Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 32, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 September 1880 — A TILLING SPEECH. [ARTICLE]

A TILLING SPEECH.

Delivered by the Hon. C. S. May, of iTtlcfiJg-nn, at Hicbig’an City, Ind.*--The Issues of the Campaign Bis* cussed in a Easterly Manner. Mr. May first spoke of the great importance of the impending campaign, and then passed to a brief consideration of the claims on the country put forth by the Republican party. The day had passed, he thought, when the record of the Republican party during the war could be urged as the only necessary support of these claims. The party had changed. It was no longer tho party of Lincoln, Chase and Seward, and tho issues on which tt had successfully fought had diod with those leaders. The only real issue between the parties, he continued, is ono of administration, as to which one will best administer the Government; and the groat question is, what now is best?—not what was best fifteen or twenty years ago. It is high time that this most pernicious and absurd idea, that parties can escape the consequences of present iniquity by past good conduct, or forfeit, when right to-day, the public confidence for the wrong their predecessors did in another generation, should be scouted and banished from our politics. This voting parties up or down on their “records” is a vast piece of public nonsense. The questions of statesmanship, of government, are intensly practical tilings, ana not matters of mere sentiment. I am not here to defend tho Democratic party in the days of Jackson or Buchanan, nor to assail the Republican party in the days of Lincoln and Sumner. But I am here to show that the hero of Gettysburg is a good and safo man to be elected this year to the Presidency, and that the Republican party and their nominee, in this year of grace, are unworthy of the confidence of the American poople. They are to-day on trial for high crimes and misdemeanors, and I do not propose to allow them to escape conviction on a plea of previous good character. Good character is only allowed to be shown in the courts in doubtful cases. It goes for nothing where the facts rro clear. The facts are clear in this case —they are notoriously clear. It is not a case of circumstantial evidence at all. The Republican party of to-day is guilty, thrice guilty, of great and manifold public corruptions—corruptions proved, corruptions confessed, and it must not be attempted to sneak out of court by showing what it ci liu the war. It is what it has done since the war that now concerns the American people. What now is best ? Let me answer that question by saying that the great and pressing political need of this country to-day is a complete and radical change of administration—a change which shall clear out every department of this Government, from high to low, and give us a great national purification. The real mission of the Republican party was accomplished ten years ago, and since that tinio it has simply been holding on to the offices by good luck and successful fraud. I ask is it not best that there should be mother change, that incompetent and di. honest officials should be got rid of, that the ! oi k i should be examined, and the comi, 1 rings broken up? The corruptions of the Republican party in these recent years are not a matter of deduction or inference, but of appalling fact and world-wide notoriety. They have been proved over and over again before Congressional investigating committees ; they have been confessed by some of tho chiefest perpetrators and culprits; they have been acknowledged by all candid and fairminded men- in tho organization. And these frauds and corruptions have not been small and petty ones, mere pecadilloes of some obscure official here and there, but startling and gigantic ones, and in the highest places—perjurers and bribe-takers in Congress, thieves and robbers in the Cabinet. Our country has been scandalized and disgraced by some of these corruptions in the eyes of the whole civilised world, and republican institutions themselves made the jeer and scoff of mocking aristocrats and disbelievers in our form of Government across the water. Now, fellow-citizens, why should we not have a change of administration ? It is a time of peace; there are no great material interests to suffer ; the Democratic party have a confessedly good candidate—why is this not a good time to change ? /

Masses of fair-minded men in the Republican party, who recognize the force of all this, who realize that their party has. grown corrupt and dishonest, would be inclined to agree that the time has come to make a change, if they were not deceived and deluded by the idea that this cannot safely be done on account of past transactions and party .“records” —an idea vigorously propagated and wholly relied upon by the lenders and organs in this canvass, because they well know that if the issue is made to turn upon the vital questions of to-day, their party, burdened down to the water’s edge with its frauds and corruptions, must go under. So they raise the “record” cry, and the war-cry again, and talk long and loud about what happened fifteen or twenty years ago. Fellow-citizens, I want this Republican party to come out into the open field of to-day and fight the battle, like men of sense and courage, on their own merits, if they have any, and not on the virtues of their fathers and grandfathers —virtues which they have strangely, if not impiously, neglected to imitate. Como out and show, if you can, that your party .is clean and pure ; that Garfield is a better man than Ilancoek, and that we do net need any change. No, fellow-citizens, they do not propose to fight the battle in this way, but instead they begin just twenty years back, and say that the Democratic party is responsible for the rebellion, and that they put the rebellion down. This assertion is tlio very beginning of their argument this year, tho broad proposition upon which their argument rests. When we ask for a change in the Government we are met on the threshold by this assertion, which is everywhere thrust in our faces as a reason why wo should not have one. Now, I have two conclusive answers to this Republic) n stock argument of the cimpaign : First, it is not gcimi.iie to the question, in parliamentary phrase ; it is not relative and material to tiie is.-.r.e, in legal phrase. For. even if true, it does j oi ] rove that it would not be better for the country to elect Gen. Hancock and make a change in the offices this year. But. in the second place, it is not true in fact Tho Democratic party, as a party, did not rebel against the Government, and the Republican party did not put down the rebellion. Let me show you that I am correct in this. The secessionists of the South rebelled against the Democratic party and put up a candidate in opposition to it in 1860, a year before they went into open rebellion against the Government. They ref used to support Douglas at Charleston, broke up the convention, and withdrew, and afterward nominated and voted for Breckinridge. After they had gone, tho National Democratic Convention reassembled at Baltimore and nominated Stephen A. Douglas, a loyal man and a patriot, and supported him, as a party, for President that year. When Mr. Lincoln was elected, it was the men who had left the Democratic party and voted for Breckinridge that went into rebellion, and Mr. Lincoln and the new Republican administration had in their first fearful trial no more welcome and powerful support than that rendered by Stephen A. Douglas, the defeated candidate of the National Democratic party. Now tell me, by what mean, partisan logic can .it be made out that the Democratic . party should be held responsible for men who had left it and fought it to the death, and how did it bring on a rebellion by voting for a great Northern statesman and patriot, who stood like a brother by Mr. Lincoln’s side in the supreme crisis of the Government ? No, this reckless and wholesale charge against the Democratic party will not stand. It is a false charge, and respectable Republicans should be ashamed to make use of it. There is one view in whieh Democrats possibly contributed to bring on the war, which by comparison is not altogether complimentary to the Republican party. At Charleston, as we have seen, they resisted and, refused to compromise with the slave power, and went bravely to certain defeat under Douglas rather than submit to Southern dictation. After Mr. Lincoln’s election, the Republican party in Congress voted to abandon their non-slavery extension principle, the vital plank in their platform, and compromise with the South if thereby the war could be averted. They were the ones, in this instance, that knuckled to the South. And equally false and even more mendacious is it to assert that the Republican party put down tho rebellion. No party put down tho Rebellion. The people put it down, the loyal people of tße whole country. Why ; fellow-citi-zens, look how the figures brand this falsehood. In that same election of 1860, which preceded the war, Mr. Lincoln (the Republican candidate) had. in round numbers, 1,800,000 votes, whil# Mr. Douglas (the candidate •of the Democratic party) had 1,300,000 votes. Now, I take it that' Mr. Lincoln received all the Republican votes, as there

was no other Republican candidate, and I suppose it will not be contended that every Republican voter went to the war, and yet the figures show that there were over 2,800,000 Union soldiers enlisted in the war—l,ooo,ooo more than the whole Republican vote of the country! Now, my Republican friends, will you tell me where this extra 1,000,000 of Union, soldiers came from? It is mathematically demonstrate ed that they could not have come from the Republican party, and yet evidently they had something to do with pntting down the rebellion. You know, fellow-citizens, where this extra 1,000,000 of soldiers came from. They came froin the Democratic partv. Mr. Lincoln was elected by a minority vote—he lacked more than 930,000 votes of a majority. Had the 1,300,000 men who' supported Douglas at the North refused to sustain Mr. Lincoln in putting down the rebellion, where shcalld Vre have been? This was nearly half theftoyal vote of the country, and the South was united against ns. No, I say, let us be fair and just. As ono who differed from the Democratic party in those days, it is only the simple truth to say that without their help this Union would have been lo t.

Again, fellow-citizens, when we demand a change in the Government, we are met by the cry that the South is “solid” for the Democratic party. By this is meant, I suppose, tkat the Southern States are likely to cast their electoral'votes for Gen. Hancock. This, I presume, is quite probable to be the case, as the Republican leaders have declined to contest that section of the country, and practically withdraw all opposition to the Democratic party there. But suppose, under these circumstances, the South should be “solid” for the Democracy. What is there unnatural or unlawful about that? Nobody, not even tho most stalwart Republican, I take it, will dispute then - legal right to vote the Democratic ticket if they prefer that to the Republican. Is it not natural that they should prefer that to the Republican ? Why, what monstrous folly is all this talk of the Republicans about the “ solid South !” First, they abandon that whole section, take -earo that the South shall btF™ solids” and then fly in om Taces with tho" "preiTense that—this will be the imoeess otithe rebellion whiWi was suppressed fifteen years ago, and* the restoration of the slave power jin the Government fifteen years after Blavery"itself has ceased to exist. Now, there is no question that the eleven Southern States went into the rebellion, the States that supported Breckenridge in 1860 ; but they were reconstructed under Republican rule after the war, and sinco 1868 have been equal members in the Union the same as before. Republicans cannot find fault with this, for it was their party that restored them to their rights in the Government after freeing their slaves and giving them the ballot. It is complained now that these States do not support the Republican party and give majorities for the Republican ticket. What are the facts? In 1869, the first Presidential election after reconstruction, these States were nearly all carried for Gen. Grant, the Republican candidate, and this was the case also at Grant’s second election in 1872. Even in 1876, the last Presidential election, the Republicans claimed to have carried three of these States ; they took them whether they carried them or not. At that election there were, in round numbers. 1,200,000 Republican votes in the South. But since then Hayes, their own Presidents has removed tho bayonet, the negroes arc leavin' them, the South is recovering from the war and the carpet-bag devastation and growing prosperous, and these States are all passing out of their hands and giving majorities against them. Kindred to this talk about a “solid South,” and exceeding it in effrontery, is the outcry about “delivering the country over into the hands of the men who tried to destroy it.” I said this exceeded the other in effrontery, because, however senseless and baseless, that is urged as a simple argument or proposition from Slain facts and figures, but this, coming from epnblican organa and speakers, is stamped with such utter inconsistency and such damnable stultification as ought almost to blister the tongqe that utters it. I have no patience to argue with such a pretense as this. I can only denounce it. When we come this year and present a great Union soldier for President, a man who has risked his life a hundred times, and shed his blood to save this Union, and a loyal Northern mah for Vice President, we are met by such a cry as this from a party which for twelve years has honored conspicuous and bloodstained rebels with some of the highest offices in the Government. It is rebels, is it, that you mean by the “men who tried to destroy this Government?” Let me tell you there hasn’t been a day for twelve years that you have not rewarded rebels with office. Grant took an obscure rebel Colonel, who tried in his small, mean way to “destroy this Government,” fourth-rate lawyer though he was, and made him Attorney General, the law officer of the Government which he “tried to destroy.” Have you forgotten that? A rebel Judge presided over your convention that nominated Grant the second time, a convention that cheered to the echo James L. Orr, of South Carolina, an original fire-eater and secessionist whom your administration afterward sent as Ambassador to Russia. Longstreet, next to Lee, the leading rebel General, waa early rewarded by your administration with a fat Federal office, and has only lately been sent as Minister to Turkey to represent the Government which he came so near “destroying.” And do you remember Mosby, the rebel bushfighter and guerrilla, who shot our brave boys down from the fence corners and tho thicket—a name which we used to pronounce in the war times with objurgation and horror ? Well, he, too, under a Republican administration represents abroad the country which he “tried to destroy. ” Don’t you feel proud of him ? And there is the late* Postmaster General under Hayes, tho rebel Col. Key, who “tried to destroy” the Government, for superintending whose mailbags he was afterward paid SB,OOO a year by the Republican administration ! How does that look to you ? But you tell me these men have joined the Republican party. Does that, then, atone for their treason to their country and its flag? Do you wish to be understood to say that a United States army officer, who, at tho beginning of the Rebellion, deserted his command and his colors and went into the rebel army and fought us for four years unto the bloody death, can square his account with the Government by joining the Republican party and taking a lucrative office under it? And is lie any better for his double desertion than the rebel officer who lay down his sword and returned to his allegiance at the close of the war, but concluded to vote the Democratic ticket?

But you say : “Oh ! yes, Hancock is a good man. We don’t find any fanlt with him, - but we don’t like his company.” You "complain first that you can’t trust the Democratic party which is behind him. Yon charge that this party was disloyal in the war and will be entirely controlled by the rebel influence. I havo already shown you the great changes that have occurred in the party, the new and different Issues, and have just called your attention to tho fact that what you call the rebel element in that party is a minority section in the country. Now, let me tell you another thing that may surprise you. Not only is the rebel element in a minority in tho Government, but it is in a very decided minority in tho Democratic party also. Look again at the figures. Four years ago, at the last Presidential election, the Democratic vote was, in round numbers, 1,600,000 in the whole South, and only 1,038,000 in the rebel States, while it was 2,600,000 at the North —a vast preponderance of 1,000,000 votes, as you see, in the North. To hear Republicans talk in this campaign you would think that the whole Democratic strength was at the South. But you say the Democrats expect to carry the South. So they do ; and they expect, also, to carry a good part of the North. Do you know that their prospect is most excellent for carrying a majority of the electoral votes of the North ? AU we should need, to do that, would be the States of Pennsylvania and Ohio, now trembling in a close balance between the parties. Should yon wake up on the morning of Nov. 3 and find that Hancock had carried the North, as well as the South, what then would you say ? But, fellow-citizens, what is there to this most-bigoted assumption of the Republicans that all manner of evils and of ills will come upon the country if the Democratic party succeed this year? Has anybody beside Republicans any rights in this country ? Are all men outside of that organization public enemies ? It is well to understand some of these things. The whole argument on the other side proceeds upon the idea that the Democratic party is a vast organized conspiracy to overthrow the Government and destroy the country—that if they succeed the rebels will come into power and immediately proceed to do what they failed to accomplish in the war—that the rebel debt will be paid, the treasury bankrupted by rebel claims, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments repealed, and the negro disfranchised and practically reduced again to slaverv. Fellow-citizens, it is amazing that we should have to meet such stuff as this in every campaign ; but we shall as long as the Republican party is in existence. It would be a cnarity to believe that they do not know any better; but their leaders who say these things do know bet-

ter. They know that there is not a single word of truth in thenii They know that the Demo Cratic party in Congress refused td pay rebel claims, while their party has paid millions of them; that no Democrat anywhere proposes the payment of the rebel debt, or to disturb the amendments Of the constitution as to the negro, and that the party in all its conventions, National and State, has so resolved every year since the war, and that Gen. Hancock, in his letter of acceptance, took especial pains to say that he would, if President, exert ail lus power to maintain these results of the war inviolate and inviolable. And so said Mr. English, also. My Republican friends, give me your attention a moment, while I show vou by a most conclusive and overwhelming test that you have grossly slandered the Democratic Congress, and that the fears you would inculcate for party purposes are utterly groundless. One of "the leading arguments you use this very year to combat our demand for a change is the fact which you claim that everything is going right now, and that we do not need any change; that onr debt is being paid, our finances well guarded, and our people prosperous in their business. This was the argument of Mr. Schnrz, speaking for you at Indianapolis. You claim that the Government is being well enough managed! now, and that any change is unnecessary. “ Now I have thee, Jew.” The Congress of the United States, in both branches, is Democratic, and has been, the House for six years, the Senate for two years. These bodies constitute the legislative department of the Government, and not a dollar can be appropriated to carry on this Government without the vote of the House of Representatives ; not an appointed public officer without the confirmation of the Senate. In other words, if the House should refuse to vote the money, the ’ wheels of the Government would stop ; if the Senate should refuse to confirm, its executive offices would become vacant, and we should have revolution and chaos. And yet, mark, with this tremendous power in the hands of a Democratic'Congress, you confess that it has been so well and carefully used that there is not a jar in the Government, and that the machinery does not even need oiling ! Now another thirty. You do not like Haye ■•, and you confess that Hancock is a good man, and yet all we propose id to put Hancock in Hayes’ place and keep right on with this rebel Democratic Congress!

But, fellow-cilizens, I must dismiss all these things, t and come to another Republican pretense which is urged against our demand for a change iu the Government. It is claimed that we need a “ statesman” for President, and that we ought not to elect a ‘ ‘ mere soldier” to that high office. This is an argument which is somewhat new to Republicans, but they seem to take it kindly since the Chicago Convention, and especially since they found out that their candidate was not “soldier” enough to hurt him. Now why do we necessarily.need a statesman instead of "a soldier for President ? I deny that we do. Look at the reason and common sense of the matter. . There are three great departments to this Government. And this is the way they work. The two houses of Congress, which make the Legislative department, originate and enact the laws ; tho Supreme Court, which is the Judicial department, passes upon their i onstitutionality and validity wlien'any question is raised, and the President, who is tho Executive department, sees that they are executed. So his is an executive office, as it i ‘very name implies. Now what qualities do wo demand in such an officer? Manifestly executive qualities—qualities of will-power, of decision and energy. Gen. Hancock is no rough, unlettered man. Besides having all the executive ability and qualities of the great soldier, he is a nian of penetration and judgment, a man of most remarkable common sense and sagacity in civil affairs. Take liis orders at the South, take his letters to Sherman, and tell me where is the “statesman” or lawyer of our tiftes who has exceeded his understanding of our Government and its workings? These papers of his are indeed most remarkable, and stamp him as no mere fighting soldier, like Sheridan, but as belonging in intellect to that class of great states-men-soldiers, so to speak, of which the great Frederick and Napoleon are illustrious examples. But, fellow-citizens, if we must have a statesman for President, I insist that he should be a clean statesman ; one who has a fair and honest public record. The man who is elected by 50,000,000 of people to fill Washington’s seat should have a character above suspicion, at least above proof of dishonesty. I approach now a painful feature ’of this discussion. For the honor of my country, for the cause of public morality and decency, I could wish that there was no necessity for anv animadversion upon the personal character of a candidate for such an exalted office. And I shall say but a few words on a subject so unwelcome and so unpleasant. It was a great misfortune to the Republican party and the whole country that the Chicago Convention, in a moment of groat excitement and enthusiasm, and without knowing what it did, passing over Washburne and Edmunds, and other honest men, made the fatal and supreme mistake of taking its Presidential candidate from that group of a dozen unsavory and damaged politicians who, iu the most corrupt and venal period of our history, were exposed and disgraced by a Congressional committee of their own party. But the party which has made this great and unfortunate blunder, and which, bv making it, lias compelled me to discuss the record of its candidate, now lifts up its hands in holy horror at what it calls personal slander and “mud-throw-ing.” The Republican party, whoso slanders broke the great, good heart of Horace Greeley, which has followed Samuel J. Tilden four years with its lying pens, dipped in the malice of hell, and which has never yet. failed to assail and blacken the character of every public man who opposes it, now cries out against “ mud-throw-ing ! ” Gods, what a protest from such a quarter ! Now, I repeat that nothing is being said about Mr. Garfield except what is suggested by tho record of his public sayings and acts. Every candidate for President must necessarily put these in issue, and when the people shall be gagged and prevented by any means of discussing them, tills country is on the high road to despotism and destruction.

But if I must argue a proposition so plain, suppose we turn this matter round and take an illustration. Suppose now that tho day after Gen. Hancock was nominated at Cincinnati it had been discovered that during the war he had been court-martialed, by a commissidn, say, of ‘five officers, three of them his own immediate friends, for dishonestly conniving with some sutler to cheat the soldiers, or the Government. Suppose he had denied the charge, and had appeared before the commission and sworn that he had had no relations with the sutler, and had never received any money from him, but the commission found that he had, on their oaths, his friends with the rest. Now, what do you suppose the Republican party would have done about this ? Do you think they would have been so meek and modest that they would have kept still about it ? What ought they to do in such a case ? Why, who would not concede that, under such circumstances, they would be justified in spreading before the people the sworn record which proved that Gen. Hancock was a bribe-taker and a perjurer, and unfit to’be President ? Now, this is all the Democrats are doing with Gen. Garfield. He has been court-martialed by his own party in Congress; found guilty of conniving with an old political “sutler” by the name of Oakes Ames, notwithstanding he swore that he had had no such dealings with the said Ames. Do I overstate this matter? This is only one charge where there are a good many, but is it not a fair subject for comment? I could read to you for an hour what the leading Republican papers of the country said about this transaction, and how they denounced Mr. Garfield, some of them demanding his expul- . sion. These papers arenow supporting him for President, eating their own words, and are joining in the new position which the party is fast taking, that, after all, there was nothing very bad in the Credit Mobilier, and that Oakes Ames is a deeply-wronged and persecuted man ! If thiA line can only be established, it will carry relief and joy to Colfax and Patterson and aU the other “ Christian statesmen.”

I said there are other serious charges against Mr. Garfield—one of them, at least, as damaging as this one—his relation to the dishonest District paving ring, where it is confessed that he received $5,000, under the guise of legal services, for which he made no argument and prepared no brief, but did secure, as the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, an appropriation of millions of the people’s money to put into the pockets of a ring of swindlers for a rotten and worthless pavement. This is a most serious charge, and it is a part of the public record of this candidate. There are still other charges, hut these are enough. The unquestioned facts, without straining, show that this man is destitute oj high public integrity, and that should be enough. Whatever his talents, he belongs to that odious class of our modem public men who make unlawful gains and merchandise out of public office, and seek to cover up and expiate their iniquity by loud canting and snivel about “ freedom and religion.” In

the light of the facts as to their candidate, I submit it will not do for the Republican leaders and organs to talk about slanders and “ mudthrowmg ” and “ Giddiugs’ old districtnor will it answer for them to come to us with the magnanimous proposition to call it quits between their candidate and ours. The Democratic party this time lias nominated a candidate who is pure and clean, a candidate'who is “capable and honest ’’ up to the Jeffersonian standard —a grand man and hero, whose shining armor of truth breaks and turns even the missile of their political malice, and it has no bargains to make, no offsets to allow. It is the misfortune of the Republican party if they have a candidate whose public record can be successfully assailed, and for whom no sufficient defense can be made. So I sav to them : If we must have a “ statesman ” for President, give us a clean statesman and an honest one. And, finally, fellow-citizens, there is one further great reason why-iho Republican party ought to die and be swept from the earth. And that reason is because it has become the great disturber of national peace, and the great obstacle to national pacification. We must have an end to sectional feeling and bitterness; and now is tho time to have it. There was a reason why these Southern delegates at Cincinnati calied for tho nomination of Gen. Hancock. It was to put an end to this eternal cry of the Republican party against the South. It was to show the people of the North that they meant to be loyal, and that they were willing to vote for a t mau for President who marshaled the forces of the Union against them on the field of battle. “Give us Hancock,” they said, “the nian who fought us bravely in the field—true to his Government and his duty. Surely he was ‘ loyal,’ and no ‘ bloody shirt ’ can be waved against him.” This is what they said, and this is why the South will bo “ solid ” for Hancock at this election. If the people of the North are thoughtful and wise they will accept this proffered token of loyalty and good will, and make the hero, who was a lion on the heights of Gettysburg, The President whose mild and just rule .shall usher iq a lasting era of peace and fraternity between the once-contending sections. The South wants peace and good-mil. She is building up the waste places of war ; she is just starting upon a new career of enterprise and business prosperity. The North wants Southern trado and Southern money. Tho whole country wants rest and repose, and unity and brotherhood. Down with these war cries; down with these slanders and this sectional hate; down with the party which engenders these things, which can only live and thrive on thq memories of fraternal bloodshed, and which would poison a new generation with the hatreds and animosities of their fathers. There is danger in all this to the future peace of the country. The men of the South, who fought in the war, will never again take the sword, no matter how much they may be goaded or taunted. But who shall answer for their children if the Republican party continues to bear rule, and the successors of the Blaines and the Chandlers, tho Fryes and the Hales continue this ceaseless aggravation? Can. the American people afford to keep a party in power which thus threatens the Union with future convulsions? Democrats of Indiana, in this great battle for nstional purity and national peace, you hold the ceuter of the liuo. I pray you to stand firm for the right—firm as did our glorious leader at Gettysburg. Here will be the thickest of the fight—here you will receive the mighty shock of the enemy’s grandest assault. All around you his forces are now massing for the charge. Close up the ranks, stand to your guns, do your duty like men and patriots, and you shall send the broken legions of the foe flying in wreck and despair from this great central battle-field of the campaign. God grant that when the sun shall go down on that coming October day you may have won here a victory which shall thrill the lai)d from end to end, and cause tho anxious hearts of patriotic men everywhere to leap for joy that the power of the oppressor is broken and the republic may live and te immortal.