ndence says
governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed. Now, don't you see there is no way by which one man can
give consent to be governed by another man in a republican
government except by the ballot? There is no way provided by which
you can consent to give powers to a government except by the
ballot. Therefore every man governed under our system is entitled
to the ballot.

So much for principle. One word now as to why our Democratic
friends oppose it. I remember their opposing the extension of
suffrage once under circumstances that made many of us think they
were doing wrong. During the years 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864, I
was a citizen of the Fifteenth ward, in Cincinnati; I had lived
there ever since it was a ward. All the property I had in the world
was taxed there, real or personal; and there was a party in Ohio of
loyal Union men, who said I and others who were with me ought to
have a right to vote, although I was not in the Fifteenth ward, but
was serving the country in the field against the rebels. The
Democratic party in Ohio--these very peace men--said no. Why did
they say I should not vote? I never heard but one good reason, and
that was the apprehension they had that if the soldiers did vote,
they wouldn't vote the Democratic ticket. That's what's the matter.
Now, I suspect we have the same difficulty on this proposition; I
suspect that the real trouble is that they fear if the colored man
has a vote, they have dealt so hardly with him these last few years
that when he comes to vote he will vote against the Democratic
party. That's what's the matter. Why, for the sake of political
power, these Democrats of Ohio have not been unwilling to look
kindly toward the colored man. Do you remember we once had black
laws in Ohio which kept the colored men out of the State? Who
repealed those laws? Why did they do it? The Democratic party did
it, because they could get political power by it. I suspect that if
it were quite certain that the colored vote would elect Allen G.
Thurman Governor of Ohio, our Democratic friends would not object
to it at all. What, then, do I say to the Union men? This objection
may be very good for the Democrats, but it is not a wise one for
you.

I commend to you Union men who a