e Federal Union
can only be preserved by subduing the armed rebellion that menaces it.
Anything short of the absolute and thorough defeat of the Southern
armies must lower the dignity of the nation, and weaken and subvert the
foundations of the Union. Thus far, by the grace of God and our right
arm, the Constitution and Union are preserved, and so long as they
'still stand strong,' the basis of settlement remains; and whenever the
rebels are tired of trying their strength against them, the nation
stands ready to welcome them back, as penitent prodigals. It is not we
who are unreconciled to them: it is they who refuse to be reconciled to
us. If the illustration offend no weaker brother, we may say that, like
the ever-surrounding love of God, the Federal Union is still watching
over the rebels, and is only waiting the first symptom of their
returning conscience to run and fall on their necks and kiss them, and
bring them in peace to the home they so foolishly left. They are
striving to destroy the Constitution and the Union. We oppose them. Let
us consider what, under these circumstances, 'a cessation of
hostilities' means.

In the first place, how are hostilities to cease, unless the power that
controls the Southern armies so wills it? That power is a military
despotism. It has usurped all other power within the limits of the
rebellion, and the United States Government is seeking to overthrow it,
in order that the Constitution may be restored, in all its benignity, to
the people of the South, whom the usurpation has deprived of it. Is it,
then, for the United States Government to propose to the authors of this
usurpation to cease seeking its total overthrow? The question recurs,
moreover, what 'cessation' have we to propose? It is for them to offer
to yield: they are the aggressors, threatening the life of the nation.
Is any among us so base he would have peace with dishonor? A nation
cannot submit to be dishonored before the world--for its honor is its
life. Yet what sort of peace would that be which we should thus begin by
seeking? It is far from pertinent to cite, as some have done, the
example of Napoleon on this point: even supposing that civil war were,
in respect of this thing, the same as war between independent nations.
For Napoleon never proposed suspensions of hostilities except in his own
extremity, and as a convenient means to extricate himself from
difficulties which he had the art of concealing from his ad