question, not to your pride or imagination but to your common sense—would it be prudent, or manly, or patriotic, to give up a policy which has already led to such tremendous results? Would it be wise to disregard the grave warning of our General-in-Chief who tells us, that the last hope of the rebellion rests, not on its own strength, but on the political divisions among the people of the North? The end is not far off; the object of the struggle is right before us; the way is straight and open. Would it not be an act of supreme folly to turn off to the right or left so as to lose it out of view? Can you, as sensible men, abandon a clear, straight, well-paved road, in order to flounder through the mire of uncertainty, guided by the ignis fatuus of a crazy opposition?
Or do your Democratic leaders offer you anything that would open still more promising prospects? Do they offer anything aside of that violent and insidious criticism of every step taken on the road of success? anything aside of that factious and venomous opposition to those measures of the Government which alone can lead to further success? Do they offer you any positive plan of policy? Ah, yes? At a moment when a few more such vigorous blows as have been struck may finally decide the struggle, they present you the proposition of a cessation of hostilities—the only thing that could save the enemy from such blows. Only look at this: the proposition of an armistice was resolved upon by the Chicago Convention only two or three days before Atlanta fell. Imagine that that resolution had been acted upon immediately—and it certainly was intended to be acted upon; imagine that the Government had adopted the plan of the Democratic party at once, and had despatched a messenger to General Sherman with an order to act according to that policy without delay—what would have been the consequence? Sherman's arm, was already lifted to strike the final blow on the rebel hosts;
