It is this Congeries of the Aspects of Being which Kant denominates

QUALITY, as a name of a Group of the Categories of the Understanding;

and which he divides into

1. REALITY.

2. NEGATION.

3. LIMITATION.

He then treats REALITY as synonymous with the _Affirmative_ (Positive),

and NEGATION as synonymous with the _Negative_; although, as we have

seen, this Affirmative is not strictly equivalent to the _Something_ of

Hegel, nor this Negative to his _Nothing_. For _Reality_ we may, in a

general sense, put _Substance_, and for _Limitation_ we may put _Form_,

Omitting Negation which repeats the _Nothing_, as Reality repeats the

_Something_, it may now be said that the next Grand Division of the

Elements of Universal Being (after that into Something and Nothing) is

into

1. SUBSTANCE. )

= 3. EXISTENCE.

2. FORM. )

That is to say: _The Relative_ (The Domain of Cognizable Being) is first

made known to us through the _differentiation_ and _discrimination_ of

the two Factors _Something_ and _Nothing_ which lie _undifferentiated_

and _indistinguishable_ in _The Absolute_ (The Primitive Ground of

Being). _The Relative_ then subdivides into 1. _Substance_ (Reality),

and, 2. _Form_ (Limitation), which reunite to constitute that actualized

Being which we denominate _Existence_. Or, tabulated, thus:

THE ABSOLUTE (THE PRIMITIVE

GROUND OF BEING)

CONTAINS UNDIFFERENTIATED AND INDISTINGUISHABLE

THE TWO FACTORS

SOMETHING and NOTHING

WHICH CONSTITUTE THE FIRST TERMS

AND DISCRIMINATIONS OF

THE RELATIVE (THE DOMAIN OF

COGNIZABLE BEING);

WHICH ITSELF DIVIDES INTO

SUBSTANCE (REALITY) and FORM

(LIMITATION),

THE PRIME CONSTITUENTS OF

EXISTENCE.

To comprehend the vast importance of these discriminations, it is

necessary to understand that precisely those Principles of Distribution

which are applicable to the Universe at large are found to be applicable

to every minor sphere or domain of the Universe; in the same manner as

the same Geometrical Laws which prevail in the largest circle prevail

equally in the smallest. It is the prevalence of _Identical Principles_

in _diverse spheres_ which is the source of that Universal Analogy

throughout _all_ spheres that lies at the basis of UNIVERSOLOGY, and

gives the possibility of such a Science. The nature of this Analogy, as

well as the value of the discriminations themselves, will be more

clearly seen by glancing at corresponding discriminations in other

spheres.

In the Constitution of the External World, _Something_ is represented,

as we have seen, by the solid and tangible substance which we call

_Matter_, and _Nothing_ by the Expanse of Space.

In the Science of Acoustics, _Sound_, the pure _Phonos_, is the

_Something_, the _Reality_, as it is denominated by Kant, the _Positive_

Factor of Speech. _Silence_ is the relative _Nothing_, the Negation, so

called by Kant, the _Negative_ Factor of Speech. The Silences, or

Intervals of Rest which intervene between Sounds (and also between

Syllables, Words, Sentences, and still larger divisions of Speech), are

only so many successive reappearances of this _negative_ element.

Silence, the Nothing of Sound, is, in fact, in the most radical aspect

of the subject, one entire half or hemisphere or equal Factor of the

whole of Speech or Music. Josiah Warren, the author of a work entitled

'Music as an Exact Science,' is the only writer I have noticed who has

had the discrimination _distinctively_ to recognize Silence as one of

the Elements of the Musical Structure.

_Impliedly_ it is, however, always so recognized. The Silences

intervening between tones _tunewise_, or in respect to altitude, are, in

Musical Nomenclature, denominated _Intervals_. _Timewise_ Silences, or

those which intervene between Tones rhythmically considered, are called

_Rests_. The Intervals of Silence between Syllables and Words, in Oral

Speech, are represented in the printed book by what the Printer calls

_Spaces_, which are _blank_ or _negative_ Types interposed between the

positive Types expressive of Sounds. This term _Space_ or _Spaces_

carries us to the analogous Total Space or Blank Space and intervening

reaches of Space between the Planets, Orbs or Material Worlds, the

former the corresponding _Nothing_ of the total Material Universe of

which these worlds are the _Something_; as exhibited in the

demonstrations of UNIVERSOLOGY.

In the Domain of Optics, covering the Phenomena of Light, Shade and

Color, _Light_ is the _Positive_ Factor or _Something_, and _Darkness_

the _Negative_ Factor or _Nothing_. _Light_ is, therefore, the analogue

of _Sound_, and _Darkness_ the analogue of _Silence_. That is to say,

each of these two, Silence and Darkness, denote the absence, the lack,

the want or the negation of the opposite and _Positive_ Element or

Factor.

So in Thermotics, the Science of Heat, _Heat_ itself is the

_Positismus_ or _Something_ of the Domain; and _Cold_ the _Negatismus_

or Correlative _Nothing_. _Heat_ is, consequently, the analogue of

_Sound_ and _Light_; while _Cold_ is the analogue of _Silence_ and

_Darkness_.

In respect to the Domain of Mind, _Positive Mental Experience_

(Feelings, Thoughts, and Volitions, including self-consciousness) are

the _Positive_ Factor, the _Something_ of Mentality. _Inexperience_, the

lack of mental exercitation, hence _Ignorance_, is the _Negative_

Factor, or _Nothing_. The Correspondential Relationship or Analogy

existing between this Domain of the Universe and others already

mentioned is testified to in a remarkable manner by our use of Language.

We denominate the want of Feeling _Cold_ or _Frigidity_--in respect to

the Mind or the individual character. The absence of Thought and

Knowledge, or, in other words, Intellectual Barrenness, is called

_Darkness_ or _Obscurity_ of the Mind. While the lack of Will or Purpose

in the Mind is said to be the absence of _Tension_ or _Strain_ (the

great Musical term); and the Stillness or quiet hence resulting may be

appropriately designated as the _Silence_ of the Mind; Musical Silences

being, as pointed out above, technically termed Rests.

With this superficial exhibition of the most radical aspect of the _Echo

of Idea_ or _Repetition of Type_ which subsists between all the

departments of the Universe, I pass to the more specific consideration

of this Analogy as concerning the Domain of Thought and the Domain of

Language.

Setting aside from our present consideration _Silence_, the _Negative_

factor or _Negatismus_ of Language, and fixing our attention upon

_Sound_, the Positive factor or _Positismus_ of Language, we discover it

to be composed of two constituents, _Vowels_ and _Consonants_.

The _Vowel_ is the _Substance_, the Reality of Language, and the

_Consonant_ is the _Form_, the Limitation.

By _Vowel_ sound is meant the free or unobstructed, and as such

unlimited flow of the vocalized or sounding breath. Vowels are defined

in the simplest way as those sounds which are uttered with the month

open; as _a_ (ah) in F_a_ther, _o_ in r_o_ll, etc.

Consonants are, on the contrary, those sounds which are produced by the

crack of commencing or by obstructing, breaking, or cutting off the

sounding breath, by completely or partially closing the organs of

speech; as, for instance, by closing the lips, as when we pronounce

_p_ie, _b_y, _m_y, etc.; or by pressing the point of the tongue against

the gums and teeth, as when we say t_ie_, d_ie_, etc.; or by lifting the

body of the tongue against the hard palate or roof of the mouth, as when

we give the _k_ or hard _g_ sound, as in rac_k_, ra_g_, or in any other

similar way.

Consonants are, therefore, the breaks or _limitations_ upon the

otherwise unbroken and continuous vocality, voice, or vocalized breath.

In other words, as already said, _Vowel_-Sound is the Elemental

_Substance_, and _Consonant_-Sound the Elemental _Form_ of Language, or

Speech. (By Vowels and Consonants are here meant, the Reader should

closely observe, Vowel-_Sounds_ and Consonant-_Sounds_, as produced by

the _Organs_ of _Speech_, and as they address themselves to the _Ear_,

distinguished and wholly apart from the _letters_ or combinations of

letters by which they are diversely represented to the _Eye_ in

different languages.)

By a valid but somewhat remote analogy, the _Vowel_-Sounds of Language

may be regarded collectively as the _Flesh_, and the _Consonant_-Sounds

as the _Bone_ or _Skeleton_ of the Lingual Structure. Flesh is an

_Analogue_ or Correspondential Equivalent of Substance. Bone or

Skeleton, which gives _outline_ or _shape_ to the otherwise soft,

collapsing, and lumpy flesh-mass of the Human or Animal Body, is an

_Analogue_ of Correspondential Equivalent of Limitation or Form; as the

framework of a house is the shaping or form-giving factor or agent of

the entire structure.

_Vowel_-Sounds are soft, fluent, changeful, and evanescent. One passes

easily into another by slight deviations of pronunciation, resulting

from trivial differences in National and Individual condition and

culture; like the Flesh of the animal, which readily decays from the

Bony Skeleton, while the last remains preserved for ages as a fossil.

The Vowel-Sounds so readily lose their identity, that they are of slight

importance to the Etymologist or Comparative Philologist, who is, in

fact, dealing in the _Paleontology_ of Language.

The _Consonants_ are, on the contrary, the _Fossils_ of Speech; bony and

permanent representatives of Framework, of _Limitation_, of Form.

Consonant-Sounds are also sometimes denominated _Articulations_. This

word means _joinings_ or _jointings_. It is from the Latin _articulus_,

a JOINT, and is instinctually applied to the Consonant-Sounds in

accordance with their analogy with the _Skeleton_ of the Human or Animal

System.

By an easy and habitual slide in the meaning of Words, a term like

_Joint_ is sometimes used to denote the _break_ or _opening_ between

parts, and sometimes to denote one of the parts intervening between such

breaks; as when we speak of a _joint_ of meat, meaning thereby what a

Botanist would signify by the term _Internode_, the stretch or reach or

shaft of bone extending from one joint (break) to another, with the meat

attached to it.

Consonants have, in like manner, a double aspect as Articulations or

_Joints_. In a rigorous and abstract sense, the Consonant has no sound

of its own. It is simply a break or interruption of Sound.

Etymologically, it is from the Latin _con_, WITH, and _sonans_,

SOUNDING; as if it were a mere accessory to a (vowel) Sound; the Vowels

being, in that sense, the only sounds. In this sense, the Consonants are

analogous with the mere cracks or opening _joints_, which intervene

between the bones of the Skeleton. In other words, they are no sounds,

but mere nothings; the analogy, in that case, of _Abstract_ Limitation.

Practically, on the contrary, the Consonant takes to itself such a

portion of the vocalized or sounding breath which it serves primarily to

limit, that it becomes not merely a sound ranking with the Vowel; but

the more prominent and abiding sound of the two. It is in this latter

sense, that it is the Analogue of the Bone.

In Phonography, as in Hebrew and some other Languages, the letters

representing the Consonant-Sounds only are written or printed; the

Vowel-Sounds being either represented by mere points added to the

Consonant characters, or left wholly unrepresented, to be supplied by

the intelligence of the Reader. The written words so constructed,

represent the real words with about the degree of accuracy with which a

skeleton represents the living man; so that the meaning can be readily

gathered by the practised reader, by the aid of the context. In

Phonography, the Consonant-Sounds, which are simple straight or curved

lines, are joined together at their ends, forming an outline shape,

somewhat like a single script (written) letter of our ordinary writing.

These outline words are then instinctually and technically called

_Skeleton-words_, from the natural perception of a genuine Scientific

Analogy.

Consonants constitute, then, what may be denominated the _Limitismus_

(Limiting Domain) of Language. The Limit is primarily represented by the

Line (a line, any line); then by the Line embodying Substance as _seam_,

_ridge_, _bar_, _beam_, _shaft_, _or bone_; and, finally, by a System of

Lines, Shafts or Bones which may then be jointed or limited in turn

among themselves, forming a concatenation of Lines, Bars or Shafts, the

framework of a machine or house or other edifice, or the ideal columnar

and orbital structure of the Universe itself. All these conceptions or

creations belong to the practical Limitismus, the Form Aspect or

Framework of Being in Universals and in Particulars in every Sphere and

Department of the Universe.

The _Limitismus_ of Being so defined then stands over against or

contrasted with the _Substancismus_ (Substance-Domain) of Being which

embraces the Substances, Materials or Stuffs of creation of whatsoever

name that infill the interstices of the Framework or are laid upon it,

and constitute the richness and fulness and plumpness of the Structure,

as the Flesh does of the Body.

The wholeness or _Integrality_ of the structure then consists of the

composity of these Two (Limitismus and Substancismus), as the wholeness

of the Body consists of the Flesh and the Bone. The Consonants being the

Limitismus, and the Vowels the Substancismus of Language; the Two united

and coordinated comprise the Trinismal Integrality or Integralismus of

Speech.

The Vowels denote, then, _Reality_, as distinguished from _Limitation_,

or, what is nearly the same thing, _Substance_, as distinguished from

_Form_.

There are in all _Seven_ (7); or if we include one somewhat more obscure

than the rest, a kind of semi-tone, there are _Eight_ (8) full-toned,

perfectly distinct and primary Vowel-Sounds, which constitute the

Fundamental Vowel Scale of the Universal Alphabet. Their number and

nature is governed by the Mechanical Law of their organic production in

the mouth. And the number can only be increased by interposing minor

shades of sound, as we produce minor shades of color by blending the

Seven (7) Prismatic Colors. The new Sound will then belong, in

predominance and as a mere variety, to one of these Seven (7) Primary

Sounds.

These Seven (7) Sounds constitute the Leading Vowel-System of all

Languages; with certain irregularities of omission in the Vowel-System

of some Languages.

By the addition of Five (5) equally leading _Diphthongs_ (or Double

Vowels) the number of leading Vowel representations is carried up to

Twelve (12) or Thirteen (13)--which may then be regarded as the

Completed Fundamental Vowel Scale of the Universal Lingual Alphabet.

_There are, in like manner, Seven (7)--or Eight (8)--Leading Realities

of the Universe_, AND OF EVERY MINOR SPHERE OR DOMAIN OF BEING IN THE

UNIVERSE, _which correspond with, echo or repeat, and are therefore the

Scientific Analogues of, these Seven (7) Leading Vowel-Sounds, as they

occur among the Elements of Speech_.

In representing the Vowel-Sounds, it is better, for numerous reasons, to

use the letters with their general _European_ Values, than it is to

conform to their altered or corrupted _English_ Values. For instance,

the Vowel I (i) is pronounced in nearly every language of Europe, and in

all those languages which the Missionaries have reduced to writing, as

we pronounce _e_ or _ee_, or as _i_ in mach_i_ne, or p_i_que; E (e) is

pronounced as we enunciate _a_ in paper; and A is reserved for the full

Italian sound of _a_ (_ah_), as in father; _U_ is pronounced like _oo_,

as in German, Spanish, Italian and many other languages.

The Seven (7) Vowels in question are then as follows:

1. I, i (_ee_ in f_ee_l).

2. E, e (_a_ in m_a_te).

3. A, a (_a_ in f_a_-ther).

4. _o_, _o_ (_aw_ in _aw_ful).

5. _u_, _u_ (_u_ in c_u_rd).

6. O, o (_o_ in n_o_-ble).

7. U, u (_oo_ in f_oo_l).

These sounds are produced in the middle, at the back, and at the front

of the mouth respectively. These localities, and something of the nature

of the sounds themselves, as _slender_ or _full_, will be plainly

illustrated by the annexed figure:

3. Front- 1. Middle- 2. Back-

Mouth Mouth Mouth

ou i e (^a) a; _o_ _u_

The following description of the organic formation or production of

these sounds now becomes important.

The Vowel-Sound I (ee) is the most slender and condensed of the

Vowel-Scale. It is produced at the middle or central part of the mouth,

by forcing a slight, closely-squeezed current of Sounding Breath,

through a small, smooth channel or opening made by forming _a gutter or

scoop of the flattened point of the tongue_; while, at the same time,

the tongue is applied at the edges to the teeth and gums. This sound

has, therefore, an actual _form_ resembling that of a thread or line; or

still better, like that of a wire drawn through one of the iron openings

by means of which wire is manufactured. It resembles also a slight,

smooth, roundish stream of fluid escaping through a tube or trough.

This sound has relation, therefore, in the first place, to _Centrality_

or CENTRE; and then to LENGTH (or Line), which is the First Dimension of

Extension. The I-sound continued or prolonged gives the idea of Length.

But broken into Least Units of the same quality of Sound, we have

individualized Vowel-Sounds of this quality, each one of which is a new

_Centre_; like the successive _Points_ of which a _Line_ is composed.

An individual sound, I, has relation, therefore, to _Centre_ and to

_Point_ generally. As such it stands representatively for the _Soul_ or

_Identity_ or _Central Individuality of Being_--for that which gives to

anything its distinctive character, as existing in the _Point_ or the

_Unit_, or the _Atom_, or in any Individual Object or Thing from the

Atom up to a World and to the Universe as a whole. _Identity_ is,

perhaps, the best single term furnished by our Language to signify this

basic idea. _Individuality_ approximates the meaning. It is the

_pivotal_ notion of Being itself, and has relation, therefore, to

Ontology, the Science of Abstract Being. _Essence_ and _Essential Being_

are terms which may also be used in defining it. The Reader should

understand, however, that with reference to this Sound, as to those to

be hereafter considered, there is no term or terms in any Language which

will indicate their meaning _exactly_. The analysis of Ideas upon which

UNIVERSOLOGY is based is more fundamental than any which has preceded

it. Its Primary Conceptions are, therefore, broader and more inclusive

than any former ones which existing terms are employed to denote. In

explaining the meaning of these First Elements of Sound, then, as

related to the First Elements of Thought, all that is now attempted is

to convey as clear a notion of this meaning as is possible with our

present terminology, without any expectation that the _precise_ meaning

intended will be at once or entirely apprehended.

The sound E (_a_ in m_a_te) is likewise a slender, abstract-like,

middle-mouth sound; but differs from I in the fact that it is produced

by _flattening_ the opening for the Sounding Breath instead of retaining

it in a roundish position. The angles of the mouth are drawn asunder, as

if pointing outward to the sides of the head, and the sound is, as it

were, _elongated in the crosswise direction_, as if a stick or a quill

were held in the teeth, the extremities extending outward to the sides.

A line, in this direction, is the measurer of BREADTH, which is the

Second Dimension of Extension, crossing the Length-line represented by I

at right angles. _Side-wise-ness_ is synonymous with RELATION, as one of

the Sub-divisions of Reality, or, in other words, of the Realities of

Being. _Re-lation_ is, etymologically, from the Latin _re_, BACK or

REFLECTED, and _latus_, SIDE; that which mutually and reciprocally

re-sides the _Centre_, or furnishes it with sides or _wings_. The

Vowel-Sound E (_a_, in m_a_te) is, therefore, the Analogue or

Corresponding Representative or Equivalent in the Domain of Sound of

that _Fundamental Conception_ which, in respect to Thought, is

denominated _Relation_, in respect to Position _Collaterality_ or

_Sideness_, and in respect to Dimension _Breadth_ or _Width_.

The Sound A (_a_ in f_a_ther) is made farther back in the mouth, with

the mouth stretched quite open, and is the richest and most harmonious

of the Vowel Sounds--the Queen of the Vowels. It is the Italian A, the

sound most allied with Music and Euphony, and yet a sound which is

greatly lacking in the English Language.

The English Reader must guard himself from confounding the Vowel-Sound

of which we are here speaking, with the Consonant R, the alphabetical

name of which is by a lax habit of pronunciation made to be nearly

identical with this Vowel-Sound; while for this beautiful and brilliant

and leading Vowel in the Alphabet of Nature we have no distinct letter

in English, and reckon it merely as one of the values or powers of the

Letter A, to which we ordinarily give the value of E (_a_ in m_a_te,

_ai_ in p_ai_n).

This Vowel A (_ah_, _a_ in f_a_ther) is made with the mouth so open that

the form of its production suggests the insertion of a stick or other

elongated object in a perpendicular direction to retain the jaws in

their position; a practice said sometimes to be resorted to by the

Italian Music Teacher, in order to correct the bad habit of talking

through the teeth, common among his English pupils.

This height and depth involved in the Sound of the Vowel A (ah) relates

it to THICKNESS, the Third Dimension of Extension; as the Sound I is

related to _Length_, the First of these Dimensions, and the Sound E to

_Breadth_, the Second of them.

_Thickness_ is again related to _richness_ and _sweetness_, to _fulness_

and _fatness_, as of the good condition of an Animal in flesh, or of

rich and productive soils. And these ideas are again related to _wealth_

or to _riches_ generally; and, hence, again to SUBSTANCE. The objects of

wealth are called _goods_, and a wealthy man is said to be a '_man of

substance_.' A (ah) is the representative or pivotal Vowel; that one

which embodies most completely the _Vowel Idea_. Its inherent meaning is

especially, therefore, that of SUBSTANCE or REALITY, which, is, in a

more general way, as we have seen, the meaning of all the Vowels. The

most real, tangible, sensible substance from an ordinary point of view

being. Matter, this Vowel-Sound allies itself also with _Matter_ or

_Materiality_ as contrasted with _Spiritual_ Substance.

There is, it must now be observed, a flattened variety of A (ah), which

will here be represented by the same letter italicized, thus, _A_, _a_,

which is the so-called flat sound of A (ah) as when heard prolonged in

m_a_re, pe_a_r, etc., or when stopped, in m_a_n, m_a_t, etc. This sound

is intermediate in position between E and A (ah). That is to say, it is

produced farther back in the mouth and with the mouth somewhat more open

than when we say E, and not so far back as when we say A (ah); and with

the mouth less open. As contrasted with the A (ah), it is a thin, flat,

and slightly unsatisfactory and disagreeable sound, analogically related

to the natural semitone _fa_ of the Diatonic Scale of Musical Tones.

This Sound signifies accordingly, THINNESS, ATTENUATED MATTER, the Ghost

or Spirit of Nature, related to Odic Force, Magnetisms, Electricity,

etc.; still not, however, Spirit in the sense of Mind, or in the

Religio-Spiritual sense of the word. This is the exceptional or bastard

Vowel-Sound which has but an imperfect or half claim to be inserted in

the Leading Vowel Scale. When inserted, its natural position is between

the E and the A (ah), although for certain reasons it sometimes changes

position with the A (ah), following instead of preceding it.

The next two Vowel-Sounds, _o_ (_aw_ in _aw_ful), and _u_ (_u_ in

c_u_rd), are somewhat like the _a_ (_a_ in m_a_re), exceptional or

bastard Sounds. They are unheard in many Languages, and unrecognized as

distinct sounds in many Languages where they are, in fact, heard. Very

few Languages have distinct Letter-Signs for them. In using the Roman

Alphabet, I am compelled to adopt a contrivance to represent them; which

is, as in the case of the _a_, to print them in italic types, for which,

when the remainder of the word is in italic, small capitals are

substituted, thus: _O_ful (awful); _U_rgent; or, in case the whole word

is intended to be italicized, for the sake of emphasis, O_ful_,

U_rgent_. In script or handwriting, the italic Letter is marked by

underscoring a single line, and the small capital by underscoring two

lines.

_O_ (aw) is the fullest of the Vowel-Sounds. It is made with the mouth

still farther open than when we say A (ah), and somewhat farther back;

or, rather, with the cavity enlarged in all directions, and especially

deepened. The mouth is stretched in all ways to its utmost capacity,

giving a hollow, vacant effect to the voice, instead of the rich, mellow

and substantial sound of the A (ah). The Sound so produced is,

nevertheless, on the one hand, a broader quality of the A (ah), and

there is a strong tendency on the part of the A (ah) to degenerate into

it, as when the uneducated German, says _Yaw_ for _Ja_ (yah). On the

other hand, this sound has something of the quality of O. It is,

therefore, intermediate in quality between A (ah) and O. In respect to

meaning, it is the Type, Analogue, Equivalent, or Representative of

Volume or SPACE, whether filled or unfilled by Substance. That is to

say, it is the Analogue of Space, not in the sense in which we formerly

regarded Space as the _negation_ of Matter; but in the sense of

_Infinite Dimensionality_, or of Dimensionality in all directions, as a

vague generalization from the three special dimensions _Length_,

_Breadth_, and _Thickness_. It is, therefore, round or ball-like, and

huge, and, in respect to the nature of the tone, vague and vacant.

Space _as mere nothing_ has no Letter-Sign in the Alphabet; but is

represented by the blank types or spaces used by the printer to separate

his syllables and words, as shown heretofore. Space _as a Department of

Reality_, as one of the _Realities_ of the Universe, a bastard or

semi-Reality it is true, but nevertheless, belonging to that Domain, is

denoted by the Vowel-Sound _o_ (aw).

The Sound _u_ (uh, _u_ in c_u_rd), the fifth of the Scale, is called

among Phoneticians, the _Natural_ Vowel. It is the simple, unmodulated

or unformed vocal breath permitted to flow forth from the throat or

larynx with no effort to produce any specific sound. It is the mere

grunt, a little prolonged; the unwrought material out of which the other

and more perfect Vowel Sounds are made by modulation, or, in other

words, by the shapings and strains put upon the machinery of utterance.

The Hebrew _scheva_, the French _eu_, and _e_ mute, are varieties of

this easily-flowing, unmodulated, unstable, unsatisfactory sound. Like

the _o_ (aw), this sound _u_ (uh) has a vacant, unfinished, and

inorganic character as a sound, while yet, from its great fluency, its

frequent occurrence tends, more than that of any other sound, to give to

Language that conversational fluency, rapidity and ease which are

especially characteristic of the French Tongue. From this same easy

laxity of its nature all the other Vowel Sounds tend, in English

particularly, when they are not accented, to fall back into this Natural

Vowel; as in the following instances: Rom_a_n, brok_e_n, m_i_rth,

mart_y_r, Bost_o_n, c_u_rd, etc.; words which we pronounce nearly

Rom_u_n, brok_u_n, m_u_rth, mart_u_r, Bost_u_n, c_u_rd, etc.

This Sound, as to inherent meaning, is, by its alliance with the idea of

flux, flow and continuity, the Type, Analogue, Equivalent or

Representative in the Domain of Oral Sound of that _Fundamental

Conception_ which, in respect to Idea, we denominate TIME; and of

Stream-like or _Currental_ Being of all kinds.

_Space_, denoted by _o_ (aw), has relation to the Air as an atmosphere,

and to the Ocean of Ether in filling the Great Spheral Dome of Empyrean

or Firmament. The Vowel-Sound _u_ (uh) has a similar relation to

Fluidity or Liquidity, and, hence, to Water as a typical fluid, to the

Ocean Flux or Tide, to the Flowing Stream, etc. This Time-like idea is

uni-dimensional or elongate in a _general_ or _fluctuating_ sense; not

_specifically_ like I. It is in view of this characteristic, that it is

broadly and primarily contrasted with the Spacic significance of _o_

(aw), which is omnidimensional.

The two remaining Vowel-Sounds, the O and U (oo), repeat the _o_ (aw)

and _u_ (uh), in a sense, but in a new and more refined stage or degree

of development. The sound O is made at the front mouth--the locality the

most openly in sight of any at which Sound is produced--by rounding the

lips into an irregularly-circular, face-like, or disk-like presentation.

The O Sound so produced denotes Presence, as of an object by virtue of

its reflection of Light; and, hence, LIGHT, _Clearness_, _Purity_,

_Reflection_.

The U (_oo_ in f_oo_l) is an obscured or impure pronunciation of the O.

The lips are protruded as if to say O; but not being sufficiently so for

the production of the pure Sound, the Sound actually given is mixed, or

made turbid or thick. The U-Sound denotes accordingly _Retiracy_,

_Obscurity_, _Shade_, _Turbidity_, _Mixedness_, or _Impurity_, as of

Colors in a dim light, or as of Materials in a slime or plasma, etc.

Metaphysically, O denotes PURE THEORY, the _Abstract_; and U (oo)

signifies the ACTUAL or PRACTICAL, the Tempic, the Concrete (the

Temporal or Profane), which is always mixed with contingency.

Other Vowel-Sounds, shades more or less distinct of some one of these

Leading Sounds, are interspersed by nature between these _diatonic_

Sounds, like the half tones and quarter tones in Music. Two of these

French _eu_ and _e muet_ modifications of _u_ (uh) have been mentioned.

_Eu_ is modulated at the lips, and _e muet_ at the middle mouth, but

both have the general character of _u_ (uh). The French U is a

modification of the U (oo), of the Scale just given, but made finer, and

approximating I (ee). The Italian O is a modification of _o_ (aw). These

four are the Leading Semi-tone Sounds; which along with _a_ carry the

Scale from Seven (7) diatonic up to twelve (12) chromatic. As they will

be passed over for the present with this mere mention, the points of the

Scale at which they intervene will not be now considered.

Discarding these minor shades of Sounds, the Leading Scale of

Vowel-Sounds is augmented from Seven (7) or Eight (8) to Twelve (12) or

Thirteen (13), by the addition of the following five (5) Diphthongs or

Double Vowels. In respect to the _quality_ of Sound, they are pronounced

just as the Vowels of which they are composed would be if separated and

succeeding each other. To make the Diphthong _long_, the two Sounds are

kept quite distinct. To make it _short_, they are closely blended; as,

AU (ah-oo), long; A[)U] (ahoo), short. With no diacretical mark they are

pronounced _ad libidum_, or neither very long nor short.

The following are the five (5) Diphthongs which complete the Vowel

Scale:

The IU is composed of the first Vowel I (ee) and the last U (oo). The

I-sound, so placed before another Vowel-Sound, tends readily to be

converted into or more properly to prefix to itself the weak

Consonant-Sound represented in English by Y (in German and Italian by

J); thus YIU for IU. The whole of the three Sounds so involved (a real

Triphthong) are represented by the English U long--which is never a

_simple_ Vowel-Sound--as in _union_, pronounced _yioonyun_.

This Diphthong IU (or yiu) denotes _Conjunction_, _Conjuncture_, _Event_

(the two ends meeting); and also _Coupling_ or _Unition_; a central

point between extremes.

The next and the most important of the Diphthongs (except AU) is AI,

compounded of the third (A) and the first (I) of the simple

Vowel-Sounds. It is pronounced very nearly like the English long I, as

in p_i_ne, f_i_ne, etc., which is not a _simple_ Vowel; but is

compounded of the two simple Vowels above mentioned (A and I, ahee) in a

very close union with each other; or, as it were, squeezed into each

other. The Tikiwa (Tee-kee-wah) combination (this is the name of the

Scientific Universal Language), AI, is not ordinarily quite so close,

and when pronounced _long_, is quite open, so that each Vowel is

distinctly heard (ah-ee).

This Diphthong AI may be regarded as embracing and epitomizing the lower

or ground wing or half of the Simple Vowel-Scale (I E _a_ A); its

meaning is, therefore, that of BASIC or SUBSTANTIAL REALITY: the GROUND

of Existence.

Contrasted with this is the next Diphthong, _O_I (aw-ee), compounded of

the fifth (_o_) and the first (I) Vowel-Sounds. It is the Sound of _oy_

in b_oy_. The I contained in this Diphthong may be regarded as standing

in the place of U at the other extremity of the Scale. This last Sound

has a tendency to return into I through the French slender U,

illustrating the Principle of the Contact of Extremes. The Diphthong

_O_I may, therefore, be viewed as embracing and epitomizing the upper or

ethereal wing or half of the Simple Vowel Scale (_o_ _u_ O U); its

meaning is, therefore, that of AERIAL or ASCENDING REALITY; LOFTINESS or

LOFT.

Next there occurs a Diphthong OI, pronounced as the same letters in the

English word g_oi_ng, which has a half claim to be ranked with the

Leading Diphthongs. It is sometimes reckoned into, and sometimes out of,

the Scale--like _a_ among the Simple Vowels. Its meaning is that of

FRONTNESS, PROSPECT.

Finally, the great Focal Diphthong, that which includes and epitomizes

the whole Vowel Scale, is AU (ah-oo), compounded of the third

Vowel-Sound (A) and the Seventh (or Eighth) U. It is the sound heard in

_ou_r, or in the Spanish c_au_sa. The meaning of this Supreme Diphthong

and general Vowel Representative is UNIVERSAL REALITY. It stands

practically in the place of all the Vowels, in the Composition of Words

of an inclusive meaning. That is to say, it integrates in its

signification, all that is inherently signified by all the other Vowels.

While, however, AU is practically and usually the Representative,

Analogue or Equivalent, in the Domain of Language, of Universal Reality

among the Elements of Being, this is so _only in practice_.

_Theoretically_, the Diphthong best adapted to represent this Idea is

AO; the A and the O being, in a supreme sense, the two most prominent or

leading Vowels. But it is a little difficult to retain the Organs of

Utterance in the position which they must assume in order to pronounce

these two Vowel-Sounds in conjunction. The organs readily and naturally

slide into the easier position in which they utter AU. This is

correspondential with the difficulty always experienced in adhering to

_Pure Theory_ (O); and the natural tendency to glide from it, as ground

too high for permanent occupation, into the more accommodating Domain of

the _Practical_ (U).

The Full Scale of Vowel Sounds coupled with the Full Scale of the

(Indeterminate) Realities of Universal Being is, therefore, as follows:

1. SOUNDS. 2. REALITIES OF BEING.

1. I, i (ee as in feel). ENTITY or IDENTITY (Centre, Least

Element, Essential Being,

Individuality).

2. E, e (a as in mate). RELATION (Sideness, Collaterality,

Adjectivity).

3. _A_, _a_ (a as in mare). UNSUBSTANTIALITY (Thinness, Ghost,

Apparition).

4. A, a (a as in fa-ther). SUBSTANCE (Thickness, Materiality,

Richness, Goodness).

5. _O_, _o_ (aw as in awful). SPACE (Volume, Expansion).

6. _U_, _u_ (u as in curd). TIME (Flux, Flow).

7. O, o (o as in noble). LIGHT (Reflection, Parity, Clearness,

Theory).

8. U, u (oo as in fool). SHADE (Retiracy, Turbidity, Mixture,

Practice).

9. IU, iu (YIU), (u in union, use). CONJUNCTION (Event, Joining).

10. AI, ai (ah-ee, i in fine). BASIC REALITY (Ground of Existence).

11. OI, oi (aw-ee, oy in boy). AERIAL or ASCENDING REALITY (Loft,

Loftiness).

12. _O_I, _o_i (o-ee, oi in going). FRONTNESS, PROSPECT.

13. AU, au (ou in our). UNIVERSAL REALITY.

The Vowels and Diphthongs of this Basic Scale may be Long or Short,

without any change of quality. This difference is indicated by

diacritical marks, which it is not now necessary to exhibit.

In addition to these merely _quantitative_ differences in the

Vowel-Sounds, there is a corresponding difference of _Quality_, which

produces a Counter-Scale of Vowel-Sounds; an echo or repetition of the

Basic Scale throughout its entire length. This new Scale is a Series of

Sounds predominantly _short_ in quantity. They are called by Mr. Pitman

the _Stopped_ Vowels. (In German they are denominated the _Sharp_

Vowels.) These Sounds are nearly always followed by a Consonant-Sound in

the same syllable, by which they are _stopped_ or _broken abruptly off_,

and the purity of their quality as Vowels affected or disturbed.

It is not essential for our present purpose to give a detailed list of

these Vowels; more especially as every Reader will readily recall them;

as I, in pIn; E, in pEt; A in pAt; _o_, in n_o_t; _u_, in b_u_t; O, in

stOne, cOAt; U, in fUll.

In respect to the Vowel Diphthongs, the _Stopped_ Sounds are not

materially different from the _short_ quantities of the corresponding

Full ones; and no effort need be made to distinguish the two former

varieties of Sound. The same is true of the Short and Stopped Sounds of

A (ah). But the difference is very marked in the remaining Seven (7)

Simple Vowels; the Stopped Sounds of which are given above. For the

ordinary purposes of Language it is not necessary to distinguish these

Stopped Sounds by any diacritical mark. But in the short Root-Words,

where a difference of meaning depends upon the difference between the

_full_ and _stopped_ Vowel, the so-called _grave_ accent is employed to

denote the _stopped_ quality, as pique, pick, for example, written thus:

pik, pik.

The meaning of the Stopped Vowel-Sounds is merely the broken or

_fractionized_ aspect of the same ideas which are symbolized by the

corresponding _Full_ Vowel-Sounds.

The nature and meaning of the Vowels being thus explained with

sufficient amplitude for the uses now in view, we are prepared to

advance, in a subsequent paper, to the consideration of the individual

Consonant-Sounds, their character and inherent signification.

THE TWO PLATFORMS.

It was the opprobrium of the Republican party 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 also overlook the crime. It supposed the people ready to

strike hands with rebellion and elevate the authors of rebellion to

power again.

Perhaps the difference between the two conventions may be concisely

stated thus: The Chicago Convention was for peace first, and Union

afterward; the Baltimore Convention for Union first, then peace. Let us

see.

THE CHICAGO PLATFORM.

We suppose that no one will think us wanting in fairness when we

characterize the Chicago Platform as one of peace.[4] If there is any

reproach in the term, it surely is not the fault of those who take men

to mean what they say.

[Footnote 4: It is presumed that every one is familiar with the two

platforms, as they are so easily obtained, and it is, therefore, not

deemed necessary to encumber the pages of the Magazine with inserting

them in full.]

Indeed, it is simply the truth to declare that the general impression on

the first publication of it confirmed the view we have taken, and that

even among the supporters of the convention there were many who

proclaimed their confident expectation that General McClellan, if he

should accept the nomination, would disregard the platform, and stake

his chances on his own more warlike record. We will not stop to consider

in this place whether that expectation has been fulfilled. It suffices

for our present purpose to remind our readers that the great doctrine of

the Democratic party of former days was expressed in the motto,

'Principles, not men;' and that the rigid discipline of the party has

always required the nominee to be the mere representative of the

platform--its other self, so to speak: as witness the case of Buchanan,

who declared himself, following the approved formulas of his party, no

longer James Buchanan, but the Cincinnati Platform. It ought also to be

borne in mind, that General McClellan's letter of acceptance does not,

in terms, repudiate the platform, and is not necessarily inconsistent

with it.

The first one of the six resolutions that constitute the Chicago

Platform, has the sound of true doctrine. 'Unswerving fidelity to the

Union under the Constitution,' is the duty of every citizen, and has

always been the proud war-cry of every party; and they who swerve from

it are subject not simply to our individual censure, but to the sanction

of our supreme law. The just complaint against this platform is, that,

while thus proclaiming good doctrine, it overlooks the departure

therefrom of a large portion of the people, misled by wicked men. When

we look at the other resolutions, the first one seems all 'sound and

fury, signifying nothing.'

Nor will we withhold what of approval may possibly be due, in strict

justice, to the sixth and last resolution; although the approval can

only be a limited one. No one can overlook the entire lack in that

resolution of cordial sympathy with the sacred cause of nationality, to

which the brave heroes of the war have given their lives and fortunes.

It restricts itself to a simple recognition of the 'soldiery of our

army,' as entitled to 'sympathy,' with a promise of 'protection' to

them, 'in the event of our attaining power.' It ignores the navy, and

passes by the gallant heroes who on sea and river have upheld the flag

of our country with a lustre that pales not before the names of Paul

Jones, and Perry, and Decatur. Moreover, the sympathy 'extended to the

soldiery' is the sympathy not of the American people, but of 'the

Democratic party.' Surely, this phrase was ill conceived. It has a touch

of partisan exclusiveness that is sadly out of place. But the resolution

is unpartisan and patriotic in another respect that deserves notice. It

extends the 'sympathy of the Democratic party to the soldiery of our

army,' without making any discrimination to the prejudice of the negro

soldiers; and thus commits the 'Democratic party,' with honorable

impartiality, to the 'care and protection' of _all_ 'the brave soldiers

of the Republic.'

With these criticisms upon the first and sixth resolutions, we proceed

to record our total disapprobation of the remaining four. In all candor,

we contend that those four resolutions are a surrender of the national

honor, and a violation of the national faith. They are unworthy the old

glory of the Democratic party. For what is the purport of them? Is it

condemnation of a rebellion that has 'rent the land with civil feud, and

drenched it in fraternal blood'? Is it to stimulate the heroism of those

whose breasts are bared to the bullets of traitors in Virginia and

Georgia, and who have 'borne aloft the flag and kept step to the music

of the Union' these three years and a half in unwearied defence of the

nation? Ah, no; they declare the war a 'failure'! The second resolution

is the keynote of the platform, reciting 'that after four years (three

years and a half) of _failure_ to restore the Union by the _experiment

of war_,... justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand

that _immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities_.' Upon

this resolution there can be no better comment than the remembrance of

Donelson and Pea Ridge, Pittsburg Landing and Vicksburg, Murfreesboro'

and Chattanooga, Antictam and Gettysburg; not to speak of that splendid

series of battles from the Wilderness to Petersburg, which at last has

brought the rebel general to bay; nor of the glorious victories, since

the Chicago Convention, at Mobile and Atlanta, and in the Shenandoah

Valley. It can never be forgotten that on the fourth of July, 1863,

Governor Seymour, in a public discourse at the Academy of Music, in New

York, drew a deplorable picture of the straits to which the nation was

at last reduced, with the enemy marching defiantly across the fertile

fields of Pennsylvania, and men's hearts failing them for fear of

danger, not alone to the political capital, Washington, but also to the

financial capital, New York; and that, even while the words fell from

the speaker's lips, that defiant enemy, already beaten, was rapidly

retreating before the magnificent old Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg:

while victorious Grant had already broken the left of the rebel line,

and was celebrating the nation's anniversary in the triumph of

Vicksburg. Even so, let it never be forgotten that the delegates who

adopted this second resolution, so burdened with despair, had scarcely

reached their homes, ere the stronghold of the Southern Confederacy,

which, ever since the war was begun, has been boastfully proclaimed the

key of its military lines, and as impregnable as Gibraltar, fell before

the unconquerable progress of the armies of the West, under General

Sherman; and thus the rebel centre, as well as left, had been broken,

and only the rebel right, at Richmond, yet remains to the Southern army.

In further answer to the discouraging language of this resolution, let

us offset the following terse and comprehensive statement of what has

been accomplished in the course of the nation's 'experiment of war.' It

is copied from _The Evening Post_ of a recent date, and the writer

supposes the soldiers to speak thus:

'We have not failed; on the contrary, we have fought bravely and

conquered splendidly. In proof of our words we can point to such

trophies as few wars can equal and none surpass. Besides defending

with unusual vigilance and completeness two thousand miles of

frontier, in three years we have taken from the enemies of the

Union, by valor and generalship, thirty complete and thoroughly

furnished fortresses; we have captured over two thousand cannon; we

have reconquered and now hold nearly four thousand miles of

navigable river courses; we have taken ten of the enemy's principal

cities, three of them capitals of States; in thirty days last

summer we captured sixty thousand prisoners; we have penetrated

more than three hundred miles into the territory claimed by the

enemy; we have cut that territory into strips, leaving his armies

without effectual communication with each other; the main

operations and interests of the war, which were lately concentrated

about Baltimore, Paducah, and St. Louis, have been transferred, by

our steady and constant advance, to the narrow limits of the

seaboard Slave States; we hold every harbor but one, of a coast six

thousand miles long. And whatever we have taken we hold; we have

never turned back, or given up that which we once fairly

possessed.'

It has, however, been fittingly reserved for the chief of the rebellion

himself to give the full and complete answer to this dishonorable

complaint of failure. Not a month after the meeting of the Chicago

Convention, and on the 23d of September last, Jeff. Davis uttered these

words, in a public speech, at Macon, Geo.: '_You have not many men

between eighteen and forty-five left_.... Two-thirds of our men are

absent, some sick, some wounded, but _most of them absent without

leave_. ... _In Virginia the disparity of numbers is just an great as it

is in Georgia._'

But let it be granted that after these three years and a half of war,

and having accomplished such unquestionably important results, the Union

is not yet restored, what then? Is that a reason for giving up now? Our

fathers fought the British seven years without flinching; and under the

indomitable leader God had given them, they would have fought seven

years longer with equal determination. Are we less determined than they

were? Are we such degenerate sons that we are willing to give up the

legacy they left us, at half its original cost? There is just the same

reason that we should yield the contest now as there was in 1861 that we

should yield it then; neither more nor less. The integrity of the

nation, the perpetuity of our institutions, the safety, honor, and

welfare of the people are still at stake.

If it is true that 'justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare

demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities,'

then those same holy principles were assailed when the war was begun. If

the United States Government was the assailant, it did wrong, and has

continued doing wrong ever since; and not a century of such wrong-doing

can make the war just and right on our part. This brings us face to face

with the question, Who began the war? Who, in this contest, has assailed

the principles of 'justice, humanity, and liberty'? Who has attacked the

'public welfare'? Has it been the United States Government? Let us

revert to the occasion of the war. Confining ourselves to what all

parties admit--even the rebels themselves--the immediate occasion of the

war was the election of a President distasteful, for whatever cause, to

the Southern leaders. Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the

United States under the organic law of the nation, in strict accordance

with all its modes and requirements, and none ever disputed the fairness

of the election. That organic law is the Constitution, to which the

South is bound equally with the North. The men of the Chicago

Convention, who have recalled to our minds its high supremacy, neglected

to express their opinion of those who, immediately on the election of

President Lincoln, contemptuously spurned it, and have sought these

three years and a half to overthrow it and destroy the Union which it

upholds.

Every sentiment of 'justice' was outraged when wicked sedition thus

without cause reared its head against the covenant of the nation. Every

instinct of 'humanity' was stifled by the traitors who surrounded a

gallant garrison of seventy men with a force of ten thousand, and opened

fire on the heroes who stood by the flag that had been the glory and

defence of both for more than half a century. 'Liberty,' in all its

blessed relations of home, and country, and religion, was struck at when

blind ambition thus set at defiance the power of the Union, to which

liberty owes its life on this continent, and its hopes throughout the

world. The constitutional liberty that is the glory of our civilization,

the liberty regulated by law that is the pride of our institutions, was

attacked by those who at Montgomery fiercely defied the Constitution and

laws. And what shall we say of the constitution which these traitors to

their country and humanity affected to establish, instead of that, the

heritage of their and our Washington and his compeers, which had made

our country powerful among nations, and blessed it with equal laws and

equal protection to all? What shall we say of the constitution that

ordained slavery as the corner stone of a new confederacy, to teach

mankind the folly of Christian civilization, and bring back the

'statelier Eden' of the dark ages? To which party in this terrible

strife of brothers does 'liberty' look for protection to-day? Which of

the two armies of brothers now arrayed against each other on the plains

of Virginia and Georgia, is fighting for the principle of order, which

is the 'public welfare'? Let these questions be answered, and then it

will appear how much reason there is in the declaration that 'liberty,

justice, humanity, and the public welfare' demand the 'cessation of

hostilities.' On the contrary, these very principles demand that the war

be continued without abatement till they are guaranteed safe residence

and sure protection under the United States Constitution.

But, it is objected, you ignore the basis on which, this 'cessation of

hostilities' is proposed, namely, 'the Federal Union of the States.'

There is a word to be said in reference to this clause which will

illustrate the high-toned patriotism of some of the convention which

adopted it. There was an alteration in the wording of the resolution,

and some of the papers printed it accordingly, '_the basis of the

Federal States_.' The editor of the _New York Freeman's Journal_ (a

paper which zealously supports the Chicago platform and all peace

measures, and is called Democratic), being requested to explain which

version was correct, said, in a late issue of his journal, that in the

original draft of the resolution 'it was not the _bold doctrine_ of

Federal States;' it was the _delusion and snare_ of a Federal 'Union,'

and that therefore the latter must be taken as the correct version.

Replying to the above objection, we say that we neither ignore this

'delusion and snare' of the Federal Union as the basis of the proposed

peace, nor those other words in the fourth resolution, 'that the aim and

object of the Democratic party is to preserve the Federal Union and the

rights of the States unimpaired.' The question is, how possibly to

reconcile the demand for an immediate 'cessation of hostilities' with

this great anxiety to preserve the Federal Union? For the 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 adversaries.

Are we in extremity, that this example of Napoleon should be suggested

in support of the Chicago platform?

As to how our overtures might be received at Richmond, we are no longer

left any excuse for doubting. The oft-repeated assurances of all who

have fled from the rebel tyranny since the war was begun, are, at

length, confirmed by the authoritative declaration of Jeff. Davis

himself. It is a declaration promulgated not only by Colonel Jaquess and

Mr. Gilmore, in the account given by the latter of their recent visit to

Richmond, but also by Mr. Benjamin, the rebel Secretary of State, in a

circular letter written for the purpose of giving the rebel account of

that visit. We are told by the rebel chief himself, that as _preliminary

to any negotiations, the independence of the Southern Confederacy must

be first acknowledged_. Why does not the Chicago platform suggest a way

of avoiding this difficulty? Why has it left the country in uncertainty

on a question so vital?

But, in the second place, suppose it were possible to have a 'cessation

of hostilities' without this preliminary acknowledgment of the

Confederate independence, and that the war might be at an absolute stand

still for a definite season, are we fully aware of the risks attending

this measure? For the Chicago platform has left them out of sight. 'A

cessation of hostilities' is an armistice; and there is no such thing

known in the authorities on international law, or in history, as 'a

cessation of hostilities' distinct from an armistice. In defining the

incidents of war, Wheaton speaks of a '_suspension of hostilities by

means of a truce_, or _armistice_,' and uses the three terms

interchangeably. In other words, whatever 'cessation (or suspension, as

it is called in the books) of hostilities,' there may occur between the

parties to a war, it is known among men and in history as an armistice,

which is also the technical term for it. There would be no need to

enlarge upon this point, if it had not been made already the basis of

fallacious appeals to popular ignorance. Now, the incidents of an

armistice are well defined, giving to both parties, besides the

advantage of time to rest, full liberty to repair damages and make up

losses of men and material; and it is perfect folly, or worse, to talk

of 'a cessation of hostilities' without giving to the rebels these

important advantages. But the controlling consideration in reference to

this whole thing, and which every person ought to ponder carefully, is

the effect of the proposed 'cessation of hostilities' upon our neutral

neighbors. On this point the doctrine of international law is thus

stated by the distinguished French writer, Hautefeuille, 'the eminent

advocate of neutral rights,' as he is justly called by the American

editor of Wheaton, and whose works on neutral relations are always cited

with respect, and recognized as authority.

'The duties imposed on neutrals by the state of war belong

essentially to the state of war itself. From the moment it ceases,

for whatever cause, even temporarily, the duties of neutrals

likewise cease; _as to them, peace is completely restored during

the suspension of arms_. They resume then all the rights which had

been modified by the war, and can exercise them in their full

extent during the whole time fixed for the duration of the truce,

if this time has been limited by the agreement; and until the

resumption of hostilities has been officially announced to them, if

it has not been limited.'[5]

[Footnote 5: 'Des Droits des Nations Neutres,' t. I., p. 301]

Can language be clearer? It will not do to treat it lightly. It is a

statement of what international law is on this point from an authority;

and the reasons for the doctrine are clear and incontrovertible.

Neutrality depends on the fact of war; when, for any cause, that fact no

longer exists, neutrality ceases likewise, of course. It is only the

application of a well-known maxim of law, that when the reason of a rule

fails, the rule itself fails. Let there be 'a cessation of hostilities,'

then, as proposed in the Chicago platform, and how long would it be

before rebel ships of war from English ports would be ready to desolate

our coast, destroy our shipping, raise the blockade, and give to the

rebellion the aid and sustenance it must have ere long or perish?

There is still another difficulty in the way of suspending hostilities,

which it is well for us not to ignore. If we propose to the rebels 'a

cessation of hostilities,' does not the question immediately become one

of negotiation between separate Governments? Have we not in that moment,

and in that thing, then recognized the Southern Confederacy as a

separate and independent Power? For does not 'a cessation of

hostilities' presuppose parties of equal sovereignty on both sides?

Indeed, _The London Times_ of a recent date already declares that 'it

would concede to the South a position of equality.' Such a concession

cannot, for a moment, be thought of. For the very question at issue is

our constitutional supremacy. When that is yielded, all is yielded. The

exchanging of prisoners, and the numerous like questions that

perpetually arise in the progress of war, are matters of common

humanity, that depend upon their own law. They are totally independent

of the questions at issue between the parties belligerent; and our

dealings with the South, in reference to such matters, cannot be

construed into a recognition of its separate independence. If we consent

to treat with the rebel chiefs, however, in regard to the very question

involved in the war, how can we longer compel the non-interference of

foreign Powers? If _we_ acknowledge the authority of Jeff. Davis to

speak for the Southern people, we cannot then take offence if other

nations acknowledge him as the representative and head of a new

Government.

Such and so great are the consequences of a 'cessation of hostilities,'

which the Chicago platform proposes to the serious consideration of the

American people.

It thus appears how irreconcilable are the expressions in that platform

in regard to the preservation of the Federal Union, with the clearly

announced determination to propose immediately 'a cessation of

hostilities.' They are vague generalities, and can have no other purpose

than to catch the popular ear so as more effectually to deceive the

popular heart. That this is not a harsh judgment, consider how the four

resolutions that treat of the war all hinge upon the proposition to

suspend hostilities. For they concern themselves with what? With

condemnation of the rebellion, its authors, and objects, suggesting, at

the same time, how more effectually to bring upon it its righteous

retribution? Far from it. Indeed, a stranger to all that has passed in

our country during the last three years, would suppose, from a study of

these resolutions, that the United States Government had usurped the

power of a despotism, and that all who are not arrayed in open

rebellion, against its authority were groaning under the yoke of a

tyrant. The platform throughout ignores the one supreme question that is

before the people to-day. That one question is, Shall we maintain the

integrity of the nation? It is vain to introduce other issues; they must

abide the event of arms. The old maxim that in the midst of war the laws

are silent, is not to be condemned. For our laws are of no avail, the

nation cannot enforce them, so long as armed rebellion threatens its

existence. With the nation, all its laws, principles, vital forces, are

equally menaced and imperilled; and they are, in virtue of that very

fact, in abeyance, in order that they may be saved. It is said that the

Constitution is not suspended because of rebellion, and this is the

basis of much declamation, both in the Chicago platform and elsewhere,

against the exercise of extraordinary powers on the part of the

President. But the Constitution authorizes the suspension of the writ of

_habeas corpus_, that great writ of right which is the bulwark of our

Anglo-Saxon liberty, 'when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public

safety may require it;' and confers upon Congress full power to

legislate for the defence of the nation, making it then the duty of the

President to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' What more

is needed as a warrant for extraordinary power? The Chicago Convention

has appealed to the Constitution, and in that has done wisely. But what

is the Constitution? It is the organic law of the nation. In virtue of

it the nation exists, and by the supreme warrant of it the nation

maintains its existence against parricidal treason. Under the

Constitution all power is granted to the public authorities to quell

insurrection; and the grant of a power, by one of the first principles

of law, as also of common sense, implies every essential incident to

make the grant effectual.

In support of these views it is pertinent to cite the authority of an

approved text writer on municipal law, whose book has appeared since

they were first written, and who has elaborately investigated the points

involved. The result of his patient and thorough study is stated in

these propositions:

'That no civil power resides in any department of the Government to

interfere with the fundamental, personal rights of life, liberty,

and property, guaranteed by the Constitution; that a warlike power

is given by the Constitution to the President temporarily to

disregard these rights by means of the martial law; that under the

sanction of this species of law, the President and his subordinate

military officers may, within reasonable limits, suspend the

privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_, cause arrests to be made,

trials and condemnations to be had, and punishments to be

inflicted, in methods unknown to the civil procedure, but are

responsible for an abuse of the power; and that the martial law, as

a necessary adjunct of military movements, may be enforced in time

of invasion or rebellion, wherever the influence and effect of

these movements directly extends.'[6]

[Footnote 6: Sec.716 of 'An Introduction to Municipal Law,' by John Norton

Pomeroy, Esq., Professor of Law in the New York University Law School.

The whole chapter from which the extract is taken is worthy of diligent

perusal, and the writer regrets that want of space alone prevents him

quoting more fully from Professor Pomeroy's lucid exposition of the

doctrine of martial law under our Constitution.]

These conclusions of the law are worthy to be considered carefully in

view of the solemn resolutions of the Chicago platform, that 'military

necessity' and the 'war power' are 'mere pretences' to override the

Constitution.

It remains to say, with reference to the third and fifth resolutions of

this platform, that they are chargeable with an equal and common

ignorance: the third, in ignoring the necessity of the presence of the

military at the elections referred to, in order that disloyalty and

treason might not openly defy the authority of the nation; the fifth, in

ignoring two things, first, the monstrous baseness of the rebel

treatment of our prisoners, who have been starved alive, with a

refinement of cruelty reserved for this Christian age, and practised

only by the Christian chivalry of the South; and secondly, the rebel

refusal to exchange prisoners man for man; the resolution seeking,

moreover, to charge upon the United States Government the fault of both

these rebel violations of humanity. It may be asked, moreover, in

further reference to the third resolution, if the convention really

meant to pledge itself to revolution;[7] and why, if the President, as

chief of 'the military authority of the United States,' should be guilty

of any abuses, the proper remedy is not by impeachment, as provided in

the Constitution? The language of this resolution is gravely suggestive,

and cannot be too closely criticised. It seems to shadow forth some dark

design, which surely is in harmony with the whole tone of hostility to

our Government that pervades the platform. Taken, moreover, in

connection with the fact that the Chicago Convention declared itself a

permanent body, subject to the call of the chairman, this criticism does

not seem unreasonable; for permanent conventions have generally been the

beginning of revolution.

[Footnote 7: The third resolution is, 'That the direct interference of

the military authority of the United States in the recent elections held

in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware, was a shameful violation

of the Constitution, and the repetition of such acts in the approaching

election _will be held as revolutionary, and resisted with all the means

and power under our control_.']

THE BALTIMORE PLATFORM.

The Baltimore platform consists of eleven resolutions; and we may

perceive at a glance the important respect in which it differs from the

one adopted at Chicago. That confines itself to criticism and censure of

those who are striving to uphold the Constitution and the Union against

an armed rebellion, which it does not so much as by a single word

condemn. This declares the purpose of the people 'to aid the Government

in quelling by force the rebellion now raging against its authority;' so

that its power shall be felt throughout the whole extent of our

territory, and its blessings be restored to every section of the Union.

It is impossible to overlook this essential distinction of the two

platforms. The one is full of the captious complaint of partisanship,

intent on power, and oblivious of the highest duty of patriotism in this

hour of the country's need; the other recognizes no higher duty now than

the union of all parties for the sake of the Union. The one vainly cries

peace when there is no peace; the other thinks not of peace except in

and through the Union, without which there cannot be peace. Above all,

the one takes us back to the former times of purely party strife, and

seeks to revive the political issues of the past; the other, leaving

'the dead past to bury its dead,' keeps pace with the living present,

and looks forward to a future of glory in a restored and regenerated

Union. For it is folly to suppose there can ever again be 'the Union as

it was.' This is a superficial phrase, which it is marvellous that any

reflecting person can delude himself with. 'The Constitution as it is'

is the motto that condemns it; for under the Constitution we are to have

'a more perfect Union,' as our fathers designed, and so stated in the

Constitution itself. We are to have a constitutional Union in which

every right guaranteed by the Constitution shall be maintained; and this

was not so in 'the Union as it was.'

Thus it is that the Baltimore platform, after pledging the people to

maintain 'the paramount authority of the Constitution and laws of the

United States,' and approving the 'determination of the Government not

to compromise' this authority, but holding out the same Constitution and

laws as our only and the sufficient 'terms of peace' to all who will

accept them, proceeds to take notice of what none but the wilfully blind

fail to perceive, the changed aspect of the slavery question. It is

impossible to hold the same position to-day in regard to this vexed

question as in the days before the war. As an element of the politics of

this country its aspect is wholly changed, and there is no sort of

consistency in upholding our opinions of four years ago in reference to

it. We do well to remember that consistency is not obstinacy. It is not

an absolute, but a relative thing, and takes note of all the new

elements which are ever entering into public affairs. The criterion of

one's political consistency in our country is unfaltering devotion to

the Union. If the measures he advocates look always to its paramount

authority, his record is truly and honorably inconsistent. On the other

hand, he who forgets the end of his labors in the ardor of seeking to

save the means, is chargeable with the grossest inconsistency. What,

therefore, consists with the perpetuity and strength of the Union? is

the question which the American patriot proposes to himself.

It is in reference to this question that the Baltimore Platform

challenges comparison with the one adopted at Chicago. For guided by the

experience of the past four years (the culmination of fifty years'

experience), and noting without fear the facts which that experience has

revealed as in the clear light of midday, it declares that slavery is

inconsistent with the existence of the Union. Does anybody deny it? Men

tell us that the Union and slavery have heretofore, for more than half a

century, existed together, and why may they not continue to exist in

harmonious conjunction for the next half century? We are asked,

moreover, with sarcastic disdain, if our wisdom is superior to that of

the fathers. Our wisdom is not, indeed, superior to that of the fathers

of the republic, but it would be far beneath it, and we should be

unworthy sons of such fathers, if we undertook to carry out, in 1864,

the policies and measures of 1764. The progress of affairs has developed

the antagonism that was only latent before, but which, nevertheless,

some of the wisest of our fathers foresaw; and it is now very clear that

there is a terrible antagonism (no longer latent) between slavery and

the principles that underlie the Constitution. The time has come to

vindicate the wisdom of the Constitution by utterly removing what seeks

to disgrace and destroy it--as it were a viper in the bosom of the

nation.

We must show that our Government is strong enough not only to control,

but also destroy, the interest which arrays itself in arms and war

against it. It is useless, surely, to deny that the Southern Confederacy

means slavery. Over and over again the Southern journals have asserted,

and Southern politicians have said, that free labor was a mistake, and

that slavery was the true condition of labor. That these are the

deliberate convictions of the Southern leaders, and these the doctrines

on which the Montgomery constitution is based, no reflecting person can

hesitate to believe; and the boastful declaration of the rebel

vice-president, that slavery was the corner stone of the rebel

confederacy, serves to confirm our conclusion beyond possibility of

doubt. What these things prove is nothing more nor less than that the

Union with such an element in it to feed the ambition of politicians

with, as this slavery has shown itself to be, is henceforth impossible.

For we see now that for the sake of slavery the slaveholding leaders are

willing to destroy the Government. Who can complain if the basis of

their rebellious scheme is annihilated? The answer to those who say,

Touch tenderly the institutions of the South, is, Nay, but let them

first cease their rebellion. Therefore, so long as the rebellion lifts

its unblushing front against the Government, so long it is the duty of

every lover of the Government, in the language of the third resolution

of this platform, to 'uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by

which the Government, in its own defence, has aimed a death blow at this

gigantic evil.'

But that makes us, Abolitionists, says the reader. Be it so. Are we not

willing to be Abolitionists for the sake of saving the Constitution and

the Union? And if, despising our proffers of 'the Constitution as it

is,' which we have now held out to them for three years and a half, the

rebels continue to defy the authority of the Government, who can

complain if we proceed to adopt an amendment to the Constitution that

shall leave no possibility of slaveholding treason hereafter? Surely

none but themselves. Let them, then, come back and vote against it; for

three fourths of all the States must concur in such an amendment before

it can become part of the Constitution. Ah, the leaders of the Southern

rebellion know full well how the great masses at the South would vote on

such a measure! Let us be ready, then, acting not for ourselves alone,

but also for our deluded brethren of the South, who are to-day the

victims of a military usurpation the most monstrous the world ever saw,

to put the finishing stroke to the scheme of this Confederate rebellion

by adopting the proposed amendment.

The fifth resolution commits us to the approval of two measures that

have aroused the most various and strenuous opposition, the Proclamation

of Emancipation and the use of negro troops. In reference to the first,

it is to be remembered that it is a war measure. The express language of

it is: 'By virtue of the power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the

army and navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion

against the authority and Government of the United States, and as a _fit

and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion_.' Considered

thus, the Proclamation is not merely defensible, but it is more; it is a

proper and efficient means of weakening the rebellion which every person

desiring its speedy overthrow must zealously and perforce uphold.

Whether it is of any legal effect beyond the actual limits of our

military lines, is a question that need not agitate us. In due time the

supreme tribunal of the nation will be called to determine that, and to

its decision the country will yield with all respect and loyalty. But in

the mean time let the Proclamation go wherever the army goes, let it go

wherever the navy secures us a foothold on the outer border of the rebel

territory, and let it summon to our aid the negroes who are truer to the

Union than their disloyal masters; and when they have come to us and put

their lives in our keeping, let us protect and defend them with the

whole power of the nation. Is there anything unconstitutional in that?

Thank God, there is not. And he who is willing to give back to slavery a

single person who has heard the summons and come within our lines to

obtain his freedom, he who would give up a single man, woman, or child,

once thus actually freed, is not worthy the name of American. He may

call himself Confederate, if he will.

Let it be remembered, also, that the Proclamation has had a very

important bearing upon our foreign relations. It evoked in behalf of our

country that sympathy on the part of the people in Europe, whose is the

only sympathy we can ever expect in our struggle to perpetuate free

institutions. Possessing that sympathy, moreover, we have had an element

in our favor which has kept the rulers of Europe in wholesome dread of

interference. The Proclamation relieved us from the false position

before attributed to us of fighting simply for national power. It placed

us right in the eyes of the world, and transferred men's sympathies from

a confederacy fighting for independence as a means of establishing

slavery, to a nation whose institutions mean constitutional liberty,

and, when fairly wrought out, must end in universal freedom.

We are to consider, furthermore, that from the issuing of the

Proclamation dates the organization of negro troops--a measure that is

destined to affect materially the future composition, as it is

believed, of our regular army. This is 'the employment as Union soldiers

of men heretofore held in slavery,' which the fifth resolution asks us

to approve. Can we not approve it? The fighting qualities of the

despised 'niggers' (as South Carolina chivalry terms the gallant fellows

who followed Colonel Shaw to the deadly breach of Wagner, reckless of

all things save the stars and stripes they fought under) have been

tested on many battle fields. He whose heart does not respond in

sympathy with their heroism on those fields, while defending from

disgrace his country's flag, need not approve. The approval of the

country will be given, nevertheless. There can be nothing better said,

on this point than President Lincoln's own words, as reported lately by

Judge Mills, of Wisconsin, to whom the President uttered them in

conversation. They cover also the question of the Proclamation, and will

fitly conclude our discussion of these two important measures:

'Sir,' said the President, 'the slightest knowledge of arithmetic

will prove to any man that the rebel armies cannot be destroyed

with Democratic strategy. It would sacrifice all the white men of

the North to do it. There are now in the service of the United

States near two hundred thousand ablebodied colored men, most of

them under arms, defending and acquiring Union territory. The

Democratic strategy demands that these forces be disbanded, and

that the masters be conciliated by restoring them to slavery. The

black men who now assist Union prisoners to escape, they are to be

converted into our enemies in the vain hope of gaining the good

will of their masters. We shall have to fight two nations instead

of one.

'You cannot conciliate the South if you guarantee to them ultimate

success; and the experience of the present war proves their success

is inevitable if you fling the compulsory labor of millions of

black men into their side of the scale. Will you give our enemies

such military advantages as insure success, and then depend on

coaxing, flattery, and concession to get them back into the Union?

Abandon all the posts now garrisoned by black men, take two hundred

thousand men from our side and put them in the battle field or corn

field against us, and we would be compelled to abandon the war in

three weeks.

'We have to hold territory in inclement and sickly places; where

are the Democrats to do this? It was a free fight, and the field

was open to the war Democrats to put down this rebellion by

fighting against both master and slave, long before the present

policy was inaugurated.

'There have been men base enough to propose to me to return to

slavery the black warriors of Port Hudson and Olustee, and thus win

the respect of the masters they fought. Should I do so, I should

deserve to be damned in time and eternity. Come what will, I will

keep my faith with friend and foe. My enemies pretend I am now

carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition. So long as

I am President, it shall be carried on for the sole purpose of

restoring the Union. But no human power can subdue this rebellion

without the use of the emancipation policy, and every other policy

calculated to weaken the moral and physical forces of the

rebellion.

'Freedom has given us two hundred thousand men raised on Southern

soil. It will give us more yet. Just so much it has subtracted from

the enemy; and instead of alienating the South, there are now

evidences of a fraternal feeling growing up between our men and the

rank and file of the rebel soldiers. Let my enemies prove to the

country that the destruction of slavery is not necessary to a

restoration of the Union. I will abide the issue.'

Surely these are words of exceeding good sense. They are full of a

feeling of the speaker's responsibility to God and his country; and the

man who cares not for his responsibility to God, may well be distrusted

by his country. Is he who speaks these words of patriotism a tyrant and

usurper? Are not the words convincing proof that President Lincoln is

honest and faithful and capable? And if he thus meets those three

requirements of Jefferson's comprehensive formula, let us not refuse the

language of the platform: 'That we have full confidence in his

determination to carry these and all other constitutional measures

essential to the salvation of the country into full and complete

effect.'

The remaining six resolutions of this platform deserve the general

remark, that they declare with no uncertain sound the views of the

Baltimore Convention in reference to vital questions of public policy;

whereas, the Chicago Convention has not even alluded to those questions.

That in this hour of the country's crisis, in this life struggle of the

nation with foes both open and secret, there should be 'harmony in the

national councils;' that men once clothed in the uniform of United

States soldiers become entitled to 'the full protection of the laws of

war,' as forming part of the nation's defenders when those who ought to

be its defenders have joined in an unholy sedition to destroy its life;

that 'foreign immigration,' deserves especial encouragement at a time

when the demands of the army leave the places of home labor without

adequate means of refilling them; that a Pacific Railroad, uniting the

extreme Western portion of the Union with all the other sections, and

thus bringing within nearer reach of our California and Oregon

countrymen all the advantages and facilities of the Government, while at

the same time binding more closely the ties that make us one people with

the West equally with the South; and that the nation's faith with all

its creditors must be strictly kept, be the cost what it may; all these

are duties which the terrible emergency of the hour only makes more

imperative and exacting of fulfilment than ever before.

The eleventh and last resolution commits the country anew to the Monroe

Doctrine. In view of the great crime that is enacting in Mexico, where a

foreign power has assumed to change the Government of that afflicted

country at its own arbitrary will, the declaration that we have not

abandoned the doctrine is appropriate and necessary. It is a warning

that our eyes are not closed to the schemes on foot for the suppression

of republican government on this continent. While our present necessity

compels us, as of course, to act with great circumspection, yet it would

be unbecoming our dignity to quietly ignore the spoliation of Mexico. It

is often said that President Lincoln, in his letter accepting the

Baltimore nomination, has repudiated this resolution. These are his

words:

'While the resolution in regard to the supplanting of republican

government upon the Western Continent is fully concurred in, there

might be misunderstanding were I not to say that the position of

the Government in relation to the action of France in Mexico, as

assumed through the State Department, and indorsed by the

convention, among the measures and acts of the Executive, will be

faithfully maintained so long as the state of facts shall leave

that position pertinent and applicable.'

It is not fair to say that this is a repudiation of the resolution, or

of the Monroe Doctrine, until it is first shown that the Government

'through the State Department,' has already repudiated the doctrine. The

time for the enforcement of that doctrine has not yet come, and this

seems to be the position that has been assumed by the Government. It

certainly is the position of common sense and patriotism.

* * * * *

The candid reader has now before him a brief exposition of the two

platforms, and of the doctrines and bearing of each. It is believed that

nothing has been extenuated; nor, on the other hand, has aught been here

set down in malice. Let every one study the platforms and try

conclusions for himself; then say whether the foregoing discussion could

well have shaped itself differently. The sum of the whole matter seems

to be, War and Union, or Peace and Disunion. If we have Union, it can

only be now through war. We must 'seek peace with the sword.' The

rebels have appealed from the civil law to the military law, from the

Constitution to the sword; let us not shrink from the ordeal. No

revolution to perpetuate oppression can hope for the favor of a God of

justice.

There are two platforms in this Presidential campaign, representing the

two parties into which the voters will be divided. But there is a third

party, without platform and without vote, which has, nevertheless,

interests at stake transcending even ours. Let the calmly considered

words of an impartial English journal,[8] which wishes well to our

country, speak, in conclusion, on behalf of that third party:

'There are three parties to the American war. There are the slaves,

the bondsmen of the South, whose flight was restrained by the

Fugitive Bill, and whose wrongs have brought about the disruption;

there are the Confederates, who, when Southern supremacy in the

republic was menaced by the election of Abraham Lincoln, threw off

their allegiance; and there are the Government and its supporters,

who are striving to restore the integrity of the Union. These are

the three parties; and as the war has gone on from year to year,

the cause of the negro has brightened, and hundreds of thousands of

the African race have passed out of slavery into freedom. They

flock in multitudes within the Federal lines, and take their stand

under the Constitution as free men. Abandoned by their former

masters, or flying from their fetters, the chattels become

citizens, and rejoice. No matter what their misery, they keep their

faces to the North, and bear up under their privations. Every

advance of the national army liberates new throngs, and they rush

eagerly to the camps where their brethren are cared for. The

exodus, continually going on, increases in volume.

[Footnote 8: London Inquirer.]

'Such are the colored freedmen, the innocent victims of the war,

the slaves whom it has marvellously enfranchised; such are the

dusky clouds that flit o'er the continent of America and settle

down on strange lands--the harbingers of a social revolution in the

great republic of the West. More than fifty thousand are formed

into camps in the Mississippi Valley, and not fewer in Middle and

East Tennessee and North Alabama. It is a vast responsibility which

is cast upon the Government and the people of the North, a sore and

mighty burden; and proportionate are the efforts which have been

made to meet the trying emergency. The Government finds rations for

the negro camps, provides free carriage for the contributions of

the humane, appoints surgeons and superintendents, enlists in the

army the men who are suitable, and, as far as possible, gives

employment to all. Clothing and other necessaries are forwarded to

the camps by the ton by benevolent hands, and books for the schools

by tens of thousands. All along the banks of the Mississippi, from

Cairo to New Orleans, and in Arkansas and Tennessee, the aged and

infirm fugitives, the women and children, are collected into

colored colonies, and tended and taught with a care that is worthy

of a great and Christian people. All that can work are more than

willing to do so; they labor gladly; and among old and young there

is an eager desire for education. Books are coveted as badges of

freedom; and the negro soldier carries them with him wherever he

goes, and studies them whenever he can. It is a great work which is

in progress across the Atlantic. Providence, in a manner which man

foresaw not, is solving a dark problem of the past, and we may well

look on with awe and wonder. There were thousands of minds which

apprehended the downfall of the 'peculiar institution.' There were

a prophetic few, who clearly perceived that it would be purged away

by no milder scourge than that of war. But there were none who

dreamed that the slaveholder would be the Samson to bring down the

atrocious system of human slavery by madly taking arms in its

defence! Yet so it was; and the Divine penalty is before us. The

wrath of man has worked out the retributive justice of God. The

crime which a country would not put away from it has ended in war,

and slavery is a ruin.'

* * * * *

LITERARY NOTICES unavoidably postponed until the ensuing issue of THE

CONTINENTAL.