The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1872-09-24
. n II Q III
SENATOR THURMAN
AT TYFFIN, OHIO, SEPT. {

I-LlUeral heDuOiltan SpeaheTS nave al
dressed Republicans, and given sati:
factory reasons why they should vot
for Greeley and Brown. I, a life lon
Democrat, propose to speak to-day t.
Democrats, and give reasons, satisfac
tory to myself, why they should vot
for the same candidates
Without stopping to inquire into tn
merits or dement's of the candidates 70
the Vice Presidency, / have first to oh
serve that our schoice for President i
Elimited between two .men-Grant ant
Greeley. No other man has The leas
chance of obtaining single electora
vote We must, therefore, vote for on
of these two, or throw our votes away
And here I beg leave to remark, tina
this posture of affairs was not of m,
seeking. preferred straight Demo
cratic ticket and square fight. But
was overruled-orerruled not by poll
ticians for most of them thought as
did, but by the people. 1t is simpl
folly to deny the fact that the nomina
ton of Greeley at Baltimore was tn
will of large majority of the Demo
cratic party Upon no other hypothe
sis can that unanimous nomination b
accounted for. The party believed
whether enormously or not,that Dem
ocrat could not he elected. And they
further believed that the election o
Greeley would be preferable, to the re
election of Grant In this latter opin
ion l fully concur, and it is to give tllt
reasons of my concurrence that | speal
| to you to-day - -'i'--.'
The first question that presents itsel
for consideration is, Can we, withou
an abandonment of principle, vote 70
Greeley2G . IF we can not, we ought not
to vote for him. But wherein is thert
any such abandonment of principle P
The only answer to this question that
have heard, is, that Greeley has always
opposed the Democratic party, and ha:
said many hard and unjust thing:
against it. The fact is hndeniable, ant
if our votes for him would be ar in
dorsement of his past opinions which
we have opposed, or an acknowledg
ment of the truth of his censures, we
would be liable to reproach and con
tempt should we give him our support
But our voting for him will imply nc
such Endorsement, no such acknowl
edgment As practicable, sensible an6
patriotic men it is our duty to look al
the present and future and base our &C.
tion, not upon the dead issues or utter
ances of the past, but upon the living
issues of the day What is past is be
yond recall Whether he was right OF
we were right on issues that have beer
finally settled, is not the question now
What we are now to determine, is how
can we best serve our country? BY
.eleoting Greeley or by throwing oul
votes away and suffering Grant to b'
re elected? Could we elect whom w
please, we would take neither of them
But we can not do tnat, and being com
PEELED to choose between the two, there
is no abandonment of principle in vo
ting for him whose election. we believe
would he more advantageous to the Re
public than the re election Of the other
When our Radical friends tauntingly
saw: 'sHow can you support Greeley,
life, long opponent and bitter reviler o
the Democracy7' how easy would it b'
to rstort. and ask: ""How could you
friend Radical, support Grant, life
long Democrat, in 1868, and advocate
his reelection now? How can you ap
plaud Boutwell,, his Secretary of th'
Treasury, and Williams, his Attorney
General, both original Democrats P
How is it that more than one fourth o
the Senate of the United States is com
posed of original Democrats elected by
Radical votes? How is it that yol
Radicals made Tod and Brough Gov
ernors of OHIO? men who had beer
Democrats all their lives, and who ha(
said quite as hard things Of you al
Greeley ever said of us2 You have
shown that you can without difficult,
forget or forgive the past, why then're
proach us2
But let US look little into the .recort
of the past and see whether it contains
any insuperable bar to our support o
Greeley He was an Abolitionist an(
we were not But, slavery has beer
forever abolished. and so there is al
end Of that question. He was and is
Protectionist and we are not. But ",
have his assurance that he will not seel
to thwart the will of the people on thi
subject, and no one doubts the sincerit,
| of his promise He advocated tn
adoption of the Thirteenth Article o
Amendment to the Constitution, abol
ishing slavery We made no opposi
ton to its adoption. Indeed, withou
| it, slavery would have been abolishtt
by the States themselves. He advoca
ted the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
| Amendments, and we opposed them,no
because we were hostile to everything
they contained, but because there wer
provisions in them that, to say the least
were. questionable; and we would no
sanction the mode by which their adop
|tion was sought to be accomplished
But they have been adopted, and ar
recognized as parts of the Constitution
by every department of the Govern
ment. Every lawyer knows that nj
Court will entertain question as tt
/ their validity Indeed, they have beel
solemnly recognized as valid by tn
Supreme Court of the United States
So there is no longer any question a
to them, except what Interpretation,
shall be given to them. And, as to that
l defy any man to interpret them NOR
viciously than they have been interpre
ted by Grant and his Radical suppor
tiers in Congress. Finally, there is tn
Reconstruction. qaestion-so ealled--i
reference to- which Greeley stood o
one side and we on the other. But tn
Reconstruction laws have been fully ex
ecuted Every State that Joined tn
Confederacy has been reconstructed un
der them and nobody thinks of over
turning the State Governments thu
constituted. So that question is finsll,
settled. .f-l ..'4 .-.zs.,ri .f,.si
You thus see, my friends, how com
pletely dead are the chief past.-issue
npon which We and Greeley have differ