CHAPTER XXVI.

"THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT" DEFEATED IN THE HOUSE.

The debate in the House of Representatives, upon the Thirteenth

Amendment to the Constitution--interrupted by the treasonable episode

referred to in the last Chapter--was subsequently resumed.

Meanwhile, however, Fort Pillow had been stormed, and its garrison of

Whites and Blacks, massacred.

And now commenced the beginning of the end-so far as the Military aspect

of the Rebellion was concerned. Early in May, Sherman's Atlanta

Campaign commenced, and, simultaneously, General Grant began his

movement toward Richmond. In quick succession came the news of the

bloody battles of the Wilderness, and those around Spottsylvania, Va.;

at Buzzard Roost Gap, Snake Creek Gap, and Dalton, Ga.; Drury's Bluff,

Va.; Resaca, Ga.; the battles of the North Anna, Va.; those around

Dallas, and New Hope church, Ga; the crossing of Grant's forces to the

South side of the James and the assault on Petersburg. While the Union

Armies were thus valiantly attacking and beating those of the Rebels, on

many a sanguinary field the loyal men of the North, both in and out of

Congress, pressed for favorable action upon the Thirteenth Amendment.

"Friends of the wounded in Fredericksburg from the Battle of the

Wilderness"--exclaimed Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune, of May

31st,--"friends and relatives of the soldiers of Grant's Army beyond the

Wilderness, let us all join hands and swear upon our Country's altar

that we will never cease this War until African Slavery in the United

States is dead forever, and forever buried!"

Peace Democrats, however, were deaf to all such entreaties. On the very

same day, Mr. Holman, in the House, objected even to the second reading

of the Joint Resolution Amendatory of the Constitution, and there were

so many "Peace Democrats" to back him, that the vote was: 55 yeas to 76

nays, on the question "shall the Joint Resolution be rejected!"

The old cry, that had been repeated by Hendricks and others, in the

Senate and House, time and again, was still used--threadbare though it

was--"this is not the right time for it!" On this very day, for

instance, Mr. Herrick said: "I ask if this is the proper time for our

People to consider so grave a measure as the Amendment of the

Constitution in so vital a point? * * * this is no fitting time for

such work."

Very different was the attitude of Kellogg, of New York, and well did he

show up the depths to which the Democracy--the Peace Democracy--had now

fallen. "We are told," said he, "of a War Democracy, and such there

are--their name is legion--good men and true; they are found in the

Union ranks bearing arms in support of the Government and the

Administration that wields it. At the ballot-box, whether at home or in

the camp, they are Union men, and vote as they fight, and hold little in

common with the political leaders of the Democratic Party in or out of

this Hall--the Seymours, the Woods, the Vallandighams, the Woodwards,

and their indorsers, who hold and control the Democratic Party here, and

taint it with Treason, till it is a stench in the nostrils of all

patriotic men."

After referring to the fact that the leaders of the Rebellion had from

the start relied confidently upon assistance from the Northern

Democracy, he proceeded:

"The Peace Democracy, and mere Party-hacks in the North, are fulfilling

their masters' expectations industriously, unceasingly, and as far as in

them lies. Not even the shouts for victory, in these Halls, can divert

their Southern allies here. A sullen gloom at the defeat and

discomfiture of their Southern brethren settles down on their disastrous

countenances, from which no ray of joy can be reflected. * * * They

even vote solid against a law to punish guerrillas.

"Sir," continued he, "in my judgment, many of those who withhold from

their Country the support they would otherwise give, find allegiance to

Party too strong for their patriotism. * * * Rejecting the example and

counsels of Stanton and Dickinson and Butler and Douglas and Dix and

Holt and Andrew Johnson and Logan and Rosecrans and Grant and a host of

others, all Democrats of the straightest sect, to forget all other ties,

and cleave only to their Country for their Country's sake, and rejecting

the overtures and example of the Republican Party to drop and forget

their Party name, that all might unite and band together for their

Country's salvation as Union men, they turn a deaf ear and cold

shoulder, and sullenly pass by on the other side, thanking God they are

not as other men are, and lend, if at all, a calculating, qualified, and

conditional and halting support, under protest, to their Country's

cause; thus justifying the only hope of the Rebellion to-day, that Party

spirit at the North will distract its counsels, divide and discourage

and palsy its efforts, and ultimately make way for the Traitor and the

parricide to do their worst."

Besides the set speeches made against the proposed

Constitutional amendment in the House, Peace-Democrats of the Senate

continued to keep up a running fire at it in that Chamber, on every

possible occasion. Garrett Davis was especially garrulous on the

subject, and also launched the thunders of his wrath at the President

quite frequently and even vindictively. For instance, speaking in the

Senate--[May 31,1864,]--of the right of Property in Slaves; said he:

"This new-born heresy 'Military Necessity,' as President Lincoln claims,

and exercises it, is the sum of all political and Military villainies

* * * and it is no less absurd than it is villainous. * * * The man

has never spoken or lived who can prove by any provision of the

Constitution, or by any principle, or by any argument to be deduced

logically and fairly from it, that he has any such power as this vast,

gigantic, all-conquering and all-crushing power of Military Necessity

which he has the audacity to claim.

"This modern Emperor, this Tiberius, a sort of a Tiberius, and his

Sejanus, a sort of a Sejanus, the head of the War Department, are

organizing daily their Military Courts to try civilians. * * *

"Sir, I want one labor of love before I die. I want the President of

the United States, I want his Secretary of War, I want some of his high

officers in Military command to bring a civilian to a Military

execution, and me to have the proud privilege of prosecuting them for

murder. * * * I want the law and its just retribution to be visited

upon these great delinquents.

"I would sooner, if I had the power, bring about such an atonement as

that, than I would even put down the Rebellion. It would be a greater

victory in favor of Freedom and Constitutional Liberty, a thousand-fold,

of all the People of America besides, than the subjugation of the Rebel

States could possibly be."

But there seemed to be no end to the' attacks upon the Administration,

made, in both Houses, by these peculiar Peace-Democrats. Union blood

might flow in torrents on the fields of the rebellious South, atrocities

innumerable might be committed by the Rebels, cold-blooded massacres of

Blacks and Whites, as at Fort Pillow, might occur without rebuke from

them; but let the Administration even dare to sneeze, and--woe to the

Administration.

It was not the Thirteenth Amendment only, that they assailed, but

everything else which the Administration thought might help it in its

effort to put down the Rebellion. Nor was it so much their malignant

activity in opposition to any one measure intended to strengthen the

hands of the Union, but to all such measures; and superadded to this was

the incessant bringing forward, in both Houses of Congress, by these

restless Rebel-sympathizers, of Peace-Resolutions, the mere presentation

of which would be, and were, construed by the Rebel authorities at

Richmond, as evidences of a weakening.

Even some of the best of the Peace-Democrats, like S. S. Cox, for

instance, not only assailed the Tariff--under which the Union Republican

Party sought to protect and build up American Industry, as well as to

raise as much revenue as possible to help meet the enormous current

expenditures of the Government--but also denounced our great paper-money

system, which alone enabled us to secure means to meet all deficiencies

in the revenues otherwise obtained, and thus to ultimately conquer the

hosts of Rebellion.

He declared (June 2, 1864) that "The People are the victims of the

joint-robbery of a system of bounties under the guise of duties, and of

an inconvertible and depreciated paper currency under the guise of

money," and added: "No man is now so wise and gifted that he can save

this Nation from bankruptcy. * * * No borrowing system can save us.

The scheme of making greenbacks a legal tender, which enabled the debtor

to cheat his creditor, thereby playing the old game of kingcraft, to

debase the currency in order to aid the designs of despotism, may float

us for a while amidst the fluctuations and bubbles of the day; but as no

one possesses the power to repeal the Law of the Almighty, which decrees

(and as our Constitution has established) that gold and silver shall be

the standard of value in the World, so they will ever thus remain,

notwithstanding the legislation of Congress."

Not satisfied with this sort of "fire in the rear," it was attempted by

means of Democratic Free-Trade and antipaper-currency sophistries, to

arouse jealousies, heart-burnings and resentful feelings in the breasts

of those living in different parts of the Union--to implant bitter

Sectional antagonisms and implacable resentments between the Eastern

States, on the one hand, and the Western States, on the other--and thus,

by dividing, to weaken the Loyal Union States.

That this was the cold-blooded purpose of all who pursued this course,

would no doubt be warmly denied by some of them; but the fact remains no

less clear, that the effect of that course, whether so intended or not,

was to give aid and comfort to the Enemy at that critical time when the

Nation most needed all the men, money, and moral as well as material

support, it was possible to get, to put an end to the bloody Rebellion,

now--under the continuous poundings of Grant's Army upon that of Lee in

Virginia, and the advance of Sherman's Army upon that of Johnston in

Georgia--tottering to its overthrow. Thus this same speaker (S. S. Cox),

in his untimely speech, undertook to divide the Union-loving States

"into two great classes: the Protected States and the Unprotected

States;" and--having declared that "The Manufacturing States, mainly the

New England States and Pennsylvania, are the Protected States," and "The

Agricultural States," mainly the eleven Western States, which he named,

"are the Unprotected States"--proceeded to intemperately and violently

arraign New England, and especially Massachusetts, in the same way that

had years before been adopted by the old Conspirators of the South when

they sought--alas, too successfully!--to inflame the minds of Southern

citizens to a condition of unreasoning frenzy which made attempted

Nullification and subsequent armed Rebellion and Secession possible.

Well might the thoroughly loyal Grinnell, of Iowa--after exposing what

he termed the "sophistry of figures" by which Mr. Cox had seen fit "to

misrepresent and traduce" the Western States-exclaim: "Sir, I have no

words which I can use to execrate sufficiently such language, in

arraying the Sections in opposition during a time of War; as if we were

not one People, descended from one stock, having one interest, and bound

up in one destiny!"

The damage that might have been done to the Union Cause by such

malignant Democratic attacks upon the National unity and strength, may

be imagined when we reflect that at this very time the annual expenses

of our Government were over $600,000,000, and growing still larger; and

that $1.90 in legal tender notes of the United States was worth but

$1.00 in gold, with a downward tendency. Said stern old Thaddeus

Stevens, alluding on this occasion, to Statesmanship of the peculiar

stamp of the Coxes and Fernando Woods: "He who in this time will pursue

such a course of argument for the mere sake of party, can never hope to

be ranked among Statesmen; nay, Sir, he will not even rise to the

dignity of a respectable Demagogue!"

Within a week after this, (June 9, 1864), we find in the Senate also,

similarly insidious attacks upon the strength of the Government, made by

certain Northern Democrats, who never tired of undermining Loyalty, and

creating and spreading discontent among the People. The Bill then up,

for consideration, was one "to prohibit the discharge of persons from

liability to Military duty, by reason of the payment of money."

In the terribly bloody Campaign that had now been entered upon by Grant

--in the West, under Sherman, and in the East, under his own personal

eye--it was essential to send to the front, every man possible. Hence

the necessity for a Bill of this sort, which moreover provided, in order

as far as possible to popularize conscription, that all calls for drafts

theretofore made under the Enrolling Act of March 3, 1863, should be for

not over one year's service, etc.

This furnished the occasion for Mr. Hendricks, among other Peace

Democrats, to make opposing speeches. He, it seems, had all along been

opposed to drafting Union soldiers; and because, during the previous

Winter, the Senate had been unwilling to abolish the clause permitting a

drafted man to pay a commutation of $300 (with which money a substitute

could be procured) instead of himself going, at a time when men were not

quite so badly needed as now, therefore Mr. Hendricks pretended to think

it very strange and unjustifiable that now, when everything depended on

getting every possible man in the field, the Senate should think of

"abandoning that which it thought right last Winter!"

He opposed drafting; but if drafting must be resorted to, then he

thought that what he termed "the Horror of the Draft" should be felt by

as many of the Union people as possible!--or, in his own words: "the

Horror of the Draft ought to be divided among the People." As if this

were not sufficient to conjure dreadful imaginings, he added: "if one

set of men are drafted this year to serve twelve months, and they have

to go because the power of the Government makes them go, whether they

can go well or not, then at the end of the year their neighbors should

be subjected to the same Horror, and let this dreadful demand upon the

service, upon the blood, and upon the life of the People be distributed

upon all."

And, in order apparently to still further intensify public feeling

against all drafting, and sow the seeds of dissatisfaction in the hearts

of those drafted at this critical time, when the fate of the Union and

of Republican Government palpably depended upon conscription, he added:

"It is not so right to say to twenty men in a neighborhood: 'You shall

go; you shall leave your families whether you can or not; you shall go

without the privilege of commutation whether you leave starving wives

and children behind you or not,' and then say to every other man of the

neighborhood: 'Because we have taken these twenty men for three years,

you shall remain with your wives and children safely and comfortably at

home for these three years.' I like this feature of the amendment,

because it distributes the Horror of the Draft more equally and justly

over the whole People."

Not satisfied with rolling the "Horror of the Draft" so often and

trippingly over his tongue, he also essayed the role of Prophet in the

interest of the tottering god of Slavery. "The People," said he,

"expect great results from this Campaign; and when another year comes

rolling around, and it is found that this War is not closed, and that

there is no reasonable probability of its early close, my colleague

(Lane) and other Senators who agree with him will find that the People

will say that this effusion of blood must stop; that THERE MUST BE SOME

ADJUSTMENT. I PROPHESY THIS."

And, as a further declaration likely to give aid and comfort to the

Rebel leaders, he said: "I do not believe many men are going to be

obtained by a draft; I do not believe a very good Army will be got by a

draft; I do not believe an Army will be put in the field, by a draft,

that will whip General Lee."

But while all such statements were, no doubt, intended to help the foes

of the Union, and dishearten or dismay its friends, the really loyal

People, understanding their fell object, paid little heed to them. The

predictions of these Prophets of evil fell flat upon the ears of lovers

of their Country. Conspirators, however much they might masquerade in

the raiment of Loyalty, could not wholly conceal the ear-marks of

Treason. The hand might be the hand of Esau, but the voice was the

voice of Jacob.

On the 8th of June--after a month of terrific and bloody fighting

between the immediate forces of Grant and Lee--a dispatch from Sherman,

just received at Washington, was read to the House of Representatives,

which said: "The Enemy is not in our immediate front, but his signals

are seen at Lost Mountain, and Kenesaw." So, at the same time, at the

National Capital, while the friends of the Union there, were not

immediately confronted with an armed Enemy, yet the signals of his

Allies could be seen, and their fire upon our rear could be heard, daily

and almost hourly, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The fight in the House, upon the Thirteenth Amendment, now seemed

indeed, to be reaching a climax. During the whole of June 14th, until

midnight, speech after speech on the subject, followed each other in

rapid succession. Among the opposition speeches, perhaps those of

Fernando Wood and Holman were most notable for extravagant and

unreasoning denunciation of the Administration and Party in power--whose

every effort was put forth, and strained at this very time to the

utmost, to save the Union.

Holman, for instance, declared that, "Of all the measures of this

disastrous Administration, each in its turn producing new calamities,

this attempt to tamper with the Constitution threatens the most

permanent injury." He enumerated the chief measures of the

Administration during its three and a half years of power-among them the

Emancipation Proclamation, the arming of the Blacks, and what he

sneeringly termed "their pet system of finance" which was to "sustain

the public credit for infinite years," but which "even now," said he,

"totters to its fall!" And then, having succeeded in convincing himself

of Republican failure, he exultingly exclaimed: "But why enumerate?

What measure of this Administration has failed to be fatal! Every step

in your progress has been a mistake. I use the mildest terms of

censure!"

Fernando Wood, in his turn also, "mildly" remarked upon Republican

policy as "the bloody and brutal policy of the Administration Party."

He considered this "the crisis of the fate of the Union;" declared that

Slavery was "the best possible condition to insure the happiness of the

Negro race"--a position which, on the following day, he "reaffirmed"

--and characterized those members of the Democratic Party who saw Treason

in the ways and methods and expressions of Peace Democrats of his own

stamp, as a "pack of political jackals known as War Democrats."

On the 15th of June, Farnsworth made a reply to Ross--who had claimed to

be friendly to the Union soldier--in which the former handled the

Democratic Party without gloves. "What," said he, referring to Mr.

Ross, "has been the course of that gentleman and his Party on this floor

in regard to voting supplies to the Army? What has been their course in

regard to raising money to pay the Army? His vote will be found

recorded in almost every instance against the Appropriation Bills,

against ways and means for raising money to pay the Army. It is only a

week ago last Monday, that a Bill was introduced here to punish

guerrillas * * * and how did my colleague vote? Against the Bill.* * *

On the subject of arming Slaves, of putting Negroes into the Army, how

has my colleague and his Party voted? Universally against it. They

would strip from the backs of these Black soldiers, now in the service

of the Country, their uniforms, and would send them back to Slavery with

chains and manacles. And yet they are the friends of the soldier!"* * *

"On the vote to repeal the Fugitive Slave Law, how did that (Democratic)

side of the House vote? Does not the Fugitive Slave Law affect the

Black soldier in the Army who was a Slave? That side of the House are

in favor of continuing the Fugitive Slave Law, and of disbanding Colored

troops. How did that side of the House vote on the question of arming

Slaves and paying them as soldiers? They voted against it. They are in

favor of disbanding the Colored regiments, and, armed with the Fugitive

Slave Law, sending them back to their masters!"

He took occasion also to meet various Democratic arguments against the

Resolution,--among them, one, hinging on the alleged right of Property

in Slaves. This was a favorite idea with the Border-State men

especially, that Slaves were Property--mere chattels as it were,--and,

only the day before, a Northern man, Coffroth of Pennsylvania, had said:

"Sir, we should pause before proceeding any further in this

Unconstitutional and censurable legislation. The mere abolition of

Slavery is not my cause of complaint. I care not whether Slavery is

retained or abolished by the people of the States in which it exists

--the only rightful authority. The question to me is, has Congress a

right to take from the people of the South their Property; or, in other

words, having no pecuniary interest therein, are we justified in freeing

the Slave-property of others? Can we Abolish Slavery in the Loyal State

of Kentucky against her will? If this Resolution should pass, and be

ratified by three-fourths of the States--States already Free--and

Kentucky refuses to ratify it, upon what principle of right or law would

we be justified in taking this Slave-property of the people of Kentucky?

Would it be less than stealing?"

And Farnsworth met this idea--which had also been advanced by Messrs.

Ross, Fernando Wood, and Pruyn--by saying: "What constitutes property?

I know it is said by some gentlemen on the other side, that what the

statute makes property, is property. I deny it. What 'vested right'

has any man or State in Property in Man? We of the North hold property,

not by virtue of statute law, not by virtue of enactments. Our property

consists in lands, in chattels, in things. Our property was made

property by Jehovah when He gave Man dominion over it. But nowhere did

He give dominion of Man over Man. Our title extends back to the

foundation of the World. That constitutes property. There is where we

get our title. There is where we get our 'vested rights' to property."

Touching the ethics of Slavery, Mr. Arnold's speech on the same occasion

was also able, and in parts eloquent, as where he said: 'Slavery is

to-day an open enemy striking at the heart of the Republic. It is the

soul and body, the spirit and motive of the Rebellion. It is Slavery

which marshals yonder Rebel hosts, which confront the patriot Armies

of Grant and Sherman. It is the savage spirit of this barbarous

Institution which starves the Union prisoners at Richmond, which

assassinates them at Fort Pillow, which murders the wounded on the field

of battle, and which fills up the catalogue of wrong and outrage which

mark the conduct of the Rebels during all this War.

"In view of all the long catalogue of wrongs which Slavery has inflicted

upon the Country, I demand to-day, of the Congress of the United States,

the death of African Slavery. We can have no permanent Peace, while

Slavery lives. It now reels and staggers toward its last death-struggle.

Let us strike the monster this last decisive blow."

And, after appealing to both Border-State men, and Democrats of the Free

States, not to stay the passage of this Resolution which "will strike

the Rebellion at the heart," he continued: "Gentlemen may flatter

themselves with a restoration of the Slave-power in this Country. 'The

Union as it was!' It is a dream, never again to be realized. The

America of the past, has gone forever. A new Nation is to be born from

the agony through which the People are now passing. This new Nation is

to be wholly Free. Liberty, Equality before the Law, is to be the great

Corner-stone."

So, too, Mr. Ingersoll eloquently said--among many other good things:

--"It is well to eradicate an evil. That Slavery is an evil, no sane,

honest man will deny. It has been the great curse of this Country from

its infancy to the present hour, And now that the States in Rebellion

have given the Loyal States the opportunity to take off that curse, to

wipe away the foul stain, I say let it be done. We owe it to ourselves;

we owe it to posterity; we owe it to the Slaves themselves to

exterminate Slavery forever by the adoption of the proposed Amendment to

the Constitution. * * * I believe Slavery is the mother of this

Rebellion, that this Rebellion can be attributed to no other cause but

Slavery; from that it derived its life, and gathers its strength to-day.

Destroy the mother, and the child dies. Destroy the cause, and the

effect will disappear.

"Slavery has ever been the enemy of liberal principles. It has ever

been the friend of ignorance, prejudice, and all the unlawful, savage,

and detestable passions which proceed therefrom. It has ever been

domineering, arrogant, exacting, and overbearing. It has claimed to be

a polished aristocrat, when in reality it has only been a coarse,

swaggering, and brutal boor. It has ever claimed to be a gentleman,

when in reality it has ever been a villain. I think it is high time to

clip its overgrown pretensions, strip it of its mask, and expose it, in

all its hideous deformity, to the detestation of all honest and

patriotic men."

After Mr. Samuel J. Randall had, at a somewhat later hour, pathetically

and poetically invoked the House, in its collective unity, as a

"Woodman," to "spare that tree" of the Constitution, and to "touch not a

single bough," because, among other reasons, "in youth it sheltered"

him; and furthermore, because "the time" was "most inopportune;" and,

after Mr. Rollins, of Missouri, had made a speech, which he afterward

suppressed; Mr. Pendleton closed the debate in an able effort, from his

point of view, in which he objected to the passage of the Joint

Resolution because "the time is not auspicious;" because, said he, "it

is impossible that the Amendment proposed, should be ratified without a

fraudulent use of the power to admit new States, or a fraudulent use of

the Military power of the Federal Government in the Seceded States,"

--and, said he, "if you should attempt to amend the Constitution by such

means, what binding obligation would it have?"

He objected, also, because "the States cannot, under the pretense of

amending the Constitution, subvert the structure, spirit, and theory of

this Government." "But," said he, "if this Amendment were within the

Constitutional power of amendment; if this were a proper time to

consider it; if three-fourths of the States were willing to ratify it;

and if it did not require the fraudulent use of power, either in this

House or in the Executive Department, to secure its adoption, I would

still resist the passage of this Resolution. It is another step toward

consolidation, and consolidation is Despotism; confederation is

Liberty."

It was about 4 o'clock in the afternoon of June 15th, that the House

came to a vote, on the passage of the Joint Resolution. At first the

strain of anxiety on both sides was great, but, as the roll proceeded,

it soon became evident that the Resolution was doomed to defeat. And so

it transpired. The vote stood 93 yeas, to 65 nays--Mr. Ashley having

changed his vote, from the affirmative to the negative, for the purpose

of submitting, at the proper time, a motion to reconsider.

That same evening, Mr. Ashley made the motion to reconsider the vote by

which the proposed Constitutional Amendment was rejected; and the motion

was duly entered in the Journal, despite the persistent efforts of

Messrs. Cox, Holman, and others, to prevent it.

On the 28th of June, just prior to the Congressional Recess, Mr. Ashley

announced that he had been disappointed in the hope of securing enough

votes from the Democratic side of the House to carry the Amendment.

"Those," said he, "who ought to have been the champions of this great

proposition are unfortunately its strongest opponents. They have

permitted the golden opportunity to pass. The record is made up, and we

must go to the Country on this issue thus presented." And then he gave

notice that he would call the matter up, at the earliest possible moment

after the opening of the December Session of Congress.

The Great Conspiracy, Complete · 第 27 / 34 章