Wherever you look in the Rebellion, there you find the old Democracy, into which is absorbed John Bell and his followers, arrayed against their country.

Look at individuals; you find that the larger half, constituting the controlling power of the old Democratic party, are now in arms against their country.

Mason and John Slidell, the Rebel emissaries in Europe, were Democrats,--that the officers, who, after obtaining their education at West Point at the public expense, threw up their commissions and lifted parricidal hands against their…

Naturally, they are against all energetic measures for its suppression; they call for a “cessation of hostilities,” and seek to throw over their companions of other days every possible protection, especially seeking by all means to save…

But they ought not to find sympathy with patriot citizens,--especially against the Republican party, which, in its open and unconditional patriotism, and in all its manifold works, is in marked contrast with the Democracy.

But such as these can be no cloak to that Democratic party which at Chicago openly struck hands with Jefferson Davis, and undertook to do for him what he cannot do for himself.

If I repeat it now, it is because I wish to put you on your guard against criminal marauders, who, at this moment of peril, are ready to prey upon their country.

If you would see the difference between the two parties, read the speeches and resolutions at Baltimore, and then the speeches and resolutions at Chicago.

There are two things it does say: first, that the war for the suppression of the Rebellion is a failure; and, secondly, that there should be a cessation of hostilities.

In voting for them, you affirm that the war has failed and that it ought to be stopped, while you decline to say anything against the Rebellion or against Slavery.

And you declare, also, that the Rebellion shall prevail, and that Slavery shall continue to degrade our country and be the seed of interminable war.

The letter of McClellan is a specimen of “how not to do it.” This is the prevailing idea,--how not to stand on the platform, how not to offend the Rebels, and how not to touch Slavery.

It is an ingenious wriggle and twist; but so far as the writer succeeds in getting off the platform, it is only to run upon other difficulties,--as from Scylla to Charybdis.

The platform surrenders to the Rebellion; the letter surrenders to Slavery.

But the Rebellion is nothing but belligerent Slavery; so that surrender to Slavery is surrender to the Rebellion.

The platform discards the Union; but the letter, while professing a desire for union, discards Emancipation, without which union is impossible; and while professing a desire for peace, it discards Liberty, through which alone peace can be…

I ask more for the sake of justice and humanity, and that this terrible war may be vindicated in history.

It is a strange infatuation which imagines that the Rebellion can be closed without the entire abolition of Slavery.

The Rebellion began with Slavery, and it will end with Slavery.

As it began in no other way, so it can end in no other way.

But even if reason and the necessity of the case did not require the sacrifice, it is now too late, thank God!

By the Proclamation of the President the freedom of all slaves in the Rebel region is secured beyond recall.

It was a saying of Antiquity, repeated by an exquisite poet of our own day, that “the gods themselves cannot recall their gifts.” But even if other gifts may be recalled, the gift of Freedom cannot; for its recall would be the sacrifice of…

Every slave declared free by that Proclamation is entitled to his freedom as much as you and I.

The President himself, empowered to confer freedom, is impotent to make a slave.