efforts had been made to 
 protect or recover them. 
 
 These simple precautionary resolutions, 
 intended to inform the Government of the 
 extent of the danger, although adopted by 
 the House, received only 17 Democratic votes 
 out of the 133 yeas. Sixty Democrats voted 
 against it. 
 
 On the 11th of February, 1861, on the bill 
 providing for the construction of war vessels, 
 the vote in the Senate stood 30 yeas to 18 
 nays—all Democrats in the negative. In the 
 House, on the 20th, the vote stood 114 yeas 
 to 38 nays, only 12 Democrats voting' in its 
 favor. 
 
 Lieut.-General Scott, apprehensive of an 
 attack upon the Capital, had ordered seven 
 companies of artillery, and one company of 
 sappers and miners of the regular army, to 
 be quartered at Washington. 
 
 February 14, 1861. Mr. Branch, of North 
 Carolina, introduced a resolution, declaring 
 the presence of these troops offensive and 
 insulting, and demanding their immediate 
 withdrawal. 
 
 This resolution was laid on the table, by a 
 vote of 125 to 35. Thirteen Democrats voted 
 in favor of the motion, to 35 against it. 
 
 February 21, 1861. A resolution was in¬ 
 troduced by Mr. Dawes, censuring the Sec¬ 
 retary of the Navy for sending to distant 
 seas all the available ships of the navy at so 
 critical a period, when their presence was 
 needed at home ; also, for accepting the res¬ 
 ignation of officers who were in arms against 
 the Government. The report accompanying 
 the resolution says : 
 
 “ That the entire naval force available for 
 the defence of the whole Atlantic coast, at 
 the time of the appointment of this commit¬ 
 tee, consisted of the steamer Brooklyn, 25 
 guns, and the storeship Relief, two guns, 
 while the former was of too great draught to 
 permit her to enter Charleston harbor with 
 safety, except at spring tides, and the latter 
 was under orders to the coast of Africa, with 
 stores for the African squadron. Thus, the 
 whole Atlantic seaboard has been, to all in¬ 
 tents and purposes, without defence during 
 all the period of civil commotion and lawless 
 violence, to which the President has called 
 our attention, as ‘ of such vast and alarming 
 
proportions, as to be beyond bis power to i 
 cheek or control.” 
 
 Yet a resolution to censure so clear a be¬ 
 trayal of the pui>lic safety, and one that 
 ought to have received the vote of every true 
 n$an, received only one Democratic vote out 
 cT the 95 cast in its favor. Fifty-six Demo¬ 
 crats voted against it. 
 
 July 9, 1861. Mr. Lovejoy offered in the 
 House the following resolution : “That in 
 the judgment of the House, it is no part of 
 the duty of the soldiers of the United States 
 . to capture and return fugitive slaves.” The 
 vote was, yeas 92, nays 55, not a Democrat 
 voting in its favor. 
 
 July 15,1861. Mr. Benjamin Wood offered 
 in the House q. resolution recommending the 
 several States to convene their Legislatures 
 for the purpose of appointing delegates to a 
 general convention to devise measures of 
 peace. Although this proposition was of¬ 
 fered a few days after the ’Federal army had 
 been defeated at Bull Run, it received the 
 entire Democratic vote, with the exception of 
 one, who voted with the 93 Republicans 
 against the resolution. 
 
 July 29, 1861. Mr. Cox offered a resolu¬ 
 tion, providing for the appointment pf com¬ 
 missioners, empowering them to request from 
 the Confederate States a like commission, the 
 two bodies to meet and confer on such 
 measures as may be deemed necessary ‘ ‘ to 
 assuage all grievances,” said Commissioners 
 to meet at Louisville on the first Monday in 
 September, and in conjunction with a com¬ 
 mittee of one from each State, appointed by 
 the House, consider such amendments to the 
 Constitution as might tend to restore peace. 
 Although the war was in full operation, and 
 the South confident of success, this resolu¬ 
 tion commanded 41 Democratic votes—only 
 two Democrats voting with the 83 Republi¬ 
 cans against it. The vote stood 41 yeas, 85 
 nays. 
 
 August 2, 1861. On a bill to seize and ap¬ 
 propriate the property of those in rebellion 
 against the United States, and for the more 
 effective suppression of the Kebellion, the 
 vote stood yeas 6i, nays 48, only two Demo¬ 
 crats voting in its favor. 
 
 August 5, 1861. Mr. Calvert offered a 
 resolution for the appointment of a commit¬ 
 tee of nine to consider and report upon 
 amendments to the Constitution, necessary 
 to secure peace. The vote stood 39 yeas, 72 
 nays, only one Democrat voting against it. 
 
 August 5, 1861. A bill was introduced 
 in the House, approving of, and legalizing 
 the acts of President Lincoln, in calling out 
 the militia and strengthening the army and 
 navy. Out of 74 votes in its favor, only three 
 were Democrats. The 19 voting against it 
 were Democrats. 
 
 December 30, 1861. Mr. Julian offered a 
 resolution, instructing the judiciary commit¬ 
 tee to report a bill, so amending the fugitive 
 slave law, as to forbid the recapture or re¬ 
 turn of any fugitive from labor without sat¬ 
 isfactory proof that the claimant of such 
 fugitive'was loyal to the Government. The 
 
 resolution was passed, yeas 78, nays 39, not 
 
 Democrat voting in its favor. 
 
 February 6, 1862. The House voted oh 
 the proposition for the issue of $150,000,000 
 in Treasury notes, known as “ legal-tenders,’* 
 also for the issue of $500,000,000 in bonds. 
 The vote was, in favor of the measure, 95, 
 againts it 60, only six Democrats voting in 
 its favor. 
 
 February 25, 1862. The new article of 
 war, prohibiting military or naval officers 
 from employing any of their forces to capture 
 or return into slavery any fugitive from ser¬ 
 vice or labor, passed the House. Yeas, 95; 
 nays, 51—only one Democrat voting in its 
 favor. 
 
 April 3, 1852. A bill for the abolition of 
 slavery in the District of Columbia passed 
 the Senate, by a vote of 29 to 14, not a Demo¬ 
 crat voting in its favor. 
 
 April 11, 1862. It passed the House by t 
 vote of 92 to 39, only five Democrats voting 
 in its favor. 
 
 May 12, 1862. A bill.passed the Hous® 
 prohibiting slavery in the Territories of th® 
 United States. The vote stood, yeas 85, nays 
 50, only one Democrat voting in its favor. 
 
 June 9, 1862. Mr. Colfax introduced a 
 resolution, instructing the Judiciary com¬ 
 mittee to report a bill giving the right ©f 
 trial by jury to all fugitives who deny un¬ 
 der oath that they were slaves ; also requir¬ 
 ing proof of loyalty on the part of the claim¬ 
 ant. Adopted by yeas 77, nays 42, only two 
 Democrats voting in its favor. 
 
 July 11, 1862. A bill was passed by the 
 House, to “suppress insurrection, to punish 
 treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate 
 the property of rebels, and for other pur¬ 
 poses.” The vote stood, yeas 82, nays 42, 
 not a Democrat voting in its favor. 
 
 July 16, 1862. A bill authorzing th® 
 President to receive into the United States 
 service, persons of African descent, for th® 
 purpose of constructing intrenchments, per¬ 
 forming camp service, and doing such mili¬ 
 tary or naval service as they rnigh be found 
 competent to perform, was passed by th® 
 House, yeas 77, nays 30, only 4 Democrat# 
 voting in its favor. 
 
 Dec. 11, 1862. Mr. Yeaman, of Kentucky, 
 offered a resolution, declaring that the Eman¬ 
 cipation Proclamation of the President was 
 not warranted by the Constitution—that 
 the policy of Emancipation was dangerous to 
 the rights of citizens and to the perpetuity of 
 a free people. The vote on this was : In 
 favor 47, against it 95, only 3 Democrats 
 voting against it. 
 
 Dec 15, 1862. A resolution was intro¬ 
 duced by Mr. S. C. Fessenden in the House, 
 endorsing the President’s emancipation pro¬ 
 clamation as a war measure, as an exercis® 
 of power with proper, regard for the rights of 
 Hie State and the perpetuity of free govern¬ 
 ment. The vote stood, yeas 78, nays 52, only 
 two Democrats voting in its favor. 
 
 Jan. 28, 1863. Mr. Davis introduced a 
 proviso to be added to a pending bill: “ That 
 no part of the sums appropriated by this act 
 shall be disbursed for the pay, subsistence 
 
8 
 
 ©r any other supplies of any negro, free or 
 slave, in the armed military service of the 
 United States.” Eight Democrats voted in its 
 favor, 28 Republicans against. A strict 
 party vote. 
 
 February 20, 1863. The important mea¬ 
 sure, known as “ The National Currency Act, 
 of 1863,” passed the House by a vote of 
 78 yeas, to 64 nays ; only three Democrats 
 voting in its favor. Under this act our pres¬ 
 ent National Currency took the place of the 
 defective currency issued under the old state 
 hank system. The currency act of 1864, 
 which passed the House April 18, was also 
 opposed by the Democrats, the rote standing 
 in its favor 80, to 66 against it, not a Demo¬ 
 crat voting in its-favor. 
 
 Dec. 14, 1863. Mr. Fernando Wood offered 
 a resolution requesting the President to ap¬ 
 point three commissioners to negotiate with 
 the authorities at Richmond, “to the end 
 that this bloody, destructive and inhuman 
 war shall cease.” 
 
 Although no desire had been expressed on 
 the part of the South for such a conference, 
 this resolution was supported by 59 Demo¬ 
 crats. 92 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted 
 against it. 
 
 Dec. 17, 1863. Mr. Green Clay Smith of¬ 
 fered a resolution in favor of “ a vigorous 
 prosecution of the war until the Constitution 
 and law shall be enforced and obeyed in all 
 parts of the United States,” opposing any 
 armistice or intervention “so long as there 
 shall be found a rebel in arms against the 
 Government,’ ’ and ignoring ‘‘all party 
 names, lines, and issues” until the author¬ 
 ity of the Government was re-established. 
 This was passed by a vote of 94 yeas, 65 nays, 
 only four Democrats voting in its favor. 
 
 Dec. 17, 1863. Mr. Edgerton offered a reso¬ 
 lution denouncing “as among tbe gravest 
 of crimes, tbe invasion or occupation by 
 armed forces, of any State, under the pretext 
 or for the purpose of coercing the people 
 thereof to modify or abrogate any of their 
 laws or domestic institutions that are con¬ 
 sistent with the Constitution of the United 
 States. ’ ’ Although the laws and the institu¬ 
 tions of the Confederate States were being 
 used to destroy the Federal Government, this 
 resolution was not opposed by a single Demo¬ 
 crat. The vote stood: In its favor 66, 
 against it 90, a strict party vote. 
 
 Dec 21, 1863. Mr. Harding offered an 
 amendment to the deficiency bill that no 
 moneys, appropriated should be used for the 
 raising, arming, equipping or paying of 
 negroes. It was favored by 41 Democrats, 
 the vote standing, yeas 41, nays 105. 
 
 Jan. 18,1864. The joint resolution, pend¬ 
 ing in the House, dropping from the rolls of 
 the army all volunteer officers who were 
 absent from duty, except for good cause, and 
 intend to weed'' out of the service those 
 useless officers who drew pay without per¬ 
 forming service, was agreed to, by a vote of 
 72 to 45. This resolution had for its object 
 the improvement of the service, yet not a 
 Democrat voted, in its favor. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1864. A resolution was introducd 
 
 by Mr. Eldridgc opposing the system of draft¬ 
 ing, declaring it a failure, and repealing all 
 Acts authorizing drafts. The House rejected 
 the measure—42 voting in its favor, and 84 
 against. All those voting in its favor were 
 Democrats. Only three Democrats voted 
 against it. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1854. A resolution favoring a 
 more vigorous policy in the enlistment of 
 negroes, to relieve thereby the burdens rest¬ 
 ing upon the white soldiers, was passed, by 
 a vote of—yeas 80, nays 46. All Democrats 
 in the negative. 
 
 Feb. 12, 1864. An amendment to the Sup¬ 
 plementary Enrollment bill, providing for 
 the enrollment of colored persons, passed 
 tbe House. The vote stood 84 yeas to 71 
 nays. Not a Democrat voted in its favor. 
 
 It is a noticeable fact, that at the very time 
 when negroes were being employed by the 
 rebel army, and their enrollment sanctioned 
 by Confederate legislation, tlie Democrats of 
 the North were united in opposition to such 
 a policy on the part of the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment. 
 
 The bill, as amended, passed by a vote of 
 94 yeas to 65 nays, only five Democrats 
 voting >n its favor on the final passage. 
 
 Feb. 15, 1864. Mr. Arnold offered a reso¬ 
 lution, “ That the Constitution be so amended 
 as to abolish slavery in the United States, 
 wherever it now exists, and to prohibit its 
 existence in every part thereof forever.” 
 This resolution was passed by a vote of 78 
 to 62, only one Democrat favoring it. 
 
 March 17,1864. On a bill before tbe House 
 to incorporate the Metropolitan Railroad 
 Company of the District of Columbia, the 
 proviso, “ That there shall be no regula¬ 
 tion excluding any person from any car on . 
 account of color,” was agreed to—yeas 76, 
 nays 62, not a Democrat voting for it. 
 
 March 21, 1864. Pending the Army Ap¬ 
 propriation bill, tbe proviso was offered, 
 
 “ That no part of the money herein appro¬ 
 priated shall be applied or used for the pur¬ 
 pose of raising, arming, equipping, or paying 
 i*egro soldiers.” 
 
 This was favored by 18 Democrats, opposed 
 by 8 Democrats and 74 Republicans. 
 
 April 6, 1864. A vote was taken in th* 
 House on a section of the Currency bill, 
 authorizing the issue to National Banks 
 of small notes. Tbe vote stood—yeas 76, 
 nays 54, only four Democrats voting in its 
 favor. 
 
 April 9, 1864. A resolution was intro¬ 
 duced in the House by Mr. Colfax, declaring 
 Alexander Long unworthy to be a member, 
 said Long having favored upon tbe floor the 
 recognition of the independence of tlie South¬ 
 ern Confederacy. The vote on this stood— 
 yeas 80, nays 70, only one Democrat voting 
 in its favor. On the same day, Mr. vVashburn 
 offered a resolution for the expulsion of Ben¬ 
 jamin G. Harris for tlie following language : 
 
 “ Tlie South asked you to let them go in 
 peace. But no, you said you would bring 
 them into subjection. Tliat is not done yet; 
 and God Almighty grant that it never may 
 be. I hope that yon will never subjugate 
 
9 
 
 Scfcth.” The vote stood, yeas 84, nays 
 58, «nly one Democrat voting in its favor. 
 Th* resolution requiring a two-thirds vote, 
 it was lost. Mr. Schenck then offered a reso¬ 
 lution of oensure, the vote on this standing 
 98, nays 20, seventeen Democrats voting 
 ia favor of it, and twenty-one refusing to 
 rote. 
 
 April 16, 1864. A bill passed the House 
 preventing States from taxing the capital 
 stock of National Banks at a higher rate 
 than an equal amount of capital in the hands 
 of individual citizens, also preventing the 
 taxation by States of the capital invested in 
 U. S. Bonds for deposit on circulation. The 
 vote stood 70 yeaa to 60 nays, only two Dem¬ 
 ocrats voting in its favor. 
 
 April 30, 1664. A bill increasing soldiers’ 
 pay, and giving bounty to colored soldiers, 
 passed the House by a vote of 80 yeaa to 
 61 nays, only two Democrats voting in its 
 favor. All Democrats against it. 
 
 June 6, 1864. A bill for the punishment 
 guerrillas, passed the House, yeas 72, 
 aays 37, only two Democrats voting in It3 
 favor. 
 
 June 13,1864. The House passed the bill 
 for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. The 
 vote stood, yeas 90, nays 62, only one Dem¬ 
 ocrat voting in favor of this most righteous 
 saeaaure 
 
 June 28, 1864. Pending the consideration 
 ot the loan bill, Mr. Holman moved to add 
 this proviso: “That nothing in this act 
 shall impair the right of the States to tax the 
 bonds, notes, and other obligations issued 
 under this Act.” It was rejected by a vote 
 of 71 to 77, not a Democrat voting against it. 
 
 June 29, 1864. The following proviso to 
 the civil appropriation bill pending in the 
 House: “That in the Courts of the United 
 States there shall be no exclusion of any 
 witness on account of color” was adopted, 
 ywas 68, nays 48, not a Democrat voting in 
 its favor. 
 
 July 2, 1864. One of the most important 
 cailitary bills of the war passed the House. 
 It provided for the raising of additional 
 troops either by volunteer enlistment or by 
 drafting. The President, under this Act, 
 called for 500,000 men for one year, July 18, 
 1864. Vital as were the provisions of this 
 bill for the success of our cause, the vote 
 stood, yeas 66, nays 55, not a Democrat 
 voting in its favor. 
 
 July 4, 1864. The special war income 
 tax of 5 per cent, on all incomes over $600 a 
 year was adopted by the House, by a vote of 
 53 yeas to 49 nays, not a Democrat voting in 
 its lavor. It passed the Senate on the same 
 day by a vote of 28 to 7, only one Democrat 
 voting for it. 
 
 Jan. 9, 1865. A joint resolution passed 
 the House declaring that the wife and chil- 
 dren of any person mustered into the United 
 States service shall be forever free, any law, 
 usage, or custom whatsoever to the contrary 
 aotwithstanding. Tiie vote stood, 74 yeas 
 to 63 nays, not a Democrat voting in its 
 Savor. 
 
 January 16, 1865. Mr. Cox offered a reso¬ 
 
 lution, that the President be requested to 
 send commissioners to the Confederate au¬ 
 thorities “with a view to national pacifica¬ 
 tion and tranquility ” “ although we do not 
 know that the insurgents are yet prepared to 
 agree to any terms of pacification which wc 
 would or should deem acceptable.” The 
 vote on this stood, yeas 51, nays 84, only 
 two Democrats voting against it. 
 
 A similar resolution was introduced by 
 Mr. Dawson, Feb. 13, 1865, and laid upon 
 tbe table by a vote of 73 to 47, only one 
 Democrat voting with the 72 Repulicans in 
 favor of tabling the resolution. 
 
 Jan. 31, 1865. The joint resolution, pro¬ 
 posing an amendment to the Constitution for 
 the extinction of slavery throughout the 
 United States, and requiring a two-thirds 
 vote for its passage, passed the House, by 
 the following vote, yeas 119, nays 56, only 
 sixteen Democrats voting in its favor. 
 
 February 27, 1865, an amendment was 
 offered to a pending military bill, repealing 
 all acts or part of acts authorizing conscrip¬ 
 tion. This was favored by 27 Democrats, 
 and opposed by only 10; 84 Republicans 
 voting against it. 
 
 The Enrollment Act of March 3,1865, con¬ 
 taining important provisions for strengthen¬ 
 ing the army, passed the House by a vote of 
 72 to 56, only five Democrats voting in its- 
 
 faror. 
 
 March 3, 1865, a bill for the establishment 
 of the Freedman’s bureau, to have the gen¬ 
 eral superintendence of all freedmen; to 
 watch over the execution of all lawa, procla¬ 
 mations and military orders ol emancipation, 
 and to establish necessary regulations for 
 their protection, was passed by the House by 
 a vote of 77 yeas, to 52 nays, only one Demo¬ 
 crat voting for it. 
 
 March 3, 1866, Mr. Schenck from the Mili¬ 
 tary Committee reported a resolution for the 
 revocation of the military order which re¬ 
 quired all colored persons leaving Washing¬ 
 ton to procure passes. The vote stood, yea3 
 75, nays 24, only 4 Democrats voting for it. 
 
 Thus the record might be continued with 
 the votes on other measures of equal impor¬ 
 tance. 
 
 The public acts to which reference has 
 been made, and the votes thereon, are but a 
 few of the many that could he shown proving 
 the deep-rooted Democratic sympathy for the 
 Confederate cause, and the organized oppo¬ 
 sition of the party to measures absolutely 
 essential to the successful prosecution of 
 the war. Can any impartial mind in the re¬ 
 view of the votes presented, be brought to 
 believe that a Democratic majority in Con¬ 
 gress would have ever secured the preserva¬ 
 tion of the Union. To the strong Republican 
 majorities, representing the national will, 
 and the determination of the loyal people to 
 maintain, without compromise or dishonor, 
 the unity and integrity of the Republic, we 
 owe the existence of the Government. This 
 much, at least, the impartial historian will 
 accord to the Republican party, and its pa¬ 
 triotic record when the political history of 
 the Rebellion is truthfully written. 
 
10 
 
 * 
 
 From the record presented, three conclu¬ 
 sions may be l’airly drawn : 
 
 1. The encouragement which the Demo¬ 
 cratic party gave to the secession conspira¬ 
 tors, before the war, lost none of its force 
 during its prosecutiou. 
 
 2. The attitude of the Democratic party, 
 if not openly hostile to the Union cause, was 
 far from friendly to it. 
 
 3. If the policy of the Democratic party, 
 as foreshadowed by its votes in Congress, 
 had prevailed, the Southern Confederacy 
 would be to-day an established fact. 
 
 Would the restoration of such a party to 
 power be conducive to the interest of the 
 nation? Would not the future peace and 
 prosperity of the Republic be endangered by 
 Democratic ascendancy ? Would not the 
 organized opposition to the enactment of 
 those measures which are now the laws of 
 the land, find expression in a failure to exe¬ 
 cute or administer them ? In a word, would 
 not the restoration of the Democratic party 
 to the control of the Nation, be the restora¬ 
 tion of that political power which encouraged 
 the South to secede, and discouraged by 
 vote and example the efforts of a loyal peo¬ 
 ple to suppress the rebellion and preserve | 
 the Union ? These are questions for the 
 people to answer at the ballot-box. They 
 will then and there resolve themselves into 
 a single question: “Shall those who were 
 the enemies of the nation in time of war, be 
 chosen by the people as their trusted guar¬ 
 dians in time of peace ?” 
 
 DEMOCRATIC POLICY WOULD HAVE LED TO COX 
 FEDERATE RECOGNITION. 
 
 It has been shown by the record submitted, 
 that Democracy encouraged the rebellion, 
 and opposed those efforts which were deemed 
 necessary for its suppression. 
 
 It may be urged by its leaders to-day, 
 that it was in fdvor of suppressing the re¬ 
 bellion, and that its opposition was not to 
 the Union, but to the means employed to 
 save it. Whatever its purpose may have 
 been, it is certain that the effect of its oppo¬ 
 sition to the means employed tended to pro¬ 
 long the war, by holding out the hope to 
 those m rebellion that peace would be ob¬ 
 tained through the recognition of the South¬ 
 ern Confederacy. 
 
 When the Southern States seceded, they 
 did so with the determination never to re¬ 
 turn to the Union. If the history of the 
 movement is clearer on one point than 
 another, it is on this resolution of the sece¬ 
 ded States never to submit to Federal au¬ 
 thority. An independent Southern Confed¬ 
 eracy was the only ultimatum which the 
 South had to offer as a basis of peace. The 
 official and private correspondence received 
 from the South ; the speeches of its leaders, 
 and the language of its press ; the debates 
 in State legislatures and in the Confederate 
 Congress; the informal conferences lie.ld 
 from time to time ; the proclamations and 
 messages of its President, all go to prove, 
 that, from the inception to the close of the 
 movement, peace was not desirable, except 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 on the basis of a recognition of the Southern 
 Confederacy. Yet, with a full knowledge of 
 this fact, Democracy, throughout the war, 
 kept clamoring for a peace which its leaders 
 knew could not be had, and for a peaceful 
 settlement of existing difficulties, which they 
 knew to be impossible. 
 
 In April, 1861, Roger A. Pryor, of Virginia, 
 said, in response to a serenade, at Charles¬ 
 ton, South Carolina : 
 
 “Gentlemen, I thank you, especially that 
 you have at last annihilated this accursed 
 Union, reeking with corruption and insolent 
 with excess of tyranny. Thank God ! it is 
 at last blasted and riven bv the lightning 
 wrath of an outraged and indignant people. 
 Not only is it gone, but gone forever. In 
 the expressive language of Scripture, it is 
 water spilt upon the ground which cannot 
 be gathered up. Like Lucifer, son of the 
 morning, it has fallen, never to rise again. 
 For my part, gentlemen, if Abraham Lin¬ 
 coln and Hannibal Hamlin to-morrow were 
 to abdicate their offices and were to give me a 
 blank sheet of paper to write the condition of 
 re-annexation to the defunct Union, I would 
 scornfully spurn the overture.” 
 
 These sentiments were received with tu¬ 
 multuous applause and wild enthusiasm, and, 
 as subsequent events showed, truthfully rep¬ 
 resented the prevailing opinion at the South. 
 l 7 et in the fate of these positive expressions, 
 while the life of the nation trembled in the 
 balance, Democracy devoted its energies to 
 the discussion of the Constitutional right? of 
 those who were leading armies against the 
 Government, and in demanding for rebels in 
 arms the same mild treatment accorded to 
 law-abiding citizens. Is it any wonder that 
 the loyal people distrusted Democracy, and 
 that the Confederates regarded it as a North- 
 era ally, whose triumph meant Southern in¬ 
 dependence. 
 
 Reference to letters written by Southern 
 leaders, and to the debates in the rebel Con¬ 
 gress, and the editorials in the Southern 
 press, strengthen the statement that the for¬ 
 lorn hope of the Southern Confederacy cen¬ 
 tred in the restoration to power of the Demo¬ 
 cratic party. 
 
 In the winter of 1S02, (Dec. 24.) George 
 N. Sanders wrote a letter to certain promi¬ 
 nent New York Democrats. TTie letter was 
 headed : 
 
 “Governor Seymour, Dean Richmond, 
 John Van Buren, Charles O’Connor, Wash¬ 
 ington Hunt, Fernando Wood, and James 
 Brooks, representative men of the triumphant 
 revolutionary party of New York.” 
 
 In his letter he said : 
 
 “ Let heart and brain into the revolu¬ 
 tion ; accelerate and direct the movement, 
 get rid of the Baboon, (or What is it!) 
 Abraham Lincoln, pacifieally, if you can, 
 but by the blood of his followers, if neces¬ 
 sary. Withdraw your support, material 
 and moral, from the invading armies, and 
 the South will make quick work with the 
 Abolitionists that remain on her soli. Suf¬ 
 fer no degenerate son of the South, upon 
 
11 
 
 however plausible pretext, to idly embarrass 
 your action by throwing into your way rotten 
 planks of reconstruction. Unity is no longer pos¬ 
 sible. The very word Union, once so dear, 
 has been made the cover for so many atro¬ 
 cious acts, that the mere mention of it is 
 odious in the ears of Southern people. The 
 State legislatures will be called upon to oblit¬ 
 erate the hated name from the counties and 
 towns.” 
 
 This was the response of the South to the 
 Democratic triumphs throughout the North 
 in November, 18(32. How faithfully these 
 “representative men of the triumphant revo¬ 
 lutionary party of New York,” endeavored 
 to carry out the plan suggested by Mr. San¬ 
 ders, may be understood by consulting their 
 record, and noting their persistent opposi¬ 
 tion to the efforts of the Government to sup¬ 
 press the rebellion. 
 
 After the Democratic successes in the fall 
 ' of 1862, Southern papers took occasion to 
 assure the North that there could be no peace 
 except by recognizing the Confederacy. 
 
 The Richmond Examiner said : 
 
 “ They do not yet understand that we are 
 resolute to be rid of them forever, and deter¬ 
 mined rather to die than to live with them 
 in the same political community again.” 
 
 The Richmond Dispatch , anticipating a 
 Democratic majority in Congress, as a result 
 of the elections, said : 
 
 “ It is probable, that they might propose a 
 reconstruction of the Union, with certain 
 pledges, guarantees, &c. To this the South 
 will never consent. They will never exist 
 in the same political association, be its name 
 what it Bray, be its terms what they will, and 
 be the guarantees whatever the good will of 
 the Democrats may make them. We of the 
 Confederate States have made up our mind* 
 to endure the worst extremity to which war 
 can reduce a people. We are prepared for 
 it. The Government that should propose to 
 reunite us with the Yankees could not exist 
 a day. It would sink so deep beneath the 
 deluge of popular indignation, that even his¬ 
 tory would not be able to fish up the wreck.” 
 • Again, on the 18th of October, the same 
 paper said : 
 
 ‘^Nor, after the sacrifices which the South 
 has suffered at Northern hands, could she 
 ever consent, of her own free will, to live 
 under the same government with that peo¬ 
 ple.” 
 
 In December (2) 1862, the Legislature of. 
 North Carolina, as if fearful that Northern j 
 Democracy would insist upon the Southern 
 States coming back on their own terms, 
 passed this resolution : 
 
 “ Resolved: That the separation between 
 the Confederate States and the United States 
 is final, and that the people of Nerth Caro¬ 
 lina will never consent to a re-union at any. 
 -time or upon any terms.” 
 
 December 8, 18G2. Governor Letcher, of 
 Virginia, wrote: 
 
 “ Let it be understood that the separation 
 is and ought to be final and irrevocable ; that 
 Virginia will under no circumstances enter¬ 
 tain any proposition from any quarter which 
 
 j may have for its object a restoration or re- 
 ! construction of the late Union, on any terms 
 or conditions whatever.” 
 
 In a speech delivered at Richmond, and 
 reported in the Enquirer of January 7, 1863, 
 President Davis said : 
 
 “By showing themselves so utterly dis¬ 
 graced, that if the question was proposed to 
 you whether you would combine with 
 hyenas or Yankees, I trust every Virginian 
 would say, give me the hyenas.” 
 
 The Dispatch of January 11, 1863, said : 
 
 “We warn the Democrats and Conserva¬ 
 tives of the North to dismiss from their minds 
 at once the miserable delusion that the South 
 can ever consent to enter again, upon any 
 terms, the old Union. If the North will al¬ 
 low us to write the Constitution ourselves, 
 and give us every guarantee we would ask, 
 we would sooner be under the Government 
 of England or France than under a Union 
 with men who have shown that they cannot 
 keep good faith, and are the most barbarous 
 and inhuman, as well as treacherous of man¬ 
 kind.” 
 
 The Richmond Sentinel thus replies to tha 
 address of New Hampshire Democrats, declar¬ 
 ing that if the South would “ come back into 
 the Union, the Democracy of the North will 
 do all in their power to gain for them (the 
 Southern States) such guarantees as will 
 secure their safety:” 
 
 “Do the New Hampshire Democrats sup¬ 
 pose for one moment that we could so much 
 as think of re-union with such a people ? 
 Rather tell one to be wedded to a corpse l 
 Rather join hands with a fiend from the pit. 
 When those in the United States who are 
 disposed to deal fairly with us shall gain the 
 rule, we may in time begin to bury the many 
 bitter memories which now add energy to 
 our resentment, and make with them treaties 
 that shall be mutually advantageous. Per¬ 
 haps, hereafter, good will may be revived 
 again. But Union—never let it be mention¬ 
 ed ! It is impossible. ” 
 
 The Richmond Enquirer of October 16, 1863, 
 said: 
 
 “ What we mean to win is utter separation 
 from them for all time. We do not want to 
 govern their country ; but after levying upon 
 it what seemeth good to us, by way of in- 
 ; demnity, we leave it to commence its politi- 
 j cal life again from fehe beginning, hoping 
 ! that the lesson may have made them sadder 
 1 and wiser Yankees. We shut them out for¬ 
 ever, with all their unclean and scoundrelly 
 ways, intending to lead our lives here in our 
 own confederate way, within our own well- 
 guarded bounds, and without, as St. John 
 says, ‘ without are dogs.’ ” 
 
 September 2S, 1863, a resolution was in¬ 
 troduced into the Virginia House of Delegates 
 for inquiring into the tone and temper of the 
 people of the United States on the subject of 
 peace, with a view to responding, if favor¬ 
 able. The Sentinel , of the 29th, in speaking 
 of it, said : 
 
 “ The House, by a unanimous vote, put its 
 foot on the resolution, without a word of dis¬ 
 cussion, or a moment of delay. In this it 
 
12 
 
 hut fairly represented the manliness and 
 unanimity of our people.” 
 
 In 1864, Henry W. Allen, Governor of 
 Louisiana, said in his inaugural: 
 
 “ I speak to-day by authority. I speak as 
 the Governor of Louisiana, and I wish it to 
 be known at Washington, and elsewhere, 
 that rather than reconstruct this Govern¬ 
 ment and go back to the Union, on any terms 
 whatever, the people of Louisiana will, in 
 convention assembled, without a dissenting 
 voice, cede the State to any European power. ’ ’ 
 
 The Richmond Dispatch , in March, 1864, 
 in an editorial on President Lincoln’s am¬ 
 nesty proclamation, said : 
 
 “No one, however, knows better than 
 Abraham Lincoln, that any terms he might 
 offer the Southern people which contemplate 
 their restoration to his bloody and brutal 
 Government, would be rejected with scorn 
 and execration. If, instead of devoting 
 to death our President and military and 
 civil officers, he had proposed to make Jeff. 
 Davis his successor, Lee, Coaamander-in-chief 
 of the Yankee armies, and our domestic in¬ 
 stitutions not only recognized at home, but 
 re-adopted in the free States, provided the 
 South would once more enter the Yankee 
 Union, there is not a man, woman, or child 
 in the Confederacy, who would not spit upon 
 the proposition. We desire no companion¬ 
 ship upon any terms with a nation of rob¬ 
 bers and murderers.” 
 
 A volume might be easily filled with senti¬ 
 ments similar to those quoted, showing that 
 the people of the South were determined to 
 accept no terms whatever that ignored the 
 recognition of the Southern Confederacy. 
 
 Yet, with a full knowledge of this deter¬ 
 mination on the part of the South, and the 
 impossibility of restoring the Union, except 
 by the defeat of the Confederate armies, the 
 Democratic party tried to divide Northern 
 sentiment and cripple the administration, by 
 proclaiming that the Southern States were 
 anxious to return to the Union, and that the 
 Republican party would not allow them. 
 
 Impartial history will record these facts : 
 
 1. The Southern States gave up the Con¬ 
 federacy when they could no longer sustain 
 it. 
 
 2. They came back to the Union when 
 they had no power to keep themselves out. 
 
 3. The people are indebted for the preserva¬ 
 tion of the Union, not to the Southern States, 
 for accepting what they had no power to 
 reject, nor to the Democratic party for its 
 peace propositions, but to the Republican 
 party for organizing the means necessary for 
 the prosecution of the war, and to the loyal 
 millions who supported it with their votes, 
 and under its inspiration fought for the sal¬ 
 vation of the Union. 
 
 Can the nation forget these facts in ten 
 short years ? Can it blindly turn aside from 
 Republicanism to the embrace of Democracy ? 
 Can it safely transfer the control of its Gov¬ 
 ernment from hands known to he loyal to 
 those still red with the blood of its defend¬ 
 ers ? These are questions for the American 
 
 people to answer, and on their solution de¬ 
 pends the weal or woe of the Republic. 
 
 CONFEDERATE HOPES OF A DEMOCRATIC 
 TRIUMPH. 
 
 It has been shown that, despite the asser¬ 
 tion of the Northern Democracy, the Soutk- 
 ern States were at no time, from the incep¬ 
 tion of the rebellion to its final crushing de¬ 
 feat, willing to make peace on any other 
 terms than the recognition of the Southern 
 Confederacy. To assume that Democratic 
 leaders were ignorant of this, is to assume 
 that those who were in correspondence with 
 leading rebels knew less of their intentions 
 than those who were not. 
 
 The Presidential election of 1864 was the 
 turning-point in the rebellion. The Chicago 
 Democratic Convention had declared the war 
 a failure, and favored a cessation of hostili¬ 
 ties. McClellan was the Presidential candi¬ 
 date on this platform. Although he pro¬ 
 fessed a desire to restore the Union, it was 
 plainly evident that his election would se¬ 
 cure its permanent disruption. Rebel sym¬ 
 pathizers in the North believed this, and 
 the rebel authorities in the South so regard¬ 
 ed it. The Southern Confederacy strained 
 every nerve to hold out until the people of 
 the North decided for the Union or against; 
 it. The re-election of Abraham Lincoln was 
 the death blow of the slave confederacy. Its 
 shell was broken, and its formidable resist¬ 
 ance at an end. The defeat of the Democratic 
 party was the extinction of its hopes and 
 pretensions. 
 
 In an interview with Governor Randall, in 
 1864, President Lincoln said : 
 
 “I do not think it is personal vanity or 
 ambition, though I am not free from these 
 infirmities, but I cannot but feel that the 
 weal or woe of this great nation will be 
 decided in November. There is no programme 
 offered by any wing of the Democratic party 
 but that must result in the permanent de¬ 
 struction of the Union.” 
 
 “ But, Mr. President,” venturod Governor 
 Randall, “General McClellan is in favor of 
 crushing out this rebellion by force. He* 
 will be the Chicago candidate.” 
 
 “ Sir,” replied Mr. Lincoln, “ the slightest 
 knowledge of arithmetic will prove to any 
 man that the rebel armies cannot be de¬ 
 stroyed by Democratic strategy. It would 
 sacrifice all the white men of the North to do 
 it. There are now in the service of the 
 United States nearly 200,000 able-bodied 
 colored men, most of them under arms, de¬ 
 fending and acquiring Union territory. The 
 Democratic strategy demands that these 
 forces be disbanded, and that the masters be 
 conciliated by restoring them to slavery. 
 The black men who now assist Union men to 
 escape, are ti be converted into our enemies, 
 in the vain hope of gaining the good will of 
 their masters. We shall have to fight two 
 nations instead of one. 
 
 “ You cannot conciliate the South, if you 
 guarantee to them ultimate success ; and the 
 experience of the present war proves their 
 success is inevitable if you fling the compul- 
 
13 
 
 sory labor of millions of black men into tbeir 
 aide of the seale. Wilf you give our enemies 
 such military advantage as to insure success, 
 and then depend on coaxing, flattery, and 
 concession to get them back into the Union ? 
 Abandon all the posts now garrisoned by 
 black men, take 200,000 men from our side 
 and put them in the battle-field or corn-field 
 against us, and we would be compelled to 
 abandon the war in three weeks. 
 
 “We have to hold territory in inclement 
 and sickly places ; where are the Democrats 
 to do this ? It was a free fight, and the field 
 was open to the war Democrats to put down 
 this rebellion by fighting against both master 
 and slave, long before the present policy was 
 inaugurated. 
 
 “ There have been men base enough to 
 propose to me to return to slavery the black 
 warriors of Port Hudson and Olustee, and 
 thus win the respect of the masters they 
 fought. Should I do so, I should deserve to 
 be damned in time and eternity. Come what 
 will, I will keep my faith with friend and 
 .foe. My enemies pretend I am now carrying 
 on this war for the sole purpose of abolition. 
 So long as I am President it shall be carried 
 on for the sole purpose of restoring the 
 Union. But no human power can subdue 
 this rebellion without the use of the emanci¬ 
 pation policy, and every other policy calcu¬ 
 lated to weaken the moral and physical forces 
 of the rebellion.” 
 
 These practical views of President Lincoln 
 fully illustrate what was then thought of the 
 conservative policy of the Democratic party 
 throughout the war. It was a policy which 
 insisted upon treating as friends, men who 
 had repudiated friendship, and who pro¬ 
 claimed themselves uncompromising ene¬ 
 mies. 
 
 In a letter to Hon. E. B. Wasliburne, dated 
 August 16, 1864, General Grant thus refers 
 to Confederate hopes of a Democratic triumph 
 in the North: 
 
 “ I have no doubt but that tbe enemy are 
 exceedingly anxious to hold out until after 
 tho Presidential election. They have many 
 hopes from its effects. They hope for a 
 counter rovolution ; they hope for the elec- 
 ti©n of a peace candidate; in fact, like Mi- 
 cawber, they hope for something to turn up. 
 Our peace friends, if they expect peace from 
 separation, are much mistaken. It would 
 be but the beginning of war, with thousands 
 of Northern men joining the South, because 
 of our disgrace in allowing separation. To 
 have ‘ peace on any terms,’ the South would 
 demand a restoration of their slaves already 
 freed. They would demand indemnity for 
 losses sustained, and they would demand a 
 treaty that would make the North slave 
 hunters for the South. They would demand 
 pay or the restoration of every slave escap¬ 
 ing to the North.” 
 
 Similar views were expressed by General 
 Thomas, and other leading Union generals, 
 who reoognized in a Democratic triumph the 
 BHocess of the Confederacy. 
 
 It ean be readily shown that while the 
 
 ceive the 
 
 Northern people into the belief that the elec¬ 
 tion of McClellan in 1864 would bring about 
 a restoration of the Union, Southern leaders 
 were regarding his election as the certain 
 step toward Confederate recognition. 
 
 Sep. 22, 1864. Alexander H. Stephens, 
 wrote to some of the leading members of the 
 Georgia Legislature, and thus expressed him¬ 
 self in regard to the Democratic party : 
 
 “ The action of the Chicago convention, se 
 far as its platform of principles goes, pre¬ 
 sents, as I have said on another occasion, a 
 ray of light, which, under Providence, may 
 prove the dawn of day to this long and cheer¬ 
 less night, the first ray of light I have seen 
 from the North since the war began. This 
 cheers the heart and towards it I could almost 
 exclaim : ‘ Hail! holy light, offspring of 
 
 Heaven, first-born of the eternal, co-eternal 
 beam. May I express thee unblamed, sine© 
 God is light.’ Indeed I could have quite 
 so exclaimed, but for the sad reflection that 
 whether it shall bring healing in its beams 
 or be lost in a dark and ominous eclipse ere 
 its good work be done, depends so much 
 upon the actions of others who may not re¬ 
 gard it and view it as 1 do. So at best it is 
 but a ray, a small and tremulous ray, enough 
 only to gladdest the heart and quicken the 
 hope.” 
 
 William W. Boyce, in a letter to Jefferson 
 Davis, dated September 29, 1864, thus refers 
 to the efforts of Northern Democracy. 
 
 “ But fortunately, Mr. Lincoln and those 
 he represents, are not all of the North. There 
 is a powerful party which condemns his pol¬ 
 icy. That party is rational on the subject 
 of slavery. It represents whatever of amity 
 or conservatism is loft at the North. Thi» 
 party proposes that the war shall cease, at 
 least temporarily, and that all the States 
 should meet in amicable council, to make 
 peace if possible. This is the most imposing 
 demonstration in favor of peace made at the 
 North since the war broke out. I think our 
 only hope of a satisfactory peace, oue eousist- 
 ont witli the preservation of free institutions, 
 is the supremacy of this party at some time 
 or other. Our policy, therefore, is to give 
 this party all the capital we can. It may be 
 objected, that to meet the Northern States in 
 convention, is to abandon our present form 
 of government. But this no more follows 
 than that their meeting us implies au aban¬ 
 donment of their form of government. A 
 congress of the States in their sovereign ca¬ 
 pacity, is the highest acknowledgment of 
 the principles of State rights.” 
 
 Herschel V. Johnson, in a letter dated 
 September 25, 1864, in referring to the peace 
 movements of Democracy, said: 
 
 “ I look with anxiety to the approaching 
 Presidential electiou in the United States. 
 For, although the Chicago platform falls 
 below the great occasion, and the nomine© 
 still lower, yet the triumph of the Democratic 
 party of the North will certainly secure a 
 temporary suspension of hostilities and an 
 effort to make peace by an appeal to reason. 
 They confess that four years of bloody war, 
 as a means of restoring tbe Union, has proven 
 
14 
 
 & failure. The/ declare that the true prin¬ 
 ciples of American Government have been 
 disregarded and trampled under foot by the 
 present executive of the United States. Their 
 Buccess will bring a change of administration, 
 and, with that, a change of policy. 
 
 ******** 
 
 “ If the Government of the United States 
 should pass into other hands, repudiate the 
 policy of subjugation, and indicate a desire 
 for negotiation, I would, if need be, have 
 our Government propose it—certainly accept 
 the offer of it, if tendered by the Federal 
 authorities. 
 
 “We cannot have peace so long as tho 
 present rulers of the United States are iu 
 power.” 
 
 In a letter to Thomas J. Semmes, under 
 date of Nov. 5, 1864, Alexander H. Stephens, 
 in spfeaking of the Chicago Convention, and 
 its desire for a convention of States, said : 
 
 “ There is no prospect of such a proposition 
 being tendered, unless McClellan should be 
 elected. He cannot be elected without car¬ 
 rying a sufficient number of the States, 
 which, if united with those of the Confeder¬ 
 acy, would make a majority, of the States. 
 In such a convention, then, so formed, have 
 we not strong reasons to hope and expect 
 that a resolution could be passed, denying 
 the constitutional power of the Government, 
 under the compact of 1787, to coerce a State ? 
 Tho Chicago platform virtually does this 
 already. Are there not strong reasons, at 
 least, to induce us to hope and believe that 
 they might ? If that could he done, it would 
 end the war. It would recognize as the 
 fundamental principle of American institu¬ 
 tions the ultimate, absolute sovereignty of 
 the several States. This fully covers our 
 Independence—as fully as I wish ever to see 
 it covered. 
 
 ******** 
 
 “You will also allow me to say, that I 
 look upon the election of McClellan as a mat¬ 
 ter of vast importance to us in every view of 
 the case, and hence I thought it judicious, 
 patriotic, and wise, to do every thing that 
 could be properly done to aid in his election. 
 Whatever may be his individual opinion, he 
 is the candidate of the State Rights party of 
 the North, in opposition to the centralists 
 and consolidationists, whose hobby now is 
 abolitionism. I have thought from the be¬ 
 ginning, that our true policy was to build up 
 and strengthen such a party at the North by 
 all means in our power. Not only upon the 
 wise maxim of Philip of Macedon, to divide 
 the enemy as a question of policy merely, 
 but from a higher and much nobler motive. 
 Not only an early peace, but our future 
 safety, security, and happiness required it. 
 
 “ The old Union and the old Constitution 
 are both dead, dead forever, except in so far 
 as the Constitution has been preserved by us. 
 There is for the Union as it was, no resurrec¬ 
 tion by any power short of that which 
 brought Lazarus from the tomb. There may 
 be, aud doubtless are, many at the North, 
 and some at the South, who look forward to 
 
 tiou as it was ; but such ideas are vain and 
 illusory, as the dreamy imaginings of the 
 Indian warrior, who, in death, clings to his 
 weapons in fond expectation that he will 
 have use for them beyond the grave, in other 
 lands and new hunting grounds. 
 
 “ These fears of voluntary reconstruction are 
 but chimeras of the brain. No one need en¬ 
 tertain any such from McClellan’s election. 
 But, on the contrary, I think that peace, 
 upon the basis of a separation of the States 
 aud our independence, would be the almost 
 certain ultimate result, if our authorities 
 should act wisely, in the event of his elec¬ 
 tion. * * * * 
 
 “At least two-thirds of McClellan’s own 
 party manfully hold aud proclaim the doc¬ 
 trine that there is no power in the central 
 Government to coerce a Stale. This element 
 would oppose a further prosecution of the 
 war. Meanwhile, financial embarrassments 
 would be doing their work. The war would 
 inevitably fail in consequence (in the event 
 of McClellan’s attempting to carry it on). 
 When all efforts to persuade our people to go 
 back into the Union voluntarily failed, as 
 thev would, if our authorities shall so act as 
 to secure the hearts aud affections of the 
 people as they ought, then McClellan wouid 
 ultimately be compelled to give np the restor¬ 
 ation of the Union as a forlorn hope. Peace 
 would come slowly but surely upon our owu 
 terms, and without any more fighting. 
 
 “Other causes would operate to the same 
 results, which, of themselves, even without 
 considering those above stated, would effect 
 the same tliiug. The moment McClellan 
 should renew the war with the avowed ob¬ 
 ject of restoring the Union with the old Con¬ 
 stitution and all its guarantees, that moment, 
 or as soon as possible, our recognition 
 abroad would come. 
 
 “ Lincoln had either to witness our recog¬ 
 nition abroad, the moral power of which 
 alene, he saw, would break down the war, 
 or to make it an emancipation war. He 
 chose the latter alternative, and the more 
 readily because it chimed in so accordantly 
 with the feelings and views of his own party. 
 This, in my opinion, is the plain English of 
 the whole matter ; ahd just as soon as Mc¬ 
 Clellan should renew the war with a view 
 to restore the Union, the old Constitution, 
 with slavery, etc., would England, France, 
 and other European Powers, throw all the 
 moral power and influence of their recogni¬ 
 tion on our side. 
 
 “ So in any and every view I can take of 
 the subject, I regard the election of McClel¬ 
 lan, and the success of the State Rights 
 party of the North, whose nominee he is, of 
 the utmost importance to us. With these 
 views, you readily perceive how I regarded 
 the action of the Chicago convention as a 
 ray of light, the first ray of real light I had 
 seen from the North since this war began.” 
 
 The views presented, coming as they do 
 from those who were considered conservative 
 leaders in the South, prove conclusive^’, 
 that the Democratic policy, throughout the 
 
15 
 
 oiling well-grounded liopes of the ultimate 
 recognition of the Southern Confederacy. 
 They further prove that the old Democratic 
 cry of tne “ Constitution as it is, and the 
 Union as it was,” was as utterly repudiated 
 by the rebels themselves as was the Federal 
 authority against which they fought. There¬ 
 fore, it may be fairly concluded, that the 
 triumph of the Democratic party in 1S64 
 would have resulted in the permanent disso¬ 
 lution of the American Union. 
 
 DEMOCRACY AND RECONSTRUCTION. 
 
 Has Democracy changed in its principles 
 since the close of the war ? if it has, there is 
 no record of the change. Throughout the 
 period of reconstruction, when the Govern- 
 rnent sought to throw proper safeguards 
 around the Republic, and to provide a Re¬ 
 publican form of government in those States 
 lately in rebellion, the Democratic party was 
 even more unanimous in its opposition to 
 Governmental measures than it was during 
 the war, and this opposition it has continued 
 down to the present time. 
 
 The 14th and 15th Amendments to the Con¬ 
 stitution, absolutely necessary for the protec¬ 
 tion of the nation in the future, were opposed 
 unanimously by the Democrats, not only in 
 Congress, but throughout the States passing 
 upon their ratification. The joint resolution 
 proposing the 14th Amendment, passed the 
 House, June 8, 1866, by a vote of 138 yeas 
 to 36 nays, not a Democrat voting in its 
 favor. The joint resolution proposing the 
 15th Amendment, passed the House, Janu¬ 
 ary 30, 1869, by a vote of 150 yeas to 42 
 nays, not a Democrat voting in its favor. 
 
 Thus two of the most important amend¬ 
 ments to the Constitution, on which vast in¬ 
 terests of property and life depend for safety 
 and security, are in force to-day, without 
 the endorsement of a single Democratic vote. 
 Is it probable, in view of this significant 
 fact, that, a Democratic administration would 
 faithfully carry out their righteous provis¬ 
 ions ? 
 
 A review of the Congressional record shows 
 a marked unanimity on the part of the Dem¬ 
 ocrats against all measures of reconstruction. 
 Duriug the war, they based their opposition 
 ou the ground that the Union could be pre¬ 
 served without lighting, although the mighty 
 armies of the Confederacy proved this to be 
 impossible. At the close of the war,- they 
 opposed all reconstruction measures on the 
 ground that the States could be restored 
 without them, although disorder, and an¬ 
 archy, and smothered liate in the rebellious 
 States proved this to be impossible. 
 
 The Government exerted itself to restore 
 all the Southern States to their proper rela¬ 
 tions in the Union, and to lift as quickly as 
 possible the hardships of war from the shoul¬ 
 ders of the Southern people. But at all 
 times, in every effort, Democracy met it with 
 opposition. It threw obstacles in the way ; 
 it encouraged the Southern people to believe, 
 as ll did in 1860, that their rights were being 
 
 ;d a feeling of bitterness 
 
 was forced to contend ; it created divisions 
 among those who had honestly accepted the 
 situation ; it finally arrayed, through its in- 
 fiuence, the whites against the blaciis. In a 
 word, it prolonged the period of reconstruc¬ 
 tion, as it had the period of war, by clamoring 
 for certain conditions which it knew t# be 
 impossible, and by holding out hopes to th@ 
 Southern States which it knew could never 
 be realized. 
 
 The Ku-Klux organizations, the white 
 leagues, the bloody massacres of helpless 
 blacks, the disorders which have called for 
 Federal interference, can be traced, as di¬ 
 rectly as was the rebellion, to the encourage¬ 
 ment given to them, in Congress and out, by 
 the votes and speeches of Democratic leaders. 
 
 Whatever of peace aud prosperity have 
 been secured to the Southern States, and es¬ 
 pecially to the Natioff, since the close of the 
 war, is due to the wisdom and firmness of 
 the Republican party. As it prosecuted the 
 war for the preservation of the Union, and 
 turned neither to the right nor to the left 
 until this was accomplished, so it has gone 
 straight forward in the work of reconstruc¬ 
 tion ; and, unmindiul of the Democratic 
 obstacles which it has encountered, it has 
 restored peace and prosperity to the revolted 
 States, and advanced the material wealth of 
 the country more than four times the entire 
 cost of the war. 
 
 If any one honestly believes that the 
 Democratic party has become converted by 
 the logic of events, he has but to study the 
 work of the party in those States where it 
 has obtained control. The character of the 
 laws enacted in regard to suffrage and labor ; 
 the reassertion of the old State Rights doc¬ 
 trine, which marked its rule in ante helium 
 times ; the cunningly-drawn amendments to 
 State Constitutions, intended to again divide 
 allegiance; the political character of the 
 men who are to represent it in the coming 
 C^hgress ; the elevation, through its votes 
 and influence, of those who were mainly 
 responsible for the Southern rebelLtwa, aud 
 who led its armies against the Government— 
 all these things combined, point, as with the 
 finger of prophecy, to the resurrection of the 
 fatal doctrine of State Rights under Demo¬ 
 cratic domination, if again clothed with 
 national power by the votes of the American 
 people. Its votes, its speeches, its acts, 
 prove the Democratic party the same enemy 
 of good government that was dismissed from 
 power in 1860. Shall it be restored? Can 
 tiie Nation trust in its hands its honor, its 
 unity, and the solution of those great prob¬ 
 lems of humanity and civilization, which 
 to-day demand the highest wisdom and the 
 purest patriotism ? 
 
 Why should it trust to-day what it dared 
 not trust in I860, 1864, 1868, 1872? The 
 party has not changed. Its principles, its 
 sympathy, its purposes, are as clearly defined 
 now as then. If the Nation could not trust 
 the men who voted and worked against the 
 Union, how can it trust them, now that they 
 are under the domination of those who fought 
 
party that has so nobly borne the burden* of 
 the past, and so grandly brought the Nation 
 through its trials. Let them forget all local 
 jealousies and minor issues until it is settled 
 beyond dispute, that the men who saved the 
 
 Republic shall continue to govern it. Let 
 them hold out to all, whether friends or foes, 
 that the only true basis for reconciliation and 
 safety is devotion to the Union, and obedi¬ 
 ence to its laws and authority. 
 
 Coraialttees and Individuals, in ordering Political Pamphlets, will please designate th« papers reqnierd 
 tey tae number on the left hand corner of the title page. Address “Union Republican Congreasioiial Exec¬ 
 utive Committee, Washington, D. C.,’’ and incLc te whether packages shall be sent by mail or expreaa. 
 
 INFORMATION FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 LIST OF 
 
 CAMPAIGN PAMPHLETS, 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE 
 
 UNION CONGRESSIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
 
 No. 1.—Growth of the Nation under Re 
 publican Rule. Eight pages. 
 
 No. 2.—Vaticanism in Germany, and in the 
 United States. Eight pages. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 3. —Can the Nation Trust the Demo 
 
 cratic Party? Sixteen pages. 
 
 4. —Record and Platforms of the Demo¬ 
 
 cratic Party. Speech by Senator 
 Morton, at Urbana, Ohio, August 
 7, 1875. Eight pages. 
 
 5. —The National Finances and. 
 
 rency ; containing statistical' -^re¬ 
 tails in full, to the close of t£e 
 fiscal year, ended June 30, 187L 
 Eight pages. 
 
 Other documents are being prepared, and 
 will be published as the canvass proceeds. 
 
 Campaign pamphlets are furnished to in¬ 
 dividuals, clubs, committees, etc., at the fol¬ 
 
 No. 6.—High and Low Tariffs, and Theur 
 Effects. Four pages. 
 
 No. 7.—Our Currency: Its Volume and 
 Character ; also : Taxes : Who 
 Pays Them ? Four pages. 
 
 No. 8.—Vaticanism in Germany, and in the 
 United States. (In German.) 
 
 Eight pages. 
 
 No. 9.—The People a Nation : The Union 
 Perpetual. Eight pages. 
 
 No. 10.—The Southern Question : The Con¬ 
 spiracy to Rule or Destroy the 
 Nation. Twelve pages. 
 
 No. 11. —Growth of the Nation Under Re¬ 
 publican Rule. (In German.) 
 
 Eight pages. 
 
 lowing rates : Four-page pamphlets, 25 cents 
 per hundred copies ; eight-page, 50 cents ; 
 twelve-page, 75 cents ; sixteen-page, $1.00. 
 
 IR»lalO ; 
 
 3JLon£lily X>o , vote<l to tlio 33is@evai.ia.ation 
 
 or Political Information. 
 
 The fifth volume of The Republic, (commenced in July 1875,) is printed from a new and 
 handsome type, on fine paper. Other important improvements have been introduced in 
 -he variety, arrangement, and make-up of the magazine. Under an enlarged corps of able 
 wriUrs a broader field of political review and discussion of national questions has been 
 adopted; and it is believed that the new volume will be a decided improvement m every 
 
 way upon its predecessors. 
 
 TERMS.—The Republic is a magazine of sixty-four pages, published monthly, at $2 a 
 year or six copies for $10. The postage, In all cases, will be paid by the publishers. A 
 tew copies of the back volumes may yet be obtained, either bound or m numbers. Remit¬ 
 tances should be made by postal money-order or registered letter. Address “Republic 
 Publishing Company. n Washington, D_