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.