CARL SCHURZ'S POLITICAL CAREER
of reasoning, were the foundation of his argument. These speeches were the product of much technical study and laborious preparation, and commanded the attention of scholars and statesmen alike.
The speech of February 24th was particularly strong. It and the two on Santo Domingo were considered by himself the best of his senatorial career. The public most enjoyed some personal incidents of the debate, which were unimportant except in bringing out certain qualities of the debaters. Morton of Indiana and Cameron of Pennsylvania pleaded that the existing situation in the United States was unique, and not to be judged by principles derived from the history of other times and other places. Schurz felt that this argument, or, rather, pretentious begging of the question, was insincere and that his adversaries, from motives of mere party expediency, were misrepresenting their real convictions. He made no effort to conceal his contempt for such subterfuges, and gave full play to his formidable powers of sarcasm and irony. This led to unusually sharp encounters. Morton replied with asperity, and employed that pitiable last resource of native politicians against such an antagonist—that a foreigner is unable to understand this country. Schurz in return struck a vital point by showing that the inconsistencies of Morton's record on the currency question,—inconsistencies that were exceedingly marked and were notoriously determined by the trend of popular feeling in the West,—indicated that Morton understood the shifting of public sentiment better than he did the science of public finance. Morton was prompt to retort with the “tu quoque” which Schurz's abandonment of the regular Republican party suggested. To an independent and a man of principles, this retort had no force whatever. Morton admitted that he himself had changed his opinions and would do so again
[ 357 ]
