entiment in the North in favor of "a change" of
policy. The very men who had advocated pacification; who had "flowers
and tears for the Gray, and tears and flowers for the Blue"; who
wanted the grave of Judas equally honored with the grave of Jesus--the
destroyer and the Saviour of the country placed in the same
calendar;--were the first men to grow sick of the policy of
pacification. But what policy to inaugurate was not clear to them.

In the summer of 1878 the Hon. Charles Foster returned to Ohio from
Washington City. He had seen State governments in the North slip from
the control of Republicans, because of the folly of the Hayes' policy
of pacification toward the South. He had the good-sense to take in the
situation. He saw that it was madness to attempt any longer to
conciliate the South. He saw that the lamb and lion had lain down
together, but that the lamb was on the inside of the lion. Brave,
intelligent, and far-seeing, on the 1st of August, 1878, he gave the
Republican party of the North a battle-cry that died away only amid
the shouts of Republican State and National victories in 1880. This
was all the North needed. A leader was demanded, and the Hon. Charles
Foster sounded the key-note that met with a response in every loyal
heart in the country. His idea was that as the South had not kept the
faith; had not accorded protection to the Negro voter; had not broken
up old Bourbon Democratic organizations, it was the imperative duty
of the North to meet that section with a solid front. Hence his
battle-cry: "_A Solid North against a Solid South._" The following is
his famous speech--pure gold:

"I happened to be one who thought and believed that the
President's Southern policy, as far as it related to the use of
troops for the support of State governments, was right. I
sustained it upon the ground of high principle, nevertheless it
could have been sustained on the ground of necessity. The
President has extended to the people of the South the hand of
conciliation and friendship. He has shown a desire, probably
contrary to the wishes of the great mass of his party, to bring
about, by the means of conciliation, better relations between the
North and South. In doing this he has alienated from him the
great mass of the leading and influential Republicans of the
country. He had lost their sympathy, and to a great degree their
support. What has he rec