ceeding events, marks him as one of the great statesmen of the world. He pleaded for gradual emancipation, appointing January 1, 1900, as the time when it should be completed, to spare "both races from the evils of sudden derangement." It is matter for regret that fortune had not at this time favored Lincoln with signal military victories to give to his words the strength that enforced the declarations of Cæsar and Napoleon. Owing to distrust in him and his waning popularity, his recommendations in this message were not considered by Congress, nor had they, so far as I have been able to ascertain, any notable influence on public sentiment.1 Congress, however, made an attempt to fulfil the pledge which it had given at the previous session on the prompting of the President.2 The result of the election in Missouri 3 showed that the people of that State were in favor of getting rid of slavery. In conformity with that sentiment, there was reported, January 6, from the select committee on emancipation to the House of Representatives a bill to apply $10,000,000 in bonds for the purpose of compensating the loyal owners of slaves in Missouri, if her legislature should provide for immediate emancipation. After a brief debate, the bill under the operation of the previous question passed the same day. It went to the Senate; and Henderson, who had charge of the measure, introduced a substitute for the House bill, which in its turn was amended, and occasioned a long and intelligent debate, that consumed a portion of many days for nearly a month. The bill, as it passed the Senate, 1 An attempt at colonization on a very small scale was made by the President under the authority of legislation of April and July, 1862. Nicolay and Hay give an interesting account of it, largely from MS. sources, in vol. vi. chap. xvii. The experiment was tried in the year 1863 and resulted in failure. N. and H. write at the close of the chapter: "No further effort was made by the President." See, also, Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 66. 2 See vol. iii. pp. 631, 635; ante, p. 70. 8 In Nov., 1862. Noel in the House, Globe, p. 207; Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1862, p. 595. CH. XIX.] COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION 217 2 gave ten millions for gradual emancipation, or twenty millions if the act of Missouri should provide for the manumission of all slaves by July 4, 1865.1 The measure in this shape went back to the House. An important change in the wording of the bill enabled any one member to send it to the committee of the whole, the "grave of any disputed measure; it prevented a motion of non-concurrence and the reference of the matter to a committee of conference, and lost to the majority of the House the control of the bill. It became necessary to recommit the Senate measure, and to report to the committee of the whole a new bill, for the consideration of which the rules of the House allowed only one hour. This time the Democrats, aided by a Unionist from Missouri, used up in filibustering. Later, an endeavor was made to get the bill considered by a suspension of the rules, but the necessary two-thirds of the House could not be obtained. The Republican historians are within the bounds of truth when they assert that compensated emancipation for Missouri failed on account of the strenuous opposition of the Democrats. The same explanation will apply to the case of Maryland; and the failure of the measures for the relief of these States shows why no effort was made to proceed with the West Virginia bill, or to take up the question of compensating the loyal slave owners of Kentucky and Tennessee.5 Yet it is doubtful whether it is the whole truth to impute the defeat of this policy exclusively to the Democrats. Granted their opposition as a necessary factor, this might have been over 1 Globe, pp. 302, 351, 586, 611, 666, 762, 776, 897; Senate Journal. 2 Letter of Albert S. White, representative from Indiana, who had charge of the bill, to Nat. Intelligencer, March 12. 8 Ibid. The Unionist was Hall. The Democrats were Vallandigham, Pendleton, Cox of Ohio, Norton of Missouri. "The story of the Missouri bill (after it was returned from the Senate) is the story of the Maryland bill. It was filibustered out of Congress." Letter of Albert S. White. See Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i. p. 446; Greeley, The American Conflict, vol. ii. p. 261. come had the leading Republicans of the Senate and the House manifested zeal for the Missouri bill, had the farreaching and generous policy involved in that measure lain as close to their hearts as it did to the President's. They voted for it, but they did not, to secure its passage, use the extraordinary care and exertions which they employed at this session in enacting other important bills. At this distance it seems surprising that Democrats and border State Union men should have combated a policy which was apparently in the interest of slave owners, but their opposition came from the belief that it was impossible for the North to conquer the South. The alternative was separation of the sections, with strong guarantees for slavery in the border States which remained with the North. The remark which it is said Lincoln made to Crittenden, "You Southern men will soon reach the point where bonds will be a more valuable possession than bondsmen,"2 was far from a self-evident proposition in February, 1863; in truth the reverse was the estimate of the Democrats. At this distance, too, the lukewarmness of the radical Republicans, which they might have expressed by this question, Why compensate for a wrong? may be pressed too far. The sincere support of the measure by Sumner, the genuine regret of Grimes at its failure, although he did not vote for the Senate bill compensating Missouri, will serve to invalidate a judgment that might 1 The principal authority for this account is the Congressional Globe, but the controversy afterwards between A. S. White, and the Nat. Intelligencer throws light on the proceedings. See Nat. Int., March 10, 12; see, also, St. Louis Democrat [Republican journal] cited ibid., March 10, 17; Boston Advertiser, March 6. 2 Blaine, vol. i. p. 448. a Globe, p. 902; Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 116. Grimes wrote in a private letter, March 27: "I regret as much as you can the failure of Congress to provide means to assist the States of Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware to secure emancipation. . . . Just such bills would have been a sort of culmination and rounding off of the acts of the late Congress that would have reflected glory upon it and upon the country." - Life of Grimes, Salter, p. 235. ... CH. XIX.] BATTLE OF STONE'S RIVER 219 seem to be confirmed by the rapid progress of opinion on the true policy of dealing with slavery.1 A gleam from the West lightened the intense gloom following the disaster at Fredericksburg. Influenced undoubtedly by the President's anxiety for a victory, and deeming the conditions auspicious, Rosecrans moved out of Nashville the day after Christmas with the purpose of attacking the Confederates. Skirmishing for a number of days as he marched forward, he took up a position within three miles of Murfreesborough, Tenn., where Bragg's army had gone into winter quarters. On the last day of the year he determined to make the attack; but Bragg had resolved to take the offensive at the same time, and obtained the advantage of the initial onset. The bloody battle of Stone's River ensued. The forces were equal. The Confederates gained the victory, but Rosecrans stubbornly maintained his ground. January 2, 1863, Bragg attacked the Union army and met with repulse. On the night of the next day, his troops being somewhat demoralized, he retreated from Murfreesborough. This gave Rosecrans a chance, of which he at once availed himself, to claim the victory in the campaign. The President telegraphed him, "God bless you." Halleck called it one of the most brilliant successes of the war. Throughout the North it was heralded as a victory. At last, ran the sentiment of the people, our great general has appeared. The loss on both 1 In his controversy with the Nat. Intelligencer, White wrote, "The best evidence of the purposes and intentions of a party is its recorded votes." According to this gauge the Republicans appear well. The vote on the Missouri bill in the House was: Yeas, Republicans 65, Democrats 1, Unionists 7, total 73; Nays, Republicans 8, Democrats 27, Unionists 11, total 46. The leading Republicans of the House voted for the bill. The vote in the Senate on its bill was: Yeas, Republicans, 21, Unionists 2, total 23; Nays, Republicans 5, Democrats 8, Unionists 5, total 18. Of the prominent Republicans, Grimes and Fessenden voted against the bill. The objection of Grimes was one of detail, not of principle, and the same is doubtless true in regard to Fessenden. 2 Or Murfreesborough. • About 40,000 on each side. But see Ropes's Civil War, part ii. p. 424. sides was very heavy. Both armies were so crippled that a long time was required to repair the damage. Although the casualties of Rosecrans were greater in number, so much larger were the resources of the North that in this respect the balance was against the Confederates, who sustained moreover the loss in morale. If the student confines himself to the literature of this campaign alone, he will feel that the extensive claims of a signal victory by the President and the people of the North were a clutching at straws; but if he looks ahead he will see that they were wiser than they knew, for he will comprehend that to hold Tennessee Bragg needed a decisive success, that his failure and the serious crippling of his army opened the way the following summer to the Union advance to Chattanooga. The campaigns of Perryville and Stone's River were moreover a favorable augury to the cause of the North, inasmuch as they showed that in the Army of the West an education of generals was going on, that native military talent was in the process of development. George H. Thomas, a Virginian of the same good stuff as Washington and Robert E. Lee, served as second in command to Buell and to Rosecrans, and joined to ability in his profession and a scrupulous loyalty to his superiors a conviction of the justice of the cause he had, contrary to the example of his State, espoused. Although at first he had not unreasonably believed that injustice had been done him because he was not made commander of the Army of the Cumberland when Buell was displaced, he gave a magnanimous and efficient support to Rosecrans, who could say of him that he was as wise in council as he was brave in battle. Philip H. Sheridan had distinguished himself at Perryville, and now did gallant work at the battle of Stone's River.2 1 Union loss, 13,249; Confederate, 10,266. 2 O. R., vol. xx. parts i., ii.; Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi.; Swinton, Decisive Battles of the War; Cist, The Army of the Cumberland; Van Horne, Hist. of the same; Ropes's Civil War, part ii.; Century War Book, vol. iii.; Diary of W. P. Cutler; Warden's Chase, p. 516. For the correspondence between |