informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/politics/INGERSOLL/spatind.txt

1236 lines
60 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00
19 page printout
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
**** ****
Contents of this file page
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868 1
WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE 14
**** ****
This file, its printout, or copies of either
are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.
Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
The Works of ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
**** ****
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS.
1868
THE Democratic party, so-called, have several charges which
they make against the Republican party. They give us a variety of
reasons why the Republican party should no longer be entrusted with
the control of this country. Among other reasons they say that the
Republican party during the war was guilty of arresting citizens
without due process of law -- that we arrested Democrats and put
them in jail without indictment, in Lincoln bastiles, without
making an affidavit before a justice of the Peace -- that on some
occasions we suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and that on one
or two occasions we interfered with the freedom of the press.
I admit that we did all these things. I admit that we put some
Democrats in jail without their being indicted. I am sorry we did
not put more. I admit we arrested some of them without an affidavit
filed before a justice of the Peace. I sincerely regret that we did
not arrest more. I admit that for a few hours on one or two
occasions we interfered with the freedom of the press; I sincerely
regret that the Government allowed a sheet to exist that did not
talk on the side of this Government.
It is only proper and fair that we should answer these
charges. Unless the Republican party can show that they did these
things either according to the strict letter of law, according to
the highest precedent, or from the necessity of the case, then we
must admit that our party did wrong. You know as well as I that
every Democratic orator talks about the fathers, about Washington
and Jackson, Madison, Jefferson, and many others; they tell us
about the good old times when politicians were pure, when you could
get justice in the courts, when Congress was honest, when the
political parties differed, and differed kindly and honestly; and
they are shedding crocodile tears day after day -- praying that the
good old honest times might return again. They tell you that the
members of this radical party are nothing like the men of the
Revolution. Let us see.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
1
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
I lay this down as a proposition, that we had a right to do
anything to preserve this Government that our fathers had a right
to do to found it. If they had a right to put Tories in jail, to
suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and on some occasions to corpus,
in order to found this Government, we had a right to put rebels and
Democrats in jail and to suspend the writ of habeas corps in order
to preserve the Government they thus formed. If they had a right to
interfere with the freedom of the press in order that liberty might
be planted upon this soil, we had a right to do the same thing to
prevent the tree from being destroyed. In a word, we had a right to
do anything to preserve this Government which they had a right to
do to found it.
Did our fathers arrest Tories without writs, without
indictments -- did they interfere with the personal rights of
Tories in the name of liberty -- did they have Washington bastiles,
did they have Jefferson jails -- did they have dungeons in the time
of the Revolution in which they put men that dared talk against
this country and the liberties of the colonies? I propose to show
that they did -- that where we imprisoned one they imprisoned a
hundred -- that where we interfered with personal liberty once they
did it a hundred times -- that they carried on a war that was a war
-- that they knew that when an appeal was made to force that was
the end of law -- that they did not attempt to gain their liberties
through a justice of the Peace or through a Grand jury; that they
appealed to force and the God of battles and that any man who
sought their protection and at the same time was against them and
their cause they took by the nape of the neck and put in jail,
where he ought to have been.
The old Continental Congress in 1774 and 1776 had made up
their minds that we ought to have something like liberty in these
colonies, and the first step they took toward securing that end was
to provide for the selection of a committee in every county and
township, with a view to examining and finding out how the people
stood touching the liberty of the colonies, and if they found a man
that was not in favor of it, the people would not have anything to
do with him politically, religiously, or socially. That was the
first step they took, and a very sensible step it was.
What was the next step? They found that these men were so lost
to every principle of honor that they did not hurt them any by
disgracing them. So they passed the following resolution which
explains itself:
Resolved. That it be recommended to the several provincial
assemblies or conventions or councils, or committees of safety, to
arrest and secure every person in their respective colonies whose
going at large, may, in their opinion, endanger the safety of the
colony or the liberties of America. -- Journal of Congress, vol. 1,
page 149.
What was the Committee of Safety? Was it a justice of the
peace? No. Was it a Grand Jury? No. It was simply a committee of
five or seven persons, more or less, appointed to watch over the
town or county and see that these Tories were attending to their
business and not interfering with the rights of the colonies. Whom
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
2
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
were they to thus arrest and secure? Every man that had committed
murder -- that had taken up arms against America, or voted the
Democratic or Tory ticket? No. "Every person whose going at large
might in their opinion, endanger the safety of the colony or the
liberties of America." It was not necessary that they had committed
any overt act, but if in the opinion of this council of safety, it
was dangerous to let them run at large they were locked up. Suppose
that we had done that during the last war? You would have had to
build several new jails in this county. What a howl would have gone
up all over this State if we had attempted such a thing as that,
and yet we had a perfect right to do anything to preserve our
liberties, which our fathers had a right to do to obtain them.
What more did they do? In 1777 the same Congress that signed
the immortal Declaration of Independence (and I think they knew as
much about liberty and the rights of men as any Democrat in Marion
county) adopted another resolution:
Resolved. That it be recommended to the Executive powers of
the several States, forthwith to apprehend and secure all persons
who have in their general conduct and conversation evinced a
disposition inimical to the cause of America, and that the persons
so seized be confined in such places and treated in such manner as
shall be consistent with their several characters and security of
their persons -- Journal of Congress, vol. 2, P. 246.
If they had talked as the Democrats talked during the late war
-- if they had called the soldiers "Washington hirelings," and if
when they allowed a few negroes to help: them fight, had branded
the struggle for liberty as an abolition war, they would be
apprehended and confined in such places and treated in such manner
as was consistent with their characters and security of their
persons," and yet all they did was to show a disposition inimical
to the independence of America. If we had pursued a policy like
that during the late war, nine out of ten of the members of the
Democratic party would have been in jail -- there would not have
been jails and prisons enough on the face of the whole earth to
hold them.
Now, when a Democrat talks to you about Lincoln bastiles, just
quote this to him:
WHEREAS, The States of Pennsylvania and Delaware are
threatened with an immediate invasion from a powerful army, who
have already landed at the head of Chesapeake Bay; and whereas, The
principles of sound policy and self-preservation require that
persons who may be reasonably suspected of aiding or abetting the
cause of the enemy may be prevented from pursuing measures
injurious to the general weal.
Resolved, That the executive authorities of the States of
Pennsylvania and Delaware be requested to cause all persons within
their respective States, notoriously disaffected, to be
apprehended, disarmed and secured until such time as the respective
States think they may be released without injury to the common
cause. -- Journal of Congress, vol. 2, p. 240.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
3
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
That is what they did with them. When there was an invasion
threatened the good State of Indiana, if we had said we will
imprison all men who by their conduct and conversation show that
they are inimical to our cause, we would have been obliged to
import jails and corral Democrats as we did mules in the army. Our
fathers knew that the flag was never intended to protect any man
who wanted to assail it.
What more did they do? There was a man by the name of David
Franks, who wrote a letter and wanted to send it to England. In
that letter he gave it as his opinion that the colonies were
becoming disheartened and sick of the war. The heroic and chivalric
fathers of the Revolution violated the mails, took the aforesaid
letter and then they took the aforesaid David Franks by the collar
and put him in jail. Then they passed a resolution in Congress that
inasmuch as the said letter showed a disposition inimical to the
liberties of the United States, Major General Arnold be requested
to cause the said David Franks to be forthwith arrested, put in
jail and confined till the further order of Congress. (Jour. Cong.,
vol. 3, P. 96 and 97.)
How many Democrats wrote letters during the war declaring that
the North never could conquer the South? How many wrote letters to
the soldiers in the army telling them to shed no more fraternal
blood in that suicidal and unchristian war? It would have taken all
the provost marshals in the United States to arrest the Democrats
in Indiana who were guilty of that offence. And yet they are
talking about our fathers being such good men, while they are
cursing us for doing precisely what they did, only to a less extent
than they did.
We are still on the track of the old Continental Congress. I
want you to understand the spirit that animated those men. They
passed a resolution which is particularly applicable to the
Democrats during the war:
With respect to all such unworthy Americans as, regardless of
their duty to their Creator, their country, and their posterity,
have taken part with our oppressors, and, influenced by the hope or
possession of ignominious rewards, strive to recommend themselves
to the bounty of the administration by misrepresenting and
traducing the conduct and principles of the friends of American
liberty, and opposing every measure formed for its preservation and
security.
Resolved, That it be recommended to the different assemblies,
conventions and committees or councils of safety in the United
Colonies, by the most speedy and effectual measures, to frustrate
the mischievous machinations and restrain the wicked practices of
these men. And it is the opinion of this Congress that they ought
to be disarmed and the more dangerous among them either kept in
safe custody or bound with sufficient sureties for their good
behavior.
And in order that the said assemblies, conventions, committees
or councils of safety may be enabled with greater ease and facility
to carry this resolution into execution.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
4
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
Resolved, That they be authorized to call to their aid
whatever Continental troops stationed in or near their respective
colonies that may be conveniently spared from their more immediate.
duties, and commanding officers of such troops are hereby directed
to afford the said assemblies, conventions, committees or councils
of safety, all such assistance in executing this resolution as they
may require, and which, consistent with the good of the service.
may be supplied. -- Journal of Congress, vol. 1, P. 22.
Do you hear that, Democrat? The old Continental Congress said
to these committees and councils of safety: "Whenever you want to
arrest any of these scoundrels, call on the Continental troops."
And General Washington, the commander-in-chief of the army, and the
officers under him, were directed to aid in the enforcement of all
the measures adopted with reference to disaffected and dangerous
persons. And what had these persons done? Simply shown by their
conversation, and letters directed to their friends, that they were
opposed to the cause of American liberty. They did not even spare
the Governors of States. They were not appalled by any official
position that a Tory might hold. They simply said, "If you are not
in favor of American liberty, we will put you I where the dogs
won't bite you." One of these men was Governor Eden of Maryland.
Congress passed a resolution requesting the Council of Safety of
Maryland to seize and secure his person and papers, and send such
of them as related to the American dispute to Congress without
delay. At the same time the person and papers of another man, one
Alexander Ross, were seized in the same manner. Ross was put in
jail, and his papers transmitted to Congress.
There was a fellow by the name of Parke and another by the
name of Morton, who presumed to undertake a journey from
Philadelphia to New York without getting a pass. Congress ordered
them to be arrested and imprisoned until further orders. They did
not wait to have an affidavit filed before a justice of the Peace.
They took them by force and put them in jail, and that was the end
of it. So much for the policy of the fathers, in regard to
arbitrary arrests.
During the war there was a great deal said about our
occasionally interfering with the elections. Let us see how the
fathers stood upon that question.
They held a convention in the State of New York in
Revolutionary times, and there were some gentlemen in Queens County
that were playing the role of Kentucky -- they were going to be
neutral -- they refused to vote to send deputies to the convention
-- they stood upon their dignity just as Kentucky stood upon hers
-- a small place to stand on, the Lord knows. What did our fathers
do with them? They denounced them as unworthy to be American
citizens and hardly fit to live. Here is a resolution adopted by
the Continental Congress on the 3d of January, 1776:
Resolved, That all such persons in Queens County afore-said as
voted against sending deputies to the present Convention of New
York, and named in a list of delinquents in Queens County,
published by the Convention of New York, be put out of the
protection of the United Colonists, and that all trade and
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
5
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
intercourse with them cease; that none of the inhabitants of that
county be permitted to travel or abide in any part of these United
Colonies out of their said colony without a certificate from the
Convention or Committee of Safety of the Colony of New York,
setting forth that such inhabitant is a friend of the American
cause, and not of the number of those who voted against sending
deputies to the said Convention, and that such of the inhabitants
as shall be found out of the said county without such certificate,
be apprehended and imprisoned three months.
Resolved, That no attorney or lawyer ought to commence,
prosecute or defend any action at law of any kind, for any of the
said inhabitants of Queens County, who voted against sending
deputies to the Convention as aforesaid, and such attorney or
lawyer as shall countenance this revolution, are enemies to the
American cause, and shall be treated accordingly.
What had they done? Simply voted against sending delegates to
the convention, and yet the fathers not only put them out of the
protection of law, but prohibited any lawyer from appearing in
their behalf in a court. Democrats, don't you wish we had treated
you that way during the war?
What more did they do? They ordered a company of troops from
Connecticut, and two or three companies from New Jersey, to go into
the State of New York, and take away from every person who had
voted against sending deputies to the convention, all his arms, and
if anybody refused to give up his arms, they put him in jail. Don't
you wish you had lived then, my friend Democrat? Don't you wish you
had prosecuted the war as our fathers prosecuted the Revolution?
I now want to show you how far they went in this direction. A
man by the name of Sutton, who lived on Long Island, had been going
around giving his constitutional opinions upon the war. They had
him arrested, and went on to resolve that he should be taken from
Philadelphia, pay the cost of transportation himself, be put in
jail there, and while in jail should board himself. Wouldn't a
Democrat have had a hard scramble for victuals if we had carried
out that idea? Just see what outrageous and terrible things the
fathers did. And why did they do it? Because they saw that in order
to establish the liberties of America it was necessary they should
take the Tory by the throat just as it was necessary for us to take
rebels by the throat during the late war.
They had paper money in those days -- shin-plasters -- and
some of the Democrats of those times had legal doubts about this
paper currency. One of these Democrats, Thomas Harriott, was called
before a Committee of Safety of New York, and there convicted of
having refused to receive in payment the Continental bills. The
committee of New York conceiving that he was a dangerous person,
informed the Provincial Congress of the facts in the case, and
inquired whether Congress thought he ought to go at large. Upon
receipt of this information by Congress an order for the
imprisonment of the offender was passed, as follows:
Resolved, That the General Committee of the city of New York
be requested and authorized, and are hereby requested and
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
6
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
authorized to direct that Thomas Harriott be committed to close
jail in this city, there to remain until further orders of this
Congress. -- Amer. Archives, 4th series, vol. 6, P. 1,344.
And yet all that he had done was to refuse to take Continental
money. He had simply given his opinion on the legal tender law,
just as the Democrats of Indiana did in regard to greenbacks, and
as a few circuit judges decided when they declared the Legal Tender
Act unconstitutional. It would have been perfectly proper and right
that they, every man of them, should be, like Thomas Harriott,
"committed to close jail, there to remain until further orders."
Did our forefathers ever interfere with religion? Yes, they
did with a preacher by the name of Daniels, because he would not
pray for the American cause. He thought he could coax the Lord to
beat us. They said to him, "You pray on our side, sir." He would
not do it, and so they put him in jail and gave him work enough to
pray himself out, and it took him some time to do it. They
interfered with a lack of religion. They believed that a tory or
traitor in the pulpit was no better than anybody else. That is the
way I have sometimes felt during the war. I have thought that I
would like to see some of those white cravatted gentlemen "snaked"
right out of the pulpits where they had dared to utter their
treason, and set to playing checkers through a grated window.
It is not possible that our fathers ever interfered with the
writ of habeas corpus, is it? Yes sir. Our fathers advocated the
doctrine that the good of the people is the supreme law of the
land. They also advocated the doctrine that in the midst of armies
law falls to the ground; the doctrine that when a country is in war
it is to be governed by the laws of war. They thought that laws
were made for the protection of good citizens, for the punishment
of citizens that were bad, when they were not too bad or too
numerous; then they threw the law-book down while they took the
cannon and whipped the badness out of them; that is the next step,
when the stones you throw, and kind words, and grass have failed.
They said, why did we not appeal to law? We did; but it did no
good. A large portion of the people were up in arms in defiance of
law, and there was only one way to put them down, and that was by
force of arms; and whenever an appeal is made to force, that force
is governed by the law of war.
The fathers suspended the writ in the case of a man who had
committed an offence in the State of New York. They sent him to the
State of Connecticut to be confined, just as men were sent from
Indiana to Fort Lafayette. The attorneys came before the convention
of New York to hear the matter inquired into, but the committee of
the convention to whom the matter was referred refused to inquire
into the original cause of commitment -- a direct denial of the
authority of the writ. The writ of habeas corpus merely brings the
body before the judge that he may inquire why he is imprisoned.
They refused to make any such inquiry. Their action was endorsed by
the convention and the gentleman was sent to Connecticut and put in
jail. They not only did these things in one instance, but in a
thousand. They took men from Maryland and put them in prison in
Pennsylvania, and they took men from Pennsylvania and confined them
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
7
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
in Maryland. Whenever they thought the Tories were so thick at one
point that the rascals might possibly be released, they took them
somewhere else.
They did not interfere with the freedom of the press, did
they? Yes, sir. They found a gentleman who was speaking and writing
against the liberties of the colonies, and they just took his paper
away from him, and gave it to a man who ran it in the interest of
the colonies, using the Tory's type and press. [A voice -- That was
right.] Right! of course it was right. What right has a newspaper
in Indiana to talk against the cause for which your son is laying
down his life on the field of battle? What right has any man to
make it take thousands of men more to crush a rebellion? What right
has any man protected by the American flag to do all in his power
to put it in the hands of the enemies of his country? The same
right that any man has to be a rascal, a thief and traitor -- no
other right under heaven. Our fathers had sense enough to see that,
and they said, "One gentleman in the rear printing against our
noble cause, will cost us hundreds of noble lives at the front."
Why have you a right to take a rebel's horse? Because it helps you
and weakens the enemy. That is by the law of war. That is the
principle upon which they seized the Tory printing press. They had
the right to do it. And if I had had the power in this country, no
man should have said a word, or written a line, or printed anything
against the cause for which the heroic men of the North sacrificed
their lives. I would have enriched the soil of this country with
him before he should have done it. A man by the name of James
Rivington undertook to publish a paper against the country. They
would not speak to him; they denounced him, seized his press, and
made him ask forgiveness and promise to print no more such stuff
before they would let him have his sheet again. No person but a
rebel ever thought that was wrong. There is no common sense in
going to the field to fight and leaving a man at home to undo all
that you accomplish.
Our fathers did not like these Tories, and when the war was
over they confiscated their estates -- took their land and gave it
over to good Union men.
How did they do it? Did they issue summons, and have a trial?
No, sir. They did it by wholesale -- they did it by resolution, and
the estates of hundreds of men were taken from them without their
having a day in court or any notice or trial whatever. They said to
the Tories: "You cast your fortunes with the other side, let them
pay you. The flag you fought against protects the land you owned
and it will prevent you from having it." Nor is that all. They ran
thousands of them out of the country away up into Nova Scotia, and
the old blunosed Tories are there yet.
In his letter to Governor Cooke of Rhode Island, Washington
enumerates an act of that colony, declaring that "none should
speak, write, or act against the proceedings of Congress or their
Acts of Assembly, under penalty of being disarmed and disqualified
from holding any office, and being further punished by
imprisonment," as one that met his approbation, and which should
exist in other colonies. There is the doctrine for you Democrats.
So I could go on by the hour or by the day. I could show you how
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
8
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
they made domiciliary visits, interfered with travel, imprisoned
without any sort of writ or affidavit -- in other words, did
whatever they thought was necessary to whip the enemy and establish
their independence.
What next do they charge against us? That we freed negroes. So
we did. That we allowed those negroes to fight in the army. Yes, we
did. That we allowed them to vote. We did that too. That we have
made them citizens. Yes, we have, and what are you Democrats going
to do about it?
Now, what did our fathers do? Did they free any of the
negroes? Yes, sir. Did they allow any of them to fight in the army?
Yes, sir. Did they permit any of them to vote? Yes, sir. Did they
make them citizens? Yes, sir. Let us see whether they did or not.
Before we had the present Constitution we had what were called
Articles of Confederation. The fourth of those articles provided
that every free inhabitant of the colony should be a citizen. It
did not make any difference whether he was white or black; and
negroes voted by the side of Washington and Jefferson. Just here
the question arises, if negroes were good enough in 1787 and 1790
to vote by the side of such men, whether rebels and their
sympathizers are good enough now to vote alongside of the negro.
Did they let any of these negroes fight? In 1750, when
Massachusetts had slaves, there appeared in the Boston Gazelle the
following notice: Ran away from his master, Wm. Brown, of
Framingham, on the 30th September last, a mulatto fellow, about 27
years of age, named Crispus, about 6 feet high, short curly hair,
had on a light colored bear-skin coat, brown jacket, new buckskin
breeches, blue yarn stockings and check woolen shirt," etc.
This "mulatto fellow" did not come back, and so they
advertised the next week and the week following, but still the toes
of the blue yarn socks pointed the other way. That was in 1750.
1760 came and 1770, and the people of this continent began to talk
about having their liberties. And while wise and thoughtful men
were talking about it, making petitions for popular rights and
laying them at the foot of the throne, the King's troops were in
Boston. One day they marched down King street, on their way to
arrest some citizen. The soldiery were attacked by a mob, and at
its head was a "mulatto fellow" who shouted "here they are," and it
was observed that this mulatto fellow "was about six feet high --
that his knees were nearer together than common, and that he was
about 47 years of age. The soldiers fired upon the mob and he fell,
shot through with five balls -- the first man that led a charge
against British aggression -- the first martyr whose blood was shed
for American liberty upon this soil. They took up that poor corpse,
and as it lay in Faneuil Hall it did more honor to the place than
did Daniel Webster defending the Fugitive Slave Law.
They allowed him to fight. Would our fathers have been brutal
enough, if he had not been killed, to put him back into slavery?
No! They would have said that a man who fights for liberty should
enjoy it. If a man fights for that flag it shall protect him.
Perish forever from the heavens the flag that will not defend its
defenders, be they white or black.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
9
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
Thus our fathers felt. They raised negro troops by the company
and the regiment, and gave his liberty to every man that fought for
liberty. Not only that, but they allowed them to vote. They voted
in the Carolinas, in Tennessee, in New York, in all the New England
States. Our fathers had too much decency to act upon the Democratic
doctrine.
In the war of 1812, negroes fought at Lake Eric and at New
Orleans, and then the fathers, as in the Revolution, were too
magnanimous to turn them back into slavery. You need not get mad,
my Democratic friends, because you hate Ben. Butler. Let me read
you an abolition document.
You will all say it is right; you cannot say anything else
when you hear it. Butler, you know, was down in New Orleans, and he
made some of those rebels dance a tune that they did not know, and
he made them keep pretty good time too:
To the Free Colored Inhabitants of Louisiana:
Through a mistaken policy you have heretofore been deprived of
a participation in the glorious struggle for national rights in
which our country is engaged. This shall no longer exist. As sons
of freedom you are now called upon to defend our most inestimable
blessing. As Americans, your country looks with confidence to her
adopted children for a valorous support as a faithful return for
the advantages enjoyed under her mild and equitable government. As
fathers, husbands and brothers you are summoned to rally around the
standard of the eagle -- to defend all which is dear in existence.
Your country, although calling for your exertions does not wish you
to engage in her cause without amply remunerating you for the
services rendered. Your intelligent minds can not be led away by
false representations. Your love of honor would cause you to
despise a man who should attempt to deceive you, in the sincerity
of a soldier and the language of truth I address you. To every
noble-hearted generous free man of color volunteering to serve
during the present contest and no longer, there will be paid the
same bounty in money and lands now received by the white soldiers
of the United States, viz: $124 in money and one hundred and sixty
acres of land, The non-commissioned officers and privates will also
be entitled to the same monthly pay and daily rations and clothing
furnished any American soldier.
On enrolling yourselves in companies, the Major General
commanding will select officers for your government from your white
fellow-citizens. Your non-commissioned officers will be appointed
from among yourselves. Due regard will be paid to their feelings as
freemen and soldiers. You will not by being associated with white
men in the same corps, be exposed to improper companions or unjust
1sarcasm. As a distinct battalion or regiment pursuing the path of
glory, you will undivided receive the applause and gratitude of
your countrymen.
To assure you of the sincerity of my intentions and my anxiety
to engage your valuable services to our country, I have
communicated my wishes to the Governor of Louisiana, who is fully
informed as to the manner of enrollment, and give you every
necessary information on the subject of this address.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
10
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
This is a terrible document to a Democrat. Let as look back
over it a little. "Through a mistaken policy." We had not sense
enough to let the negroes fight during the first part of the war.
"As sons of freedom" we had got sense by this time. "Americans."
Oh! shocking! Think of calling negroes Americans. "Your Country!"
Is that not enough to make a Democrat sick? "As fathers, husbands,
brothers." Negro brothers. That is too bad. "Your intelligent
minds." Now, just think of a negro having an intelligent mind. "Are
not to be led away by false representations." Then precious few of
them will vote the Democratic ticket. "Your sense of honor will
lead you to despise the man who should attempt to deceive you."
Then how they will hate the Democratic party. Then he goes on to
say that the same bounty, money and land that the white soldiers
receive will be paid to these negroes. Not only that, but they are
to have the same pay, clothing and rations. Only think of a negro
having as much land, as much to eat and as many clothes to wear as
a white man. Is not this a vile abolition document? And yet there
is not a Democrat in Indiana that dare open his mouth against it,
full of negro equality as it is. Now, let us see when and by whom
this proclamation was issued. You will find that it is dated,
"Headquarters 7th Military District, Mobile, September 21st, 1814,"
and signed "Andrew Jackson, Major General Commanding."
Oh, you Jackson Democrats. You gentlemen that are descended
from Washington and Jackson -- great heavens, what a descent! Do
you think Jackson was a Democrat? He generally passed for a good
Democrat; yet he issued that abominable abolition proclamation and
put negroes on an equality with white men. That is not the worst of
it, either; for after he got these negroes into the army he made a
speech to them, and what did he say in that speech? Here it is in
full
To the Men of Color:
SOLDIERS -- From the shores of Mobile I called you to arms. I
invited you to share in the perils and to divide the glory with
your white countrymen. I expected much from you, for I was not
uninformed of those qualities which must render you so formidable
to an invading foe. I knew that you could endure hunger, thirst,
and all the hardships of war. I knew that you loved the land of
Your nativity, and that like ourselves you had to defend all that
is most dear to man. But you surpass my hopes. I have found in you
united to these qualities that noble enthusiasm which impels to
great deeds. Soldiers, the President of the United States shall be
informed of your conduct on the present occasion and the voice of
the representatives of the American nation shall applaud your valor
as your General now praises your ardor. The enemy is near. His
sails cover the lakes, But the brave are united, and if he finds us
contending among ourselves, it will be only for the prize of valor,
its noblest reward.
There is negro equality for you. There is the first man since
the heroes of the Revolution died that issued a proclamation and
put negroes on an equality with white men, and he was as good a
Democrat as ever lived in Indiana. I could go on and show where
they voted, and who allowed them to vote, but I have said enough on
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
11
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
that question, and also upon the question of their fighting in the
army, and of their being citizens, and have established, I think
conclusively, this:
First. That our fathers, in order to found this Government,
arrested men without warrant, indictment or affidavit by the
hundred and by the thousand; that we, in order to preserve the
Government that they thus founded, arrested a few people without
warrant.
Second. That our fathers, for the purpose of founding the
Government, suspended the writ of habeas corpus; that we, for the
purpose of preserving the same Government, did the same thing.
Third. That they, for the purpose of inaugurating this
Government, interfered with the liberty of the press; that we, on
one or two occasions, for the purpose of preserving the Government,
interfered with the liberty of the press.
Fourth. That our fathers allowed negroes to fight in order
that they might secure the liberties of America; that we, in order
to preserve those liberties, allow negroes to fight.
Fifth. That our fathers, out of gratitude to the negroes in
the Revolutionary war, allowed them to vote; that we have done the
same. That they made them citizens, and we have followed their
example.
As far as I have gone, I have shown that the fathers of the
Revolution and the War of 1812 set us the example for everything we
have done. Now, Mr. Democrat, if you want to curse us, curse them
too. Either quit yawping about the fathers, or quit yawping about
us.
Now, then, was there any necessity, during this war, to follow
the example of our fathers? The question was put to us in 1861
"Shall the majority rule?" "and also the balance of that question
"Shall the minority submit?" The minority said they would not. Upon
the right of the majority to rule rests the entire structure of our
Government. Had we, in 1861, given up that principle, the
foundations of our Government would have been totally destroyed. In
fact there would have been no Government, even in the North. It is
no use to say the majority shall rule if the minority consents.
Therefore, if, when a man has been duly elected President, anybody
undertakes to prevent him from being President, it is your duty to
protect him and enforce submission to the will of the majority. In
1861 we had presented to us the alternative, either to let the
great principle that lies at the foundation of our Government go by
the board, or to appeal to arms? and to the God of battles, and
fight it through.
The Southern people said they were going out of the Union; we
implored them to stay, by the common memories of the Revolution, by
an apparent common destiny; by the love of man, but they refused to
listen to us -- rushed past us, and appealed to the arbitrament of
the sword; and now I, for one, say by the decision of the sword let
them abide.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
12
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
Now, I want to show how mean the American people were in 1861.
The vile and abominable institution of slavery had so corrupted us
that we did not know right from wrong. It crept into the pulpit
until the sermon became the echo of the bloodhound's bark. It crept
upon the bench, and the judge could not tell whether the corn
belonged to the man that raised it, or to the fellow that did not,
but he rather thought it belonged to the latter. We had lost our
sense of justice. Even the people of Indiana were so far gone as to
agree to carry out the Fugitive Slave Law. Was it not low-lived and
contemptible? We agreed that if we found a woman ninety-nine one
hundredths white, who, inspired by the love of liberty, had run
away from her masters, and had got within one step of free soil, we
would clutch her and bring her back to the dominion of the
Democrat, the bloodhound and the lash. We were just mean enough to
do it. We used to read that some hundreds of years ago a lot of
soldiers would march into a man's house, take him out, tie him to
a stake driven into the earth, put fagots around him, and let the
thirsty flames consume him, and all because they differed from him
about religion. We said it was horrible; it made our blood run cold
to think of it yet at the same time many a magnificent steamboat
floated down the Mississippi with wives and husbands, fragments of
families torn asunder, doomed to a life of toil, requited only by
lashes upon the naked back, and branding irons upon the quivering
flesh, and we thought little of it. When we set out to put down the
Rebellion the Democratic party started up all at once and said,
"You are not going to interfere with slavery, are you?" Now, it is
remarkable that whenever we were going to do a good thing, we had
to let on that we were going to do a mean one. If we had said at
the outset, "We will break the shackles from four millions of
slaves" we never would have succeeded. We had to come at it by
degrees. The Democrats scented it out. They had a scent keener than
a bloodhound when anything was going to be done to affect slavery.
"Put down rebellion," they said, "but don't hurt slavery." We said,
"We will not; we will restore the Union as it was and the
Constitution as it is." We were in good faith about it. We had no
better sense then than to think that it was worth fighting for, to
preserve the cause of quarrel -- the bone of contention -- so as to
have war all the time. Every blow we struck for slavery was a blow
against us. The Rebellion was simply slavery with a mask on. We
never whipped anybody but once so long as we stood upon that
doctrine; that was at Donelson; and the victory there was not owing
to the policy, but to the splendid genius of the next President of
the United States. After a while it got into our heads that slavery
was the cause of the trouble, and we began to edge up slowly toward
slavery. When Mr. Lincoln said he would destroy slavery if
absolutely necessary for the suppression of the Rebellion, people
thought that was the most radical thing that ever was uttered. But
the time came when it was necessary to free the slaves, and to put
muskets into their hands. The Democratic party opposed us with all
their might until the draft came, and they wanted negroes for
substitutes; and I never heard a Democrat object to arming the
negroes after that.
[The speaker from this point presented the history of the
Republican policy of reconstruction, and touched lightly on the
subject of the national debt. He glanced at the finances, reviewing
in the most scathing manner the history and character of Seymour,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
13
SPEECH AT INDIANAPOLIS -- 1868
paid a most eloquent tribute to the character and public services
of General Grant, and closed with the following words:]
The hero of the Rebellion, who accomplished at Shiloh what
Napoleon endeavored at Waterloo; who captured Vicksburg by a series
of victories unsurpassed, taking the keystone from the rebel arch;
who achieved at Missionary Ridge a success as grand as it was
unexpected to the country who, having been summoned from the death-
bed of rebellion in the West, marched like an athlete from the
Potomac to the James, the grandest march in the history of the
world. This was all done without the least flourish upon his part.
No talk about destiny -- without faith in a star -- with the simple
remark that he would fight it out on that line," without a boast,
modest to bashfulness, yet brave to audacity, simple as duty, firm
as war, direct as truth -- this hero, with so much common sense
that he is the most uncommon man of his time, will be, in spite of
Executive snares and Cabinet entanglements, of competent false
witnesses of the Democratic party, the next President of the United
States. He will be trusted with the Government his genius saved.
END
**** ****
WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE
AS A MORAL GUIDE?
YOU ask me what I would "substitute for the Bible as a moral
guide."
I know that many people regard the Bible as the only moral
guide and believe that in that book only can be found the true and
perfect standard of morality.
There are many good precepts, many wise sayings and many good
regulations and laws in the Bible, and these are mingled with bad
precepts, with foolish sayings, with absurd rules and cruel laws.
But we must remember that the Bible is a collection of many
books written centuries apart, and that it in part represents the
growth and tells in part the history of a people. We must also
remember. that the writers treat of many subjects. Many of these
writers have nothing to say about right or wrong, about vice or
virtue.
The book of Genesis has nothing about morality. There is not
a line in it calculated to shed light on the path of conduct. No
one can call that book a moral guide. It is made up of myth and
miracle, of tradition and legend.
In Exodus we have an account of the manner in which Jehovah
delivered the Jews from Egyptian bondage.
We now know that the Jews were never enslaved by the
Egyptians; that the entire story is a fiction. We know this,
because there is not found in Hebrew a word of Egyptian origin, and
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
14
WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE
there is not found in the language of the Egyptians a word of
Hebrew origin. This being so, we know that the Hebrews and
Egyptians could not have lived together for hundreds of years.
Certainly Exodus was not written to teach morality. In that
book you cannot find one word against human slavery. As a matter of
fact, Jehovah was a believer in that institution.
The killing of cattle with disease and hail, the murder of the
first-born, so that in every house was death, because the king
refused to let the Hebrews go, certainly was not moral; it was
fiendish. The writer of that book regarded all the people of Egypt,
their children, their flocks and herds, as the property of Pharaoh,
and these people and these cattle were killed, not because they had
done anything wrong, but simply for the purpose of punishing the
king. Is it possible to get any morality out of this history?
All the laws found in Exodus, including the Ten Commandments,
so far as they are really good and sensible, were at that time in
force among all the peoples of the world.
Murder is, and always was, a crime, and always will be, as
long as a majority of people object to being murdered.
Industry always has been and always will be the enemy of
larceny.
The nature of man is such that he admires the teller of truth
and despises the liar. Among all tribes, among all people, truth-
telling has been considered a virtue and false swearing or false
speaking a vice.
The love of parents for children is natural, and this love is
found among all the animals that live. So the love of children for
parents is natural, and was not and cannot be created by law. Love
does not spring from a sense of duty, nor does it bow in obedience
to commands.
So men and women are not virtuous because of anything in books
or creeds.
All the Ten Commandments that are good were old, were the
result of experience. The commandments that were original with
Jehovah were foolish.
The worship of "any other God" could not have been worse than
the worship of Jehovah, and nothing could have been more absurd
than the sacredness of the Sabbath.
If commandments had been given against slavery and polygamy,
against wars of invasion and extermination, against religious
persecution in all its forms, so that the world could be free, so
that the brain might be developed and the heart civilized, then we
might, with propriety, call such commandments a moral guide.
Before we can truthfully say that the Ten Commandments
constitute a moral guide, we must add and subtract. We must throw
away some, and write others in their places.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
15
WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE
The commandments that have a known application here, in this
world, and treat of human obligations are good, the others have no
basis in fact, or experience.
Many of the regulations found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers
and Deuteronomy, are good. Many are absurd and cruel.
The entire ceremonial of worship is insane.
Most of the punishment for violations of laws are
unphilosophic and brutal. . . . The fact is that the Pentateuch
upholds nearly all crimes, and to call it a moral guide is as
absurd as to say that it is merciful or true.
Nothing of a moral nature can be found in Joshua or Judges.
These books are filled with crimes, with massacres and murders.
They are about the same as the real history of the Apache Indians.
The story of Ruth is not particularly moral.
In first and second Samuel there is not one word calculated to
develop the brain or conscience.
Jehovah murdered seventy thousand Jews because David took a
census of the people. David, according to the account, was the
guilty one, but only the innocent were killed.
In first and second Kings can be found nothing of ethical
value. All the kings who refused to obey the priests were
denounced, and all the crowned wretches who assisted the priests,
were declared to be the favorites of Jehovah. In these books there
cannot be found one word in favor of liberty.
There are some good Psalms, and there are some that are
infamous. Most of these Psalms are selfish. Many of them are
passionate appeals for revenge.
The story of Job shocks the heart of every good man. In this
book there is some poetry, some pathos, and some philosophy, but
the story of this drama called Job, is heart-less to the last
degree. The children of Job are murdered to settle a little wager
between God and the Devil. Afterward, Job having remained firm,
other children are given in the place of the murdered ones.
Nothing, however, is done for the children who were murdered.
The book of Esther is utterly absurd, and the only redeeming
feature in the book is that the name of Jehovah is not mentioned.
I like the Song of Solomon because it tells of human love, and
that is something I can understand. That book in my judgment is
worth all the ones that go before it, and is a far better moral
guide.
There are some wise and merciful Proverbs. Some are selfish
and some are flat and commonplace.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
16
WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE
I like the book of Ecclesiastes because there you find some
sense, some poetry, and some philosophy. Take away the
interpolations and it is a good book.
Of course there is nothing in Nehemiah or Ezra to make men
better, nothing in Jeremiah or Lamentations calculated to lessen
vice, and only a few passages in Isaiah that can be used in a good
cause.
In Ezekiel and Daniel we find only ravings of the insane.
In some of the minor prophets there is now and then a good
verse, now and then an elevated thought.
You can, by selecting passages from different books, make a
very good creed, and by selecting passages from different books,
you can make a very bad creed.
The trouble is that the spirit of the Old Testament, its
disposition, its temperament, is bad, selfish and cruel. The most
fiendish things are commanded, commended and applauded.
The stories that are told of Joseph, of Elisha, of Daniel and
Gideon, and of many others, are hideous; hellish.
On the whole, the Old Testament cannot be considered a moral
guide.
Jehovah was not a moral God. He had all the vices, and he
lacked all the virtues. He generally carried out his threats, but
he never faithfully kept a promise.
At the same time, we must remember that the Old Testament is
a natural production, that it was written by savages who were
slowly crawling toward the light. We must give them credit for the
noble things they said, and we must be charitable enough to excuse
their faults and even their crimes.
I know that many Christians regard the Old Testament as the
foundation and the New as the superstructure, and while many admit
that there are faults and mistakes in the Old Testament, they
insist that the New is the flower and perfect fruit.
I admit that there are many good things in the New Testament,
and if we take from that book the dogmas, of eternal pain, of
infinite revenge, of the atonement, of human sacrifice, of the
necessity of shedding blood; if we throw away the doctrine of non-
resistance, of loving enemies, the idea that prosperity is the
result of wickedness, that Poverty is a preparation for Paradise,
if we throw all these away and take the good, sensible passages,
applicable to conduct, then we can make a fairly good moral guide,
-- narrow, but moral.
Of course, many important things would be left out. You would
have nothing about human rights, nothing in favor of the family,
nothing for education, nothing for investigation, for thought and
reason, but still you would have a fairly good moral guide.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
17
WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE
On the other hand, if you would take the foolish passages, the
extreme ones, you could make a creed that would satisfy an insane
asylum.
If you take the cruel passages, the verses that inculcate
eternal hatred, verses that writhe and hiss like serpents, you can
make a creed that would shock the heart of a hyena.
It may be that no book contains better passages than the New
Testament, but certainly no book contains worse.
Below the blossom of love you find the thorn of hatred; on the
lips that kiss, you find the poison of the cobra.
The Bible is not a moral guide.
Any man who follows faithfully all its teachings is an enemy
of society and will probably end his days in a prison or an asylum.
What is morality?
In this world we need certain things. We have many wants. We
are exposed to many dangers. We need food, fuel, raiment and
shelter, and besides these wants, there is, what may be called, the
hunger of the mind.
We are conditioned beings, and our happiness depends upon
conditions. There are certain things that diminish, certain things
that increase, well-being. There are certain things that destroy
and there are others that preserve.
Happiness, including its highest forms, is after all the only
good, and everything, the result of which is to produce or secure
happiness, is good, that is to say, moral. Everything that destroys
or diminishes well-being is bad, that is to say, immoral. In other
words, all that is good is moral, and all that is bad is immoral.
What then is, or can be called, a moral guide? The shortest
possible answer is one word: Intelligence.
We want the experience of mankind, the true history of the
race. We want the history of intellectual development, of the
growth of the ethical, of the idea of justice, of conscience, of
charity, of self-denial. We want to know the paths and roads that
have been traveled by the human mind.
These facts in general, these histories in outline, the
results reached, the conclusions formed, the principles evolved,
taken together, would form the best conceivable moral guide.
We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the
religions of the world. These religions are based on the
supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to
worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these
religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the
enemies of thought, of investigation, of mental honesty. They
destroy the manliness of man. They promise eternal rewards for
belief, for credulity, for what they call faith.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
18
WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE
This is not only absurd, but it is immoral.
These religions teach the slave virtues. They make inanimate
things holy, and falsehoods sacred. They create artificial crimes.
To eat meat on Friday, to enjoy yourself on Sunday, to eat on fast-
days, to be happy in Lent, to dispute a priest, to ask for
evidence, to deny a creed, to express your sincere thought, all
these acts are sins, crimes against some god, To give your honest
opinion about Jehovah, Mohammed or Christ, is far worse than to
maliciously slander your neighbor. To question or doubt miracles.
is far worse than to deny known facts. Only the obedient, the
credulous, the cringers, the kneelers, the meek, the unquestioning,
the true believers, are regarded as moral, as virtuous. It is not
enough to be honest, generous and useful; not enough to be governed
by evidence, by facts. In addition to this, you must believe. These
things are the foes of morality. They subvert all natural
conceptions of virtue.
All "inspired books," teaching that what the supernatural
commands is right, and right because commanded, and that what the
supernatural prohibits is wrong, and wrong because prohibited, are
absurdly unphilosophic.
And all "inspired books," teaching that only those who obey
the commands of the supernatural are, or can be, truly virtuous,
and that unquestioning faith will be rewarded with eternal joy, are
grossly immoral.
Again I say: Intelligence is the only moral guide.
**** ****
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
The Bank of Wisdom Inc. is a collection of the most thoughtful,
scholarly and factual books. These computer books are reprints of
suppressed books and will cover American and world history; the
Biographies and writings of famous persons, and especially of our
nations Founding Fathers. They will include philosophy and
religion. all these subjects, and more, will be made available to
the public in electronic form, easily copied and distributed, so
that America can again become what its Founders intended --
The Free Market-Place of Ideas.
The Bank of Wisdom is always looking for more of these old,
hidden, suppressed and forgotten books that contain needed facts
and information for today. If you have such books please contact
us, we need to give them back to America.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
19

Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink