can justly indicate its
devotion to the Democratic policy in measures of expediency."

The controversy with Mr. Johnson had its origin in the difference of
opinion as to the nature of the Government. That difference led him to
the conclusion that the rebellion had not worked any change in the
legal relations of the seceding States to the National Government. His
motto was this: "Once a State, always a State," whatever might be its
conduct either of peace or war. There were, however, differences of
opinion among those who adhered to the Republican Party. Mr. Stevens,
who was a recognized, if not the recognized, leader of the Republican
Party, advocated the doctrine that the eleven States were to be treated
as enemy's territory, and to be governed upon whatever system might be
acceptable to the States that had remained true to the Union. Mr.
Sumner maintained the doctrine that the eleven States were Territories,
and that they were to be subject to the General Government until
Congress should admit the several Territories as State organizations.
The fourth day of May, 1864, I presented a series of resolutions in
the House of Representatives, in which I asserted this doctrine: The
communities that have been in rebellion can be organized into States
only by the will of the loyal people expressed freely and in the
absence of all coercion; that States so organized can become States of
the American Union only when they shall have applied for admission and
their admission shall have been authorized by the existing National
Government. A small number of persons who were identified with the
Republican Party sustained the policy of Mr. Johnson. Others were of
the opinion that the eleven States were out of their proper relation to
the Union, as was declared by Mr. Lincoln in his last speech, and that
they could become members of the American Union only by the organized
action of each, and the concurrent action of the existing National
Government. The Government was reorganized without any distinct
declaration upon the question whether the States that had been in
rebellion were to be treated as enemy's territory, or as Territories
according to the usage of former times. The difference of opinion was
a vital one with Mr. Johnson. Whatever view may be taken of his moral
qualities, it is to be said that he was not deficient in intellectual
ability, that his courage passed far beyond the line of obstinacy, and
that from the