leaders in the minority, good at pulling down, but not so good at leading majorities and building up." For himself, he said, he did not desire to put himself on the record "in favor of admitting States which have no loyal populations at their back." Mr. Davis of Maryland followed in a similar strain, in de fence of the new action of the committee. With no little severity and sarcasm, he spoke of those who had voted for the bill at the previous session, but who had subsequently discov ered that it "essentially violates the principles of republican government.' Inquiring for the cause of this marked and marvellous change, he found it in "the will of the President," who had failed to sign the bill, but who proposed, without authority, to execute parts of it, thus affording an argument fitted to affect "some minds prone to act upon the winking of authority." He spoke of "the species of argument which he could not fully estimate, but which he described as "that subtle, pervading epidemic of the time that penetrates the closest argument as spirit penetrates matter, that diffuses itself with the atmosphere of authority, relaxing the energy of the strong, bending down the upright, and diverting just men from the path of rectitude." Affirming that he would not, in place of the great principle of popular governments that the majority must rule, "substitute one tenth or any other frac tional minority," and thus go to dark ages for "models," revive "in the only free republic that the world knows" examples of the most odious governments, and create “a corrupt and cowardly oligarchy to govern the freemen of the United States," he said: "If the majority of the people will not recognize the authority of the Constitution, would govern them a thousand years by the authority of the Constitution they have defied," and by their own laws, with agents appointed by the President; "and if they do not like to be governed in that way, let us trust that the prodigal will come one day to his senses, and, humbly kneeling before the Constitution that he has vainly defied, swear before Almighty God that he will again be true to it. That is my remedy for the grievance. That is what we propose." .... I Among the various amendments were one by Mr. Kelley to strike out the word "white," and one by Mr. Holman to strike out the enacting clause. The question coming up on the latter amendment, Mr. Mallory of Kentucky moved that the whole subject be laid upon the table; and it was carried by a vote of ninety-one to sixty-four. On the 4th of February J. F. Wilson of Iowa introduced into the House a bill "to establish the supremacy of the Constitution in the States lately in insurrection." It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It was reported from that committee with a substitute, that no State which had been declared in insurrection should be entitled to send members to Congress until the President shall have declared that such insurrection had ceased; until such State shall have adopted a constitution not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States; and until Congress shall have declared it entitled to representation. It provoked a short and sharp debate, in which the Democrats occupied most of the time, with arguments substantially like those employed in the previous discussion, represented by Mallory of Kentucky, Cox of Ohio, and Wood of New York. They contended that the States had never been out of the Union, all acts of secession being unconstitutional and, of consequence, void; that, therefore, no action was necessary; and that all that was needful was for such States to choose and send to Congress such members, according to the forms and precedents in force before the Rebellion. They contended, too, that the bill placed unwarranted power in the hands of the President, power that belonged alone and exclusively to Congress. It was said in reply, mainly by Mr. Wilson, that while the laws of the Union were in force in those States, "the people there have destroyed the machinery of their local government, and we must interfere to re-establish that which they have destroyed, and reassert the authority of the nation, and make it effectual for the public good and the general welfare." During the pendency of the substitute offered by the committee, Mr. Ashley moved to amend by substituting his bill which had just been laid upon the table, modified by inserting the word "white" before the words "male citizens." Mr. Kelley of Pennsylvania moved to amend by striking out the word "white"; but, on the motion of Jacob B. Blair of West Virginia, the whole subject was laid upon the table by a vote of eighty to sixty-five. This failure to agree upon any measure, the long debates which had ended so fruitlessly, not only revealed to all the gravity of the attempt, and the serious difficulties in the way, but it excited in some minds the suspicion, which subsequent events have done little to remove, that those difficulties are intrinsic and too great to be overcome; that the conditions of any satisfactory success are wanting, and that from such materials as slavery and treason, rebellion and war, have produced, it is impossible to construct and maintain free institutions. If, as has been asserted, it is "men, high-minded men," that can alone "constitute a state"; if, as Washington declared, and has left on record in his Farewell Address," religion and morality are indispensable supports of political prosperity"; if "virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government," there are those accepting these postulates who find it impossible to be very sanguine about making free and selfsustaining commonwealths of the States lately in rebellion. CHAPTER XXXIX. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1864. Persistent adhesion of Northern Democrats to the South. - Republican weariness of the war, criticisms, and divisions. Serious opposition to the President. —-Fomented by Rebel emissaries. — Union successes and growing confidence. General Grant. - Cleveland convention. - President severely condemned. Wendell Phillips's letter and speech. Garrison's reply. Republican convention. Robert J. Breckinridge's speech. -Resolutions. - Unanimous nomination of Mr. Lincoln. - Andrew Johnson. - Letter of acceptance. - Northern conspiracy. Judge Holt's report. O. A. K. Its annual meeting simultaneous with the Democratic convention. Large numbers implicated, and its wide extent. - Voorhees. — Democratic complicity. — Diabolical oaths and purposes. Slavery the source. - Rebel emissaries and plans. - Burning - Attempted rising in the Proposed release of Rebel prisoners. South. - Rebel clerk's diary. — R. J. Mr. Greeley. President's letter. Northern cities. Language of Southern papers. — Vallandigham's representations at the Sanders. Meeting at Niagara Falls. Failure. Rebel trick. - Pressure on the party. - Visit of Jaques and Gilmore to Richmond. - Davis's defiant response. - Favorably affects the Union cause. Democratic convention. - Proposed release of prisoners. - Seymour presides. Vallandigham the ruling spirit. Resolutions. The war a "failure," and its cessation demanded. - McClellan and Pendleton nominated. The country startled. — Seward's speech. - Fremont's withdrawal. — Sumner's speech. - Gratulations of the Southern press. Vigorous canvass. — Results. - AMONG the strangest marvels of American political history has been the persistency with which the Northern Democracy has adhered to the fortunes of the slavemasters of the South despite the many provocations to a contrary course. Though despised, spoken of in the most disparaging terms, and treated as if they, no more than their slaves, had rights these masters were bound to respect, Northern Democrats had always, with spaniel-like fidelity, done little more than register their edicts and vote for the men and measures they either indicated or approved. But, as if there were not humiliation enough in the rôle they had hitherto played in the drama of American politics, by which a party, claiming to be par excellence the party of the people, had thus obsequiously served these "lords of the lash," there was in reserve one more abject, "And in the lowest deep a lower deep" was found. That humiliation was to vote at the dictation and in the interests of a party engaged in a bloody war with the government and, with parricidal intent, seeking the nation's life. Though smarting under the defeat of 1860, brought about through the desperate strategy of these very masters, by which, though with a majority of a million, the party was selfdefeated, a felo de se unparalleled in the history of parties, - these Northern Democrats were called upon again to perform a like ignoble part. Nor was the call in vain, as was soon made apparent in the presidential canvass of 1861. Indeed, so complete had become the surrender that the gov ernment soon had convincing evidence that it had substantially the same foe in the rear as at the front, that the political and military campaigns of that year were only different parts of the same conflict, and that the enemy had his detachments in the loyal as well as in the disloyal States. Even in the ranks of the Republican party there were those who, by their captious criticisms and by fomenting divisions, were unwittingly lending aid and comfort to a common foe. In truth, the war was prosecuted as really and as vigorously at the North as at the South. There were secret and affiliated associations formed in the interests of the Rebel cause. A deep-laid conspiracy was concocted for the release of Rebel prisoners, and days were fixed for a general uprising, though they were happily averted by the wise and prompt measures of officers in command. The Democratic party, with few exceptions, was avowedly opposed to the continuance of the war, and clamored for peace at any price. Aggravating this state of affairs, there were large numbers in the Republican party who had become fearfully weary of the war and of its frightful cost of blood and treasure. Repeated drafts and the growing difficulty and cost |