WITH all the ardor, genius, and audacity of the American character, but with less, we trust, than its full candor and caution, our countrymen have plunged into the excitements of a political contest, scarcely exceeded in importance by those of 1860 and 1864. The hairsplitting platforms of the parties and the merits of the candidates only enter into the contest as chips and straws floating upon the surface, which indicate the drift, sweep, and movement of the tide that bears them along. While it is said that principles are more important than men, it is certain that platforms are less vital than candidates.

The platform comes down when the campaign is over, but the successful candidate the coming man-has then only begun to prepare for the duties of his office. He it is, and not the platform, who is sworn and inaugurated, who makes appointments, recommends policies, receives ambassadors, negotiates treaties, commands the army and navy, and exercises a power equal, if prudently administered, to that of Congress, and constitutionally equal, whether used prudently or not, to two thirds of both houses. But even the candidate, important as his qualifications, availability, and views may be, is more the creature than the creator of the conditions which surround him. He cannot resist the sway of the great tide which gives him his promotion, which bears him onward from the position of a citizen to that of, for the time, the most powerful potentate in the world. As the platform sinks below the candidate, so the candidate is lost in the party. However trifling eddies on the shore may belie the general current, the essential drift and tendency of both parties are, at all times, unmistakable. On these, and not on the cunningly evasive resolutions, or the merits of candidates, the battle is really fought. In all earnest conflicts of men, parties, and

nations, their issues simplify as their passion deepens, until, in the heat of the struggle, all the elements of the contest are fused into one ruling idea that seems inscribed in the very heavens, in letters of light and glory, like the cross in the path of Constantine.

The triumphs of the Republican party have heretofore been won upon questions remarkable, like all moral issues, for their simplicity of statement, and for the vast consequences they involve. "Shall we extend slavery?" asked the Nation in 1856. The Republican party sprung into life to answer, "No." "Shall we subdue the rebellion?" asked

the Nation in 1860. The Republican party, with the Bible in one hand and the sword in the other, replied, "With malice toward none, with charity for all, by God's help we will subdue the rebellion." "Shall we restore the nation on the basis of equal rights?" asked the Nation in 1866. For, more or less plainly, the platforms of both parties in that year anticipated the policies which were afterwards enacted into law. The Republican party carried every loyal State for equal rights. Having embodied in legislation the previously expressed will of the people, the same party now comes before the country in a spirit which its convention has expressed less happily than its candidate. Its platform declares that,

Reconstruction on the basis of equal rights for all men, shall be consummated and carried out; and that

The national faith towards its creditors shall be preserved.

But General Grant, in the closing sentiment of his brief letter of acceptance, has happily struck the keynote of the campaign, in the brief, terse, Saxon

words

"LET US HAVE PEACE!"

The spirit of the Democratic party breathes in those words of their platform and letters of acceptance, which

Their

denounce" 'negro supremacy." bond of cohesion is the assertion that political rights shall be enjoyed by white men only, or, as they express it, under " a white man's government." The Republican party therefore seeks peace on the present basis of reconstruction; while the Democratic party aims to overthrow that basis, in modes which, as we shall see, might easily involve war, and possibly are wholly impracticable without war.

The first issue, therefore, is whether it is more desirable to have a government wholly white, or one in which the political rights of the black and white races are equal; whether, if a white man's government were the more desirable, it is now practicable to obtain it by the election of Seymour and Blair, without or with a civil war; and whether, if it be desirable, but involve war, its attainment would justify the war it would involve.

The fact that the attainment of an object involves war, proves that the constitutional majority of the people oppose it. If they did not, the end could be obtained by legislation, without war. To assert, in a republic, that civil war is necessary to attain any end, is to assert the right in the minority to rule the majority. To declare that it will avail, fs to claim a power in the minority to conquer the majority in battle. As the criterion of wisdom, in republics, is the approval of the majority, nothing is wise until the majority approve it. When they approve it, civil war is unnecessary to carry it out. The threat of war is, therefore, in the strifes of a republic, a confession of 'weakness. It is evident that the election of a Democratic president, and his control of the constitutional powers of his office, would not overturn the congressional policy of reconstruction, and afford us, in the Democratic sense, a "white man's government." The Democracy controlled Andrew Johnson as fully as they possibly could Horatio Seymour. With an ability and sincerity equal to those of Seymour, and with an experience and energy far greater, the actual President

has fought, inch by inch, the battle for a white man's government, through four years of bold and audacious and commanding political warfare. He began, backed by an able and popular Cabinet, and a very strong party in Congress. He has been vanquished at all points, and at last stands indebted to the magnanimity of his ablest enemies for leave to serve to the end of his term. If the Democratic party, reinforced by the conservative wing of the Republicans, could not, with a President of their own heart already in the chair, prevent the adoption and enforcement of the present reconstruction laws, how will they, without any allies, be able, by the election of another Democratic President, to repeal or overthrow them? What with greater means they could not prevent, how shall they, with less, reverse? Mr. Seymour, if elected, would enter upon his office with a majority opposing him, in both Houses, of more than the two thirds or three fourths which have overwhelmed President Johnson. None of the existing reconstruction laws can be repealed while these majorities shall remain; and they must remain for at least two years in the House and four in the Senate. No reconstruction law could be repealed until Mr. Seymour's term would be about expiring. Meanwhile, seven of the ten States would have been in the Union five years, under constitutions which confer equal rights on both races. A much larger proportion of blacks each year would have voted with the Democrats, and more of the whites with the Republicans, until the lines dividing the races would have ceased to divide the two parties. The remaining three of the seceding States would also have been admitted, on the adoption of constitutions conferring equal political rights. There will be, for four years, a majority prepared to pass every law and constitutional amendment calculated to preserve, in each State, the enjoyment of equal political rights by both races. These laws, Mr. Seymour, as President, must enforce, or lay himself open to removal by impeach. ment. He would find himself in a di

lemma, like that which met him as Governor in 1863. Though opposed to the war, emancipation, and the draft, he was then compelled, by his manifest official duty, to forward troops and lend reluctant aid to the measures and principles he condemned. So as President, if he would not become a rebel, his political principles must “bide their time," while his official acts conform to the laws of Congress. Conscious of these facts, Mr. Blair, Governor Orr, and other Democratic advisers, have shown that by no constitutional exercise of his powers could a Democratic President reverse or overthrow the reconstruction policies of Congress. Governor Orr wisely infers that they are irreversible, and advises the Southern people to accept the political equality of the 1 races as established; but to modify its evils by requiring property and educational qualifications of the voters of either race. Mr. Blair, however, declares that the President should promptly and boldly use the army to trample under foot the laws of Congress, abolish the existing Southern State governments, turn out their members of Congress, destroy their constitutions, and cause new ones to be adopted, based on the white vote only. This would be a coup d'état as dangerous, despotic, and, if successful, as brilliant as that of Napoleon III., in stepping from the presidency to the throne. Like that, it would require that the President should first remove the general-in-chief of the army, imprison or suborn his subordinates, and arrest and confine the leading Republican members of both Houses. Nothing less would prevent his own prompt removal by impeachment. Unfortunately for this little enterprise, America is wholly unprepared for a monarchy under any name; neither Mr. Seymour nor Mr. Blair is of the Napoleonic stock, or could pretend to revive the glory of a former and historic empire; and the trifling force which the President could command for such an undertaking, would be a mere corporal's guard compared with the millions whom the lawful gencral-in-chief of the

army could summon to his standard to resist the usurpation. It is needless to prove that Mr. Blair's proposed coup d'état would result in summary defeat and ignominious punishment. Of all the crimes the Democratic party could commit, this would be the most stupen dous; of all its failures, the most humiliating. While its foreshadowing won for Mr. Blair his nomination, it sunk forever all the claims he may previously have had to be considered either an able or a patriotic politician. His reputation for military courage and gallantry, like that of Arnold after his unrivalled treachery, remains undimmed. But one who solicits promotion from those recently arrayed in rebellion, by promising to lead them in a new revolt, ceases to be a loyal citizen, far less a patriotic statesman.

Since it is not practicable to deprive the black race of political rights by electing Seymour, either without or with civil war, let us inquire whether a government by the white race only is intrinsically more desirable than one wherein all are equal before the law.

The exclusion of free black men from political rights was a later culmination of slavery. In other ages and countries, slavery had been an accident of condition, into which the noblest men of any race might fall. Here they sought to make it a taint in the blood, an indelible stain on the posterity and kindred of the enslaved. In ancient Rome or modern Brazil, in the republics of Greece or of Mexico and South America, the slave, when free, became not a freedman, but a freeman. No insuperable bar excluded him from the senate of Rome, none now excludes him from the imperial cabinet of Dom Pedro or the presidency of Chili. In Brazil, though African and Indian slavery still exist, no brand attaches to men of either race after emancipation. At all times some of the highest civil, military, and judicial officers have been persons of color. Free blacks and even slaves were allowed to fight in our War of Independence as well as that of 1812. A very common sense of justice associates the obligation

to defend a nation in war with a right to vote upon its policies in peace. By the national Constitution, and by twelve of those of the original thirteen States, no distinction of rights or privileges, on account of color, was made. South Carolina wrote the word "white" in her constitution as a limitation upon voting. In other States, free black citizens, possessing the requisite qualifications, voted. But by the excitements kindled by the slavery question, after 1820, State after State followed South Carolina in disfranchising its colored citizens, until only five of the New England States permitted the race, whose emblem was the hoe, to hold the ballot.

In the strict sense, therefore, we have never enjoyed the blessings of an unalloyed white man's government. It is impossible to judge by experience how great they might be. In the cup of our most sparkling political prosperity there have always been some dregs of "negro supremacy," or some nectar of equal rights, according as we may affect the "slogan" of Republicanism or Democracy. However slight the visible admixture of African blood in our bodypolitic may have been, it puts an end to all pretence that ours is, constitutionally, a white man's government. Our Constitution recognizes no race or color as entitled to monopolize citizenship, suffrage, or office.

Those who still claim that emancipation was a blunder, which ought to be atoned for by restoring the colored race to slavery, are consistent and logical in affirming that it should not be allowed to vote. But all Americans profess now to recognize the right of the freed race to be free. As the white man regards the ballot as the indispensable weapon to preserve his own freedom, it devolves on every advocate of partial suffrage to show how black men can maintain their freedom with any fewer weapons than white men require. What ever the argument, it involves the superiority of the black race over the white.

It may be answered that the white race will preserve the freedom of the black. The freedom which depends on

the will of another to give or withhold, to maintain or destroy, is slavery. In this instance the abstract principle comes reinforced by palpable illustration. Under President Johnson's plan of reconstruction, the white race of the South enjoyed for three years a magnificent opportunity to preserve and maintain the freedom of the black. They responded by enacting codes which subjected the negro to all the hardships of slavery, with none of its protection. They forbade him to keep arms for the defence of his home, though, by the common law, every American's house is his castle. They denied him the right to own or lease land, or to hire a house, thereby preventing him by law from gathering his family into a household, and compelling its members to go out as servants into the families of others. They required him to hire his services for the year during the first weeks of January, in order to confine him to agricultural labor, and compel him to accept such compensations as might be offered in that period. For idleness, and other petty offences, they condemned him to be sold into slavery, so as to revive that odious institution. They denied him the right to sue, or testify, or sit on juries. Under these and other similar laws, which the white race, if not prevented by the military power of the United States, would have enforced, the blacks would, long ere this, have been restored to the most abject and absolute slavery. These facts show that the freedom of black men at the South is not safe where none but white men vote. It therefore devolves on those who accept emancipation, but would withhold the suffrage, to point out by what means the freedom of the black race can be maintained without the suffrage. The Freedman's Bureau and military law were tried for a while. But these are despotic, and temporary makeshifts, mere jury-masts to get into port after a storm. To make them permanent, would be to abolish Republican government at the South. Ponder the problem as we will, there remains no alternative but to allow slavery to be

restored, or to give the ballot to the negro. The white race of the South, instead of maintaining the freedom, would restore the slavery, of the blacks. The ballot had hardly been conferred when its magic spell was felt. Politicians lately intent only on disfranchising the negro, immediately began to consider how they might obtain office through his vote. That constitution of government is wisest which makes it the interest of the governing classes to consult the welfare of the governed. Benevolence is a transient emotion, but ambition is a constant quantity. Under the President's reconstruction policy, benevolent statesmen, if there were such, might weep over the condition of the negro. Under that of Congress, selfish politicians will strive eagerly to promote his welfare. One, as a magistrate, will give him the justice for which, without the ballot, he would sue in vain; and for want of which he would be despoiled of his labor, and reduced to want and slavery. Another, as school-trustee, will provide education for his children. Another, as sheriff, will return his stolen property. Another, as a member of Congress, may even appoint him postmaster. All things work together to enslave the non-voter, and to maintain the freedom of the voter. It is not the effect of his vote upon the laws, but upon the law-makers and politicians. He holds in his hand the quid pro quo, the "something for which " every official will do him equal and exact justice, and this is all he needs. The blacks who vote the Republican ticket aid in sustaining their right of suffrage. Those who vote the Democratic ticket, disarm the hostility to their use of the suffrage, by proving that they can use it as wisely as the Democrats themselves.

Some have felt alarm that so large a mass of ignorant voters should be permitted to degrade the suffrage. But ignorance merely no more degrades masses of men, than simplicity without immorality disgraces the individual man. The people in voting always choose simply between two tickets.

Conventions of either party adopt its platform and select its candidates. There is no danger of any lack of intelligence in either of these acts. Each ticket represents very simple principles, which none can seriously misunderstand. “Shall we sustain the party that has given us freedom and the ballot, and proposes to give us education and promotion?" is a question which penetrates the thickest skull from the Potomac to the Rio Grande. Rebels threaten to reënslave as frankly and plainly as Republicans promise equal rights and education. Nine in ten vote for their rights. The tenth man votes from affection, fear, or regard for his late master. One party guarantees freedom, the other employment; one holds out education for his children, the other reminds him perhaps who was kind to him in his sickness, and, what is equally effective, to whom he was kind; one appeals to his pride as a freeman, the other to his favors or sacrifices as a servant. The negro decides according to his necessities or feelings; in the main, according to his real personal interests. The divine mode of providing for all, is to have each provide for himself. If every negro votes according to his individual interests, the collective interests of the entire mass are represented by the aggregate vote. If the negro votes with the majority, his vote stands approved; if with the minority, he has the satisfaction of having millions for company. Suffrage has its evils, but the denial of the suffrage is wholly evil. The way to prepare men to vote is to give them the ballot, and forthwith ten thousand orators mount the stump to give them gratuitous instruction. Withhold the ballot, and the same orators will prove that the floodgates of society would be unloosed if the ballot were conferred. Pigs are of two kinds those who are in the clover, and those who are trying to get in. The pig in the clover is conservative, and believes in fences. The pig out of clover is radical, and believes in passage-ways. There is a great deal of human nature in pigs.

Four millions of people once enslaved,