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.]