The Life, Public Services and Select Speeches of Rutherford B. Hayes Part 18

I can not, in any reasonable length of time, even name the various topics that have been discussed in this way. Perhaps none has attracted more attention than the subject of finances, and the main issue presented by our Democratic friends on that subject has been this--namely, that it is for the interest of the people to pay off the whole of the present bonded debt by an issue of greenbacks. At the beginning of the canva.s.s, the Cincinnati _Enquirer_, and, I think, the leading peace party paper at Columbus, and Mr.

Vallandigham, presented this as the leading question before the people. The _Enquirer_ told us that Democratic conventions in forty counties had resolved in favor of it; and certainly if any one of the topics which have been presented in this way may be regarded as a party topic, that is one. If they have succeeded in making a new issue, that is one. On the 20th of last month, I spoke at Batavia, and I referred to that subject. I said that Judge Thurman was plainly committed against the issue of more greenbacks; that when we were in the midst of the war, and the necessities of the country were such that it was necessary to get money by every means in our power, he had told the people there was no const.i.tutional authority to issue greenbacks. I said further, that in his speech at Waverly he had spoken of this currency as a currency of rags; and that, therefore, I was authorized to say he was opposed to this new scheme of the Cincinnati _Enquirer_. That speech of mine was reported in the Cincinnati _Commercial_ of the next morning. On the following day, the 22d of August, the _Enquirer_ noticed my speech.

I will read you the whole of the _Enquirer's_ article on that subject. I do this because I think, in this county as well as elsewhere, Democrats are claiming the votes of Union men on the ground that it is wise to pay off the bonded debt by an issue of greenbacks, and I wish to show that Judge Thurman is opposed to the scheme. Therefore, it is no party issue, because no party State convention has resolved in favor of it, and the peace party candidate for governor is against it. The _Enquirer_ says, under the caption of "Judge Thurman and the bondholders:"

"In his speech at Batavia, Clermont county, on Tuesday, General Hayes, while discussing the payment of the public debt question, said:

"Judge Thurman has not yet spoken distinctly on this question. But his well-known opinion, that even the necessities of the war did not authorize, under our const.i.tution, the issue of the legal-tender currency, coupled with the fact that he speaks of it in his Waverly speech as a currency of 'rags--only rags'--warrants me in saying that he is probably opposed, on grounds both of const.i.tutional law and of expediency, to the financial scheme of Mr. Vallandigham and of the Cincinnati _Enquirer_. Judge Ranney and Judge Jewett are also evidently unwilling to accept the inflation theories of the _Enquirer_. They are both opposed to taking up the greenbacks now in circulation by an issue of bonds bearing interest, and repeat the same arguments against this policy of Johnson's administration which were urged by the Cincinnati _Gazette_ and by Thaddeus Stevens and Judge Kelley, with much more cogency, a year or two ago."

Commenting on the above, the _Enquirer_ says, editorially:

"This will render it necessary for Judge Thurman to do what he ought to have done in his first (Waverly) speech, define his position distinctly on this question. As one of his friends and supporters, we call upon him to put a stop to these representations of General Hayes by giving the people his views.

"Is he for the bondholders or the people? Does he believe that the debts due the bondholders should be paid in any other than the government money, which pays all other debts and liabilities, even those which were contracted in gold?

"Is he for one currency for the bondholders and another and different currency for the people?

"The Democracy of more than forty counties in Ohio have spoken out on this question, and we have no doubt the example will be followed by every county in the State. In some counties no other resolutions have been pa.s.sed.

"The time has pa.s.sed when the people kept step to the music of candidates. The latter must now march with and not against the people. Will Judge Thurman define his position, for thousands of votes may depend upon it?"

On the 27th of August, at Wapakoneta, Judge Thurman made a speech, which I hold in my hand--as you see, a very long speech, covering all of one side of the _Commercial_, and parts of two others. One would suppose that, a week having elapsed since the speech to which his attention was called had been made, that in this speech, at least, if this was an important issue of the canva.s.s, we should have his position plainly and clearly defined. Of that long speech he devotes to that important question, which the _Enquirer_ says is the real question, and which many of your speakers doubtless here say is the real question, precisely eleven lines--one short paragraph. And the pith of that paragraph is contained in these two lines: "I am sorry that what I have to say on that subject for publication I must reserve for some future time."

I think that this satisfactorily shows where my friend Judge Thurman stands on that issue, and that we therefore need no longer discuss it--in short, that, as a party question, it is abandoned by the candidate of the Democratic party. There is another phase of the financial question. Judge Ranney and Judge Jewett are telling the people that it is the policy of Secretary McCulloch to take up the greenback currency and issue in its stead interest-bearing bonds, not taxable, princ.i.p.al and interest, both payable in coin at the option of the secretary. That is true. That was the policy, and is the policy of Secretary McCulloch. But they go further, and say they are authorized to say that this is the policy of the Union party. I take issue with them on that statement. They offer no proof that it is true, except the fact that it is the policy of the Johnson administration; and I submit to an intelligent audience that the fact that Johnson and his administration are in favor of a measure is no evidence whatever that the Union party supports it.

It is not for me to prove a negative, but I am prepared, nevertheless, to prove it. The very measure which was intended to carry out this policy of Secretary McCulloch to enable him to take up the greenback currency with interest-bearing bonds was introduced in Congress in March, 1866. I have here the votes upon that question, and I say to you that the Democratic party in both houses--all the members of the Democratic party in both houses--voted for Senator McCulloch's plan, and that Mr. Julian, Judge Schofield, Mr. Lawrence, all of whom I see here, and myself, a majority of the Republican members of Congress, voted against the scheme, and it became a law because a minority of the Union party, with the unanimous vote of the Democratic party, supported it; and because, when it was submitted to Andrew Johnson, instead of vetoing it, as he did all Union party measures, he wrote his name, on the 12th of April, at the bottom of it, "Approved, Andrew Johnson." Now, it is under that measure, and by virtue of that law, voted for by Mr. Finck and and Mr. LeBlond, of the Democratic party of Ohio, in the House of Representatives; it is by virtue of that law that to-day Secretary McCulloch is issuing interest-bearing bonds, not taxable, to take up the greenback currency of the country. I think, then, I am authorized in saying that these gentlemen are mistaken when they accuse the Union party of being in favor of taking up the greenback currency and putting in the place of it interest-bearing, non-taxable bonds.

This investigation of two or three of the leading questions presented to the people at the beginning of this canva.s.s by the advocates of the peace party of Ohio is, I think, sufficient to warrant me in saying that all of the side issues presented are merely urged on the people to withdraw their minds from the great main issue which ought to engage the attention of the American Nation. What is that great issue? It is reconstruction. That is the main question before us, and until it is settled, and settled rightly, all other issues sink into insignificance in comparison with it. Fortunately for the Union party of Ohio, events are occurring every day at Was.h.i.+ngton which tend more and more clearly to define the exact question before the people, showing that the main question is whether the Union shall be reconstructed in the interests of the rebellion or in the interests of loyalty and Union; whether that reconstruction shall be carried on by men who, during the war, were in favor of the war and against the rebellion, or by men who in the North were against the war, and who in the South carried on the rebellion. On one side of this question we see Andrew Johnson, Judge Black, and the other leaders of the peace party of the North and the unrepentant rebels of the South; and on the other side is the great war secretary, Stanton, with General Grant, General Sheridan, General Thomas, General Howard, and the other Union commanders engaged in carrying out the reconstruction acts of Congress. This presents clearly enough the question before the people. General Grant, in one paragraph of his letter to the president, said to him:

"General Sheridan has performed his civil duties faithfully and intelligently. His removal will only be regarded as an effort to defeat the laws of Congress. It will be interpreted by the unreconstructed element in the South--those who did all they could to break up this government by arms, and now wish to be the only element consulted as to the method of restoring order--as a triumph. It will embolden them to renewed opposition to the will of the loyal ma.s.ses, believing that they have the executive with them."

This presents exactly the question before the people. We want the loyal people of the country, the victors in the great struggle we have pa.s.sed through, to do the work; we want reconstruction upon such principles, and by means of such measures that the causes which made reconstruction necessary shall not exist in the reconstructed Union; we want that foolish notion of State rights, which teaches that the State is superior to the Nation--that there is a State sovereignty which commands the allegiance of every citizen higher than the sovereignty of the nation--we want that notion left out of the reconstructed Union; we want it understood that whatever doubts may have existed prior to the war as to the relation of the State to the National government, that now the National government is supreme, anything in the const.i.tution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Again, as one of the causes of the rebellion, we want slavery left out, not merely in name, but in fact, and forever; we want the last vestige, the last relic of that inst.i.tution, rooted out of the laws and inst.i.tutions of every State; we want that in the South there shall be no more suppression of free discussion. I notice that in the long speech of my friend, Judge Thurman, he says that for nearly fifty years, throughout the length and breadth of the land, freedom of speech and of the press was never interfered with, either by the government or the people. For more than thirty years, fellow-citizens, there has been no such thing as free discussion in the South. Those moderate speeches of Abraham Lincoln on the subject of slavery--not one of them--could have been delivered without endangering his life, south of Mason and Dixon's line. We want in the reconstructed Union that there shall be the same freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the States of the South that there always has been in the States of the North. Again, we want the reconstructed Union upon such principles that the men of the South who, during the war, were loyal and true to the government, shall be protected in life, liberty, and property, and in the exercise of their political rights. It becomes the solemn duty of the loyal victors in the great struggle to see that the men who, in the midst of difficulties, discouragements, and dangers in the South were true, are protected in these rights. And, in order that our reconstruction shall be carried out faithfully and accomplish these objects, we further want that the work shall be in the hands of the right men. Andrew Johnson, in the days when he was loyal, said the work of reconstruction ought to be placed absolutely in the hands of the loyal men of the State; that rebels, and particularly leading rebels, ought not to partic.i.p.ate in that work; that while that work is going on they must take back seats.

We want that understood in our work of reconstruction. How important it is to have the right men in charge of this work appears upon the most cursory examination of what has already been done. President Lincoln administered the same laws substantially--was sworn to support the same const.i.tution with Andrew Johnson--yet how different the reconstruction as carried out by these two men. Lincoln's reconstruction in all the States which he undertook to reorganize gave to those States loyal governments, loyal governors, loyal legislatures, judges, and officers of the law. Andrew Johnson, administering the same const.i.tution and the same laws, reconstructs a number of States, and in all of them leading rebels are elected governors, leading rebels are members of the legislature, and leading rebels are sent to Congress. It makes, then, the greatest difference to the people of this country who it is that does the work.

This, my friends, brings me to a proposition to which I call the attention of every audience that I have occasion to address, and that is this, that until the work of reconstruction is complete, until every question arising out of the rebellion relating to the integrity of the Nation and to human rights has been settled, and settled rightly, no man ought to be trusted with power in this country, who, during the struggle for the Nation's life, was unfaithful to Union and liberty. That is the proposition upon which I go before the people of Ohio. At the beginning of the canva.s.s, as I have said, the gentlemen who are engaged in advocating the claims of the peace party of Ohio did not desire to have this record discussed. I am happy to know by this long Wapakoneta speech of Judge Thurman that at last they have found it necessary to come to the discussion of the true question. Judge Thurman, in that speech, invites us to the discussion of it. He says:

"I give all of them this bold and unequivocal defiance, that there is no one act of my life, or one sentence ever uttered by me that I am not prepared to have investigated by the American people; and I wish them to stand up to the same rule, that I may see what is in their past record, and see how it tallies with what they say to the American people at the present time."

He proceeds to do this. He proceeds to examine the record of various gentlemen connected with the Union party. Now, I am not in the habit of giving challenges or accepting challenges, but I desire, for a few minutes, to ask the attention of this audience to the record of my friend, Judge Thurman. He under-takes to justify the course he took as a leader of the peace party of Ohio, by telling us what Mr. Lincoln said in 1848. Now, what is it that Mr.

Lincoln said? He made a speech during the Mexican war as to the t.i.tle which Texas had to certain lands in dispute between the State of Texas and Mexico, or rather between the United States and Mexico. He laid down the doctrine that a revolutionary government is ent.i.tled to own just as much of the property of the former government as it has succeeded in conquering; and he says, in the course of that speech, that it is the right of every people to revolutionize; that the right of revolution, in short, belongs to every people; that it was the right exercised by our forefathers in 1776. Now, that is all true--that is all correct; but how does my friend Judge Thurman find any justification for the rebellion in that? What is the right of revolution? It is the right to resist a government under which you live, if that government is guilty of intolerable oppression or injustice, but not otherwise. And that is the doctrine of Abraham Lincoln. Now, in order to make that a precedent for the rebellion, Judge Thurman is bound to take the position that, in the case of the rebel States, there had been acts of intolerable oppression and injustice done to that part of the country which went into rebellion. I know that the rebels, for the most part, did not put the rebellion upon that ground; but Judge Thurman now does it for them. He makes it out--or must make it out to sustain himself--that it was a case of revolution, growing out of the exercise of that right which our fathers exercised in 1776.

Now, if Judge Thurman can show that there was justification for the rebellion, he has made out his case. If that rebellion was not justified by such circ.u.mstances--if there was no such intolerable injustice and oppression--he has failed in his precedent. He goes further, and says that Mr. Wade, Chief Justice Chase, Secretary Stanton, and General Butler all held sentiments before the war the same as the sentiments which he held then, and holds now, on the subject of the rights of the States. Suppose they did--suppose they belonged to the same party before the war--is that any defense of his conduct during the war? They saw fit, after the war had broken out, to rally to the side of their country, notwithstanding any notions or theories they might have held with regard to the rights of the States.

I do not stop now to discuss the correctness of Judge Thurman's opinions as to the course of these men prior to the war. It is enough for me to say that the question I make--the question which the people of Ohio make--is, What was your conduct after it was found that there was a conspiracy to break up the Union, after war was upon us, and armies were raised--what was your conduct then?

That is the question before the people. And I ask of an intelligent audience, what was the duty of a good citizen after that war for the destruction of the government and the Union had begun? Need I ask any old Jackson Democrat what is his duty when the Union is at stake? In 1806, Aaron Burr proposed this matter to Andrew Jackson, of making a new confederacy in the Southwest. Jackson said:

"I hate the Dons, and I would like to see Mexico dismembered; but before I would see one State of this Union severed from the rest, I would die in the last ditch."

That was Jackson's Democracy. Dougla.s.s said:

"This is no time for delay. The existence of a conspiracy is now known; armies are raised to accomplish it. There can be but two sides to the question. A man must be either for the United States or against the United States. There can be no neutrals in this war--only patriots and traitors."

There is the Dougla.s.s doctrine. But I need not go back to Jackson and Dougla.s.s. I have the opinions of the very gentlemen who now lead the peace party on this subject. Let me read you a resolution, introduced and pa.s.sed through a Democratic convention, in 1848, by Clement L. Vallandigham:

"_Resolved_, That whatever opinions might have been entertained of the origin, necessity or justice, by the Tories of the revolutionary war, by the Federalists of the late war with England, or by the Whigs and Abolitionists of the present war with Mexico, the fact of their country being engaged in such a war ought to have been sufficient for them and to have precluded debate on that subject till a successful termination of the war, and that in the meantime the patriot could have experienced no difficulty in recognizing his place on the side of his country, and could never have been induced to yield either physical or moral aid to the enemy."

I will quote also from Judge Thurman himself. In a speech lecturing one of his colleagues, who thought the Mexican war was unnecessary, he says:

"It is a strange way to support one's country, right or wrong, to declare after war has begun, when it exists both in law and in fact, that the war is aggressive, unholy, unrighteous, and d.a.m.nable on the part of the government of that country, and on that government rests its responsibility and its wrongfulness. It is a strange way to support one's country right or wrong in a war, to tax one's imagination to the utmost to depict the disastrous consequences of the contest; to dwell on what it has already cost and what it will cost in future; to depict her troops prostrated by disease and dying with pestilence; in a word, to destroy, as far as possible, the moral force of the government in the struggle, and hold it up to its own people and the world as the aggressor that merits their condemnation. It was for this that I arraigned my colleague, and that I intend to arraign him. It was because his remarks, as far as they could have any influence, were evidently calculated to depress the spirits of his own countrymen, to lessen the moral force of his own government, and to inspire with confidence and hope the enemies of his country."

He goes on further to say:

"What a singular mode it was of supporting her in a war to bring against the war nearly all the charges that were brought by the peace party Federalists against the last war, to denounce it as an unrighteous, unholy, and d.a.m.nable war; to hold up our government to the eyes of the world as the aggressors in the conflict; to charge it with motives of conquest and aggrandizement; to parade and portray in the darkest colors all the horrors of war; to dwell upon its cost and depict its calamities."

Now, that was the doctrine of Judge Thurman as to the duties of citizens in time of war--in time of such a war as the Mexican war even, in which no vital interest of the country could by possibility suffer. Judge Thurman says that General Hayes, in his speech, has a great many slips cut from the newspapers, and that he must have had some sewing society of old ladies to cut out the slips for him. I don't know how he found that out. I never told it, and you know the ladies never tell secrets that are confided to them. I hold in my hand a speech of Judge Thurman, from which I have read extracts, and I find that he has in it slips cut from more than twenty different prints, sermons, newspapers, old speeches, and pamphlets, to show how, in the war of 1812, certain Federalists uttered unpatriotic sentiments. I presume he must have acquired his slips on that day in the way he says I acquired mine now.

Now, my friends, I propose to hold Judge Thurman to no severe rule of accountability for his conduct during the war. I merely ask that it shall be judged by his own rule: "Your country is engaged in war, and it is the duty of every citizen to say nothing and do nothing which shall depress the spirits of his own countrymen, nothing that shall encourage the enemies of his country, or give them moral aid or comfort." That is the rule. Now, Judge Thurman, how does your conduct square with it? I do not propose to begin at the beginning of the war, or even just before the war, to cite the record of Judge Thurman. I am willing to say that perhaps men might have been mistaken at that time. They might have supposed in the beginning a conciliatory policy, a non-coercive policy, would in some way avoid the threatened struggle. But I ask you to approach the period when the war was going on, when armies to the number of hundreds of thousands of men were ready on one side and the other, and when the whole world knew what was the nature of the great struggle going on in America. Taking the beginning of 1863, how stands the conflict? We have pressed the rebellion out of Kentucky and through Tennessee. Grant stands before Vicksburg, held at bay by the army of Pemberton; Rosecranz, after the capture of Nashville, has pressed forward to Murfreesboro, but is still held out of East Tennessee by the army of Bragg. The army of the Potomac and the army of Lee, in Virginia, are balanced, the one against the other. The whole world knows that that exhausting struggle can not last long without deciding in favor of one side or the other. That the year 1863 is big with the fate of Union and of liberty, every intelligent man in the world knows--that on one side it is a struggle for nationality and human rights. There is not in all Europe a petty despot who lives by grinding the ma.s.ses of the people, who does not know that Lincoln and the Union are his enemies. There is not a friend of freedom in all Europe who does not know that Lincoln and the loyal army are fighting in the cause of free government for all the world. Now, in that contest, where are you, Judge Thurman? It is a time when we need men and money, when we need to have our people inspired with hope and confidence.

Your sons and brothers are in the field. Their success depends upon your conduct at home.

The men who are to advise you what to do have upon them a dreadful responsibility to give you wise and patriotic advice. Judge Thurman, in the speech I am quoting from, says:

"But now, my friends, I shall not deal with obscure newspapers or obscure men. What a private citizen like Allen G. Thurman may have said in 1861 is a matter of indifference."

Ah, no, Judge Thurman, the Union party does not propose to allow your record to go without investigation because you are a private citizen. I know you held no official position under the government at the time I speak of; but, sir, you had for years been a leading, able, and influential man in the great party which had often carried your State. You were acting under grave responsibilities.

More than that, during that year 1863, you were more than a private citizen. You were one of the delegates to the State convention of that year; you were one of the committee that forms your party platform in that convention; you were one of the central committee that carries on the canva.s.s in the absence of your standard-bearers; and you were one of the orators of the party. No, sir, you were not a private citizen in 1863. You were one of the leading and one of the ablest men in your party in that year, speaking through the months of July, August, September, and October, in behalf of the candidate of the peace party. You can not escape as a private citizen.

Well, sir, in the beginning of that eventful year, there rises in Congress the ablest member of the peace party, to advise Congress and to advise the people, and what does he say?

"You have not conquered the South. You never will. It is not in the nature of things possible, especially under your auspices. Money you have expended without limit; blood you have poured out like water."

Now, mark the taunt--the words of discouragement that were sent to the people and to the army of the Union:

"Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers--these are your trophies. Can you get men to enlist now at any price?"

Listen again to the words that were sent to the army and to the loyal people:

"Ah, sir, it is easier to die at home."

We knew that, Judge Thurman, better than Mr. Vallandigham knew it.

We had seen our comrades falling and dying alone on the mountain side and in the swamps--dying in the prison-pens of the Confederacy and in the crowded hospitals, North and South. Yet he had the face to stand up in Congress, and say to the people and the world, "Ah, sir, it is easier to die at home." Judge Thurman, where are you at this time? He goes to Columbus to the State convention, on the 11th of June of that year, in all the capacities in which I have named him--as a delegate, as committeeman, and as an orator--and he spends that whole summer in advocating the election of the man who taunted us with the words, "Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers--these are your trophies."

In every canva.s.s you know there is a key-note. What was the key-note of that canva.s.s? Who sounded it? It came over to us from Canada. On the 15th of July, 1863, Mr. Vallandigham wrote, accepting the nomination of that convention of Judge Thurman's. He said, in his letter:

"If this civil war is to terminate only by the subjugation or submission of the South to force and arms, the infant of to-day will not live to see the end of it. No; in another way only can it be brought to a close. Traveling a thousand miles and more, through nearly half of the Confederate States, and sojourning for a time at widely different points, I met not one man, woman, or child who was not resolved to perish, rather than yield to the pressure of arms, even in the most desperate extremity. And whatever may and must be the varying fortune of the war, in all of which I recognize the hand of Providence pointing visibly to the ultimate issue of this great trial of the States and people of America, they are better prepared now, every way, to make good their inexorable purpose than at any period since the beginning of the struggle."

That was the key-note of the campaign. It was the platform of the candidate in behalf of whom Judge Thurman went through the State of Ohio--all over the State--in July, August, and September, up to the night of the 12th of October--making his last speech just twenty-four hours before the glad news went out to all the world, over the wires, that the people of Ohio had elected John Brough by over one hundred thousand majority, in preference to the author of the sentiment, "Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers."

And how true was that sentiment which had been endorsed by the peace party. I do not question the motives of men in any of my speeches. I merely ask as to the facts. "Better prepared," said he, "than ever before," on the 15th of July. On that theory, they went through the canva.s.s to the end. What was the fact? On the 15th of July, 1863, Grant had captured Vicksburg. That gallant, glorious son of Ohio, who perished afterward in the Atlanta campaign, and whose honored remains now sleep near his old home on the lake sh.o.r.e, General James B. McPherson, on the 4th of July, had ridden at the head of a triumphant host into Vicksburg. On the 7th of July, Banks had captured Port Hudson. A few days afterward, a party of serenaders, calling upon Mr. Lincoln, saw that good man, who had been bowed down with the weight and cares of office; they saw his haggard face lit up with joy and cheer, and he said to them: "At last, Grant is in Vicksburg. The Father of Waters, the Mississippi, again flows unvexed to the sea."

On the 15th of July, what else had happened? The army of Lee, defiantly crowding up into Pennsylvania, and claiming to go where it pleased, and take what it pleased, only doubting whether they would first capture Was.h.i.+ngton, Baltimore, Philadelphia, or New York, and concluding finally that it was a matter of military strategy first to capture the Army of the Potomac--that army, which had invaded Pennsylvania under such flattering auspices, was, on the 15th of July, when Mr. Vallandigham's letter was written, straggling back over the swollen waters of the Potomac, glad to escape from the pursuing armies of the Union, with the loss of thirty thousand of its bravest and best, killed, wounded, and captured, and utterly unable ever after during the war to set foot upon free soil except in such fragments as were captured by our armies in subsequent battles. That was the condition of the two great armies when Mr. Vallandigham uttered that sentiment; and on that sentiment my friend, Judge Thurman, argued his case through all that summer.

But wisdom was not learned even at the close of 1863 by this peace party. Things were greatly changed in the estimation of every loyal man. We had now not merely got possession of the Mississippi river--we had not merely driven the army of Lee out of Pennsylvania, never again to return, but the battle of Mission Ridge and the battle of Knoxville had been fought. That important strategic region, East Tennessee, was now within our lines. From that abode of loyalty, the mountain region of East Tennessee, we could pierce to the very heart of the Southern Confederacy. We were now in possession of the interior lines, giving us an immense advantage, and we were in a condition to march southeast to Atlanta and northeast to Richmond; yet with this changed state of affairs, where is my friend Judge Thurman? Advising the people? What is he advising them to do? He says Allen G. Thurman was a private citizen. Not so. He held no official position, I know, under the government. Fortunately for the people of this country, they were not giving official positions in Ohio to men of his opinions and sentiments at that time. [A voice, "They won't now, either."] But he was made delegate at large from the State of Ohio to the convention to meet at Chicago to nominate a president and form a platform on which that nominee should stand. Mr. Vallandigham was a district delegate and one of the committee to form a platform, and he drew the most important resolution. The princ.i.p.al plank of that platform is of his construction. You are perfectly familiar with it. It merely told the people that the war had been for four years a failure, and advised them to prepare to negotiate with this Confederate nation on our Southern borders. Well, when this advice was given to the Nation, we were still in the midst of the war, and were prosecuting it with every prospect of success. What had been accomplished in 1863 enabled us, with great advantages, to press upon the rebellion. I remember well when I first read that resolution declaring the war a four years' failure. It came to the army in which I was serving on the same day that the news came to us that Sherman had captured Atlanta. We heard of both together.

The war a four years' failure, said the Chicago convention. I well remember how that evening our pickets shouted the good news to the pickets of the enemy. What good news? News that a convention representing nearly one-half of the people of the North had concluded that the war was a failure? No such news was shouted from our-picket line. The good news that they shouted was that Sherman had captured Atlanta.