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

by J. Q. Howard

This, my friends, is a part of that record which we are invited to examine by my friend Judge Thurman. I ask you to apply to it the principle that whoever, during the great struggle, was unfaithful to the cause of the country is not to be trusted to be one of the men to harvest and secure the legitimate fruits of the victory, which the Union people and the Union army won during the rebellion. In the great struggle in 1863 in Ohio, I had not an opportunity to hear the eloquent voice of John Brough, which I knew stirred the hearts of the people like the sound of a trumpet, but I read, as occasion offered, his speeches, and I saw not one in which he did not warn the young men—warn the Democrats of Ohio—that if they remained through that struggle opposed to this country, the conduct particularly of leading men would never be forgotten, and never forgiven. Now, in this canvass, I merely have to ask the people to remember the prediction of honest John Brough, and see that that prediction is made good.

It is not worth while now to consider, or undertake to predict, when we shall cease to talk of the records of those men. It does seem to me that it will, for many years to come, be the voice of the Union people of the State that for a man who as a leader—as a man having control in political affairs—that for such a man who has opposed the interests of his country during the war, "the post of honor is the private station." When shall we stop talking about it? When ought we to stop talking about that record, when leading men come before the people? Certainly not until every question arising out of the rebellion, and every question which is akin to the questions which made the rebellion, is settled. Perhaps these men will be remembered long after these questions are settled; perhaps their conduct will long be remembered. What was the result of this advice to the people? It prolonged the war; it made it impossible to get recruits; it made it necessary that we should have drafts. They opposed the drafts, and that made rioting, which required that troops should be called from all the armies in the field, to preserve the peace at home. From forty to a hundred thousand men in the different States of this Union were kept within the loyal States to preserve the peace at home. And now, when they talk to you about the debt and about the burden of taxation, remember how it happened that the war was so prolonged, that it was so expensive, and that the debt grew to such large proportions.

There are other things, too, to be remembered. I recollect that at the close of the last session of Congress, I went over to Arlington, the estate formerly of Robert E. Lee, and I saw there the great National cemetery into which that beautiful place has been converted. I saw the graves of 18,000 Union soldiers, marked with white head-boards, denoting the name of each occupant, and his regiment and company. Passing over those broad acres, covered with the graves of the loyal men who had died in defense of their country, I came upon that which was even more touching than these 18,000 head-boards. I found a large granite, with this inscription upon it:

"Beneath this stone repose the remains of two thousand one hundred and eleven unknown soldiers, gathered, after the war, from the field of Bull Run and the route to the Rappahannock. Their remains could not be identified, but their names and deaths are recorded in the archives of their country, and its grateful citizens honor them as of their noble army of martyrs. May they rest in peace. September, 1866."

I say to those men who were instrumental and prominent in prolonging the war, by opposing it, that when honeyed words and soft phrases can erase from the enduring granite inscriptions like these, the American people may forget their conduct; but I believe they will not do so until some such miracle is accomplished.

That is all I desire to say this afternoon upon the record of the peace party of Ohio. A few words upon another topic that is much discussed in this canvass, and that is the proposed amendment to the constitution of the State of Ohio. At the beginning, I desire to say, that there may be no misunderstanding—and I suppose there is no misunderstanding upon that subject—that I am in favor of the adoption of that amendment, and I trust that every Union man, and every Democrat too, will vote for it next October. And why do I say this? Let us discuss it a moment. It consists of four parts. First, it disfranchises any man who becomes a resident of the State of Ohio, or who was a citizen of Ohio, who fought in the rebellion against the country. Isn't that right? If you want that to go into your constitution, vote for the amendment. It disfranchises every man who, being liable to the draft, when the country needed them at the front—when the soldiers doing their duty at the front were anxiously looking for their aid—it disfranchises every man who, at such time, ran away to escape the draft. Isn't that right? In the next place, it disfranchises every man who deserted his comrades at the front, and ran away to vote the peace party ticket at the rear. Isn't that right? It disfranchises him whether he voted that ticket or not, I may observe. If you want these provisions in your State constitution, vote for the amendment. In the next place, it gives the right of suffrage to all the negroes of Ohio. Mark the phrase: I have not said impartial suffrage or manhood suffrage. I wish to be understood. It gives the suffrage to the negroes of Ohio upon the same terms that it is given to white men. The reason I am in favor of that is because it is right.

Let me have the ears of my Democratic friends on that question a moment. If Democracy has any meaning now that is good—any favorable meaning—it is that Democracy is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is a government in which every man who has to obey the laws has a part in making the laws, unless disqualified by crime. Then the proposition I am for is a Democratic proposition. Again, it is according to the principles upon which good men have always desired to see our institutions placed, namely, that all men are entitled to equal rights before the law. They are not equal in any other respect. Nobody claims that they are. But we propose to give to each man the same rights which you want for yourself. It is, in short, obeying the rule of the Great Teacher: "Do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you." Abraham Lincoln said: "No man is good enough to govern another without that other man's consent." Is not that true? Good as you think you are, are you good enough absolutely to govern another man without that other man's consent? If you really think so, just change shoes with that other man, and see if you are willing to be governed yourself, without your consent, by somebody else. The declaration of independence says governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Now, don't you see there is no way by which one man can give consent to be governed by another man in a republican government except by the ballot? There is no way provided by which you can consent to give powers to a government except by the ballot. Therefore every man governed under our system is entitled to the ballot.

So much for principle. One word now as to why our Democratic friends oppose it. I remember their opposing the extension of suffrage once under circumstances that made many of us think they were doing wrong. During the years 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864, I was a citizen of the Fifteenth ward, in Cincinnati; I had lived there ever since it was a ward. All the property I had in the world was taxed there, real or personal; and there was a party in Ohio of loyal Union men, who said I and others who were with me ought to have a right to vote, although I was not in the Fifteenth ward, but was serving the country in the field against the rebels. The Democratic party in Ohio—these very peace men—said no. Why did they say I should not vote? I never heard but one good reason, and that was the apprehension they had that if the soldiers did vote, they wouldn't vote the Democratic ticket. That's what's the matter. Now, I suspect we have the same difficulty on this proposition; I suspect that the real trouble is that they fear if the colored man has a vote, they have dealt so hardly with him these last few years that when he comes to vote he will vote against the Democratic party. That's what's the matter. Why, for the sake of political power, these Democrats of Ohio have not been unwilling to look kindly toward the colored man. Do you remember we once had black laws in Ohio which kept the colored men out of the State? Who repealed those laws? Why did they do it? The Democratic party did it, because they could get political power by it. I suspect that if it were quite certain that the colored vote would elect Allen G. Thurman Governor of Ohio, our Democratic friends would not object to it at all. What, then, do I say to the Union men? This objection may be very good for the Democrats, but it is not a wise one for you.

I commend to you Union men who are a little weak on this question, or perhaps I should say a little strong, the example of the Union men of the country during the war. Abraham Lincoln thought, in 1862, it was wise to proclaim freedom to the slaves. Many good Union men thought it was unwise—thought Mr. Lincoln was going too far or too fast—but the sequel justified the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln. Again, he thought it was wise that colored men should be placed in our armies. There were good soldiers and good Union men who thought it was unwise. They feared that Mr. Lincoln was going too fast or too far, but events justified it. Now, everybody agrees that in both cases Abraham Lincoln was right. Now, the example I commend to our Union friends who are doubting on this great question is the example of those Union men during the war who doubted the wisdom of these other measures. Greatly as they were opposed to the proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, strongly as they were opposed to the enlistment of colored soldiers, I say to you I never heard of one good Union man, in the army or out of it, who left his party because of that difference with Mr. Lincoln. I commend that example to the Union men who now doubt about colored suffrage. The truth is, that every step made in advance toward the standard of the right has in the event always proved a safe and wise step. Every step toward the right has proved a step toward the expedient; in short, that in politics, in morals, in public and private life, the right is always expedient.

I thank you, fellow-citizens, for your kind attention.