Year: 1864

inasmuch as it shows that the great hear
OF the Commonwealth is right in the feal
ful and bloody struggle now going on t
preserve the Republic, and that thes
brave men are worthy to help govern tn
country for which they make so man,
sacrifices and suffer so many privations.


The friends of the Union have brough
about this result, while the Opposition
have used their powerful organization t.
prevent it, while the evident object o
weakening the Union armies, disfranchis
ing the soldier, and thereby strengthen
ing themselves at the approaching Presi
dental election and in connection with
this election let US reason together


The campaign of 1864 is now fairly
opened. The issue upon which the cam
paign is to be made is clearly indicated
The enemies Of the Government have
publicly and authoratively declared their
purpose in the contest. That declaration
places the duty Of patriots in light as
broad and clear as that of noon. There
is no mistaking either the spirit or the
object of our opponents; it is the same
that impelled the chiefs of armed treason
TO attempt the overthrow of free govern
ment on this continent in 1S60-6I-
Neither time, nor reflection, nor regard
for the peace of society in the loyal States,
nor the desolations which have devoured
the prosperity Of the South in the grip of
war, have wrought any modification of
their hatred for Government founded
upon the opinions of the people expressed
through the ballot box.


1t is the part of wisdom to anticipate
evil, and to prepare to destroy it before it
grows too formidable to overthrow. The
attitude Of the parties to the Presidential
contest gives rise to a serious question
the most serious of any which can engage
the attention of the true patriot and good
citizen. That question is briefly stated /:
"Shall we have lasting peace through a
vigorous prosecution of this war for ma
tional life, or intermnable war, through
peace based upon disunion?"


The issue Is sharply defined. The ut
terances of the Baltimore Convention de-
cisively declare for peace through effec-
tive war; the utterances of the Chicago
Convention as decisively pronounce for
the alternative presented in the question
stated. They mean that, or they are
without meaning. The opposition to Mr.
Lincoln contemplates disunion as a cure
for the Ills under which we lie His de-
feat would divide the continent into fac
tious States Nor is this mere assertion.
The political history of the country for
the last four years is mass of over
whelming evidence in support of its en-
tire, its disgraceful truth


And first, in evidence of its truth, we
have the declaration, informal but not
less weighty because reiterated and uu-
varying), of the rebel chiefs, that the
South will not treat for peace save upon
the basis of a recognition Of its independ-
ence. The press Of the South omits no
opportunity to impress upon us, and upon
the world, that peace can only come
through recognition. Recognition is but
another name for separation. And final
ly, every European nation has come to
regard the result of this war as certain
to be one of two things-either subjuga-
tion or disunion. 1t is the clear convic-
tion which truth brings to every rational,
enlightened mind 1t is, therefore, enti-
tied to great weight, second only to the
resultant fact.


1t is due to the opponents of Mr. Lin
coin to state that they pretend to believe
in the probability of peace and union
through some compromise, the terms of
which are not clearly stated.


1t will be easy to show the futility OF
such hopes, if it has not already been
done 1t will not be difficult task to
show that such belief does not take roo,
in conviction The leaders of the Oppo
sition are men Of great ability, and more
than ordinary sagacity. They cannot
therefore, be ignorant Of the facts which
are of public record. Those facts effec,
tually preclude the possibility of peace
and Union through any compromise, un.
less the terms involve recognition, and
that would be disunion.


But let us thoroughly consider this
question of peace through promise
1t is reasonable to suppose that the chief
of the rebellion would have accepted
terms iu the outset, if at all 1t is al
legged by our opponents that Mr.. Lincoln
hurried the nation into war, not only
without constitutional warrant, but even
against the wishes of the rebel chieft
themselves. They reproach the Congress
then in session with having refused to
adopt the Crittenden compromise meas
ure, and thus forced the South into re
bellion in exercise of the right of self-de
fence and self-preservation. 1t is unne
cessary to pause to show that all this
transpired while the reigns of power were
held by Southern men, most of whom are
now in arms against the Government
Let that pass. The question hinges upor
the responsibility of the rejection of the
Crittenden comprise. 1t was rejected
BY whom? Reference to page 100. par
first, of the Congressional Globe OF th'
second session of the Thirty sixth Con