The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 09 (of 12): Dresden Edition—PoliticalIngersoll, Robert Green
History
The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 09 (of 12): Dresden Edition—Political
Ingersoll, Robert Green
Free thought
And let me implore all the young men here not to join that party. Do not
give new blood to that institution. The Democratic party has a yellow
passport. On one side it says "dangerous." They imagine they have not
changed, and that is because they have not intellectual growth. That
party was once the enemy of my country, was once the enemy of our flag,
and more than that, it was once the enemy of human liberty, and that
party to-night is not willing that the citizens of the Republic should
exercise all their rights irrespective of their color. And allow me to
say right here that I am opposed to that party.
We have not only to choose between parties, but to choose between
candidates. The Democracy have put forward as the bearers of their
standard General Hancock and William H. English. The Democrats have at
last nominated a Union soldier. They nominated George B. McClellan once,
because he failed to whip the South; they nominated Mr. Greeley, when
they despised him, and now they have nominated General Hancock. Do they
think the South loves him? At Gettysburg they say he fought against
them, and that is one great reason why he should be President--that he
shot rebels. Do the men that fought at Gettysburg still believe in
State Sovereignty? Wade Hampton says, "We must vote as Lee and Jackson
fought." They fought for State Sovereignty. Has the South changed?
Hancock went to kill them then; they want to vote for him now. Who
has changed? [A voice: "Hancock."] I think so. They are using him as a
figure-head. They have dressed him in the noble blue, with the patriotic
coat and Union buttons, and they do not like him any better than they
did at Gettysburg. It would be just as consistent for the Republicans
to have nominated Wade Hampton. Did General Hancock believe in State
Sovereignty when he was at Gettysburg? If he did, he was a murderer, and
not a Union soldier--he was killing men he believed to be in the right,
and a man cannot fight unless his conscience approves of what his sword
does, and if he was honest at that time, he did not believe in State
Sovereignty, and it seems to me he would hate to have the men who tried
to destroy this Government cheering him. All the glory he ever got was
in the service of the Republican party, and if he does not look out
he will lose it all in the service of the Democratic party. He had
a conversation with General Grant. It was a time when he had
been appointed at the head of the Department of the Gulf. In that
conversation he stated to General Grant that he was opposed to "nigger
domination." Grant said to him, "We must obey the laws of Congress.
We are soldiers." And that meant, the military is not above the civil
authority. And I tell you to-night, that the army and the navy are the
right and left hands of the civil power. Grant said to him: "Three or
four million ex-slaves, without property and without education, cannot
dominate over thirty or forty millions of white people, with education
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account