Essentials of Business Analytics 1st Edition Camm Test Bank

Essentials of Business Analytics 1st

Edition Camm Test Bank
Visit to get the accurate and complete content:

https://testbankfan.com/download/essentials-of-business-analytics-1st-edition-camm-t
est-bank/

Visit TestBankFan.com to get complete for all chapters

Essentials of Business Analytics 1st Edition Camm Test Bank

Chapter 2: Descriptive Statistics

1. _____ provide facts and figures that can be used for analysis and interpretation of a population
of interest.
a. Data
b. Variables
c. Range
d. Query

Answer: A
Difficulty: Easy
LO: 2.1, Page 16
Bloom’s: Knowledge
BUSPROG: Analytic Skills
DISC: Descriptive Statistics
Feedback: Data are the facts and figures collected, analyzed, and summarized for presentation
and interpretation.

2. A variable is defined as a
a. quantity of interest that can take on same values.
b. set of values.
c. quantity of interest that can take on different values.
d. characteristic that takes on same values from a set of values.

Answer: C
Difficulty: Easy
LO: 2.1, Page 16
Bloom’s: Knowledge
BUSPROG: Analytic Skills
DISC: Descriptive Statistics
Feedback: A characteristic or a quantity of interest that can take on different values is known as
a variable.

3. A set of values corresponding to a set of variables is defined as a(n) _____.

a. quantity
b. event
c. factor
d. observation

Answer: D
Difficulty: Easy
LO: 2.1, Page 16
Bloom’s: Knowledge
BUSPROG: Analytic Skills
DISC: Descriptive Statistics

Visit TestBankFan.com to get complete for all chapters

 Feedback: An observation is a set of values corresponding to a set of variables.

4. The difference in a variable measured over observations (time, customers, items, etc.) is called
as _____.
a. observed differences
b. variation
c. variable change
d. descriptive analytics

Answer: B
Difficulty: Moderate
LO: 2.1, Page 16
Bloom’s: Knowledge
BUSPROG: Analytic Skills
DISC: Descriptive Statistics
Feedback: Variation is the difference in a variable measured over observations (time, customers,
items, etc.).

5. A variable whose values are not known with certainty is called a _____.
a. certain variable
b. random variable
c. constant variable
d. decision variable

Answer: B
Difficulty: Moderate
LO: 2.1, Page 17
Bloom’s: Knowledge
BUSPROG: Analytic Skills
DISC: Descriptive Statistics
Feedback: A quantity whose values are not known with certainty is called a random variable, or
uncertain variable.

6. _____ act(s) as a representative of the population.

a. The analytics
b. The variance
c. A sample
d. The random variables

Answer: C
Difficulty: Easy
LO: 2.2, Page 17
Bloom’s: Knowledge
BUSPROG: Analytic Skills
DISC: Descriptive Statistics
 Feedback: A subset of the population is known as a sample, and it acts as a representative of the
population.

7. The act of collecting data that are representative of the population data is called
a. random sampling.
b. sample data.
c. population sampling.
d. applications of business analytics.

Answer: A
Difficulty: Easy
LO: 2.2, Page 18
Bloom’s: Knowledge
BUSPROG: Analytic Skills
DISC: Descriptive Statistics
Feedback: A representative sample can be gathered by random sampling of the population data.

8. The data on grades (A, B, C, and D) scored by all students in a test is an example of
a. quantitative data.
b. sample data.
c. categorical data.
d. analytical data.

Answer: C
Difficulty: Easy
LO: 2.2, Page 18
Bloom’s: Knowledge
BUSPROG: Analytic Skills
DISC: Descriptive Statistics
Feedback: If arithmetic operations cannot be performed on the data, they are considered
categorical data.

9. The data on the time taken by 10 students in a class to answer a test is an example of
a. population data.
b. categorical data.
c. time series data.
d. quantitative data.

Answer: D
Difficulty: Easy
LO: 2.2, Page 18
Bloom’s: Knowledge
BUSPROG: Analytic Skills
DISC: Descriptive Statistics
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
figures any evidence that capital has been attracted to Ohio by a
higher rate of interest, or repelled from our State by a lower one?
Assuredly not!
What in this direction is proposed to be done among ourselves is
shown in the section now presented for our consideration. By it the
legal rate in the absence of “special contracts” is to be raised to seven
per cent., such “contracts,” however ruinous in their character, and
whatsoever the nature of the security, are to be legalized; the only
exception to these sweeping changes being that national banks,
issuing circulating notes are to be limited to seven per cent. Shylock
asked only “the due and forfeit of his bond.” Let this section be
adopted, let him then present himself in any of our courts, can its
judge do other than decide that “the law allows it and the court
awards it,” monstrous as may have been the usury, and discreditable
as may have been the arts by means of which the unfortunate debtor
may have been entrapped? Assuredly not. Shylock, happily, was
outwitted, the bond having made no provision for taking even “one
jot of blood.” Here, the unfortunate debtor, forced by his flinty-
hearted creditor into a “special contract” utterly ruinous, may, in
view of the destruction of all hope for the future of his wife and
children, shed almost tears of blood, but they will be of no avail; yet
do we claim to live under a system whose foundation-stone exhibits
itself in the great precept from which we learn that duty requires of
us to do to others as we would that others should do unto ourselves.
By the English law the little landowner, the mechanic who owns
the house in which he lives, is protected against his wealthy
mortgagee. Here, on the contrary, the farmer, suffering under the
effects of blight or drought, and thus deprived of power to meet with
punctuality the demands of his mortgagee, is to have no protection
whatsoever. So, too, with the poor mechanic suffering temporarily by
reason of accidental incapacity for work, and, with the sheriff full in
view before him, compelled to enter into a “special contract”
doubling if not trebling, the previous rate of interest. Infamous as
may be its extortion the court may not deny the aid required for its
enforcement.
The amount now loaned on mortgage security in this State at six
per cent. is certainly not less than $400,000,000, and probably
extends to $500,000,000, a large portion of which is liable to be
called for at any moment. Let this section be adopted and we shall
almost at once witness a combined movement among mortgagees for
raising the rate of interest. Notices demanding payment will fly thick
as hail throughout the State, every holder of such security knowing
well that the greater the alarm that can be produced and the more
utter the impossibility of obtaining other moneys the larger may be
made the future rate of interest. The unfortunate mortgagor must
then accept the terms, hard as they may be, dictated to him, be they
8, 10, 12, or 20 per cent. Such, as I am assured has been the course of
things in Connecticut, where distress the most severe has been
produced by a recent abandonment by the State of the policy under
which it has in the past so greatly prospered. At this moment her
savings’ banks are engaged in compelling mortgagers to accept eight
per cent. as the present rate. How long it will be before they will carry
it up to ten or twelve, or what will be the effect, remains to be seen.
Already among ourselves the effects of the sad blunders of our great
financiers exhibit themselves in the very unpleasant fact that sheriffs’
sales are six times more numerous than they were in the period from
1861 to 1867, when the country was so severely suffering under the
waste of property, labor, and life, which had but then occurred. Let
this section be adopted, giving perfect freedom to the Shylocks of the
day, and the next half dozen years will witness the transfer, under the
sheriff’s hammer, of the larger portion of the real property of both
the city and the State. Of all the devices yet invented for the
subjugation of labor by capital, there is none that can claim to be
entitled to take precedence of that which has been now proposed for
our consideration.
Rightly styled the Keystone of the Union, one duty yet remains to
her to be performed, to wit: that of bringing about equality in the
distribution of power over that machinery for whose use men pay
interest, which is known as money. New England, being rich and
having her people concentrated within very narrow limits, has been
allowed to absorb a portion of that power fully equal to her needs,
while this State, richer still, has been so “cabined, cribbed, confined,”
that her mine and furnace operators find it difficult to obtain that
circulating medium by whose aid alone can they distribute among
their workmen their shares of the things produced.—New York,
already rich, has been allowed to absorb a fourth of the permitted
circulation, to the almost entire exclusion of the States south of
Pennsylvania and west of the Mississippi; and hence it is that her
people are enabled to levy upon those of all these latter such
enormous taxes. To the work of correcting this enormous evil
Pennsylvania should now address herself. Instead of following in the
wake of New Jersey and Connecticut, thereby giving to the monopoly
an increase of strength, let her place herself side by side with the
suffering States of the West, the South, and the Southwest,
demanding that what has been made free to New York and New
England shall be made equally free to her and them. Let her do this,
and the remedy will be secured, with such increase in the general
power for developing the wonderful resources of the Union as will
speedily make of it an iron and cloth exporting State, with such
power for retaining and controlling the precious metals as will place
it on a surer footing in that respect than any of the powers of the
Eastern world. The more rapid the societary circulation, and the
greater the facility of making exchanges from hand to hand, and
from place to place, the greater is the tendency toward reduction in
the rate of interest, toward equality in the condition of laborer and
employer, and toward growth and power to command the services of
all the metals, gold and silver included.
It will be said, however, that adoption of such measures as have
been indicated would tend to produce a general rise of prices; or, in
the words of our self-styled economists, would cause “inflation.” The
vulgar error here involved was examined some thirty years since by
an eminent British economist, and with a thoroughness never before
exhibited in reference to any other economic question whatsoever,
the result exhibiting itself in the following brief words of a highly
distinguished American one, published some twelve or fifteen years
since, to wit:
“Among the innumerable influences which go to determine the general rate of
prices, the quantity of money, or currency, is one of the least effective.”
Since then we have had a great war, in the course of which there
have been numerous and extensive changes in the price of
commodities, every one of which is clearly traceable to causes widely
different from those to which they so generally are attributed. Be
that, however, as it may, the question now before us is one of right
and justice, and not of mere expediency. North and east of
Pennsylvania eight millions of people have been allowed a greater
share of the most important of all powers, the money one, than has
been allotted to the thirty-two millions south and west of New York,
and have thus been granted a power of taxation that should be no
longer tolerated. The basis of our whole system is to be found in
equality before the law, each and every man, each and every State,
being entitled to exercise the same powers that are permitted to our
people, or other States. If the Union is to be maintained, it can be so
on no terms other than those of recognition of the existence of the
equality that has here been indicated. To the work of compelling that
recognition Pennsylvania should give herself, inscribing on her
shield the brief words fiat justitia, ruat cœlum—let justice be done
though the heavens fall!
 Speech of Gen. Simon Cameron.

On the benefits derived by Pennsylvania from the Policy of Internal

Improvements.
Any one will see, who will take the trouble to read the debates on
the location of the National Capital, that the decision of that question
seems to have been made solely with reference to a connection of the
East with the then great wilderness of the West. All the sagacious
men then in public life looked to the time when the West, with its
wonderful productive soil brought under subjection by industry,
would exercise a controlling influence on the destiny of the country.
Columbia, in the State of Pennsylvania, was at one time within one
vote of becoming the site of the Capital; and Germantown, near, and
now a part of, Philadelphia, was actually decided on as the proper
location by a majority of one. The first of these was favored because
it was believed to be a favorable point from which to begin a slack
water route to the west. Germantown near the Schuylkill, was chosen
for the same reason. All looked forward to a system of canals which
would accomplish this desirable object, and experience has fully
demonstrated their wisdom in that great design. About 1790, General
Washington and the great financier Robert Morris, traveled on
horseback from Philadelphia to the Susquehanna river, with a view
of deciding whether a canal could be built over that route.
Shortly after this, some gentlemen near Philadelphia actually
began building a canal to the west, did some work on its eastern end,
built one or two locks on the dividing ridge near Lebanon, and for
want of sufficient funds and knowledge of the subject the work was
stopped. The money expended on the enterprise was lost.
But the progressive men of the country, keeping their minds on the
subject, continued to agitate the popular mind on it until 1820, when
the Legislature of Pennsylvania chartered the Union Canal Company,
and appropriated one million dollars to aid its construction. In a few
years the canal was completed between the Schuylkill and
Susquehanna. Although very small, this improvement did a great
deal of good. And the most remarkable thing about it was its
unpopularity with the masses. Not only the members of General
Assembly who passed the bill, but Governor Heister, who signed the
act of incorporation, were driven from office at the first opportunity
legally presented for testing public opinion, and the party to which
they belonged went into a minority. I remember well what a mighty
sum a million dollars seemed to be; and the political revolution
caused by this appropriation showed me that the idea of its vastness
was not confined by any means to myself.
Our system of canals was completed, and the benefits derived from
them were incalculable. When they were commenced our State was
poor. Industry languished. The interchange of her products was
difficult. Population was sparse. Intelligence was not generally
diffused. Manufactures struggled weakly along. Work was not
plentiful. Wages were low. When they were finished the busy hum of
industry was heard on every hand. Our population had grown until
we numbered millions. Our iron ore beds were yielding their
precious hoards for human use. Coal mines, unknown or useless
until means were provided for transporting their wealth to market,
now sent millions of tons in every direction. Progress in every walk of
advanced civilization was realized, and we were on the high road to
permanent prosperity. But in the meantime a new and better means
of communication had been discovered, and the building of railroads
quickly reduced the value of canals, and the works we had completed
at so much cost, and with such infinite labor, were suddenly
superseded. We lost nearly all the money they had cost us, but this
investment was wisely made. The return to our State was many times
greater than the outlay.
Like all great projects intended for the public good, that of Internal
Improvement progressed. In 1823, the New York canal—which had
been pushed through against the prejudiced opposition of the
people, by the genius of De Witt Clinton—was opened. Its success
caused a revolution in the public mind all over the country. The
effect was so marked in the State, that in 1825 a convention was
called to consider the subject. Every county in the State was
represented, I believe. That body pronounced in favor of a grand
system of public works, which should not only connect the East and
West, but also the waters of the Susquehanna with the great lakes,
the West and the Northwest. Appropriations were recommended to
the amount of three millions of dollars, and in 1826, I think the work
began. This sum seemed to be enormous, and the estimates of the
engineers reached a total of six millions of dollars. Meeting an ardent
friend of the system one day, he declared that a sum of that
magnitude could never be expended on these works. I ventured to
reply, with great deference to his age and experience, that I thought
it would be insufficient, and before they were completed I would not
be surprised if ten millions would be found necessary. Looking at me
steadily for a few moments, he closed the conversation by
exclaiming, “Young man, you are a d——d fool!” I was thus left in full
possession of his opinion of me. But after we had spent
$41,698,594.74 in the construction of these works, I found my
estimate of his judgment was singularly in harmony with my opinion
of his politeness. His candor I never doubted.
In the convention of 1825, there were two gentlemen who voted for
railways instead of canals. One was professor Vethake of Dickinson
College, Carlisle; and the other was Jacob Alter, a man of very little
education, but of strong understanding. The professor was looked
upon as a dreamer, and was supposed to have led his colleague
astray in his vagaries. But they both lived to see railroads extended
over the whole world. As a part of our system of public works, we
built a railroad from the Delaware to the Susquehanna, from
Philadelphia to Columbia, and one from the eastern base of the
Allegheny mountains to their western base. They were originally
intended to be used with horse power. In the meantime the railroad
system had been commenced, and the Pennsylvania Railroad, under
the charge of a man of extraordinary ability, John Edgar Thompson,
was rapidly pushed to completion. Another great railway, the
Philadelphia and Reading, was built to carry anthracite coal from the
Schuylkill mines to the market. A railroad was built each side of the
Lehigh river, that another part of our coal territory might find a
market in New York. Another was built from the north branch of the
Susquehanna, connecting with the New York roads, and leading to
the northern coal field. And yet another was built along the
Susquehanna, through the southern coal basin, to the city of
Baltimore. The total cost of these roads, independent of the
Pennsylvania railroad, was $95,250,410.10, as shown by official
reports. Their earnings last year are officially given at
$24,753,065.32. Each of these was forced to contend with difficulty
and prejudice. All were unpopular, and all were looked upon with
suspicion until they actually forced their usefulness on the public
mind. Those who made the fight for canals were forced to go over the
whole ground again for railroads, and their double victory is greater
than the success generally vouchsafed to the pioneers in any cause.
These roads, with the Pennsylvania railroad and the lesser lines of
improvements running through the coal region cost over
$207,000,000.
The Reading Railroad will serve to illustrate the struggle of these
great schemes. Its stock, now worth over par, once sold for twenty
cents on the dollar; and at one time it was forced to sell its bonds at
forty cents on the dollar to pay operating expenses. The vindication
of the sagacity of the pioneers in these great enterprises is complete.
All these lines are now profitable, and it has been demonstrated
everywhere in the United States, that every new railroad creates the
business from which its stockholders receive their dividends. It
seems, therefore, scarcely possible to fix a limit to our profitable
railroad expansion. They open new fields of enterprise, and this
enterprise in turn, makes the traffic which fills the coffers of the
companies.
I cannot now look back to the struggle to impress the people with
the advantages of railways, without a feeling of weariness at the
seeming hopeless struggle, and one of merriment at the general
unbelief in our new-fangled project. Once at Elizabethtown in this
State a public meeting had been called for the purpose of securing
subscriptions to the stock of the Harrisburg and Lancaster Railroad.
This road was intended to complete the railway between
Philadelphia and Harrisburg, one hundred and five miles. A large
concourse had gathered. Ovid F. Johnson, Attorney-General of our
State, and a brilliant orator, made an excellent speech; but the effect
was not in proportion to the effort. I determined to make an appeal,
and I gave such arguments as I could. In closing I predicted that
those now listening to me would see the day when a man could
breakfast in Harrisburg, go to Philadelphia, transact a fair day’s
business there, and returning, eat his supper at home. Great
applause followed this, and some additional subscriptions. Abram
Harnly, a friend of the road, and one of the most intelligent of his
class, worked his way to me, and taking me aside whispered, “That
was a good idea about going to Philadelphia and back to Harrisburg
the same day;” and then, bursting with laughter, he added,—“But you
and I know better than that!” We lived to see the road built; and now
people can come and go over the distance twice a day, which Abram
seemed to consider impossible for a single daily trip.
The peculiar condition of the States then known as “the West” was
the subject of anxiety to many. They had attracted a large population,
but the people were exclusively devoted to agriculture. Lacking
diversified industry, they were without accumulated wealth to enable
them to build railways; nor were the States in condition to undertake
such an onerous duty, although several of them made a feeble
attempt to do so. At one time the bonds of Illinois, issued to build her
canals, sold as low as thirty cents on the dollar. So with Indiana. Both
States were supposed to be bankrupt. It became, therefore, an
important problem as to how means of communication should be
supplied to the people of the West. Congress, in 1846, gave a grant of
land to aid in building a railroad in Illinois. Every alternate section
was given to the Company, and each alternate section was reserved
by the Government. The road was built; and the one-half of the land
retained by the government sold for a great deal more than all was
worth before the road was constructed. This idea was original, I
think, with Mr. Whitney of Mass., who spent two winters in
Washington, about 1845, endeavoring to induce Congress to adopt
that plan for the construction of a Trans-Continental Railway.
He died before seeing his scheme succeed. Others have built a road
across the continent on the Central route. Another on the Northern
route is now progressing, and the wealth and enterprise of those
having it in charge renders its completion certain. And it yet remains
for us to give the people of the Southern route a road to the Pacific
which shall develop the magnificent region through which it will
pass, and give the country one route to the great ocean protected
from the ordinary difficulty of climate with which railroads must
contend over so large a part of our territory. But I am admonished by
the value of your space to confine myself to the limits of my own
State.
 I have said that the outlay we have made in building our public
works was of great benefit to us even when the canals had been
rendered almost valueless through the competition of railroads. This
is paradoxical, but it is true nevertheless. That expenditure gave our
people a needed knowledge of our vast resources. It familiarized
them with large expenditures when made for the public good. And it
showed them how a great debt may be beneficially incurred, and yet
not break down the enterprise of the people. We at one time owed
$41,698,595.74. By a steady attention to our finances, it is now
reduced to $31,000,000, with resources,—the proceeds of the sale of
public works—on hand amounting to $10,000,000. And while we
have been steadily reducing our State debt, we have built 5,384 miles
of railway on the surface of the earth, and 500 miles underground in
our mines, at a cost of not less than $350,000,000, for a mile of
railroad in Pennsylvania means something. We sent 368,000 men to
the Federal Army. And our credit stands high on every stock
exchange. Gratifying as this progress is, it is only a fair beginning.
There is a large part of our territory rich in timber and full of iron,
coal, and all kinds of mineral wealth, so entirely undeveloped by
railroads that we call it “the Wilderness.” To open it up is the
business of to-day, and I sincerely hope to see it done soon.
Forty years ago George Shoemaker, a young tavern-keeper of more
vigor and enterprise than his neighbors, came to the conclusion that
anthracite coal could be used as fuel. He went to the expense of
taking a wagon load of it to Philadelphia, a hundred miles away, and,
after peddling it about the streets for some days, was forced to give it
away, and lose his time, his labor and his coal. He afterwards saw a
great railway built to carry the same article to the same point, and
enriching thousands from the profits of the traffic. But his experience
did not end there. He saw a thousand dollars paid eagerly for an acre
of coal land, which at the time of his venture to Philadelphia, no one
would have, and he could not give away.
I have thought that a retrospective survey of our wonderful
development might point plainly to the duty of the future. For if the
experience of what has gone before is not useful to cast light on what
is yet to come, then it will be difficult indeed to discover wherein its
value lies. It teaches me to devote time and labor for the
advancement of all Public Improvements, and I trust it may have a
like effect on all who have the time and patience to read what I have
here written.
 Speech of Hon. John A. Logan,

On Self-Government in Louisiana, January 13 and 14, 1875.

The Senate having under consideration the resolution submitted
by Mr. Schurz on the 8th of January, directing the Committee of the
Judiciary to inquire what legislation is necessary to secure to the
people of the State of Louisiana their rights of Self-government
under the Constitution Mr. Logan said:
Mr. President: I believe it is considered the duty of a good sailor
to stand by his ship in the midst of a great storm. We have been told
in this Chamber that a great storm of indignation is sweeping over
this land, which will rend asunder and sink the old republican craft.
We have listened to denunciations of the President, of the
republicans in this Chamber, of the republican party as an
organization, their acts heretofore and their purposes in reference to
acts hereafter, of such a character as has seldom been listened to in
this or in any other legislative hall. Every fact on the side of the
republican party has been perverted, every falsehood on the part of
the opposition has been exaggerated, arguments have been made
here calculated to inflame and arouse a certain class of the people of
this country against the authorities of the Government, based not
upon truth but upon manufactured statements which were utterly
false. The republican party has been characterized as despotic, as
tyrannical, as oppressive. The course of the Administration and the
party toward the southern people has been denounced as of the most
tyrannical character by men who have received clemency at the
hands of this same party.
Now, sir, what is the cause of all this vain declamation? What is
the cause of all this studied denunciation? What is the reason for all
these accusations made against a party or an administration? I may
be mistaken, but, if I am not, this is the commencement of the
campaign of 1876. It has been thought necessary on the part of the
opposition Senators here to commence, if I may use a homely phrase,
a raid upon the republican party and upon this Administration, and
to base that upon false statements in reference to the conduct of
affairs in the State of Louisiana.
I propose in this debate, and I hope I shall not be too tedious,
though I may be somewhat so, to discuss the question that should be
presented to the American people. I propose to discuss that question
fairly, candidly, and truthfully. I propose to discuss it from a just,
honest, and legal standpoint. Sir, what is that question? There was a
resolution offered in this Chamber calling on the President to furnish
certain information. A second resolution was introduced, (whether
for the purpose of hanging on it an elaborate speech or not I am not
aware,) asking the Committee on the Judiciary to report at once
some legislation in reference to Louisiana. Without any facts
presented officially arguments have been made, the country has been
aroused, and some people have announced themselves in a manner
calculated to produce a very sore feeling against the course and
conduct of the party in power. I say this is done without the facts;
without any basis whatever; without any knowledge officially
communicated to them in reference to the conduct of any of the
parties in the State of Louisiana. In discussing this question we ought
to have a standpoint; we ought to have a beginning; some point from
which we may all reason and see whether or not any great outrage
has been perpetrated against the rights of the American people or
any portion of them.
I then propose to start at this point, that there is a government in
the State of Louisiana. Whether that government is a government of
right or not is not the question. Is there a government in that State
against which treason, insurrection, or rebellion, may be committed?
Is there such a government in the State of Louisiana as should
require the maintenance of peace and order among the citizens of
that State? Is there such a government in the State of Louisiana as
requires the exercise of Executive authority for the purpose of
preserving peace and order within its borders? I ask any Senator on
this floor to-day if he can stand up here as a lawyer, as a Senator, as
an honest man, and deny the fact that a government does exist?
Whether he calls it a government de jure or a government de facto, it
is immaterial. It is such an organization as involves the liberties and
the protection of the rights of the people of that State. It will not do
for Senators to talk about the election of 1872. The election of 1872
has no more to do with this “military usurpation” that you speak of
to-day than an election of a hundred years ago. It is not a question as
to whether this man or that was elected. The question is, is there
such a government there as can be overturned, and has there been an
attempt to overturn it? If so, then what is required to preserve its
status or preserve the peace and order of the people?
But the other day when I asked the question of a Senator on the
other side, who was discussing this question, whether or not he
indorsed the Penn rebellion, he answered me in a playful manner
that excited the mirth of people who did not understand the
question, by saying that I had decided that there was no election, and
that therefore there was no government to overturn. Now I ask
Senators, I ask men of common understanding if that is the way to
treat a question of this kind; when asked whether insurrection
against a government recognized is not an insurrection and whether
he endorses it, he says there is no government to overturn. If there is
no government to overturn, why do you make this noise and
confusion about a Legislature there? If there is no State government,
there is no State Legislature. But I will not answer in that manner. I
will not avoid the issue; I will not evade the question. I answer there
is a Legislature, as there is a State government, recognized by the
President, recognized by the Legislature, recognized by the courts,
recognized by one branch of Congress, and recognized by the
majority of the citizens by their recognition of the laws of the State;
and it will not do to undertake to avoid questions in this manner.
Let us see, then, starting from that standpoint, what the position of
Louisiana is now, and what it has been. On the 14th day of
September last a man by the name of Penn, as to whom we have
official information this morning, with some seven or ten thousand
white-leaguers made war against that government, overturned it,
dispersed it, drove the governor from the executive chamber, and he
had to take refuge under the jurisdiction of the Government of the
United States, on the soil occupied by the United States custom-
house, where the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States
Government extends, for the purpose of protecting his own life.
 This then was a revolution; this then was a rebellion; this then was
treason against the State, for which these men should have been
arrested, tried, and punished. Let gentlemen dodge the question as
they may; it may be well for some men there who engaged in this
treasonable act against the government that they had Mr. Kellogg for
governor. It might not have been so well for them, perhaps, had there
been some other man in his place. I tell the Senator from Maryland if
any crowd of armed men should undertake to disperse the
government of the State of Illinois, drive its governor from the
executive chamber, enter into his private drawers, take his private
letters, and publish them, and act as those men did, some of them
would pay the penalty either in the penitentiary or by dancing at the
end of a rope.
But when this rebellion was going on against that State, these
gentlemen say it was a State affair; the Government of the United
States has nothing to do with it! That is the old-fashioned secession
doctrine again. The government of the United States has nothing to
do with it! This national government is made up of States, and each
State is a part of the Government, each is a part of its life, of its body.
It takes them all to make up the whole; and treason against any part
of it is treason against the whole of it, and it became the duty of the
President to put it down, as he did do; and, in putting down that
treason against the Kellogg government, the whole country almost
responded favorably to his action.
But our friend from Maryland, not in his seat now, [Mr.
Hamilton] said that that was part of the cause of the elections going
as they did. In other words, my friend from Maryland undertook in a
roundabout way to endorse the Penn rebellion, and claim that people
of the country did the same thing against the government of the State
of Louisiana, and on this floor since this discussion has been going
on, not one Senator on that side of the chamber has lisped one word
against the rebellion against the government of the State of
Louisiana, and all who have spoken of it have passed it by in silence
so as to indicate clearly that they endorse it, and I believe they do.
Then, going further, the President issued his proclamation
requiring those insurgents to lay down their arms and to resume
their peaceful pursuits. This morning we have heard read at the
clerk’s desk that these men have not yet complied fully with that
proclamation. Their rebellious organization continued up to the time
of the election and at the election. When the election took place, we
are told by some of these Senators that the election was a peaceable,
and a fair election, that a majority of democrats were elected. That is
the question we propose to discuss as well as we are able to do it.
They tell us that there was no intimidation resorted to by any one in
the State of Louisiana. I dislike very much to follow out these
statements that are not true and attempt to controvert them because
it does seem to me that we ought to act fairly and candidly in this
Chamber and discuss questions without trying to pervert the issue or
the facts in connection with it.
Now, I state it as a fact, and I appeal to the Senator from Louisiana
to say whether or not I state truly, that on the night before the
election in Louisiana notices were posted all over that country on the
doors of the colored republicans and the white republicans, too, of a
character giving them to understand that if they voted their lives
would be in danger; and here is one of the notices posted all over that
country:

2×6

This “2 × 6” was to show the length and width of the grave they
would have. Not only that, but the negroes that they could impose
upon and get to vote the democratic ticket received, after they had
voted, a card of safety; and here is that card issued to the colored
people whom they had induced to vote the democratic ticket, so that
they might present it if any white-leaguers should undertake to
plunder or murder them:
 New Orleans, Nov. 28, 1874.

This is to certify that Charles Durassa, a barber by occupation, is a

Member of the 1st Ward Colored Democratic Club, and that at the late
election he voted for and worked in the interests of the Democratic
Candidates.

WILLIAM ALEXANDER,
President 1st Ward Col’d Democratic Club.

NICK HOPE, Secretary.

Rooms Democratic Parish Committee.

New Orleans, Nov. 28, 1874.

The undersigned, Special Committee, appointed on behalf of the Parish

Committee, approve of the above Certificate.

ED. FLOOD, Chairman.

PAUL WATERMAN.
H. J. RIVET.

Attest:
J. H. HARDY, Ass’t Sec. Parish Committee.

These were the certificates given to negroes who voted the

democratic ticket, that they might present them to save their lives
when attacked by the men commonly known as Ku-Klux or white-
leaguers in that country; and we are told that there is no intimidation
in the State of Louisiana!
Our friend from Georgia [Mr. Gordon] has been very profuse in
his declamation as to the civility and good order and good bearing of
the people of Louisiana and the other Southern States. But, sir, this
intimidation continued up to the election. After the election, it was
necessary for the governor of that State to proceed in some manner
best calculated to preserve the peace and order of the country.

Now, Mr. President, I want to ask candid, honest, fair-minded

men, after reading the report of General Sheridan showing the
murder, not for gain, not for plunder, but for political opinions in the
last few years of thirty-five hundred persons in the State of
Louisiana, all of them republicans, not one of them a democrat—I
want to ask if they can stand here before this country and defend the
democratic party of Louisiana? I put this question to them for they
have been here for days crying against the wrongs upon the
democracy of Louisiana. I want any one of them to tell me if he is
prepared to defend the democracy of Louisiana. What is your
democracy of Louisiana? You are excited, your extreme wrath is
aroused at General Sheridan because he called your White Leagues
down there “banditti.” I ask you if the murder of thirty-five hundred
men in a short time for political purposes by a band of men banded
together for the purpose of murder does not make them banditti,
what it does make them? Does it make them democrats? It certainly
does not make them republicans. Does it make them honest men? It
certainly does not. Does it make them law-abiding men? It certainly
does not. Does it make them peaceable citizens? It certainly does not.
But what does it make them? A band of men banded together and
perpetrating murder in their own State? Webster says a bandit is “a
lawless or desperate fellow; a robber; a brigand,” and “banditti” are
men banded together for plunder and murder; and what are your
White Leagues banded together for if the result proves that they are
banded together for murder for political purposes?
O, what a crime it was in Sheridan to say that these men were
banditti! He is a wretch. From the papers he ought to be hanged to a
lamp-post; from the Senators he is not fit to breathe the free air of
heaven or of this free Republic; but your murderers of thirty-five
hundred people for political offenses are fit to breathe the air of this
country and are defended on this floor to-day, and they are defended
here by the democratic party, and you cannot avoid or escape the
proposition. You have denounced republicans for trying to keep the
peace in Louisiana; you have denounced the Administration for
trying to suppress bloodshed in Louisiana; you have denounced all
for the same purpose; but not one word has fallen from the lips of a
solitary democratic Senator denouncing these wholesale murders in
Louisiana. You have said, “I am sorry these things are done,” but you
have defended the White Leagues; you have defended Penn; you
have defended rebellion; and you stand here to-day the apologists of
murder, of rebellion, and of treason in that State.
I want to ask the judgment of an honest country, I want to ask the
judgment of the moral sentiments of the law-abiding people of this
grand and glorious Republic to tell me whether men shall murder by
the score, whether men shall trample the law under foot, whether
men shall force judges to resign, whether men shall force prosecuting
attorneys to resign, whether men shall take five officers of a State out
and hang or shoot them if they attempt to exercise the functions of
their office, whether men shall terrify the voters and office-holders of
a State, whether men shall undertake in violation of law to organize a
Legislature for revolutionary purposes, for the purpose of putting a
governor in possession and taking possession of the State and then
ask the democracy to stand by them—I appeal to the honest
judgment of the people of this land and ask them to respond whether
this was not an excusable case when this man used the Army to
protect the life of that State and to preserve the peace of that people?
Sir, the man who will not use all the means in his power to preserve
the nationality, the integrity of this Government, the integrity of a
State or the peace and happiness of a people, is not fit to govern, he
is not fit to hold position in this or any other civilized age.
Does liberty mean wholesale slaughter? Does republican
government mean tyranny and oppression of its citizens? Does an
intelligent and enlightened age of civilization mean murder and
pillage, bloodshed at the hands of Ku-Klux or White Leagues or
anybody else, and if any one attempts to put it down, attempts to
reorganize and produce order where chaos and confusion have
reigned, they are to be denounced as tyrants, as oppressors, and as
acting against republican institutions? I say then the happy days of
this Republic are gone. When we fail to see that republicanism
means nothing, that liberty means nothing but the unrestrained
license of the mobs to do as they please, then republican government
is a failure. Liberty of the citizen means the right to exercise such
rights as are prescribed within the limits of the law so that he does
not in the exercise of these rights infringe the rights of other citizens.
But the definition is not well made by our friends on the opposite
side of this Chamber. Their idea of liberty is license; it is not liberty,
but it is license. License to do what? License to violate law, to
trample constitutions under foot, to take life, to take property, to use
the bludgeon and the gun or anything else for the purpose of giving
themselves power. What statesman ever heard of that as a definition
of liberty? What man in a civilized age has ever heard of liberty being
the unrestrained license of the people to do as they please without
any restraint of law or of authority? No man, no not one until we
found the democratic party, would advocate this proposition and
indorse and encourage this kind of license in a free country.
Mr. President, I have perhaps said more on this question of
Louisiana than might have been well for me to say on account of my
strength, but what I have said about it I have said because I honestly
believed it. What I have said in reference to it comes from an honest
conviction in my mind and in my heart of what has been done to
suppress violence and wrong. But I have a few remarks in conclusion
to submit now to my friends on the other side, in answer to what they
have said not by way of argument but by way of accusation. You say
to us—I had it repeated to me this morning in private conversation
—“Withdraw your troops from Louisiana and you will have peace.”
Ah, I heard it said on this floor once “Withdraw your troops from
Louisiana and your State government will not last a minute.” I heard
that said from the opposite side of the Chamber, and now you say
“Withdraw your troops from Louisiana and you will have peace.”
Mr. President, I dislike to refer to things that are past and gone; I
dislike to have my mind called back to things of the past; but I well
remember the voice in this Chamber once that rang out and was
heard throughout this land, “Withdraw your troops from Fort
Sumter if you want peace.” I heard that said. Now it is “Withdraw
your troops from Louisiana if you want peace.” Yes, I say, withdraw
your troops from Louisiana if you want a revolution, and that is what
is meant. But, sir, we are told, and doubtless it is believed by the
Senators who tell us so, who denounce the republican party, that it is
tyrannical, oppressive, and outrageous. They have argued themselves
into the idea that they are patriots, pure and undefiled. They have
argued themselves into the idea that the democratic party never did
any wrong. They have been out of power so long that they have
convinced themselves that if they only had control of this country for
a short time, what a glorious country they would make it. They had
control for nearly forty long years, and while they were the agents of
this country—I appeal to history to bear me out—they made the
Government a bankrupt, with rebellion and treason in the land, and
were then sympathizing with it wherever it existed. That is the
condition in which they left the country when they had it in their
possession and within their control. But they say the republican
party is a tyrant; that it is oppressive. As I have said, I wish to make a
few suggestions to my friends in answer to this accusation—
oppressive to whom? They say to the South, that the republican party
has tyrannized over the South. Let me ask you how has it tyrannized
over the South? Without speaking of our troubles and trials through
which we passed, I will say this: at the end of a rebellion that
scourged this land, that drenched it with blood, that devastated a
portion of it, left us in debt and almost bankrupt, what did the
republican party do? Instead of leaving these our friends and citizens
to-day in a territorial condition where we might exercise jurisdiction
over them for the next coming twenty years, where we might have
deprived them of the rights of members on this floor, what did we
do? We reorganized them into States, admitted them back into the
Union, and through the clemency of the republican party we
admitted representatives on this floor who had thundered against
the gates of liberty for four bloody years. Is that the tyranny and
oppression of which you complain at the hands of the republican
party? Is that a part of our oppression against you southern people?
Let us go a little further. When the armed democracy, for that is
what they were, laid down their arms in the Southern States, after
disputing the right of freedom and liberty in this land for four years,
how did the republican party show itself in its acts of tyranny and
oppression toward you? You appealed to them for clemency. Did you
get it? Not a man was punished for his treason. Not a man ever
knocked at the doors of a republican Congress for a pardon who did
not get it. Not a man ever petitioned the generosity of the republican
party to be excused for his crimes who was not excused. Was that
oppression upon the part of the republicans in this land? Is that a
part of the oppression of which you accuse us?
 Let us look a little further. We find to-day twenty-seven
democratic Representatives in the other branch of Congress who
took arms in their hands and tried to destroy this Government
holding commissions there by the clemency of the republican party.
We find in this Chamber by the clemency of the republican party
three Senators who held such commissions. Is that tyranny; is that
oppression; is that the outrage of this republican party on you
southern people? Sir, when Jeff Davis, the head of the great
rebellion, who roams the land free as air, North, South, East, and
West, makes democratic speeches wherever invited, and the vice-
president of the southern rebellion holds his seat in the other House
of Congress, are we to be told that we are tyrants, and oppressing the
southern people? These things may sound a little harsh, but it is time
to tell the truth in this country. The time has come to talk facts. The
time has come when cowards should hide, and honest men should
come to the front and tell you plain, honest truths. You of the South
talk to us about oppressing you. You drenched your land in blood,
caused weeping throughout this vast domain, covered the land in
weeds of mourning both North and South, widowed thousands and
orphaned many, made the pension-roll as long as an army-list, made
the debt that grinds the poor of this land—for all these things you
have been pardoned, and yet you talk to us about oppression. So
much for the oppression of the republican party of your patriotic
souls and selves. Next comes the President of the United States. He is
a tyrant, too. He is an oppressor still, in conjunction with the
republican party. Oppressor of what? Who has he oppressed of your
Southern people, and when, and where? When your Ku-Klux,
banded together for murder and plunder in the Southern States,
were convicted by their own confession, your own representatives
pleaded to the President and said, “Give them pardon, and it will
reconcile many of the southern people.” The President pardoned
them; pardoned them of their murder, of their plunder, of their
piracy on land; and for this I suppose he is a tyrant.
More than that, sir, this tyrant in the White House has done more
for you southern people than you ought to have asked him to do. He
has had confidence in you until you betrayed that confidence. He has
not only pardoned the offences of the South, pardoned the criminals
of the democratic party, but he has placed in high official position in
this Union some of the leading men who fought in the rebellion. He
has put in his Cabinet one of your men; he has made governors of
Territories of some of your leading men who fought in the rebellion;
he has sent on foreign missions abroad some of your men who
warred against this country; he has placed others in the
Departments; and has tried to reconcile you in every way on earth,
by appealing to your people, by recognizing them and forgiving them
for their offenses, and for these acts of generosity, for these acts of
kindness, he is arraigned to-day as a Cæsar, as a tyrant, as an
oppressor.
Such kindness in return as the President has received from these
people will mark itself in the history of generosity. O, but say they,
Grant wants to oppress the White Leagues in Louisiana; therefore he
is an oppressor. Yes, Mr. President, Grant does desire that these men
should quit their everyday chivalric sports of gunning upon negroes
and republicans. He asks kindly that you stop it. He says to you,
“That is all I want you to do;” and you say that you are desirous that
they shall quit it. You have but to say it and they will quit it. It is
because you have never said it that they have not quit it. It is in the
power of the democratic party to-day but to speak in tones of
majesty, of honor, and justice in favor of human life, and your Ku-
Klux and murderers will stop. But you do not do it; and that is the
reason they do not stop. In States where it has been done they have
stopped. But it will not do to oppress those people; it will not do to
make them submit and subject them to the law; it will not do to stop
these gentlemen in their daily sports and in their lively recreations.
They are White Leagues; they are banded together as gentlemen;
they are of southern blood; they are of old southern stock; they are
the chivalry of days gone by; they are knights of the bloody shield;
and the shield must not be taken from them. Sirs, their shield will be
taken from them; this country will be aroused to its danger; this
country will be aroused to do justice to its citizens; and when it does,
the perpetrators of crime may fear and tremble. Tyranny and
oppression! A people who without one word of opposition allows
men who have been the enemies of a government to come into these
legislative Halls and make laws for that government to be told that
they are oppressors is a monstrosity in declamation and assertion.
Who ever heard of such a thing before? Who ever believed that such
men could make such charges? Yet we are tyrants!
 Mr. President, the reading of the title of that bill from the House
only reminds me of more acts of tyranny and oppression of the
republican party, and there is a continuation of the same great
offenses constantly going on in this Chamber. But some may say “It
is strange to see Logan defending the President of the United States.”
It is not strange to me. I can disagree with the President when I think
he is wrong; and I do not blame him for disagreeing with me; but
when these attacks are made, coming from where they do, I am ready
to stand from the rising sun in the morning to the setting sun in the
evening to defend every act of his in connection with this matter
before us.
I may have disagreed with President Grant in many things; but I
was calling attention to the men who have been accusing him here,
on this floor, on the stump, and in the other House; the kind of men
who do it, the manner of its doing, the sharpness of the shafts that
are sent at him, the poisonous barbs that they bear with them, and
from these men who, at his hands, have received more clemency than
any men ever received at the hands of any President or any man who
governed a country. Why, sir, I will appeal to the soldiers of the rebel
army to testify in behalf of what I say in defense of President Grant—
the honorable men who fought against the country, if there was
honor in doing it. What will be their testimony? It will be that he
captured your armed democracy of the South, he treated them
kindly, turned them loose, with their horses, with their wagons, with
their provisions; treated them as men, and not as pirates. Grant built
no prison-pens for the southern soldiers; Grant provided no
starvation for southern men; Grant provided no “dead-lines” upon
which to shoot southern soldiers if they crossed them; Grant
provided no outrageous punishment against these people that now
call him a tyrant. Generous to a fault in all his actions toward the
men who were fighting his country and destroying the constitution,
that man to-day is denounced as a very Cæsar!
Sherman has not been denounced, but the only reason is that he
was not one of the actors in this transaction; but I want now to say to
my friends on the other side, especially to my friend from Delaware,
who repeated his bitter denunciation against Sheridan yesterday—
and I say this in all kindness, because I am speaking what future
history will bear me out in—when Sheridan and Grant and Sherman,
and others like them, are forgotten in this country, you will have no
country. When the democratic party is rotten for centuries in its
grave, the life, the course, the conduct of these men will live as bright
as the noonday sun in the heart of every patriot of a republic like the
American Union. Sirs, you may talk about tyranny, you may talk
about oppression, you may denounce these men; their glory may
fade into the darkness of night; but that darkness will be a brilliant
light compared with the darkness of the democratic party. Their
pathway is illuminated by glory; yours by dark deeds against the
Government. That is a difference which the country will bear witness
to in future history when speaking of this country and the actors on
its stage.
Now, Mr. President, I have a word to say about our duty. A great
many people are asking, what shall we do? Plain and simple in my
judgment is the proposition. I say to republicans, do not be scared.
No man is ever hurt by doing an honest act and performing a
patriotic duty. If we are to have a war of words outside or inside, let
us have them in truth and soberness, but in earnest. What then is our
duty? I did not believe that in 1872 there were official data upon
which we could decide who was elected governor of Louisiana. But
this is not the point of my argument. It is that the President has
recognized Kellogg as governor of that State, and he has acted for
two years. The Legislature of the State has recognized him; the
supreme court of the State has recognized him; one branch of
Congress has recognized him. The duty is plain, and that is for this,
the other branch of Congress, to do it, and that settles the question.
Then, when it does it, your duty is plain and simple, and as the
President has told you, he will perform his without fear, favor, or
affection. Recognize the government that revolution has been against
and intended to overthrow, and leave the President to his duty, and
he will do it. That is what to do.
Sir, we have been told that this old craft is rapidly going to pieces;
that the angry waves of dissension in the land are lashing against her
sides. We are told that she is sinking, sinking, sinking to the bottom
of the political ocean. Is that true? Is it true that this gallant old
party, that this gallant old ship that has sailed through troubled seas
before is going to be stranded now upon the rock of fury that has
been set up by a clamor in this Chamber and a few newspapers in the
country? Is it true that the party that saved this country in all its
great crises, in all its great trials, is sinking to-day on account of its
fear and trembling before an inferior enemy? I hope not. I
remember, sir, once I was told that the old republican ship was gone;
but when I steadied myself on the shores bounding the political
ocean of strife and commotion, I looked afar off and there I could see
a vessel bounding the boisterous billows with white sails unfurled,
marked on her sides “Freighted with the hopes of mankind,” while
the great Mariner above, as her helmsman, steered her, navigated
her to a haven of rest, of peace, and of safety. You have but to look
again upon that broad ocean of political commotion to-day, and the
time will soon come when the same old craft, provided with the same
cargo, will be seen, flying the same flag, passing through these
tempestuous waves, anchoring herself at the shores of honesty and
justice, and there she will lie undisturbed by strife and tumult, again
in peace and safety. [Manifestations of applause in the galleries.]
 Speech of Hon. James G. Blaine, of Maine,

On the False Issue raised by the Democratic Party, Delivered in the

Senate of the United States, Monday, April 14, 1879.
The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 1,)
making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1880, and for other purposes—
Mr. Blaine said:
Mr. President: The existing section of the Revised Statutes
numbered 2002 reads thus:
No military or naval officer, or other person engaged in the civil,
military, or naval service of the United States, shall order, bring,
keep or have under his authority or control, any troops or armed
men at the place where any general or special election is held in any
State, unless it be necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United
States, or to keep the peace at the polls.
The object of the proposed section, which has just been read at the
Clerk’s desk, is to get rid of the eight closing words, namely, “or to
keep the peace at the polls,” and therefore the mode of legislation
proposed in the Army bill now before the Senate is an unusual mode;
it is an extraordinary mode. If you want to take off a single sentence
at the end of a section in the Revised Statutes the ordinary way is to
strike off those words, but the mode chosen in this bill is to repeat
and re-enact the whole section leaving those few words out. While I
do not wish to be needlessly suspicious on a small point I am quite
persuaded that this did not happen by accident but that it came by
design. If I may so speak it came of cunning, the intent being to
create the impression that whereas the republicans in the
administration of the General Government had been using troops
right and left, hither and thither, in every direction, as soon as the
democrats got power they enacted this section. I can imagine
democratic candidates for Congress all over the country reading this
section to gaping and listening audiences as one of the first
offsprings of democratic reform, whereas every word of it, every
syllable of it, from its first to its last, is the enactment of a republican
Congress.
I repeat that this unusual form presents a dishonest issue, whether
so intended or not. It presents the issue that as soon as the
democrats got possession of the Federal Government they proceeded
to enact the clause which is thus expressed. The law was passed by a
republican Congress in 1865. There were forty-six Senators sitting in
this Chamber at that time, of whom only ten or at most eleven were
democrats. The House of Representatives was overwhelmingly
republican. We were in the midst of a war. The republican
administration had a million or possibly twelve hundred thousand
bayonets at its command. Thus circumstanced and thus surrounded,
with the amplest possible power to interfere with elections had they
so designed, with soldiers in every hamlet and county of the United
States, the republican party themselves placed that provision on the
statute book, and Abraham Lincoln, their President, signed it.
I beg you to observe, Mr. President, that this is the first instance in
the legislation of the United States in which any restrictive clause
whatever was put upon the statute book in regard to the use of troops
at the polls. The republican party did it with the Senate and the
House in their control. Abraham Lincoln signed it when he was
Commander-in-Chief of an army larger than ever Napoleon
Bonaparte had at his command. So much by way of correcting an
ingenious and studied attempt at misrepresentation.
The alleged object is to strike out the few words that authorize the
use of troops to keep peace at the polls. This country has been
alarmed, I rather think indeed amused, at the great effort made to
create a widespread impression that the republican party relies for
its popular strength upon the use of the bayonet. This democratic
Congress has attempted to give a bad name to this country
throughout the civilized world, and to give it on a false issue. They
have raised an issue that has no foundation in fact—that is false in
whole and detail, false in the charge, false in all the specifications.
That impression sought to be created, as I say, not only throughout
the North American continent but in Europe to-day, is that elections
are attempted in this country to be controlled by the bayonet.
I denounce it here as a false issue. I am not at liberty to say that
any gentleman making this issue knows it to be false; I hope he does
not; but I am going to prove to him that it is false, and that there is
not a solitary inch of solid earth on which to rest the foot of any man
who makes that issue. I have in my hand an official transcript of the
location and the number of all the troops of the United States east of
Omaha. By “east of Omaha,” I mean all the United States east of the
Mississippi river and that belt of States that border the Mississippi
river on the west, including forty-one million at least out of the forty-
five million of people that this country is supposed to contain to-day.
In that magnificent area, I will not pretend to state its extent, but
with forty-one million people, how many troops of the United States
are there to-day? Would any Senator on the opposite side like to
guess, or would he like to state how many men with muskets in their
hands there are in the vast area I have named? There are two
thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven! And not one more.
From the headwaters of the Mississippi River to the lakes, and
down the great chain of lakes, and down the Saint Lawrence and
down the valley of the Saint John and down the St. Croix striking the
Atlantic Ocean and following it down to Key West, around the Gulf,
up to the mouth of the Mississippi again, a frontier of eight thousand
miles either bordering on the ocean or upon foreign territory is
guarded by these troops. Within this domain forty-five fortifications
are manned and eleven arsenals protected. There are sixty troops to
every million of people. In the South I have the entire number in
each State, and will give it.
And the entire South has eleven hundred and fifty-five soldiers to
intimidate, overrun, oppress and destroy the liberties of fifteen
million people! In the Southern States there are twelve hundred and
three counties. If you distribute the soldiers there is not quite one for
each county; and when I give the counties I give them from the
census of 1870. If you distribute them territorially there is one for
every seven hundred square miles of territory, so that if you make a
territorial distribution, I would remind the honorable Senator from
Delaware, if I saw him in his seat, that the quota for his State would
be three—“one ragged sergeant and two abreast,” as the old song has
it. [Laughter.] That is the force ready to destroy the liberties of
Delaware!
Mr. President, it was said, as the old maxim has it, that the
soothsayers of Rome could not look each other in the face without
smiling. There are not two democratic Senators on this floor who can
go into the cloak-room and look each other in the face without
smiling at this talk, or, more appropriately, I should say without
blushing—the whole thing is such a prodigious and absolute farce,
such a miserably manufactured false issue, such a pretense without
the slightest foundation in the world, and talked about most and
denounced the loudest in States that have not and have not had a
single Federal soldier. In New England we have three hundred and
eighty soldiers. Throughout the South it does not run quite seventy
to the million people. In New England we have absolutely one
hundred and twenty soldiers to the million. New England is far more
overrun to-day by the Federal soldier, immensely more, than the
whole South is. I never heard anybody complain about it in New
England, or express any great fear of his liberties being endangered
by the presence of a handful of troops.
As I have said, the tendency of this talk is to give us a bad name in
Europe. Republican institutions are looked upon there with jealousy.
Every misrepresentation, every slander is taken up and exaggerated
and talked about to our discredit, and the democratic party of the
country to-day stand indicted, and I here indict them, for public
slander of their country, creating the impression in the civilized
world that we are governed by a ruthless military despotism. I
wonder how amazing it would be to any man in Europe, familiar as
Europeans are with great armies, if he were told that over a territory
larger than France and Spain and Portugal and Great Britain and
Holland and Belgium and the German Empire all combined, there
were but eleven hundred and fifty-five soldiers! That is all this
democratic howl, this mad cry, this false issue, this absurd talk is
based on—the presence of eleven hundred and fifty-five soldiers on
eight hundred and fifty thousand square miles of territory, not
double the number of the democratic police in the city of Baltimore,
not a third of the police in the city of New York, not double the
democratic police in the city of New Orleans. I repeat, the number