who were in the habit of bewildering their auditors and themselves with metaphysical theories on States' rights and periodically threatening to invoke the "God of battles," he could not, would not, allow himself to believe that, by persistent audacity and artifice, subdivisions of party could be so effected as to produce the desired contingency; and that even the high places of the Government could become so inoculated with infamy as to turn popular trust into parricidal treason.

His faith in the Union was too great, his pride in the bounty of its institutions, under which men like himself had risen to eminence, too glorious, to comprehend how at hand could be raised against it. This very faith and pride, however, but made him the stronger to face the crisis when it broke upon him in all its terrible reality.

Such were Senator Johnson's views on slavery up to the breaking out of the Rebellion. He could not, considering his relations with a Southern State, have said less. It showed remarkable strength in his own convictions not to have said more, especially when leading Northern Democrats, seeking political promotion, in and out of Congress-men like Benjamin F. Butler and Benjamin F. Hallett of Massachusetts, Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Jesse D. Bright and Graham N. Fitch of Indiana, Jeremiah S. Black and William Bigler of Pennsylvania, Joseph Lane of Oregon, and others, outrivaled Southern leaders in devotion to Southern institutions. I refer to this fact, not to invite invidious criticism on many of the latter who have well served the Union cause since, but to show by contrast the independent and brave position of Andrew Johnson at the time. He gave slavery a respectful recognition and tolerant speech, when his Northern compeers chiefly studied and explained, and made capital by extolling it. But it was the fashion in those days to look for all wisdom and statesmanship in eminent Southern men and those who agreed with them. In

this connection, and as illustrative of Senator Johnson's individuality, his idea of John C. Calhoun has an interest. He not only did not think him infallible, but he denied him practical power as a politician.

"Mr. Calhoun had some peculiar notions about government; and if he were now living, he and all the men in the United States could not put a government into successful and practical operation under the system he laid down. He was a logician; he could reason from premise to conclusion with unerring certainty, but he was as often wrong in taking his premises as any body else. Admit his premises, and you were swept off by the conclusions; but look at his premises, and he was just as often wrong as any other statesman; and I think Mr. Calhoun was more of a politician than a statesman. Mr. Calhoun never possessed that class of mind that enabled him to found a great party. He founded a sect; and if he had been a religionist, he would have been a mere sectarian. He would never have gone beyond founding a sect peculiar to himself. His mind was metaphysical and logical, and he was a great man in his peculiar channel, but he might be more properly said to have founded a sect than a great national party."

This free sketch of the South Carolina nullification idol was presented in the Senate just twelve days before the assembling in Charleston of the National Democratic Convention to nominate a candidate for the Presidency. The Democracy of Tennessee instructed their delegates to put the name of Andrew Johnson in nomination, which was accordingly done. Up to the thirty-sixth balloting he received the vote of his State, after which Mr. Ewing of Tennessee withdrew the name, in the hope of furthering the chances of a nomination. Previous to the balloting, there was great contention on the adoption of a platform, the Douglas doctrine of territorial sovereignty on the Slavery question prevailing, when the delegations of Alabama, Mississippi,

Florida, Texas, all of the Louisiana delegation except two, all of the South Carolina delegation except three, three of the Arkansas delegation, two of the Delaware delegation, and one from North Carolina, withdrew from the Conven-,, tion. After sitting for ten days and finding it impossible to effect a nomination, the Convention adjourned on the 6th of May, to meet at Baltimore on the 18th June. On the first day of the re-assembling in Baltimore of the National Convention, Senator Johnson withdrew his name in the following letter to a leading member of the Tennessee delegation :

"WASHINGTON CITY, June 18, 1860.

"GENERAL SAMUEL MILLIGAN: Dear Sir-Whilst deeply thankful to you and your associate delegates in the National Convention for your support of my name as a candidate for the Presidency, indorsing and reflecting therein the honor done me by the State Convention of the Democracy of Tennessee, an honor and distinction given my name by the people whom I have served, and whose confidence is worthy of the best efforts and highest ambition of any man, yet in this hour of peril to the harmony and integrity of the Democratic party-in this hour of serious apprehension for the future welfare and perpetuity of our Government-I cannot and will not suffer my name to add to the difficulties and embarrassment of my friends. I feel that it is incumbent upon you, upon me, that every thing that can honorably and consistently be done should be done by us to secure unity and harmony of action, to the end that correct principles may be maintained, the preservation of the only national organization remaining continued, and, above all, that the Union, with the blessings, guarantees and protection of its Constitution, perpetuated for ever.

"That the Tennessee delegation may so act, and that in no contingency they may find themselves embarrassed by the action of our State in regard to myself, I desire through you to request that they will not present my name to the Convention at Baltimore, and to each of them tender my regards.

"I have the honor to be, etc.,

ANDREW JOHNSON."

CHAPTER IX.

JOHNSON'S COMPEERS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.

PARTY Leaders in the Senate - Douglas, Crittenden, Seward and Davis - A Scene in the Senate - Crittenden Replying to Green - Personal Sketch of Crittenden His Political Schooling - Defends it - The Oldest SenatorOn the Kansas Question - Defending his own Rights, learns to Defend those of others - The Crittenden-Montgomery Bill - The English Bill VotesCrittenden Opposes Slidell's Cuba Bill — Parting with the old Chamber: His Love for the Union - Patriarch of the Senate - Stephen A. Douglas Lessons of his Life - His wide-spread Fame - Chairman of the Committee on Territories -- Early Grounds on Non-intervention by Congress with Slavery Fundamental Principle of the Kansas-Nebraska Act-Buchanan breaks Faith with it- Douglas stands by Popular Rights - Debate on "Lecompton" - Scene in the Senate when Douglas Spoke - His Speech The Duty of a Senator - The States and the Union - Presidential Tests of Party Fealty - Senatorial Contest in Illinois What he had to Contend with-Defeats Lincoln on the Senatorship - Lincoln Defeats him for the Presidency Hatred of Buchanan and the Disunionists for Douglas - Prophetic Views on the Rebellion - Visit and Advice to Lincoln - Wants two hundred thousand Men at the first call - His Last Words William H. Seward His Distinguished Career from 1820 — Governor of New York Controversy with Virginia and Georgia touching Fugitive Slaves - Refuses to give up M'Leod the Ship-burner - The Advocate of Greeks, Hungarians and Irish opposed to Compromises of '50"Higher Law" and "Irrepressible Conflict" - On Lecompton Character of his EloquenceJefferson Davis - Quincy Adams Prognosticates his Destruction -- Leaves Congress for the Mexican War - At Monterey - Noted Movement at Buenavista Sir Colin Campbell Imitates Him - Refuses Commission of Brigadier on States-rights Grounds - Sent to the United States SenateRepudiates the Union Bank Bonds Defeated by Henry S. Foote for Governorship of Mississippi - Advocates Franklin Pierce Secretary of War, his Administration - Opposed to General Scott-His Power in and Use of the Cabinet On a United South - Contemplates Disunion with Emotion at Pass Christian - Feelings for the Flag Dissolution before Submission -Views on Prominent Measures - In the Senate - Visits the NorthModified Sentiments- Views for North and South- Union Address to Massachusetts Disunion Address to Mississippi - As a Congressional Leader Hammond, Hunter, Mason, Toombs, Iverson, C. C. Clay, A. G. Brown, Slidell, Benjamin, Wigfall, the Characteristics and Manner of Davis.

BEFORE proceeding further with this narrative which now reaches the eve of the greatest events in the history

of the Republic, it is fit that we take a glance at the prominent party leaders in the Senate of the United States, where Andrew Johnson had already won a peculiar and distinctive reputation, and where he was destined to achieve a still further and more impressively brilliant and useful renown.

The Senate of the Thirty-fifth and Thirty-sixth Congresses was composed of forcible representative men from a majority of the States. There was much more than average ability and political experience in the body, as a whole; while in several special instances the Chamber was distinguished by the presence of statesmen and politicians who were received by the whole country as the successors of the Clays and Calhouns, the Websters and Casses, the Bentons, Haynes, Wrights and Prestons, whose names are linked with great and exciting, national and sectional parties, measures and conflicts.

Among the men of mark, distinguished in the past on other fields, either as party leaders or party workers, or at the time for their prominent or passionate co-operation in the conflicts of the day who were the compeers of Johnson in the Chamber, were Douglas of Illinois, Seward of New York, Davis and A. G. Brown of Mississippi, Crittenden of Kentucky, Hammond of South Carolina, Hunter and Mason of Virginia, Toombs and Iverson of Georgia, Slidell and Benjamin of Louisiana, Wade and Pugh of Ohio, Hale of New Hampshire, Wilson and Sumner of Massachusetts. Green of Missouri, Fessenden and Hamlin of Maine, Bell of Tennessee, Bayard of Delaware, Bright of Indiana, Doolittle of Wisconsin, C. C. Clay of Alabama, Broderick and Gwin of California, Foster of Connecticut, Stuart of Michigan, Clingman of North Carolina, Harlan of Iowa, Cameron and Bigler of Pennsylvania, and the soldier SenatorsHouston of Texas, Shields of Minnesota, and Lane of Oregon. Others there were in the Chamber also, abler men than some mentioned, such as Preston King of New