Page:"For the great empire of liberty, forward!" (IA forgreatempireof00schu).pdf/7

 and calamity if we persevere in a war of which we can see the end, instead of running into one that will be interminable?

Pardon me for devoting so much time to a subject upon which your convictions are settled. Such arguments may also be lost upon the peace-clamorers in France and England. But it might be well, perhaps, for them to know that our people can see no peace but in Union, and that their efforts to persuade us to the contrary will indeed fail of their object, but will certainly confirm us in the suspicion that they may love peace well, but would love the permanent dismemberment of this Republic better. (Applause.)

Peace with disunion being impossible, it is necessary, then, if for the sake of peace alone, that the Union should be restored. And how can it be restored? Either by the voluntary or the forced submission of the rebels to the lawful authority of the Government. This leads us to the third class of peace-makers. There is a party among us which pretends that it can secure the voluntary submission of the rebels, and thus restore peace. Its policy is defined by the following resolution adopted by its National Convention:

“Resolved, That this Convention does explicitly declare as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity or war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate Convention of all the States, or other peacablepeaceable [sic] means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States.”

This policy is to be practically carried out if that party should be intrusted with the powers of the Government, of which it seems rather confident, inasmuch as it explicitly declares “that such is the sense of the American people.” I apprehend “the American people” will claim the privilege of thinking about this matter, and will explicitly declare their sense in due time. (Great applause and laughter.)

The resolution contains two positive and definite and one rather indefinite proposition. The two definite propositions are these: First, that the experiment of war as a means of restoring the Union is a failurethis is a clear and positive statementand second, that immediate efforts must be made for a cessation of hostilities. This is positive also, and, as a sequence of the first proposition, can not mean any thing else but that the experiment of war must be stopped and abandoned. Here ends the clear and positive part of the programme. The third, indefinite proposition is, that the war must be stopped “with a view to an ultimate Convention of all the States, or other peaceable means,” etc. Mark the words, “with a view to;” this looks to a future period not yet determined, and is rather foggy.

The first two propositions can be carried into effect by the Democratic party, if it should be the sense of the American people to place that party in power. It can declare, and to make good its declaration, it can make, the war a failure; and it can also stop the war. But the carrying out of the third proposition requires the coöperation of Jefferson Davis and the rebellious people of the seceded States. A Convention of the loyal States the Democratic party can have, but a Convention of all the States, with a view to the restoration of peace on the basis of the Federal Union, can not be had, unless such be the sense of Jefferson Davis and the States in rebellion. And if such be not the sense of Jefferson Davis and the Southern Confederacy, what then? That the Chicago platform saith not. But this is just the point the American people should like to know. This is not idle question; it is just the question upon which the whole matter hinges. For, mark you well, the resolution does not say, “We demand a cessation of hostilities on condition that a Convention of all the States, or some other peaceable means, by which the Union can be restored, be agreed to; if not, we shall continue the war;” but the demand of a cessation is positive ground that the experiment of war has proved a failure; the war is to be stopped on the demand of justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare, with a view to something that may or may not happen. I ask again, What if it does not happen? What if Jefferson Davis takes your cessation of hostilities with a view to laugh at your Convention and other peaceable means to restore the Union? And this he is most likely, nay, almost certain to do, for peace without the condition of reünion is just what he wants, and a Convention and reünion is just what he does not want. Well, what then? Will you tacitly acquiesce in the establishment of the Southern Confederacy? How can you, since you tell us that you are faithful to the Union? Or will you resume the war? How can you, since you declare that the experiment of war has proved a failure, and that “justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare” demand its cessation? What, then, in the name of common-sense, will you do? Here we look upon a jumble of contradictions so glaring that our heads begin to reel, and we wonder how it could happen to the whole wisdom of a great party in solemn convention assembled to hatch out so bottomless an absurdity. (Laughter and applause.)

The gentlemen who come with so amazing a proposition before the country will, indeed, tell us that Jefferson Davis and his people may agree to terms of peace on the basis of the Union. Pray, where did they obtain their information? We have some means of ascertaining the sentiments of the rebel government and of those men who make public opinion in that part of the country. We have the official enunciations of their chiefs; we have the sayings of their public speakers; we have their public papers; we have a large quantity of