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?