The Continental Monthly, Vol. 6, No. 6, December 1864

General Jackson was, in truth, the father and founder of the Democratic party. Prior to his first nomination in 1823, in the election of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, the parties were known as Federal and Republican. In the fall of 1823, I united with a few friends in calling, at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, the FIRST Democratic meeting, by which General Jackson was nominated as the Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I offered the resolutions in his favor adopted by that meeting, calling the Democratic State Convention of Pennsylvania which confirmed that nomination in March, 1824. I attended that Convention, as a delegate from Pittsburg, and wrote the address of the Convention to the Democracy of the State and of the Union on that momentous occasion. I supported General Jackson for the Presidency in 1823 (my first vote), 1824, 1828, and 1832, and uniformly adhered to the Democratic party until after the rebellion of 1861.

During the great nullification and secession question of South Carolina, on the first Monday of January, 1833, at Natchez, Mississippi, I made the opening speech, then published, against nullification and secession, in favor of "war," if necessary to maintain the Union—in favor of "coercion" to put down rebellion in any State. The Legislature of Mississippi indorsed that speech, and passed resolutions declaring nullification and secession to be treason, and, upon THAT ISSUE, I was elected by the Legislature to the Senate of the United States. If Mississippi, under the influence of Jefferson Davis, and other traitor leaders, has since that period abandoned those principles, she cannot expect me to follow her, and thereby surrender opinions which I have uniformly maintained and advocated throughout my life, but more especially from 1833 until the present period. Mississippi (whose prosperity I would restore by bringing her back to the Union) indorsed those opinions when she elected me to the Senate of the United States over an avowed and distinguished secessionist (George Poindexter), after a contest of unexampled violence, personal and political, extending from January, 1833, to January, 1836.

It was on that occasion that General Jackson wrote his celebrated letter in favor of my election and sustaining my political course. It was after the adoption of the secession ordinance by Carolina, that General Jackson sent our war vessels to Charleston to hold and blockade the harbor, and our troops, under the illustrious Scott, to maintain, by force, if necessary, the authority of the Federal Government over the forts commanding the city of Charleston. Let us suppose that the rebels had then shot down our flag, captured our forts, made war upon the Union, and proceeded to dissolve it by force—let us suppose that a committee from any convention had then dared to nominate General Jackson for the Presidency upon such a platform as that adopted at Chicago, proposing an armistice and cessation of hostilities until a National Convention could be assembled, accompanied by the declaration that the rebellion could not be crushed by war, who doubts what would have been the course of that devoted patriot? He would have stamped the disgraceful and treasonable resolutions under his feet, and indignantly scouted the traitors who offered them. And now this McClellan Convention at Chicago professes to represent the Democratic party. As Jefferson was the founder of the old Republican party, Jackson was the father of the Democratic party. Now, with perhaps one exception, is there a single member of that Convention (assuming the name of 'Democratic') that (like myself) supported General Jackson in 1823, 1824, 1828, and 1832, and uniformly adhered to the Democratic party until after the rebellion of 1861?

What right had that Convention to assume the name of Democracy, while trampling upon the advice of the founder of the party, and all its great and vital principles? How dare they offer an 'armistice' and 'the cessation of hostilities' to rebels in arms against their country, especially when the so-called rebel government had again and again declared that they would negotiate upon no terms, except the acknowledgment of their independence, and the definitive dissolution of the Union? But, above all, how dare they record the disgraceful and treasonable falsehood, that the war to suppress the rebellion had failed, and ask the freemen of America to indorse at the polls such a declaration?

And has, indeed, all the blood of patriots shed in defence of the Union in this war, been poured out in vain? Ye patriot soldiers! now in the field, say, are you unable or unwilling to suppress the rebellion? Say it not only in words, but answer the foul accusation by your votes in the approaching Presidential election.

The Chicago McClellan Convention says that the war is a failure, and that therefore there must be an armistice and a cessation of hostilities. Will not your answer at the polls be this: 'It is a foul and treasonable falsehood?'

And is this war for the Union indeed a failure? Let our many and well-fought battles upon the ocean and the land answer the question. Let a country nearly as large as half of Europe, taken from the rebels since the war commenced, respond. Let Shiloh, and Donelson, and Gettysburg and Vicksburg, and Port Hudson, and New Orleans, and the Mississippi from its source to its mouth, answer. Why, this wretched calumny had scarcely been uttered by the McClellan Convention, when Sherman, the great commander, and his army had washed out the accusation in the blood of the vanquished, and unfolded our banner at Atlanta, the grand military strategic centre of Georgia, never to be recalled. And while the shouts of the great victory in Georgia were still sounding in our ears, Oppequan responded to the thunders of Atlanta, and the heroic Sheridan, after a decided victory, was driving the rebel army from the valley of Virginia. Was Sherman's campaign from Memphis and Nashville to Chattanooga, and from Chattanooga to Atlanta, a failure? Why, that campaign is unsurpassed in history. Was Grant's Potomac advance a failure? What, the hero of the great campaign of the West, terminating with the capture of Vicksburg and its garrison, not know, or do his duty! Was the victory of the Wilderness a failure, or the destruction in successive battles of one third of Lee's army, together with the seizure of the great Weldon Railroad, or the repulse there of the Confederate attack—were these failures? Recollect, Grant was Lieutenant-General, subordinate only to the President and Secretary of War, in planning the whole campaign, and, while too much credit cannot be given to the heroic Sherman and noble Sheridan, and their gallant armies, yet, it must be remembered, that their great victories and strategic military movements are but a part of Grant's plan—concentrating the three armies of the Potomac, the Shenandoah, and the West, so as to seize and hold all the roads connecting with Richmond, and capture the Confederate army and government.

And now as to our navy. Were the gallant deeds of Admiral Porter at Vicksburg, on the Mississippi River, the Arkansas, and the Red River, failures? Were the destruction of the forts protecting New Orleans and the capture of that city by the illustrious Farragut failures? Were the capture or destruction by that gallant man, aided by General Granger, of the forts commanding the Bay of Mobile, together with the occupation of its harbor by our fleet—and the destruction there of the Confederate navy—were these failures? Were the capture of the forts and city of Pensacola, of all the Florida forts, and the fortifications commanding Savannah—the defeat of the Merrimac and Tennessee—the destruction of the Alabama—the capture of Port Royal, and of the forts which commanded it—were these failures? No; the war is not a failure. It is a glorious and trancendent success. Already the whole Southern and Southwestern coast is ours. The whole of the Mississippi is ours, with far more than a thousand miles of its course from Columbus to its mouth, and even to a considerable extent up the Mississippi and Missouri, which had been once in the hands of the enemy. Chesapeake Bay is ours, and all its tributaries, from the Potomac to the James River. The whole coast of North and South Carolina, of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, with vast portions of the interior, including many impregnable positions, is ours. Tennessee, one of the seceded States, is now wholly ours. Kentucky is loyal. Missouri is ours, and has abolished Slavery. Maryland is ours, and has, I believe, uprooted Slavery also. Our whole Territorial domain, greater in extent than one half of Europe (and about Slavery in which this contest began), is now wholly ours. Not a rebel flag floats within its limits. When before were such mighty conquests achieved within so short a period? Why, the conquests of Alexander, of Cæsar and Napoleon covered no such extent of territory. And, 'we take no steps backward.' Where our flag now is once unfolded in any part of rebeldom, there it continues to float, and will float forever. What are we to negotiate about? Is it as to giving up the Mississippi and its tributaries, together with New Orleans, Vicksburg, and Tennessee? Is West Virginia, which has been admitted as a new Free State, to be surrendered? Are Fortress Monroe and the Chesapeake to be abandoned? Is the rebel flag to float at Alexandria, and on the heights of Arlington; and are rebel cannon to be planted there, in sight of and to command the very capital of the Union? Are we to insult loyal Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware, by negotiating about them? Are we to give back Western to Eastern Virginia? Where is the line of division to be run, and what armies would be strong enough to maintain peace upon the border? What portion of the mighty Territories uniting us with the Pacific are to be surrendered? Are we to turn over to the cruel despotism of their bloody and relentless masters, the millions of loyal people of the South, to whom we have given the most sacred pledge of the protection of the Union? And, last of all, are the two millions of slaves, as Jefferson Davis complains, who have been emancipated by the constitutional war proclamation of President Lincoln, are they to be remanded to Slavery, including the thousands who have so gallantly fought in our defence? And as to Slavery, or what, if any, may be left of it, when the war is over, are we to abandon the unquestionable right to abolish it, as Mr. Lincoln and his friends propose, by a constitutional amendment? Is Jefferson Davis to come back again as Senator from Mississippi? Are the traitors Cobb and Thompson to take their places in the McClellan Cabinet? Is Toombs, of Georgia, (as he boasted) to call the roll of his slaves on the Boston Common? Slavery, we know, was the sole cause of the war. It was Slavery that fired the first gun at Sumter, and demanded to rule or ruin the country. It was in the name of Slavery that the South seceded; and it was to extend and perpetuate Slavery, as a blessed and divine institution, that they avowedly framed the Confederate constitution. In the debates of Congress of 1860-'61, in the proceedings of the Committee of 1833, in the acts of the Peace Congress, in the various secession ordinances, by the very terms of the Confederate constitution, Slavery was the sole cause of this war upon the Government. Slavery was and is our great enemy, and shall we not destroy it? Slavery was the sole cause of the war, and shall it not be eradicated? When the patient calls for a physician, he seeks for the source of the disease, so as not merely to alleviate present pain, but to remove the cause, and prevent relapses or successive attacks. If he deals only with palliatives, to assuage for a brief period the present suffering, when he can remove the cause, and restore the patient to permanent and perfect health, he is but a quack and an impostor.

The party supporting Mr. Lincoln is composed of men of all the old parties. Its candidate for the Presidency is from the North, and belonged to the late Republican party. Its candidate for the Vice Presidency, a brave, loyal, Union-loving man, is from the South, and belonged (like myself) to the old Democratic party. But the Baltimore Convention, in the spirit of true nationality and patriotism, discarded all old party names or issues. It acted only in the name of the Union, and as one great Union party, and asked all patriots, dismissing for the present all old party names or issues, to unite with it for the salvation of the Union.

My first objection, then, to the organization against Mr. Lincoln is, that it is a mere party organization, arrayed under an old party name, and marching under an old party banner. In the midst of a great contest like this, when all old party names and prejudices should be forgotten, and when Democrats and Republicans should be united as brethren in the one grand effort to suppress the rebellion, the Chicago McClellan Convention reopens old party strifes, renews old party issues, and, denouncing Republicans, assumes the name and professes to represent the Democratic party. It was the banner of the Union that was raised by the Convention at Baltimore, and the salvation of the Union, with its rescue from present and future perils, the suppression of the rebellion, with the removal of the cause, constituted the only issues presented by that Convention to the people of the loyal States of all parties.

It was far otherwise at Chicago. It was a mere assemblage of partisans, some for, and some against the Union, in the search of power and emoluments. It was the flag of the Union that was given to the breeze at Baltimore. It was the flag of a party that was unfolded at Chicago. 'For the Union' was written on the flag of the one—'For the Democratic party' was inscribed on the standard of the other. It was said that the Baltimore Convention has made the abolition of Slavery one of its issues; but, as well might it be objected that it had made the prosecution of the war, or the maintenance of the army or navy, part of its creed. The Emancipation Proclamation of the President had its whole constitutional force as a war measure to save the Union, and, as such, it was adopted by Mr. Lincoln as ex-officio 'commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States.' That it was, as a war measure, perfectly constitutional, I have never doubted, and so declared in an article published at the time in The Continental Magazine. It is the duty of all persons, not aliens, to unite with the President in suppressing a rebellion. Slaves, in the relation which they occupy to the National Government under the Federal Constitution, are 'persons.' As persons, they are thrice named in the Constitution, and by no other name whatever. Especially, under the clause providing for direct taxation, they are enumerated as persons, not valued as property. The term 'person' is used more frequently in the Constitution than any other, and it is applied expressly to slaves, and to the whole people of the United States, including the President and Vice President, who are designated therein as persons. This very question, whether slaves are persons or property under the Constitution, arose in the great case of Groves vs. Slaughter, when, in 1841 (with a single dissenting opinion, that of Judge Baldwin), after the fullest argument on both sides, it was unanimously decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that slaves, in the relation which they hold to the National Government under the Federal Constitution, are persons only, and not property. Were it otherwise, Massachusetts could not forbid the introduction of slaves from the South for sale there as merchandise; for Massachusetts could not prohibit the introduction of the cotton or any property of the South for sale as merchandise within her limits, for that would have been a prohibition of the exports from State to State, which is forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My own elaborate argument before the Court, as one of the counsel in that case, will be found in the appendix to the first edition of the 15th volume of Peters's Reports. As persons, the President has a right to call for the aid of all residing in the United States, except aliens, to suppress the rebellion. He has a right to call for the services of the loyal or rebel masters for such a purpose, as well as for the service of their slaves.

It cannot be denied, that the masters, whether rebel or loyal, may be called and even forced by conscription into the army to suppress the rebellion. Would it not then be strange if the master could exempt his slaves from similar services? The only right of the master recognized by the Constitution, is to the 'service or labor' of his slaves. But he has a right equally strong to his own service or labor; yet both must yield to the paramount right of the Government to the services of both or either to suppress the rebellion. There is not a single word in the Federal Constitution which, either by inference or express declaration, exempts slaves, more than any other persons, from the call of the Federal Government to aid in suppressing a rebellion. Such is the construction given, by the South to the so-called Confederate constitution, which is much more stringent than ours in that respect, for it recognizes slaves as property; yet, the rebel authorities, the rebel congress and government, force slaves, even by conscription, to perform military duty—to dig the trenches—to make the earthworks—to erect the barracks and arsenals—to help to make the cannon, small arms, and powder, and vessels of war—to construct the fortifications—to transport the provisions, munitions, and cannon for their armies, together with the tents and military equipage—to raise the food indispensable for the support of their military forces—and, of course, they would, if they dare, put arms in their hands to meet us on the battle field. It is clear, then, not as a confiscation of property (which is also constitutional under certain circumstances), but as persons, that we have a right to the service of the slaves as well as of their masters to suppress the rebellion. But it is only by emancipation (with compensation for loss of their services by loyal men) that the slaves can be called into our army, and used to suppress the rebellion. A call by the President for the slaves to serve in our armies, to risk their lives and shed their blood for the Union, accompanied by the declaration that they were still slaves, and, upon the termination of the war, such as survived would be restored to their masters, with whom their wives and children must still remain in bondage, would be an atrocious crime, as well as the climax of all absurdities. No; it is only by emancipation that the services of the slaves can or ought to be obtained for the suppression of the rebellion. The Emancipation Proclamation then of the President, with compensation to loyal masters, is most clearly constitutional during the continuance of the war, and as a war measure to suppress the rebellion and save the Union, and such must be the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, to which tribunal the President has properly submitted the final arbitrament of the constitutional question. It is true, when the rebellion is crushed, the President can issue no new emancipation proclamation. But neither can he then recall or modify the one already issued; and if he had the power to recall the proclamation, it would be an act of perfidy unparalleled in the history of the world. The nation would be so utterly disgraced by such bad faith as would be involved in the revocation of the Emancipation Proclamation, as to earn the contempt of all honest and honorable men, and the loss of sympathy of the industrial classes and working men of Europe, whose rulers would then no longer fear to recognize or aid the South. It was the magnificent uprising of the working classes of England in favor of the Union, that alone saved both countries from a bloody and disastrous war.

The Emancipation Proclamation being, as we have seen, clearly constitutional, as a war measure, with a view to save the Union, was it, as such, wise and expedient? We have seen that the rebel South, even by conscription, when necessary, used slaves for military purposes, and those not used directly in that way are required to raise breadstuff's and provisions (instead of cotton), to supply the Confederate army. Indeed the debates of Congress for many years past, will show that the South boasted, not vainly, of their great military strength, because they declared that, while the slaves would be used in raising provisions to supply their forces, the whole white population capable of bearing arms could then be called into the field. This constituted, as they declared, their great military strength. And is it not then a most important war measure, to deprive them of that all-powerful and efficient weapon: which, we have seen, can only be done by emancipation? Now, let us suppose that while we refuse the use of the colored race, whether bond or free, in aid of the war, they are used for that purpose by the South, what would be the result? By the census of 1860, the whole population of the United States was 31,445,080, of which there were white, 26,975,575; free colored, 487,996; slaves, 3,953,760; total, of colored, 4,441,756, of which there were in the seceded States 3,653,110, and in the loyal States, 788,446. Add the whites in the seceded States, 5,449,463, would thus make the whole population of those States, by the census of 1860, 9,102,573. In the loyal States, the whole population was 22,342,507; of which 21,553,861 were white, and 788,646 colored. Now then, if the colored race, as we have seen, in the seceding States, are used for war purposes by them and not by us, the relative number of opposing forces would be as follows: Loyal States, 21,553,861; seceded States, 9,102,573; difference in favor of the Loyal States, 12,451,288. Now, to begin the process, add to the whites in the Loyal States the free colored, and the total number is 22,342,507; seceded States, 9,102,573; difference in favor of the Loyal States, 13,239,934. Continuing the process, if we deduct by the emancipation policy the whole colored population of the seceded States, the result would be, Loyal States, 22,342,507; seceded States, 5,449,463. But if, concluding the process, by the emancipation policy we not only deduct the colored race from the aid of the South, but add it in aid of the Loyal States, the result would be, Loyal States, 25,995,617; seceded States, 5,449,463; difference in favor of Loyal States, 20,456,154. Thus the policy opposed to emancipation and to the use of the colored race by us in the war, mates the difference in our favor as against the South only 12,451,288, whereas the difference in our favor by the emancipation policy of the President is 20,546,154. Deduct from this the above 12,451,288; final difference, 8,094,866. Thus we see that, by the President's policy, there is, in effect, a gain to the Loyal States equivalent to more than eight millions of people, more than 200,000 of whom are already soldiers in the Union army, all of whom must be disbanded if Mr. Lincoln's policy was erroneous. Will any say that a policy which makes a difference in the relative forces of the two contending parties of more than eight millions of people in favor of the North, and which has already increased our army 200,000, is not a most important war measure, aiding us to suppress the rebellion and save the Government? and, therefore, it is a policy eminently calculated to preserve and perpetuate the Union. Indeed, it is this measure which renders the maintenance of the Union certain, and, without it, the Union is subjected to great peril.

As, then, the emancipation policy of the President is not only wise, beneficent, and constitutional, but renders certain the preservation of the Union, while that of his opponents subjects it to imminent peril, I go for the reëlection of Mr. Lincoln. I go for him as a Union man, and because his emancipation policy will certainly save the Union; and I go against his opponent, because, however loyal he may be, and however sincere his desire to save the Union, practically he is a disunionist, because, independent of the Chicago McClellan platform, his anti-emancipation and anti-negro policy subjects the Union to imminent peril. Now, with me, in this, as in all preceding elections, the preservation and perpetuation of the Union constituted the great transcendent question, involving the liberty of our country and mankind, and I can give no vote which subjects it to the slightest peril. Save the Union, and all else will be added in time (including the ultimate downfall of Slavery, which I predicted and advocated in January, 1844), has been the doctrine of my life. To that doctrine I still adhere, but support the President's emancipation policy now, because it is the most efficient, if not the only means of saving and perpetuating the Union. I opposed emancipation when it was unconstitutional as a peace measure, and because I knew it would cause civil war, invite foreign intervention, and endanger the Union. I support emancipation now, because it is constitutional as a war measure, greatly diminishes the danger of foreign intervention, and insures the maintenance and perpetuity of the Union. I supported Judge Douglas and opposed the election of Mr. Lincoln in 1860, because I believed it would imperil the Union. While always denying that his election would justify disunion, I feared that the rebellion would be the result. In voting against Mr. Lincoln in 1860, I did so to save the Union from peril. In voting for him now, it is to suppress the rebellion and maintain the Union. It is not for Mr. Lincoln as a man (however worthy he may be), that I now vote—I vote for principles—I vote for the Union—and in supporting him, I vote for the best, if not the only means to maintain and perpetuate the Union.