gally convicted and illegally banished; and that if
we are fit to be free we must stop and examine the record in his
case, and not be turned from it by clamors about prosecuting the
war, or of concluding peace. And we are told that if we don't do
all this we are helpless slaves and deserve no better fate. Now,
as I do not desire to be a slave, and do not wish the people of my
native state to be slaves, I will so far depart from my usual course
in political discussion as to examine the personal issue thus made.

"I had supposed, fellow-citizens, that nowhere in the wide world
did people live as free from oppression as in the State of Ohio.
But the Democratic party has sounded the alarm that our liberties
were jeopardized in that Mr. Vallandigham has been, as they assert,
illegally convicted and banished. Before alluding to matters of
more general interest I propose to consider that question.

"The candidate of the Democratic party was convicted by a military
tribunal for aiding the enemy with whom we are at war. For this
he was expelled beyond our lines, and was within the lines of the
enemy when nominated for governor of Ohio. By the judgment of a
military tribunal, composed mainly of his political friends, approved
by General Burnside, the chief military officer within the state,
sanctioned by Judge Leavitt--a judge selected by Vallandigham
himself--of the United States court, he was convicted and sentenced
to imprisonment during the war. By the mercy of the President he
was released from imprisonment and sent beyond our lines. While
thus banished as a convicted traitor, by military authority, the
Democratic party of the State of Ohio nominated this man as a
candidate for governor, and you are called upon to ratify and
confirm that nomination, to intrust this man, convicted as a traitor,
with the chief command of our militia, the appointment of all its
officers, and the management of the executive authority of the
state; and that, too, in the midst of a war with the rebels he was
convicted of aiding. . . .

"And here is the marked distinction between the two parties. The
Union party strikes only at the rebels. The Democratic party
strikes only at the administration. The Union party insists upon
the use of every means to put down the rebels. The Democratic
party uses every means to put down the administration. I read what
is called the Democratic Platform, and I find nothing against the
rebels who are in