It is the purpose of this article to consider as dispassionately as may be, those Chicago resolutions, as well as the ones previously adopted at Baltimore; desiring to look at them both from the standpoint of a patriotism which loves the whole country as one indivisible nation—the gift of God, to be cherished as we cherish our homes and our altars.
A convention called of all those, without respect to former political affinities, who believed in an uncompromising prosecution of the war for the Union till the armed rebellion against its authority should be subdued and brought to terms, met at Baltimore on the 7th of June last, and nominated Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, for reëlection as President, and Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, for election as Vice-President. The convention, with exceeding good sense, and obedient to the just and patriotic impulses of the people, disregarded all party names of the past, and called itself simply a National Union Convention. Two months later, and on the 29th of August last, obedient to the call of Democratic committees, a convention met at Chicago, composed of men whose voices were for peace, and nominated for President General George B. McClellan, of New Jersey, and for Vice-President George H. Pendleton, of Ohio. This convention took the name of Democratic, indicating thereby not the idea of the equal rule of all the people, as the name imports, but the traditions and policies of those degenerate days before the war, when Democracy had strangely come to mean the rule of a few ambitious men. In other words, it ignored the crime of those men (who have sacrificed their country to their ambition), and assumed that the country could also overlook the crime. It supposed the people ready to strike hands with rebellion and elevate the authors of rebellion to power again.
Perhaps the difference between the two conventions may be concisely stated thus: The Chicago Convention was for peace first, and Union afterward; the Baltimore Convention for Union first, then peace. Let us see.
THE CHICAGO PLATFORM.
We suppose that no one will think us wanting in fairness when we characterize the Chicago Platform as one of peace.[4] If there is any reproach in the term, it surely is not the fault of those who take men to mean what they say.
Indeed, it is simply the truth to declare that the general impression on the first publication of it confirmed the view we have taken, and that even among the supporters of the convention there were many who proclaimed their confident expectation that General McClellan, if he should accept the nomination, would disregard the platform, and stake his chances on his own more warlike record. We will not stop to consider in this place whether that expectation has been fulfilled. It suffices for our present purpose to remind our readers that the great doctrine of the Democratic party of former days was expressed in the motto, 'Principles, not men;' and that the rigid discipline of the party has always required the nominee to be the mere representative of the platform—its other self, so to speak: as witness the case of Buchanan, who declared himself, following the approved formulas of his party, no longer James Buchanan, but the Cincinnati Platform. It ought also to be borne in mind, that General McClellan's letter of acceptance does not, in terms, repudiate the platform, and is not necessarily inconsistent with it.
The first one of the six resolutions that constitute the Chicago Platform, has the sound of true doctrine. 'Unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution,' is the duty of every citizen, and has always been the proud war-cry of every party; and they who swerve from it are subject not simply to our individual censure, but to the sanction of our supreme law. The just complaint against this platform is, that, while thus proclaiming good doctrine, it overlooks the departure therefrom of a large portion of the people, misled by wicked men. When we look at the other resolutions, the first one seems all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'
Nor will we withhold what of approval may possibly be due, in strict justice, to the sixth and last resolution; although the approval can only be a limited one. No one can overlook the entire lack in that resolution of cordial sympathy with the sacred cause of nationality, to which the brave heroes of the war have given their lives and fortunes. It restricts itself to a simple recognition of the 'soldiery of our army,' as entitled to 'sympathy,' with a promise of 'protection' to them, 'in the event of our attaining power.' It ignores the navy, and passes by the gallant heroes who on sea and river have upheld the flag of our country with a lustre that pales not before the names of Paul Jones, and Perry, and Decatur. Moreover, the sympathy 'extended to the soldiery' is the sympathy not of the American people, but of 'the Democratic party.' Surely, this phrase was ill conceived. It has a touch of partisan exclusiveness that is sadly out of place. But the resolution is unpartisan and patriotic in another respect that deserves notice. It extends the 'sympathy of the Democratic party to the soldiery of our army,' without making any discrimination to the prejudice of the negro soldiers; and thus commits the 'Democratic party,' with honorable impartiality, to the 'care and protection' of all 'the brave soldiers of the Republic.'
With these criticisms upon the first and sixth resolutions, we proceed to record our total disapprobation of the remaining four. In all candor, we contend that those four resolutions are a surrender of the national honor, and a violation of the national faith. They are unworthy the old glory of the Democratic party. For what is the purport of them? Is it condemnation of a rebellion that has 'rent the land with civil feud, and drenched it in fraternal blood'? Is it to stimulate the heroism of those whose breasts are bared to the bullets of traitors in Virginia and Georgia, and who have 'borne aloft the flag and kept step to the music of the Union' these three years and a half in unwearied defence of the nation? Ah, no; they declare the war a 'failure'! The second resolution is the keynote of the platform, reciting 'that after four years (three years and a half) of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war,... justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities.' Upon this resolution there can be no better comment than the remembrance of Donelson and Pea Ridge, Pittsburg Landing and Vicksburg, Murfreesboro' and Chattanooga, Antictam and Gettysburg; not to speak of that splendid series of battles from the Wilderness to Petersburg, which at last has brought the rebel general to bay; nor of the glorious victories, since the Chicago Convention, at Mobile and Atlanta, and in the Shenandoah Valley. It can never be forgotten that on the fourth of July, 1863, Governor Seymour, in a public discourse at the Academy of Music, in New York, drew a deplorable picture of the straits to which the nation was at last reduced, with the enemy marching defiantly across the fertile fields of Pennsylvania, and men's hearts failing them for fear of danger, not alone to the political capital, Washington, but also to the financial capital, New York; and that, even while the words fell from the speaker's lips, that defiant enemy, already beaten, was rapidly retreating before the magnificent old Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg: while victorious Grant had already broken the left of the rebel line, and was celebrating the nation's anniversary in the triumph of Vicksburg. Even so, let it never be forgotten that the delegates who adopted this second resolution, so burdened with despair, had scarcely reached their homes, ere the stronghold of the Southern Confederacy, which, ever since the war was begun, has been boastfully proclaimed the key of its military lines, and as impregnable as Gibraltar, fell before the unconquerable progress of the armies of the West, under General Sherman; and thus the rebel centre, as well as left, had been broken, and only the rebel right, at Richmond, yet remains to the Southern army.