implication expressed and conveyed his belief,
were ever uttered. I utterly and totally deny
that in any of the armies of tine United States
in any single instance, were the words which
the gentleman has seen in the papers ever
uttered. I deny that the expressions he
quoted were ever seen in a print, of which
either the editors or the printers were loyal
men.
Fortunately the record against the gentle-
man is on the page of history, that there were
found in the Ohio regiments, in some compa-
nies one, in others two, in others five men,
that in spite of the martial law of which he
has spoken, did venture to vote for a man
who at. the hands of this country has not even
the last right of a dying foe, the right of
burial—the traitor Vallandingham Martial
law, in which soldiers of the United States
could be allowed to vote for a thing so con-
temptible that God has not given in any hu-
man language as yet formed, a term of con-
tempt strong enough to utter of him—a man
destitute of all that makes a man—a man
whom even the omnipotent God having
formed must have been ashamed of, when he
looked upon him, and remembered that it was
the work of his creative hand?
I am tired of hearing arguments advanced
on high grounds when I know the motive to
be the killing of measures for fear the votes
of the loyal soldiers of the United States
would carry them and no others. The gentleman,
as I believe, argues against the soldiers
voting, because he knows that every soldier
from Maryland will vote for the prosecution
of this war, for sustaining the government of
this country, and for sustaining the principles
of republican liberty of which the gentleman
professes to be fond. He opposes every meas-
ure, and votes against every measure proposed
here, by which men in arms against the gov-
ernment of this country, and against the State
of .Maryland shall be prevented from voting
His vote is upon the journal, objecting that an
oath should be applied to the citizens of Ma-
ryland who have been in arms against their
State and against the general government.
Objecting to that, he yet upon the high ground
of the love of the republican institutions of
the government handed down to us by our
fathers, objects to the soldiers in the armies of
the United States voting.
I guarantee that there would not have been
found one soldier in the army of the United
States voting against the application of this
oath lo any rebel in arms. I guarantee that
you would not find one single man who loved
the government that his fathers handed down
better than aught else, that would have voted
against the proposition to apply this oath. Let
us test opinions and sentiments by the fact
and by the record. Let us give just that
weight to the love of republican institutions
and love of this government which their ac-
tions have proved individuals to feel. Voting |
against every resolution of condemnation
against traitors, against thieves and murder-
ers that has been introduced into this conven-
tion, the gentleman comes to us to-day with
his love of republican institutions and the
government of our fathers! Voting against
every instinct of freedom) he comes and tells
us of being animated by the same spirit that
animated the men of 17761 Coining to us
with statements from newspapers, the names
of which newspapers he does not even remem-
ber, and he knows not whether they were
loyal or disloyal 1
Does the gentleman suppose that there is
any parallel between the armies of France
and the armies of Maryland? Does the gen-
tleman know that these men in the armies of
the United States have gladly gone preferring
death? Does he know that the armies of
France have never gladly gone, but have been
taken by a ruthless conscription? As a
historic fact I deny that the people of France
were in the slightest degree influenced by the
vote of the army; and I declare that the gen-
tleman has made an unwarrantable assump-
tion of which he cannot bring any proof. De-
nial is better than assertion, in that the burden
of proof lies upon the asserted.
Despotism in this country? From what the
gentleman has said, it seems that he believes
the support of the principles of our govern-
ment to be despotism, I have heard the gentleman
argue here bravely that we are now
under the tyranny of the federal government.
Haply that is what be meant by putting our
government under a tyranny. Haply he
meant that a republican President would be
the tyranny that would be effected. Haply
he meant that the destruction of shivery would
be the wrong under which the State of Mary-
land would groan. Haply the despotism he
meant, that was so to be feared, was the
triumph of freedom throughout the land.
if that be so, and if I have rightly interpreted
the meaning of the gentlemen, I think
that he is wise; for I think the vote of the
armies of the republic will be for freedom,
will be for a President that shall carry out
those instincts of freedom, and will not be for
tire nominee of the Chicago convention. 1
doubt me the gentleman thinks that if aught
else than the nominee of the Chicago conven-
tion be put in the presidential chair, the
United States will groan under a tyranny. If
that he the interpretation of his words, I am
happy to say that I think a despotism so
strong will rule this land that the nominee of
the Chicago convention will never have half a
chance.
Why not call things by their right mime?
Why not put it fairly and squarely upon the
true ground? If it is an instinct of freedom
and a desire for republican institutions, how
can hi' go with the man who will take the
flag of our country from its present altitude
of victory, and lower it before the oppressor , |
