is positive also, and, as a sequence of the first proposition, cannot mean anything else but that the experiment of war must be stopped and abandoned. Here ends the clear and positive part of the programme. The third, indefinite proposition, is, that the war must be stopped “with a view to an ultimate Convention of all the States, or other peaceable means,” etc. Mark the words, “with a view to;” this looks to a future period not yet determined, and is rather foggy.
The first two propositions can be carried into effect by the Democratic party, if it should be the sense of the American people to place that party in power. It can declare, and to make good its declaration, it can make the war a failure; and it can also stop the war. But the carrying out of the third proposition requires the co-operation of Jefferson Davis and the rebellious people of the seceded States. A Convention of the loyal States the Democratic party can have, but a Convention of all the States, with a view to the restoration of peace on the basis of the Federal Union, cannot be had, unless such be the sense of Jefferson Davis and the States in rebellion. And if such be not the sense of Jefferson Davis and the Southern Confederacy, what then? That the Chicago platform saith not. But this is just the point the American people should like to know. This is no idle question; it is just the question upon which the whole matter hinges. For, mark you well, the resolution does not say: “We demand a cessation of hostilities on condition that a Convention of all the States, or some other peaceable means, by which the Union can be restored be agreed to; if not, we shall continue the war;” but the demand of a cessation is positive on the ground that the experiment of war has proved a failure; the war is to be stopped on the demand of justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare, with a view to something that may or may not happen. I ask
