make false to the Nation's life.

There are those who are dissatisfied with me. To such I would say:
you desire Peace, and you blame me that we do not have it. But how
can we attain it? There are but three conceivable ways: First, to
suppress the Rebellion by force of Arms. This I am trying to do.
Are you for it? If you are, so far we are agreed. If you are not
for it, a second way is to give up the Union. I am against this.
Are you for it? If you are, you should say so plainly. If you are
not for Force, nor yet for Dissolution, there only remains some
imaginable Compromise.

I do not believe that any Compromise embracing the maintenance of
the Union is now possible. All that I learn leads to a directly
opposite belief. The strength of the Rebellion is its Military,
its Army. That Army dominates all the Country, and all the people,
within its range. Any offer of terms made by any man or men within
that range, in opposition to that Army, is simply nothing for the
present: because such man or men have no power whatever to enforce
their side of a Compromise, if one were made with them.

To illustrate: Suppose refugees from the South, and Peace men of
the North, get together in Convention, and frame and proclaim a
Compromise embracing a restoration of the Union. In what way can
that Compromise be used to keep Lee's Army out of Pennsylvania?
Meade's Army can keep Lee's Army out of Pennsylvania, and, I think,
can ultimately drive it out of existence. But no paper Compromise
to which the controllers of Lee's Army are not agreed, can at all
affect that Army. In an effort at such Compromise we would waste
time, which the Enemy would improve to our disadvantage; and that