The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1868-09-18

SPEECH OF
GEN. MOSES 3. WALKER
Delivered before the Grant Club, Find
: lay, Ohio. Friday Evening, Septem
Der 4, 1868.
The political topics of the day ar
being made SO familiar to the readin,
public that one who discusses then
!. must be exceedingly well versed il
history, and possess unusual abilities
to enable him to present anything hay
, ing the merit of novelty. But ther,
are old things which need to be brough
to light, and it is not to the interest O
the Republican party, whose cause
advocate, that these things should b,
quite forgotten. pray your indul
Igence then, in some "reminiscences O
1.-THE past. However distasteful they ma,
be to some of my audience, 1 should
do less than my duty on this occasion
were / to omit them. Much profit may
be derived by any people from a knowl
edge of their own history. In our
there are lessons written, of which 6
correct understanding ard careful con
sideration, should teach us to avoid the
mistakes, follies and crimes of the past
Speaking from Democratic stand.
point, with a thorough knowledge o.
the country, its history, its institutions
and its political parties, Stephen A.
Douglas declared in 1861, that in the
struggle then opening, there could be
but two parties-f,dtriots and traitors
The issues of 1861 are not settled,
and there have been no new political
organizations. The old ones have
undergone some change, by recruits
and .desertions. Organized under the
leadership of one of the most pro-
found politicalphilosophers of the age,
the Democratic party took its prin-
ciples from the teachings of Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison. 1t
was opposed to the Republican party
of 1900, planting itself upon a plat
form of principles, radically demo
cratic, almost agrarian. Its political
ethics were those of its great founder,
and such as found much favor with an
ultra democratic people. Opposed to
all -aristocracy, to all monopolies, to
all bigotry and intolerance, both in
church and state, it became almost
pre- eminently the popular and ruling
party. Mr.. Jefferson was opposed to
slavery, and like Washington, earnest
ly sought the means of eradicating it
from the country. But unfortunately
he favored the doctrine of State
Rights, approving Mr.. Madison's in
terpretation of the resolution OF the
Kentucky and Virginia Legislatures,
maintaining a right in the States to
decide the constitutionality of the
Federal States, to nullify such as they
should consider unconstitutional and
involving right to withdraw them
selves from the Federal Union; re-
garding the Constitution in the light
of compact, rather than the funda
mental law of consolidated govern
ment The Democratic party eagerly
embraced this doctrine, whilst in the |
progress of time they utterly failed to
maintain the original anti-slavery prin
ciples of their chief; but OH the 9th
er hand the party so apostatized from
the opinion of Mr.. Jefferson, rs to
make itself an apostle of Slavery,
pledged to the extension Of its geo
graphical boundaries, and defended it
upon political, even moral principles.
Many of the most able and conscien
tious members of the party, as it from
time to time yielded its support to
first one and then another of the
dogmas of slavery, abandoned it. In
the mean time the old Republican
party had passed away and in its stead
we had the Whig party. For thirty
years, under the leadership of the
great Commoner of Kentucky, it kept
pace with the Democratic party, in
compromising away the interests Of
the North, in trucking and pandering
to slavery, until finally large masses
of the northern people were seized
with a conviction of the overwhelm-
ing injustice of the demands from
time to time. made upon the country
by the slave power. Mr.. Clay had
not been in his grave four years until
the Wing party, utterly destroyed by
its compromises with slavery, was
superseded by the present Republi-
can party, formed and bound together
by the principle of slavery restriction,
which not only exasperated the South,
but In order to secure an undivided
southern support, drove the Demo
cratic party to resort, not only to the
most unstatesmanlike and unpatriOtic,
but unmanly concessions to slavery.
But in so doing, whilst it secured the
support and patronage OF the slave
power in the North, many ofits ablest,
purest and best members, turned their
backs upon the party and denounced
it as a whitened sepulcher, full of
rottenness and dead mems bones i
uniting themselves with the Republi-
can organization, adding new life and
energy to party which had already
secured among its members much of
the talent and energy, and as subse-
quent events have shown, almost al
monopoly of the patriotism of the
the country. The vilest threats of
treason and disunion ensued, the halls
of Congress resounded with the pes
tilent slang of traitors, and the oder
of disunion became a stencil in the
National Capitol. 1t would weary
my hearers for me to recapitulate
here an hundredth part of the treason
which was Illuminated by such men as
Slidell, Toombs, Butler, Keitt, Pres
ton S. Brooks, Henry A. Wise, Iver-
son and Brown, JEFF. Davis, Clay of
Alabama, Clingman of North Carroll
ma, Fletcher OF Virginia, and Yancey
of Alabama.
Take as specimens few paragraphs
for quartos: Mr.. Slidell said in 1856,
" If Fremont should be elected the
Union would be dissolved" Mr..
Toombs said, "That in such an event
the Union would be and ought to be
dissolved" Senator Butler, Of South
Carolina, said, "When Fremont is
elected we must rely upon, what we
have, good State governments. Every
Governor of the South should call his
Legislature together and have meas
ures of tho South dacidad rnon III