Buch lesen: "No Peace Before Victory"

Fellow-Citizens of the United States,—The election that is now pending in Pennsylvania and that which is now pending in the State of Maryland will go very far, though perhaps in very unequal degrees, to determine the presidential contest of next year. In my judgment, the election of a Democratic President, or, if he prefer the term, a Conservative President, will be the end of the war, and, with the end of the war, in my judgment, the end of the Union of these States. It will be the end, likewise, of that great result, though not the original object of the war—the change of the social relations in the rebellious States, which have occasioned our present disturbances.

If it be of any moment to any one here that the conduct of the national affairs shall remain in the hands of those who represent the principles which now preside over their conduct—if there be any one here who thinks that the war ought to be continued until every rebellious weapon sinks in submission to the national authority—if there be any one who thinks it is worth while, after having had experience of the mischiefs that grow from a vicious social organization, that we shall not be twice jeoparded by the same cause when we have the opportunity to root it out, let that person bear in mind that on the vote of Pennsylvania this fall depends, in a great measure, that result.

The gentleman who is competing with your present distinguished and patriotic executive for the position of governor of this Commonwealth does not leave you in the doubts with which Mr. Seymour, and other gentlemen less candid or more prudent, veil their opinion. Here, we understand our opponents formally declare that the Democratic party alone can restore the Union; that it can not be restored by arms; that it can only be restored by peace and conciliation; and that they are the only persons who can so restore it. They were in power when the rebellion broke out. Why did they not arrest it? They had all the factions that called themselves Democratic united—could have prevented the election of the gentleman who they now say has brought on the war. Why did they not subordinate their internal party differences to the patriotic purpose of averting an otherwise inevitable war? They say that they alone can restore the Union, and by peace. Then why did they break it up? They are very fond of asking who is responsible for the war, and I take great pleasure in responding, the Democratic party that ruled the country for thirty years. And I say that, with the kindliest regard, with the utmost respect, with the greatest deference for the honest members of that party, who, whatever may have been their judgments before the rebellion broke out, saw by the flames of civil war the dangerous path they trod, and joined their lifelong political opponents in the right path. They who now arrogate to themselves the reputation and the name of the Democratic party are the mere refuse that remained behind when the patriotic elements withdrew for the defense of the nation. If, when numbering many of the great men, many of the good men, many of the patriotic men, many of the eminent statesmen of the country, wise in council and firm in action, they could not prevent the war, who will believe that this wretched remnant can stop the war? Why did the South rebel? Because they had lost the majority of the North. There were a majority still at the North calling themselves Democrats, but they were Democrats that would not do what the Southern men desired. They committed themselves so far in favor of the Southern policy at the North that they lost the confidence of their fellow-citizens of the North, and with their confidence lost their votes; and when they lost their votes, the Southern men could no longer depend upon them to protect their peculiar interest—they smote those that had been their humble servants for two generations past. They taught Southern Democrats that they could ask no humiliation which would not be yielded; and that all who were not Democrats were Abolitionists—stood compurgators for every lie, and enabled them to imprint their hate and fear on the minds of the Southern people; and now that they are spurned by their masters—now the wretched remnant of these discarded allies, these worn-out tools of a despotic power that has been driven to rebellion—these men venture to assume to lift the mighty mace of the old Democratic party, and say, "We can restore the broken and shattered Union that all combined could not preserve." Why, men of the United States, what is the rebellion? The Democratic party in arms in the South and in sympathy in the North. What Democrat does not sympathize with his "Southern brethren?" What Seymour does not speak of them as his "friends?" They restore the Union by pacific means! That means that they will stop the war. We need no one to tell us that. They opposed it in its beginning; they have maligned it to the present day; they have embarrassed its progress; they have vilified those that conduct it; they have struggled against every measure essential to its conduct. Place them in power, would they not effectuate their own purpose, and let it drop? Of course, peace is their policy!

Opposed to the war! Of course they are. James Buchanan, and those that stood around him, and those that followed him, said, "It is unconstitutional." Are they honorable men, and can they disavow the words of their chief; or, considering the value the Democrats have always placed upon consistency when consistent with their interest, are they likely to evade the obligation that they have assumed, to treat it as unconstitutional, and therefore to stop it?

Who is their candidate for governor in Ohio? Is Vallandigham for restoring the Union by suppressing the rebellion? Who was their candidate in Connecticut? The namesake of the New York Seymour, and, better than the namesake, an honest avower of the opinions which the other dishonestly concealed. He said that peace and not war, the arrest of bloodshed and not the suppression of rebellion, were the highest purposes that any statesman could proclaim for himself. Where have they elected a Legislature that has not let the cloven foot appear? What say my friends from New Jersey, that I see around me—is Governor Parker for the war or against it? Is the Legislature of New Jersey for or against peace resolutions? Is the Legislature of Illinois for or against the war? Is the Legislature of Indiana for or against the war? Where have the resolutions in favor of an immediate armistice come from? Where have the resolutions proposing the meeting of a disloyal Convention in the city of Louisville come from? What great leading man, calling himself a Democrat and not now supporting the administration, avows himself in favor of prosecuting the war to the bitter end, till the banners of rebellion trail in the dust? Let him be named—who is he?

John Van Buren thought it would be worth while to go to Richmond, and then to proclaim an armistice. And what is to be done with the armies beyond it?

They all have profound, perfect confidence in an amnesty. An amnesty to men in arms, your equals on the battle-field, as often victorious as you are, inferior in numbers and resources, but nerved to desperation in a gigantic conflict! What is an armistice but something for them to laugh at?

Peace! Scarcely had Mr. Seward put forth another circular of ill-starred prophecies, than, as if to show you how far "our Southern brethren" are from dreaming of peace, they rush two to one upon Rosecrans and make him struggle to hold his ground even. Judge Woodward, I suppose, would appear upon the battle-field at Chattanooga with a laurel wreath on his head and an olive-branch in his hand bidding back the foe from that terrific strife. Do they suppose, gentlemen, that the American people are born fools? Do they suppose that their word, instigated by the desire to attain power, will make the people believe what every man in all the rebel region, in every place of authority, loudly denies. Vallandigham told us that every where in his progress through the nether regions he heard nothing but cries of peace and union. Why did he not name the man in authority that hinted at any terms that they were willing to accept or even to consider? Did he not know from the temper of the people of this country, their earnest desire for peace, their weariness of the war, the exhaustion of their resources, the harrowing of their affections by the desolation of the family circle, that any man who would go to the South and bring back terms of peace of any kind, even touching on and bordering upon humiliation, would receive the acclaim of two thirds of the American people. Would he be now skulking over the border in Canada, or would he not rather be treading triumphantly over the heads of thousands of admiring fellow-citizens, as they hail him the harbinger of the peace that he proclaimed? His silence is the falsification of his wretched invention.

Somebody whispered over the Rappahannock the other day that peace was near. They found out the only officer that had been upon the banks that day, and language can not exceed the epithets of scorn and hatred with which he received the mere suggestion of peace—except upon terms that every Democrat is willing to receive to-morrow. The line of the Ohio, and the Mississippi, and the Potomac, the payment of the expenses of the war and damages for our outrages—who is ready for that here?—the surrender of Western Virginia and her heroic loyalists?—the yielding of Kentucky, that they have insolently called a member of their Confederacy, though no officer would dare set foot within her loyal limits?—the return of the disenthralled and rescued martyrs of Eastern Tennessee?—now that daylight is dawning on North Alabama and North Georgia, the plunging them into hopeless and endless night—the return of Missouri to the domination that undertook to drive her from the aegis of the Union! These are the terms, and the only terms any man has ever heard uttered above a whisper within the Southern country? If Judge Woodward and his like mean that in the face of these terms they are ready to stop the war, then eternal will be the disgrace of Pennsylvania if, knowing that, she elect him for her chief magistrate. If he do not mean to accept these, the only terms that have ever been uttered, then the people of Pennsylvania deserve to be placed in their own hospitals if they accept a man to regulate and govern their Commonwealth who says he is for peace and an armistice when these are the only terms that are possible. An armistice for what purpose? To argue with maniacs? to debate on the field of battle? or to realize the darling idea of the Democratic disunionists to palsy the arm of the United States, to arrest the impetus of its onward advance, to give the people in rebellion time to breathe, the men stricken to the knee time to gain their feet, the men whose resources are exhausted an opportunity to replace them, to break up the blockade, to open their ports to foreign commerce, to give them the recognition that could never be withdrawn, not merely of belligerents, but of parties holding a position competent to deal on equal terms with the United States. How long after an armistice would the recognition of the Southern Confederacy be delayed by England or France? How would they remain idle during the conferences, how long delay to make their arrangements, not merely to mediate between powers, but to intervene in arms? The mere proposal of the armistice reveals the traitorous purpose that remains behind it.

My friends, the reception that you have given our soldiers of the Army of the Potomac shows that you at least are for no armistice—that you at least appreciate, without the necessity of argument from me, that an armistice is equivalent to the end of the war, and that the end of the war leaves the South independent. We can all now see where our opponents stand. They are opposed to every measure for conducting the war. Ah! they are opposed to the Conscription Act; yet they do not volunteer. How can we get soldiers? They are opposed to the $300 clause in it; yet they have generally paid the $300. They are opposed to negro soldiers; yet negro soldiers are the poor man's substitute, who can not pay the $300. They are opposed to confiscation; yet confiscation alone can break the power of the leaders of Southern politics. They are opposed to emancipation; yet emancipation alone can break the oligarchy that has brought on the war. They are opposed to discretionary arrests, which they call arbitrary arrests. They opposed them first because the President could not suspend the writ of habeas corpus—which was all true. They oppose them now, though Congress has suspended the writ of habeas corpus, which nobody denies their right to do. They opposed them, not because they were illegal, nor because they were arbitrary, but because, though legal, the discretion of the President might think rebel sympathizers suspicious characters.