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 rôle 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 Jéhovah 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.