Fred. Douglass.
His Great Speech Yesterday.
His Political Views Plainly Expressed.
A Splendid Campaign Document.
Hancock's "Statesmanship" Portrayed.
Why all Voters should support Garfield.
Read and Circulate.

The speech of Hon. Frederick Douglass, at the Emancipation celebration yesterday, will be found below. It deals first on historical matter pertaining to the processes of emancipation, and then proceeds to fully touch upon political matters. It plainly shows why Garfield and not Hancock should be elected. It is a stalwart document throughout, and shows plainly that this gray-haired and venerated statesman and patriot has lost none of his youthful vigor, or parted with none of his sturdy Republican views. We commend its perusal to our readers, and especially to all colored voters.

Speech of Frederick Douglass.

Mr. President and Friends:-- I thank you for this cordial greeting. I hear in it something like the thrilling notes of a welcome home after a long absence. More years of my life and labors have been put into this State than in any other State in the Union. Anywhere within a hundred miles of the goodly city of Rochester, I feel at home. Within that circumference, for enlightenment, liberality and civilization, the people have no superiors in this country or any other.

Allow me to thank you, also, for your generous words of sympathy and approval. In respect to this important support to a public man, I have been unusually fortunate. My forty year's work in the cause of the oppressed and enslaved has been well observed, well appreciated and well rewarded. All classes and colors, at home and abroad, have in this way held up my hands. Looking back to those long years of

2

toil and conflicts, during which I have had blows to take as well as
blows to give, and have sometimes received wounds and bruises, both in
body and mind, my only regret is that I have done so little to lift up
and strengthen my long enslaved and still oppressed people.

I make these remarks, personal to myself, because I am standing
mainly before a new generation. Most of the men with whom I labored
five and thirty years ago have passed away. There are but few left
to tell the story of the early days of anti-slavery. Scarcely any of
the colored men who advocated the cause thirty years ago are now on the
stage of active life, and I begin to feel lonely. But while I have
the sympathy and approval of men and women like those before me, I
pledge you my latest breath in behalf of justice, liberty and equality
of all men.

The day we celebrate is pre-eminently the colored man's day. The
great event which has distinguished it for all time, from all other
days of the year, has justly claimed the thoughtful attention and study
of statesmen, scholars and social reformers throughout the world.

To the colored people of this country, however, so recently under
the yoke of bondage, this grand event speaks to feeling as well as to
thought. It stirs the heart and fills the soul with warm and grateful
sentiments.

In the history of our struggle with American slavery, West India
emancipation played an important part. It was the first bright star
in a very dark, stormy and threatening sky; a smile from the inner
folds of a frowning Providence. It brought to us the first ray of
hope of the possibility of freedom to our race, in this and in all oth-
er countries.

Whoever else may forget or slight its claims, it will always be
held memorable and glorious by the colored people of the United States,
as well as by the colored people of the West Indies. Though familiar to

5

something in the future, considering less for yourselves that your
children may have a start in life when you are gone.

With money and property comes knowledge and power. What we call
money is only stored labor. A poverty stricken class will be an igno-
rant and despised class-- and no amount of sentiment can make it other-
wise. This part of our destiny is in our own hands. Every dollar you
lay up represents one day's independence, one day of rest and security
in the future. If the time shall ever come when we shall possess
among the colored people of the United States, a class of men noted for
enterprise, industry, economy and success, we shall no longer have any
trouble in the matter of civil and political rights. The battle
against popular prejudices will have been fought and won, and in common
with all other races and colors we shall have an equal chance in the
race of life.

But I cannot dwell upon topics of this nature any longer. While
this is not a political gathering, it is not improper on this free oc-
casion, to call attention to the fact, that we are now fairly within
the rapid currents of a political canvass of vast and commanding impor-
tance to the whole country and of special and pressing interest to us
as a party of an oppressed and proscribed people.

On the 2d of November next a President and a vice-President of the
United States are to be chosen. The candidates for the high offices
are already in the field. The National Republican Convention held in
Chicago, nominated and commended James A. Garfield of Ohio, and Chester
A. Arthur, of New York for these high offices. The first for Presi-
dent and the second for Vice-President.

On the other hand, the Democratic party meeting at Cincinnati, a
few weeks later, nominated for the same offices, Gen. Hancock and Mr.
English.

As these two parties mainly divide the votes of the whole country,

6

the alternative now before us is James A. Garfield, the Republican, or
Winfield Scott Hancock, the Democrat.

Both parties are calling upon us in common with all other citizens,
for our voice, our work and our vote for their respective candidates.

What answer shall we make, what answer should we make, to these
two political parties? Shall we say James A. Garfield of Ohio, or
Winfield Scott Hancock of Pennsylvania? Shall it be the National Re-
publican party, or the sectional Democratic party? Where shall we go?

Before answering this question, allow me a word in respect to the
nature of the canvass. To my mind it is not so much a canvass of the
merits of candidates as a canvass of the merits of parties. It is not
so much who or what is Garfield or Hancock, but what is the character,
composition, tendencies, principles, end and aims of the respective
parties by which they have been brought to the front and by which they
are commanded and supported. In other words, which of the two great
parties shall dictate the policy and administer the National Government
during the four years succeeding the 4th of the next March?

Experience has demonstrated that this is not a Government of per-
sons, but of parties; that ours is not an aristocracy, but a Republic.
There is in it one man power, but it is a power qualified by a written
constitution, by political parties, and by the declared and settled
judgment of the American people.

If at any time a President of the United States should take it in-
to his head, that he is the State, that he is wise enough and strong
enough to carry on this Government without the support and co-operation
of a party, or that he can make or unmake parties at his pleasure, he
will find himself in deep water and in a sinking condition.

All who have tried the experiment have miserably failed. John
Tyler tried it, and failed, Andrew Johnson tried it and failed, and no
man will try it hereafter and succeed. Parties are not made but grow.

8

that sought to overthrow it, Hancock gains nothing over Garfield in the
comparison. Both men are entitled to the respect and gratitude of the
American people for the part they took in that supreme crisis in our
history. It is hard for men to be just. Hard for an Englishman to
be just to an Irishman, hard for an Irishman to be just to an English-
man, for a Christian to be just to a Jew, a white man to a Chinaman, or
a Democrat to be just to a Republican,-- but I propose to be just to
this loyal, fighting Democrat, at least. If either has the better of
the other in the comparison thus far, the palm must be awarded to James
A. Garfield.

Hancock was under special obligations of honor and duty to go into
that war. He had been educated and trained at the public expense for
that very contingency. That he did not meanly, traitorously and cow-
ardly skulk away or scamper away to the enemy, as many of his Democratic
brethren did, is creditable alike to his head and heart. But neither
the act nor the motive places this man one hair's breadth above Gar-
field. A West Point graduate, a military man by profession, in search
of reputation at the cannon's mouth, must have felt it a small sacri-
fice and very strong temptation to take a hand in the war to suppress
rebellion.

On the other hand, there were special reasons why Garfield should
hesitate, and even decline the fiery ordeal. He was a man of peace
by profession, taste and inclination. He was devoted to art and sci-
ence, but not to the art and science of war. For him the tented field
had no attraction, and the blast of the bugle no music. Now, for such
a man, uncoerced by any special obligation, to drop all, at the first
cry of danger and distress of his country, and bare his breast to the
storm of war, should give him a higher place in our respect and esteem
than would be due to the educated, trained and necessarily ambitious
warrior.

When Garfield went to the war it was not because he was, in legal

13

Certainly to vote intelligently we must know something of the character, composition and tendencies of the parties that ask our votes. When we take passage on a ship we should know to what port she is bound and whether she is sea-worthy. We have no business to fool away our time or to fling away our lives.

We are told to get wisdom, get knowledge, get understanding. How shall we get all these in respect to our political parties? I answer; just as we get all other knowledge, not by shutting our eyes and stopping our ears, or stopping our intellect; not in a blind trust in the professions of interested partisans. It is surprising what lies will be told by men in politics; by men who would scorn to lie and cheat in other walks of life. Our duty here is plain. We must search the very heart and history of the two great political parties, and then choose between them. We must not expect to find absolute perfection in either, for they are composed of men; but when we find one that is nearly right, one that is better than any other, we should fasten to it, and go for it with all our might.

Let me first call the attention to the characters, compositions, principles and aims as revealed in the Democratic party. In dealing with this party, I find no place for soft speech, or delicate compliments, or patronizing disclosures. It is a rough and tough old party, hoary with years and gory with crime. To deal with it honestly we should put away the elegant circumlocutions of the drawing-room and parlor, and talk as men talk under the shed of a stone cutter or in a blacksmith shop white hammering red hot steel.

It is shocking to hear men talk of honest Democrats. Talk about there being as good men in one party as in the other, talk as if they would gladly keep an open door between one party and another, so that they may easily glide from one to the other, as interest or inclination should dictate-- men like our old friend Forney-- who goes for Hancock therefore without a why or a wherefore.

16

long before the election, organized and armed itself for the bloody contest.

The Democratic party being then in power, holding in its hands both the purse and the sword of the nation, not only did nothing to check this frightful and devilish purpose, but did all it could to cripple the nation and strengthen its enemies. Jeff Davis was busy in the Senate and Floyd in the war office, the one by speech and the other by acts-- worked in a common cause of treason, while the Democratic President sat trembling in the Presidential chair, telling us that there was no power in the Constitution to coerce a State.

Oh, Fellow Citizens! Those were terrible times and we do well to remember them, and to remember what followed. I need not tell you that the bloody threat of the Democratic party was literally carried out. The contingency arose, the good and great Abraham Lincoln was elected, the Loyal nation refused to confide the government to the Democratic party, and the Democratic party did precisely as it said it would. It sundered the Union at the centre, confronted the sections with hostile armies, murdered a half a million of men, filled the land with widows and orphans, and piled up a debt against the nation heavier than a mountain of gold.

No wonder that the Democratic party now covers its bleared eyes with its hands; no wonder that it shrinks from its blood-stained path; no wonder that the nation remembers and shudders, for where under the whole heavens was there ever such a crime committed and its perpetrators treated with such amazing leniency?

The blood of patriots, the tears of woe-smitten widows and orphans, cry from the ground, but not for vengeance; they only implore us to swear, and to faithfully perform our oath, that with the help of God no representative of the Democratic party, under what guise soever he may come, shall ever sit again in the Presidential chair and dictate the policy and shape the destiny of this great nation.

17

But, fellow citizens, I will, if you please, continue the story of the Democratic party. While it was vigorously carrying on the war at the South, it was not idle at the North. While our recruiting sergeants were marching through our streets, with drum and fife, banner and badge, from morning till night, foot-sore and weary, calling for men to fill up the gaps made by rebel bullets in the loyal army, this party was fomenting riot and bloodshed against the draft here at the North-- creating a reign of terror in New York and doing all it could to embarrass the government and dishearten its friends. Had the doors of all the prisons in the land been opened, and all the thieves, thugs and murderer turned loose to prey upon the country, the evil would have been far less than that inflicted by the Democratic party.

And now where is the evidence that this party has repented?
Where is the proof that its character has changed for the better? Is
it to be found in the fact, that when the war was over, it opposed with
might and main all the measures of the government to secure, not indem-
nity for the past but security for the future? Is it to be found in
the fact that it opposed the abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement
of the freedmen, and the maintenance of the public credit by resumption
and the payment of the national debt? Is it to be found in its refu-
sal to pay Deputy Marshals for doing their duty in the enforcement of
the laws plainly written in the statute book of the nation? Is it to
be found in the fact that they find in the Solid South, made solid by
lawless violence and murder, hope for the election of Hancock? Is it
to be found in the fact that as soon as they got possession of the Sen-
ate and House of Representatives, it promptly turned out all the minor
officers of those bodies and put rebels in their places? These and a
hundred other facts show that we have to-day the same old party to
fight that confronted us during the war and nothing else.

Of the Republican party I need not speak. It is the same as du-
ring and before the war, the same enlightened, loyal, liberal, and

18

progressive party that it was. It is the party of Lincoln, Grant, Wade, Seward and Sumner, the party to which we are to-day indebted for the salvation of the country, and to-day it is well represented in its character and composition by James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur.

Now, fellow citizens, I have done. I leave you to decide as to which of these parties you will have to shape the policy and control the destiny of this country during the next four years. The people of no State in the Union have the power so largely to decide this question as the people of the State of New York, and with you will be the largest responsibility.

I have no charge to give to the colored voters of this state. You are fifteen thousand in number, and your vote may turn the scale one way or the other, and say whether this country shall be ruled by a party of liberal ideas, by justice and fair play, or by a party distinguished by its devotion to slavery, rebellion and bitter prejudice against the race to which you belong. Each colored voter of this State should say in scriptural phrase, "may my hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if ever I raise my voice or give my vote, for the nominees of the Democratic party."