in the Presidential
campaign of 1860, that the Southern States were not, in any but a
limited degree, represented in its ranks; and so it was called a
sectional party. The Presidential campaign of 1864 is not less
remarkable, on the other hand, because the party which now appropriates
the honored name of Democratic seems to ignore the crime of rebellion on
the part of those Southern States, and thus invites an even more
obnoxious appellation. History will record with amazement, as among the
strange phenomena of a war the most wicked of all the wicked wars with
which ambition has desolated the earth (phenomena that will perplex men
and women of loyal instincts and righteous common sense to the latest
day), the resolutions of the Chicago Convention of 1864.

It is the purpose of this article to consider as dispassionately as may
be, those Chicago resolutions, as well as the ones previously adopted at
Baltimore; desiring to look at them both from the standpoint of a
patriotism which loves the whole country as one indivisible nation--the
gift of God, to be cherished as we cherish our homes and our altars.

A convention called of all those, without respect to former political
affinities, who believed in an uncompromising prosecution of the war for
the Union till the armed rebellion against its authority should be
subdued and brought to terms, met at Baltimore on the 7th of June last,
and nominated Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, for reelection as President,
and Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, for election as Vice-President. The
convention, with exceeding good sense, and obedient to the just and
patriotic impulses of the people, disregarded all party names of the
past, and called itself simply a National Union Convention. Two months
later, and on the 29th of August last, obedient to the call of
Democratic committees, a convention met at Chicago, composed of men
whose voices were for peace, and nominated for President General George
B. McClellan, of New Jersey, and for Vice-President George H. Pendleton,
of Ohio. This convention took the name of Democratic, indicating thereby
not the idea of the equal rule of all the people, as the name imports,
but the traditions and policies of those degenerate days before the war,
when Democracy had strangely come to mean the rule of a few ambitious
men. In other words, it ignored the crime of those men (who have
sacrificed their country to their ambition), and assumed that the
country could