r. Each one had
to decide for himself whether so far as lay in the power of his
own vote he would give liberty to the slave, or forge his fetters
anew. The constitutional duty of not interfering with slavery in
the States could not be pleaded at the bar of conscience for an
adverse vote. There was no doubt that under the terms of the
Constitution such interference was unwarranted. But this was a
question of changing the Constitution itself so as to confer upon
Congress the express power to enlarge the field of personal liberty
and make the Republic free indeed. It came therefore as an original
and a distinct question whether millions of people with their
descendants for all time should be doomed to slavery or gifted with
freedom.

It was a singular opportunity for the Democratic party. Its members
had always professed to be endued with a broader spirit of liberty
than their opponents who under various organizations had confronted
them in the political contests of the preceding half-century. In
their evangelization of Liberty the Democrats had halted at the
color-line, but, as they alleged, only because the solemn obligations
of the Constitution forbade a step beyond. Here by the converging
exigencies of war it became of vast interest to the white race that
slavery should be smitten and destroyed. Its destruction was indeed
the deadliest blow that could be given to the Rebellion which was
threatening destruction to the Republic. It was not unfair to say,
as was said by many during the crisis, that it was brought to every
man's conscience to decide whether he would continue to imperil
the fate of the Union by refusing the enfranchise the slave.

THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.

It fell to Mr. George H. Pendleton to play an important part in
this crisis. His leadership on the Democratic side of the House
had been confirmed by the popular voice of his party in the nomination
for the Vice-Presidency, and though he had been defeated in the
election he returned to the House with increased prestige among
his own political associates. The argument he had made the preceding
session was now repeated with earnest spirit and in plausible form.
He maintained that "three-fourths of the States do not possess the
constitutional power to pass this amendment." A colleague from
Ohio (Mr. S. S. Cox) had made a radical argument in the other
direction, asserting that "three-fourths