ut distinction of
color or race." His fifth had some of the objectionable features of
his first, demanding "the choice of citizens for office, whether State
or National, of constant and undoubted loyalty, whose conduct and
conversation shall give assurance of peace and reconciliation." The
rebel States were not to be, in Mr. Sumner's language, "precipitated
back to political power and independence, but must wait until these
conditions are, in all respects, fulfilled." In addition, he desired
a declaration of the Senate that "the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing
slavery, has become and is a part of the Constitution of the United
States, having received the approval of the Legislatures of three-fourths
of the States adhering to the Union." He declared that "the votes
of the States in rebellion are not necessary, in any way, to its
adoption, but they must all agree to it through their Legislatures, as
a condition precedent to their restoration to their full rights as
members of the Union." With these resolutions Mr. Sumner submitted
another long series declaratory of the duty of Congress in respect to
loyal citizens in the rebel States. His first series had defined what
the lately rebellious States must agree to by popular vote, and he
now outlined quite fully what would be the duty of Congress respecting
the admission of those States to representation in the Senate and the
House. The sum of the whole, or the central fact of the whole series,
was that the color of the skin must not exclude a loyal man from civil
rights.

On the succeeding day, the President, having received notice of the
organization of the two Houses, communicated his annual message. It
had been looked for with great interest and with varying speculations
as to its character. It was expected, and as the event proved with
good reason, that it would affect the relation of parties in the
Northern States; that it would produce ill-feeling between the
President and the Republicans, who had chosen him; and that it would
lead, with equal certainty, to a tender of support from the Democrats
who had hitherto opposed him. But Mr. Johnson had evidently resolved
to exhibit a spirit of calmness and firmness in his official
communication, and, while steadily maintaining his own ground, to avoid
all harsh words that might give offense to those who differed from him.
The moderation in language and the general conservatism which
distinguished the message were p