intrusted with a much larger civil liberty than the barbarian or the semi-barbarian. There is no question also that much severer penalties for the commission of the same crime are necessary among a barbarous race or class than among a civilized race or class. From these points of view this Mississippi legislation does not appear as far from what was natural and even necessary as Mr. Stevens and his followers made it out. The law of apprenticeship was not severe, and, if justly and sincerely executed, it would probably have been beneficial to the young negroes, deprived of the care given them up to that time by master or mistress, and now thrown upon themselves without a cent of money or a particle of property, most of them knowing no parent except a mother as poor as themselves, and entirely unacquainted with the new conditions of life now confronting them.

This legislation from the

point of view

of natural jus

tice.

The law of vagrancy was severer. But it is easy to see

that a reasonable execution of that law had as much help as harm in it for the former slave. It would have preserved him against idleness, drunkenness, and thievery, although it did curtail largely his liberty of action. It was, undeniably, the third act, which came so near to the re-enactment of the old slave code in regard to crimes and misdemeanors committed by negroes, that gave the greatest offence. Almost every act, word, or gesture of the negro, not consonant with good taste and good manners, as well as good morals, was made a crime or misdemeanor, for which he could first be fined by the magistrates, and then consigned to a condition almost of slavery for an indefinite time, if he could not

pay the fine. There is no question that the "States of the Union had at that moment the power under the Constitution of the United States to do these things. At that time the determination of the criminal law, both

as to the definition of crime, the fixing of penalties, and the fashioning of procedure, was almost entirely a function of the "States," and there was no provision in the Constitution of the United States which required the "States" to treat their own inhabitants with equality in regard to their civil rights and obligations.

Under these circumstances it is not at all surprising that the Republicans of the North strongly felt that the freedom of the negro had not yet been sufficiently guaranteed to render the acknowledgment of the resumption of "State "-powers by the communities so lately in rebellion against the United States for the upholding of negro slavery safe and wise.

Correctness

It was certainly natural, and it was just and right, that the party in power in Congress should have considered it their duty to so amend the Constiof the Repub- tution of the United States, before according lican position. "State"-powers to the communities lately in rebellion, as to reap the just fruits of their triumph over secession and slavery. It was certainly their duty to the country to secure the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, and any further amendment, necessary to accomplish this result, before putting the recently rebellious communities in a position to defeat the same. And it is certainly not strange that the Republicans should have feared that the Democrats of the North in Congress would soon be found fraternizing with the Senators and Representatives from the reconstructed "States," and that it was their duty to secure "perpetual ascendancy to the party of the Union," before admitting the Senators and Representatives from these "States" to participation in public power. Properly interpreted this only meant that loyal men must govern the country. But it did not follow that only Republicans were loyal men, and that the loyal Democrats of the North would follow

the recently disloyal Democrats of the South in legislating upon the issues of the war. Republicans were likely to commit this fallacy in their reasoning. Many of them did commit it. And the result of it was to intensify partisanship at the expense of statesmanship.

Just two weeks after the passage of the Stevens resolution by the House of Representatives, Mr. Seward announced the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In making this announcement, he declared that

The ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment

to the Consti

there were thirty-six "States" in the Union, and that the legislatures of twenty-seven tution. "States," just three-fourths, the necessary number, had voted its adoption; and among those voting to adopt, he counted the legislatures of Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama.

It is to be remarked, however, that had he counted none of the "States " that had passed secession ordinances, either in the whole number, or in the threequarters necessary to adopt, the Amendment would in that case also have been adopted. There would have been, in that case, twenty-five "States" in the Union, and of these nineteen had adopted the Amendment. And if any controversy had arisen over the use of fractions in making nineteen three-fourths of twenty-five, this would have been quickly overcome by the fact that the legislatures of four more of the loyal "States " adopted the Amendment soon after Mr. Seward's declaration, making twenty-three out of twenty-five. It will not, of course, be disputed that, if the "States" that passed secession ordinances should have been counted in arriving at the whole number of "States "in the Union, those of them adopting the Amendment should also have been counted in making out the three-fourths majority neces

sary to adoption, and that if, on the other hand, they should have been excluded in arriving at the whole number, they should also have been excluded in making up the three-fourths majority. In other words, it does not matter from which point of view we regard the subject, the Amendment was regularly and lawfully adopted. It must be admitted, however, that Mr. Seward followed in this most solemn procedure, the amending of the Constitution, the Presidential plan of Reconstruction, and gave great encouragement to the Senators- and Representatives-elect from these reconstructed "States " to expect that they would have the aid and influence both of the Democrats in Congress, and of the Administration, in securing their seats.

of the Sena

elect from the reconstructed "States" to be

seats in Con

gress.

They had gone to Washington and, bearing themselves confidently from the first, they now became defiant in The demand demanding their rights. Many of them were tors- and Rep- men who, less than twelve months before, had resentatives been in arms against the United States, and one of them was the person who was the admitted to Vice-President of the Confederacy at the moment of its downfall, Mr. Alexander H. Stephens. Such an attitude on his part and their part roused again great bitterness of feeling among the Republicans, many of whom conscientiously thought that the real deserts of such persons were the penalties of treason. Moreover, the legislatures of some of the other "States" reconstructed under the President's plan enacted, during December, January and February, measures concerning the status and rights of the emancipated slaves similar to those passed by the legislature of Mississippi, and in some respects even more illiberal than those passed by that body; and it was evident that all of them would finally stand upon the same general ground in regard to this subject.

This was the situation in the last week of February, 1866, when the Senate passed a resolution, concurrent with the Stevens resolution in the House, denying seats to any of the claimants from the "States" lately in insurrection until the report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction should be made and finally acted upon. Four of the Republican Senators, Messrs. Cowan, Doolittle, Dixon and Norton went against their party associates in this question, but there was still a two-thirds majority in both Houses resolute and resolved to combat the Presidential plan of Reconstruction and to construct and enforce a Congressional plan.

The Joint Committee of

on Recon

As we have already seen, the Senate had concurred with the House in regard to that part of the Stevens resolution which provided for the appointment of a Joint Committee on Reconstruc- the two houses tion, at the time it was passed by the House. of Congress The members of the Committee were chosen struction. soon after the passage of this part of the Stevens resolution by the Senate. They were, from the Senate, Messrs. Fessenden, Grimes, Harris, Howard, Johnson and Williams, all Republicans except Mr. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, and from the House, Messrs. Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Conkling, Grider, Morrill, Rogers, Stevens and Washburn, all Republicans except Grider of Kentucky and Rogers of New Jersey. The Republicans had given themselves a larger representation on the Committee than their numerical relation to the Democrats warranted, but there is no reason to think that the report of the majority would have been in any respect different, if that relation had been more strictly observed.

This Committee sat for about six months before making its final report. During this period, however, several propositions issued from it, and two great