This extreme ground called out a number of long and sometimes tedious arguments from young Republicans who were making their first stand for a reputation, but the tediousness of the debate was relieved by the diversions of S. S. Cox, of Ohio. Mr. Cox was really a fine Constitutional lawyer, but he often chose to take the role of the gad-fly, and he had a particular fancy for stinging men who assumed leadership. One of his first utterances on this question was: "The party to which I belong loves the Union as dearly as the South loves slavery. If they can let slavery go for independence, the Democracy can let it go for the sake of the Union." Mr. Cox's logical action after such an utterance would have been to vote for the Amendment, though he did not. His adroit way of stating the case at issue, and at the same time of enlivening the debate, and of stirring up his opponents was illustrated by this passage in one of his speeches: "It was with some amusement that I listened to my two colleagues (Messrs. Pendleton and Ashley) yesterday. How adroitly the Democratic member sought to catch the Republican. How he plied him to admit the power to establish slavery! How shrewdly my colleague on the other side evaded! On the other hand, members on the other side sought to entangle my colleague (Mr. Pendleton) with some of his former votes! How both evaded the issues presented in their former positions! While the humbler member, who now addresses you, sat complacently consistent amid the melodramatic performance, ready to admit the power to change the fundamental law is unlimited, under the guards and modes prescribed, even to the estab lishment of slavery or a monarchy, of entire freedom or entire democracy. Both of my friends deny this as extreme and heterodox; the one because he would have nothing but limited republicanism as the form of Government-that is my Democratic colleague; the other because he would have nothing but sweeping democracy as the basis of our Constitution-that is my Republican colleague, who is so democratic. The wishes of each color their present arguments as to the power. When slavery is to be guaranteed, my colleague from Cincinnati believes, with me, in the power to amend, and my colleague from Toledo denies it. When it is to be abolished, my colleague from Toledo believes, with me, in the power to amend, and my colleague from Cincinnati denies it. Both deny the power when slavery is to be affected, and both admit it when slavery is not to be affected. I have them both on either side, and each on both sides, and both with me."

The power to amend was the question upon which the Constitutional part of the debate finally turned, and this had been first brought in issue, in the broadest terms, by Mr. Cox, two days before Mr. Pendleton made his argument. Mr. Cox had then said: "I carry the Democratic doctrine to such an extent that I maintain, that the people speaking through three-fourths of the States, in pursuance of the mode prescribed by the Constitution, have the right to amend it in every particular, except the two specified in that instrument; that this includes the right to erect a monarchy; to make, if you please, the King of Dahomey our King." He pointed out that this power over the Constitution was conceded by Madison and by Calhoun, and that it was the power invoked by the Peace Conference of 1861, and by the Crittenden Compromise.

Mr. Boutwell argued that the power to amend was limited only by the preamble, while Mr. Thayer, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, agreed that there were absolutely no limitations; that three-fourths of the States could alter the preamble, as well as any other part of the instrument.

When the debate was over, there was very little left of the theory advanced by Mr. Pendleton. The only question remaining was whether there were enough Democrats who would follow their real convictions to give the necessary two-thirds. The time of voting was fixed at 4 p. m. January 31, and in anticipation of the event, there was great excitement on the floor, and in the galleries, which were filled. Most of the members kept tally on the vote, which had a few disappointments. Eight Democrats were absent, and as they were all unpaired, the inference was that they were unwilling to vote against the amendment, and not quite ready to vote for it. Mr. Cox gave the House a surprise and the friends of the measure a disappointment. He had a speech prepared explaining his vote in favor of the measure, and then voted against it. The explanation, afterwards given, was that he learned, after he reached the floor of the House, that the Peace Commissioners were on their way to Washington, and he thought that the Amendment would prove an obstacle to peace and union. The following Democrats, fourteen in number, voted for it: James E. English, of Connecticut; Anson Herrick, William Radford, Homer A. Nelson, John B. Steele and John Ganson, of New York; Joseph Bailey, A. H. Caffroth and Archibald McAllister, of Pennsylvania; Wells A. Hutchins, of Ohio; Augustus C. Baldwin, of Michigan; J. S. Rollins and King, of Mis souri, and Wheeler, of Wisconsin.

The Amendment was adopted, 119 yeas to 56 nays, seven more than the necessary two-thirds. There was great applause in the galleries, and many congratulations on the floor. When order was restored Mr. Ingersoll, of Illinois, said: "Mr. Speaker, in honor of this immortal and sublime event, I move that the House do now adjourn." So far as Congress was concerned, the final act for obliterating the institution which had been the cause of contention for four score years, was consummated.

Other measures at this session of Congress may be briefly mentioned. Early in the session E. B. Washburne, of Illinois, introduced a bill to revive the rank of Lieutenant General. Mr. Washburne was a resident of the same town as General Grant, was instrumental in securing his first appointment in the army, and it was considered certain that the passage of this bill meant the appointment of General Grant to the position. It was strongly opposed by Generals Schenck and Garfield, but was adopted.

The bill establishing the Freedmen's Bureau was one of the measures that belong to the latter part of this session. The House also passed a bill repealing so much of the Confiscation Act, passed July 17, 1862, as prohibited the forfeiture of the real estate of rebels beyond their natural lives. The Senate failed to take similar action, and the law remained unchanged. It ceased to be a matter of any importance before the next Congress met.

A further reminder of the changes that a few years had wrought came in the death of Chief Justice Taney, of the Supreme Court, and the appointment in his place, of Salmon P. Chase, ex-Secretary of the Treasury. One of the most extreme upholders of the right of slaveholding had given place to one of the earliest Anti-Slavery leaders.

XIV.

THE END OF THE WAR.

Futile Attempts at Negotiation--President Lincoln's Ultimatum--Southerners Still Seek Recognition of the Confederacy-Mission of Francis P. Blair--Jefferson Davis Appoints Peace Commissioners-President Lincoln Visits Fortress MonroeThe Overtures Rejected-War Meeting at Richmond-Report of Conspiracy Among Democratic Generals-Successes of Sherman, Sheridan and Grant-The Evacuation of Richmond-Lincoln's Visit to that City-His Greeting by the Colored People-Surrender of Lee-Assassination of the President-Sherman's Terms with Johnston-Disbandment of the Armies.

While Congress was making an end of slavery, which was the cause of the war, the war itself was rapidly nearing its close. But before the end came by force of arms, there were futile attempts at negotiation. In his last message to Congress the President had said:

"In presenting the abandonment of armed resistance to the national authority, on the part of the insurgents, as the only indispensable condition to ending the war on the part of the Government, I retract nothing I have heretofore said as to slavery. I repeat the declaration made a year ago, that 'while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the Emancipation Proclamation; nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that Proclamation, or by the Acts of Congress.' If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an executive duty to re-enslave such persons, another and not I must be their instrument to perform it. In stating a condition of peace, I mean simply to say that the war will cease on the part of the Government, whenever it shall have ceased on the part of those who began it."

Notwithstanding this, and other expressions of the President's purposes in the matter, members of the Rebel Government still deluded themselves with the belief, that in some way, peace might

be had with a recognition of the Confederacy. In negotiations and correspondence which followed, there was constant fencing on this point. Thus, in January, Francis P. Blair went to Richmond to induce Jefferson Davis to send, or receive, commissioners to treat for peace. He returned to Washington January 16, bringing with him a written assurance, addressed to himself, from Jefferson Davis, of his willingness to enter into negotiations for peace, to receive a commissioner whenever one should be sent, and of his readiness to appoint such a commissioner, minister, or other agent, and thus "render the effort to enter into a conference, with a view to secure peace between the two countries." Mr. Blair presented this letter to Presiden! Lincoln, who at once authorized him to return to Richmond, carrying with him his written assurance that he had constantly been, was then, and should continue to be, "ready to receive any agent whom Mr. Davis, or any other person now resisting the national authority, may informally send me, with a view of securing peace to the people of our common Country."

Notwithstanding this emphasized difference on the essential point, Mr. Davis appointed as peace commissioners Alexander H. Stephens, R. M. T. Hunter and J. A. Campbell, who proceeded to Fortress Monroe, where Secretary Seward met them, under instructions to insist upon three things as indispensable (1) The restoration of the national authority throughout all the states, (2) No receding from the position of the National Executive on the subject of slavery, (3) No cessation of hostilities short of an end of the war and the disbanding of the forces hostile to the Government. Upon this basis Mr. Seward was to hear what the Commissioners had to say, and report to the President, but he was to consummate nothing. With this as a starting point, negotiations continued for several days, the President himself visiting Fortress Monroe at one time to take part in them. They were of no use, except as showing to the people of the North that President Lincoln, while ready for peace, was not ready to yield any of the principles for which the North had contended and to show them also that the Southern leaders were still bitter and implacable. After the Commissioners returned to Richmond a great meeting was held in that City, which was addressed by Governor Smith of Virginia and by Jefferson Davis, who said: "In my correspondence with Mr. Lincoln, that functionary has always spoken of the United States and the Confederacy as 'our afflicted Country,' but in my replies I have never failed to refer to them as separate and dis