nor your leaders do this moment believe that this war is a failure, and I am sure there is not a single man in this vast assembly who would have courage enough to stand up and say it is. But what, then, becomes of the Chicago argument, that, because the war is a failure, peaceable means must be resorted to? Is it not to propose that which is absurd, on the ground of that which is a lie? [Great cheering.] And such leaders you would follow?
I am willing to admit, this was not always the ground upon which they based their opposition to the Administration. But a short time ago they declaimed against the Administration because the conduct of the war was not vigorous enough. Were they sincere in this? We can apply a test which is very simple. They could prove their sincerity only by doing all they could to make the conduct of the war more vigorous. Had they been sincere, they would have zealously aided the Government in strengthening its authority; they would have eagerly helped in procuring men and money; they would have applauded the President for removing from stations of great responsibility commanders who had shown their inefficiency. This it would have been natural for them to do, had their complaint been sincere. But what did they do? Instead of endeavoring to re-establish the authority of the Government in the rebel States, they endeavored to undermine it even in the loyal States. Did they not? They clamored against every exercise of power on the part of the Government against open and secret traitors. Did they not? They spoke and voted in Congress against almost every measure by which the Treasury might be enabled to meet the extraordinary exigencies of the service. Did they not? They protested against filling up the army by conscription when volunteering began to flag. Did they not? They raised an outcry of indignation against the reinforcement of our army by negro
