the indispensable condition in any settlement; and that "they should exhaust all the resources of statesmanship to secure such a peace, to re-establish the Union, and to secure for the future the constitutional rights of every State." By the Except in the important particular that the Government party proposed, in its amended platform, to abolish slavery by an extra-constitutional means, there was no great difference between the positions of these two parties in regard to slavery itself. The war had, by the summer of 1864, rendered the continuance of the institution impracticable; though Gen. Grant's declaration, made as early as August, 1862, that it was then dead and could not be resurrected, was certainly premature. summer of 1864, however, the fate of slavery had, in fact, been sealed. It probably could not have existed if the Confederacy had been established. It could not have survived a return to the Union, even if no objection had been made to its new incorporation there. Mr. Davis had acknowledged that it was no longer an issue between the North and South, several months before the rescript of Mr. Lincoln had transpired at Niagara. All thoughtful minds at the South were convinced that the institution had been too completely demoralized by the protracted duration of the war, and the long presence of liberating armies and negro brigades in the South, to be any longer a stable, a profitable, or a safe feature in the Southern economy. There was, however, a grave constitutional point at issue on this subject between the conservative and the Government party, notwithstanding that practically the continuance of slavery was no longer in controversy. The conservatives denied the right to impose extra-constitutional conditions on the returning States; the Government party asserted this right, and asserted it wantonly. In that point of view the issue was vital. Why abolish what was already doomed to dissolution? Slavery had received its death-blow; why overleap the Constitution to cut its throat? The Radical party did not insist upon thrusting its extreme demands as issues into the canvass. They held a convention at Cleveland, as early as May 31, and proposed a platform by way of preserving for its leading spirits a consistent record. They nominated John C. Fremont for the Presidency, and a very weak and rather obscure apostate from the Democratic party, John Cochrane, for the Vice-Presidency. All this, however, was for little more than mere form's sake. No effort was made to draw off voters from the body of the party, which supported the Government candidates; and none were drawn off. In his letter of acceptance, Gen. Fremont expressed his preference for supporting the candidate who should be nominated at Baltimore, if it could be done without violence to his sense of duty and consistency. The platform differed in no material particulars PLATFORM OF THE NORTHERN RADICALS. 573 from that of Baltimore, excepting in the addition of a passage in the fifth resolution, hereafter to be noticed, and of the two following clauses, viz. : "12. That the question of the reconstruction of the rebellious States belongs to the people through their representatives in Congress, and not to the Executive. “13. That the confiscation of the lands of the rebels, and their distribution among the soldiers and actual settlers, is a measure of justice." It is to be remarked, that even this radical platform omits the imposition of extra-constitutional conditions precedent upon the revolted States as requisite to their readmission into the Union even in respect to the institution of slavery; and that its fifth clause relies upon an amendment to the Constitution alone, as a means of accomplishing the object; that clause being in these words: “5. That the rebellion has destroyed slavery, and the Constitution should be amended to prohibit its re-establishment, and to secure to all men absolute equality before the law.” The reader will not fail to note how subordinate and obscure a position in this platform was assigned to the demand for negro suffrage and citizenship, which afterwards was made so prominent a feature in the policy of the Radicals. Thus, if we look to the written terms in which the issues of parties were made up, they were as follows: The Conservatives demanded reconstruction on the sole, simple basis of the Constitution as it was. The Government party demanded a formal abolition of slavery by the revolted States as a condition precedent to restoration. The Radicals demandedif we look to their legislation in Congress-the three conditions of the abolition of slavery by the States, the disfranchisement of the leading rebels, and the repudiation of the rebel debt; and if we look to their Cleveland platform, they demanded that the whole question of reconstruction should be left to the people of the North, through their representatives in the sectional Congress, that the lands of the rebels should be confiscated, and that "equality before the law" should be secured to all men. On paper, the more ready and natural affiliation of parties would seem to have been between the Conservative and the Government parties; and the real antagonism to have been between the Radical party on one side, and the Government party and Conservatives, combined, on the other; and this might possibly have been the division, if the war had been already terminated. For it was apparent, even as early as the summer of 1864, that such would really become the dividing line of parties, when the questions of reconstruction should come immediately up for practical decision. But the election ante-dated reconstruction by more than a year; and the contest of parties turned, of course, upon the transactions of the war, rather than upon the conditions and results of a peace still unconquered. The written issues of the canvass were therefore little considered. The debates hung and dwelt upon the usurpations of the Executive, and the revolutionary spirit, policy, and purposes of the party in power. These being the subject of respective assault and defence, the array of parties remained as during the war; the Conservatives and Democrats on one side; the Radical and Administration Republicans, on the other. The prosecution and defence proceeded upon the indictment embodied in the fourth resolution of the Democratic platform, "that the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution; the subversion of the civil by military law in States not in insurrection; the arbitrary military arrests, imprisonment, trial and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the open and avowed disregard of State Rights; the employment of unusual test-oaths, and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defence, are calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union, and the perpetuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed." The eloquence of the orators who made appeal against these high crimes, was worthy of the cause for which they stood. Some of the ora tions delivered on the inspiring theme equal, if they do not surpass, in power and pathos, any that were ever before delivered in vindication of human rights and in defence of constitutional liberty. No papers, in the political history of this country, exceed, in dignity of style, in power and cogency of argument, in thrilling interest of narration, in sternness of arraignment, in intensity of patriotic appeal and indignation, some of the papers that were put forth by the supporters of Gen. McClellan. But the weight of power and patronage proved sufficient to overbalance that of patriotism and reason. It is not necessary to go further into the details of the canvass; and the reader will already anticipate its conclusion. The election of McClel lan, of which there had been some probability in the midsummer of 1864, became impossible, in view of the rapid military successes of the North, which never failed to draw new adherents to Mr. Lincoln's Administration; illustrating how little there was of steadfast principle in party organizations in the North, and how much of political opposition gave way to the views of expediency and the persuasions of time-service. The “electoral necessity" at Washington for victories in the field was amply fulfilled. The canvass of 1864 concluded in the election of Abraham Lincoln by the vote of every Northern State, except Delaware, Kentucky, and New Jersey. ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL VOTE OF 1864. 575 But in the analysis of the popular vote there was yet some encouragement. It stood twenty-two hundred thousand for Mr. Lincoln, eighteen hundred thousand for Gen. McClellan. Although too small for victory, the conservative vote was much larger than had been expected by reflecting men, after the fall of Atlanta, the reverses of Hood, and the success of Sherman. Under all the adverse circumstances under which the vote was given, it was creditable to the party which made the contest, and encouraging for the cause of constitutional liberty. It was given just after decisive reverses had befallen the Confederate cause, in the moments of victory and exultation, at a time the most propitious that could have been chosen by the war party, and the most unpropitious conceivable for the peace party. The election had occurred just at the time when the idea prevailed that a popular vote in favour of the war party would fall as a finishing blow upon the already exhausted and prostrate Confederacy; and that a vote in favour of the peace party would cheer the South to put forth renewed effort in the hope of securing the most favorable terms of peace. The adverse vote was not, therefore, a deliberate judgment of a majority of the Northern people against the principles of constitutional liberty. A large number of the men who helped to cast that majority vote were actuated by motives of expediency, thinking to save the Union first, and leaving it for a more eligible occasion to vindicate their attachment to constitutional principles. Thus, the victory of the Constitution was postponed; and its triumph reserved for another and uncertain time. CHAPTER XXXV. AN INTRIGUE IN RICHMOND AGAINST GEN. JOHNSTON.—EVIDENCE OF IT.-GEN. BRAGG'S VISIT TO ATLANTA.-REMOVAL OF GEN. JOHNSTON FROM COMMAND.-THE BATTLES OF ATLANTA. —ENGAGEMENTS OF THE 20TH, 22D, AND 28TH JULY.-SHERMAN'S DESIGNS ON THE THE MACON ROAD.-DEFEAT OF HARDEE AT JONESBORO'.-HOOD EVACUATES ATLANTA, GEN. LEE had moved from the Rapidan to Richmond, with an increase of reputation at each stage of the retreat. It is curious that when Gen. Johnston moved from the Northern frontier of Georgia to Atlanta, even with greater success, he should not have experienced similar tokens of approbation. The fact was that he was the subject of a deep intrigue in Richmond, to displace him from the command of an army, whose affec tions and confidence he had never ceased to enjoy; and even while he was moving in the march from Dalton, his removal from command was secretly entertained in Richmond. There is a certain delicate evidence of this, which the historian should not spare. While the march referred to was in |