s 22,342,507; seceded States,
9,102,573; difference in favor of the Loyal States, 13,239,934.
Continuing the process, if we deduct by the emancipation policy the
whole colored population of the seceded States, the result would be,
Loyal States, 22,342,507; seceded States, 5,449,463. But if, concluding
the process, by the emancipation policy we not only deduct the colored
race from the aid of the South, but add it in aid of the Loyal States,
the result would be, Loyal States, 25,995,617; seceded States,
5,449,463; difference in favor of Loyal States, 20,456,154. Thus the
policy opposed to emancipation and to the use of the colored race by us
in the war, mates the difference in our favor as against the South only
12,451,288, whereas the difference in our favor by the emancipation
policy of the President is 20,546,154. Deduct from this the above
12,451,288; final difference, 8,094,866. Thus we see that, by the
President's policy, there is, in effect, a gain to the Loyal States
equivalent to more than eight millions of people, more than 200,000 of
whom are already soldiers in the Union army, all of whom must be
disbanded if Mr. Lincoln's policy was erroneous. Will any say that a
policy which makes a difference in the relative forces of the two
contending parties of more than eight millions of people in favor of the
North, and which has already increased our army 200,000, is not a most
important war measure, aiding us to suppress the rebellion and save the
Government? and, therefore, it is a policy eminently calculated to
preserve and perpetuate the Union. Indeed, it is this measure which
renders the maintenance of the Union certain, and, without it, the Union
is subjected to great peril.

As, then, the emancipation policy of the President is not only wise,
beneficent, and constitutional, but renders certain the preservation of
the Union, while that of his opponents subjects it to imminent peril, I
go for the reelection of Mr. Lincoln. I go for him as a _Union man_,
and because his emancipation policy will certainly save the Union; and I
go against his opponent, because, however loyal he may be, and however
sincere his desire to save the Union, practically he is a disunionist,
because, independent of the Chicago McClellan platform, his
anti-emancipation and anti-negro policy subjects the Union to imminent
peril. Now, with me, in this, as in all preceding elections, the
preservation and perpetuation of the Union constituted t