protested was that the negroes were armed and employed as soldiers in the field. Keep in mind, I am still, for argument's sake, speaking of the negro as a mere species of property. Why, then, should negro property not be used for fighting purposes? It is reasonable, nay, it is necessary that, when engaged in war, we should put all our means and instruments of warfare to the highest measure of usefulness. We want our rifles and our artillery to have as much power of destruction as possible. If we could procure a cannon that would demolish a whole regiment at one blow, would we not use it? If we could make our horses fight, instead of merely letting them carry our cavalrymen, would we not do so? Why, then, not put the negro to the highest measure of his usefulness? If he is able to fight, instead of merely driving teams or carrying bundles, why should we not make him fight? Would it not be folly to abstain from doing so? Do not the rebels make the savage Indian fight against civilized Union soldiers? Would they not make alligators fight in their ranks, if alligators were capable of discipline? Why, then, in the name of common sense, was it not better to make the negro fight for the Union, instead of obliging him to work for the rebellion? I repeat it, Democrats, and I do not want you to forget it; in reasoning thus I have placed myself upon your own ground, and I mean to hold you to the logical consequences of your own position; if the negro is the property of our enemies, what reason is there that we should not use him as the enemy's property, captured in war? [Applause.]
Still in order to satisfy the most scrupulous of you, I will again bring an authority which will be satisfactory to the most fastidious of Democratic leaders. This very moment some of the most influential papers in rebeldom are advocating the arming of negro slaves on their side--
