their chieftains against the sectional party of 1856, as they had fought the abolitionists because of their disunionism; and finally their stand for true Nationalism in 1860; all this record made it certain that the Democracy of the North would not agree to separation would agree to anything that was honorable, but would not consent to separation. It can be recalled in this connection that no Democratic editor nor statesman advised the government to "let the wayward sisters go in peace." Not in a single instance did one of their statesmen urge opposition to the measures of the radicals except on the main ground that they were rendering the restoration of the Union more and more difficult. The most vigorous appeals made during any Congress on behalf of legislation that would quickly bring back the seceded States came from Democratic members. Not even Mr. Vallandigham, who was banished South for denouncing the policy of the administration in public speech, ever uttered a word which signified his willingness to any terms which included the success of secession. On being thrust by a military Union guard against and across the military secession line, he surrendered himself as a prisoner, announcing to his captors unmistakably his determination to stand by the Union. General McClellan also, as the nominee of the Democratic party in 1864, just as clearly and forcibly declared that the war should proceed even to subjugation, unless the Southern States consented to cease hostilities and return to the Union under the protection of well-understood constitutional provisions. Some Southern leaders deceived them selves with the hope of such sympathy from the Democratic statesmen who withstood the encroachments of the executive and Congress upon the plea of " military necessity, as would help the South finally to a recognition of its independence; but the most careful search does not betray the Northern Democracy in any counsel or co-operation with the South at any time, in any scheme
