issouri was not presented in the same form
elsewhere. The disabilities against which the Liberals protested were
local, and were ordained in the State constitution. They were wholly
under State regulations. No such issue presented itself in the
National arena. The laws of the nation imposed no disabilities upon
any class of voters, and even the disqualification for office, which
rested upon those who had deserted high public trust to join in the
Rebellion, could be a vote of Congress be removed. Nevertheless, the
creed of the Missouri Liberals, though little applicable outside their
own borders, found an echo far beyond. Indeed, it was itself the echo
of earlier demands. Mr. Greeley characterized the Republican allies of
the Democrats in Missouri as bolters, but he had long before sounded
his trumpet cry of "universal amnesty and impartial suffrage." With a
political philosophy which is full of interest and suggestion in view
of his own impending experiment, he had in 1868 advised the Democrats,
if they did not nominate Mr. Pendleton on an extreme Democratic
platform, to go to the other extreme and take Chief Justice Chase on a
platform of amnesty and suffrage. He did not think they could succeed
by any such manoeuvre; but he believed it would commit Democracy to a
new departure, and be a long stride in the direction of loyalty and
good government. If other leaders did not share his faith, not a few
of them accepted his creed. Mr. Greeley's zealous and powerful
advocacy had impressed it upon many minds as the true corner-stone of
Reconstruction.

But this was obviously not a sufficient cause for division in the
Republican ranks. Whatever special significance it might have
possessed at an earlier period, the course of events had deprived it
of its distinctive force. It was now a matter of sentiment rather
than of practical efficacy. The readiness of Congress in responding
to every application for the removal of disabilities was itself a
generous amnesty. The Fifteenth Amendment had irrevocably established
the principle of equal suffrage. With this practical advance, the
demand of Liberalism did not leave room for any serious difference.
More potent causes were at work. The administration of President
Grant in some of its public measures had furnished pretexts, and in
some of its political dispensations had supplied reasons, for
discontent in various Republican quarters. The pretexts were loudly
emphasi