was brought to bear upon the President to approve the joint resolution. He finally yielded on the day the count was to take place, February 8, but not in time formally to notify Congress that he had done so. The joint rule, which would have been unnecessary if he had signed the resolution promptly, and which was to make much mischief in after years, served the same purpose. It was as follows:

The two Houses shall assemble in the hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of one o'clock P. M., on the second Wednesday in February next succeeding the meeting of the electors of President and Vice-President of the United States, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. One teller shall be appointed on the part of the Senate, and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, the certificates of the electoral votes; and said tellers, having read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses then assembled, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been counted, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote and the names of the persons, if any, elected; which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected President and Vice-President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the journals of the two Houses.

If, upon the reading of any such certificate by the tellers, any question shall arise in regard to counting the votes therein certified, the same having been stated by the presiding officer, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and said question shall be submitted to that body for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit said question to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no question shall be decided affirmatively, and no vote objected to shall be counted, except by the concurrent votes of the two Houses, which being obtained, the two Houses shall immediately reassemble, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the question submitted, and upon any such question there shall be no debate in either House; and any other question pertinent to the object for which the two houses are assembled may be submitted and determined in like manner.

At such joint meeting of the two Houses, seats shall be provided as follows: for the President of the Senate, the Speaker's chair; for the Speaker, a chair immediately upon his left; for the senators, in the body of the hall, upon the right of the presiding officer; for the

representatives, in the body of the hall not occupied by the senators; for the tellers, Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the House

Representatives, at the Clerk's desk; for the other officers of the two Houses, in front of the Clerk's desk, and upon either side of the Speaker's platform.

Such joint meeting shall not be dissolved until the electoral votes are all counted and the result declared; and no recess shall be taken unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any of such votes, in which case it shall be competent for either House, acting separately, in the manner hereinbefore provided, to direct a recess, not beyond the next day at the hour of one o'clock P. M.

The power assumed by Congress in the adoption of this joint resolution has frequently been assailed as an invention of the Republican party, and as a power never before asserted. But by reference to the proceedings in Congress in the year 1800 (p. 64 et seq.), it will be seen that a bill making permanent provision for counting the electoral vote failed only because the Senate then insisted that either branch of Congress might reject a vote, while the House of Representatives maintained that it should be rejected only by a concurrent vote. The act of 1887, which is now in force, permits the rejection of the vote of a State by concurrent action of both branches.

On the 8th of February the joint meeting was held. The Vice-President, Mr. Hamlin, presided. The votes were opened by him and read by the tellers. When all the returns had been read, and the result was about to be declared, Senator Cowan of Pennsylvania inquired if there were any more returns to be counted, and if so, "why they are not submitted to this body in joint convention, which alone is capable of determining whether they should be counted or not." The Vice-President replied:

The chair has in his possession returns from the States of Louisiana and Tennessee, but, in obedience to the law of the land, the chair holds it to be his duty not to present them to the convention.

Senator Cowan thereupon asked if the joint resolution had become a law by the signature of the President, to which the Vice-President responded that it had been signed, but there had been no official notification of the act. A debate ensued upon the question whether the proceedings should have been had under the joint resolution or under the joint rule. The

Vice-President ultimately acted under the resolution, and did not present the doubtful votes. The election of Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, as President, and of Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, as Vice-President, for the term commencing March 4, 1865, was then proclaimed, and the joint convention was dissolved.

XXIII

GENERAL GRANT

EVENTS moved rapidly between the time of Mr. Lincoln's election and that of his entering upon his second term. The South was exhausted by the struggle, and its army was hemmed in on all sides. Although, in his second inaugural address, no prediction is ventured as to the issue of the war, it was believed that the civil war was virtually at an end, and already plans of "reconstruction" were much discussed. No one was in favor of restoring to power, or of leaving in power, those who had governed the States while they were in insurrection. Nevertheless there was room for a wide diversity of opinion as to the extent to which the disfranchisement of the former voters in those States should be carried. Mr. Lincoln's own views were much more liberal than those of most of the Northern statesmen. There was even some apprehension of a political conflict between him and Congress. Six weeks after the inauguration the President was assassinated, and Andrew Johnson became President. A man could not have been found less fitted than he to enter into the plans of those who, having determined the policy of the country during the war, were resolved that the fruits of the war should be secured. Compliance was not in his nature. He lacked that characteristic of greatness which enables strong popular leaders to persuade their followers to support measures which their judgment does not approve. Jackson dragged his party after him in his attack on the Bank, and ultimately inspired them with such zeal for the war that his conduct in that affair has been held up for popular applause for more than half a century after the conflict ended. Yet it was not praiseworthy in its motive, in its conduct, or in its results. Lincoln would probably have carried his liberal policy, in spite of Thaddeus Stevens, Senator Ben Wade, and all the radicals, because the people believed in Lincoln, in his motives, and in his wisdom. They saw, and history sees, in President Johnson much

obstinacy, little wisdom, and no tact. But a combination of circumstances alienated him, almost at the beginning of his administration, from those to whom he owed his election, and made him a more strenuous opponent of the conditions devised by their leaders for the readmission of the southern States than Mr. Lincoln could ever have been.

The four years of Mr. Johnson's administration were a period scarcely less agitated than the four years which preceded secession. Civil war between the two sections, North and South, was succeeded by war, bloodless but severe, between the executive and legislative departments of the government. Mr. Johnson's training had been that of a southern state-rights Democrat; and although his patriotism was strong enough to keep him loyal when Tennessee voted herself out of the Union, no sooner was the military conquest of the Southern Confederacy accomplished than his former principles reasserted themselves. The more radical Republicans of the North, remembering the experience of the Whigs with Mr. Tyler, were only too ready to see evidence that he was to betray the party in all that Mr. Johnson did. They began to suspect him and to criticise him unpleasantly upon the appearance of his first proclamations. They feared the worst when he made. known his selection of provisional governors of the seceded States. Little by little his adherence to his lifelong political principles, and the unnecessarily persistent and violent opposition of the radical Republicans, widened the breach; and at last he found himself in full sympathy with the Democratic party.

The chief cause of the difference between President and Congress was the extra-constitutional position in which the seceded States were left when armed hostility to the Union was extinguished. War had been waged against them, or rather against their inhabitants, upon the theory that a State had no right to secede. The logical sequence of this proposition was that, since no State had seceded, the "States lately in rebellion," as the phrase ran, were still members of the Union; and that their laws and acts, so far as they were not contrary to the Constitution of the United States, were in full force. Under this view of the case the white men of the South, and they alone, would be entitled to reëstablish relations with the other States, to send senators and members to Congress, and, in short, to resume the position which they had