THE CHICAGO COPPERHEAD CONVENTION. (August 29, 1864) THE TREASONABLE AND REVOLUTIONARY UTTERANCES OF THE MEN WHO COMPOSED IT. Extracts from all the Notable Speeches delivered in and out of the National "Democratic" Convention. A SURRENDER TO THE REBELS ADVOCATED-A DISGRACEFUL AND PUSIL- WASHINGTON, D. C. PUBLISHED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL UNION COMMITTEE. 1864. TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK REPRINTED WILLIAM ABBATT 1917 T THE CHICAGO COPPERHEAD CONVENTION HIS pamphlet contains the spirit of the Chicago "Democratic" Convention. If it contains no statements that if the proposed "Armistice and National Convention" expedients should fail, the Democratic party would put down the rebellion, it is because, from first to last, no such statements were made. They would have been firebrands in the camp, and if uttered in the Convention, would have exploded the "Democracy" into two conflicting factions. They uttered no word of approval of Abraham Lincoln, or disapproval of Jefferson Davis. The blood and crimes, the hardships and deprivations, the infringements on personal liberty which we all endure, were not, during the entire sitting of the Convention, once charged to the rebellion or its leaders, but were by every speaker charged wholly, fiercely and relentlessly to the President of the United States, his officers and armies. Had the Convention been held in Richmond, Virginia, not a word need have been expunged. Further, the general spirit and tone of the Convention, so far from looking to a suppression of the present rebellion, was in favor of a new rebellion against the Government in the imagined contingency of "interference with the freedom of the ballot," at the coming election. Very few of the speakers closed without an exhortation to prepare for a fight this fall. As nothing had occurred to indicate such an interference, and as it is in the power of those who met in this Convention to compel the Government to put forth its armed force, by themselves inciting disturbance, it is to be presumed, that as in the case of the rebel prophecies of disunion four years ago, so now, what these prophets so unanimously foresee they have determined to bring to pass. Such a rebellion would reunite them for the time in aim and purpose with their ancient party allies, Jefferson Davis and the Southern rebels. It would remove the seat of war from Atlanta, Mobile, and Richmond, to Chicago, New York, and Boston. It would set the people of the Northern States to cutting each other's throats, to send August Belmont's Confederate stock up to par, and to establish the independence of the Rebellion. Such was the tone and spirit of this so-called "Peace Convention." Vallandigham, the forerunner in the crime of Northern Rebellion, was the demi-god of the occasion. It was the tone and spirit of the New York anti-draft riots, where there was prodigious cheering for McClellan-so here-and from the same class, imported in large numbers for the occasion. They were not the peaceful citizens of this nation-not the class from which a genuine cry for peace could ever come. They were for peace with the rebels only because they were for the rebels, for the slavery in behalf of which they rebelled, for the secessionism of Calhoun which led them into the rebellion, and for that gilded sham of this day-the name Democracy, which has thus far helped the rebellion on its way. Sympathizing thus with the rebels, they demanded peace as a service to their friends-peace with the country's enemies, and war against its defenders. In one breath they chaunted the evils of our present war, and in the next threatened a new rebellion. One moment they talked dolorously of the wounded and dying, and the next, threatened a free fight against us in our own streets, which would fill every American heart with shame and dye every American threshold with blood. They have done the rebels a good service. Had they met, and on behalf of the Democracy of the North authoritatively informed the country that the seceders must submit to the Government or be crushed, the rebels would have been more discouraged and their return to the Union more hastened, than by the most sanguinary defeat on the battle-field. As it is, the emissaries of the rebellion in Canada telegraph, "Platform and Vice-President satisfactory-SPEECHES VERY SATISFACTORY." Republicans and Democrats who are not yet willing to surrender the Union, or to bring about another rebellion at the North to complicate a thousand fold the settlement of our present difficulties, are these men whose speeches are so very satisfactory to the rebels, worthy to be intrusted with the destinies of the country? That there might be no dispute about the correctness of the extracts of speeches in the following pages, they were all copied from the columns of the Chicago Times, except a few passages taken from the Chicago Tribune's reports, which are credited to it. The Chicago Times, of Aug. 25th, stated the object of those attending the Convention to be, to make it The occasion of a demonstration of democratic power and earnestness which will strike terror to the hearts of our enemies. We also learn from the same paper that The most distinguished Democrats of the nation will address the people, and open the campaign in the Democratic city of the West. DR. N. S. DAVIS'S SPEECH Dr. N. S. Davis, of Chicago, delegate for the State at large of Illinois, delivered one of the most moderate addresses made during the gathering and session of the Convention, before the Invincible Club, Friday evening, Aug. 26th. He began by denying that slavery had caused the war, and attributed it to the pride, self-righteousness and Pharisaism of the Christian churches of the North. These, he said, had Corrupted the pure religion of the heart and substituted for it a bigoted fanaticism that stands ready to wrap itself in the mantle of self-righteousness and arrogantly exclaim to all who do not obey its dictates, "I am holier than thou." [Much applause]. In this view Dr. Davis agrees with every rebel in the South. He further said: Fellow-citizens, from the commencement of this conflict I have, for one, entirely eschewed this word loyal as having no place in the vocabulary of a republican people. [Continued applause.] * * There is one sense, and only one, in which the word has any legitimate place whatever among a republican people. It is the last and most insignificant definition that is given to it by that old lexicographer, Noah Webster, which is, "obedience to law; faithfulness to law.'. |