Virginia. The free States had a unanimous
representation of Republican senators, with the exception of John
R. Thompson from New Jersey, Jesse D. Bright from Indiana, James
W. Nesmith from Oregon, and the two senators from California, Milton
S. Latham and James A. McDougall, the latter of whom was sworn in
as the successor of William M. Gwin.

The Senate, though deprived by secession of many able men from the
South, presented an imposing array of talent, statesmanship, and
character. William Pitt Fessenden had already served one term with
distinction, and was now in the third year of his second term. He
possessed a combination of qualities which gave him just eminence
in his public career. He was brilliant from his youth upward; had
led the Maine Legislature when but a few years beyond his majority;
and, at a time when members of the legal profession are struggling
for a first foot-hold, he had stepped to the front rank in the bar
of Maine. He was elected a representative in Congress in 1840 at
thirty-four years of age. He never enjoyed popularity in the sense
in which that word is ordinarily used, but he had the absolute
confidence and admiration of his constituents. He possessed that
peculiar strength with the people--the most valuable and most
enduring a public man can have--which comes from a sense of pride
in the ability and character of the representative. Somewhat
reserved and distant in manner to the world at large, he was genial
and delightful to the intimate circle whom he called friends.

As a debater Mr. Fessenden was exceptionally able. He spoke without
apparent effort, in a quiet, impressive manner, with a complete
master of pure English. He preserved the _lucidus ordo_ in his
argument, was never confused, never hurried, never involved in
style. A friend once said to him that the only criticism to be
made of his speeches in the Senate was that he illustrated his
point too copiously, throwing light upon it after it was made plain
to the comprehension of all his hearers. "That fault," said he,
"I acquired in addressing juries, where I always tried to adapt my
argument to the understanding of the dullest man of the twelve."
It was a fault which Mr. Fessenden overcame, and in his later years
his speeches may be taken as models for clearness of statement,
accuracy of reasoning, felicity of expression, moderation of tone.
There have been members of the Senate who achieved greater distinction
than