And who met in council at Chicago? Was it the friends of the Union? No, it was Democrats, as they called themselves, whether unionists or disunionists. Avowed disunionists constituted a large and influential portion of the Convention (profaning the name of Democrats) that met together at Chicago. Who were Vallandigham and Harris and Long and many other of their compeers, who not only met together at Chicago, but some of whom were received with shouts of applause, and resolutions moved by some of them unanimously adopted. It was a meeting of loyal men and disloyal, peace and war men, unionists and disunionists. Every disunionist is a traitor. He is for the overthrow of the Republic, upon the demand of rebels in arms against the Government. Every peace man now on the Chicago McClellan platform is a disunionist and a traitor, because he knows, in his inmost soul, that no peace can be obtained but upon the ultimatum of Jefferson Davis, now officially proclaimed by him through the secretary of state to foreign Governments, namely, the severance of the Union, and the establishment throughout the South of a separate slave-holding empire. Most of these peace men openly avow their disunion doctrines, while others attempt to conceal their treason, under the transparent mask of an "armistice," a "cessation of hostilities," and an ultimate "convention of the States," ignominiously declaring, at the same time, by their platform resolutions at Chicago, that to suppress the rebellion by war has proved a failure. What truly loyal man, by voting for their candidates, will indorse at the polls such a platform as this? It is a surrender of our country's honor—it is a capitulation, upon the demand of Southern traitors, whose hands are dripping with the warm life blood of our sons and brothers, and who now boldly and defiantly pledge themselves to foreign Governments, as they always had declared to us, that they will have no peace unless based upon disunion. Did a Democratic Convention ever before receive avowed Disunionists and traitors among its number? Did it ever before trail in the dust the glorious flag of our country? Did it ever agree before, that our banner should be torn down from half the States and territory of the Union, and replaced by a foreign standard, having upon it but one emblazonry—the divinity and perpetuity of Slavery? And shall we treat with the Confederate authorities on this basis? No; while we will gladly treat with States and people desiring to return to the Union, with Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet brandishing over our heads the two-edged sword of Slavery and disunion, we will, in the emphatic words of General Jackson, "negotiate only from the mouths of our cannon."
General Jackson was, in truth, the father and founder of the Democratic party. Prior to his first nomination in 1823, in the election of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, the parties were known as Federal and Republican. In the fall of 1823, I united with a few friends in calling, at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, the FIRST Democratic meeting, by which General Jackson was nominated as the Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I offered the resolutions in his favor adopted by that meeting, calling the Democratic State Convention of Pennsylvania which confirmed that nomination in March, 1824. I attended that Convention, as a delegate from Pittsburg, and wrote the address of the Convention to the Democracy of the State and of the Union on that momentous occasion. I supported General Jackson for the Presidency in 1823 (my first vote), 1824, 1828, and 1832, and uniformly adhered to the Democratic party until after the rebellion of 1861.
During the great nullification and secession question of South Carolina, on the first Monday of January, 1833, at Natchez, Mississippi, I made the opening speech, then published, against nullification and secession, in favor of "war," if necessary to maintain the Union—in favor of "coercion" to put down rebellion in any State. The Legislature of Mississippi indorsed that speech, and passed resolutions declaring nullification and secession to be treason, and, upon THAT ISSUE, I was elected by the Legislature to the Senate of the United States. If Mississippi, under the influence of Jefferson Davis, and other traitor leaders, has since that period abandoned those principles, she cannot expect me to follow her, and thereby surrender opinions which I have uniformly maintained and advocated throughout my life, but more especially from 1833 until the present period. Mississippi (whose prosperity I would restore by bringing her back to the Union) indorsed those opinions when she elected me to the Senate of the United States over an avowed and distinguished secessionist (George Poindexter), after a contest of unexampled violence, personal and political, extending from January, 1833, to January, 1836.
It was on that occasion that General Jackson wrote his celebrated letter in favor of my election and sustaining my political course. It was after the adoption of the secession ordinance by Carolina, that General Jackson sent our war vessels to Charleston to hold and blockade the harbor, and our troops, under the illustrious Scott, to maintain, by force, if necessary, the authority of the Federal Government over the forts commanding the city of Charleston. Let us suppose that the rebels had then shot down our flag, captured our forts, made war upon the Union, and proceeded to dissolve it by force—let us suppose that a committee from any convention had then dared to nominate General Jackson for the Presidency upon such a platform as that adopted at Chicago, proposing an armistice and cessation of hostilities until a National Convention could be assembled, accompanied by the declaration that the rebellion could not be crushed by war, who doubts what would have been the course of that devoted patriot? He would have stamped the disgraceful and treasonable resolutions under his feet, and indignantly scouted the traitors who offered them. And now this McClellan Convention at Chicago professes to represent the Democratic party. As Jefferson was the founder of the old Republican party, Jackson was the father of the Democratic party. Now, with perhaps one exception, is there a single member of that Convention (assuming the name of 'Democratic') that (like myself) supported General Jackson in 1823, 1824, 1828, and 1832, and uniformly adhered to the Democratic party until after the rebellion of 1861?
What right had that Convention to assume the name of Democracy, while trampling upon the advice of the founder of the party, and all its great and vital principles? How dare they offer an 'armistice' and 'the cessation of hostilities' to rebels in arms against their country, especially when the so-called rebel government had again and again declared that they would negotiate upon no terms, except the acknowledgment of their independence, and the definitive dissolution of the Union? But, above all, how dare they record the disgraceful and treasonable falsehood, that the war to suppress the rebellion had failed, and ask the freemen of America to indorse at the polls such a declaration?
And has, indeed, all the blood of patriots shed in defence of the Union in this war, been poured out in vain? Ye patriot soldiers! now in the field, say, are you unable or unwilling to suppress the rebellion? Say it not only in words, but answer the foul accusation by your votes in the approaching Presidential election.
The Chicago McClellan Convention says that the war is a failure, and that therefore there must be an armistice and a cessation of hostilities. Will not your answer at the polls be this: 'It is a foul and treasonable falsehood?'
And is this war for the Union indeed a failure? Let our many and well-fought battles upon the ocean and the land answer the question. Let a country nearly as large as half of Europe, taken from the rebels since the war commenced, respond. Let Shiloh, and Donelson, and Gettysburg and Vicksburg, and Port Hudson, and New Orleans, and the Mississippi from its source to its mouth, answer. Why, this wretched calumny had scarcely been uttered by the McClellan Convention, when Sherman, the great commander, and his army had washed out the accusation in the blood of the vanquished, and unfolded our banner at Atlanta, the grand military strategic centre of Georgia, never to be recalled. And while the shouts of the great victory in Georgia were still sounding in our ears, Oppequan responded to the thunders of Atlanta, and the heroic Sheridan, after a decided victory, was driving the rebel army from the valley of Virginia. Was Sherman's campaign from Memphis and Nashville to Chattanooga, and from Chattanooga to Atlanta, a failure? Why, that campaign is unsurpassed in history. Was Grant's Potomac advance a failure? What, the hero of the great campaign of the West, terminating with the capture of Vicksburg and its garrison, not know, or do his duty! Was the victory of the Wilderness a failure, or the destruction in successive battles of one third of Lee's army, together with the seizure of the great Weldon Railroad, or the repulse there of the Confederate attack—were these failures? Recollect, Grant was Lieutenant-General, subordinate only to the President and Secretary of War, in planning the whole campaign, and, while too much credit cannot be given to the heroic Sherman and noble Sheridan, and their gallant armies, yet, it must be remembered, that their great victories and strategic military movements are but a part of Grant's plan—concentrating the three armies of the Potomac, the Shenandoah, and the West, so as to seize and hold all the roads connecting with Richmond, and capture the Confederate army and government.
And now as to our navy. Were the gallant deeds of Admiral Porter at Vicksburg, on the Mississippi River, the Arkansas, and the Red River, failures? Were the destruction of the forts protecting New Orleans and the capture of that city by the illustrious Farragut failures? Were the capture or destruction by that gallant man, aided by General Granger, of the forts commanding the Bay of Mobile, together with the occupation of its harbor by our fleet—and the destruction there of the Confederate navy—were these failures? Were the capture of the forts and city of Pensacola, of all the Florida forts, and the fortifications commanding Savannah—the defeat of the Merrimac and Tennessee—the destruction of the Alabama—the capture of Port Royal, and of the forts which commanded it—were these failures? No; the war is not a failure. It is a glorious and trancendent success. Already the whole Southern and Southwestern coast is ours. The whole of the Mississippi is ours, with far more than a thousand miles of its course from Columbus to its mouth, and even to a considerable extent up the Mississippi and Missouri, which had been once in the hands of the enemy. Chesapeake Bay is ours, and all its tributaries, from the Potomac to the James River. The whole coast of North and South Carolina, of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, with vast portions of the interior, including many impregnable positions, is ours. Tennessee, one of the seceded States, is now wholly ours. Kentucky is loyal. Missouri is ours, and has abolished Slavery. Maryland is ours, and has, I believe, uprooted Slavery also. Our whole Territorial domain, greater in extent than one half of Europe (and about Slavery in which this contest began), is now wholly ours. Not a rebel flag floats within its limits. When before were such mighty conquests achieved within so short a period? Why, the conquests of Alexander, of Cæsar and Napoleon covered no such extent of territory. And, 'we take no steps backward.' Where our flag now is once unfolded in any part of rebeldom, there it continues to float, and will float forever. What are we to negotiate about? Is it as to giving up the Mississippi and its tributaries, together with New Orleans, Vicksburg, and Tennessee? Is West Virginia, which has been admitted as a new Free State, to be surrendered? Are Fortress Monroe and the Chesapeake to be abandoned? Is the rebel flag to float at Alexandria, and on the heights of Arlington; and are rebel cannon to be planted there, in sight of and to command the very capital of the Union? Are we to insult loyal Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware, by negotiating about them? Are we to give back Western to Eastern Virginia? Where is the line of division to be run, and what armies would be strong enough to maintain peace upon the border? What portion of the mighty Territories uniting us with the Pacific are to be surrendered? Are we to turn over to the cruel despotism of their bloody and relentless masters, the millions of loyal people of the South, to whom we have given the most sacred pledge of the protection of the Union? And, last of all, are the two millions of slaves, as Jefferson Davis complains, who have been emancipated by the constitutional war proclamation of President Lincoln, are they to be remanded to Slavery, including the thousands who have so gallantly fought in our defence? And as to Slavery, or what, if any, may be left of it, when the war is over, are we to abandon the unquestionable right to abolish it, as Mr. Lincoln and his friends propose, by a constitutional amendment? Is Jefferson Davis to come back again as Senator from Mississippi? Are the traitors Cobb and Thompson to take their places in the McClellan Cabinet? Is Toombs, of Georgia, (as he boasted) to call the roll of his slaves on the Boston Common? Slavery, we know, was the sole cause of the war. It was Slavery that fired the first gun at Sumter, and demanded to rule or ruin the country. It was in the name of Slavery that the South seceded; and it was to extend and perpetuate Slavery, as a blessed and divine institution, that they avowedly framed the Confederate constitution. In the debates of Congress of 1860-'61, in the proceedings of the Committee of 1833, in the acts of the Peace Congress, in the various secession ordinances, by the very terms of the Confederate constitution, Slavery was the sole cause of this war upon the Government. Slavery was and is our great enemy, and shall we not destroy it? Slavery was the sole cause of the war, and shall it not be eradicated? When the patient calls for a physician, he seeks for the source of the disease, so as not merely to alleviate present pain, but to remove the cause, and prevent relapses or successive attacks. If he deals only with palliatives, to assuage for a brief period the present suffering, when he can remove the cause, and restore the patient to permanent and perfect health, he is but a quack and an impostor.
The party supporting Mr. Lincoln is composed of men of all the old parties. Its candidate for the Presidency is from the North, and belonged to the late Republican party. Its candidate for the Vice Presidency, a brave, loyal, Union-loving man, is from the South, and belonged (like myself) to the old Democratic party. But the Baltimore Convention, in the spirit of true nationality and patriotism, discarded all old party names or issues. It acted only in the name of the Union, and as one great Union party, and asked all patriots, dismissing for the present all old party names or issues, to unite with it for the salvation of the Union.