Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 March 1888 — THE BESO[?]TED INGALLS DISSECTEH. [ARTICLE]

THE BESO[?]TED INGALLS DISSECTEH.

Senator B*ackburn said that he did not need to be told by the Senator from Kansas that Kentucky bad always been loyal. That Senator knew he (Blackburn) represented a constituency that had sent .hree men into the Union army for Ihe one man that Kansas -ent, and it was not without pride that he recalled the fact that of the thirty odd States then in the Union, Kentuesy was the only State whioh had, without a draft, supplied more than her quota of men to both sides during the struggle. Why the Senator from |should have traveled out of hia way to make an onslaught on him he did not know. He did not know that he (Blackburn) was a necessary connecting link with the Senator’s acceptance of the Presidential nomination. The Senator from Kansas doubtless did know that illness in the family of the Senator fr un Missouri hadtaken him a long distance from the city and that he was to be absent far some time on that account* What connection, he asked, had the speech made at Atlanta or the speech made at Nev York by a gentleman who had neyer been a member of either house of Congress with the pending bill? When the Senator from Kansas undertook to speak of the Chief Executive of the country in the terms he had seen fit to employ, and which, he took it, were deliberately prepared and conned, he (Ingalls) certainly could not take issue with nim (Blackburn) if he concluded that it was not enti-

tied to response or reply in a presence so august and distinguished as the Senate of the United States. What cause of grievance the Senator had that warranted him in applying language to the Chief Magistrate, which would not be permissable on the hustings (he wo’d not say that it would be disgraceful even to be applied by fishwomen) he did not know but when that Senator undertook to denounce the Chief Executive i f the United States after such a fashion as to deliberately declare that no man afflicted with ignorance so profound, obscurity so gross, should censider himself as unfit to become the President’s successor, it did seem to him (Blaekbum) that the dignity of the Senate chamber refused permission to respond. He was not here to defend the President from such unwarranted attacks. He knew but one sin which the President had committed in the eyes of the Senator from Kansas. That might be the unpardonable sin. It was that of having defeated the|Senator’sparty at the polls; he has given to the American people for three years past so efficient, so honest, se clean-hand >d an administration as to d om the last of Republican aspirations to disaster. THE GRAVE NOT SPARED. But the Senator from Kansas

had even gone farther and done worse in his intemperate zeal. He had not spared the sanctity of the grave in his frantic efforts to stir up prejudice between sections already re-united; he had dragged up for abuse and vilification before the American Senate such men eg had furnished with their unblemished swords the brightest pages of American history. McClellan and Hancock were to be denounced in the Senate chamber as allijs of the Confederates. Would it not have been in better taste (at least more creditable to the courage and candor of the Senator) if he had made such a charge before both of these men were buried? Senator Ingalls (from his seat) —“I did often.” [Murmurs of applause and laughter]. Senator Blackburn—“ Then so much the worse for the Senator from Kansas. What warrant or ground had he for that, except th t they were both different from himself, at least in political faith, if (may we not hope also) m many other regards? “Hanco, k an ally of the Confederates! Was be so regarded and believed when, weltering in his blood on Cemetery Heights, h? refused to be removed from the field, and persisted in giving orders which checked the last advance of Longstreet’s irresistable battalions? Was it this man, who was honored *by the American people, whether Republicans or Democrats, up to the very date when he had accepted the nomination of the Democratic party, who was to be spoken of as an ally of the Confederates?

The Senator from Kansas was in the army from 1863 to 1865 and in what capacity? One who had sat and listened to the Senator might suppose that he was controlling the great army operating in +he West, if not that operating in the East also. I saw the bronzed and weather beaten commander of the American army, (alluding to Gen. Sheridan, who oeempied a seat on the floor during Senator Ingalls' speech) sit here in this chamber and blnsh immoderately at the humble j art which he round he had played in the war of the bellion, in comparison with that of the Senator from Kansas. What was that Senator’s occupation in a military capacity ? He was Judge Advocate of the Kansas Yolunteers (laughter). While Gen. Blaek, the Commissioner of Pensions, was bleeding in the Kansas frontier, while McClellan was commanding the army,|while Hancock was weltering in his blood on Cemetery mights at Gettysburg, the Senator from Kansas, always behind the rear of the army, was prosecuting Kansas jay hawkers for rifling henroosts (loud applause and laughter). Now what are you to think of the arguments of the Senator who will leave his seat as presiding officer and come to the floor in the illustration of a parti? san zeal which, I am glad to say, J have never seen equaled; attacking

all decent people, from the President of the United States down — civilians as well as military men —a d letting no object eseape the venoA of his tongue; one would say that he •sas a cynic, despising m nkind p rhaps because he had a snspicion that mankind was not enamored of him. But neither President nor soldier, lining or dead, Confederate or Federal, except he accords with him in political convictions, is s ife from his unjust and unfounded attacks.

UNION DEMOCRATS FROM THE SOUTH* “I have never opposed pensioning disable* Union soldiers, and I do not know the Confederate who has done so. The Senator tells us that no Democratic constituency in the South bad ever elected a Union soldier to either House of Congress. There is not a*, atom of foundation in fact for the statement. The State of Texas sent to Congress, term after term, a distinguished Union soldier in the person of Governor Hancock. — The State of Aikansas sent in redeem years, from a Democratic constituency, a Union soldier to represent her in the other house of Congress. 1 would like Jo know if the late Governor Walker was not a Union soldier and an honored Representative in the other branch of Congress from an overwhelmingly Democratic district in the Old Dominion? Did not the Senator from Kansas remember that within the last six years, and for six years, the State of Kentucky kept continuously in the other house of Congress a distinguished Federal General during the war (alluding to Mr. Wolford), who was shot out of his saddle more than half a dozen times, and who a ways eame there as a candidate of the Democratic party, eleoted in a Democratic district? ‘T do not care to follow the Senator (time forbids it) through all the inaccuracies of uttorances. — Party man as I am, partisan as I confess myself to be, I do sincerely trust that I may never find my term of public!) service prolonged to that day. nor my life extended to that hour when, without warrant, without facts to support it, without truth at my back, I will turn deliberately to traduce and abuse the dead, who, while living, were honored by all honorable men.” — -

(Loud applause, which vh* presid* ing officer ch?cked.)