Part 12

But where else shall we look for them? Are they found on the Indian frontier? Let the cry of massacre and blood from that distant region answer. Are they in reform of the civil service? But here the initial point is the limitation of the President to one term, so that he may be placed above temptation; yet this he opposes. Evidently he is no true reformer. Are these laurels found in the administration of the Departments? Let the discreditable sale of arms to France in violation of neutral duties and of municipal statute be the answer; and let the custom-houses of New York and New Orleans, with their tales of favoritism and of nepotism, and with their prostitution as agencies, mercenary and political, echo back the answer; while senatorial committees, organized contrary to a cardinal principle of Parliamentary Law as a cover to these scandals, testify also. And again, let the War Department recall the disappearance of important archives bearing on an important event of the war, so that empty boxes remain like a coffin without a corpse. Where, then, are the laurels? At last I find them, fresh and brilliant, in the harmony which the President has preserved among Republicans. Harmony, do I say? This should have been his congenial task; nor would any aid or homage of mine have been wanting. But instead he has organized discord, operating through a succession of rings, and for laurels we find only weeds and thistles.

But I hear that he is successful in the States once in rebellion. Strange that this should be said while we are harrowed by the reports of Ku-Klux outrages. Here, as in paying the national debt, Congress has been the effective power. Even the last extraordinary measure became necessary, in my judgment, to supplement his little efficiency. Had the President put into the protection of the colored people at the South half the effort and earnest will with which he maintained his San Domingo contrivance, the murderous Ku-Klux would have been driven from the field and peace assured. Nor has he ever exhibited to the colored people any true sympathy. His conduct to Frederick Douglass on his return from San Domingo is an illustration; and so also was his answer to the committee of colored fellow-citizens seeking his countenance for the pending measure of Civil Rights. Some thought him indifferent; others found him insulting. Then came his recent letter to the great meeting at Washington, May 9, 1872, called to assert these rights, where he could say nothing more than this: “I beg to assure you, however, that I sympathize most cordially in any effort to secure for all our people, of whatever race, nativity, or color, _the exercise of those rights to which every citizen should be entitled_.”[171] Of course everybody is in favor of “the rights to which every citizen should be entitled.” But what are these rights? And this meaningless juggle of words, entirely worthy of the days of Slavery, is all that is vouchsafed by a Republican President for the equal rights of his colored fellow-citizens.

I dismiss the apologies with the conclusion, that in the matters to which they invite attention his Presidency is an enormous failure.

THE PRESIDENT AS CANDIDATE.

Looking at his daily life as it becomes known through the press or conversation, his chief employment seems the dispensation of patronage, unless society is an employment. For this he is visited daily by Senators and Representatives bringing distant constituents. The Executive Mansion has become that famous “Treasury trough” described so well by an early Congressional orator:--

“Such running, such jostling, such wriggling, such clambering over one another’s backs, such squealing, because the tub is so narrow and the company is so crowded.”[172]

To sit behind is the Presidential occupation, watching and feeding the animals. If this were an amusement only, it might be pardoned; but it must be seen in a more serious light. Some nations are governed by the sword,--in other words, by central force commanding obedience. Our President governs by offices,--in other words, by the appointing power, being a central force by which he coerces obedience to his personal will. Let a Senator or Representative hesitate in the support of his autocracy, or doubt if he merits a second term, and forthwith some distant consul or postmaster, appointed by his influence, begins to tremble. The “Head Centre” makes himself felt to the most distant circumference. Can such tyranny, where the military spirit of our President finds a congenial field, be permitted to endure?

In adopting him as a candidate for reëlection we undertake to vindicate his Presidency, and adopt in all things the insulting, incapable, aide-de-campish dictatorship which he has inaugurated. Presenting his name, we vouch for his fitness, not only in original nature, but in experience of civil life, in aptitude for civil duties, in knowledge of republican institutions, and elevation of purpose; and we must be ready to defend openly what he has openly done. Can Republicans honestly do this thing? Let it be said that he is not only the greatest nepotist among Presidents, but greater than all others together, and what Republican can reply? Let it be said that he is not only the greatest gift-taker among Presidents, but the only one who repaid his patrons at the public expense, and what Republican can reply? Let it be said that he has openly violated the Constitution and International Law, in the prosecution of a wretched contrivance against the peace of San Domingo, and what Republican can reply? Let it be said, that, wielding the power of the Great Republic, he has insulted the Black Republic with a menace of war, involving indignity to the African Race, and what Republican can reply? Let it be said that he has set up Presidential pretensions without number, constituting an undoubted Cæsarism or personal government, and what Republican can reply? And let it be added, that, unconscious of all this misrule, he quarrels without cause even with political supporters, and on such a scale as to become the greatest Presidential quarreller of our history, quarrelling more than all other Presidents together, and what Republican can reply? It will not be enough to say that he was triumphant in war,--as Scipio, the victor of Hannibal, reminded the Roman people that on this day he conquered at Zama.[173] Others have been triumphant in war and failed in civil life,--as Marlborough, whose heroic victories seemed unaccountable, in the frivolity, the ignorance, and the heartlessness of his pretended statesmanship. To Washington was awarded that rarest tribute, “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”[174] Of our President it will be said willingly, “first in war,” but the candid historian will add, “first in nepotism, first in gift-taking and repaying by official patronage, first in Presidential pretensions, and first in quarrel with his countrymen.”

Anxiously, earnestly, the country asks for reform, and stands tiptoe to greet the coming. But how expect reform from a President who needs it so much himself? Who shall reform the reformer? So also does the country ask for purity. But is it not vain to seek this boon from one whose Presidential pretensions are so demoralizing? Who shall purify the purifier? The country asks for reform in the civil service. But how expect any such change from one who will not allow the Presidential office to be secured against its worst temptation? The country desires an example for the youth of the land, where intelligence shall blend with character, and both be elevated by a constant sense of duty with unselfish devotion to the public weal. But how accord this place to a President who makes his great office a plaything and perquisite, while his highest industry is in quarrelling? Since Sancho Panza at Barataria, no Governor has provided so well for his relations at the expense of his country; and if any other has made Cabinet appointments the return for personal favors, his name has dropped out of history. A man is known by his acts; so also by the company he keeps. And is not our President known by his intimacy with those who are by-words of distrust? But all these by-words look to another term for perpetuation of their power. Therefore, for the sake of reform and purity, which are a longing of the people, and also that the Chief Magistrate may be an example, we must seek a remedy.

See for one moment how pernicious must be the Presidential example. First in place, his personal influence is far-reaching beyond that of any other citizen. What he does others will do. What he fails to do others will fail to do. His standard of conduct will be accepted at least by his political supporters. His measure of industry and his sense of duty will be the pattern for the country. If he appoints relations to office and repays gifts by official patronage, making his Presidency a great “gift-enterprise,” may not every office-holder do likewise, each in his sphere, so that nepotism and gift-taking with official remuneration will be general, and gift-enterprises be multiplied indefinitely in the public service? If he treats his trust as plaything and perquisite, why may not every office-holder do the same? If he disregards Constitution and Law in the pursuit of personal objects, how can we expect a just subordination from others? If he sets up pretensions without number repugnant to republican institutions, must not the good cause suffer? If he is stubborn, obstinate, and perverse, are not stubbornness, obstinacy, and perversity commended for imitation? If he insults and wrongs associates in official trust, who is safe from the malignant influence having its propulsion from the Executive Mansion? If he fraternizes with jobbers and Hessians, where is the limit to the demoralization that must ensue? Necessarily the public service takes its character from its elected chief, and the whole country reflects the President. His example is a law. But a bad example must be corrected as a bad law.

To the Republican Party, devoted to ideas and principles, I turn now with more than ordinary solicitude. Not willingly can I see it sacrificed. Not without earnest effort against the betrayal can I suffer its ideas and principles to be lost in the personal pretensions of one man. Both the old parties are in a crisis, with this difference between the two: the Democracy is dissolving, the Republican party is being absorbed; the Democracy is falling apart, thus visibly losing its vital unity,--the Republican Party is submitting to a personal influence, thus visibly losing its vital character; the Democracy is ceasing to exist, the Republican Party is losing its identity. Let the process be completed, and it will be no longer that Republican Party which I helped to found and have always served, but only a personal party,--while instead of those ideas and principles which we have been so proud to uphold will be Presidential pretensions, and instead of Republicanism there will be nothing but Grantism.

Political parties are losing their sway. Higher than party are country and the duty to save it from Cæsar. The Caucus is at last understood as a political engine moved by wire-pullers, and it becomes more insupportable in proportion as directed to personal ends. Nor is its character changed when called a National Convention. Here, too, are wire-pullers; and when the great Office-Holder and the great Office-Seeker are one and the same, it is easy to see how naturally the engine responds to the central touch. A political convention is an agency and convenience, but never a law, least of all a despotism; and when it seeks to impose a candidate whose name is a synonym of pretensions unrepublican in character and hostile to good government, it will be for earnest Republicans to consider well how clearly party is subordinate to country. Such a nomination can have no just obligation. Therefore with unspeakable interest will the country watch the National Convention at Philadelphia. It may be an assembly (and such is my hope) where ideas and principles are above all personal pretensions, and the unity of the party is symbolized in the candidate; or it may add another to Presidential rings, being an expansion of the military ring at the Executive Mansion, the senatorial ring in this Chamber, and the political ring in the custom-houses of New York and New Orleans. A National Convention which is a Presidential ring cannot represent the Republican Party.

Much rather would I see the party to which I am dedicated, under the image of a life-boat not to be sunk by wind or wave. How often have I said this to cheer my comrades! I do not fear the Democratic Party. Nothing from them can harm our life-boat. But I do fear a quarrelsome pilot, unused to the sea, but pretentious in command, who occupies himself in loading aboard his own unserviceable relations and personal patrons, while he drives away the experienced seamen who know the craft and her voyage. Here is a peril which no life-boat can stand.

Meanwhile I wait the determination of the National Convention, where are delegates from my own much-honored Commonwealth with whom I rejoice to act. Not without anxiety do I wait, but with the earnest hope that the Convention will bring the Republican Party into ancient harmony, saving it especially from the suicidal folly of an issue on the personal pretensions of one man.

INTEREST AND DUTY OF COLORED CITIZENS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

LETTER TO COLORED CITIZENS, JULY 29, 1872.

I will say to the North, Give up; and to the South, Keep not back.--ISAIAH, xliii. 6.

* * * * *

The immediate occasion of the present Letter appears in the following, from colored citizens of Washington to Mr. Sumner:--

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 11, 1872.

SIR,--We, the undersigned, citizens of color, regarding you as the purest and best friend of our race, admiring your consistent course in the United States Senate and elsewhere as the special advocate of our rights, and believing that your counsel at this critical juncture in the period of our citizenship would be free from personal feeling and partisan prejudice, have ventured to request your opinion as to what action the colored voters of the nation should take in the Presidential contest now pending.

The choice of our people is now narrowed down to General Grant or Horace Greeley. Your long acquaintance with both and your observation have enabled you to arrive at a correct conclusion as to which of the candidates, judging from their antecedents as well as their present position, will, if elected, enforce the requirements of the Constitution and the laws respecting our civil and political rights with the most heart-felt sympathy and the greatest vigor.

We hope and trust you will favor us with such reply as will serve to enlighten our minds upon this subject and impel our people to go forward in the right direction. Our confidence in your judgment is so firm, that, in our opinion, thousands of the intelligent colored voters of the country will be guided in their action by your statement and advice.

Hoping to receive a reply soon, we have the honor to be,

With great respect,

Your obedient servants,

A. T. AUGUSTA, M. D. SAMUEL PROCTOR. DAVID FISHER, sr. J. J. KETCHUM. JNO. H. SMITH. CHAS. N. THOMAS. EDWARD CRUSOR. WM. H. SHORTER. WM. H. A. WORMLEY. HENRY HILL. WILLIAM P. WILSON. FURMAN J. SHADD. R. W. TOMPKINS. GEO. D. JOHNSON. JOHN H. BROWN. CHRIS. A. FLEETWOOD. HENRY LACY. CHAS. F. BRUCE. W. H. BELL. DAVID FISHER, jr. J. L. N. BOWEN. DAVID KING. JACOB DE WITTER. WM. POLKENY.

HON. CHARLES SUMNER.

LETTER.

WASHINGTON, July 29, 1872.

GENTLEMEN AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--

If I have delayed answering your communication of July 11th, which was duly placed in my hands by your committee, it was not because the proper course for you seemed doubtful, but because I wished to reflect upon it and be aided by information which time might supply. Since then I have carefully considered the inquiries addressed to me, and have listened to much on both sides; but my best judgment now is in harmony with my early conclusion.

I am touched by the appeal you make. It is true that I am the friend of your race, and I am glad to be assured that in your opinion I have held a consistent course in the Senate and elsewhere as the special advocate of your rights. That course, by the blessing of God, I mean to hold so long as life lasts. I know your infinite wrongs, and feel for them as my own. You only do me simple justice, when you add a belief that my counsel at this critical juncture of your citizenship “would be free from personal feelings and partisan prejudice.” In answering your inquiries I can have no sentiment except for your good, which I most anxiously seek; nor can any disturbing influence be allowed to interfere. The occasion is too solemn. Especially is there no room for personal feeling or for partisan prejudice. No man or party can expect power except for the general welfare. Therefore they must be brought to the standard of truth, which is without feeling or prejudice.

QUESTIONS PROPOSED.

You are right in saying that the choice for the Presidency is now “narrowed down” to President Grant or Horace Greeley. One of these is to be taken, and, assuming my acquaintance with both and my observation of their lives, you invite my judgment between them, asking me especially which of the two, “_judging from their antecedents as well as present position_,” would enforce the Constitution and laws securing your civil and political rights “with _the most heart-felt sympathy and the greatest vigor_.” Here I remark that in this inquiry you naturally put your rights in the foreground. So do I,--believing most sincerely that the best interests of the whole country are associated with the completest recognition of your rights, so that the two races shall live together in unbroken harmony. I also remark that you call attention to two things,--the “antecedents” of the candidates, and their “present position.” You wish to know from these which gives assurance of the most heart-felt sympathy and greatest vigor in the maintenance of your rights,--in other words, which, judging by the past, will be your truest friend.

The communication with which you have honored me is not alone. Colored fellow-citizens in other parts of the country, I may say in nearly every State of the Union, have made a similar request, and some complain that I have thus far kept silent. I am not insensible to the trust reposed in me. But if my opinion is given, it must be candidly, according to my conscience. In this spirit I answer your inquiries, beginning with the antecedents of the two candidates.

ANTECEDENTS OF THE CANDIDATES.

Horace Greeley was born to poverty and educated himself in a printing-office. President Grant, fortunate in early patronage, became a cadet at West Point and was educated at the public expense. One started with nothing but industry and character; the other started with a military commission. One was trained as a civilian; the other as a soldier. Horace Greeley stood forth as a Reformer and Abolitionist. President Grant enlisted as a Proslavery Democrat, and, at the election of James Buchanan, fortified by his vote all the pretensions of Slavery, including the Dred Scott decision. Horace Greeley from early life was earnest and constant against Slavery, full of sympathy with the colored race, and always foremost in the great battle for their rights. President Grant, except as a soldier summoned by the terrible accident of war, never did anything against Slavery, nor has he at any time shown any sympathy with the colored race, but rather indifference, if not aversion. Horace Greeley earnestly desired that colored citizens should vote, and ably championed impartial suffrage; but President Grant was on the other side.

Beyond these contrasts, which are marked, it cannot be forgotten that Horace Greeley is a person of large heart and large understanding, trained to the support of Human Rights, always beneficent to the poor, always ready for any good cause, and never deterred by opposition or reproach, as when for long years he befriended your people. Add to these qualities, conspicuous in his life, untiring industry which leaves no moment without its fruit, abundant political knowledge, acquaintance with history, the instinct and grasp of statesmanship, an amiable nature, a magnanimous soul, and above all an honesty which no suspicion has touched,--and you have a brief portraiture where are antecedents of Horace Greeley.

Few of these things appear in the President. His great success in war, and the honors he has won, cannot change the record of his conduct toward your people, especially in contrast with the life-time fidelity of his competitor, while there are unhappy “antecedents” showing that in the prosecution of his plans he cares nothing for the colored race. The story is painful; but it must be told.

GRANT’S INDIGNITY TO THE COLORED RACE.

I refer to the outrage he perpetrated upon Hayti, with its six hundred thousand blacks engaged in the great experiment of self-government. Here is a most instructive “antecedent,” revealing beyond question his true nature, and the whole is attested by documentary evidence. Conceiving the idea of annexing Dominica, which is the Spanish part of the island, and shrinking at nothing, he began by seizing the war powers of the Government, in flagrant violation of the Constitution, and then, at great expenditure of money, sent several armed ships of the Navy, including monitors, to maintain the usurper Baez in power, that through him he might obtain the coveted prize. Not content with this audacious dictatorship, he proceeded to strike at the independence of the Black Republic by open menace of war, and all without the sanction of Congress, to which is committed the power to make war. Sailing into the harbor of Port-au-Prince with our most powerful monitor, the Dictator, (properly named for this service,) also the frigate Severn as consort, and other monitors in their train, the Admiral, acting under instructions from Washington, proceeded to the Executive Mansion accompanied by officers of his squadron, and then, pointing to the great war-ships in sight from the windows, dealt his unjust menace, threatening to sink or capture Haytian ships. The President was black, not white. The Admiral would have done no such thing to any white ruler, nor would our country have tolerated such menace from any Government in the world. Here was indignity not only to the Black Republic with its population of six hundred thousand, but to the African race everywhere, and especially in our own country. Nor did it end here. For months the Navy of the United States was kept hovering on the coast, holding that insulted people in constant dread and anxiety, while President Grant was to them like a hawk sailing in the air, ready to swoop upon his prey.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.