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.