Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Every vote for Mr. Tilden helps to bring on the ruin of the country by...

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 585

EVERY VOTE FOR MR. TILDEN HELPS TO BRING ON THE RUIN OF THE COUNTRY BY HELPING TO RESTORE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO POWER.

[BY GERRIT SMITH.]

Frequently do I hear and read that, inasmuch as each of the two great parties has nominated a worthy man for Governor, the people have now nothing to fear from the election of a Governor. That General Dix is worthy of the office does not need to be argued. Nor should it be doubted that Mr. Tilden, whose discernment and bravery were so efficient in ferreting out those stupendous and matchless frauds in the City of New York, has in himself the qualifications for Governor. Too much praise in this important work cannot be awarded to him, nor to that eminently intellectual and just man Charles O'Conor, nor to the New York Times.

I admitted that Mr. Tilden has in himself the qualifications for this high office. But, so far from his having them in his party also, he has there only absolute and fatal disqualifications for it. Were he the Republican candidate, his party qualifications would be as ample as his personal. But, be is the Democratic candidate: and hence, however great or even unequalled might be his personal merits, he is on the side, that has no right to win. Every vote for Mr. Tilden is a vote for the restoration of the Democratic Party to power: and no one, who dreads as he should do such restoration, can consistently east such a vote. Mr. Greeley was a great and good man : - but, because his election would have gone far to reinstate the Democratic Party, so those, who dreaded such reinstatement, could not vote for him.

It is a shallow conclusion that we must invariably vote for the best man amongst the candidates. The best man is the worst man to vote for, if he is bound up in the worst party.

For many years I went over the country arguing that, as slavery could not much longer withstand the progress of civilization, it must necessarily, unless speedily disposed of by political action, go out in blood. Nor did I fail to predict this in Congress. But that my limbs and voice are enfeebled by age, I would, now, go over the country again - and, this time, with a message not less important, but far more important, than my former one. I would say to my hearers that either the nation or the Democratic Party must soon break up: - and I would say this because the nation cannot much longer hold out under the war, which this Party continues to make upon its peace and safety, and upon all its highest and holiest interests.

The Democratic Party, organized by our fathers, was a good one. It went, at least in theory and with the honest purpose of a speedy corresponding practice, for the equal rights of all men. It maintained its honor and its usefulness, until in an evil hour it was tempted to increase its votes and power by taking slavery under its wing. And, now for more than half a century, this slavery-transformed Party has not ceased to pour out upon the country it has cursed its demoralizing and destructive influences. In fastening slavery upon us it, quite naturally and even necessarily, dragged down our whole national character into correspondence with this ruling abomination. Every valuable interest was damaged by it. Every virtue was diluted by it. Especially did temperance suffer from it. Dramshops and Democrats sprung up together every where: and Mike Walsh's famous boast that dramshops are the nurseries, schools and recruiting stations of the Democracy was verified, every where. It was the grave imperilling of slavery and then its abolition, that caused the Democratic Party to languish for these dozen years. Take away from it its far more vital support of the dramshop, and it would be left dead - stone dead. Surely, not one step should be taken toward reviving such a Party. Surely, the good men who are so unfortunate as to be in it - (no good men can be of it) - should hasten to break it up by withdrawing from it.

For thirty years before the Rebellion the abolitionists, were working for the overthrow of slavery. They could make but little headway, however, against the Democratic Party. In the eyes of this Party these self-sacrificing philanthropists and patriots were fit only to be mobbed and murdered. Certainly, there should not be one finger to help lift up this Party from prostration to power.

The Rebellion would never have broken out but for the encouragement, which this Party gave it. It promised the rebels fifty thousand armed allies from the City of New York alone. It promised through Ex-President Pierce in his letter to Jefferson Davis that "the fighting will not be along Mason & Dixon's line merely. It will be within our own borders, in our own streets between the two classes of citizens" - meaning the abolitionists and their pro-slavery or democratic neighbors. It opposed with fire and slaughter, as in the instance

[p. 1, col. 2]

of the riot, in New York in 1865, the drafting of men to fill up our decimated armies. During the whole of the Rebellion the sympathies of this treasonable Party were ever with the South and Slavery. It never rejoiced in our victories, but always in our defeats. The National Democratic Convention held in Charleston in 1860 was openly and shamelessly for slavery. No speaker in it was so vociferously welcomed as W. B. Gaulden of Georgia, whose much applauded boast was that he represented "the African slave-trade interest." The National Convention of this Party in 1864 sunk down to the very depths of treason by resolving and publishing, in the midst of the Rebellion, to our enemy and the world that, our resistance to it had proved a "failure ", and should be given up, and peace sought for in its stead. It was then and there too, that this Party undertook, to oust our beloved Lincoln by, nominating General McClellan. I admit that this gentleman, whose record is by no means wholly blameworthy, honestly aimed to preserve the Union - but too evidently, he would preserve slavery along with it. An instance of this is to be found in the Proclamation with which he entered Virginia. In that he threatens to put down servile insurrections "with an iron hand." He aimed rather to comfort than to conquer her. He studied the security of her homes rather than suffer them to be desolated. General McClellan was less a Northern commander than a mediator between the North and the South. Here and there were thorough "War Democrats", and they were worthy of all honor for thus standing out from the mass of their Party. But General McClellan was not one of them. Had he been, he would not have been nominated for the Presidency. The Convention, which "yelled assent" to the words of Judge Miller of Ohio, would not have nominated a thorough "War Democrat." Said the Judge: "There is no real difference between a War Democrat and an Abolitionist. They are links of one sausage, made out of the same dog."

We pass on to the National Democratic Convention of the year 1860. General Blair, having been much spoken of as one of the probable candidates, wrote a letter to Colonel, Brodhead, four days before the Convention was held. In that letter he goes for revolutionizing the politics of the country by force and arms and he closes his bloody letter by saying: "I wish to stand before the Convention upon this issue." His letter won the hearts of the Convention, and it promptly put him in nomination for Vice President.

In the light of these illustrations (only few of many) of the bad conduct and worse character of the Democratic Party, how can we with a good conscience help to call it into power again?

Just here, let me say that our success in overcoming the Rebellion, with the whole South and the Democratic half of the North against us, may well be "marvellous in our eyes." Well, too, may we say: "If it had not been the Lord who was on our side, when men rose up against us, then they had swallowed us up quick, when their wrath was kindled against us "By the way, the Rebellion is wrongly called the "Slaveholders' Rebellion." It was more comprehensive than that. It was the Rebellion of the Democratic Party, and should be called the "Democratic Rebellion."

Scarcely was the war over before Southern cutthroats proceeded, in the spirit and expected protection of the Democratic Party, to organize their Ku-Klux Klans. They whipped and shot and hung both black and white Republicans in nearly all the former slave States. They were as ready to shoot white men as black men, if only they were Republicans. Poor Louisiana has suffered more from these Ku Klux devils than has any other State. Her victims in 1866 numbered two thousand. It was in this year that the Democratic mob in New Orleans murdered the noble Dosty and a hundred others, simply because they presumed to hold a Republican Convention. By he way, Dosty once resided in our County of Madison. In 1868 also, some two thousand more in Louisiana were killed or wounded by these Ku-Klux devils.

I said that the war was over. In point of fact it was not over; nor is it yet over; nor will it ever be over, until the Democratic Party is dead. Its savage and wicked spirit is too chronic to admit of change. It is as unchangeable as the skin of the Ethiopian or the spots of the leopard. Only at the death of this Party will the evil spirit, that has dwelt in it and inspired it for half a century, go at of it.

In 1873 a hundred colored men were murdered at one time in Grant Parish in Louisiana : and now, within the last few weeks, the work of murder has been renewed in several parts of this ill-star.

2

[p. 2, col. 1]

red State. In New Orleans alone not less than a hundred were killed outright or very seriously wounded.

This recent outbreak of Democratic devilism in several Southern States is owing in part to the encouragement, which the Democrats have received from the last Elections in Connecticut and New Hampshire. It is owing, however, in greater part to the hope in these States that, by flattering General Grant with the prospect of a third term, they would thereby purchase his forbearance, and his permission to continue their slaughter of black and white Republicans. When I saw their disappointment, and that the vigilant and faithful Government had scarcely let five days pass ere placing a sufficient number of United States troops in New Orleans and monitors to rake when necessary some of her principal streets, I felt that, in Bible language, our great soldier had come to the Presidency "for such a time as this." Moreover, and again in Bible language, I was ready to exclaim: "O king, live forever!" I readily admit that in all but very extraordinary times two terms of the Presidency are enough for any, even the best, man: - but when there is a war to be put down, and especially such a treasonable and infernal one as this, which the Democratic Party continues to wage, if we are so fortunate as to have a dread warrior at our head, it is wise to keep him there. The South wanted Grant bemuse she tools it into her head that he would tolerate her high crimes against humanity. She, now, needs him to punish and stop these crimes. In respect to these crimes the Democratic Press is either silent or apologetic. The South excuses them on the ground, both that Republicans have not got into office by fair means, and that Republicans, especially if colored men, are not eligible to office. Frauds, whether practised by Democrats or Republicans, are not to be defended : - but the shedding of blood is surely not the remedy for them.

It is true that slavery was once the great curse of the country: - but, for the last fifty years, the Democratic Party has been its far greater curse. In all this time slavery has been as much less to be dreaded than the Democratic Party as is the sword less to be dreaded than the hand that wields it. Easily would the advancing civilization of Christendom have disposed of slavery, had not this bad Party clung to it, as its chief means for perpetuating itself. Slavery and Rum were its life: and, to this day, its life is very largely in its hope that either slavery will reappear, or that some scarcely less advantageous modification of it will take its place.

My old Temperance friends complain. that I do not advocate a Temperance ticket. Whenever there is anger of the Democratic Party coming again into power, as there was in 1872, when it cunningly nominated Greeley to catch reformers with, and as there is now, when with hands dipped afresh in the blood of Southern Republicans, it is moving earth and bell to regain its lost ascendency, my first duty - nay, my only political duty - is to oppose the Democratic Party. This abominable Party is the murderer of the colored race which my guilty country has so deeply wronged: and I would let all men become drunkards, ere I would, directly or indirectly, join this murderer.

[p. 2, col. 2]

Although the Republican Party is, as compared with the Democratic Party: "Hyperion to a Satyr," there is nevertheless, somewhat in it to regret and be ashamed of. If this good Party shall ever fall into a minority, it will be because of its cowardice - and especially its cowardice in not passing the Civil Rights Bill. Had it, with the bold face of conscious rectitude, promptly passed this Bill, which lacked only so few votes, though every Democratic vote was against it, these recent murders at the South would not have been entered upon. This wavering in the fidelity of Republicans to their righteous principles has its worst effect in encouraging the Democratic Party to fresh expressions of its wickedness. Can our poor colored brethren forgive this wavering, this cruel injustice, this stinging ingratitude? I trust they can - and will be persuaded that, after one more triumphant Election, this good, but not yet good-enough, Party, having then enough courage to subdue its faint-heartedness and enough integrity to overcome its truckling, will basten to accord equal rights to the colored man.

Let me here repeat what I have so often said that the excuse oared by some Republicans for the failure of this Bill - the excuse that it would be contrary to law for Congress to pass it - is as disgraceful as empty. Fudge for such a law, if there is such a law, if there is such a law! They say that it must be left to the several States to provide for the maintenance of the colored man's manhood. How contemptible is this skulking of a great nation behind one of its States! It was the nation, that was responsible for the long and weary years of the colored man's enslavement. It was to save the nation that he so forgivingly and magnanimously entered into the nation's army. It is the nation therefore that is bound to see that within all its limits he is treated as a man.

Against inborn human rights "there is no law." No law-book is to be looked into to learn what they are - for no law - book can either make or unmake them. The law, written so legibly upon man's sublime being, is the only law by which to ascertain these rights; and both judges and legislators are guilty, of blasphemous and impudent atheism when they would supersede this divine law by human enactments. The question whether a colored child may enter the common school or whether a colored man or woman may enter the car or hotel on self-respecting terms, is to be answered not by quotations from constitutions or statutes, but by Him, who "is no respecter of persons", and who "hath made of one blood all nations of men."

I close with saying that there are crimes too great to be forgiven. One of them is the crime of the political party that deliberately upholds slavery, and another is the crime of the political party that turns against its country in time of war. Of both these atrocious crimes has the Democratic Party been emphatically and persistently guilty. Hence, though it may ever so humbly seek our forgiveness, we have a twofold reason for withholding it.

I have not mentioned by name the negro-murdering "white leaguers." Like the Ku-Klux outlaws, they are simply Democrats. Both are fired with the spirit and aims of the Democracy, and "it is set on fire of hell,"

PETERBORO, October 1, 1874.