Houses, the loyal Border-State Representatives spoke and voted against
its passage.

One week previously (March 6, 1862), President Lincoln, in an admirable
Message, hitherto herein given at length, found himself driven to broach
to Congress the subject of Emancipation. He had, in his First Annual
Message (December, 1861), declared that "the Union must be preserved;
and hence all indispensable means must be employed;" but now, as a part
of the War Policy, he proposed to Congress the adoption of a Joint
Resolution declaring "That the United States ought to cooperate with any
State which may adopt gradual abolishment of Slavery, giving to such
State, pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in its discretion, to
compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such
change of System."

It was high time, he thought, that the idea of a gradual, compensated
Emancipation, should begin to occupy the minds of those interested, "so
that," to use his own words, "they may begin to consider whether to
accept or reject it," should Congress approve the suggestion.

Congress did approve, and adopt, the Joint-Resolution, as we know
--despite the opposition from the loyal element of the Border States--an
opposition made in the teeth of their concession that Mr. Lincoln, in
recommending its adoption, was "solely moved by a high patriotism and
sincere devotion to the glory of his Country."

But, consistently with their usual course, they went to the House of
Representatives, fresh from the Presidential presence, and, with their
ears still ringing with the common-sense utterances of the President,
half of them voted against the Resolution, while the other half
refrained from voting at all. And their opposition to this wise and
moderate proposition was mainly based upon the idea that it carried with
it a threat--a covert threat.

It certainly was a warning, taking it in connection with the balance of
the Message, but a very wise and timely one.

These loyal Border-State men, however, could not see its wisdom, and at
a full meeting held upon the subject decided to oppose it, as they
afterward did. Its conciliatory spirit they could not comprehend; the
kindly, temperate warning, they would not heed. The most moderate of
them all,--[Mr. Crittenden of Kentucky.]--in the most moderate of his
utterances, could not bring himself to the belief that this Resolution
was "a measure exactly suited to the times."

[And