UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Class Book Volume 
 
 VV \ S’ 
 
 Je 05-10M 
 
LETTER OF HON. R. J. WALKER, 
 
 IN FAVOR OF THE ' , 
 
 REELECTION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 
 
 LONDON. SEPT. 30. 1864 
 
 The succession of days and years and 
 ©enturies is noted in calendars; but it 
 is great events, constituting historical 
 epochs, that mark the progress and des¬ 
 tiny of our race. Decisive battles, vast 
 reforms, civil or religious, great scien¬ 
 tific discoveries or mechanical inven¬ 
 tions, dynastic changes, political revolu¬ 
 tions, the union or dismemberment of 
 states, the birth or death of republics, 
 the rise or fall of empires—these are 
 the deep notches in the groove of time, 
 the mighty landmarks in the pathway 
 of humanity. It is the fate of the 
 American Union, involving the liberty 
 erf our country and mankind, that is to 
 be decided in our approaching Presiden¬ 
 tial election. How paltry are all party 
 questions in the presence of an issue so 
 transcendent as this! How dare we 
 mingle old party names or • conflicts 
 with such a question, when the life of 
 the Union is trembling in the balance! 
 The maintenance of the Union is the 
 one majestic question, and the Union 
 party, in name, and in fact, is the only 
 one that should exist, until this great 
 issue is decided. Then, when the Union 
 is rescued from present and future peril, 
 
 we may exhume the past, use old party 
 names, or discuss old party issues, but 
 until then to unfold a party banner, and 
 revive old party prejudices, is treason 
 to our country and mankind. It is not 
 Democrats alone, or Republicans alone, 
 as separate parties marshalled against 
 each other, that can save the Union. 
 During this struggle for the Union, we 
 do not hear of Democratic or Republican 
 admirals or generals, divisions or regi¬ 
 ments ; no, we have only one great 
 Union army, discarding all party names 
 or symbols, and fighting only for and 
 under the banner of the Union. It is 
 then a grave objection to the Chicago 
 McClellan Convention, that, in such a 
 crisis as this, it summoned only a Demo¬ 
 cratic Convention, and appealed only 
 to the Democratic party to save the Gov¬ 
 ernment. As well might we summon 
 only a Democratic army to fight the 
 battles of our country, as conduct such 
 an election as this under any old party 
 name and banner. Thousands of Repub 
 licans as well as Democrats, together, 
 under the banner of the Union, fight 
 now the battles of their country. Thou¬ 
 sands of Republican as well as Demo- 
 
2 
 
 i 
 
 cratic soldiers sleep in their bloody 
 shrouds, or lie wounded on beds of 
 agoriy; but who dare ask to what party 
 they belonged ? It was an unholy am¬ 
 bition, stimulated by party leaders, a 
 thirst for office and emoluments, that 
 rallied under an old party name at 
 Chicago, when the whole people should 
 have been summoned to the rescue. 
 
 And who met in council at Chicago ? 
 Was it the friends of the Union ? Uo, 
 it was Democrats, as they called them¬ 
 selves, whether unionists or disunion- 
 ists. Avowed disunionists constituted 
 a large and influential portion of the 
 Convention (profaning the name of 
 Democrats) that met together at Chi¬ 
 cago. Who were Vallandigliam and 
 Harris and Long and many other of 
 their compeers, who not only met to¬ 
 gether at Chicago, but some of whom 
 were received with shouts of applause, 
 and resolutions moved by some of them 
 unanimously adopted. It was a meet¬ 
 ing of loyal men and disloyal peace and 
 war men, unionists and disuniouists. 
 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 pro¬ 
 claimed by him through the secre¬ 
 tary of state to foreign Governments, 
 namely, the severance of the Union, 
 and the establishment throughout the 
 South of a separate slave-ho’ding em¬ 
 pire. Most of these peace men openly 
 avow their disunion doctrines, while 
 others attempt to conceal their trea¬ 
 son, 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 rebel¬ 
 lion by war has proved a failure. What 
 truly loyal man, by voting for their can¬ 
 didates, 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 broth¬ 
 ers, and who now boldly and defiantly 
 pledge themselves to foreign Govern¬ 
 ments, 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 it* num¬ 
 ber ? Did it ever before trail in the 
 dust the glorious flag of our country? 
 Did it ever agree before, that our flag 
 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 ? Ho; 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, Mad¬ 
 ison, and Monroe, the parties were 
 known as Eederal and Republican. In 
 the fall of 1823, I united with a few 
 friends in calling, at Pittsburg, Pennsyl¬ 
 vania, the fikst 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 Penn¬ 
 sylvania which confirmed that nomina¬ 
 tion in March, 1824. I attended that 
 Convention, as a delegate from Pitts¬ 
 burg, and wrote the address of the Con¬ 
 vention 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 
 

 3 
 
 $ 
 
 C 
 
 c 
 
 J 
 
 C 
 
 m 
 
 l 
 
 k 
 
 I? 
 
 0 
 
 ft 
 
 
 n- 
 
 0 ' 
 
 J 
 
 0 
 
 J 
 
 vote), 1824, 1828, and 1882, and uni¬ 
 formly adhered to the Democratic party 
 until after the rebellion of 1861. 
 
 During the great nullification and se¬ 
 cession question of South Carolina, on 
 the first Monday of January, 1833, at 
 Natchez, Mississippi, I made the open¬ 
 ing speech, then published, against nul¬ 
 lification and secession, in favor of 
 “ war,” if necessary to maintain the 
 Union—in favor of “ coercion to put 
 down rebellion in any State. The Le¬ 
 gislature 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 Jetferson 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 advo¬ 
 cated 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 Poin¬ 
 dexter), after a contest of unexampled 
 violence, personal and political, extend¬ 
 ing 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 adop¬ 
 tion 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 proceed¬ 
 ed to dissolve it by force—let us sup¬ 
 
 pose that a committee from any con¬ 
 vention had then dared to nominate 
 him 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 de¬ 
 voted patriot ? He would have stamped 
 the disgraceful and treasonable resolu¬ 
 tions under his feet, and indignantly 
 scouted the traitors who offered them. 
 And now this McClellan Convention at 
 Chicago professes to represent the Dem¬ 
 ocratic party. As Jefferson was the 
 founder of the Republican party, Jackson 
 was the father of the Democratic party. 
 Now, with perhaps one exception, is 
 there a single member of that Conven¬ 
 tion (assuming the name of ‘ Democrat¬ 
 ic’) that (like myself) supported Gen¬ 
 eral Jackson in 1823, 1824, 1828, and 
 1832, and uniformly adhered to the 
 Democratic party until after the rebel¬ 
 lion of 1861? 
 
 What right had that Convention to 
 assume the name of Democracy, while 
 trampling upon the advice of the found¬ 
 er 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 nego¬ 
 tiate upon no terms, except the ac¬ 
 knowledgment 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 free¬ 
 men 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, 
 
4 
 
 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. Mill 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 coun¬ 
 try nearly as large as half of Europe, 
 taken from the rebels since the war 
 commenced, respond. Let Shiloh, and 
 Donaldson, and Gettysburg and Vicks¬ 
 burg, and Port Hudson, and Hew 
 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 accu¬ 
 sation in the blood of the vanquished, 
 and unfolded our banner at Atlanta, the 
 grand military strategic centre of Geor¬ 
 gia, never to be recalled. And while 
 the shouts of the great victory in Geor¬ 
 gia 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 
 Hashville 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 cap¬ 
 ture 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, subor¬ 
 dinate only to the President and Secre¬ 
 tary 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 protect¬ 
 ing Hew Orleans and the capture of that 
 city by the illustrious Farragut failures ? 
 Were the capture or destruction by 
 that gallant man, aided by General Gran¬ 
 ger, of the forts commanding the Bay of 
 Mobile, together with the occupation of 
 its harbor by our fleet—and the destruc¬ 
 tion there of the Confederate navy 
 —were these failures ? Were the cap¬ 
 ture of the forts and city of Pensacola, 
 of all the Florida forts, and the fortifica¬ 
 tions commanding Savannah—the de¬ 
 feat of the Merrimac and Tennessee— 
 the destruction of the Alabama—the 
 capture of Port Royal, and of the forts 
 which commanded it—were these fail¬ 
 ures? Ho; the war is not a failure. 
 It is a glorious and trancendent success. 
 Already the whole Southern and South¬ 
 western 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 Horth and South Caro¬ 
 lina, of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, 
 Louisiana, and Texas, with vast por¬ 
 tions of the interior, including many im¬ 
 pregnable positions, is ours. Tennessee, 
 one of the seceded States, is now 
 wholly ours. Kentucky is loyal. Mis- 
 
5 
 
 souri is ours, and has abolished Sla¬ 
 very. 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 
 Caesar 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 rebel- 
 dom, there it continues to float, and will 
 float forever. What are we to negotiate 
 about ? Is it as to giving up the Mis¬ 
 sissippi 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 Mon¬ 
 roe and the Chesapeake to be abandon¬ 
 ed? Is the rebel flag to float at Alex¬ 
 andria, and on the heights of Arling¬ 
 ton ; 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, Mary¬ 
 land, 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 w© 
 to abandon the unquestionable right to 
 abolish it, as Mr. Lincoln and his friends 
 propose, by a constitutional amend¬ 
 ment? 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 o*n the Bos¬ 
 ton Common? Slavery, we know, was 
 the sole cause of the war. It was 
 Slavery that fired the first gun at Sum¬ 
 ter, 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 con¬ 
 stitution. 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 seces¬ 
 sion 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 pre¬ 
 vent 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 re¬ 
 store the patient to permanent and per¬ 
 fect 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 be¬ 
 longed (like myself) to the o’d Demo¬ 
 cratic party. But the Baltimore Con¬ 
 vention, in the spirit of true nationality 
 and patriotism, discarded all old party 
 
6 
 
 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. 
 
 My first objection, then, to the organi¬ 
 zation against Mr. Lincoln is, that it is 
 a mere party organization, arrayed un¬ 
 der an old party name, and marching 
 under an old party banner. In the 
 midst of a great contest like this, when 
 all old party names and prejudices 
 should be forgotten, and when Demo¬ 
 crats and Republicans should be united 
 as brethren in the one grand etfort to 
 suppress the rebellion, the Chicago 
 McClellan Convention reopens old party 
 strifes, renews old party issues, and, 
 denouncing Republicans, assumes the 
 name and professes to represent the 
 Democratic party. It was the banner 
 of the Union that w r as raised by the 
 Convention at Baltimore, and the sal¬ 
 vation of the Union, with its rescue 
 from present and future perils, the sup¬ 
 pression of the rebellion, with the re¬ 
 moval of the cause, constituted the only 
 issues presented by that Convention to 
 the whole of the loyal States of all 
 parties. 
 
 It was far otherwise at Chicago. It 
 was a mere assemblage of partisans, 
 some for, and some against the Union, 
 in the search of power and emoluments. 
 It was the flag of the Union that was 
 given to the breeze at Baltimore. It was 
 the flag of a party that was unfolded 
 at Chicago. ‘For the Union ’ was 
 written on the flag of the one—‘For 
 the Democratic party ’ was inscribed 
 on the standard of the other. It was 
 said that the Baltimore Convention has 
 made the abolition of Slavery one of its 
 issues; but, as well might it be objected 
 that it had made the prosecution of the 
 war, or the maintenance of the army 
 or navy, part of its creed. The Eman¬ 
 cipation Proclamation of the President 
 had its whole constitutional force as a 
 war measure to save the Union, and, 
 as such, it was adopted by Mr. Lin¬ 
 
 coln as ex-officio * commander-in-chief 
 of the army and navy of the United 
 States.’ That it was, as a war meas¬ 
 ure, perfectly constitutional, I have 
 never doubted, and so declared in an 
 article published at the time in The Con¬ 
 tinental Magazine. It is the duty of 
 all persons, not aliens, to unite with the 
 President in suppressing a rebellion. 
 Slaves, in the relation which they occupy 
 to the National Government under the 
 Federal Constitution, are ‘ persons.' 1 As 
 persons , they are thrice named in the 
 Constitution, and by no other name 
 whatever. Especially, under the clause 
 providing for direct taxation, they are 
 enumerated as persons , not valued as 
 property. The term ‘ person ’ is used 
 more frequently in the Constitution 
 than any other, and it is applied ex¬ 
 pressly to slaves, and to the whole 
 people of the United States, including 
 the President and Vice President, who 
 are designated therein as persons. This 
 very question, whether slaves are per¬ 
 sons or property under the Constitution, 
 arose in the great case of Groves vs. 
 Slaughter, when, in 1841 (with a single 
 dissenting opinion, that of Judge Bald¬ 
 win), after the fullest argument on both 
 sides, it was unanimously decided by 
 the Supreme Court of the United States 
 that slaves, in the relation which they 
 hold to the National Government under 
 theFederalConstitution, are persons only , 
 and not property. Were it otherwise, 
 Massachusetts could not forbid the in¬ 
 troduction of slaves from the South for 
 sale there as merchandise; for Massa¬ 
 chusetts could not prohibit the intro¬ 
 duction of the cotton or any property 
 of the South for sale as merchandise 
 within her limits, for that would have 
 been a prohibition of the exports from 
 State to State , which is forbidden by 
 the Federal Constitution. My own 
 elaborate argument before the Court, 
 as one of the counsel in that case, will 
 be found in the appendix to the first 
 edition of the 15th volume of Peters’s 
 Reports. As persons , the President has 
 a right to call for the aid of all residing 
 
7 
 
 in the United States, except aliens, to 
 suppress the rebellion. He has a right 
 to call for the services of the loyal or 
 rebel masters for such a purpose, as 
 well as for the service of their slaves. 
 
 It cannot be denied, that the masters, 
 whether rebel or loyal, may be called 
 and even forced by conscription into 
 the army to suppress the rebellion. 
 Would it not then be strange if the 
 master could exempt, his slaves from 
 similar services ? The only right of the 
 master recognized by the Constitution, 
 is to the ‘ service or labor ’ of his slaves. 
 But he has a right equally strong to his 
 own service or labor; yet both must 
 yield to the paramount right of the 
 Government to the services of both or 
 either to suppress the rebellion. There 
 is not a single word in the Federal Con¬ 
 stitution which, either by inference or 
 express declaration, exempts slaves, 
 more than any other persons, from the 
 call of the Federal Government to aid 
 in suppressing a rebellion. Such is 
 the construction given by the South to 
 the so-called Confederate constitution, 
 which is much more stringent than ours 
 in that respect, for it recognizes slaves 
 as property; yet, the rebel authorities, 
 the rebel congress and government, 
 force slaves, even by conscription, to 
 perform military duty—to dig the 
 trenches—to make the earthworks—to 
 erect the barracks and arsenals—to 
 help to make the cannon, small arms, 
 and powder, and vessels of war—to con¬ 
 struct the fortifications—to transport 
 the provisions, munitions, and cannon 
 for their armies, together with the tents 
 and military equipage—to raise the food 
 indispensable for the support of their 
 military forces—and, of course, they 
 would, if they dare, put arms in their 
 hands to meet us on the battle field. 
 It is clear, then, not as a confiscation 
 of property (which is also constitutional 
 under certain circumstances), but as 
 persons , that we have a right to the ser¬ 
 vice of the slaves as well as of their 
 masters to suppress the rebellion. But 
 it is only by emancipation (with com¬ 
 
 pensation for loss of their services by 
 loyal men) that the slaves can be called 
 into our army, and used to suppress the 
 rebellion. A call by the President for 
 the slaves to serve in our armies, to risk 
 their lives and shed their blood for the 
 Union, accompanied by the declaration 
 that they were still slaves, and, upon 
 the termination of the war, such as sur¬ 
 vived would be restored to their mas¬ 
 ters, with whom their wives and chil¬ 
 dren must still remain in bondage, 
 would be an atrocious crime, as well as 
 the climax of all absurdities. Ho; it 
 is only by emancipation that the ser¬ 
 vices of the slaves can or ought to be 
 obtained for the suppression of the 
 rebellion. The Emancipation Proclama¬ 
 tion then of the President, with com¬ 
 pensation to loyal masters, is most clear¬ 
 ly constitutional during the continuance 
 of the war, and as a war measure to 
 suppress the rebellion and save the 
 Union, and such must be the decision of 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 to which tribunal the President has 
 properly submitted the final arbitra¬ 
 ment of the constitutional question. It 
 is true, when the rebellion is crushed, 
 the President can issue no new emanci¬ 
 pation proclamation. But neither can 
 he then recall or modify the one already 
 issued; and if he had the power to 
 recall the proclamation, it would be an 
 act of perfidy unparalleled in the history 
 of the world. The nation would be so 
 utterly disgraced by such bad faith as 
 would be involved in the revocation of 
 the Emancipation Proclamation, as to 
 earn the contempt of all honest and 
 honorable men, and the loss of sympa¬ 
 thy of the industrial classes and work¬ 
 ing men of Europe, whose rulers would 
 then no longer fear to recognize or aid 
 the South. It was the magnificent up¬ 
 rising of the working classes of England 
 in favor of the Union, that alone saved 
 both countries from a bloody and disas¬ 
 trous war. 
 
 The Emancipation Proclamation be¬ 
 ing, as we have seen, clearly constitu¬ 
 tional, as a war measure, with a view 
 
 .9 
 
8 
 
 to save the Union, was it, as such, wise 
 and expedient ? We have seen that the 
 rebel South, even by conscription, when 
 necessary, used slaves for military pur¬ 
 poses, and those not used directly in 
 that way are required to raise bread- 
 stuffs and provisions (instead of cotton), 
 to supply the Confederate army. In¬ 
 deed the debates of Congress for many 
 years past, will show that the South 
 boasted, not vainly, of their great mili¬ 
 tary strength, because they declared 
 that, while the slaves would be used in 
 raising provisions to supply their forces, 
 the whole white population capable of 
 bearing arms could then be called into 
 the field. This constituted, as they de¬ 
 clared, their great military strength. 
 And is it not then a most important 
 war measure, to deprive them of that 
 all-powerful and efficient weapon: 
 which, we have seen, can only be done 
 by emancipation? Now, let us suppose 
 that while we refuse the use of the 
 colored race, whether bond or free, in 
 aid of the war, they are used for that 
 purpose by the South, what would be 
 the result ? By the census of 1860, tbe 
 whole population of the United States 
 was 31,445,080, of which there were 
 white, 26,975,575; free colored, 487,- 
 996; slaves, 3,953,760; total, of colored, 
 4,441,756, of which there were in the 
 seceded States 3,653,110, and in the 
 loyal States, 788,446. Add the whites 
 in the seceded States, 5,449,463, would 
 thus make the whole population of 
 those States, by the census of 1860, 
 9,102,573. In the loyal States, the 
 whole population was 22,342,507; of 
 which 21,553,861 were white, and 788,- 
 646 colored. Now then, if the colored 
 race, as we have seen, in the seceding 
 States, are used for war purposes by 
 them and not by us, the relative number 
 of opposing forces would be as fol¬ 
 lows: Loyal States, 21,553,861; seceded 
 States, 9,102,573; difference in favor of 
 the Loyal States, 12,451,288. Now, to 
 begin the process, add to the whites in 
 the Loyal States the free colored, 
 ■and the total number is 22,342,507; 
 
 seceded States, 9,102,573 ; differ¬ 
 ence in favor of the Loyal States, 
 13,239,934. Continuing the process, if 
 we deduct by the emancipation policy 
 the whole colored population of the 
 seceded States, the result would be, 
 Loyal States, 22,342,507; seceded 
 States, 5,449,463. But if, concluding 
 the process, by the emancipation policy 
 we not only deduct the colored race 
 from the aid of the South, but add it in 
 aid of the Loyal States, the result 
 would be, Loyal States, 25,995,617; 
 seceded States, 5.449,463 ; difference in 
 favor of Loyal States, 20,456,154. Thus 
 the policy opposed to emancipation and 
 to the use of the colored race’by us in 
 the war, makes the difference in our 
 favor as against the South only 12,451,- 
 288, whereas the difference in our favor 
 by the emancipation policy of the Presi¬ 
 dent is 20,546*,154. Deduct from this 
 the above 12,451,288; final difference, 
 8,094,866. Thus we see that, by the Pres¬ 
 ident’s policy, there is, in effect, a gain to 
 the Loyal States equivalent to more than 
 eight millions of people, more than 
 200,000 of whom are already soldiers 
 in the Union army, all of whom must 
 be disbanded if Mr. Lincoln’s policy was 
 erroneous. Will any say that a policy 
 which makes a difference in the relative 
 forces of the two contending parties of 
 more than eight millions of people in 
 favor of the North, and which has 
 already increased our army 200,000, is 
 not a most important war measure, aid¬ 
 ing us to suppress the rebellion and 
 save the Government? and, therefore, 
 it is a policy eminently calculated to 
 preserve and perpetuate the Union. 
 Indeed, it is this measure which ren¬ 
 ders the maintenance of the Union cer¬ 
 tain, and, without it, the Union is sub¬ 
 jected to great peril. 
 
 As, then, the emancipation policy of 
 the President is not only wise, benefi¬ 
 cent, and constitutional, but renders cer¬ 
 tain the preservation of the Union, 
 while that of his opponents subjects it 
 to imminent peril, I go for the reeleo- 
 tion of Mr. Lincoln. I go for him as a 
 
9 
 
 Union man , and because his emanci¬ 
 pation policy will certainly save the 
 Union; and I go against his opponent, 
 because, however loyal he may be, and 
 however sincere his desire to save the 
 Union, practically he is a disunionist, 
 because, independent of the Chicago 
 McClellan platform, his anti-emancipa¬ 
 tion and anti-negro policy subjects the 
 Union to imminent peril. Now, with 
 me, in this, as in all preceding elections, 
 the preservation and perpetuation of 
 the Union constituted the great trans¬ 
 cendent question, involving the liberty 
 of our country and mankind, and I can 
 give no vote which subjects it to the 
 slightest peril. Save the Union, and all 
 else will be added in time (including the 
 ultimate downfall of Slavery, which I 
 predicted and advocated in January, 
 1844), has been the doctrine of my life. 
 To that doctrine I still adhere, but sup¬ 
 port the President’s emancipation policy 
 now, because it is the most efficient, if 
 not the only means of saving and per¬ 
 petuating the Union. I opposed eman¬ 
 cipation when it was unconstitutional as 
 a peace measure , and because I knew it 
 would cause civil war, invite foreign 
 intervention, and endanger the Union. 
 I support emancipation now, because it 
 is constitutional, greatly diminishes the 
 danger of foreign intervention, and in¬ 
 sures the maintenance and perpetui¬ 
 ty of the Union. I supported Judge 
 Douglas and opposed the election of 
 Mr. Lincoln in 1860, because I believed 
 it would imperil the Union. While 
 always denying that his election would 
 justify disunion, I feared that the rebel¬ 
 lion would be the result. In voting 
 against Mr. Lincoln in 1860, I did so to 
 save the Union from peril. In voting 
 for him now, it is to suppress the re¬ 
 bellion and maintain the Union. It is 
 not for Mr. Lincoln as a man (however 
 worthy he may be), that I now vote— 
 I vote for principles—I vote for the 
 Union—and in supporting him, I vote 
 for the best, if not the only means to 
 maintain and perpetuate the Union. 
 
 But there is another principle of vital 
 
 importance involved in this election. 
 The South, under the banner of Slavery, 
 proceeded to secede from the Union, 
 immediately after the result of the Pres¬ 
 idential election of 1860 was made 
 known. South Carolina seceded in 
 December, 1860. Mississippi followed 
 early in January, 1861, and the Cotton 
 States all followed during that and the 
 succeeding month of Pebruary. Now, 
 Mr. Lincoln was not and could not be 
 inaugurated as President until March, 
 1861. The South did not and would 
 not wait for his inaugural address of 
 that date to know, under the new con¬ 
 dition of affairs, what would be the 
 policy of his Administration. They did 
 not and would not wait for any meas¬ 
 ures of his Administration, much less 
 any act of the Government or of Con¬ 
 gress, but proceeded to secede merely 
 because Mr. Lincoln had been constitu¬ 
 tionally elected to the Presidency by 
 the people of the United States. Such 
 an act was an overthrow of the great 
 fundamental principle of all free gov¬ 
 ernment, namely, that the majority 
 shall govern under the forms of the 
 Constitution. It was an attack upon 
 the right of suffrage, an assault upon 
 the ballot box and the great principle of 
 an elective President, as provided in 
 our Constitution, and which lies at the 
 very basis of free institutions. That 
 principle is the vital element of our ex¬ 
 istence. It is ‘ the casing air ’ of liber¬ 
 ty. Take it away, and freedom in¬ 
 stantly expires. The right of suffrage is 
 the great American right of every citi¬ 
 zen, rich or poor, humble or exalted. 
 It is the great palladium of our liberty.' 
 It is a Government, like a mightyj^vra- 
 mid, reposing on its broad and immova¬ 
 ble base, the will and affections of the 
 people. It is the people’s Government, 
 and therefore the people maintain it, 
 and with us two millions of volunteers 
 have rushed to its support. Therefore, 
 while it is the best Government in 
 peace, it is the strongest in war. But se¬ 
 cession because of the election of a 
 President, is not only war upon the 
 
10 
 
 Union, but war upon the elective fran¬ 
 chise, the great fundamental principle 
 of free government, and without 
 which it is but a fleeting shadow. 
 Democrats—people of all parties—my 
 countrymen, while you are asked now 
 by the Chicago Convention to vote 
 against Mr. Lincoln, you would nullify 
 by that very vote the right of suffrage, 
 because, what is that suffrage worth, 
 what is your vote but an empty form, if 
 it may not elect your President? But 
 if, because the minority who have voted 
 against you,dissatisfied with your choice, 
 can rebel, make war upon you, because 
 you thus voted, and set up another 
 President for that minority by force of 
 arms, w r hat is that but to say that the 
 majority shall not rule; that the right 
 of suffrage shall be nullified; that the 
 Constitution, under which that vote 
 was given, shall be overthrown? This 
 is what the rebellion has done in at¬ 
 tempting to destroy the Republic, 
 merely because of the election of Mr. 
 Lincoln. This arrogant and insolent 
 slave-holding oligarchy would not even 
 wait to hear what the President of your 
 choice would say. They treated the 
 President of your choice, and therefore 
 they treated you and the Constitution 
 under which you acted, with scorn and 
 defiance. So long as you 'would act 
 with them, so long as the Northern par¬ 
 asites would adhere to the Southern 
 upas tree of Slavery, so long as the 
 1 mudsills ’ of the North, as they arro¬ 
 gantly called you, would obey the orders 
 of their Southern masters, so long as you 
 would be their slaves, they would per¬ 
 mit the President to be inaugurated. 
 But so soon as you elected a President 
 against their dictation, then your suffra¬ 
 ges should be nullified by the rebellion 
 of a minority against the majority. What 
 is this but to say, that the majority 
 shall not elect a President, and thus 
 render the right of suffrage an empty 
 form, striking at the fundamental prin¬ 
 ciple of free government, and substitu¬ 
 ting the bayonets of the minority for the 
 ballots of the majority of the people? 
 
 Freemen of America, is it possible that 
 by voting against Mr. Lincoln now 
 because of the Southern rebellion, 
 you will thus declare that the election 
 of a President by the people is not to be 
 maintained, but that his reelection is to 
 be defeated, and that bis authority, as 
 your President and as your representa¬ 
 tive, is therefore never to extend over 
 the whole United States , because a re¬ 
 bellious minority oppose it by force of 
 arms? This is one of the transcendent 
 issues involved in this contest. It is in 
 fact the great question whether the ma¬ 
 jority shall rule or the minority— 
 whether self-government is an unreal 
 mockery, or whether it is indeed a God- 
 given right of man , born in the image of 
 his Maker. You voted that Mr. Lincoln 
 should be President of the whole United 
 States. That was your decision at the 
 ballot box. Has it been obeyed? No: 
 an arrogant slave-holding minority has 
 rebelled against it, and, within the boun¬ 
 daries of the area occupied by that mi¬ 
 nority, has suppressed your election by 
 the bayonet, and substituted Jefferson 
 Davis, one of the rebel leaders, in place 
 of Abraham Lincoln. Within the limits 
 of that rebellion, the power, under the 
 Constitution, which you devolved upon 
 Abraham Lincoln, has been nullified by 
 force of arms, and now, if you abandon 
 the war, or defeat his reelection, your 
 choice will have been nullified, and he 
 never will have exercised throughout 
 the United States the power given to 
 him by your suffrages under the Consti¬ 
 tution. Now the party in the North 
 thus acquiescing in this destruction of 
 the right of suffrage, dares to assume 
 the sacred name of Democracy, which 
 you know is but Anglicized Greek, 
 meaning the power of the people. Shade 
 of the immortal Jackson! the father 
 and founder of the Democratic party, 
 burst the cerements of the Hermitage, 
 and blast with the thunders of New Or¬ 
 leans the wretched traitors who thus 
 dare to profane the sacred name under 
 which you were chosen President of the 
 United States. 
 
11 
 
 But there is another grave objection 
 to the McClellan platform adopted at 
 Chicago. It is its intentional ambiguity. 
 The Convention was composed of 
 unionists and disunionists, of peace and 
 war Democrats, as they style them¬ 
 selves, and the platform was adapted to 
 suit the views of both these parties in 
 and out of the Convention. It was a 
 platform upon which the temple of Ja¬ 
 nus was to be closed, but with side 
 doors at either extremity, into one of 
 which the peace men with their olive 
 branches should enter, and the war 
 men in full military array in the other, 
 and the lion and the lamb meet 
 together in the centre in cordial agree¬ 
 ment. But, it appears that' the war 
 men in this case were only asses in 
 lions’ skins, for in the compromise be¬ 
 tween antagonistic principles and candi¬ 
 dates, the peace men got far the better 
 of the bargain. While there were some 
 vague aod glittering generalities in favor 
 of the Union, they were connected with 
 conditions which rendered the destruc¬ 
 tion of the Union certain, namely, an 
 armistice and cessation of hostilities, ac¬ 
 companied by the false and flagitious 
 declaration, calculated to encourage the 
 enemies of our country at home and 
 abroad, namely, that the war to suppress 
 the rebellion was a failure. Remember, 
 soldiers, that the McClellan platform 
 declares that your battles are failures ; 
 that your blood has been shed in vain; 
 that your arms can never crush the re¬ 
 bellion ; that you are inferior in courage 
 to the slave-holding rebels; that you 
 must admit your defeat, throw down 
 your muskets, return in disgrace to your 
 homes, disband the army, lay up the 
 navy, recall Generals Grant, Sherman, 
 Sheridan, Meade, and Gilmore, and Ad¬ 
 mirals Farragut, Porter, Dupont, Davis, 
 and Winslow, and leave it to the civil¬ 
 ians of Chicago, Yallandigham, Har¬ 
 ris, Long, Pendleton, and others, to 
 negotiate a peace. 
 
 Now what is an armistice ? It is de¬ 
 fined to be a suspension of the war for 
 a limited period. There may be condi¬ 
 
 tions added, but none are named in the 
 McClellan Chicago platform. Of course, 
 then, it means a cessation of hostilities 
 by land and sea. Indeed, the platform 
 is weaker than this, for it proposes di¬ 
 rectly a ‘cessation of hostilities,’ not 
 by land only, or by sea only, but, of 
 course, by both , as the words are general. 
 Now then, the blockade of the rebel 
 ports, and the capture or destruction 
 of blockade runners and their cargoes, 
 is war upon the ocean. This blockade, 
 then, is to be abandoned during the 
 armistice, for there is to be a cessation 
 of hostilities upon the ocean and the 
 land. 
 
 During this interval of peace, when 
 there is to be no blockade of the South¬ 
 ern ports, what is to follow ? By their 
 own accounts and estimates, the Con¬ 
 federates have within their limits, in 
 cotton (at present prices), tobacco, and 
 naval stores, a value exceeding one bil¬ 
 lion of dollars in gold. Now then, so 
 soon as the armistice was agreed upon, 
 the war upon the ocean, including the 
 blockade, having ceased, the whole of 
 this cotton, tobacco, and naval stores, 
 would be shipped to Europe, or partly 
 to Nassau, on the way to Europe, and 
 this enormous amount realized by the 
 Confederate government in gold. We 
 know what tremendous disasters have 
 been produced by the cotton famine in 
 England, France, and other countries. 
 Now, the first effect of such shipments 
 would be the total ruin of all our man¬ 
 ufactures of cotton and other textile 
 fabrics. But another still more serious 
 result would follow. We know that 
 Louis Napoleon is the bitter enemy of 
 the Union ; we know that he has again 
 and again declared that we could not 
 suppress the rebellion; that he has 
 earnestly thrice endeavored to persuade 
 the British Government to unite with 
 him in acknowledging the independence 
 of the South—twice through efforts 
 made directly upon the British Cabi¬ 
 net, and once through Roebuck and 
 Lindsay, members of the House of Com¬ 
 mons, to induce it by a parliamentary 
 
12 
 
 vote to compel the British Ministry to 
 unite with the Emperor in acknowl¬ 
 edging the independence of the South. 
 That Louis Napoleon is our hitter ene¬ 
 my, is proved also by the French- 
 Mesican war, in which England, and 
 even Spain, separated from him. It is 
 proved also by the diplomatic corre¬ 
 spondence of Jefferson Davis, and by 
 his friendly and approving recognition 
 of the establishment of the French 
 Imperial Government in Mexico. It is 
 further proved by Louis Napoleon's 
 own letter, in which he declared, that 
 one of the objects of the Mexican war 
 was the establishment of the equilib¬ 
 rium of* the- Latin race upon the 
 American continent. It is further 
 demonstrated by the proceedings of 
 the French in Mexico, and especially re¬ 
 cently at Matamoras, in the mutual aid 
 given and received by the French and 
 Confederate forces. Now, what is the 
 meaning of establishing the equilibrium 
 of the Latin race on the ‘American 
 continent ’ ? In the first place, it means 
 European miliitary intervention; in the 
 second place, it means to embrace not 
 only Mexico, but the whole Latin race 
 on the American continent. By the 
 Latin race is included all Spanish Amer¬ 
 ica. It means, then, in the future, if 
 our Government is overthrown, that 
 all Spanish America, from the northern 
 boundary of Mexico to Cape Horn, is to 
 be consolidated into one great Power 
 under imperial sway. It means to in¬ 
 clude in this vast empire the command 
 of the Isthmus of Tehauntepec, the route 
 by Central America (about which Louis 
 Napoleon has written so much), by Hon¬ 
 duras and Chiriqui, but more especially 
 the Panama, as also the Atrato routes. 
 
 In the great future, whoever com- 
 marfds these routes, especially together 
 with that of the Isthmus of Suez, which 
 I visited a few months since, and 
 which Louis Napoleon has nearly com¬ 
 pleted, will command the commerce of 
 the world, and, as a consequence, ulti¬ 
 mately control the institutions of the 
 world. Such are the tremendous prob¬ 
 
 lems teeming in the brain of Napoleon 
 the Third, and all, as he believes, depend¬ 
 ing upon the destruction of the Ameri¬ 
 can Union. I speak of what I know 
 from a residence now of nearly two 
 years in Europe. Thus it is that Louis 
 Napoleon intends to bring us within 
 the centrifugal gravitation of the Eu¬ 
 ropean balance of power. This won¬ 
 derful man proposes to extend thig 
 system from the old continents to the 
 new, embracing both, and thus hold in 
 his grasp the equilibrium—the balance 
 of power of the world. We may well 
 imagine what that equilibrium will be 
 when Napoleon the Third shall hold 
 the balance in his hands. Already he 
 has considerable possessions (insular 
 and continental) in North and South 
 America, and Mexico, under Maximil¬ 
 ian, is substantially a French depend¬ 
 ency. He holds Algiers. He is colo¬ 
 nizing Egypt (as I myself saw this 
 year) by his railroads and canals. He 
 has seized and colonized Cochin China 
 and Annam. He has made Italy a de¬ 
 pendency on the bayonets of France. 
 Now then, under these circumstances, 
 when the blockade shall have termi¬ 
 nated, and Jefferson Davis, who is quite 
 as ambitious and even more talented 
 than Louis Napoleon, shall hold in his 
 hand more than a billion of dollars’ 
 worth of Southern products ready for 
 immediate shipment, may he not,, and 
 will he not say, through his most able 
 and adroit diplomatic representative at 
 Paris, ‘ Recognize the independence of 
 the South, and all these products shall 
 be shipped for sale in France, and to 
 French manufacturers,’ and thus enable 
 France to crush for the present the 
 cotton manufacturers of all the rest of 
 the world. It is well known in Paris 
 that Mr. Slidell is upon terms of the 
 most intimate association with Louis 
 Napoleon, and has thoroughly convinced 
 him that we cannot suppress the rebel¬ 
 lion. Is it not, then, clear, anxious as 
 Napoleon is for the success of the South, 
 that he would, in the event of McClel¬ 
 lan’s election, at once recognize South- 
 
13 
 
 ern independence. Indeed, it is the 
 boast of the Confederate leaders in Eu¬ 
 rope, since the adoption of the platform 
 at Chicago, that, upon the election of 
 their candidates, without waiting four 
 months for the inauguration in March 
 next, Napoleon will at once recognize 
 the Confederate government. Indeed, 
 I do not doubt, from the circumstantial 
 evidence (although I do not know the 
 fact), that there is already a secret un¬ 
 derstanding between Jefferson Davis 
 and Napoleon the Third to recognize 
 the independence of the South upon the 
 election of the Chicago candidates. 
 Why wait four months, until the 4th of 
 March next, when the American peo¬ 
 ple, by indorsing the Chicago platform, 
 shall have declared for peace, with the 
 additional announcement in that plat¬ 
 form, that the war for the suppression 
 of the rebellion has failed ? 
 
 If, indeed, that war has failed, and 
 we cannot thus suppress the rebellion, 
 it would not only be the right, but, upon 
 the principles of international law, the 
 duty of every foreign power to acknowl¬ 
 edge Southern independence. Thus is 
 it that the Chicago McClellan platform 
 invites recognition. What is the mean¬ 
 ing of the recognition of the independ¬ 
 ence of the South by France, under such 
 circumstances ? It means war. It 
 means, in the first place, commercial 
 treaties stipulating great advantages in 
 favor of France, and perhaps other 
 Powers. It means, of course, the over¬ 
 throw of the blockade, so as to carry 
 out those treaties. It means conditions 
 destructive of our interests, and favora¬ 
 ble to the recognizing Powers. It 
 means advantages and discriminations 
 in tariffs and tonnage duties, and navi¬ 
 gation privileges, which would exclude 
 us from Southern ports, including New 
 Orleans and the mouth of the Missis¬ 
 sippi, and deprive us of the markets of 
 the South. Such a recognition, then, 
 with its attendant consequences, means 
 war—war not only with France, but 
 probably with England and Spain, and 
 other Powers. Doubtless, upon the 
 
 election of the Chicago candidates, Na¬ 
 poleon would again ask the Ministry of 
 England to unite with him in recogniz¬ 
 ing the independence of the South, and 
 to participate in the benefits of the pro¬ 
 posed commercial treaties. Who can 
 say that England, under the dangers 
 and sacrifices incurred by a refusal, 
 would again decline the offer ? 
 
 It is clear, then, that the election of 
 the Chicago candidates involves the 
 most imminent peril of war with 
 France, if not with England, both acting 
 then in alliance with the Confederate 
 government. That my country even 
 then would accept the contest rather 
 than the dishonor and ruin of disunion, 
 I do believe; but who can predict 
 the result of such a conflict? My 
 countrymen, we are speedily approach¬ 
 ing the very edge of a dark and perilous 
 abyss, into which we may be soon 
 plunged by the election of the Chicago 
 candidates. I implore you not to make 
 the dread experiment. You must 
 know that there will be no recognition 
 of the independence of the South by 
 France or England, or any other Power, 
 if Abraham Lincoln should be reelected 
 in November next. The American 
 people will then have loudly pro¬ 
 claimed, through the ballot box, that 
 they can and will subdue the rebellion 
 by force of arms; and that they will 
 continue to negotiate from the mouths 
 of our cannon, until the Southern 
 armies shall have been dispersed and 
 vanquished. Upon the news of the re- 
 election of Mr. Lincoln reaching Europe, 
 the Confederate stock, now waiting 
 the success of the Chicago candidates, 
 will fall, like Lucifer, to rise no more. 
 American securities, including those of 
 the Federal and loyal State Govern¬ 
 ments, of railroads, and other com¬ 
 panies with real capital, will all be im¬ 
 mensely appreciated. The difference 
 in favor of our country, including the 
 rise in greenbacks, would be equivalent 
 in a few months to hundreds of millions 
 of dollars. Nor is it only our stocks 
 that will rise at home and abroad, but 
 
14 
 
 the national character will be im¬ 
 mensely exalted. The friends of our 
 country and liberty in Europe, includ¬ 
 ing the grand mass of the people, will 
 echo hack the exultant shouts of free¬ 
 dom as they roll on from the Pacific to 
 the Mississippi, from the Mississippi to 
 the lakes, and, bounding from the glad 
 Atlantic, are carried by steam and 
 lightning to the shores of Europe. The 
 fetters of American Slavery will be 
 broken by such a result, and man—im¬ 
 mortal man, of whatever race or color, 
 born in the image of his Maker, will 
 emerge from chatteldom, and rise to 
 the dignity of our common humanity. 
 
 There is one point still remaining of 
 vast importance. It is the question of 
 Slavery, so far as it yet lingers within 
 our borders. Without entering upon 
 other aspects of that case, we call atten¬ 
 tion to the proposed amendment for the 
 purpose of abolishing Slavery on the 
 recommendation of Congress and the 
 ratification of three fourths of the 
 States, as provided in the Federal Con¬ 
 stitution. This is recommended by Mr. 
 Lincoln, and it is a plank in the Balti¬ 
 more platform. It passed the Senate by 
 a more than two-thirds vote, but was 
 defeated, by the Democrats , by a vote of 
 69 to 94, in the House, thus failing to 
 receive the two-thirds majority of both 
 Houses of Congress as required by the 
 Constitution. If, as has been hereto¬ 
 fore shown, Slavery is the great enemy 
 of the Union, and was the sole cause of 
 the rebellion, why not extirpate the 
 cause of the war ? Why not remove 
 what may remain of Slavery after the 
 war is ended, by the proposed amend¬ 
 ment, as recommended by Mr. Lincoln ? 
 This is a war and a Union measure, cal¬ 
 culated to crush the rebellion, to main¬ 
 tain the Union, and to prevent any 
 future effort to effect its overthrow. 
 This measure, which would settle finally 
 and forever the Slavery question, will 
 succeed at an early period, if Mr. Lin¬ 
 coln should be reelected. But this 
 measure the Democrats oppose, and 
 desire to Tceep openth.Q Slavery question, 
 
 for no object that can be perceived, 
 except to renew the old party alliance 
 between Slavery South and its Northern 
 supporters, with a view to party tri¬ 
 umphs. If General McClellan succeeds, 
 Slavery, so far as it still exists, will be 
 cherished, maintained, and perpetuated. 
 The viper will be warmed into life again, 
 and although it might perhaps recoil for 
 the present, it would only be to strike 
 at some future period with greater force 
 and venom at the life of the Republic. 
 These men tell us they are for the 
 Union as it was. Are they for the re¬ 
 vival of such scenes as were perpetrated 
 by Brooks in the American Senate? 
 Are they for the Kansas frauds and 
 murders and forgeries, including the 
 forgery of a constitution? Are they 
 for the right of secession, or, while 
 they dispute the right of a State to se¬ 
 cede, do they deny with Buchanan and 
 Pendleton the right of the Government 
 to prevent its secession ? Are they 
 against secession, but against coercion 
 also ? Are they against rebellion, but 
 opposed to its overthrow by force ? 
 Throughout the South, under the Union 
 as it was, there was no freedom of 
 speech or of the press, on any question 
 connected with Slavery. Are they for 
 the sale, under the Union as it wms, even 
 of free negroes into perpetual bondage ? 
 Are they for the denial of the rights of 
 Northern citizens throughout the 
 South ? Above all, are they for the 
 renewal of the African slave trade, as 
 notoriously occurred in 1859 (during 
 the Administration of Buchanan), at Sa¬ 
 vannah, in Georgia, when the wretched 
 victims, just stolen from their native 
 homes in Africa, were carried to Savan¬ 
 nah, and there, in defiance of the Fed¬ 
 eral Constitution, openly distributed by 
 sale among the boasted chivalry of the 
 South ? If the Chicago candidates and 
 their party are for these things—if they 
 are for the Union as it was in these re¬ 
 spects, I am against them. I am for the 
 Union (as clearly intended by the fa¬ 
 thers and founders of the Government) 
 as it will be when Slavery (its great. 
 
and, in fact, its only domestic foe) shall 
 have been entirely extinguished. While 
 I am for the extinction of Slavery as a 
 Union and as a war measure, I am con¬ 
 soled by the reflection that, while it 
 will secure the perpetuity of the Union, 
 it will vastly increase our wealth and 
 power, and advance all our industrial 
 and material interests. For several 
 years past I have examined this ques¬ 
 tion, and, in various essays, published 
 at home, but more especially abroad, 
 have proved by official statistics, from 
 the censuses of 1850 and 1860, that, 
 under the system of free labor and free 
 schools which exist in the North, as 
 compared with the South, the product 
 of the Free States is $217 per capita, and 
 that of the slaveholding States $96 per 
 capita. Also, that the lands of the South 
 are worth $10 per acre, and of the North 
 $25 per acre. It was further proved by 
 me, in those essays, by the same official 
 data, that, exactly in proportion to the 
 number of slaves is the decreased pro¬ 
 duction per capita in the Slave States; 
 that of South Carolina, with 402,406 
 slaves and 291,388 whites, being $66 per 
 capita , and of Delaware, with 90,589 
 whites and 1,798 slaves, being $143 per 
 capita; while that of Massachusetts, 
 with her sterile soil and severe climate, 
 and far inferior natural advantages, was 
 $235 per capita ; and the same rule was 
 also shown to hold in counties of the 
 same Slave States, those counties with 
 few slaves always producing more per 
 capita than those having many. The 
 result was, as shown by the census, 
 that if the production of the South in 
 1859 had been equal per capita during 
 the same year to that of the Free States, 
 the additional value of the Southern 
 products would have been $1,531,631,- 
 000 in 1859, and in the aggregate of the 
 decade from 1859 to 1869, $17,873,539,- 
 511, exclusive of the addition from the 
 annual reinvestment of capital. The 
 addition, then, to the value of the pro¬ 
 ducts of the South in a single year, 
 caused by the substitution of free for 
 slave labor, would be nearly equal to 
 
 our whole present national debt, while 
 in the aggregate of the ten years suc¬ 
 ceeding it would be nearly ten times 
 greater than the whole national debt, 
 thus leaving us far richer after the next 
 census, as a consequence of increased 
 production, notwithstanding the na¬ 
 tional debt, than if the rebellion had 
 never occurred. Thus is it that the 
 ways of Providence are justified to 
 man, and that Slavery chastises its own 
 advocates, while its overthrow brings 
 increased wealth and safety and hon¬ 
 or and happiness and prosperity to 
 the country. While I do not advocate, 
 then, the abolition of Slavery in defi¬ 
 ance of the Constitution, because it 
 would make us more wealthy and 
 powerful, more honored, happy, and 
 prosperous, yet I rejoice that in sup¬ 
 porting emancipation, as Mr. Lincoln 
 does, as a Union and as a war measure, 
 the overthrow of this accursed institu¬ 
 tion will be attended with countless 
 benefits to my country and mankind. 
 Suppress the rebellion by the over¬ 
 throw of the Southern armies, and re¬ 
 establish the Government throughout 
 all our wide domain upon the broad 
 and eternal foundations of freedom, 
 truth, and justice, then neither domes¬ 
 tic traitors nor foreign despots will 
 ever dash against its adamantine base. 
 There it will stand, and stand forever, 
 the mighty continental breakwater be¬ 
 tween the continents of Asia and of 
 Europe, against -which the breakers of 
 eternal faction, and the waves of des¬ 
 potic power would dash in vain. To 
 that home of the oppressed, to that asy¬ 
 lum of genuine and universal freedom, 
 millions from the Old World would 
 then come, and unite with us in 
 strengthening and maintaining a Gov¬ 
 ernment based upon the rights of hu¬ 
 manity, and sustained by the affections 
 of the people. While our physical force 
 and accumulating wealth would thus 
 be rapidly and vastly augmented, our 
 moral power would be increased in a 
 still grander ratio. Then the cry of ty¬ 
 rants, that self-government is a phan- 
 
16 
 
 tom, and republics a failure, would 
 cease to oppress the listening ear of 
 humanity. Then the chains would 
 soon fall everywhere from the limbs of 
 the slave. Then the reactionary and 
 feudal party of Europe, now so loudly 
 proclaiming republics a failure, while 
 exulting over the anticipated fall of 
 the American Union, would retire dis¬ 
 comfited from the contest, while the 
 rights of man would be immensely 
 promoted, and civilization advance, at 
 a single bound, more than in the lapse 
 of many centuries. The great liberal 
 party of England, headed by those im¬ 
 mortal champions Bright and Cobden, 
 would rouse like giants refreshed from 
 their slumber, and carry the flag of the 
 vote by ballot and extended suffrage 
 triumphantly throughout the British 
 realm, while Ireland, oppressed Ireland, 
 would then receive the fullest justice. 
 Then, indeed, all past differences be¬ 
 tween England and America would be 
 sunk forever in fraternal concord, and 
 the peace of the world be maintained. 
 Then Napoleon the Third, who keeps 
 an armv of 600,000 men as a standing 
 menace to Europe and the world, and 
 who has just, for the present, and for 
 the present only, extinguished in blood 
 the freedom of Mexico, must abandon 
 his ambitious projects, or shiver his 
 diadem upon the adamantine rock of 
 popular freedom. 
 
 But there are complaints from the 
 so-called Democratic party that the 
 President, and especially the Secretary 
 of State, have surrendered the Monroe 
 doctrine, and abandoned Mexico to her 
 fate. There is no truth in this accusa¬ 
 tion. The President and the Secretary 
 of State, as regards the future , are 
 wholly uncommitted on this question, 
 unless, indeed, it be for Mexico, by an¬ 
 nouncing that the people of the loyal 
 States are unanimously in her favor. I 
 say they are uncommitted for the fu¬ 
 ture, and the real objection to their 
 course is this: that they have not grat¬ 
 ified the South and its Northern allies, 
 by engaging, ere this, in a war with 
 
 France, so as to bring her vast forces 
 in aid of the Confederate government. 
 Indeed, Mr. Seward is cursed everywhere 
 by the Confederates and their allies 
 throughout Europe for preventing a war, 
 at this time , on the Mexican question, 
 between France and the United States. 
 ‘ There is a time for all things,’ and, as 
 I have said before, our only question 
 now, is the salvation of the Union; and 
 when that is secured, will be the prop¬ 
 er period to consider other subordinate 
 questions, foreign or domestic. No 
 man can speak with more feeling on 
 this question than myself, for it is a 
 well-known fact that I earnestly op¬ 
 posed, as a member of the Cabinet of 
 Mr. Polk, the Mexican treaty of 1848, 
 among other reasons, upon the sugges¬ 
 tion then made by me, that if we aban¬ 
 doned Mexico, it would subject us to 
 the danger of European interference 
 there (just as it has occurred) by force 
 of arms. That treaty was carried by a 
 constitutional majority of only thre8 
 votes, mainly through the instrument¬ 
 ality of Mr. Calhoun, who was against 
 the invasion of Mexico, and for ‘ mas¬ 
 terly inactivity,’ resting on the banks 
 of the Rio Grande, because he knew (as 
 declared in my Texas letter of January, 
 1844) ‘ Slavery never could cross the Rio 
 Grande,’ and that, as a consequence, all 
 of Mexico which we would permanent¬ 
 ly hold, as we ought to have done, 
 from Texas to Tehuantepec, would, 
 Mexico having abolished Slavery, have 
 become Free States. I believed also 
 that the permanent occupation and 
 annexation of Mexico would have for¬ 
 ever settled all the dangers of the Sla¬ 
 very question, because it would have 
 flanked the Slave States of the South¬ 
 west, by many powerful Free States ad¬ 
 jacent on the Southwest, containing 
 already seven millions of people, most 
 of whom were of the colored race, and 
 who would have fought to the last 
 against the reestablishment of Slavery. 
 
 Yet, strong and decided as is my op¬ 
 position to the course of Napoleon on 
 the Mexican as well as the Confederate 
 
IT 
 
 question, I believe that the course of 
 Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward on this 
 question has been marked by great 
 courage, devoted patriotism, and the 
 highest statesmanship. I am not for 
 mingling this or any other question of 
 foreign or domestic policy with the 
 maintenance of the Union,' but have 
 only answered the assaults of adversa¬ 
 ries on the Mexican and other subordi¬ 
 nate issues. This, however, I must 
 Bay : that the treaty with Mexico, by 
 which we abandoned that country, 
 having been ratified, I am opposed to 
 any violation of its provisions. While 
 I adhere to the opinions expressed at 
 the time by me against that treaty; 
 while I am opposed to forcing Mexico 
 into our Union, I believe that Napoleon 
 the Third, unwittingly, by his invasion, 
 has caused Mexico soon to gravitate, 
 by the overwhelming wish of her peo¬ 
 ple, into the arms of the great Repub¬ 
 lic. Thus is it that the French invasion 
 will have settled forever in our favor the 
 question of the American equilibrium. 
 
 I have published the views expressed 
 in these letters on consultation with no 
 one. They are my own individual 
 opinions, and I only am responsible for 
 them. It is quite possible that the Ad¬ 
 ministration may differ from some of 
 them, but I am just as independent 
 of the Administration as they are of 
 me. I am not, and never was, a Re¬ 
 publican, and while I have been falsely 
 charged in Europe with abandoning 
 my free-trade principles, in consequence 
 of the constant and earnest support 
 given by me to Mr. Lincoln, it must be 
 remembered that a majority of his 
 Cabinet of 1863 had been Democrats, 
 and supported the Tariff of 1846. But 
 the Tariff is a very subordinate ques¬ 
 tion, compared with the salvation of 
 the Union. Besides, if the Tariff of 
 1846 was changed, it was not until the 
 2d of March, 1861, and the change was 
 caused intentionally, by the previous 
 withdrawal of the Senators and Repre¬ 
 sentatives of the seceded States from 
 both Houses of Congress. 
 
 2 
 
 I have another answer to this charge. 
 I was for the free list of the Tariff of 
 1842, as distinctly stated in my first 
 annual Treasury report, so as to increase 
 our exports, especially of dyed cotton 
 goods, thereby producing a correspond¬ 
 ing augmentation of our imports and 
 revenue. That portion of the act of 
 1846 was defeated by Mr. Calhoun, 
 much to my regret, injury, and annoy¬ 
 ance. 
 
 Besides, the South, by its rebellion, 
 and by thus forcing on us an enormous 
 Federal debt, has rendered impossible 
 for many years any other Tariff but that 
 which will bring the largest revenue. 
 Until this debt is paid, we must have 
 the highest Tariff for revenue, and it 
 can be so arranged as, while yielding, 
 when the Union is restored, at least 
 $150,000,000 annually in gold, at the 
 same time to furnish all incidental aid 
 to American industry that could be de- 
 stred. 
 
 I have thus far discussed the ques¬ 
 tion as confined to the contest between 
 the respective candidates for the Presi¬ 
 dency of the United States. But let 
 those who think of supporting General 
 McClellan for the Presidency remem¬ 
 ber that, in sustaining him, they must 
 necessarily vote for Mr. Pendleton for 
 the Vice Presidency. McClellan and 
 Pendleton are the Siamese twins of 
 Chicago, inseparable, and all who vote 
 for the one, vote at the same time for 
 the other. No voter can cast his 
 suffrage in this contest, except by 
 voting for an electoral ticket, and the 
 same electors for General McClellan 
 who may be chosen in any State, are 
 to vote for Mr. Pendleton for the Vice 
 Presidency. In other words, if General 
 McClellan is chosen President, Mr. 
 Pendleton is elected at the same time 
 to the Vice Presidency of the United 
 States. Now, recollect, that the Vice 
 President not only presides over the 
 Senate of the United States, and gives 
 the casting vote in that body, but that, 
 in case of the death of the President, 
 the Vice President becomes President 
 
18 
 
 of the United States. Now, two 
 Presidents of the United States, within 
 the last twenty-three years, have died 
 during their term of office (Harrison 
 and Taylor), and one of them within a 
 month after his inauguration. In both 
 these cases, the Vice Presidents chosen 
 on the same electoral ticket with the 
 President, reversed the policy of the 
 President elect. Tyler reversed the 
 policy of Harrison, and Fillmore re¬ 
 versed the policy of Taylor. Why may 
 not the same thing again occur, if Mr. 
 Pendleton, by the death of General 
 McClellan, should succeed him as Pres¬ 
 ident ? This renders an inquiry into 
 the course and views of Mr. Pendleton 
 a question of vital importance. 
 
 Now, Mr. Pendleton, as his votes and 
 speeches show, is against the war for 
 the Union, and has declared the coer¬ 
 cion of a seceding rebel State not only 
 ‘ impracticable' but 4 unconstitutional.’ 
 His words are, in his speech in Con¬ 
 gress of the 18th January, 1861, after 
 most of the Cotton States had seceded : 
 
 ‘ Sir (he then said) the whole scheme 
 of coercion is impracticable. It is con¬ 
 trary to the genius and spirit of the 
 Constitution.’ In accordance with these 
 anti-coercion and anti-war views, he 
 continued to vote against the prosecu¬ 
 tion of the war, and against all the 
 great measures passed for that purpose. 
 He further then said, 4 If your differ¬ 
 ences are so great that you cannot or 
 will not reconcile them, then, gentle¬ 
 men, let the seceding States depart in 
 peace ; let them establish their govern¬ 
 ment and empire, and work out their 
 destiny according to the wisdom which 
 God has given them.’ This is exactly 
 the doctrine of Jefferson Davis, and of 
 all the rebel leaders : 4 Let us alone.’ 
 Lei us alone, while we overthrow the 
 Government and dissolve the Union; 
 let us alone , while we seize the mouth 
 of the Mississippi, and tear down or 
 shoot down the flag of the Union from 
 every fort of the South. This is their 
 language, and the Chicago Convention 
 might just as well have nominated 
 
 Jefferson Davis as George H. Pendle¬ 
 ton as their candidate for the Vice 
 Presidency of the United States. Such 
 a nomination of an avowed disunion!st 
 shows the true spirit of the Chicago 
 Convention, and that all their general 
 expressions of devotion to the Union 
 were mere empty sounds, calculated to 
 secure votes, but utterly false and hyp¬ 
 ocritical ; for, while indulging in these 
 pharasaical expressions of love for the 
 Union, they nominate, at the same 
 time, as their candidate for the Vice 
 President, an avowed secessionist and 
 disunionist. We have nothing to do 
 with the abstract opinions or wishes of 
 Mr. Pendleton as regards the Union. 
 Jefferson Davis repeatedly, and up to 
 the very period of secession, expressed 
 quite as much devotion to the old flag 
 and to the Union as Mr. Pendleton. 
 But Mr. Davis soon became the head 
 of the rebellion which Mr. Pendleton 
 declares we ought not, and have no 
 constitutional power, to suppress by 
 force. For all practical purposes, then, 
 Mr. Pendleton is just as much a seces¬ 
 sionist and disunionist as Jefferson Da¬ 
 vis. Nor can it be alleged that Mr. 
 Pendleton has changed these views. 
 On the contrary, as late as this year he 
 voted in Congress against the test resolu¬ 
 tion of Green Clay Smith, of Kentucky, 
 declaring 4 that it is the political, civil, 
 moral, and sacred duty of the people to 
 meet the rebellion, fight it, crush it, 
 and forever destroy it.’ Now then, the 
 Chicago Convention, with a full knowl¬ 
 edge of these votes and speeches, nom¬ 
 inated Mr. Pendleton for the Vice Pres¬ 
 idency, and contingently for the Presi¬ 
 dency of the United States. They knew 
 full well that Mr. Pendleton had de¬ 
 clared the effort to crush the rebellion 
 impracticable and unconstitutional, and 
 that, therefore, if the power they pro¬ 
 posed to give him were ratified by his 
 election, he could, and under his oath 
 of office to support the Constitution, lie 
 must, disband our armies, terminate 
 the war, and permit the dissolution of 
 the Union to be consummated; or he 
 
19 
 
 
 might repeat his own words of 1861: 
 Let the seceding States depart in 
 peace; let them establish their gov¬ 
 ernment and empire, and work out 
 their destiny according to the wisdom 
 which God has given them.’ It is, 
 then, a sufficient objection to the Chi¬ 
 cago candidates that Mr. Pendleton, one 
 of the candidates, inseparably connect¬ 
 ed with General McClellan on the 
 same electoral ticket, is, as we have 
 seen, opposed to the war, and for all 
 practical purposes as much a secession¬ 
 ist'and disunionist as Jefferson Davis. 
 This being clear, if General McClellan 
 is really for the war to save the Union, 
 by crushing the rebellion, he must re¬ 
 fuse to run on the same electoral ticket 
 with Mr. Pendleton; and if he does not, 
 the people and history will assign to 
 him the same position. He cannot 
 lend his name to aid the election of 
 Mr. Pendleton on the same ticket with 
 himself, and profess devotion to the 
 Union. 
 
 There is yet another point on which 
 I would say a word. It is this : From 
 the proceedings of the Canada Confed¬ 
 erates, and their Northern allies, and 
 the outgoings of the Richmond press, 
 I conclude that their last suggestion is 
 this: two or more confederacies, North¬ 
 ern, Southern, Middle, New England, 
 Northwest, Mississippi, and Pacific. 
 They are to be united by free trade be¬ 
 tween them all, and by an alliance 
 offensive and defensive. That is, when¬ 
 ever any one of these confederacies go 
 to war, we are to join them in the con¬ 
 flict. Namely, if the Southern Confed¬ 
 eracy wishes to conquer and annex 
 Cuba or Porto Rico, or to conquer and 
 extend slavery to Central America, and 
 war follows, we are to join them in the 
 war, and sustain them with our blood 
 and treasure. If so, the temple of 
 Janus will never be closed on our con¬ 
 tinent, and war will be our normal con¬ 
 dition—a war not declared by us, or 
 in our own interest, but by the South, 
 as a foreign government. Such an alli¬ 
 ance is visionary, ruinous, and imprac¬ 
 
 ticable. It is simply a scheme to secure • 
 Southern independence. 
 
 Then, as to the free trade to be se¬ 
 cured by treaty between the several 
 confederacies. Recollect that each of 
 these nations is to be foreign and inde¬ 
 pendent, and to have its separate trea¬ 
 ties with foreign Powers. How long 
 would such treaties and such an alli¬ 
 ance last ? Why, the flag of the 
 South would scarcely float over the 
 mouth of the Chesapeake and Missis¬ 
 sippi, before the conflict with us of 
 views and measures would begin, 
 nursed and promoted by foreign Pow¬ 
 ers, where each of the new confedera¬ 
 cies would have its separate ministers, 
 representing distinct and discordant 
 interests. When have such alliances or 
 treaties lasted even for half a century ? 
 Where are all the leagues of antiquity 
 or of modern Europe ? Where are all 
 such leagues and treaties even of the 
 last century ? Where is our own alli¬ 
 ance with France of 1778 ? Where all 
 such alliances and treaties even of the 
 first half of the present century ? They 
 are all extinguished. Experience proves 
 —the voice of history proclaims—that 
 treaties or alliances between indepen¬ 
 dent Powers are always of short dura¬ 
 tion, being soon swept before the gust 
 of contending passions, or melted in 
 the crucible of conflicting interests. 
 Where is the celebrated alliance and 
 treaty of 1814 and 1815 of Vienna, be¬ 
 tween the great European Powers, es¬ 
 tablishing forever, by a congress, the 
 balance of European power ? Is there 
 a single clause now in force ? Where 
 is the clause securing France to the 
 Bourbons, and guaranteeing forever 
 against the reign of any of the Bona¬ 
 parte family ? Where are the states 
 whose independence was forever guar¬ 
 anteed by those treaties ? Where are 
 Parma and Modena and Tuscany ? 
 Where is Lombardy, where the Ro¬ 
 magna, Naples, and the Two Sici¬ 
 lies ? Where are the duchies of Lauen- 
 burg, Schleswig, and Holstein, and 
 where the treaty of 1852 in regard to 
 
/ 
 
 
 20 
 
 * lir.SS 
 
 them ? All, all have passed away, just 
 as would our proposed treaties or 
 alliances. The first war would sweep 
 them out of existence. No, my coun¬ 
 trymen ; as Washington, the father of 
 his country, most t#uly told us in his 
 Farewell Address: ‘ To the efficacy 
 and permanency of your Union, a Gov¬ 
 ernment for the whole is indispensable. 
 No alliance, however strict between the 
 parts, can be an adequate substitute; 
 they must inevitably experience the 
 infractions and interruptions which all 
 alliances, in all time, have experienced.’ 
 
 Washington thus foresaw and warned 
 us against this most insidious proposi¬ 
 tion to divide our country into separ¬ 
 ate confederacies, no matter how strict 
 the alliances between them might be; 
 and let us adopt his counsels. 
 
 Is it not strange, while Italy and 
 Germany seek, in Italian and German 
 unity, relief from the ruin and oppres¬ 
 
 sion of so many independent states and 
 governments, and are each making ad¬ 
 vances to that glorious consummation, 
 that we are asked to adopt the reac¬ 
 tionary policy, and separate glorious 
 Union into distinct confederacies, soon 
 to be followed by grinding taxation, 
 by immense standing armies, and per¬ 
 petual wars ? 
 
 And now then, my countrymen, I 
 bring this letter to a close, imploring 
 you to give no vote which will subject 
 the Union to the slightest peril. Come, 
 then, my friends, of all parties, come, 
 Republicans, and Whigs, and Demo¬ 
 crats, and Irish and German and na¬ 
 tive citizens, trampling under our feet 
 all past issues, and all old party names 
 and prejudices,, and, standing on this 
 broad basis of principle, let us vote, 
 not for men or parties, but for the sal¬ 
 vation and perpetuity of the Union. 
 
 R. J. Walker. 
 
 
 
 

 
 S33IHd HOd ON3S 
 
 A 'N ‘^ UG S1V 'i 3aj 'S U93J 0 \Z-ZZ 
 
 Haaaiw a aaoHVH 
 
 ah aaaaxoviaNVK 
 
 sj J p u| gdi.|j l) ,°| 3 3|i i 1A \ 
 
 S.M3T1IW 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 3 0112 073422161 
 
 
 T* 
 
 
 r 
 
 '• v>-„ 
 
 3R 
 
 • •< . r 
 
 ?^Tr- 
 
 J r' ' * S. * 
 
 s^r» ; 
 
 
 1 
 
 rr ■ 
 
 v '■-< 
 ’• 
 
 :^.; t 
 
 Pr 
 
 <:W 
 
 ■\ •« 
 ■■ 'f. ■ 
 
 ("‘ 
 
 -j 
 
 O’ 
 
 >. 
 
 iiV 
 
 ♦i 
 
 K . 
 
 r. ii' i 
 
 
 
 ** 
 
 K £ 
 
 ^2kJu^& y?* I 
 
 V 
 
 ;»>.■ \v - 
 
 
 ;T, 
 
 
 — • 
 
 r • 
 
 * v. 
 
 1- ! 
 
 . ,\ 
 
 
 
 Ik 
 
 
 SfK. ..\ 
 
 y ir*» > 
 
 • H ■» -* > 
 
 ^ 1" ‘ f"“,lN 
 
 VI 
 
 . £ 
 
 
 '♦’ i 
 
 X 
 
 #•1 
 
 '•v$. 
 
 t*-'* y 
 
 y %? 
 
 i* ' ■■.j? 
 
 ?w ;• 
 
 V' 
 
 
 Al , i» V. 1 
 
 
 A. 
 
 W / 
 
 v.fc- . 
 
 • i v y 
 
 
 '1> ji 
 
 
 • •_ r 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 r*» 
 
 f 
 
 J