6
enough to do so, why do they not do it? Our Chicago men say we must strengthen them. Certainly, but how?
Why do the secessionists who are for peace offer no effective opposition to the rebel government? Because, though indeed sick of the war, they would like to have separation along with peace. Then it is evident they are not yet tired enough of the war. The remedy is simple. We must carry on the war with such terrible energy as to make all rebeldom tremble and shake. That will make them so tired of the war, that after a while they will only be too happy to make peace at any price. Is not that clear? (Applause.) Now for the Union men in the rebel States. There are undoubtedly many of them; all the blacks and a large number of whites. Why do they not exercise any decisive influence in rebeldom. Because the rebel government is too strong for them and keeps them down. What is the remedy? It is simple. We must break the strength of the rebel government by dealing it as heavy blows as we can strike. That will give the Union men air to breathe, and freedom of action. Is not this common-sense? (Applause.)
But how the secessionists who are tired of the war can be made Unionists by stopping the war for humanity's sake; or how we can aid the Union men, who can not stir, because the rebel government is too strong for them, by giving the same rebel government a chance to become still stronger—that, I suspect, it will take the whole logic and eloquence in Chicago Convention assembled to make intelligible to an intelligent people. (Great laughter and applause.)
The whole wisdom of the intricate peace policy of the Chicago party may be fairly summed up as follows: You are struggling with a highwayman who has robbed you of your valuables. You are stronger than he, and about to overcome him. Suddenly you stop, and say: “Now, my good fellow, I will struggle no longer; I see it is a failure on my part; to struggle longer would be against justice, humanity, and our common welfare; I let you go, with a view to meet you again, and to persuade you to give me back, at the most practicable moment, what you have stolen.” Is not this Bedlam? (Tremendous laughter and applause.)
But now I arrive at a feature of this business which places its true character in still clearer light. It is well known that some of the leading powers of Europe, with whom we are in most immediate contact, affect to believe in, because they desire, the final dissolution of this Republic. Whatever motives you may assign for this fact—the competition growing from our spirit of commercial enterprise, jealousy of our constantly growing strength, hatred of our republican institutions—call it what you will, the fact is too thinly disguised to escape recognition. Still, I wish you to understand, in speaking of the tendencies of some of the political and commercial interests of England and France, it is far from me to cast a slur upon the noble nations of those countries; for I sincerely believe the cause of universal liberty in this country has no truer friends abroad than they are.
At present, the so-called Confederacy is a mere association of political bodies engaged in a rebellion against their legitimate Government. They are indeed recognized as belligerents, but not admitted into the family of nations as an independent and equal member. Foreign powers, however desirous of making separation permanent, yet hesitate to enter into open relations and coöperation with the Confederacy; first, because our Government maintains with firmness the justice of our cause, and its inflexible resolution to bring back the rebellious States; and secondly, because the stigma of slavery rests upon the rebellion, and European governments have some respect for public opinion in their own countries, and for the enlightened judgment of mankind. But is it reasonable to suppose that they will refrain from doing so when they will have a plausible pretext? They would, no doubt, be most glad to see us do for them what they are ashamed to do for themselves. As you, in times gone by—and I hope gone by for ever—were required to do for the slaveholder the dirty work he deemed below his dignity to do for himself—catch his runaways—so foreign powers would rather like you to perform for them a hardly cleaner work, which they themselves feel much delicacy about—recognize as an independent power a Confederacy founded upon the corner-stone of slavery. (Great applause.) “Oh!” you say, “they will have to wait for that.” Will they, indeed? Here is the Chicago platform, declaring explicitly as the sense of the American people that the war is a failure and must be stopped. The war declared a failure in the eyes of the whole world; and not only that, but that it must be stopped on the score of “justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare.” And this you cry into the ears of England and France, who merely wait to hear you say so! Have not our enemies in those countries always advocated the recognition of the Confederacy on the ground that the war, on our part, was hopeless, unjust, inhumane, tyrannical, and ruinous? With what delight the London Herald and the London Times will hail this declaration! With what triumph they will point to it! Is it not admitting all, all they have been contending for—hopelessness, injustice, inhumanity, tyranny, ruin, all? And now, if the American people should be so lost to all sense of shame and decency as to indorse this declaration at a national election, with what face will you stand up before England and France, and ask them not to recognize the Confederacy? If this war is indeed what you affirm—a failure, and hopeless, unjust, inhumane, and ruinous—would it not be an act of mercy, of justice, of humanity, to step in and stop it? And do you not, by this most infamous declaration, invite them to do so? I will prove to you that this is no mere offspring of my imagination. Some time ago, Lord Lyons wrote to his Government an official dispatch, in which the following passage occurred:
“Several of the leaders of the Democratic party sought interviews with me, both before and after the arrival of the intelligence of Gen. McClellan's dismissal. The subject uppermost in their minds, while they were speaking to me, was naturally that of foreign mediation between
