+-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Transcriber's Note: | | | | Inconsistent hyphenation in the original document has | | been preserved. | | | | Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. For | | a complete list, please see the end of this document. | | | +-----------------------------------------------------------+

 A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

[Illustration: _Russell & Sons photo_

CECIL CHESTERTON]

 A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

 BY

 CECIL CHESTERTON

 WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY

 G. K. CHESTERTON

 LONDON

 CHATTO & WINDUS

 1919

 _First published January 16, 1919_

 _Second impression January 17, 1919_

 _All rights reserved_

 DEDICATED TO

 MY COMRADE AND HOSPITAL MATE, LANCE-CORPORAL WOOD, OF THE KING'S OWN LIVERPOOLS, CITIZEN OF MASSACHUSETTS, WHO JOINED THE BRITISH ARMY IN

 AUGUST, 1914. 

 " . .. O more than my brother, how shall I thank thee for all? Each of the heroes around us has fought for his house and his line, But thou hast fought for a stranger in hate of a wrong not thine. Happy are all free peoples too strong to be dispossessed, But happiest those among nations that dare to be strong for the rest. "

 --ELIZABETH BARRETT BROWNING. 

 INTRODUCTION

The author of this book, my brother, died in a French military hospitalof the effects of exposure in the last fierce fighting that broke thePrussian power over Christendom; fighting for which he had volunteeredafter being invalided home. Any notes I can jot down about him mustnecessarily seem jerky and incongruous; for in such a relation memory isa medley of generalisation and detail, not to be uttered in words. Onething at least may fitly be said here. Before he died he did at leasttwo things that he desired. One may seem much greater than the other;but he would not have shrunk from naming them together. He saw the endof an empire that was the nightmare of the nations; but I believe itpleased him almost as much that he had been able, often in the intervalsof bitter warfare and by the aid of a brilliant memory, to put togetherthese pages on the history, so necessary and so strangely neglected, ofthe great democracy which he never patronised, which he not only lovedbut honoured. 

Cecil Edward Chesterton was born on November 12, 1879; and there is aspecial if a secondary sense in which we may use the phrase that he wasborn a fighter. It may seem in some sad fashion a flippancy to say thathe argued from his very cradle. It is certainly, in the same sadfashion, a comfort, to remember one truth about our relations: that weperpetually argued and that we never quarrelled. In a sense it was thepsychological truth, I fancy, that we never quarrelled because we alwaysargued. His lucidity and love of truth kept things so much on the levelof logic, that the rest of our relations remained, thank God, in solidsympathy; long before that later time when, in substance, our argumenthad become an agreement. Nor, I think, was the process valueless; forat least we learnt how to argue in defence of our agreement. But theretrospect is only worth a thought now, because it illustrates a dualitywhich seemed to him, and is, very simple; but to many is baffling in itsvery simplicity. When I say his weapon was logic, it will be currentlyconfused with formality or even frigidity: a silly superstition alwayspictures the logician as a pale-faced prig. He was a living proof, avery living proof, that the precise contrary is the case. In fact it isgenerally the warmer and more sanguine sort of man who has an appetitefor abstract definitions and even abstract distinctions. He had all thedebating dexterity of a genial and generous man like Charles Fox. Hecould command that more than legal clarity and closeness which reallymarked the legal arguments of a genial and generous man like Danton. Inhis wonderfully courageous public speaking, he rather preferred being adebator to being an orator; in a sense he maintained that no man had aright to be an orator without first being a debater. Eloquence, he said, had its proper place when reason had proved a thing to be right, and itwas necessary to give men the courage to do what was right. I think henever needed any man's eloquence to give him that. But the substitutionof sentiment for reason, in the proper place for reason, affected him"as musicians are affected by a false note. " It was the combination ofthis intellectual integrity with extraordinary warmth and simplicity inthe affections that made the point of his personality. The snobs andservile apologists of the _régime_ he resisted seem to think they canatone for being hard-hearted by being soft-headed. He reversed, if evera man did, that relation in the organs. The opposite condition reallycovers all that can be said of him in this brief study; it is the cluenot only to his character but to his career. 

If rationalism meant being rational (which it hardly ever does) he mightat every stage of his life be called a red-hot rationalist. Thus, forinstance, he very early became a Socialist and joined the FabianSociety, on the executive of which he played a prominent part for someyears. But he afterwards gave the explanation, very characteristic forthose who could understand it, that what he liked about the Fabian sortof Socialism was its hardness. He meant intellectual hardness; the factthat the society avoided sentimentalism, and dealt in affirmations andnot mere associations. He meant that upon the Fabian basis a Socialistwas bound to believe in Socialism, but not in sandals, free love, bookbinding, and immediate disarmament. But he also added that, while heliked their hardness, he disliked their moderation. In other words, whenhe discovered, or believed that he discovered, that their intellectualhardness was combined with moral hardness, or rather moral deadness, hefelt all the intellectual ice melted by a moral flame. He had, so tospeak, a reaction of emotional realism, in which he saw, as suddenly assimple men can see simple truths, the potterers of Social Reform as theplotters of the Servile State. He was himself, above all things, ademocrat as well as a Socialist; and in that intellectual sect he beganto feel as if he were the only Socialist who was also a democrat. Hisdogmatic, democratic conviction would alone illustrate the falsity ofthe contrast between logic and life. The idea of human equality existedwith extraordinary clarity in his brain, precisely because it existedwith extraordinary simplicity in his character. His popular sympathies, unlike so many popular sentiments, could really survive any intimacywith the populace; they followed the poor not only at public meetingsbut to public houses. He was literally the only man I ever knew who wasnot only never a snob, but apparently never tempted to be a snob. Thefact is almost more important than his wonderful lack of fear; for suchgood causes, when they cannot be lost by fear, are often lost by favour. 

Thus he came to suspect that Socialism was merely social reform, andthat social reform was merely slavery. But the point still is thatthough his attitude to it was now one of revolt, it was anything but amere revulsion of feeling. He did, indeed, fall back on fundamentalthings, on a fury at the oppression of the poor, on a pity for slaves, and especially for contented slaves. But it is the mark of his type ofmind that he did not abandon Socialism without a rational case againstit, and a rational system to oppose to it. The theory he substitutedfor Socialism is that which may for convenience be calledDistributivism; the theory that private property is proper to everyprivate citizen. This is no place for its exposition; but it will beevident that such a conversion brings the convert into touch with mucholder traditions of human freedom, as expressed in the family or theguild. And it was about the same time that, having for some time held anAnglo-Catholic position, he joined the Roman Catholic Church. It isnotable, in connection with the general argument, that while the deeperreasons for such a change do not concern such a sketch as this, he wasagain characteristically amused and annoyed with the sentimentalists, sympathetic or hostile, who supposed he was attracted by ritual, music, and emotional mysticism. He told such people, somewhat to theirbewilderment, that he had been converted because Rome alone couldsatisfy the reason. In his case, of course, as in Newman's andnumberless others, well-meaning people conceived a thousand crooked orcomplicated explanations, rather than suppose that an obviously honestman believed a thing because he thought it was true. He was soon to givea more dramatic manifestation of his strange taste for the truth. 

The attack on political corruption, the next and perhaps the mostimportant passage in his life, still illustrates the same point, touching reason and enthusiasm. Precisely because he did know whatSocialism is and what it is not, precisely because he had at leastlearned that from the intellectual hardness of the Fabians, he saw thespot where Fabian Socialism is not hard but soft. Socialism means theassumption by the State of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange. To quote (as he often quoted with a rational relish) thewords of Mr. Balfour, that is Socialism and nothing else is Socialism. To such clear thinking, it is at once apparent that trusting a thing tothe State must always mean trusting it to the statesmen. He could defendSocialism because he could define Socialism; and he was not helped orhindered by the hazy associations of the sort of Socialists whoperpetually defended what they never defined. Such men might have avague vision of red flags and red ties waving in an everlasting riotabove the fall of top-hats and Union Jacks; but he knew that Socialismestablished meant Socialism official, and conducted by some sort ofofficials. All the primary forms of private property were to be given tothe government; and it occurred to him, as a natural precaution, to givea glance at the government. He gave some attention to the actual typesand methods of that governing and official class, into whose power tramsand trades and shops and houses were already passing, amid loud Fabiancheers for the progress of Socialism. He looked at modern parliamentarygovernment; he looked at it rationally and steadily and not withoutreflection. And the consequence was that he was put in the dock, andvery nearly put in the lock-up, for calling it what it is. 

In collaboration with Mr. Belloc he had written "The Party System, " inwhich the plutocratic and corrupt nature of our present polity is setforth. And when Mr. Belloc founded the _Eye-Witness_, as a bold andindependent organ of the same sort of criticism, he served as theenergetic second in command. He subsequently became editor of the_Eye-Witness_, which was renamed as the _New Witness_. It was during thelatter period that the great test case of political corruption occurred;pretty well known in England, and unfortunately much better known inEurope, as the Marconi scandal. To narrate its alternate secrecies andsensations would be impossible here; but one fashionable fallacy aboutit may be exploded with advantage. An extraordinary notion still existsthat the _New Witness_ denounced Ministers for gambling on the StockExchange. It might be improper for Ministers to gamble; but gambling wascertainly not a misdemeanor that would have hardened with any specialhorror so hearty an Anti-Puritan as the man of whom I write. The Marconicase did not raise the difficult ethics of gambling, but the perfectlyplain ethics of secret commissions. The charge against the Ministers wasthat, while a government contract was being considered, they tried tomake money out of a secret tip, given them by the very governmentcontractor with whom their government was supposed to be bargaining. This was what their accuser asserted; but this was not what theyattempted to answer by a prosecution. He was prosecuted, not for whathe had said of the government, but for some secondary things he had saidof the government contractor. The latter, Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, gained averdict for criminal libel; and the judge inflicted a fine of £100. Readers may have chanced to note the subsequent incidents in the life ofMr. Isaacs, but I am here only concerned with incidents in the life of amore interesting person. 

In any suggestion of his personality, indeed, the point does not lie inwhat was done to him, but rather in what was not done. He was positivelyassured, upon the very strongest and most converging legal authority, that unless he offered certain excuses he would certainly go to prisonfor several years. He did not offer those excuses; and I believe itnever occurred to him to do so. His freedom from fear of all kinds hadabout it a sort of solid unconsciousness and even innocence. Thishomogeneous quality in it has been admirably seized and summed up by Mr. Belloc in a tribute of great truth and power. "His courage was heroic, native, positive and equal: always at the highest potentiality ofcourage. He never in his life checked an action or a word from aconsideration of personal caution, and that is more than can be said ofany other man of his time. " After the more or less nominal fine, however, his moral victory was proved in the one way in which a militaryvictory can ever be proved. It is the successful general who continueshis own plan of campaign. Whether a battle be ticketed in the historybooks as lost or won, the test is which side can continue to strike. Hecontinued to strike, and to strike harder than ever, up to the verymoment of that yet greater experience which changed all such militarysymbols into military facts. A man with instincts unspoiled and in thatsense almost untouched, he would have always answered quite naturally tothe autochthonous appeal of patriotism; but it is again characteristicof him that he desired, in his own phrase, to "rationalize patriotism, "which he did upon the principles of Rousseau, that contractual theorywhich, in these pages, he connects with the great name of Jefferson. Butthings even deeper than patriotism impelled him against Prussianism. Hisenemy was the barbarian when he enslaves, as something more hellisheven than the barbarian when he slays. His was the spiritual instinct bywhich Prussian order was worse than Prussian anarchy; and nothing was soinhuman as an inhuman humanitarianism. If you had asked him for what hefought and died amid the wasted fields of France and Flanders, he mightvery probably have answered that it was to save the world from Germansocial reforms. 

This note, necessarily so broken and bemused, must reach its uselessend. I have said nothing of numberless things that should be rememberedat the mention of his name; of his books, which were great pamphlets andmay yet be permanent pamphlets; of his journalistic exposures of otherevils besides the Marconi, exposures that have made a new politicalatmosphere in the very election that is stirring around us; of his visitto America, which initiated him into an international friendship whichis the foundation of this book. Least of all can I write of him apartfrom his work; of that loss nothing can be said by those who do notsuffer it, and less still by those who do. And his experiences in lifeand death were so much greater even than my experiences of him, that adouble incapacity makes me dumb. A portrait is impossible; as a friendhe is too near me, and as a hero too far away. 

 G. K. CHESTERTON. 

 AUTHOR'S PREFACE

I have taken advantage of a very brief respite from other, and in myjudgment more valuable, employment, to produce this short sketch of thestory of a great people, now our Ally. My motive has been mainly that Ido not think that any such sketch, concentrated enough to be readable bythe average layman who has other things to do (especially in these days)than to study more elaborate and authoritative histories, at presentexists, and I have thought that in writing it I might perhaps bedischarging some little part of the heavy debt of gratitude which I oweto America for the hospitality I received from her when I visited hershores during the early months of the War. 

This book is in another sense the product of that visit. What I then sawand heard of contemporary America so fascinated me that--believing as Ido that the key to every people is in its past--I could not rest until Ihad mastered all that I could of the history of my delightful hosts. This I sought as much as possible from the original sources, readingvoraciously, and at the time merely for my pleasure, such records as Icould get of old debates and of the speech and correspondence of thedead. The two existing histories, which I also read, and upon which Ihave drawn most freely, are that of the present President of the UnitedStates and that of Professor Rhodes, dealing with the period from 1850to 1876. With the conclusions of the latter authority it will be obviousthat I am in many respects by no means at one; but I think it the morenecessary to say that without a careful study of his book I couldneither have formed my own conclusions nor ventured to challenge his. The reading that I did at the time of which I speak is the foundation ofwhat I have now written. It will be well understood that a Private inthe British Army, even when invalided home for a season, has not verygreat opportunities for research. I think it very likely that errors ofdetail may be discovered in these pages; I am quite sure that I couldhave made the book a better one if I had been able to give more time torevising my studies. Yet I believe that the story told here issubstantially true; and I am very sure that it is worth the telling. 

If I am asked why I think it desirable at this moment to attempt, however inadequately, a history of our latest Ally, I answer that atthis moment the whole future of our civilization may depend upon athoroughly good understanding between those nations which are now joinedin battle for its defence, and that ignorance of each other's history isperhaps the greatest menace to such an understanding. To take oneinstance at random--how many English writers have censured, sometimes interms of friendly sorrow, sometimes in a manner somewhat pharisaical, the treatment of Negroes in Southern States in all its phases, varyingfrom the provision of separate waiting-rooms to sporadic outbreaks oflynching! How few ever mention, or seem to have even heard the word"Reconstruction"--a word which, in its historical connotation, explainsall!

I should, perhaps, add a word to those Americans who may chance to readthis book. To them, of course, I must offer a somewhat differentapology. I believe that, with all my limitations, I can tell myfellow-countrymen things about the history of America which they do notknow. It would be absurd effrontery to pretend that I can tell Americanswhat they do not know. For them, whatever interest this book may possessmust depend upon the value of a foreigner's interpretation of the facts. I know that I should be extraordinarily interested in an American's viewof the story of England since the Separation; and I can only hope thatsome degree of such interest may attach to these pages in American eyes. 

It will be obvious to Americans that in some respects my view of theirhistory is individual. For instance, I give Andrew Jackson both agreater place in the development of American democracy and a higher meedof personal praise than do most modern American historians and writerswhom I have read. I give my judgment for what it is worth. In my view, the victory of Jackson over the Whigs was the turning-point of Americanhistory and finally decided that the United States should be a democracyand not a parliamentary oligarchy. And I am further of opinion that, both as soldier and ruler, "Old Hickory" was a hero of whom any nationmight well be proud. 

I am afraid that some offence may be given by my portrait of CharlesSumner. I cannot help it. I do not think that between his admirers andmyself there is any real difference as to the kind of man he was. It isa kind that some people revere. It is a kind that I detest--absolutelyleprous scoundrels excepted--more than I can bring myself to detest anyother of God's creatures. 

 CECIL CHESTERTON. 

SOMEWHERE IN FRANCE, _May 1st, 1918. _

 CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

 I. THE ENGLISH COLONIES 1

 II. ARMS AND THE RIGHTS OF MAN 14

 III. "WE, THE PEOPLE" 36

 IV. THE MANTLE OF WASHINGTON 51

 V. THE VIRGINIAN DYNASTY 65

 VI. THE JACKSONIAN REVOLUTION 90

 VII. THE SPOILS OF MEXICO 110

VIII. THE SLAVERY QUESTION 129

 IX. SECESSION AND CIVIL WAR 156

 X. "THE BLACK TERROR" 203

 XI. THE NEW PROBLEMS 227

 INDEX 241

 A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

 CHAPTER I

 THE ENGLISH COLONIES

In the year of Our Lord 1492, thirty-nine years after the taking ofConstantinople by the Turks and eighteen years after the establishmentof Caxton's printing press, one Christopher Columbus, an Italian sailor, set sail from Spain with the laudable object of converting the Khan ofTartary to the Christian Faith, and on his way discovered the continentof America. The islands on which Columbus first landed and the adjacentstretch of mainland from Mexico to Patagonia which the Spaniards whofollowed him colonized lay outside the territory which is now known asthe United States. Nevertheless the instinct of the American democracyhas always looked back to him as a sort of ancestor, and popularAmerican tradition conceives of him as in some shadowy fashion afounder. And that instinct and tradition, like most such nationalinstincts and traditions, is sound. 

In the epoch which most of us can remember pretty vividly--for it cameto an abrupt end less than five years ago--when people were anxious toprove that everything important in human history had been done by"Teutons, " there was a great effort to show that Columbus was not reallythe first European discoverer of America; that that honour belongedproperly to certain Scandinavian sea-captains who at some time in thetenth or eleventh centuries paid a presumably piratical visit to thecoast of Greenland. It may be so, but the incident is quite irrelevant. That one set of barbarians from the fjords of Norway came in theirwanderings in contact with another set of barbarians living in thefrozen lands north of Labrador is a fact, if it be a fact, of little orno historical import. The Vikings had no more to teach the Esquimauxthan had the Esquimaux to teach the Vikings. Both were at that timeoutside the real civilization of Europe. 

Columbus, on the other hand, came from the very centre of Europeancivilization and that at a time when that civilization was approachingthe summit of one of its constantly recurrent periods of youth andrenewal. In the North, indeed, what strikes the eye in the fifteenthcentury is rather the ugliness of a decaying order--the tortures, thepanic of persecution, the morbid obsession of the _danse macabre_--thingswhich many think of as Mediæval, but which belong really only to theMiddle Ages when old and near to death. But all the South was alreadyfull of the new youth of the Renaissance. Boccaccio had lived, Leonardowas at the height of his glory. In the fields of Touraine was alreadyplaying with his fellows the boy that was to be Rabelais. 

Such adventures as that of Columbus, despite his pious intentions withregard to the Khan of Tartary, were a living part of the Renaissance andwere full of its spirit, and it is from the Renaissance that Americancivilization dates. It is an important point to remember about America, and especially about the English colonies which were to become theUnited States, that they have had no memory of the Middle Ages. They hadand have, on the other hand, a real, formative memory of Pagan antiquity, for the age in which the oldest of them were born was full of enthusiasmfor that memory, while it thought, as most Americans still think, of theMiddle Ages as a mere feudal barbarism. 

Youth and adventurousness were not the only notes of the Renaissance, nor the only ones which we shall see affecting the history of America. Another note was pride, and with that pride in its reaction against theold Christian civilization went a certain un-Christian scorn of povertyand still more of the ugliness and ignorance which go with poverty; andthere reappeared--to an extent at least, and naturally most of all wherethe old religion had been completely lost--that naked Pagan repugnancewhich almost refused to recognize a human soul in the barbarian. It isnotable that in these new lands which the Renaissance had thrown open toEuropean men there at once reappears that institution which had oncebeen fundamental to Europe and which the Faith had slowly and withdifficulty undermined and dissolved--Slavery. 

The English colonies in America owe their first origin partly to theEnglish instinct for wandering and especially for wandering on the sea, which naturally seized on the adventurous element in the Renaissance asthat most congenial to the national temper, and partly to the secularantagonism between England and Spain. Spain, whose sovereign then ruledPortugal and therefore the Portuguese as well as Spanish colonies, claimed the whole of the New World as part of her dominions, and herpractical authority extended unchallenged from Florida to Cape Horn. Itwould have been hopeless for England to have attempted seriously tochallenge that authority where it existed in view of the relativestrength at that time of the two kingdoms; and in general the Englishseamen confined themselves to hampering and annoying the Spanishcommerce by acts of privateering which the Spaniards naturallydesignated as piracy. But to the bold and inventive mind of the greatRaleigh there occurred another conception. Spain, though she claimed thewhole American continent, had not in fact made herself mistress of allits habitable parts. North of the rich lands which supplied gold andsilver to the Spanish exchequer, but still well within the temperatezone of climate, lay great tracts bordering the Atlantic where noSpanish soldier or ruler had ever set his foot. To found an Englishcolony in the region would not be an impossible task like the attempt toseize any part of the Spanish empire, yet it would be a practicalchallenge to the Spanish claim. Raleigh accordingly projected, andothers, entering into his plans, successfully planted, an Englishsettlement on the Atlantic seaboard to the south of Chesapeake Baywhich, in honour of the Queen, was named "Virginia. "

In the subsequent history of the English colonies which became AmericanStates we often find a curious and recurrent reflection of their origin. Virginia was the first of those colonies to come into existence, and weshall see her both as a colony and as a State long retaining a sort ofprimacy amongst them. She also retained, in the incidents of her historyand in the characters of many of her great men, a colour which seemspartly Elizabethan. Her Jefferson, with his omnivorous culture, his loveof music and the arts, his proficiency at the same time in sports andbodily exercises, suggests something of the graceful versatility of menlike Essex and Raleigh, and we shall see her in her last agony produce asoldier about whose high chivalry and heroic and adventurous failurethere clings a light of romance that does not seem to belong to themodern world. 

If the external quarrels of England were the immediate cause of thefoundation of Virginia, the two colonies which next make theirappearance owe their origin to her internal divisions. James I. And hisson Charles I. , though by conviction much more genuine Protestants thanElizabeth, were politically more disposed to treat the Catholics withleniency. The paradox is not, perhaps, difficult to explain. Being moregenuinely Protestant they were more interested in the internecinequarrels of Protestants, and their enemies in those internecinequarrels, the Puritans, now become a formidable party, were naturallythe fiercest enemies of the old religion. This fact probably led the twofirst Stuarts to look upon that religion with more indulgence. Theydared not openly tolerate the Catholics, but they were not unwilling toshow them such favour as they could afford to give. Therefore when aCatholic noble, Lord Baltimore, proposed to found a new plantation inAmerica where his co-religionists could practise their faith in peaceand security, the Stuart kings were willing enough to grant his request. James approved the project, his son confirmed it, and, under a RoyalCharter from King Charles I. , Lord Baltimore established his Catholiccolony, which he called "Maryland. " The early history of this colony isinteresting because it affords probably the first example of fullreligious liberty. It would doubtless have been suicidal for theCatholics, situated as they were, to attempt anything like persecution, but Baltimore and the Catholics of Maryland for many generations deservenone the less honour for the consistency with which they pursued theirtolerant policy. So long as the Catholics remained in control all sectswere not only tolerated but placed on a footing of complete equalitybefore the law, and as a fact both the Nonconformist persecuted inVirginia and the Episcopalian persecuted in New England frequently foundrefuge and peace in Catholic Maryland. The English Revolution of 1689produced a change. The new English Government was pledged against thetoleration of a Catholicism anywhere. The representative of theBaltimore family was deposed from the Governorship and the controltransferred to the Protestants, who at once repealed the edicts oftoleration and forbade the practice of the Catholic religion. They didnot, however, succeed in extirpating it, and to this day many of the oldMaryland families are Catholic, as are also a considerable proportion ofthe Negroes. It may further be noted that, though the experiment inreligious equality was suppressed by violence, the idea seems never tohave been effaced, and Maryland was one of the first colonies toaccompany its demand for freedom with a declaration in favour ofuniversal toleration. 

At about the same time that the persecuted Catholics found a refuge inMaryland, a similar refuge was sought by the persecuted Puritans. Anumber of these, who had found a temporary home in Holland, sailedthence for America in the celebrated _Mayflower_ and colonized NewEngland on the Atlantic coast far to the north of the plantations ofRaleigh and Baltimore. From this root sprang the colonies ofMassachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode Island, and later theStates of New Hampshire and Maine. It would be putting it with ironicalmildness to say that the Pilgrim Fathers did not imitate the tolerantexample of the Catholic refugees. Religious persecution had indeed beenpractised by all parties in the quarrels of the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries; but for much of the early legislation of thePuritan colonies one can find no parallel in the history of Europeanmen. Calvinism, that strange fierce creed which Wesley so correctlydescribed as one that gave God the exact functions and attributes of thedevil, produced even in Europe a sufficiency of madness and horror; buthere was Calvinism cut off from its European roots and from the reactionand influence of Christian civilization. Its records read like those ofa madhouse where religious maniacs have broken loose and locked up theirkeepers. We hear of men stoned to death for kissing their wives on theSabbath, of lovers pilloried or flogged at the cart's tail for kissingeach other at all without licence from the deacons, the wholeculminating in a mad panic of wholesale demonism and witchburning sovividly described in one of the most brilliant of Mrs. Gaskell'sstories, "Lois the Witch. " Of course, in time the fanaticism of thefirst New England settlers cooled into something like sanity. But astrong Puritan tradition remained and played a great part in Americanhistory. Indeed, if Lee, the Virginian, has about him something of theCavalier, it is still more curious to note that nineteenth-century NewEngland, with its atmosphere of quiet scholars and cultured tea parties, suddenly flung forth in John Brown a figure whose combination ofsoldierly skill with maniac fanaticism, of a martyr's fortitude with amurderer's cruelty, seems to have walked straight out of the seventeenthcentury and finds its nearest parallel in some of the warriors of theCovenant. 

The colonies so far enumerated owe their foundation solely to Englishenterprise and energy; but in the latter half of the seventeenth centuryforeign war brought to England a batch of colonies ready made. At themouth of the Hudson River, between Maryland and the New Englandcolonies, lay the Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam. The first colonistswho had established themselves there had been Swedes, but from Swedenits sovereignty had passed to Holland, and the issue of the Dutch warsgave it to the English, by whom it was re-christened New York in honourof the King's brother, afterwards James II. It would perhaps bestraining the suggestion already made of the persistent influences oforigins to see in the varied racial and national beginnings of New Yorka presage of that cosmopolitan quality which still marks the greatestof American cities, making much of it a patchwork of races andlanguages, and giving to the electric stir of Broadway an air whichsuggests a Continental rather than an English city, but it is moreplausible to note that New York had no original link with the Puritanismof New England and of the North generally, and that in fact we shallfind the premier city continually isolated from the North, following atradition and a policy of its own. 

With New Amsterdam was also ceded the small Dutch plantation ofDelaware, which lay between Maryland and the Atlantic, while England atthe same time established her claim to the disputed territory betweenthe two which became the colony of New Jersey. 

Shortly after the cession of New Amsterdam William Penn obtained fromCharles II. A charter for the establishment of a colony to the north ofMaryland, between that settlement and the newly acquired territories ofNew Jersey and New York. This plantation was designed especially as arefuge for the religious sect to which Penn belonged, the Quakers, whohad been persecuted by all religious parties and especially savagely bythe Puritan colonists of New England. Penn, the most remarkable man thatever professed the strange doctrines of that sect, was a favourite withthe King, who had a keen eye for character, and as the son of adistinguished admiral he had a sort of hereditary claim upon thegratitude of the Crown. He easily carried his point with Charles, andhimself supervised the foundations of the new commonwealth ofPennsylvania. Two surveyors were sent out by royal authority to fix theboundary between Penn's concession and the existing colony ofMaryland--Mr. Mason and Mr. Dixon by name. However elated these twogentlemen may have been by their appointment to so responsible anoffice, they probably little thought that their names would beimmortalized. Yet so it was to be. For the line they drew became thefamous "Mason-Dixon" line, and was to be in after years the frontierbetween the Slave States and the Free. 

In all that he did in the New World Penn showed himself not only a greatbut a most just and wise man. He imitated, with happier issue, theliberality of Baltimore in the matter of religious freedom, and to thisday the Catholics of Philadelphia boast of possessing the only Church inthe United States in which Mass has been said continuously since theseventeenth century. But it is in his dealings with the natives thatPenn's humanity and honour stand out most conspicuously. None of theother founders of English colonies had ever treated the Indians exceptas vermin to be exterminated as quickly as possible. Penn treated themas free contracting parties with full human rights. He bought of themfairly the land he needed, and strictly observed every article of thepact that he made with them. Anyone visiting to-day the city which hefounded will find in its centre a little strip of green, still unbuiltupon, where, in theory, any passing Indians are at liberty to pitchtheir camp--a monument and one of the clauses of Penn's celebratedtreaty. 

In the same reign the settlement of the lands lying to the south ofVirginia had begun, under the charter granted by Charles II. To the Hydefamily, and the new plantations were called after the sovereign"Carolina. " But their importance dates from the next century, when theyreceived the main stream of a new tide of immigration due to politicaland economic causes. England, having planted a Protestant Anglo-Scottishcolony in North-East Ireland, proceeded to ruin its own creation by along series of commercial laws directed to the protection of Englishmanufacturers against the competition of the colonists. Under thepressure of this tyranny a great number of these colonists, largelyScotch by original nationality and Presbyterian by religion, left Ulsterfor America. They poured into the Carolinas, North and South, as well asinto Pennsylvania and Virginia, and overflowed into a new colony whichwas established further west and named Georgia. It is important to notethis element in the colonization of the Southern States, because it istoo often loosely suggested that the later division of North and Southcorresponded to the division of Cavalier and Puritan. It is not so. Virginia and Maryland may be called Cavalier in their origin, but in theCarolinas and Georgia there appears a Puritan tradition, not indeed asfanatical as that of New England, but almost as persistent. Moreoverthis Scotch-Irish stock, whose fathers, it may be supposed, left Irelandin no very good temper with the rulers of Great Britain, afterwardssupplied the most military and the most determined element inWashington's armies, and gave to the Republic some of its most strikinghistorical personalities: Patrick Henry and John Caldwell Calhoun, Jackson, the great President, and his namesake the brilliant soldier ofthe Confederacy. 

The English colonies now formed a solid block extending from the coastsof Maine--into which northernmost region the New England colonies hadoverflown--to the borders of Florida. Florida was still a Spanishpossession, but Spain had ceased to be formidable as a rival or enemy ofEngland. By the persistence of a century in arms and diplomacy, theFrench had worn down the Spanish power, and France was now easily thestrongest nation in Europe. France also had a foothold, or rather twofootholds, in North America. One of her colonies, Louisiana, lay beyondFlorida at the mouth of the Mississippi; the other, Canada, to the northof the Maine, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence. It was the aim of Frenchcolonial ambition to extend both colonies inland into the unmapped heartof the American continent until they should meet. This would necessarilyhave had the effect of hemming in the English settlements on theAtlantic seaboard and preventing their Western expansion. Throughout thefirst half of the eighteenth century, therefore, the rivalry grew moreand more acute, and even when France and England were at peace theFrench and English in America were almost constantly at war. Theirconflict was largely carried on under cover of alliances with thewarring Indian tribes, whose feuds kept the region of the Great Lakes ina continual turmoil. The outbreak of the Seven Years' War and theintervention of England as an ally of Prussia put an end to thenecessity for such pretexts, and a regular military campaign opened uponwhich was staked the destiny of North America. 

It is not necessary for the purposes of this book to follow thatcampaign in detail. The issue was necessarily fought out in Canada, forLouisiana lay remote from the English colonies and was separated fromthem by the neutral territory of the Spanish Empire. England hadthroughout the war the advantage of superiority at sea, which enabledher to supply and reinforce her armies, while the French forces werepractically cut off from Europe. The French, on the other hand, had atthe beginning the advantage of superior numbers, at least so far asregular troops were concerned, while for defensive purposes theypossessed an excellent chain of very strong fortresses carefullyprepared before the war. After the earlier operations, which cleared theFrench invaders out of the English colonies, the gradual reduction ofthese strongholds practically forms the essence of the campaignundertaken by a succession of English generals under the politicaldirection of the elder Pitt. That campaign was virtually brought to aclose by the brilliant exploit of James Wolfe in 1759--the taking ofQuebec. By the Treaty of Paris in 1763 Canada was ceded to England. Meanwhile Louisiana had been transferred to Spain in 1762 as part of theprice of a Spanish alliance, and France ceased to be a rival to Englandon the American continent. 

During the French war the excellent professional army which England wasable to maintain in the field was supported by levies raised from theEnglish colonies, which did good service in many engagements. Among theofficers commanding these levies one especially had attracted, by hiscourage and skill, and notably by the part he bore in the clearing ofPennsylvania, the notice of his superiors--George Washington ofVirginia. 

England was now in a position to develop in peace the empire which hersword had defended with such splendid success and glory. Before weconsider the causes which so suddenly shattered that empire, it isnecessary to take a brief survey of its geography and of its economicconditions. 

The colonies, as we have seen, were spread along the Atlantic seaboardto an extent of well over a thousand miles, covering nearly twentydegrees of latitude. The variations of climate were naturally great, andinvolved marked differentiations in the character and products oflabour. The prosperity of the Southern colonies depended mainly upon twogreat staple industries. Raleigh, in the course of his voyages, hadlearned from the Indians the use of the tobacco plant and had introducedthat admirable discovery into Europe. As Europe learned (in spite of theprotests of James I. ) to prize the glorious indulgence now offered toit, the demand for tobacco grew, and its supply became the principalbusiness of the colonies of Virginia and Maryland. Further to the southa yet more important and profitable industry was established. Theclimate of the Carolinas and of Georgia and of the undeveloped countrywest of these colonies, a climate at once warm and humid, was found tobe exactly suited to the cultivation of the cotton plant. This provedthe more important when the discoveries of Watt and Arkwright gaveLancashire the start of all the world in the manipulation of the cottonfabric. From that moment begins the triumphant progress of "KingCotton, " which was long to outlast the political connection between theCarolinas and Lancashire, and was to give in the political balance ofAmerica peculiar importance to the "Cotton States. "

But at the time now under consideration these cotton-growing territorieswere still under the British Crown, and were subject to the NavigationLaws upon which England then mainly relied for the purpose of making hercolonies a source of profit to her. The main effect of these was toforbid the colonies to trade with any neighbour save the mother country. This condition, to which the colonists seem to have offered noopposition, gave to the British manufacturers the immense advantage ofan unrestricted supply of raw material to which no foreigner had access. It is among the curious ironies of history that the prosperity ofLancashire, which was afterwards to be identified with Free Trade, wasoriginally founded upon this very drastic and successful form ofProtection. 

The more northerly colonies had no such natural advantages. The bulk ofthe population lived by ordinary farming, grew wheat and the hardcereals and raised cattle. But during the eighteenth century Englandherself was still an exporting country as regards these commodities, andwith other nations the colonists were forbidden to trade. The Northerncolonies had, therefore, no considerable export commerce, but on theseaboard they gradually built up a considerable trade as carriers, andBoston and New York merchant captains began to have a name on theAtlantic for skill and enterprise. Much of the transoceanic trade passedinto their hands, and especially one most profitable if not veryhonourable trade of which, by the Treaty of Utrecht, England hadobtained a virtual monopoly--the trade in Negro slaves. 

The pioneer of this traffic had been Sir John Hawkins, one of theboldest of the great Elizabethan sailors. He seems to have been thefirst of the merchant adventurers to realize that it might proveprofitable to kidnap Negroes from the West Coast of Africa and sell theminto slavery in the American colonies. The cultivation of cotton andtobacco in the Southern plantations, as of sugar in the West Indies, offered a considerable demand for labour of a type suitable to theNegro. The attempt to compel the native Indians to such labour hadfailed; the Negro proved more tractable. By the time with which we aredealing the whole industry of the Southern colonies already rested uponservile coloured labour. 

In the Northern colonies--that is, those north of Maryland--the Negroslave existed, but only casually, and, as it were, as a sort ofaccident. Slavery was legal in all the colonies--even in Pennsylvania, whose great founder had been almost alone in that age in disapproving ofit. As for the New England Puritans, they had from the first been quiteenthusiastic about the traffic, in which indeed they were deeplyinterested as middle-men; and Calvinist ministers of the purestorthodoxy held services of thanksgiving to God for cargoes of poorbarbarians rescued from the darkness of heathendom and brought (thoughforcibly) into the gospel light. But though the Northerners had no morescruple about Slavery than the Southerners, they had far less practicaluse for it. The Negro was of no value for the sort of labour in whichthe New Englanders engaged; he died of it in the cold climate. Negroslaves there were in all the Northern States, but mostly employed asdomestic servants or in casual occupations. They were a luxury, not anecessity. 

A final word must be said about the form of government under which thecolonists lived. In all the colonies, though there were, of course, variations of detail, it was substantially the same. It was founded inevery case upon Royal Charters granted at some time or other to theplanters by the English king. In every case there was a Governor, whowas assisted by some sort of elective assembly. The Governor was therepresentative of the King and was nominated by him. The legislature wasin some form or other elected by the free citizens. The mode of electionand the franchise varied from colony to colony--Massachusetts at onetime based hers upon pew rents--but it was generally in harmony with thefeeling and traditions of the colonists. It was seldom that any frictionoccurred between the King's representative and the burgesses, as theywere generally called. While the relations between the colonies and themother country remained tranquil the Governor had every motive forpursuing a conciliatory policy. His personal comfort depended upon hisbeing popular in the only society which he could frequent. His reputewith the Home Government, if he valued it, was equally served by thetranquillity and contentment of the dominion he ruled. 

In fact, the American colonists, during the eighteenth century, enjoyedwhat a simple society left to itself almost always enjoys, underwhatever forms--the substance of democracy. That fact must beemphasized, because without a recognition of it the flaming responsewhich met the first proclamation of theoretic democracy would beunintelligible. It is explicable only when we remember that to theunspoiled conscience of man as man democracy will ever be the mostself-evident of truths. It is the complexity of our civilization thatblinds us to its self-evidence, teaching us to acquiesce in irrationalprivilege as inevitable, and at last to see nothing strange in beingruled by a class, whether of nobles or of mere parliamentarians. But theman who looks at the world with the terrible eyes of his first innocencecan never see an unequal law as anything but an iniquity, or governmentdivorced from the general will as anything but usurpation. 

 CHAPTER II

 ARMS AND THE RIGHTS OF MAN

Such was roughly the position of the thirteen English colonies in NorthAmerica when in the year 1764, shortly after the conclusion of the SevenYears' War, George Grenville, who had become the chief Minister ofGeorge III. After the failure of Lord Bute, proposed to raise a revenuefrom these colonies by the imposition of a Stamp Act. 

The Stamp Act and the resistance it met mark so obviously the beginningof the business which ended in the separation of the United States fromGreat Britain that Grenville and the British Parliament have beenfrequently blamed for the lightness of heart with which they enteredupon so momentous a course. But in fact it did not seem to themmomentous, nor is it easy to say why they should have thought itmomentous. It is certain that Grenville's political opponents, many ofwhom were afterwards to figure as the champions of the colonists, atfirst saw its momentousness as little as he. They offered to hisproposal only the most perfunctory sort of opposition, less than theyhabitually offered to all his measures, good or bad. 

And, in point of fact, there was little reason why a Whig of the typeand class that then governed England should be startled or shocked by aproposal to extend the English system of stamping documents to theEnglish colonies. That Parliament had the legal right to tax thecolonies was not seriously questionable. Under the British Constitutionthe power of King, Lords and Commons over the King's subjects was and isabsolute, and none denied that the colonists were the King's subjects. They pleaded indeed that their charters did not expressly authorize suchtaxation; but neither did they expressly exclude it, and on a strictconstruction it would certainly seem that a power which would haveexisted if there had been no charter remained when the charter wassilent. 

It might further be urged that equity as well as law justified thetaxation of the colonies, for the expenditure which these taxes wereraised to meet was largely incurred in defending the colonies firstagainst the French and then against the Indians. The method of taxationchosen was not new, neither had it been felt to be specially grievous. Much revenue is raised in Great Britain and all European countriesto-day by that method, and there is probably no form of taxation atwhich men grumble less. Its introduction into America had actually beenrecommended on its merits by eminent Americans. It had been proposed bythe Governor of Pennsylvania as early as 1739. It had been approved atone time by Benjamin Franklin himself. To-day it must seem to most of usboth less unjust and less oppressive than the Navigation Laws, which thecolonists bore without complaint. 

As for the suggestion sometimes made that there was somethingunprecedentedly outrageous about an English Parliament taxing people whowere unrepresented there, it is, in view of the constitution of thatParliament, somewhat comic. If the Parliament of 1764 could only taxthose whom it represented, its field of taxation would be somewhatnarrow. Indeed, the talk about taxation without representation beingtyranny, however honestly it might be uttered by an American, could onlybe conscious or unconscious hypocrisy in men like Burke, who were notonly passing their lives in governing and taxing people who wereunrepresented, but who were quite impenitently determined to resist anyattempt to get them represented even in the most imperfect fashion. 

All this is true; and yet it is equally true that the proposed tax atonce excited across the Atlantic the most formidable discontent. Of thisdiscontent we may perhaps summarize the immediate causes as follows. Firstly, no English minister or Parliament had, as a fact, ever beforeattempted to tax the colonies. That important feature of the casedistinguished it from that of the Navigation Laws, which hadprescription on their side. Then, if the right to tax were onceadmitted, no one could say how far it would be pushed. Under theNavigation Laws the colonists knew just how far they were restricted, and they knew that within the limits of such restrictions they couldstill prosper. But if once the claim of the British Parliament to taxwere quietly accepted, it seemed likely enough that every BritishMinister who had nowhere else to turn for a revenue would turn to theunrepresented colonies, which would furnish supply after supply untilthey were "bled white. " That was a perfectly sound, practicalconsideration, and it naturally appealed with especial force tomercantile communities like that of Boston. 

But if we assume that it was the only consideration involved, we shallmisunderstand all that followed, and be quite unprepared for thesweeping victory of a purely doctrinal political creed which broughtabout the huge domestic revolution of which the breaking of the tieswith England was but an aspect. The colonists did feel it unjust thatthey should be taxed by an authority which was in no way responsible tothem; and they so felt it because, as has already been pointed out, theyenjoyed in the management of their everyday affairs a large measure ofpractical democracy. Therein they differed from the English, who, beinghabitually governed by an oligarchy, did not feel it extraordinary thatthe same oligarchy should tax them. The Americans for the most partgoverned themselves, and the oligarchy came in only as an alien andunnatural thing levying taxes. Therefore it was resisted. 

The resistance was at first largely instinctive. The formulation of thedemocratic creed which should justify it was still to come. Yet alreadythere were voices, especially in Virginia, which adumbrated theincomparable phrases of the greatest of Virginians. Already RichardBland had appealed to "the law of Nature and those rights of mankindthat flow from it. " Already Patrick Henry had said, "Give me liberty orgive me death!"

It was but a foreshadowing of the struggle to come. In 1766 theRockingham Whigs, having come into power upon the fall of Grenville, after some hesitation repealed the Stamp Act, reaffirming at the sametime the abstract right of Parliament to tax the colonies. America wasfor the time quieted. There followed in England a succession of weakMinistries, all, of course, drawn from the same oligarchical class, andall of much the same political temper, but all at issue with each other, and all more or less permanently at issue with the King. As a mereby-product of one of the multitudinous intrigues to which this situationgave rise, Charles Townshend, a brilliant young Whig orator who hadbecome Chancellor of the Exchequer, revived in 1768 the project oftaxing the American colonies. This was now proposed in the form of aseries of duties levied on goods exported to those colonies--the onemost obnoxious to the colonists and most jealously maintained by theMinisters being a duty on tea. The Opposition had now learnt from theresult of the Stamp Act debate that American taxation was an excellentissue on which to challenge the Ministry, and the Tea Tax became at oncea "Party Question"--that is, a question upon which the rival oligarchsdivided themselves into opposing groups. 

Meanwhile in America the new taxes were causing even more exasperationthan the Stamp Act had caused--probably because they were more menacingin their form, if not much more severe in their effect. At any rate, itis significant that in the new struggle we find the commercial colony ofMassachusetts very decidedly taking the lead. The taxed tea, on itsarrival in Boston harbour, was seized and flung into the sea. A wiseGovernment would have withdrawn when it was obvious that the enforcementof the taxes would cost far more than the taxes themselves were worth, the more so as they had already been so whittled down by concessions asto be worth practically nothing, and it is likely enough that thegenerally prudent and politic aristocrats who then directed the actionof England would have reverted to the Rockingham policy had not the Kingmade up his unfortunate German mind to the coercion and humiliation ofthe discontented colonists. It is true that the British Crown had longlost its power of independent action, and that George III. Had failed inhis youthful attempts to recapture it. Against the oligarchy combined hewas helpless; but his preference for one group of oligarchs over anotherwas still an asset, and he let it clearly be understood that suchinfluence as he possessed would be exercised unreservedly in favour ofany group that would undertake to punish the American rebels. He foundin Lord North a Minister willing, though not without considerablemisgivings, to forward his policy and able to secure for it a majorityin Parliament. And from that moment the battle between the HomeGovernment and the colonists was joined. 

The character and progress of that battle will best be grasped if wemark down certain decisive incidents which determine its course. Thefirst of these was the celebrated "Boston Tea Party" referred to above. It was the first act of overt resistance, and it was followed on theEnglish side by the first dispatch of an armed force--grossly inadequatefor its purpose--to America, and on the American by the rapid arming anddrilling of the local militias not yet avowedly against the Crown, butobviously with the ultimate intention of resisting the royal authorityshould it be pushed too far. 

The next turning-point is the decision of the British Government earlyin 1774 to revoke the Charter of Massachusetts. It is the chief event ofthe period during which war is preparing, and it leads directly to allthat follows. For it raised a new controversy which could not beresolved by the old legal arguments, good or bad. Hitherto the colonistshad relied upon their interpretation of existing charters, while theGovernment contented itself with putting forward a differentinterpretation. But the new action of that Government shifted the groundof debate from the question of the interpretation of the charters tothat of the ultimate source of their authority. The Ministers said ineffect, "You pretend that this document concedes to you the right ofimmunity from taxation. We deny it: but at any rate, it was a free giftfrom the British Crown, and whatever rights you enjoy under it you enjoyduring His Majesty's pleasure. Since you insist on misinterpreting it, we will withdraw it, as we are perfectly entitled to do, and we willgrant you a new charter about the terms of which no such doubts canarise. "

It was a very direct and very fundamental challenge, and it inevitablyproduced two effects--the one immediate, the other somewhat deferred. Its practical first-fruit was the Continental Congress. Its ultimate butunmistakably logical consequence was the Declaration of Independence. 

America was unified on the instant, for every colony felt the knife atits throat. In September a Congress met, attended by the representativesof eleven colonies. Peyton Randolph, presiding, struck the note of themoment with a phrase: "I am not a Virginian, but an American. " UnderVirginian leadership the Congress vigorously backed Massachusetts, andin October a "Declaration of Colonial Right" had been issued by theauthority of all the colonies represented there. 

The British Ministers seem to have been incomprehensibly blind to theseriousness of the situation. Since they were pledged not to concedewhat the colonists demanded, it was essential that they should at oncesummon all the forces at their command to crush what was already anincipient and most menacing rebellion. They did nothing of the sort. They slightly strengthened the totally inadequate garrison which wouldsoon have to face a whole people in arms, and they issued a foolishproclamation merely provocative and backed by no power that couldenforce it, forbidding the meeting of Continental Congresses in thefuture. That was in January. In April the skirmishes of Lexington andConcord had shown how hopelessly insufficient was their military forceto meet even local sporadic and unorganized revolts. In May the secondContinental Congress met, and in July appeared by its authority ageneral call to arms addressed to the whole population of America. 

Up to this point the colonists, if rebellious in their practicalattitude, had been strictly constitutional in their avowed aims. In the"Declaration of Colonial Right" of 1774, and even in the appeal to armsof 1775, all suggestion of breaking away from the Empire was repudiated. But now that the sword was virtually drawn there were practicalconsiderations which made the most prudent of the rebels considerwhether it would not be wiser to take the final step, and franklyrepudiate the British Sovereignty altogether. For one thing, by the lawsof England, and indeed of all civilized nations, the man who took partin an armed insurrection against the head of the State committedtreason, and the punishment for treason was death. Men who levied war onthe King's forces while still acknowledging him as their lawful rulerwere really inviting the Government to hang them as soon as it couldcatch them. It might be more difficult for the British Government totreat as criminals soldiers who were fighting under the orders of anorganized _de facto_ government, which at any rate declared itself to bethat of an independent nation. Again, foreign aid, which would not begiven for the purpose of reforming the internal administration ofBritish dominions, might well be forthcoming if it were a question ofdismembering those dominions. These considerations were just and carriedno little weight; yet it is doubtful if they would have been strongenough to prevail against the sentiments and traditions which stillbound the colonies to the mother country had not the attack on thecharters forced the controversy back to first principles, and so openedthe door of history to the man who was to provide America with a creedand to convert the controversy from a legal to something like areligious quarrel. 

Old Peyton Randolph, who had so largely guided the deliberations of thefirst Continental Congress, was at the last moment prevented byill-health from attending the second. His place in the VirginianDelegation was taken by Thomas Jefferson. 

Jefferson was not yet thirty when he took his seat in the ContinentalCongress, but he was already a notable figure in his native State. Hebelonged by birth to the slave-holding gentry of the South, though notto the richest and most exclusive section of that class. Physically hewas long limbed and loose jointed, but muscular, with a strong ugly faceand red hair. He was adept at the physical exercises which theSoutherners cultivated most assiduously, a bold and tireless rider whocould spend days in the saddle without fatigue, and a crack shot evenamong Virginians. In pursuit of the arts and especially of music he wasequally eager, and his restless intelligence was keenly intrigued by thenew wonders that physical science was beginning to reveal to men;mocking allusions to his interest in the habits of horned frogs will befound in American pasquinades of two generations. He had sat in theVirginian House of Burgesses and had taken a prominent part in theresistance of that body to the royal demands. As a speaker, however, hewas never highly successful, and a just knowledge of his ownlimitations, combined perhaps with a temperamental dislike, generallyled him to rely on his pen rather than his tongue in public debate. Foras a writer he had a command of a pure, lucid and noble Englishunequalled in his generation and equalled by Corbett alone. 

But for history the most important thing about the man is his creed. Itwas the creed of a man in the forefront of his age, an age when Frenchthinkers were busy drawing from the heritage of Latin civilizationsthose fundamental principles of old Rome which custom and thecorruptions of time had overgrown. The gospel of the new age had alreadybeen written: it had brought to the just mind of Jefferson a convictionwhich he was to communicate to all his countrymen, and through them tothe new nation which the sword was creating. The Declaration ofIndependence is the foundation stone of the American Republic, and theDeclaration of Independence in its essential part is but an incomparabletranslation and compression of the _Contrat Social_. The aid whichFrance brought to America did not begin when a French fleet sailed intoChesapeake Bay. It began when, perhaps years before the first whisper ofdiscontent, Thomas Jefferson sat down in his Virginian study to read thelatest work of the ingenious M. Rousseau. 

For now the time was rife for such intellectual leadership as Jefferson, armed by Rousseau, could supply. The challenge flung down by the BritishGovernment in the matter of the Charter of Massachusetts was to be takenup. The argument that whatever rights Americans might have they derivedfrom Royal Charters was to be answered by one who held that their"inalienable rights" were derived from a primordial charter granted notby King George but by his Maker. 

The second Continental Congress, after many hesitations, determined atlength upon a complete severance with the mother country. A resolutionto that effect was carried on the motion of Lee, the great Virginiangentleman, an ancestor of the noblest of Southern warriors. After muchadroit negotiations a unanimous vote was secured for it. A committee wasappointed to draft a formal announcement and defence of the step whichhad been taken. Jefferson was chosen a member of the committee, and tohim was most wisely entrusted the drafting of the famous "Declaration. "

The introductory paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence containthe whole substance of the faith upon which the new Commonwealth was tobe built. Without a full comprehension of their contents the subsequenthistory of America would be unintelligible. It will therefore be well toquote them here verbatim, and I do so the more readily because, apartfrom their historic importance, it is a pity that more Englishmen arenot acquainted with this masterpiece of English prose. 

_When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one peopleto dissolve the political bands which have connected them with anotherand to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equalstation to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, adecent respect for the opinion of Mankind requires that they shalldeclare the cause that impels the separation. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal;that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; thatto secure these rights governments are instituted among men, derivingtheir just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever anyform of government becomes destructive of those ends it is the right ofthe people to alter or to abolish it, and to reinstate a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers insuch form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety andhappiness. _

The Declaration goes on to specify the causes of grievances which thecolonists conceive themselves to have against the royal government, andconcludes as follows:--

_We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America inGeneral Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the Worldfor the rectitude of our intentions, do in the name and by the authorityof the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare thatthese United Colonies are and of right ought to be Free and IndependentStates. _

The first principles set out in the Declaration must be rightly graspedif American history is understood, for indeed the story of America ismerely the story of the working out of those principles. Briefly thetheses are two: first, that men are of right equal, and secondly, thatthe moral basis of the relations between governors and governed iscontractual. Both doctrines have in this age had to stand the fire ofcriticisms almost too puerile to be noticed. It is gravely pointed outthat men are of different heights and weights, that they vary inmuscular power and mental cultivation--as if either Rousseau orJefferson was likely to have failed to notice this occult fact!Similarly the doctrine of the contractual basis of society is met by ademand for the production of a signed, sealed, and delivered contract, or at least for evidence that such a contract was ever made. ButRousseau says--with a good sense and modesty which dealers in"prehistoric" history would do well to copy--that he does not know howgovernment in fact arose. Nor does anyone else. What he maintains isthat the moral sanction of government is contractual, or, as Jeffersonputs it, that government "derives its just powers from the consent ofthe governed. "

The doctrine of human equality is in a sense mystical. It is notapparent to the senses, nor can it be logically demonstrated as aninference from anything of which the senses can take cognizance. It canonly be stated accurately, and left to make its appeal to men's minds. It may be stated theologically by saying, as the Christian theologysays, that all men are equal before God. Or it may be stated in the formwhich Jefferson uses--that all men are equal in their "inalienablerights. " But it must be accepted as a first principle or not at all. Thenearest approach to a method of proving it is to take the alternativeproposition and deduce its logical conclusion. Would those who wouldmaintain that the "wisest and best" have rights superior to those oftheir neighbours, welcome a law which would enable any persondemonstrably wiser or more virtuous than themselves to put them todeath? I think that most of them have enough modesty (and humour) toshrink, as Huxley did, from such a proposition. But the alternative isthe acceptance of Jefferson's doctrine that the fundamental rights ofmen are independent of adventitious differences, whether material ormoral, and depend simply upon their manhood. 

The other proposition, the contractual basis of human society and itslogical consequences, the supremacy of the general will, can be arguedin the same fashion. It is best defended by asking, like the JesuitSuarez, the simple question: "If sovereignty is not in the People, whereis it?" It is useless to answer that it is in the "wisest and best. " Whoare the wisest and best? For practical purposes the phrases must meaneither those whom their neighbours think wisest and best--in which casethe ultimate test of democracy is conceded--or those who thinkthemselves wisest and best: which latter is what in the mouths of suchadvocates it usually does mean. Thus those to whom the Divine Right ofthe conceited makes no appeal are forced back on the Jeffersonianformula. Let it be noted that that formula does not mean that the peopleare always right or that a people cannot collectively do deliberateinjustice or commit sins--indeed, inferentially it implies thatpossibility--but it means that there is on earth no temporal authoritysuperior to the general will of a community. 

It is, however, no part of the function of this book to argue upon thepropositions contained in the Declaration of Independence. It is merelynecessary to chronicle the historical fact that Jefferson, as mouthpieceof the Continental Congress, put forward these propositions asself-evident, and that all America, looking at them, accepted them assuch. On that acceptance, the intensity and ardent conviction of whichshowed itself, as will presently be seen, in a hundred ways, theAmerican Commonwealth is built. In the modern haze of doubt and amid thedenial of all necessary things, there have been found plenty ofsophists, even in America, to dispute these great truisms. But if theAmerican nation as a whole ever ceases to believe in them, it will notmerely decay, as all nations decay when they lose touch with eternaltruths; it will drop suddenly dead. 

We must now turn back a little in time in order to make clear themilitary situation as it stood when Jefferson's "Declaration" turned thewar into a war of doctrines. 

The summer of 1775 saw the first engagement which could well bedignified with the name of a battle. A small English force had been sentto Boston with the object of coercing the recalcitrant colony ofMassachusetts. It was absolutely insufficient, as the event showed, evenfor that purpose, and before it had landed it was apparent that its realtask would be nothing less than the conquest of America. TheMassachusetts rebels wisely determined to avoid a combat with the gunsof the British fleet; they abandoned the city and entrenched themselvesin a strong position in the neighbourhood known as Bunker's Hill. TheBritish troops marched out of Boston to dislodge them. This theyeventually succeeded in doing; and those who regard war as a game likebilliards to be settled by scoring points may claim Bunker's Hill as aBritish victory. But it produced all the consequences of a defeat. Therebel army was not destroyed; it was even less weakened than the forceopposed to it. It retired in good order to a position somewhat furtherback, and the British force had no option but to return to Boston withits essential work undone. For some time England continued to holdBoston, but the State of Massachusetts remained in American hands. Atlast, in the absence of any hope of any effective action, the smallEnglish garrison withdrew, leaving the original prize of war to therebels. 

On the eve of this indecisive contest the American Congress met toconsider the selection of a commander-in-chief for the revolutionaryarmies. Their choice fell on General George Washington, a Virginiansoldier who, as has been remarked, had served with some distinction inthe French wars. 

The choice was a most fortunate one. America and England have agreed topraise Washington's character so highly that at the hands of the youngand irreverent he is in some danger of the fate of Aristides. For thebenefit of those who tend to weary of the Cherry Tree and the LittleHatchet, it may be well to say that Washington was a very typicalSouthern gentleman in his foibles as well as in his virtues. Though histemper was in large matters under strict control, it was occasionallyformidable and vented itself in a free and cheerful profanity. He lovedgood wine, and like most eighteenth-century gentlemen, was not sparingin its use. He had a Southerner's admiration for the other sex--anadmiration which, if gossip may be credited, was not always strictlyconfined within monogamic limits. He had also, in large measure, thehigh dignity and courtesy of his class, and an enlarged liberality oftemper which usually goes with such good breeding. There is no story ofhim more really characteristic than that of his ceremoniously returningthe salute of an aged Negro and saying to a friend who was disposed toderide his actions: "Would you have me let a poor ignorant coloured mansay that he had better manners than I?" For the rest the traditionaleulogy of his public character is not undeserved. It may justly be saidof him, as it can be said of few of the great men who have moulded thedestinies of nations, that history can put its fingers on no act of hisand say: "Here this man was preferring his own interest to hiscountry's. "

As a military commander Washington ranks high. He had not, indeed, thegenius of a Marlborough or a Napoleon. Rather he owed his success to athorough grasp of his profession combined with just that remarkablylevel and unbiassed judgment which distinguished his conduct of civilaffairs. He understood very clearly the conditions of the war in whichhe was to engage. He knew that Great Britain, as soon as she really wokeup to the seriousness of her peril, would send out a formidable force ofwell-disciplined professional soldiers, and that at the hands of such aforce no mere levy of enthusiastic volunteers could expect anything butdefeat. The breathing space which the incredible supineness of theBritish Government allowed him enabled him to form something like a realarmy. Throughout the campaigns that followed his primary object was notto win victories, but to keep that army in being. So long as it existed, he knew that it could be continually reinforced by the enthusiasm of thecolonials, and that the recruits so obtained could be consolidated intoand imbued with the spirit of a disciplined body. The moment it ceasedto exist Great Britain would have to deal simply with rebelliouspopulations, and Washington was soldier enough to know that an army canalways in time break up and keep down a mere population, however eagerand courageous. 

And now England at last did what, if she were determined to enforce herwill upon the colonists, she ought to have done at least five yearsbefore. She sent out an army on a scale at least reasonably adequate tothe business for which it was designed. It consisted partly of excellentBritish troops and partly of those mercenaries whom the smaller Germanprinces let out for hire to those who chose to employ them. It wascommanded by Lord Howe. The objective of the new invasion--for theprocrastination of the British Government had allowed the war to assumethat character--was the city of New York. 

New York harbour possesses, as anyone who enters it can see, excellentnatural defences. Manhattan Island, upon which the city is built, liesat the mouth of the Hudson between two arms of that river. At theestuary are a number of small islets well suited for the emplacement ofpowerful guns. The southern bank runs northward into a sharp promontory, at the end of which now stands the most formidable of Americanfortresses. The northern approach is covered by Long Island. The Britishcommand decided on the reduction of Long Island as a preliminary to anassault upon the city. The island is long and narrow, and a ridge ofhigh ground runs down it like a backbone. This ridge Washington's armysought to hold against the attack of the British forces. It was thefirst real battle of the war, and it resulted in a defeat sooverwhelming that it might well have decided the fate of America had notWashington, as soon as he saw how the day was going, bent all hisenergies to the tough task of saving his army. It narrowly escapedcomplete destruction, but ultimately a great part succeeded, though withgreat loss and not a little demoralization, in reaching Brooklyn insafety. 

The Americans still held New York, the right bank of the Hudson; buttheir flank was dangerously threatened, and Washington, true to hispolicy, preferred the damaging loss of New York to the risk of his army. He retired inland, again offered battle, was again defeated and forcedback into Pennsylvania. So decided did the superiority of the Britisharmy prove to be that eventually Philadelphia itself, then the capitalof the Confederacy, had to be abandoned. 

Meanwhile another British army under the command of General Burgoyneheld Canada. That province had shown no disposition to join in therevolt; an early attempt on the part of the rebels to invade it had beensuccessfully repelled. Besides English and German troops, Burgoyne hadthe aid of several tribes of Indian auxiliaries, whose aid the BritishGovernment had been at some pains to secure--a policy denounced byChatham in a powerful and much-quoted speech. Burgoyne was a clever andimaginative though not a successful soldier. He conceived and suggestedto his Government a plan of campaign which was sound in strategicprinciple, which might well have succeeded, and which, if it hadsucceeded, would have dealt a heavy and perhaps a decisive blow toAmerican hopes. How far its failure is to be attributed to his ownfaulty execution, how far to the blunders of the Home Government, andhow far to accidents which the best general cannot always avoid, isstill disputed. But that failure was certainly the turning-point of thewar. 

Burgoyne's project was this: He proposed to advance from Canada and pushacross the belt of high land which forms the northern portion of what isnow New York State, until he struck the upper Hudson. Howe was at thesame time to advance northward up the Hudson, join hands with him andcut the rebellion in two. 

It was a good plan. The cutting off and crushing of one isolateddistrict after another is just the fashion in which widespreadinsurrectionary movements have most generally been suppressed bymilitary force. The Government accepted it, but, owing as it would seemto the laziness or levity of the English Minister involved, instructionsnever reached Howe until it was too late for him to give effectivesupport to his colleague. All, however, might have prospered hadBurgoyne been able to move more rapidly. His first stroke promised well. The important fort of Ticonderoga was surprised and easily captured, and the road was open for his soldiers into the highlands. But thatadvance proved disastrously slow. Weeks passed before he approached theHudson. His supplies were running short, and when he reached Saratoga, instead of joining hands with Howe he found himself confronted bystrongly posted American forces, greatly outnumbering his ownill-sustained and exhausted army. Seeing no sign of the relief which hehad expected to the south--though as a fact Howe had by this time learntof the expedition and was hastening to his assistance--on October 6, 1777, he and his army surrendered to the American commander, GeneralGates. 

The effect of Burgoyne's surrender was great in America; to those whosehopes had been dashed by the disaster of Long Island, the surrender ofNew York and Washington's enforced retreat it brought not only a revivalof hope but a definite confidence in ultimate success. But that effectwas even greater in Europe. Its immediate fruit was Lord North's famous"olive branch" of 1778; the decision of the British Government to acceptdefeat on the original issue of the war, and to agree to a surrender ofthe claim to tax the colonists on condition of their return to theirallegiance. Such a proposition made three years earlier would certainlyhave produced immediate peace. Perhaps it might have produced peace evenas it was--though it is unlikely, for the declaration had filled men'ssouls with a new hunger for pure democracy--if the Americans hadoccupied the same isolated position which was theirs when the war began. But it was not in London alone that Saratoga had produced its effect. While it decided the wavering councils of the British Ministry in favourof concessions, it also decided the wavering councils of the FrenchCrown in favour of intervention. 

As early as 1776 a mission had been sent to Versailles to solicit onbehalf of the colonists the aid of France. Its principal member wasBenjamin Franklin, the one revolutionary leader of the first rank whocame from the Northern colonies. He had all the shrewdness and humour ofthe Yankee with an enlarged intelligence and a wide knowledge of menwhich made him an almost ideal negotiator in such a cause. Yet for sometime his mission hung fire. France had not forgotten her expulsion fromthe North American continent twenty years before. She could not butdesire the success of the colonists and the weakening or dismembermentof the British Empire. Moreover, French public opinion--and its powerunder the Monarchy, though insufficient, was far greater than is nowgenerally understood--full of the new ideals which were to produce theRevolution, was warmly in sympathy with the rebellion. But, on the otherhand, an open breach with England involved serious risks. France wasonly just recovering from the effects of a great war in which she had onthe whole been worsted, and very decidedly worsted, in the colonialfield. The revolt of the English colonies might seem a temptingopportunity for revenge; but suppose that the colonial resistancecollapsed before effective aid could arrive? Suppose the colonistsmerely used the threat of French intervention to extort terms fromEngland and then made common cause against the foreigner? These obviousconsiderations made the French statesmen hesitate. Aid was indeed givento the colonial rebels, especially in the very valuable form of arms andmunitions, but it was given secretly and unofficially, with the satiristBeaumarchais, clever, daring, unscrupulous and ready to push his damagedfortunes in any fashion, as unaccredited go-between. But in the matterof open alliance with the rebels against the British Government Francetemporized, nor could the utmost efforts of Franklin and his colleaguesextort a decision. 

Saratoga extorted it. On the one hand it removed a principal cause ofhesitation. After such a success it was unlikely that the colonistswould tamely surrender. On the other it made it necessary to takeimmediate action. Lord North's attitude showed clearly that the BritishGovernment was ready to make terms with the colonists. It was clearly inthe interests of France that those terms should be refused. She mustventure something to make sure of such a refusal. With little hesitationthe advisers of the French Crown determined to take the plunge. Theyacknowledged the revolted colonies as independent States, and enteredinto a defensive alliance with these States against Great Britain. Thatrecognition and alliance immediately determined the issue of the war. What would have happened if it had been withheld cannot be certainlydetermined. It seems not unlikely that the war would have ended as theSouth African War ended, in large surrenders of the substance ofImperial power in return for a theoretic acknowledgment of itsauthority. But all this is speculative. The practical fact is thatEngland found herself, in the middle of a laborious, and so far on thewhole unsuccessful, effort to crush the rebellion of her colonies, confronted by a war with France, which, through the close alliance thenexisting between the two Bourbon monarchies, soon became a war with bothFrance and Spain. This change converted the task of subjugation from adifficult but practicable one, given sufficient time and determination, to one fundamentally impossible. 

Yet, so far as the actual military situation was concerned, there wereno darker days for the Americans than those which intervened between thepromise of French help and its fulfilment. Lord Cornwallis had appearedin the South and had taken possession of Charleston, the chief port ofSouth Carolina. In that State the inhabitants were less unanimous thanelsewhere. The "Tories, " as the local adherents of the English Crownwere called, had already attempted a rebellion against the rebellion, but had been forced to yield to the Republican majority backed by thearmy of Washington. The presence of Cornwallis revived their courage. They boasted in Tarleton, able, enterprising and imperious, an excellentcommander for the direction of irregular warfare, whose name and that ofthe squadron of horse which he raised and organized became to the rebelswhat the names of Claverhouse and his dragoons were to the Covenanters. Cornwallis and Tarleton between them completely reduced the Carolinas, save for the strip of mountainous country to the north, wherein many ofthose families that Tarleton had "burnt out" found refuge, and proceededto overrun Georgia. Only two successes encouraged the rebels. At theBattle of the Cowpens Tarleton having, with the recklessness which wasthe defeat of his qualities as a leader, advanced too far into thehostile country, was met and completely defeated by Washington. Thedefeat produced little immediate result, but it was the one definitemilitary success which the American general achieved before the adventof the French, and it helped to keep up the spirit of the insurgents. Perhaps even greater in its moral effect was the other victory, whichfrom the military point of view was even more insignificant. In Sumterand Davie the rebels found two cavalry leaders fully as daring andcapable as Tarleton himself. They formed from among the refugees who hadsought the shelter of the Carolinian hills a troop of horse with whichthey made a sudden raid upon the conquered province and broke the localTories at the Battle of the Hanging Rock. It was a small affair so faras numbers went, and Davie's troopers were a handful of irregulars drawnas best might be from the hard-riding, sharp-shooting population of theSouth. Many of them were mere striplings; indeed, among them was a boyof thirteen, an incorrigible young rebel who had run away from school totake part in the fighting. In the course of this narration it will benecessary to refer to that boy again more than once. His name was AndrewJackson. 

While there was so little in the events of the Southern campaign tobring comfort to the rebels, in the North their cause suffered a moralblow which was felt at the moment to be almost as grave as any militarydisaster. Here the principal American force was commanded by one of theablest soldiers the Rebellion had produced, a man who might well havedisputed the pre-eminent fame of Washington if he had not chosen ratherto challenge--and with no contemptible measures of success--that ofIscariot. Benedict Arnold was, like Washington, a professional soldierwhose talent had been recognized before the war. He had early embracedthe revolutionary cause, and had borne a brilliant part in the campaignwhich ended in the surrender of Burgoyne. There seemed before him everyprospect of a glorious career. The motives which led him to the mostinexpiable of human crimes were perhaps mixed, though all of them werepoisonous. He was in savage need of money to support the extravagance ofhis private tastes: the Confederacy had none to give, while the Crownhad plenty. But it seems also that his ravenous vanity had been wounded, first by the fact that the glory of Burgoyne's defeat had gone to Gatesand not to him, and afterwards by a censure, temperate and tactfulenough and accompanied by a liberal eulogy of his general conduct, whichWashington had felt obliged to pass on certain of his later militaryproceedings. At any rate, the "ingratitude" of his country was thereason he publicly alleged for his treason; and those interested in thepsychology of infamy may give it such weight as it may seem to deserve. For history the important fact is that Arnold at this point in thecampaign secretly offered his services to the English, and the offer wasaccepted. 

Arnold escaped to the British camp and was safe. The unfortunategentleman on whom patriotic duty laid the unhappy task of traffickingwith the traitor was less fortunate. Major André had been imprudentenough to pay a visit to a spot behind the American lines, and, atArnold's suggestion, to do so in plain clothes. He was taken, tried, andhanged as a spy. Though espionage was not his intention, the Americanscannot fairly be blamed for deciding that he should die. He hadundoubtedly committed an act which was the act of a spy in the eyes ofmilitary law. It is pretty certain that a hint was given that theauthorities would gladly exchange him for Arnold, and it is veryprobable that the unslaked thirst for just vengeance against Arnold waspartly responsible for the refusal of the American commanders to showmercy. André's courage and dignity made a profound impression on them, and there was a strong disposition to comply with his request that heshould at least be shot instead of hanged. But to that concession avalid and indeed irresistible objection was urged. Whatever theAmericans did was certain to be scanned with critical and suspiciouseyes. Little could be said in the face of the facts if they treatedAndré as a spy and inflicted on him the normal fate of a spy. But ifthey showed that they scrupled to hang him as a spy, it would be easy tosay that they had shot a prisoner of war. 

Arnold was given a command in the South, and the rage of the populationof that region was intensified into something like torment when they sawtheir lands occupied and their fields devastated no longer by a strangerfrom overseas who was but fulfilling his military duty, but by acynical and triumphant traitor. Virginia was invaded and a bold strokealmost resulted in the capture of the author of the Declaration ofIndependence himself, who had been elected Governor of that State. Inthe course of these raids many abominable things were done which it isunnecessary to chronicle here. The regular English troops, on the whole, behaved reasonably well, but Tarleton's native "Tories" were inflamed bya fanaticism far fiercer than theirs, while atrocity was of coursenormal to the warfare of the barbarous mercenaries of England, whetherIndian or German. It is equally a matter of course that such excessesprovoked frequent reprisals from the irregular colonial levies. 

But aid was at last at hand. Already Lafayette, a young French noble ofliberal leanings, had appeared in Washington's camp at the head of aband of volunteers, and the accession, small as it was, led to adistinct revival of the fortunes of the revolution in the South. It was, however, but a beginning. England, under pressure of the war with Franceand Spain, lost that absolute supremacy at sea which has ever been andever will be necessary to her conduct of a successful war. A formidableFrench armament was able to cross the Atlantic. A French fleetthreatened the coasts. Cornwallis, not knowing at which point the blowwould fall, was compelled to withdraw his forces from the country theyhad overrun, and to concentrate them in a strong position in thepeninsula of Yorktown. Here he was threatened on both sides byWashington and Rochambeau, while the armada of De Grasse menaced himfrom the sea. The war took on the character of a siege. His resourceswere speedily exhausted, and on September 19, 1781, he surrendered. 

It was really the end of the war so far as America was concerned, thoughthe struggle between England and France continued for a time withvarying fortunes in other theatres, and the Americans, though approachedwith tempting offers, wisely as well as righteously refused to make aseparate peace at the expense of their Allies. But the end could nolonger be in doubt. The surrender of Burgoyne had forced North to makeconcessions; the surrender of Cornwallis made his resignationinevitable. A new Ministry was formed under Rockingham pledged to makepeace. Franklin again went to Paris as representative of theConfederation and showed himself a diplomatist of the first rank. To thefirmness with which he maintained the Alliance against the most skilfulattempts to dissolve it must largely be attributed the successfulconclusion of a general peace on terms favourable to the Allies andespecially favourable to America. Britain recognized the independence ofher thirteen revolted colonies, and peace was restored. 

I have said that England recognized her thirteen revolted colonies. Shedid not recognize the American Republic, for as yet there was none torecognize. The war had been conducted on the American side nominally bythe Continental Congress, an admittedly _ad hoc_ authority notpretending to permanency; really by Washington and his army which, withthe new flag symbolically emblazoned with thirteen stars and thirteenstripes, was the one rallying point of unity. That also was now to bedissolved. The States had willed to be free, and they were free. Wouldthey, in their freedom, will effectively to be a nation? That was aquestion which not the wisest observer could answer at the time, andwhich was not perhaps fully answered until well within the memory of menstill living. Its solution will necessarily form the main subject ofthis book. 

 CHAPTER III

 "WE, THE PEOPLE"

An account of the American Revolution which took cognizance only of thearmed conflict with England would tell much less than half the truth, and even that half would be misleading. If anyone doubts that the realinspiration which made America a nation was drawn, not from Whiggishquarrels about taxes, but from the great dogmas promulgated byJefferson, it is sufficient to point out that the States did not evenwait till their victory over England was assured before effecting acomplete internal revolution on the basis of those dogmas. Before thelast shot had been fired almost the last privilege had disappeared. 

The process was a spontaneous one, and its fruits appear almostsimultaneously in every State. They can be followed best in Virginia, where Jefferson himself took the lead in the work of revolutionaryreform. 

Hereditary titles and privileges went first. On this point publicfeeling became so strong that the proposal to form after the war asociety to be called "the Cincinnati, " which was to consist of those whohad taken a prominent part in the war and afterwards of theirdescendants, was met, in spite of the respect in which Washington andthe other military heroes were held, with so marked an expression ofpublic disapproval that the hereditary part of the scheme had to bedropped. 

Franchises were simplified, equalized, broadened, so that in practicallyevery State the whole adult male population of European race receivedthe suffrage. Social and economic reforms having the excellent aim ofsecuring and maintaining a wide distribution of property, especially ofland, were equally prominent among the achievements of that time. Jefferson himself carried in Virginia a drastic code of Land Laws, which anticipated many of the essential provisions which through the_Code Napoleon_ revolutionized the system of land-owning in Europe. Asto the practical effect of such reforms we have the testimony of a manwhose instinct for referring all things to practice was, if anything, anexcess, and whose love for England was the master passion of his life. "Every object almost that strikes my view, " wrote William Cobbett manyyears later, "sends my mind and heart back to England. In viewing theease and happiness of this people the contrast fills my soul withindignation, and makes it more and more the object of my life to assistin the destruction of the diabolical usurpation which has trampled onking as well as people. "

Another principle, not connected by any direct logic with democracy andnot set forth in the Declaration of Independence, was closely associatedwith the democratic thesis by the great French thinkers by whom thatthesis was revived, and had a strong hold upon the mind of Jefferson--theprinciple of religious equality, or, as it might be more exactly defined, of the Secular State. 

So many loose and absurd interpretations of this principle have been andare daily being propounded, that it may be well to state succinctly whatit does and does not mean. 

It does not mean that anyone may commit any anti-social act that appealsto him, and claim immunity from the law on the ground that he is impelledto that act by his religion; can rob as a conscientious communist, murderas a conscientious Thug, or refuse military service as a conscientiousobjector. None understood better than Jefferson--it was the first principleof his whole political system--that there must be _some_ basis ofagreement amongst citizens as to what is right and what is wrong, and thatwhat the consensus of citizens regards as wrong must be punished by thelaw. All that the doctrine of the Secular State asserted was that suchgeneral agreement among citizens need not include, as in most modern Statesit obviously does not include, an agreement on the subject of religion. Religion is, so to speak, left out of the Social Contract, and consequentlyeach individual retains his natural liberty to entertain and promulgatewhat views he likes concerning it, so long as such views do not bring himinto conflict with those general principles of morality, patriotism andsocial order upon which the citizens of the State _are_ agreed, andwhich form the basis of its laws. 

The public mind of America was for the most part well prepared for theapplication of this principle. We have already noted how the firstexperiment in the purely secular organization of society had been madein the Catholic colony of Maryland and the Quaker colony of Pennsylvania. The principle was now applied in its completeness to one State afteranother. The Episcopalian establishment of Jefferson's own State was thefirst to fall; the other States soon followed the example of Virginia. 

At the same time penalties or disabilities imposed as a consequence ofreligious opinions were everywhere abrogated. Only in New England wasthere any hesitation. The Puritan States did not take kindly to the ideaof tolerating Popery. In the early days of the revolution their leadershad actually made it one of the counts of their indictment against theBritish Government that that Government had made peace with Anti-Christin French Canada--a fact remembered to the permanent hurt of theConfederacy when the French Canadians were afterwards invited to makecommon cause with the American rebels. But the tide was too strong evenfor Calvinists to resist; the equality of all religions before the lawwas recognized in every State, and became, as it remains to-day, afundamental part of the American Constitution. 

It may be added that America affords the one conspicuous example of theSecular State completely succeeding. In France, where the same principleswere applied under the same inspiration, the ultimate result was somethingwholly different: an organized Atheism persecuting the Christian Faith. In England the principle has never been avowedly applied at all. In theorythe English State still professes the form of Protestant Christianitydefined in the Prayer-book, and "tolerates" dissenters from it as theChristian States of the middle ages tolerated the Jews, and as in France, during the interval between the promulgation of the Edict of Nantes andits revocation, a State definitely and even pronouncedly Catholictolerated the Huguenots. Each dissentient religious body claims its rightto exist in virtue of some specific Act of Parliament. Theoretically itis still an exception, though the exceptions have swallowed the rule. 

Moreover, even under this rather hazy toleration, those who believeeither more or less than the bulk of their fellow-countrymen and whoboldly proclaim their belief usually find themselves at a politicaldisadvantage. In America it never seems to have been so. Jeffersonhimself, a Deist (the claim sometimes made that he was a "Christian"seems to rest on nothing more solid than the fact that, like nearly allthe eighteenth-century Deists, he expressed admiration for the characterand teaching of Jesus Christ), never for a moment forfeited theconfidence of his countrymen on that account, though attempts were made, notably by John Adams, to exploit it against him. Taney, a Catholic, wasraised without objection on that score to the first judicial post inAmerica, at a date when such an appointment would have raised a serioustumult in England. At a later date Ingersoll was able to vary thepastime of "Bible-smashing" with the profession of an active Republicanwire-puller, without any of the embarrassments which that much betterand honester man, Charles Bradlaugh, had to encounter. The AmericanRepublic has not escaped the difficulties and problems which areinevitable to the Secular State, when some of its citizens profess areligion which brings them into conflict with the common system ofmorals which the nation takes for granted; the case of the Mormons is atypical example of such a problem. But there is some evidence that, asthe Americans have applied the doctrine far more logically than we, theyhave also a keener perception of the logic of its limitations. At anyrate, it is notable that Congress has refused, in its Conscription Act, to follow our amazing example and make the conscience of the criminalthe judge of the validity of legal proceedings against him. 

Changes so momentous, made in so drastic and sweeping a fashion in themiddle of a life and death struggle for national existence, show howvigorous and compelling was the popular impulse towards reform. Yet allthe great things that were done seem dwarfed by one enormous thing leftundone; the heroic tasks which the Americans accomplished are forgottenin the thought of the task which stared them in the face, but from whichthey, perhaps justifiably, shrank. All the injustices which wereabolished in that superb crusade against privilege only made plainer theshape of the one huge privilege, the one typical injustice which stillstood--the blacker against such a dawn--Negro Slavery. 

It has already been mentioned that Slavery was at one time universal inthe English colonies and was generally approved by American opinion, North and South. Before the end of the War of Independence it was almostas generally disapproved, and in all States north of the borders ofMaryland it soon ceased to exist. 

This was not because democratic ideals were more devotedly cherished inthe North than in the South; on the whole the contrary was the case. Butthe institution of Slavery was in no way necessary to the normal lifeand industry of the North; its abrogation made little difference, andthe rising tide of the new ideas to which it was necessarily odiouseasily swept it away. In their method of dealing with it the Northerners, it must be owned, were kinder to themselves than to the Negroes. Theydeclared Slavery illegal within their own borders, but they generallygave the slave-holder time to dispose of his human property by sellingit in the States where Slavery still existed. This fact is worth noting, because it became a prime cause of resentment and bitterness when, at alater date, the North began to reproach the South with the guilt ofslave-owning. For the South was faced with no such easy and manageableproblem. Its coloured population was almost equal in number to its whitecolonists; in some districts it was even greatly preponderant. Its stapleindustries were based on slave labour. To abolish Slavery would mean anindustrial revolution of staggering magnitude of which the issue couldnot be foreseen. And even if that were faced, there remained the sinisterand apparently insoluble problem of what to do with the emancipatedNegroes. Jefferson, who felt the reproach of Slavery keenly, proposed tothe legislature of Virginia a scheme so radical and comprehensive in itscharacter that it is not surprising if men less intrepid than he refusedto adopt it. He proposed nothing less than the wholesale repatriation ofthe blacks, who were to set up in Africa a Negro Republic of their ownunder American protection. Jefferson fully understood the principles andimplications of democracy, and he was also thoroughly conversant withSouthern conditions, and the fact that he thought (and events havecertainly gone far to justify him) that so drastic a solution was theonly one that offered hope of a permanent and satisfactory settlement issufficient evidence that the problem was no easy one. For the first timeJefferson failed to carry Virginia with him; and Slavery remained aninstitution sanctioned by law in every State south of the Mason-Dixon Line. 

While the States were thus dealing with the problems raised by theapplication to their internal administration of the principles of thenew democratic creed, the force of mere external fact was compellingthem to attempt some sort of permanent unity. Those who had from thefirst a specific enthusiasm for such unity were few, though Washingtonwas among them, and his influence counted for much. But what counted formuch more was the pressure of necessity. It was soon obvious to allclear-sighted men that unless some authoritative centre of union werecreated the revolutionary experiment would have been saved fromsuppression by arms only to collapse in mere anarchic confusion. TheContinental Congress, the only existing authority, was moribund, andeven had it been still in its full vigour, it had not the powers whichthe situation demanded. It could not, for instance, levy taxes on theState; its revenues were completely exhausted and it had no power toreplenish them. The British Government complained that the conditions ofpeace were not observed on the American side, and accordingly held on tothe positions which it had occupied at the conclusion of the war. Thecomplaint was perfectly just, but it did not arise from deliberate badfaith on the part of those who directed (as far as anyone was directing)American policy, but from the simple fact that there was no authority inAmerica capable of enforcing obedience and carrying the provisions ofthe treaty into effect. The same moral was enforced by a dozen othersymptoms of disorder. The Congress had disbanded the soldiers, as hadbeen promised, on the conclusion of peace, but, having no money, couldnot keep its at least equally important promise to pay them. This led tomuch casual looting by men with arms in their hands but nowhere to turnfor a meal, and the trouble culminated in a rebellion raised in NewEngland by an old soldier of the Continental Army called Shay. Suchincidents as these were the immediate cause of the summoning atPhiladelphia of a Convention charged with the task of framing aConstitution for the United States. 

Of such a Convention Washington was the only possible President; and hewas drawn from a temporary and welcome retirement in his Virginian hometo re-enter in a new fashion the service of his country. Under hispresidency disputed and compromised a crowd of able men representativeof the widely divergent States whose union was to be attempted. Therewas Alexander Hamilton, indifferent or hostile to the democratic ideabut intensely patriotic, and bent above all things upon the formation ofa strong central authority; Franklin with his acute practicality and hisadmirable tact in dealing with men; Gerry, the New Englander, Whiggishand somewhat distrustful of the populace; Pinckney of South Carolina, asoldier and the most ardent of the Federalists, representing, by acurious irony, the State which was to be the home of the most extremedogma of State Rights; Madison, the Virginian, young, ardent andintellectual, his head full of the new wine of liberty. One great nameis lacking. Jefferson had been chosen to represent the Confederacy atthe French Court, where he had the delight of watching the first act ofthat tremendous drama, whereby his own accepted doctrine was to re-shapeFrance, as it had already re-shaped America. The Convention, therefore, lacked the valuable combination of lucid thought on the philosophy ofpolitics and a keen appreciation of the direction of the popular willwhich he above all men could have supplied. 

The task before the Convention was a hard and perilous one, and nothingabout it was more hard and perilous than its definition. What were theythere to do? Were they framing a treaty between independentSovereignties, which, in spite of the treaty, would retain theirindependence, or were they building a nation by merging theseSovereignties in one general Sovereignty of the American people? Theybegan by proceeding on the first assumption, re-modelling theContinental Congress--avowedly a mere alliance--and adding only suchpowers as it was plainly essential to add. They soon found that such aplan would not meet the difficulties of the hour. But they dared notopenly adopt the alternative theory: the States would not have borne it. Had it, for example, been specifically laid down that a State onceentering the Union might never after withdraw from it, quite half theStates would have refused to enter it. To that extent the positionafterwards taken up by the Southern Secessionists was historicallysound. But there was a complementary historical truth on the other side. There can be little doubt that in this matter the founders of theRepublic desired and intended more than they ventured to attempt. Thefact that men of unquestionable honesty and intelligence were in afteryears so sharply and sincerely divided as to what the Constitutionreally _was_, was in truth the result of a divided mind in those whoframed the Constitution. They made an alliance and hoped it would growinto a nation. The preamble of the Constitution represents theaspirations of the American Fathers; the clauses represent the furthestthey dared towards those aspirations. The preamble was therefore alwaysthe rallying point of those who wished to see America one nation. Itsoperative clause ran: "We, the People of the United States, in order toform a more perfect Union, . .. Do ordain and establish this Constitutionfor the United States of America. " That such language was a strong pointin favour of the Federalist interpreters of the Constitution wasafterwards implicitly admitted by the extreme exponents of StateSovereignty themselves, for when they came to frame for their ownConfederacy a Constitution reflecting their own views they made a mostsignificant alteration. The corresponding clause in the Constitution ofthe Southern Confederacy ran, "We, _the deputies of the Sovereign andIndependent States_, . .. Do ordain, " etc. , etc. 

For the rest two great practical measures which involved no overboldchallenge to State Sovereignty were wisely planned to buttress the Unionand render it permanent. A clause in the Constitution forbade tariffsbetween the States and established complete Free Trade within the limitsof the Union. An even more important step was that by which the variousStates which claimed territory in the as yet undeveloped interior wereinduced to surrender such territory to the collective ownership of theFederation. This at once gave the States a new motive for unity, acommon inheritance which any State refusing or abandoning union mustsurrender. 

Meanwhile it would be unjust to the supporters of State Rights to denythe excellence and importance of their contribution to theConstitutional settlement. To them is due the establishment of localliberties with safeguards such as no other Constitution gives. And, inspite of the military victory which put an end to the disputes aboutState Sovereignty and finally established the Federalist interpretationof the Constitution, this part of their work endures. The internalaffairs of every State remain as the Constitution left them, absolutelyin its own control. The Federal Government never interferes save forpurposes of public taxation, and, in the rare case of necessity, ofnational defence. For the rest nine-tenths of the laws under which anAmerican citizen lives, nearly all the laws that make a practicaldifference to his life, are State laws. Under the Constitution, asframed, the States were free to form their separate State Constitutionsaccording to their own likings, and to arrange the franchise and thetest of citizenship, even for Federal purposes, in their own fashion. This, with the one stupid and mischievous exception made by theill-starred Fifteenth Amendment, remains the case to this day, with thecurious consequence, among others, that it is now theoretically possiblefor a woman to become President of the United States, if she is thecitizen of a State where female suffrage is admitted. 

Turning to the structure of the central authority which the Constitutionsought to establish, the first thing that strikes us--in the teeth ofthe assertion of most British and some American writers--is that it wasemphatically _not_ a copy of the British Constitution in any sensewhatever. It is built on wholly different principles, drawn mostly fromthe French speculations of that age. Especially one notes, alongside ofthe careful and wise separation of the judiciary from the executive, thesound principle enunciated by Montesquieu and other French thinkers ofthe eighteenth century, but rejected and contemned by England (to hergreat hurt) as a piece of impracticable logic--the separation of theexecutive and legislative powers. It was this principle which madepossible the later transformation of the Presidency into a sort ofElective Monarchy. 

This result was not designed or foreseen; or rather it was to an extentforeseen, and deliberately though unsuccessfully guarded against. TheAmerican revolutionists were almost as much under the influence ofclassical antiquity as the French. From it they drew the nobleconception of "the Republic, " the public thing acting with impersonaljustice towards all citizens. But with it they also drew an exaggerateddread of what they called "Cæsarism, " and with it they mixed the curiousbut characteristic illusion of that age--an illusion from which, by theway, Rousseau himself was conspicuously free--that the most satisfactorybecause the most impersonal organ of the general will is to be found inan elected assembly. They had as yet imperfectly learnt that such anassembly must after all consist of persons, more personal because lesspublic than an acknowledged ruler. They did not know that, while adespot may often truly represent the people, a Senate, however chosen, always tends to become an oligarchy. Therefore they surrounded thepresidential office with checks which in mere words made the Presidentseem less powerful than an English King. Yet he has always in fact beenmuch more powerful. And the reason is to be found in the separation ofthe executive from the legislature. The President, while his termlasted, had the full powers of a real executive. Congress could not turnhim out, though it could in various ways check his actions. He couldappoint his own Ministers (though the Senate must ratify the choice) andthey were wisely excluded from the legislature. An even wiser provisionlimited the appointment of Members of Congress to positions under theexecutive. Thus both executive and legislature were kept, so far ashuman frailty permitted, pure in their normal functions. The Presidencyremained a real Government. Congress remained a real check. 

In England, where the opposite principle was adopted, the Ministrybecame first the committee of an oligarchical Parliament and later aclose corporation nominating the legislature which is supposed to checkit. 

The same fear of arbitrary power was exhibited, and that in fashionreally inconsistent with the democratic principles which the Americanstatesmen professed, in the determination that the President should bechosen by the people only in an indirect fashion, through an ElectoralCollege. This error has been happily overruled by events. Since theElectoral College was to be chosen _ad hoc_ for the single purpose ofchoosing a President, it soon became obvious that pledges could easilybe exacted from its members in regard to their choice. By degrees thepretence of deliberate action by the College wore thinner and thinner. Finally it was abandoned altogether, and the President is now chosen, asthe first magistrate of a democracy ought to be chosen, if election isresorted to at all, by the direct vote of the nation. At the time, however, it was supposed that the Electoral College would be anindependent deliberative assembly. It was further provided that thesecond choice of the Electoral College should be Vice-President, andsucceed to the Presidency in the event of the President dying during histerm of office. If there was a "tie" or if no candidate had an absolutemajority in the College, the election devolved on the House ofRepresentatives voting in this instance by States. 

In connection with the election both of Executive and Legislature, theold State Rights problem rose in another form. Were all the States tohave equal weight and representation, as had been the case in the oldContinental Congress, or was their weight and representation to beproportional to their population? On this point a compromise was made. The House of Representatives was to be chosen directly by the people ona numerical basis, and in the Electoral College which chose thePresident the same principle was adopted. In the Senate all States wereto have equal representation; and the Senators were to be chosen by thelegislatures of the States; they were regarded rather as ambassadorsthan as delegates. The term of a Senator was fixed for six years, athird of the Senate resigning in rotation every two years. The House ofRepresentatives was to be elected in a body for two years. The Presidentwas elected for four years, at the end of which time he could bere-elected. 

Such were the main lines of the compromises which were effected betweenthe conflicting views of the extreme Federalists and extreme State Rightsadvocates, and the conflicting interests of the larger and smaller States. But there was another threatened conflict, more formidable and, as theevent proved, more enduring, with which the framers of the Constitutionhad to deal. Two different types of civilization had grown up on oppositesides of the Mason-Dixon line. How far Slavery was the cause and how fara symptom of this divergence will be discussed more fully in futurechapters. At any rate it was its most conspicuous mark or label. Northand South differed so conspicuously not only in their social organizationbut in every habit of life and thought that neither would tamely bear tobe engulfed in a union in which the other was to be predominant. To keepan even balance between them was long the principal effort of Americanstatesmanship. That effort began in the Convention which framed theConstitution. It did not cease till the very eve of the Civil War. 

The problem with which the Convention had to deal was defined withincertain well-understood limits. No one proposed that Slavery should beabolished by Federal enactment. It was universally acknowledged thatSlavery within a State, however much of an evil it might be, was an evilwith which State authority alone had a right to deal. On the other hand, no one proposed to make Slavery a national institution. Indeed, all themost eminent Southern statesmen of that time, and probably the greatmajority of Southerners, regarded it as a reproach, and sincerely hopedthat it would soon disappear. There remained, however, certain definitesubjects of dispute concerning which an agreement had to be reached ifthe States were to live in peace in the same household. 

First, not perhaps in historic importance, but in the insistence of itsdemand for an immediate settlement, was the question of representation. It had been agreed that in the House of Representatives and in theElectoral College this should be proportionate to population. The urgentquestion at once arose: should free white citizens only be counted, orshould the count include the Negro slaves? When it is remembered thatthese latter numbered something like half the population of the SouthernStates, the immediate political importance of the issue will at once berecognized. If they were omitted the weight of the South in theFederation would be halved. In the opposite alternative it would bedoubled. By the compromise eventually adopted it was agreed that thewhole white population should be counted and three-fifths of the slaves. 

The second problem was this: if Slavery was to be legal in one State andillegal in another, what was to be the status of a slave escaping from aSlave State into a free? Was such an act to be tantamount to anemancipation? If such were to be the case, it was obvious that slaveproperty, especially in the border States, would become an extremelyinsecure investment. The average Southerner of that period was noenthusiast for Slavery. He was not unwilling to listen to plans ofgradual and compensated emancipation. But he could not be expected tocontemplate losing in a night property for which he had perhaps paidhundreds of dollars, without even the hope of recovery. On this point itwas found absolutely necessary to give way to the Southerners, thoughFranklin, for one, disliked this concession more than any other. It wasdetermined that "persons held to service or labour" escaping intoanother State should be returned to those "to whom such service orlabour may be due. "

The last and on the whole the least defensible of the concessions madein this matter concerned the African Slave Trade. That odious trafficwas condemned by almost all Americans--even by those who were accustomedto domestic slavery, and could see little evil in it. Jefferson, in theoriginal draft of the Declaration of Independence, had placed amongstthe accusations against the English King the charge that he had forcedthe slave trade on reluctant colonies. The charge was true so far atany rate as Virginia was concerned, for both that State and itsneighbour, Maryland, had passed laws against the traffic and had seenthem vetoed by the Crown. But the extreme South, where the cotton tradewas booming, wanted more Negro labour; South Carolina objected, andfound an expected ally in Massachusetts. Boston had profited more by theSlave Trade than any other American city. She could hardly condemn KingGeorge without condemning herself. And, though her interest in thetraffic had diminished, it had not wholly ceased. The paragraph inquestion was struck out of the Declaration, and when the Convention cameto deal with the question the same curious alliance thwarted the effortsof those who demanded the immediate prohibition of the trade. Eventuallythe Slave Trade was suffered to continue for twenty years, at the end ofwhich time Congress might forbid it. This was done in 1808, when theterm of suffrance had expired. 

Thus was Negro Slavery placed under the protection of the Constitution. It would be a grave injustice to the founders of the AmericanCommonwealth to make it seem that any of them liked doing this. Constrained by a cruel necessity, they acquiesced for the time in anevil which they hoped that time would remedy. Their mind issignificantly mirrored by the fact that not once in the Constitution arethe words "slave" or "slavery" mentioned. Some euphemism is always used, as "persons held to service or labour, " "the importation of persons, ""free persons, " contrasted with "other persons, " and so on. Lincoln, generations later, gave what was undoubtedly the true explanation ofthis shrinking from the name of the thing they were tolerating and evenprotecting. They hoped that the Constitution would survive NegroSlavery, and they would leave no word therein to remind their childrenthat they had spared it for a season. Beyond question they not onlyhoped but expected that the concession which for the sake of thenational unity they made to an institution which they hated and deploredwould be for a season only. The influence of time and the growth ofthose great doctrines which were embodied in the Declaration ofIndependence could not but persuade all men at last; and the day, theythought, could not be far distant when the Slave States themselves wouldconcur in some prudent scheme of emancipation, and make of Negro Slaveryan evil dream that had passed away. None the less not a few of them didwhat they had to do with sorrowful and foreboding hearts, and the authorof the Declaration of Independence has left on record his own verdict, that he trembled for his country when he remembered that God was just. 

 CHAPTER IV

 THE MANTLE OF WASHINGTON

The compromises of the Constitution, on whatever grounds they may becriticized, were so far justified that they gained their end. That endwas the achievement of union; and union was achieved. This was not doneeasily nor without opposition. In some cities anti-Constitutional riotstook place. Several States refused to ratify. The opposition had thesupport of the great name of Patrick Henry, who had been the soul of theresistance to the Stamp Act, and who now declared that under thespecious name of "Federation" Liberty had been betrayed. The defence wasconducted in a publication called _The Federalist_ largely by two menafterwards to be associated with fiercely contending parties, AlexanderHamilton and James Madison. But more persuasive than any arguments thatthe ablest advocate could use were the iron necessities of thesituation. The Union was an accomplished fact. For any State, andespecially for a small State--and it was the small States that hesitatedmost--to refuse to enter it would be so plainly disastrous to itsinterests that the strongest objections and the most rooted suspicionshad eventually to give way. Some States hung back long: some did notratify the Constitution until its machinery was actually working, untilthe first President had been chosen and the first Congress had met. Butall ratified it at last, and before the end of Washington's firstPresidency the complement of Stars and Stripes was made up. 

The choice of a President was a foregone conclusion. Everyone knew thatWashington was the man whom the hour and the nation demanded. He waschosen without a contest by the Electoral College, and would undoubtedlyhave been chosen with the same practical unanimity by the people hadthe choice been theirs. So long as he retained his position he retainedalong with it the virtually unchallenged pre-eminence which all menacknowledged. There had been cabals against him as a general, and therewere signs of a revival of them when his Presidency was clearlyforeshadowed. The impulse came mostly from the older and wealthiergentry of his own State--the Lees for example--who tended to look downupon him as a "new man. " Towards the end of his political life he was tosome extent the object of attack from the opposite quarter; his fame wasassailed by the fiercer and less prudent of the Democratic publicists. But, throughout, the great mass of the American people trusted him astheir representative man, as those who abused him or conspired againsthim did so to their own hurt. A less prudent man might easily have wornout his popularity and alienated large sections of opinion, butWashington's characteristic sagacity, which had been displayed soconstantly during the war, stood him in as good stead in matters ofcivil government. He propitiated Nemesis and gave no just provocation toany party to risk its popularity by attacking him. While he wasPresident the mantle of his great fame was ample enough to cover thedeep and vital divisions which were appearing even in his own Cabinet, and were soon to convulse the nation in a dispute for the inheritance ofhis power. 

His Secretary to the Treasury was Alexander Hamilton. This extraordinaryman presents in more than one respect a complex problem to thehistorian. He has an unquestionable right to a place and perhaps to asupreme place among the builders of the American Republic, and much ofits foundation-laying was his work. Yet he shows in history as adefeated man, and for at least a generation scarcely anyone dared togive him credit for the great work that he really did. To-day theinjustice is perhaps the other way. In American histories written sincethe Civil War he is not only acclaimed as a great statesman, but hisoverthrow at the hands of the Jeffersonians is generally pointed at as atypical example of the folly and ingratitude of the mob. This version isat least as unjust to the American people as the depreciation of theDemocrats was to him. The fact is that Hamilton's work had a doubleaspect. In so far as it was directed to the cementing of a permanentunion and the building of a strong central authority it was work uponthe lines along which the nation was moving, and towards an end whichthe nation really, if subconsciously, desired. But closely associatedwith this object in Hamilton's mind was another which the nation did notdesire and which was alien to its instincts and destiny. All this secondpart of his work failed, and involved him in its ruin. 

Hamilton had fought bravely in the Revolutionary War, but for the idealswhich had become more and more the inspiration of the Revolution hecared nothing, and was too honest to pretend to care. He had on theother hand a strong and genuine American patriotism. Perhaps his originhelped him to a larger view in this matter than was common among hiscontemporaries. He was not born in any of the revolted colonies, but inBermuda, of good blood but with the bar sinister stamped upon his birth. He had migrated to New York to seek his fortune, but his citizenship ofthat State remained an accident. He had no family traditions tying himto any section, and, more than any public man that appeared before theWest began to produce a new type, he felt America as a whole. He hadgreat administrative talents of which he was fully conscious, and theanarchy which followed the conclusion of peace was hateful to hisinstinct for order and strong government. But the strong governmentwhich he would have created was of a different type from that whichAmerica ultimately developed. Theoretically he made no secret of hispreference for a Monarchy over a Republic, but the suspicion that hemeditated introducing monarchical institutions into America, thoughsincerely entertained by Jefferson and others, was certainly false. Whatever his theoretic preferences, he was intensely alive to the logicof facts, and must have known that a brand-new American monarchy wouldhave been as impossible as it would have been ludicrous. In theory andpractice, however, he really was anti-democratic. Masses of men seemedto him incapable alike of judgment and of action, and he thought noenduring authority could be based upon the instincts of the "greatbeast, " as he called the mob. He looked for such authority and whatseemed to him the example of history, and especially to the example ofEngland. He knew how powerful both at home and abroad was the governingmachine which the English aristocracy had established after therevolution of 1689; and he realized more fully than most men of thatage, or indeed of this, that its strength lay in a small but verynational governing class wielding the people as an instrument. Such aclass he wished to create in America, to connect closely, as the Englisholigarchy had connected itself closely, with the great moneyedinterests, and to entrust with the large powers which in his judgmentthe central government of the Federation needed. 

Jefferson came back from France in the winter of 1789, and was at onceoffered by Washington the Secretaryship of State. The offer was not avery welcome one, for he was hot with the enthusiasm of the great Frenchstruggle, and would gladly have returned to Paris and watched itsprogress. He felt, however, that the President's insistence laid uponhim the duty of giving the Government the support of his abilities andpopularity. He had accepted the Constitution which he had no share inframing, not perhaps as exactly what he would have desired, butcertainly in full good faith and without reserve. It probably satisfiedhim at least as well as it satisfied Hamilton, who had actually at onetime withdrawn from the Convention in protest against its refusal toaccept his views. Jefferson's criticisms, such as they were, relatedmostly to matters of detail: some of them were just and some weresubsequently incorporated in amendments. But there is ample evidencethat for none of them was he prepared to go the length of opposing oreven delaying the settlement. It is also worth noting that none of themrelated to the balance of power between the Federal and StateGovernments, upon which Jefferson is often loosely accused of holdingextreme particularist views. As a fact he never held such views. Hisformula that "the States are independent as to everything withinthemselves and united as to everything respecting foreign nations" isreally a very good summary of the principles upon which theConstitution is based, and states substantially the policy which all thetruest friends of the Union have upheld. But he was committed out andout to the principle of popular government, and when it became obviousthat the Federalists under Hamilton's leadership were trying to make thecentral government oligarchical, and that they were very near success, Jefferson quite legitimately invoked and sought to confirm the largepowers secured by the Constitution itself to the States for the purposeof obstructing their programme. 

It was some time, however, before the antagonism between the twoSecretaries became acute, and meanwhile the financial genius of Hamiltonwas reducing the economic chaos bequeathed by the war to order andsolvency. All of his measures showed fertility of invention and athorough grasp of his subject; some of them were unquestionablybeneficial to the country. But a careful examination will show howclosely and deliberately he was imitating the English model which weknow to have been present to his mind. He established a true NationalDebt similar to that which Montague had created for the benefit ofWilliam of Orange. In this debt he proposed to merge the debts of theindividual States contracted during the War of Independence. Jeffersonsaw no objection to this at the time, and indeed it was largely throughhis favour that a settlement was made which overcame the opposition ofcertain States. 

This settlement had another interest as being one of the perennialgeographical compromises by means of which the Union was for so longpreserved. The support of Hamilton's policy came mainly from the North;the opposition to it from the South. It so happened that coincidentallyNorth and South were divided on another question, the position of theprojected Capital of the Federation. The Southerners wanted it to be onthe Potomac between Virginia and Maryland; the Northerners would havepreferred it further north. At Jefferson's house Hamilton met some ofthe leading Southern politicians, and a bargain was struck. TheSecretary's proposal as to the State debts was accepted, and the Southhad its way in regard to the Capital. Hamilton probably felt that hehad bought a solid advantage in return for a purely sentimentalconcession. Neither he nor anyone else could foresee the day of perilwhen the position of Washington between the two Southern States wouldbecome one of the gravest of the strategic embarrassments of the FederalGovernment. 

Later, when Hamilton's policy and personality had become odious to him, Jefferson expressed remorse for his conduct of the occasion, and blamedhis colleague for taking advantage of his ignorance of the question. Hissincerity cannot be doubted, but it will appear to the impartialobserver that his earlier judgment was the wiser of the two. Theassumption of State debts had really nothing "monocratic" oranti-popular about it--nothing even tending to infringe the rights andliberties of the several States--while it was clearly a statesmanlikemeasure from the national standpoint, tending at once to restore thepublic credit and cement the Union. But Jefferson read backwards intothis innocuous and beneficent stroke of policy the spirit which hejustly perceived to inform the later and more dubious measures whichproceeded from the same author. 

Of these the most important was the creation of the first United StatesBank. Here Hamilton was quite certainly inspired by the example of theEnglish Whigs. He knew how much the stability of the settlement made in1689 had owed to the skill and foresight with which Montague, throughthe creation of the Bank of England, had attached to it the greatmoneyed interests of the City. He wished, through the United StatesBank, to attach the powerful moneyed interests of the Eastern and MiddleStates in the same fashion to the Federal Government. This is how he andhis supporters would have expressed it. Jefferson said that he wished tofill Congress with a crowd of mercenaries bound by pecuniary ties to theTreasury and obliged to lend it, through good and evil repute, aperennial and corrupt support. The two versions are really onlydifferent ways of stating the same thing. To a democrat such a standingalliance between the Government and the rich will always seem a corruptthing--nay, the worst and least remediable form of corruption. To a manof Hamilton's temper it seemed merely the necessary foundation of astable political equilibrium. Thus the question of the Bank reallybrought the two parties which were growing up in the Cabinet and in thenation to an issue which revealed the irreconcilable antagonism of theirprinciples. 

The majority in Congress was with Hamilton; but his opponents appealedto the Constitution. They denied the competency of Congress under thatinstrument to establish a National Bank. When the Bill was in due coursesent to Washington for signature he asked the opinions of his Cabinet onthe constitutional question, and both Hamilton and Jefferson wrote veryable State Papers in defence of their respective views. After somehesitation Washington decided to sign the Bill and to leave the questionof constitutional law to the Supreme Court. In due course it waschallenged there, but Marshal, the Chief Justice, was a decidedFederalist, and gave judgment in favour of the legality of the Bank. 

The Federalists had won the first round. Meanwhile the party whichlooked to Jefferson as leader was organizing itself. It took the name of"Republican, " as signifying its opposition to the alleged monarchicaldesigns of Hamilton and his supporters. Later, when it appeared thatsuch a title was really too universal to be descriptive, theJeffersonians began to call themselves by the more genuinelycharacteristic title of "Democratic Republicans, " subsequentlyabbreviated into "Democrats. " That name the party which, alone amongAmerican parties, can boast an unbroken historic continuity of more thana century, retains to this day. 

At the end of his original term of four years, Washington was prevailedupon to give way to the universal feeling of the nation and to accept asecond term. No party thought of opposing him, but a significantdivision appeared over the Vice-Presidency. The Democrats ran Clintonagainst John Adams of Massachusetts, and though they failed thereappeared in the voting a significant alliance, which was to determinethe politics of a generation. New York State, breaking away from herNorthern neighbours, voted with the Democratic South for Clinton. Andthe same year saw the foundation in New York City of that dubious butvery potent product of democracy, which has perhaps become the bestabused institution in the civilized world, yet has somehow or othercontrived to keep in that highly democratic society a power which itcould never retain for a day without a genuine popular backing--TammanyHall. 

Meanwhile the destinies of every nation of European origin, and of noneperhaps more, in spite of their geographical remoteness, than of theUnited States, were being profoundly influenced by the astonishingevents that were shaping themselves in Western Europe. At first allAmerica was enthusiastic for the French Revolution. Americans werenaturally grateful for the aid given them by the French in their ownstruggle for freedom, and saw with eager delight the approachingliberation of their liberators. But as the drama unrolled itself asharp, though very unequal, division of opinion appeared. In NewEngland, especially, there were many who were shocked at the proceedingsof the French, at their violence, at their Latin cruelty in anger, and, above all perhaps, at that touch of levity which comes upon the Latinwhen he is face to face with death. Massacres and _carmagnoles_ did notstrike the typical Massachusetts merchant as the methods by whichGod-fearing men should protest against oppression. The strict militarygovernment which succeeded to, controlled and directed in a nationalfashion the violent mood of the people--that necessary martial law whichwe call "the Terror"--seemed even less acceptable to his fundamentallyWhiggish political creed. Yet--and it is a most significant fact--thebulk of popular American opinion was not shocked by these things. Itremained steadily with the French through all those events whichalienated opinion--even Liberal opinion--in Europe. It was perhapsbecause European opinion, especially English opinion, even when Liberal, was at bottom aristocratic, while the American people were already ademocracy. But the fact is certain. By the admission of those Americanwriters who deplore it and fail to comprehend it, the great mass of thedemocracy of America continued, through good and evil repute, to extenda vivid and indulgent sympathy to the democracy of France. 

The division of sympathies which had thus become apparent was convertedinto a matter of practical politics by the entry of England into the warwhich a Coalition was waging against the French Republic. Thatintervention at once sharpened the sympathies of both sides and gavethem a practical purpose. England and France were now arrayed againsteach other, and Americans, though their Government remained neutral, arrayed themselves openly as partisans of either combatant. The divisionfollowed almost exactly the lines of the earlier quarrel which had begunto appear as the true meaning of Hamilton's policy discovered itself. The Hamiltonians were for England. The Jeffersonians were for France. 

A war of pamphlets and newspapers followed, into the details of which itis not necessary to go. The Federalists, with the tide going steadilyagainst them, had the good luck to secure the aid of a pen which had nomatch in Europe. The greatest master of English controversial prose thatever lived was at that time in America. Normally, perhaps, hissympathies would have been with the Democrats. But love of England wasever the deepest and most compelling passion of the man who habituallyabused her institutions so roundly. The Democrats were against hisfatherland, and so the supporters of Hamilton found themselves defendedin a series of publications over the signature of "Peter Porcupine" withall the energy and genius which belonged only to William Cobbett. 

A piquancy of the contest was increased by the fact that it was led oneither side by members of the Administration. Washington had early putforth a Declaration of Neutrality, drawn up by Randolph, who, thoughleaning if anything to Jefferson's side, took up a more or lessintermediate position between the parties. Both sides professed toaccept the principle of neutrality, but their interpretations of it werewidely different. Jefferson did not propose to intervene in favour ofFrance, but he did not think that Americans were bound to disguise theirmoral sympathies. They would appear, he thought, both ungrateful andfalse to the first principles of their own commonwealth if, whateverlimitation prudence might impose in their action, they did not _desire_that France should be victorious over the Coalition of Kings. The greatmajority of the American people took the same view. When Genet, theenvoy of the newly constituted Republic, arrived from France, hereceived an ovation which Washington himself at the height of his glorycould hardly have obtained. Nine American citizens out of ten hastenedto mount the tricolour cockade, to learn the "Marseillaise, " and to taketheir glasses to the victory of the sister Republic. So strong was thewave of popular enthusiasm that the United States might perhaps havebeen drawn into active co-operation with France had France been betterserved by her Minister. 

Genet was a Girondin, and the Girondins, perhaps through that defect inrealism which ruined them at home, were not good diplomatists. It islikely enough that the warmth of his reception deranged his judgment; atany rate he misread its significance. He failed to take due account ofthat sensitiveness of national feeling in a democracy which, as aFrenchman of that time, he should have been specially able toappreciate. He began to treat the resources of the United States as ifthey had already been placed at the disposal of France, and, when veryproperly rebuked, he was foolish enough to attempt to appeal to thenation against its rulers. The attitude of the Secretary of State oughtto have warned him of the imprudence of his conduct. No man in Americawas a better friend to France than Jefferson; but he stood up manfullyto Genet in defence of the independent rights of his country, and theobstinacy of the ambassador produced, as Jefferson foresaw that it mustproduce, a certain reaction of public feeling by which the Anglophilparty benefited. 

At the close of the year 1793, Jefferson, weary of endless contests withHamilton, whom he accused, not without some justification, of constantlyencroaching on his colleague's proper department, not wholly satisfiedwith the policy of the Government and perhaps feeling that Genet'sindiscretions had made his difficult task for the moment impossible, resigned his office. He would have done so long before had notWashington, sincerely anxious throughout these troubled years to holdthe balance even between the parties, repeatedly exerted all hisinfluence to dissuade him. The following year saw the "WhiskeyInsurrection" in Pennsylvania--a popular protest against Hamilton'sexcise measures. Jefferson more than half sympathized with the rebels. Long before, on the occasion of Shay's insurrection, he had expressedwith some exaggeration a view which has much more truth in it than thosemodern writers who exclaim in horror at his folly could be expected tounderstand--the view that the readiness of people to rebel against theirrulers is no bad test of the presence of democracy among them. He hadeven added that he hoped the country would never pass ten years withouta rebellion of some sort. In the present case he had the additionalmotives for sympathy that he himself disapproved of the law againstwhich Pennsylvania was in revolt, and detested its author. Washingtoncould not be expected to take the same view. He was not anti-democraticlike Hamilton; he sincerely held the theory of the State set forth inthe Declaration of Independence. But he was something of an aristocrat, and very much of a soldier. As an aristocrat he was perhaps touched withthe illusion which was so fatal to his friend Lafayette, the illusionthat privilege can be abolished and yet the once privileged classpartially retain its ascendancy by a sort of tacit acknowledgment byothers of its value. As a soldier he disliked disorder and believed indiscipline. As a commander in the war he had not spared the rod, and hadeven complained of Congress for mitigating the severity of militarypunishments. It may be that the "Whiskey Insurrection, " which hesuppressed with prompt and drastic energy, led him for the first time tolean a little to the Hamiltonian side. At any rate he was induced, though reluctantly and only under strong pressure, to introduce into aMessage to Congress a passage reflecting on the Democratic Societieswhich were springing up everywhere and gaining daily in power; and inreturn found himself attacked, sometimes with scurrility, in the moreviolent organs of the Democracy. 

Washington's personal ascendancy was, however, sufficient to prevent thestorm from breaking while he was President. It was reserved for hissuccessor. In 1797 his second term expired. He had refused a third, thereby setting an important precedent which every subsequent Presidenthas followed, and bade farewell to politics in an address which is amongthe great historical documents of the Republic. The two pointsespecially emphasized were long the acknowledged keynotes of Americanpolicy: the avoidance at home of "sectional" parties--that is, ofparties following geographical lines--and abroad the maintenance of astrict independence of European entanglements and alliances. 

Had a Presidential election then been what it became later, a directappeal to the popular vote, it is probable that Jefferson would havebeen the second President of the United States. But the ElectoralCollege was still a reality, and its majority leant to Federalism. Immeasurably the ablest man among the Federalists was Hamilton, but formany reasons he was not an "available" choice. He was not a bornAmerican. He had made many and formidable personal enemies even withinthe party. Perhaps the shadow on his birth was a drawback; perhaps alsothe notorious freedom of his private life--for the strength of the partylay in Puritan New England. At any rate the candidate whom theFederalists backed and succeeded in electing was John Adams ofMassachusetts. By the curiously unworkable rule, soon repealed, of theoriginal Constitution, which gave the Vice-Presidency to the candidatewho had the second largest number of votes, Jefferson found himselfelected to that office under a President representing everything towhich he was opposed. 

John Adams was an honest man and sincerely loved his country. There hismerits ended. He was readily quarrelsome, utterly without judgment andsusceptible to that mood of panic in which mediocre persons are readilyinduced to act the "strong man. " During his administration a new quarrelarose with France--a quarrel in which once again those responsible forthat country's diplomacy played the game of her enemies. Genet hadmerely been an impracticable and impatient enthusiast. Talleyrand, whounder the Directory took charge of foreign affairs, was a scamp; and, clever as he was, was unduly contemptuous of America, where he hadlived for a time in exile. He attempted to use the occasion of theappearance of an American Mission in Paris to wring money out ofAmerica, not only for the French Treasury, but for his own privateprofit and that of his colleagues and accomplices. A remarkablecorrespondence, which fully revealed the blackmailing attempt made bythe agents of the French Government on the representatives of the UnitedStates, known as the "X. Y. Z. " letters, was published and roused theanger of the whole country. "Millions for defence but not a cent fortribute" was the universal catchword. Hamilton would probably haveseized the opportunity to go to war with France with some likelihood ofa national backing. Adams avoided war and thereby split his party, buthe did not avoid steps far more certain than a war to excite thehostility of democratic America. His policy was modelled upon the worstof the panic-bred measures by means of which Pitt and his colleagueswere seeking to suppress "Jacobinism" in England. Such a policy wasodious anywhere; in a democracy it was also insane. Further the AliensLaw and the Sedition Law which he induced Congress to pass were inflagrant and obvious violation of the letter and spirit of theConstitution. They were barely through Congress when the storm broke ontheir authors. Jefferson, in retirement at Monticello, saw that his hourwas come. He put himself at the head of the opposition and found a wholenation behind him. 

Kentucky, carved out of the western territory and newly grown toStatehood, took the lead of resistance. For her legislature Jeffersondrafted the famous "Kentucky Resolutions, " which condemned the new lawsas unconstitutional (which they were) and refused to allow them to beadministered within her borders. On the strength of these resolutionsJefferson has been described as the real author of the doctrine of"Nullification": and technically this may be true. Nevertheless there isall the difference in the world between the spirit of the KentuckyResolutions and that of "Nullification, " as South Carolina afterwardsproclaimed its legitimacy. About the former there was nothing sectional. It was not pretended that Kentucky had any peculiar and local objectionto the Sedition Law, or was standing against the other States inresisting it. She was vindicating a freedom common to all the States, valued by all and menaced in all. She claimed that she was makingherself the spokesman of the other States in the same fashion as Hampdenmade himself the spokesman of the other great landed proprietors inresisting taxation by the Crown. 

The event amply justified her claim. The oppression laws which theFederalists had induced Congress to pass were virtually dead lettersfrom the moment of their passing. And when the time came for the nationto speak, it rose as one man and flung Adams from his seat. TheFederalist party virtually died of the blow. The dream of anoligarchical Republic was at an end, and the will of the people, expressed with unmistakable emphasis, gave the Chief Magistracy to theauthor of the Declaration of Independence. 

 CHAPTER V

 THE VIRGINIAN DYNASTY

I have spoken of Jefferson's election as if it had been a direct act ofthe people; and morally it was so. But in the actual proceedings therewas a certain hitch, which is of interest not only because itillustrated a peculiar technical defect in the original Constitution andso led to its amendment, but because it introduces here, for the firsttime, the dubious but not unfascinating figure of Aaron Burr. 

Burr was a politician of a type which democracies will always produce, and which those who dislike democracy will always use for its reproach. Yet the reproach is evidently unjust. In all societies, most of thosewho meddle with the government of men will do so in pursuit of their owninterests, and in all societies the professional politician will revealhimself as a somewhat debased type. In a despotism he will become acourtier and obtain favour by obsequious and often dishonourableservices to a prince. In an old-fashioned oligarchy he will adopt thesame attitude towards some powerful noble. In a parliamentaryplutocracy, like our own, he will proceed in fashion with which we areonly too familiar, will make himself the paid servant of those wealthymen who finance politicians, and will enrich himself by means of "tips"from financiers and bribes from Government contractors. In a democracy, the same sort of man will try to obtain his ends by flattering andcajoling the populace. It is not obvious that he is more mischievous asdemagogue than he was as courtier, lackey, or parliamentary intriguer. Indeed, he is almost certainly less so, for he must at least in somefashion serve, even if only that he may deceive them, those whoseservant he should be. At any rate, the purely self-seeking demagogue iscertainly a recurrent figure in democratic politics, and of theself-seeking demagogue Aaron Burr was an excellent specimen. 

He had been a soldier not without distinction, and to the last heretained a single virtue--the grand virtue of courage. For the rest, hewas the Tammany Boss writ large. An able political organizer, possessedof much personal charm, he had made himself master of the powerfulorganization of the Democratic party in New York State, and as such wasable to bring valuable support to the party which was opposing theadministration of Adams. As a reward for his services, it was determinedthat he should be Democratic candidate for the Vice-Presidency. But herethe machinery devised by the Convention played a strange trick. When thevotes of the Electoral College came to be counted, it was found thatinstead of Jefferson leading and yet leaving enough votes to give Burrthe second place, the votes for the two were exactly equal. This, underthe Constitution, threw the decision into the hands of the House ofRepresentatives, and in that House the Federalists still held thebalance of power. They could not choose their own nominee, but theycould choose either Jefferson or Burr, and many of them, desiring at theworst to frustrate the triumph of their great enemy, were disposed tochoose Burr; while Burr, who cared only for his own career, was readyenough to lend himself to such an intrigue. 

That the intrigue failed was due mainly to the patriotism of Hamilton. All that was best and worst in him concurred in despising the mereflatterer of the mob. Jefferson was at least a gentleman. And, unfairlyas he estimated him both morally and intellectually, he knew very wellthat the election of Jefferson would not be a disgrace to the Republic, while the election of Burr would. His patriotism overcame hisprejudices. He threw the whole weight of his influence with theFederalists against the intrigue, and he defeated it. It is the more tohis honour that he did this to the advantage of a man whom he could notappreciate and who was his enemy. It was the noblest and purest act ofhis public career. It probably cost him his life. 

Jefferson was elected President and Burr Vice-President, as hadundoubtedly been intended by the great majority of those who had votedthe Democratic ticket at the elections. But the anomaly and disaster ofBurr's election had been so narrowly avoided that a change in theConstitution became imperative. It was determined that henceforward thevotes for President and Vice-President should be given separately. Theincident had another consequence. Burr, disappointed in hopes which hadalmost achieved fulfilment, became from that moment a bitter enemy ofJefferson and his administration. Also, attributing the failure of hispromising plot to Hamilton's intervention, he hated Hamilton with a newand insatiable hatred. Perhaps in that hour he already determined thathis enemy should die. 

Jefferson's inauguration was full of that deliberate and almostceremonial contempt of ceremony in which that age found a trueexpression of its mood, though later and perhaps more corrupt times haveinevitably found such symbolism merely comic. It was observed asstriking the note of the new epoch that the President rejected all thatsemi-regal pomp which Washington and Adams had thought necessary to thedignity of their office. It is said that he not only rode alone intoWashington (he was the first President to be inaugurated in the newlybuilt capital), dressed like any country gentleman, but, when hedismounted to take the oath, tethered his horse with his own hands. Morereally significant was the presence of the populace that electedhim--the great heaving, unwashed crowd elbowing the dainty politiciansin the very presence chamber. The President's inaugural address was fullof a generous spirit of reconciliation. "We are all Republicans, " hesaid, "we are all Federalists. " Every difference of opinion was not adifference of principle, nor need such differences interfere with "ourattachment, to our Union and to representative government. "

Such liberality was the more conspicuous by contrast with the pettyrancour of his defeated rival, who not only refused to perform thecustomary courtesy of welcoming his successor at the White House, butspent his last hours there appointing Federalists feverishly to publicoffices solely in order to compel Jefferson to choose between thehumiliation of retaining such servants and the odium of dismissingthem. The new President very rightly refused to recognize nominations somade, and this has been seized upon by his detractors to hold him up asthe real author of what was afterwards called "the Spoils System. " Itwould be far more just to place that responsibility upon Adams. 

The most important event of Jefferson's first administration was theLouisiana Purchase. The colony of Louisiana at the mouth of theMississippi, with its vast _hinterland_ stretching into the heart of theAmerican continent, had, as we have seen, passed in 1762 from Frenchinto Spanish hands. Its acquisition by the United States had been an oldproject of Jefferson's. When Secretary of State under Washington, he hadmooted it when settling with the Spanish Government the question of thenavigation of the Mississippi. As President he revived it; but beforenegotiations could proceed far the whole situation was changed by theretrocession of Louisiana to France as part of the terms dictated byNapoleon to a Spain which had fallen completely under his control. TheUnited States could not, in any case, have regarded the transfer withoutuneasiness, and to all schemes of purchase it seemed a death-blow, forit was believed that the French Emperor had set his heart upon theresurrection of French Colonial power in America. But Jefferson was anexcellent diplomatist, at once conciliatory and unyielding: he playedhis cards shrewdly, and events helped him. The Peace of Amiens wasbroken, and, after a very brief respite, England and France were againat war. Napoleon's sagacity saw clearly enough that he could not hope tohold and develop his new colony in the face of a hostile power which washis master on the sea. It would suit his immediate purpose better toreplenish his treasury with good American dollars which might soon beurgently needed. He became, therefore, as willing to sell as Jeffersonwas to buy, and between two men of such excellent sense a satisfactorybargain was soon struck. The colony of Louisiana and all the undevelopedcountry which lay behind it became the inheritance of the AmericanFederation. 

Concerning the transaction, there is more than one point to be noted ofimportance to history. One is the light which it throws on Jefferson'spersonal qualities. Because this man held very firmly an abstract andreasoned theory of the State, could define and defend it withextraordinary lucidity and logic, and avowedly guided his public conductby its light, there has been too much tendency to regard him as a meretheorist, a sort of Girondia, noble in speculation and rhetoric, butunequal to practical affairs and insufficiently alive to concreterealities. He is often contrasted unfavourably with Hamilton in thisrespect: and yet he had, as events proved, by far the acuter sense ofthe trend of American popular opinion and the practical requirements ofa government that should command its respect; and he made fewer mistakesin mere political tactics than did his rival. But his diplomacy is thebest answer to the charge. Let anyone who entertains it follow closelythe despatches relating to the Louisiana purchase, and observe howshrewdly this supposed visionary can drive a good bargain for hiscountry, even when matched against Talleyrand with Bonaparte behind him. One is reminded that before he entered politics he enjoyed among hisfellow-planters a reputation for exceptional business acumen. 

Much more plausible is the accusation that Jefferson in the matter ofLouisiana forgot his principles, and acted in a manner grosslyinconsistent with his attitude when the Federalists were in power. Certainly, the purchase can only be defended constitutionally by givinga much larger construction to the powers of the Federal authority thaneven Hamilton had ever promulgated. If the silence of the Constitutionon the subject must, as Jefferson had maintained, be taken as forbiddingCongress and the Executive to charter a bank, how much more must asimilar silence forbid them to expend millions in acquiring vast newterritories beyond the borders of the Confederacy. In point of fact, Jefferson himself believed the step he and Congress were taking to bebeyond their present powers, and would have preferred to have asked fora Constitutional Amendment to authorize it. But he readily gave way onthis to those who represented that such a course would give themalcontent minority their chance, and perhaps jeopardize the wholescheme. The fact is, that "State Rights" were not to Jefferson a firstprinciple, but a weapon which he used for the single purpose ofresisting oligarchy. His first principle, in which he never wavered fora moment, was that laid down in the "Declaration"--the sovereignty ofthe General Will. To him Federalism was nothing and State Sovereigntywas nothing but the keeping of the commandments of the people. Judged bythis test, both his opposition to Hamilton's bank and his purchase ofthe Louisiana territory were justified; for on both occasions the nationwas with him. 

Jefferson's inconsistency, therefore, if inconsistency it were, broughthim little discredit. It was far otherwise with the inconsistency of theFederalists. For they also changed sides, and of their case it may besaid that, like Milton's Satan, they "rode with darkness. " The mostrespectable part of their original political creed was theirnationalism, their desire for unity, and their support of a strongcentral authority. Had this been really the dominant sentiment of theirconnection, they could not but have supported Jefferson's policy, eventhough they might not too unfairly have reproached him with stealingtheir thunder. For not only was Jefferson's act a notable example oftheir own theory of "broad construction" of the Constitution, but it wasperhaps a more fruitful piece of national statesmanship than the best ofHamilton's measures, and it had a direct tendency to promote andperpetuate that unity which the Federalists professed to value sohighly, for it gave to the States a new estate of vast extent andincalculable potentialities, which they must perforce rule and developin common. But the Federalists forgot everything, even common prudence, in their hatred of the man who had raised the people against them. Toinjure him, most of them had been ready to conspire with a taintedadventurer like Burr. They were now ready for the same object to tear upthe Union and all their principles with it. One of their ablestspokesmen, Josiah Quincey, made a speech against the purchase, in whichhe anticipated the most extreme pronouncements of the Nullifiers of 1832and the Secessionists of 1860, declared that his country was not Americabut Massachusetts, that to her alone his ultimate allegiance was due, and that if her interests were violated by the addition of new Southernterritory in defiance of the Constitution, she would repudiate the Unionand take her stand upon her rights as an independent Sovereign State. 

By such an attitude the Federalists destroyed only themselves. Some ofthe wiser among them left the party on this issue, notably John QuinceyAdams, son of the second President of the United States, and himself tobe raised later, under somewhat disastrous circumstances, to the sameposition. The rump that remained true, not to their principles butrather to their vendetta, could make no headway against a virtuallyunanimous nation. They merely completed and endorsed the generaljudgment on their party by an act of suicide. 

But the chief historical importance of the Louisiana purchase lies inthe fact that it gave a new and for long years an unlimited scope tothat irresistible movement of expansion westward which is the key to allthat age in American history. In the new lands a new kind of Americanwas growing up. Within a generation he was to come by his own; and aWesterner in the chair of Washington was to revolutionize theCommonwealth. 

Of the governing conditions of the West, two stand out as of especialimportance to history. 

One was the presence of unsubdued and hostile Indian tribes. Ever sincethat extraordinary man, Daniel Boon (whose strange career would make anepic for which there is no room in this book), crossed the Alleghanies adecade before the beginning of the Revolution and made an opening forthe white race into the rich valleys of Kentucky, the history of thewestern frontier of European culture had been a cycle of Indian wars. The native race had not yet been either tamed or corrupted bycivilization. Powerful chiefs still ruled great territories asindependent potentates, and made peace and war with the white men onequal terms. From such a condition it followed that courage and skill inarms were in the West not merely virtues and accomplishments to beadmired, but necessities which a man must acquire or perish. TheWesterner was born a fighter, trained as a fighter, and the fightinginstinct was ever dominant in him. So also was the instinct of loyaltyto his fellow-citizens, a desperate, necessary loyalty as to comrades ina besieged city--as, indeed, they often were. 

The other condition was the product partly of natural circumstances andpartly of that wise stroke of statesmanship which had pledged the newlands in trust to the whole Confederacy. The Westerner wasAmerican--perhaps he was the first absolutely instinctive American. Theolder States looked with much pride to a long historical record whichstretched back far beyond the Union into colonial times. TheMassachusetts man would still boast of the Pilgrim Fathers. TheVirginian still spoke lovingly of the "Old Plantation. " But Kentucky andTennessee, Ohio and Indiana were children of the Union. They had grownto statehood within it, and they had no memories outside it. They werepeopled from all the old States, and the pioneers who peopled them werehammered into an intense and instinctive homogeneity by the constantneed of fighting together against savage nature and savage man. Thus, while in the older settlements one man was conscious above all thingsthat he was a New Englander, and another that he was a Carolinian, theWestern pioneer was primarily conscious that he was a white man and nota Red Indian, nay, often that he was a man and not a grizzly bear. Hencegrew up in the West that sense of national unity which was to be theinspiration of so many celebrated Westerners of widely different typesand opinions, of Clay, of Jackson, of Stephen Douglas, and of AbrahamLincoln. 

But this was not to take place until the loyalty of the West had firstbeen tried by a strange and sinister temptation. 

Aaron Burr had been elected Vice-President coincidently with Jefferson'selection as President; but his ambition was far from satisfied. He wasdetermined to make another bid for the higher place, and as apreliminary he put himself forward as candidate for the Governorship ofNew York State. It was as favourable ground as he could find to try theissue between himself and the President, for New York had been thecentre of his activities while he was still an official Democrat, andher favour had given him his original position in the party. But hecould not hope to succeed without the backing of those Federalistmalcontents who had nearly made him President in 1800. To conciliatethem he bent all his energies and talents, and was again on the point ofsuccess when Hamilton, who also belonged to New York State, againcrossed his path. Hamilton urged all the Federalists whom he couldinfluence to have nothing to do with Burr, and, probably as a result ofhis active intervention, Burr was defeated. 

Burr resolved that Hamilton must be prevented from thwarting him in thefuture, and he deliberately chose a simple method of removing him. Hehad the advantage of being a crack shot. He forced a private quarrel onHamilton, challenged him to a duel, and killed him. 

He can hardly have calculated the effect of his action: it shocked thewhole nation, which had not loved Hamilton, but knew him for a betterman than Burr. Duelling, indeed, was then customary among gentlemen inthe United States, as it is to-day throughout the greater part of thecivilized world; but it was very rightly felt that the machinery whichwas provided for the vindication of outraged honour under extremeprovocation was never meant to enable one man, under certain forms, tokill another merely because he found his continued existence personallyinconvenient. That was what Burr had done; and morally it wasundoubtedly murder. Throughout the whole East Burr became a man markedwith the brand of Cain. He soon perceived it, but his audacity would notaccept defeat. He turned to the West, and initiated a daring conspiracywhich, as he hoped, would make him, if not President of the UnitedStates, at least President of something. 

What Burr's plan, as his own mind conceived it, really was it isextremely difficult to say; for he gave not only different but directlyopposite accounts to the various parties whom he endeavoured to engagein it. To the British Ambassador, whom he approached, he represented itas a plan for the dismemberment of the Republic from which England hadeverything to gain. Louisiana was to secede, carrying the whole Westwith her, and the new Confederacy was to become the ally of the MotherCountry. For the Spanish Ambassador he had another story. Spain was torecover predominant influence in Louisiana by detaching it from theAmerican Republic, and recognizing it as an independent State. To theFrench-Americans of Louisiana he promised complete independence of bothAmerica and Spain. To the Westerners, whom he tried to seduce, exactlythe opposite colour was given to the scheme. It was represented as adesign to provoke a war with Spain by the invasion and conquest ofMexico; and only if the Federal Government refused to support thefilibusters was the West to secede. Even this hint of hypotheticalsecession was only whispered to those whom it might attract. To othersall thought of disunion was disclaimed; and yet another complexion wasput on the plot. The West was merely to make legitimate preparations forthe invasion of Mexico and Florida in the event of certain disputes thenpending with Spain resulting in war. It was apparently in this form thatthe design was half disclosed to the most influential citizen andcommander of the militia in the newly created State of Tennessee, AndrewJackson, the same that we saw as a mere school-boy riding and fightingat Hanging Rock. 

Jackson had met Burr during the brief period when he was in Congress asrepresentative of his State. He had been entertained by him and likedhim, and when Burr visited Tennessee he was received by Jackson with allthe hospitality of the West. Jackson was just the man to be interestedin a plan for invading Mexico in the event of a Spanish war, and hewould probably not have been much shocked--for the West was headstrong, used to free fighting, and not nice on points of international law--atthe idea of helping on a war for the purpose. But he loved the Union ashe loved his own life. Burr said nothing to him of his separatistschemes. When later he heard rumours of them, he wrote peremptorily toBurr for an explanation. Burr, who, to do him justice, was not the manto shuffle or prevaricate, lied so vigorously and explicitly thatJackson for the moment believed him. Later clearer proof came of histreason, and close on it followed the President's proclamationapprehending him, for Burr had been betrayed by an accomplice toJefferson. Jackson at once ordered out the militia to seize him, but hehad already passed westward out of his control. The Secretary for War, who, as it happened, was a personal enemy of Jackson's, thinking hisconnection with Burr might be used against him, wrote calling insinister tone for an account of his conduct. Jackson's reply is socharacteristic of the man that it deserves to be quoted. After sayingthat there was nothing treasonable in Burr's communications to himpersonally, he adds: "But, sir, when proofs showed him to be a Treator"(spelling was never the future President's strong point), "I would cuthis throat with as much pleasure as I would cut yours on equaltestimony. "

The whole conspiracy fizzled out. Burr could get no help from any of thedivergent parties he had attempted to gain. No one would fight for him. His little band of rebels was scattered, and he himself was seized, tried for treason, and acquitted on a technical point. But his dark, tempestuous career was over. Though he lived to an unlovely old age, heappears no more in history. 

Jefferson was re-elected President in 1804. He was himself doubtfulabout the desirability of a second tenure, but the appearance at themoment of a series of particularly foul attacks upon his privatecharacter made him feel that to retire would amount to something like aplea of guilty. Perhaps it would have served his permanent fame betterif he had not accepted another term, for, owing to circumstances forwhich he was only partly to blame, his second Presidency appears inhistory as much less successful than his first. 

Its chief problem was the maintenance of peace and neutrality during thecolossal struggle between France under Napoleon and the kings andaristocracies of Europe who had endeavoured to crush the FrenchRevolution, and who now found themselves in imminent peril of beingcrushed by its armed and amazing child. 

Jefferson sincerely loved peace. Moreover, the sympathy for France, ofwhich he had at one time made no disguise, was somewhat damped by thelatest change which had taken place in the French Government. Large aswas his vision compared with most of his contemporaries, he was too muchsoaked in the Republican tradition of antiquity, which was so living athing in that age, to see in the decision of a nation of soldiers tohave a soldier for their ruler and representative the fulfilment ofdemocracy and not its denial. But his desire for peace was not madeeasier of fulfilment by either of the belligerent governments. Neitherthought the power of the United States to help or hinder of seriousaccount, and both committed constant acts of aggression against Americanrights. Nor was his position any stronger in that he had made it acharge against the Federalists that they had provided in anunnecessarily lavish fashion for the national defence. In accordancewith his pledges he had reduced the army. His own conception of the bestdefensive system for America was the building of a large number of smallbut well-appointed frigates to guard her coasts and her commerce. It isfair to him to say that when war came these frigates of his gave a goodaccount of themselves. Yet his own position was a highly embarrassingone, anxious from every motive to avoid war and yet placed between anenemy, or rather two enemies, who would yield nothing to hisexpostulations, and the rising clamour, especially in the West, for thevindication of American rights by an appeal to arms. 

Jefferson attempted to meet the difficulty by a weapon which provedaltogether inadequate for the purpose intended, while it was bound toreact almost as seriously as a war could have done on the prosperity ofAmerica. He proposed to interdict all commerce with either of thebelligerents so long as both persisted in disregarding American rights, while promising to raise the interdict in favour of the one which firstshowed a disposition to treat the United States fairly. Such a policysteadily pursued by such an America as we see to-day would probably havesucceeded. But at that time neither combatant was dependent uponAmerican products for the essentials of vitality. The suppression of theAmerican trade might cause widespread inconvenience, and even bringindividual merchants to ruin, but it could not hit the warring nationshard enough to compel governments struggling on either side for theirvery lives in a contest which seemed to hang on a hair to surrenderanything that might look like a military advantage. On the other hand, the Embargo, as it was called, hit the Americans themselves very hardindeed. So great was the outcry of the commercial classes, that thePresident was compelled to retrace his steps and remove the interdict. The problem he handed over unsolved to his successor. 

That successor was James Madison, another Virginian, Jefferson'slieutenant ever since the great struggle with the Federalists and hisintimate friend from a still earlier period. His talents as a writerwere great; he did not lack practical sagacity, and his opinions wereJefferson's almost without a single point of divergence. But he lackedJefferson's personal prestige, and consequently the policy followedduring his Presidency was less markedly his own than that of his greatpredecessor had been. 

Another turn of the war-wheel in Europe had left America with only oneantagonist in place of two. Trafalgar had destroyed, once and for all, the power of France on the sea, and she was now powerless to injureAmerican interests, did she wish to do so. England, on the other hand, was stronger for that purpose than ever, and was less restrained thanever in the exercise of her strength. A new dispute, especiallyprovocative to the feelings of Americans, had arisen over the questionof the impressment of seamen. The press-gang was active in England atthe time, and pursued its victims on the high seas. It even claimed theright to search the ships of neutrals for fugitives. Many Americanvessels were violated in this fashion, and it was claimed that some ofthe men thus carried off to forced service, though originally English, had become American citizens. England was clearly in the wrong, but sherefused all redress. One Minister, sent by us to Washington, Erskine, did indeed almost bring matters to a satisfactory settlement, but hismomentary success only made the ultimate anger of America more bitter, for he was disowned and recalled, and, as if in deliberate insult, wasreplaced by a certain Jackson who, as England's Ambassador to Denmark in1804, had borne a prominent part in the most sensational violation ofthe rights of a neutral country that the Napoleonic struggle hadproduced. 

There seemed no chance of peace from any conciliatory action on the partof Great Britain. The sole chance hung on the new President'sinheritance of Jefferson's strong leaning in that direction. But Madisonwas by no means for peace at any price; and indeed Jefferson himself, from his retreat at Monticello, hailed the war, when it ultimately came, as unmistakably just. For a long time, however, the President alone heldthe nation back from war. The War Party included the Vice-PresidentMunroe, who had been largely instrumental in bringing about theLouisiana purchase. But its greatest strength was in the newly populatedWest, and its chief spokesman in Congress was Henry Clay of Kentucky. 

This man fills so large a space in American politics for a fullgeneration that some attempt must be made to give a picture of him. Yeta just account of his character is not easy to give. It would be simpleenough to offer a superficial description, favourable or hostile, butnot one that would account for all his actions. Perhaps the bestanalysis would begin by showing him as half the aboriginal Westerner andhalf the Washington politician. In many ways he was very Western. He hada Westerner's pugnacity, and at the same time a Westerner's genialityand capacity for comradeship with men. He had to the last a Westerner'sprivate tastes--especially a taste for gambling--and a Westerner'sreadiness to fight duels. Above all, from the time that he enteredCongress as the fiercest of the "war hawks" who clamoured for vengeanceon England, to the time when, an old and broken man, he expended thelast of his enormous physical energy in an attempt to bridge thewidening gulf between North and South, he showed through many grievousfaults and errors that intense national feeling and that passion for theUnion which were growing so vigorously in the fertile soil beyond theAlleghanies. But he was a Western shoot early engrafted on the politicalsociety of Washington--the most political of all cities, for it is apolitical capital and nothing else. He entered Congress young and foundthere exactly the atmosphere that suited his tastes and temperament. Hewas as much the perfect parliamentarian as Gladstone. For how much histact and instinct for the tone of the political assembly in which hemoved counted may be guessed from this fact: that while there is nospeech of his that has come down to us that one could place for amoment beside some of extant contemporary speeches of Webster andCalhoun, yet it is unquestionable that he was considered fully a matchfor either Webster or Calhoun in debate, and in fact attained anascendancy over Congress which neither of those great orators everpossessed. At the management of the minds of men with whom he wasactually in contact he was unrivalled. No man was so skilful inharmonizing apparently irreconcilable differences and choosing the exactline of policy which opposing factions could agree to support. Threetimes he rode what seemed the most devastating political storms, andthree times he imposed a peace. But with the strength of a greatparliamentarian he had much of the weakness that goes with it. Hethought too much as a professional; and in his own skilled work ofmatching measures, arranging parties and moving politicians about likepawns, he came more and more to forget the silent drive of the popularwill. All this, however, belongs to a later stage of Clay's development. At the moment, we have to deal with him as the ablest of those who werebent upon compelling the President to war. 

Between Clay and the British Government Madison's hand was forced, andwar was declared. In America there were widespread rejoicings and highhopes of the conquest of Canada and the final expulsion of England fromthe New World. Yet the war, though on the whole justly entered upon, andthough popular with the greater part of the country, was not national inthe fullest sense. It did not unite, rather it dangerously divided, theFederation, and that, unfortunately, on geographical lines. New Englandfrom the first was against it, partly because most of her citizenssympathized with Great Britain in her struggle with Napoleon, and partlybecause her mercantile prosperity was certain to be hard hit, and mighteasily be ruined by a war with the greatest of naval powers. When, immediately after the declaration of war, in 1812, Madison was putforward as Presidential candidate for a second term, the contest showedsharply the line of demarcation. North-east of the Hudson he did notreceive a vote. 

The war opened prosperously for the Republic, with the destruction byCommander Perry of the British fleet on Lake Ontario--an incident whichstill is held in glorious memory by the American Navy and the Americanpeople. Following on this notable success, an invasion of Canada wasattempted; but here Fortune changed sides. The invasion was a completefailure, the American army was beaten, forced to fall back, andattacked, in its turn, upon American soil. Instead of American troopsoccupying Quebec, English troops occupied a great part of Ohio. 

Meanwhile, Jefferson's frigates were showing their metal. In many duelswith English cruisers they had the advantage, though we in this countrynaturally hear most--indeed, it is almost the only incident of this warof which we ever do hear--of one of the cases in which victory went theother way--the famous fight between the _Shannon_ and the _Chesapeake_. On the whole, the balance of such warfare leant in favour of theAmerican sea-captains. But it was not by such warfare that the issuecould be settled. England, summoning what strength she could spare fromher desperate struggle with the French Emperor, sent an adequate fleetto convoy a formidable army to the American coast. It landed withoutserious opposition at the mouth of the Chesapeake, and marched straighton the national capital, which the Government was forced to abandon. 

No Englishman can write without shame of what followed. All the publicbuildings of Washington were deliberately burnt. For this outrage theHome Government was solely responsible. The general in command receiveddirect and specific orders, which he obeyed unwillingly. No pretence ofmilitary necessity, or even of military advantage, can be pleaded. Theact, besides being a gross violation of the law of nations, was anexhibition of sheer brutal spite, such as civilized war seldom witnesseduntil Prussia took a hand in it. It had its reward. It burnt deep intothe soul of America; and from that incident far more than from anythingthat happened in the War of Independence dates that ineradicable hatredof England which was for generations almost synonymous with patriotismin most Americans, and which almost to the hour of President Wilson'sintervention made many in that country doubt whether, even as againstPrussia, England could really be the champion of justice and humanity. 

Things never looked blacker for the Republic than in those hours whenthe English troops held what was left of Washington. Troubles camethicker and thicker upon her. The Creek Nation, the most powerful of theindependent Indian tribes, instigated partly by English agents, partlyby the mysterious native prophet Tecumseh, suddenly descended with fireand tomahawk on the scattered settlements of the South-West, while atthe same time a British fleet appeared in the Gulf of Mexico, apparentlymeditating either an attack on New Orleans or an invasion through theSpanish territory of Western Florida, and in that darkest hour when itseemed that only the utmost exertions of every American could save theUnited States from disaster, treason threatened to detach an importantsection of the Federation from its allegiance. 

The discontent of New England is intelligible enough. No part of theUnion had suffered so terribly from the war, and the suffering was thebitterer for being incurred in a contest which was none of her making, which she had desired to avoid, and which had been forced on her byother sections which had suffered far less. Her commerce, by which shelargely lived, had been swept from the seas. Her people, deeplydistressed, demanded an immediate peace. Taking ground as discontentedsections, North and South, always did before 1864, on the doctrine ofState Sovereignty, one at least, and that the greatest of the NewEngland States, began a movement which seemed to point straight to thedilemma of surrender to the foreigner or secession and dismembermentfrom within. 

Massachusetts invited representatives of her sister States to aConvention at Hartford. The Convention was to be consultative, but itsdirect and avowed aim was to force the conclusion of peace on any terms. Some of its promoters were certainly prepared, if they did not get theirway, to secede and make a separate peace for their own State. Theresponse of New England was not as unanimous as the conspirators hadhoped. Vermont and New Hampshire refused to send delegates. Rhode Islandconsented, but qualified her consent with the phrase "consistently withher obligations"--implying that she would be no party to a separatepeace or to the break-up of the Union. Connecticut alone came in withoutreservation. Perhaps this partial failure led the plotters to lend amore moderate colour to their policy. At any rate, secession was notdirectly advocated at Hartford. It was hinted that if such evils asthose of which the people of New England complained proved permanent, itmight be necessary; but the members of the Convention had the grace toadmit that it ought not to be attempted in the middle of a foreign war. Their good faith, however, is dubious, for they put forward a proposalso patently absurd that it could hardly have been made except for thepurpose of paving the way for a separate peace. They declared that eachState ought to be responsible for its own defences, and they asked thattheir share of the Federal taxes should be paid over to them for thepurpose. With that and a resolution to meet again at Boston and considerfurther steps if their demands were not met, they adjourned. They neverreassembled. 

In the South the skies were clearing a little. Jackson of Tennessee, vigorous and rapid in movement, a master of Indian warfare, leading anarmy of soldiers who worshipped him as the Old Guard worshippedNapoleon, by a series of quick and deadly strokes overthrew the Creeks, followed them to their fastnesses, and broke them decisively at Tohopekain the famous "hickory patch" which was the holy place of their nation. 

He was rewarded in the way that he would have most desired: by acommission against the English, who had landed at Pensacola in Spanishterritory, perhaps with the object of joining hands with their Indianallies. They found those allies crushed by Jackson's energy, but theystill retained their foothold on the Florida coast, from which theycould menace Georgia on the one side and New Orleans on the other. Spainwas the ally of England in Europe, but in the American War she professedneutrality. As, however, she made no effort to prevent England using aSpanish port as a base of operations, she could not justly complain whenJackson seized the neighbouring port of Mobile, from which he marchedagainst the British and dislodged them. But the hardest and mostglorious part of his task was to come. The next blow was aimed at NewOrleans itself. Jackson hastened to its defence. The British landed ingreat force at the mouth of the Mississippi and attacked the city fromboth sides. Jackson's little army was greatly outnumbered, but the skillwith which he planned the defence and the spirit which he infused intohis soldiers (the British themselves said that Jackson's men seemed of adifferent stuff from all other American troops they had encountered)prevailed against heavy odds. Three times Jackson's lines were attacked:in one place they were nearly carried, but his energy just repaired thedisaster. At length the British retired with heavy losses and took totheir ships. New Orleans was saved. 

Before this last and most brilliant of American victories had beenfought and won, peace had been signed at Ghent. News travelled slowlyacross the Atlantic, and neither British nor American commanders knew ofit for months later. But early in the year negotiations had been opened, and before Christmas they reached a conclusion. Great Britain was moreweary of the war than her antagonist. If she had gone on she might havewon a complete victory, or might have seen fortune turn decisivelyagainst her. She had no wish to try the alternative. Napoleon hadabdicated at Fontainebleau, and been despatched to Elba, and there weremany who urged that the victorious army of the Peninsula underWellington himself should be sent across the Atlantic to dictate terms. But England was not in the mood for more fighting. After twenty years ofincessant war she saw at last the hope of peace. She saw also that thecapture of Washington had not, as had been hoped, put an end to Americanresistance, but had rather put new life into it. To go on meant toattempt again the gigantic task which she had let drop as much fromweariness as from defeat a generation before. She preferred to cryquits. The Peace, which was signed on behalf of a Republic by Clay--oncethe most vehement of "war-hawks"--was in appearance a victory forneither side. Frontiers remained exactly as they were when the firstshot was fired. No indemnity was demanded or paid by either combatant. The right of impressment--the original cause of war, was neitheraffirmed nor disclaimed, though since that date England has neverattempted to use it. Yet there is no such thing in history as "a drawnwar. " One side or the other must always have attempted the imposition ofits will and failed. In this case it was England. America will alwaysregard the war of 1812 as having ended in victory; and her view issubstantially right. The new Republic, in spite of, or, one might moretruly say, because of the dark reverses she had suffered and survived, was strengthened and not weakened by her efforts. The national spiritwas raised and not lowered. The _mood_ of a nation after a war is apractically unfailing test of victory or defeat; and the mood of Americaafter 1814 was happy, confident, creative--the mood of a boy who hasproved his manhood. 

In 1816 Madison was succeeded by Monroe. Monroe, though, like hissuccessor, a Virginian and a disciple of Jefferson, was more of anationalist, and had many points of contact with the new Democracy whichhad sprung up first in the West, and was daily becoming more and morethe dominant sentiment of the Republic. "Federalism" had perishedbecause it was tainted with oligarchy, but there had been other elementsin it which were destined to live, and the "National Republicans, " asthey came to call themselves, revived them. They were for a vigorousforeign policy and for adequate preparations for war. They felt theUnion as a whole, and were full of a sense of its immense undevelopedpossibilities. They planned expensive schemes of improvement by means ofroads, canals, and the like to be carried out at the cost of the FederalGovernment, and they cared little for the protests of the doctrinairesof "State Right. " To them America owes, for good or evil, her Protectivesystem. The war had for some years interrupted commerce with the OldWorld, and native industries had, perforce, grown up to supply the wantsof the population. These industries were now in danger of destructionthrough the reopening of foreign trade, and consequently of foreigncompetition. It was determined to frame the tariff hitherto imposedmainly, if not entirely, with a view to revenue in such a way as toshelter them from such peril. The exporting Cotton States, which hadnothing to gain from Protection, were naturally hostile to it; but theywere overborne by the general trend of opinion, especially in the West. One last development of the new "national" policy--the most questionableof its developments and opposed by Clay at the time, though heafterwards made himself its champion--was the revival, to meet thefinancial difficulties created by the war, of Hamilton's National Bank, whose charter, under the Jeffersonian _régime_, had been suffered toexpire. 

But the Western expansion, though it did much to consolidate theRepublic, contained in it a seed of dissension. We have seen how, in theConvention, the need of keeping an even balance between Northern andSouthern sections was apparent. That need was continually forced intoprominence as new States were added. The presence or absence of NegroSlavery had become the distinguishing badge of the sections; and itbecame the apple of discord as regards the development of the West. Jefferson had wished that Slavery should be excluded from all theterritory vested in the Federal authority, but he had been overruled, and the prohibition had been applied only to the North-Western Territoryout of which the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were carved. TheSouth-West had been left open to Slavery, and it had become the custom, with the purpose of preserving the balance in the Senate, to admit SlaveStates and Free in pairs. This worked satisfactorily enough so long asthe States claiming admission were within a well-defined geographicalarea. But when Missouri became sufficiently populated to be recognizedas a State, there was a keen contest. Her territory lay across the linewhich had hitherto divided the sections. She must be either a Northernpromontory projecting into the south or a Southern promontory projectinginto the north. Neither section would yield, and matters wereapproaching a domestic crisis when Clay intervened. He was in anexcellent position to arbitrate, for he came from the most northern ofSouthern States, and had ties with both sections. Moreover, as has beensaid, his talents were peculiarly suited to such management as thesituation required. He proposed a settlement which satisfied moderatemen on both sides, was ratified by a large majority in Congress, andaccepted on all hands as final. Missouri was to enter the Union, as sheapparently desired to do, as a Slave State, but to the west of herterritory the line 36° 30' longitude, very little above her southernborder, was to be the dividing line of the sections. This gave the Southan immediate advantage, but at a heavy ultimate price, for it left herlittle room for expansion. But one more Slave State could be carved outof the undeveloped Western Territory--that of Arkansas. Beyond that laythe lands reserved by treaty to the Indian tribes, which extended to thefrontier of the Western dominions of Mexico. Clay, who, though by nomeans disposed to be a martyr on the question, sincerely desired tobring about the gradual extinction of Slavery, may well havedeliberately planned this part of his compromise to accomplish that end. At the same time, Maine--a territory hitherto attached toConnecticut--was admitted as a Free State to balance Missouri. 

Such was the great Missouri Compromise which kept the peace between thesections for a generation, and which gradually acquired an almostreligious sanction in the minds of Americans devoted to the Union. Itstruck the note of the new era, which is called in American history "theera of good feeling. " Sectional differences had been settled, politicalfactions were in dissolution. Monroe's second election was, for thefirst time since Washington's retirement, without opposition. There wereno longer any organized parties, such as Hamilton and Jefferson and evenClay had led. There were, of course, still rivalries and differences, but they were personal or concerned with particular questions. Over theland there was a new atmosphere of peace. 

Abroad, America had never been stronger. To this period belongs theacquisition of Florida from Spain, an acquisition carried through bypurchase, but by a bargain rather leonine in character. It cannot, however, be said that the United States had no reasonable grievance inthe matter. Spain had not been able--or said that she had not beenable--to prevent the British from taking forcible possession of one ofher principal ports during a war in which she was supposed to beneutral. She declared herself equally unable to prevent the Creek andSeminole Indians from taking refuge in her territory and thence raidingthe American lands over the border. Monroe had a good case when hepressed on her the point that she must either maintain order in herdominions or allow others to do so. Jackson, who was in command againstthe Seminoles, insisted--not unreasonably--that he could not deal withthem unless he was allowed to follow them across the Spanish frontierand destroy their base of operations. Permission was given him, and heused it to the full, even to the extent of occupying important towns indefiance of the edicts of their Spanish governors. Monroe's Cabinet wasdivided in regard to the defensibility of Jackson's acts, but these actsprobably helped to persuade Spain to sell while she could still get aprice. The bargain was struck: Florida became American territory, andJackson was appointed her first governor. 

But the best proof that the prestige of America stood higher since thewar of 1812 was the fact that the Power which had then been her rathercontemptuous antagonist came forward to sue for her alliance. The FrenchRevolution, which had so stirred English-speaking America, had producedan even greater effect on the Latin colonies that lay further south. Almost all the Spanish dominions revolted against the Spanish Crown, andafter a short struggle successfully established their independence. Naturally, the rebels had the undivided sympathy of the United States, which was the first Power to recognize their independence. Now, however, the Holy Alliance was supreme in Europe, and had reinstated the Bourbonson the Spanish as on the French throne. It was rumoured that the rulersof the Alliance meditated the further step of re-subjugating Spain'sAmerican empire. Alexander I. Of Russia was credited with beingespecially eager for the project, and with having offered to dispatch aRussian army from Siberia for the purpose: it was further believed thathe proposed to reward himself by extending his own Alaskan dominions asfar south as California. England, under Canning's leadership, hadseparated herself from the Holy Alliance, and had almost as much reasonas the United States to dread and dislike such a scheme as the Czar wassupposed to meditate. Canning sent for the American Ambassador, andsuggested a joint declaration against any adventures by European powerson the American Continent. The joint declaration was declined, asseeming to commit the United States too much to one of those "entanglingalliances" against which Washington had warned his fellow-countrymen;but the hint was taken. 

Monroe put forth a proclamation in which he declared that America was nolonger a field for European colonization, and that any attempt on thepart of a European power to control the destiny of an American communitywould be taken as a sign of "an unfriendly disposition towards theUnited States. "

Canning let it be understood that England backed the declaration, andthat any attempt to extend the operations of the Holy Alliance toAmerica would have to be carried out in the teeth of the combinedopposition of the two great maritime powers so recently at war with eachother. The plan was abandoned, and the independence of the SouthAmerican Republics was successfully established. 

But much more was established. The "Monroe Doctrine" became, and remainsto-day, the corner-stone of American foreign policy. It has been greatlyextended in scope, but no American Government has ever, for a moment, wavered in its support. None could afford to do so. To many Englishmenthe doctrine itself, and still more the interpretation placed upon it bythe United States in later times, seems arrogant--just as to manyAmericans the British postulate of unchallengeable supremacy at seaseems arrogant. But both claims, arrogant or no, are absolutelyindispensable to the nation that puts them forward. If the AmericanRepublic were once to allow the principle that European Powers had theright, on any pretext whatever, to extend their borders on the AmericanContinent, then that Republic would either have to perish or to becomein all things a European Power, armed to the teeth, ever careful of thebalance of power, perpetually seeking alliances and watching rivals. Thebest way to bring home to an honest but somewhat puzzled American--andthere are many such--why we cannot for a moment tolerate what is calledby some "the freedom of the seas, " is to ask him whether he will give usin return the "freedom" of the American Continent. The answer in bothcases is that sane nations do not normally, and with their eyes open, commit suicide. 

 CHAPTER VI

 THE JACKSONIAN REVOLUTION

During the "era of good feeling" in which the Virginian dynasty closed, forces had been growing in the shadow which in a few short years were totransform the Republic. The addition to these forces of a personalitycompleted the transformation which, though it made little or no changein the laws, we may justly call a revolution. 

The government of Jefferson and his successors was a government based onpopular principles and administered by democratically minded gentlemen. The dreams of an aristocratic republic, which had been the half-avowedobjective of Hamilton, were dissipated for ever by the Democratictriumph of 1800. The party which had become identified with such ideaswas dead; no politician any longer dared to call himself a Federalist. The dogmas of the Declaration of Independence were everywhere recognizedas the foundation of the State, recognized and translated into practicein that government was by consent, and in the main faithfully reflectedthe general will. But the administration, in the higher branches atleast, was exclusively in the hands of gentlemen. 

When a word is popularly used in more than one sense, the best course isperhaps to define clearly the sense in which one uses it, and then touse it unvaryingly in that sense. The word "gentleman, " then, will herealways be used in its strictly impartial class significance withoutthought of association with the idea of "Good man" or "Quietly conductedperson, " and without any more intention of compliment than if one said"peasant" or "mechanic. " A gentleman is one who has that kind of cultureand habit of life which usually go with some measure of inheritance inwealth and status. That, at any rate, is what is meant when it is heresaid that Jefferson and his immediate successors were gentlemen, whilethe growing impulses to which they appealed and on which they reliedcame from men who were not gentlemen. 

This peculiar position endured because the intense sincerity andsingle-mindedness of Jefferson's democracy impressed the populace andmade them accept him as their natural leader, while his status as awell-bred Virginian squire, like Washington, veiled the revolution thatwas really taking place. The mantle of his prestige was large enough tocover not only his friend Madison, but Madison's successor Monroe. Butat that point the direct inheritance failed. Among Monroe's possiblesuccessors there was no one plainly marked out as the heir of theJeffersonian tradition. Thus--though no American public man saw it atthe time--America had come to a most important parting of the ways. TheVirginian dynasty had failed; the chief power in the Federation must noweither be scrambled for by the politicians or assumed by the people. 

Among the politicians who must be considered in the running for thepresidency, the ablest was Henry Clay of Kentucky. He was the greatestparliamentary leader that America has known. He was unrivalled in theart of reconciling conflicting views and managing conflicting wills. Wehave already seen him as the triumphant author of the MissouriCompromise. He was a Westerner, and was supposed to possess greatinfluence in the new States. Politically he stood for Protection, andfor an interpretation of the Constitution which leaned to Federalism andaway from State Sovereignty. Second only to Clay--if, indeed, second tohim--in abilities was John Caldwell Calhoun of South Carolina. Calhounwas not yet the Calhoun of the 'forties, the lucid fanatic of a fixedpolitical dogma. At this time he was a brilliant orator, an able andambitious politician whose political system was unsettled, but tended atthe time rather in a nationalist than in a particularist direction. Theother two candidates were of less intellectual distinction, but each hadsomething in his favour. William Crawford of Georgia was the favouritecandidate of the State Rights men; he was supposed to be able to commandthe support of the combination of Virginia and New York, which hadelected every President since 1800, and there lingered about him a sortof shadow of the Jeffersonian inheritance. John Quincey Adams ofMassachusetts was the grandson of Washington's successor, but aprofessed convert to Democratic Republicanism--a man of moderateabilities, but of good personal character and a reputation for honesty. He was Monroe's Secretary of State, and had naturally a certainhereditary hold on New England. 

Into the various intrigues and counter-intrigues of these politicians itis not necessary to enter here, for from the point of view of Americanhistory the epoch-making event was the sudden entry of a fifth man whowas not a politician. To the confusion of all their arrangements thegreat Western State of Tennessee nominated as her candidate for thePresidency General Andrew Jackson, the deliverer of New Orleans. 

Jackson was a frontiersman and a soldier. Because he was a frontiersmanhe tended to be at once democratic in temper and despotic in action. Inthe rough and tumble of life in the back blocks a man must often actwithout careful inquiry into constitutional privileges, but he mustalways treat men as men and equals. It has already been noted that menleft to themselves always tend to be roughly democratic, and that evenbefore the Revolution the English colonies had much of the substance ofdemocracy; they had naturally more of it after the Revolution. But evenafter the Revolution something like an aristocracy was to be noted inthe older States, North and South, consisting in the North of the oldNew England families with their mercantile wealth and their Puritantraditions, in the South of the great slave-owning squires. In the newlands, in the constant and necessary fight with savage nature and savageman, such distinctions were obliterated. Before a massacre all men areequal. In the presence of a grizzly bear "these truths" are quiteunmistakably self-evident. The West was in a quite new and peculiarsense democratic, and was to give to America the great men who shouldcomplete the work of democracy. 

The other side of Jackson's character, as it influenced his public life, was the outlook which belonged to him as a soldier. He had thesoldier's special virtue of loyalty. He was, throughout his long life, almost fanatically loyal in word and deed to his wife, to his friends, to his country. But above all he was loyal to the Jeffersonian dogma ofpopular sovereignty, which he accepted quite simply and unquestioningly, as soldiers are often found to accept a religion. And, accepting it, heacted upon it with the same simplicity. Sophistications of it moved himto contempt and anger. Sovereignty was in the people. Therefore thoseought to rule whom the people chose; and these were the servants of thepeople and ought to act as the people willed. All of which is quiteunassailable; but anyone who has ever mixed in the smallest degree inpolitics will understand how appalling must have been the effect of thesudden intrusion in that atmosphere of such truisms by a man who reallyacted as if they were true. With this simplicity of outlook Jacksonpossessed in an almost unparalleled degree the quality which makes atrue leader--the capacity to sum up and interpret the inarticulate willof the mass. His eye for the direction of popular feeling was unerring, perhaps largely because he snared or rather incarnated the instincts, the traditions--what others would call the prejudices--of those whofollowed him. As a military leader his soldiers adored him, and hecarried into civil politics a good general's capacity for identifyinghimself with the army he leads. 

He had also, of course, the advantage of a picturesque personality andof a high repute acquired in arms. The populace called him "OldHickory"--a nickname originally invented by the soldiers who followedhim in the frontier wars of Tennessee. They loved to tell the tale ofhis victories, his duels, his romantic marriage, and to recall andperhaps exaggerate his soldier's profanity of speech. But this aspect ofJackson's personality has been too much stressed. It was stressed by hisfriends to advertise his personality and by his enemies to disparage it. It is not false, but it may lead us to read history falsely. Just asDanton's loud voice, large gesture and occasional violence tend toproduce a portrait of him which ignores the lucidity of his mind and thepracticality of his instincts, making him a mere chaotic demagogue, sothe "Old Hickory" legend makes Jackson too much the peppery old soldierand ignores his sagacity, which was in essential matters remarkable. Hisstrong prejudices and his hasty temper often led him wrong in hisestimate of individuals, but he was hardly ever at fault in his judgmentof masses of men--presenting therein an almost exact contrast to hisrival and enemy, Clay. With all his limitations, Jackson stands out forhistory as one of the two or three genuine creative statesmen thatAmerica has produced, and you cannot become a creative statesman merelyby swearing and fighting duels. 

Jackson accepted the nomination for the Presidency. He held, in strictaccordance with his democratic creed, that no citizen should either seekor refuse popular election. But there seems no reason to think that atthis time he cared much whether he were elected or no. He was not anambitious man, he made no special efforts to push his cause, and heindignantly refused to be involved in any of the intrigues and bargainswith which Washington was buzzing, or to give any private assurances toindividuals as to the use which he would make of his power and patronageif chosen. But when the votes were counted it was clear that he was thepopular favourite. He had by far the largest number of votes in theelectoral college, and these votes came from all parts of the Republicexcept New England, while so far as can be ascertained the popular voteshowed a result even more decidedly in his favour. But in the College nocandidate had an absolute majority, and it therefore devolved, accordingto the Constitution, upon the House of Representatives, voting byStates, to choose the President from among the three candidates whosenames stood highest on the list. 

The House passed over Jackson and gave the prize to Adams, who stoodnext to him--though at a considerable interval. That it had aconstitutional right to do so cannot be disputed: as little can it bedisputed that in doing so it deliberately acted against the sentiment ofthe country. There was no Congressman who did not know perfectly wellthat the people wanted Jackson rather than Adams. This, however, was notall. The main cause of the decision to which the House came was theinfluence of Clay. Clay had been last on the list himself, for the West, where his main strength lay, had deserted him for Jackson, but his powerin Congress was great, and he threw it all into Adams' scale. It isdifficult to believe that a man of such sagacity was really influencedby the reasons he gave at the time--that he "would not consent bycontributing to the election of a military chieftain to give thestrongest guarantee that the Republic will march in the fatal road whichhas conducted every Republic to ruin. " Jackson was a soldier, but he hadno army, nor any means of making himself a Cæsar if he had wished to doso. Yet Clay may reasonably have felt, and was even right in feeling, that Jackson's election would be a blow to Republican Institutions as heunderstood them. He was really a patriot, but he was above all things aParliamentarian, and the effect of Jacksonian democracy really was todiminish the importance of Parliamentarianism. Altogether Clay probablyhonestly thought that Adams was a fitter man to be President thanJackson. 

Only he had another motive; and the discovery of this motive moved notonly Jackson but the whole country to indignation. Adams had no soonertaken the oath than, in accordance with a bargain previously madebetween the backers of the two men, unofficially but necessarily withtheir knowledge, he appointed Clay Secretary of State. 

Jackson showed no great resentment when he was passed over for Adams: herespected Adams, though he disliked and distrusted Clay. But when, infulfilment of rumours which had reached him but which he had refused tocredit, Clay became Secretary, he was something other than angry: he wassimply shocked, as he would have been had he heard of an associatecaught cheating at cards. He declared that the will of the people hadbeen set aside as the result of a "corrupt bargain. " He was not wrong. It was in its essence a corrupt bargain, and its effect was certainly toset aside the will of the people. Where Jackson was mistaken was indeducing that Adams and Clay were utterly dishonourable and unprincipledmen. He was a soldier judging politicians. But the people judged them inthe same fashion. 

From that moment Jackson drew the sword and threw away the scabbard. Heand his followers fought the Adams administration step by step and hourby hour, and every preparation was made for the triumphant return ofJackson at the next election. If there was plenty of scurrility againstAdams and Clay in the journals of the Jacksonian party, it must be ownedthat the scribblers who supported the Administration stooped lower whenthey sought to attack Jackson through his wife, whom he had marriedunder circumstances which gave a handle to slander. The nation wasoverwhelmingly with Jackson, and the Government of Quincey Adams wasalmost as much hated and abused as that of old John Adams had been. Thetendency of recent American writers has been to defend the unpopularPresident and to represent the campaign against him and his Secretary asgrossly unjust. The fact is that many of the charges brought againstboth were quite unfounded, but that the real and just cause of thepopular anger against the Administration was its tainted origin. 

The new elections came in 1828, and the rejected of Congress carried thewhole country. The shadowy figment of the "Electoral College, " alreadyworn somewhat thin, was swept away and Jackson was chosen as by aplebiscite. That was the first and most important step in the JacksonianRevolution. The founders of the Republic, while acknowledging thesovereignty of the people, had nevertheless framed the Constitution withthe intention of excluding the people from any direct share in theelection of the Chief Magistrate. The feeble check which they haddevised was nullified. The Sovereign People, baulked in 1824, claimedits own in 1828, and Jackson went to the White House as its directnominee. 

His first step was to make a pretty thorough clearance of theDepartmental Offices from the highest to the lowest. This action, whichinaugurated what is called in America the "Spoils System" and has beenimitated by subsequent Presidents down to the present time, islegitimately regarded as the least defensible part of Jackson's policy. There can be little doubt that the ultimate effect was bad, especiallyas an example; but in Jackson's case there were extenuatingcircumstances. He was justly conscious of a mandate from the people togovern. He had against him a coalition of the politicians who had tillthat moment monopolized power, and the public offices were naturallyfull of their creatures. He knew that he would have a hard fight in anycase with the Senate against him and no very certain majority in theHouse of Representation. If the machinery of the Executive failed him hecould not win, and, from his point of view, the popular mandate would bebetrayed. 

For the most drastic measures he could take to strengthen himself and toweaken his enemies left those enemies still very formidable. Of theleading politicians, only Calhoun, who had been chosen asVice-President, was his ally, and that alliance was not to endure forlong. The beginning of the trouble was, perhaps, the celebrated "Eaton"affair, which is of historic importance only as being illustrative ofJackson's character. Of all his Cabinet, Eaton, an old Tennessee friendand comrade in arms, probably enjoyed the highest place in thePresident's personal affections. Eaton had recently married the daughterof an Irish boarding-house keeper at whose establishment he stayed whenin Washington. She had previously been the wife of a tipsy merchantcaptain who committed suicide, some said from melancholia produced bystrong drink, others from jealousy occasioned by the levity of hiswife's behaviour. There seems no real evidence that she was more thanflirtatious with her husband's guests, but scandal had been somewhatbusy with her name, and when Eaton married her the ladies of Washingtonshowed a strong disposition to boycott the bride. The matrons of theSouth were especially proud of the unblemished correctitude of theirsocial code, and Calhoun's wife put herself ostentatiously at the headof the movement. Jackson took the other side with fiery animation. Hewas ever a staunch friend, and Eaton had appealed to his friendship. Moreover, his own wife, recently dead, had received Mrs. Eaton and showna strong disposition to be friends with her, and he considered thereflections on his colleague's wife were a slur on her, whose memory hehonoured almost as that of a saint, but who, as he could not butremember, had herself not been spared by slanderers. He not onlyextended in the most conspicuous manner the protection of his officialcountenance to his friend's wife, but almost insisted upon his Cabinettaking oath, one by one, at the point of the sword, that they believedMrs. Eaton to be "as chaste as a virgin. " But the Ministers, even whenoverborne by their chivalrous chief, could not control the socialbehaviour of their wives, who continued to cold-shoulder the Eatons, tothe President's great indignation and disgust. Van Buren, who regardedCalhoun as his rival, and who, as a bachelor, was free to pay hisrespects to Mrs. Eaton without prejudice or hindrance, seems to havesuggested to Jackson that Calhoun had planned the whole campaign to ruinEaton. Jackson hesitated to believe this, but close on the heels of theaffair came another cause of quarrel, arising from the disclosure of thefact that Calhoun, when Secretary for War in Monroe's Cabinet, had beenone of those who wished to censure Jackson for his proceedings inFlorida--a circumstance which he had certainly withheld, and, accordingto Jackson, deliberately lied about in his personal dealings with thegeneral. Private relations between the two men were completely brokenoff, and they were soon to be ranged on opposite sides in the publicquarrel of the utmost import to the future of the Republic. 

We have seen how the strong Nationalist movement which had sprung fromthe war of 1812 had produced, among other effects, a demand for theprotection of American industries. The movement culminated in the Tariffof 1828, which the South called the "Tariff of Abominations. " Thispolicy, popular in the North and West, was naturally unpopular in theCotton States, which lived by their vast export trade and had nothing togain by a tariff. South Carolina, Calhoun's State, took the lead inopposition, and her representatives, advancing a step beyond thecondemnation of the taxes themselves, challenged the constitutionalright of Congress to impose them. The argument was not altogetherwithout plausibility. Congress was undoubtedly empowered by theConstitution to raise a revenue, nor was there any stipulation as to howthis revenue was to be raised. But it was urged that no power was givento levy taxes for any other purpose than the raising of such revenue. The new import duties were, by the admission of their advocates, intended to serve a wholly different purpose not mentioned in theConstitution--the protection of native industries. Therefore, urged theCarolinian Free Traders, they were unconstitutional and could not belawfully imposed. 

This argument, though ingenious, was not likely to convince the SupremeCourt, the leanings of which were at this time decidedly in favour ofNationalism. The Carolinians therefore took their stand upon anotherprinciple, for which they found a precedent in the Kentucky Resolutions. They declared that a State had, in virtue of its sovereignty, the rightto judge as an independent nation would of the extent of its obligationsunder the Treaty of Union, and, having arrived at its owninterpretation, to act upon it regardless of any Federal authority. Thiswas the celebrated doctrine of "Nullification, " and in pursuance of itSouth Carolina announced her intention of refusing to allow theprotective taxes in question to be collected at her ports. 

Calhoun was not the originator of Nullification. He was Vice-Presidentwhen the movement began, and could with propriety take no part in it. But after his quarrel with Jackson he resigned his office and threw inhis lot with his State. The ablest and most lucid statements of the casefor Nullification are from his pen, and when he took his seat in theSenate he was able to add to his contribution the weight of hisadmirable oratory. 

Much depended upon the attitude of the new President, and the Nullifiersdid not despair of enlisting him on their side. Though he had declaredcautiously in favour of a moderate tariff (basing his case mainly onconsiderations of national defence), he was believed to be opposed tothe high Protection advocated by Clay and Adams. He was himself aSoutherner and interested in the cotton industry, and at the lateelection he had had the unanimous backing of the South; its defectionwould be very dangerous for him. Finally, as an ardent Democrat he couldhardly fail to be impressed by the precedent of the KentuckyResolutions, which had Jefferson's authority behind them, and, perhapsto enforce this point, Jefferson's birthday was chosen as the occasionwhen the President was to be committed to Nullification. 

A Democratic banquet was held at Washington in honour of the founder ofthe party. Jackson was present, and so were Calhoun and the leadingNullifiers. Speeches had to be made and toasts given, the burden ofwhich was a glorification of State Sovereignty and a defence ofNullification. Then Jackson rose and gave his famous toast: "Our Union:it must be preserved. " Calhoun tried to counter it by giving: "OurUnion, next to our liberties most dear. " But everyone understood thesignificance of the President's toast. It was a declaration of war. 

The Nullifiers had quite miscalculated Jackson's attitude. He was aSoutherner by birth, but a frontiersman by upbringing, and all theformative influences of his youth were of the West. It has been notedhow strongly the feeling of the West made for the new unity, and in noWesterner was the national passion stronger than in Jackson. In 1814 hehad told Monroe that he would have had the leaders of the HartfordConvention hanged, and he applied the same measure to Southern as toNorthern sectionalism. To the summoning of the Nullifying Convention inSouth Carolina, he replied by a message to Congress asking for powers tocoerce the recalcitrant State. He further told his Cabinet that ifCongress refused him the powers he thought necessary he should have nohesitation in assuming them. He would call for volunteers to maintainthe Union, and would soon have a force at his disposal that shouldinvade South Carolina, disperse the State forces, arrest the leadingNullifiers and bring them to trial before the Federal Courts. 

If the energy of Jackson was a menace to South Carolina, it was a graveembarrassment to the party regularly opposed to him in Congress andelsewhere. That this party could make common cause with the Nullifiersseemed impossible. The whole policy of high Protection against whichSouth Carolina had revolted was Clay's. Adams had signed the Tariff ofAdministrations. Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, the leading orator ofthe party and the greatest forensic speaker that America has produced, had at one time been a Free Trader. But he was deeply committed againstthe Nullifiers, and had denounced the separatist doctrines which foundfavour in South Carolina in a speech the fine peroration of whichAmerican schoolboys still learn by heart. Webster, indeed, whether fromshame or from conviction, separated himself to some extent from hisassociates and gave strenuous support to the "Force Bill" which thePresident had demanded. 

But Clay was determined that Jackson should not have the added power andprestige which would result from the suppression of Nullification by thestrong hand of the Executive. His own bias was in favour of a strong andunified Federal authority, but he would have made Congress thatauthority rather than the President--a policy even less favourable thanJackson's to State Rights, but more favourable to the Parliamentarianismin which Clay delighted and in which his peculiar talents shone. At allcosts the Kentucky politician resolved to discount the intervention ofthe President, and his mind was peculiarly fertile in devising andpeculiarly skilful in executing such manoeuvres as the situationrequired. The sacrifice of his commercial policy was involved, but heloved Protection less than he hated Jackson, and less, to do himjustice, than he loved the Union. Negotiations were opened with Calhoun, and a compromise tariff proposed, greatly modified in the direction ofFree Trade and free of the "abominations" of which South Carolinaspecially complained. This compromise the Nullifiers, awed perhaps bythe vigour of Jackson, and doubtful of the issue if matters were pushedtoo far, accepted. 

Jackson did not like the Clay-Calhoun compromise, which seemed to him asurrender to treason; but in such a matter he could not controlCongress. On one thing he insisted: that the Force Bill should takeprecedence over the new Tariff. On this he carried his point. The twoBills were passed by Congress in the order he demanded, and both weresigned by him on the same day. 

Upon this the South Carolinian Convention repealed its ordinancenullifying the Tariff, and agreed to the collection of the duties nowimposed. It followed this concession by another ordinance nullifying theForce Bill. The practical effect of this was nil, for there was nolonger anything to enforce. It was none the less important. It meantthat South Carolina declined to abandon the weapon of Nullification. Indeed, it might plausibly be urged that that weapon had justifieditself by success. It had been defended as a protection against extremeoppression, and the extreme oppression complained of had actually ceasedin consequence of its use. At any rate, the effect was certainly tostrengthen rather than to weaken extreme particularism in the South. Onthis point Jackson saw further than Clay or any of his contemporaries. While all America was rejoicing over the peaceful end of what had lookedlike an ugly civil quarrel, the President was writing to a friend andsupporter: "You have Nullifiers amongst you. Frown upon them. .. . TheTariff was a mere excuse and a Southern Confederacy the real object. _The next excuse will be the Negro or Slavery Question. _"

The controversy with the Nullifiers had exhibited Jackson's patriotismand force of character in a strong and popular light, but it had losthim what support he could still count upon among the politicians. Calhoun was now leagued with Clay and Webster, and the "front bench" men(as we should call them) were a united phalanx of opposition. It ischaracteristic of his courage that in face of such a situation Jacksonventured to challenge the richest and most powerful corporation inAmerica. 

The first United States Bank set up by Alexander Hamilton as part of hisscheme for creating a powerful governing class in America was, as wehave seen, swept away by the democratic reaction which Jefferson led tovictory. The second, springing out of the financial embarrassments whichfollowed the war with Great Britain, had been granted a charter oftwenty years which had now nearly expired. The renewal of that charterseemed, however, to those who directed the operations of the Bank and tothose who were deep in the politics of Washington, a mere matter ofcourse. 

The Bank was immensely powerful and thoroughly unpopular. The antinomywould hardly strike a modern Englishman as odd, but it was anomalous inwhat was already a thoroughly democratic state. It was powerful becauseit had on its side the professional politicians, the financiers, therich of the great cities generally--in fact, what the Press which suchpeople control calls "the intelligence of the nation. " But it was hatedby the people, and it soon appeared that it was hated as bitterly by thePresident. Writers who sympathize with the plutocratic side in thequarrel had no difficulty in convicting Jackson of a regrettableignorance of finance. Beyond question he had not that intimateacquaintance with the technique of usury which long use alone can give. But his instincts in such a matter were as keen and true as theinstincts of the populace that supported him. By the mere health of hissoul he could smell out the evil of a plutocracy. He knew that the bankwas a typical monopoly, and he knew that such monopolies ever grind thefaces of the poor and fill politics with corruption. And the corruptionwith which the Bank was filling America might have been apparent toduller eyes. The curious will find ample evidence in the records of thetime, especially in the excuses of the Bank itself, the point at whichinsolence becomes comic being reached when it was gravely pleaded thatloans on easy terms were made to members of Congress because it was inthe public interest that such persons should have practical instructionin the principles of banking! Meanwhile everything was done to cornerthe Press. Journals favourable to the Bank were financed with loansissued on the security of their plant. Papers on the other side were, whenever possible, corrupted by the same method. As for the minor fry ofpolitics, they were of course bought by shoals. 

It is seldom that such a policy, pursued with vigour and determinationby a body sufficiently wealthy to stick at nothing, fails, to carry apolitical assembly. With Congress the Bank was completely successful. ABill to re-charter that institution passed House and Senate by largemajorities. It was immediately vetoed by the President. 

Up to this point, though his private correspondence shows that his mindhad long been made up, there had been much uncertainty as to whatJackson would do. Biddle, the cunning, indefatigable and unscrupulouschairman of the Bank, believed up to the last moment that, if Congresscould be secured, he would not dare to interpose. To do so was anenterprise which certainly required courage. It meant fighting at thesame time an immensely strong corporation representing two-thirds of themoney power of the nation, and with tentacles in every State in theUnion, and a parliamentary majority in both Houses led by a coalition ofall the most distinguished politicians of the day. The President had notin his Cabinet any man whose name carried such public weight as those ofClay, Webster, or Calhoun, all now in alliance in support of the Bank;and his Cabinet, such as it was, was divided. The cleverest and mostserviceable of his lieutenants, Van Buren, was unwilling to appearprominently in the matter. He feared the power of the Bank in New YorkState, where his own influence lay. McLane, his Secretary of theTreasury, was openly in favour of the Bank, and continued for some timeto assure Biddle of his power to bring the President round to his views. 

But, as a fact, the attitude of Jackson was never really in doubt. Heknew that the Bank was corrupting public life; the very passage of theBill, against the pledges given by any Congressmen to theirconstituents, was evidence of this, if any were needed. He knew furtherthat it was draining the productive parts of the country, especially theSouth and West, for the profit of a lucky financial group in the EasternStates. He knew also that such financial groups are never national: heknew that the Bank had foreign backers, and he showed an almoststartling prescience as to the evils that were to follow in the train ofcosmopolitan finance, "more formidable and more dangerous than the navaland military power of an enemy. " But above all he knew that the Bank wasodious to the people, and he was true to his political creed, wherebyhe, as the elect of the people, was bound to enforce its judgmentwithout fear or favour. 

Jackson's Veto Message contained a vigorous exposition of his objectionsto the Bank on public grounds, together with a legal argument againstits constitutionality. It was admitted that the Supreme Court haddeclared the chartering of the Bank to be constitutional, but this, itwas urged, could not absolve the President of the duty of following hisown conscience in interpreting the Constitution he had sworn tomaintain. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, bepermitted to control the Congress or the Executive, but have only suchinfluence as the force of its reasoning may discover. It is believedthat this part of the message, which gave scandal to legalists, wassupplied by Taney, the Attorney-General. It is a curious coincidence, ifthis be so, that more than twenty years later we shall find anothergreat President, though bred in the anti-Jacksonian Whig tradition, compelled to take up much the same attitude in regard to a Supreme Courtdecision delivered by Taney himself. 

Biddle and his associates believed that the Message would be fatal tothe President. So did the leaders of the political opposition, and nonemore than Clay. Superlatively skilful in managing political assemblies, he was sometimes strangely at fault in judging the mind of the mass--atask in which Jackson hardly ever failed. He had not foreseen the angerwhich his acceptance of a place for Adams would provide; and he nowevidently believed that the defence of the Bank would be a popular cryin the country. He forced the "Whig" Convention--for such was the namewhich the very composite party opposed to Jackson had chosen--to put itin the forefront of their programme, and he seems to have looked forwardcomplacently to a complete victory on that issue. 

His complacency could not last long. Seldom has a nation spoken sodirectly through the complex and often misleading machinery of electionsas the American nation spoke in 1832 against the bank. North, south, east and west the Whigs were routed. Jackson was re-elected President bysuch an overwhelming expression of the popular choice as made thetriumph of 1828 seem a little thing. Against all the politicians and allthe interests he had dared to appeal to Cæsar, and the people, hisunseen ally, had in an instant made his enemies his footstool. 

It was characteristic of the man that he at once proceeded to carry thewar into Africa. Biddle, though bitterly disappointed, was not yetresigned to despair. It was believed--and events in the main confirm thebelief--that he contemplated a new expedient, the use of what stillremained of the financial power of the Bank to produce deliberatescarcity and distress, in the hope that a reaction against thePresident's policy would result. Jackson resolved to strike the Bank acrippling blow before such juggling could be attempted. The Act ofCongress which had established the Bank gave him power to remove thepublic deposits at will; and that power he determined to exercise. 

A more timid man would have had difficulty with his Cabinet. Jacksonovercame the difficulty by accepting full personal responsibility forwhat he was about to do. He did not dismiss the Ministers whose opiniondiffered from his, he brought no pressure to bear on their consciences;but neither did he yield his view an inch to theirs. He acted as he hadresolved to act, and made a minute in the presence of his Cabinet thathe did so on his own initiative. It was essential that the Secretary ofthe Treasury, through whom he must act, should be with him. McLane hadalready been transferred to the State Department, and Jackson nownominated Taney, a strong-minded lawyer, who was his one unwaveringsupporter in the struggle. Taney removed the public deposits from theUnited States Bank. They were placed for safe keeping in the banks ofthe various States. The President duly reported to Congress his reasonsfor taking this action. 

In the new House of Representatives, elected at the same time as thePresident, the Democrats were now predominant; but the Senate changesits complexion more slowly, and there the "Whigs" had still a majority. This majority could do nothing but exhibit impotent anger, and that theymost unwisely did. They refused to confirm Taney's nomination asSecretary to the Treasury, as a little later they refused to accept himas a Judge of the High Court. They passed a solemn vote of censure onthe President, whose action they characterized, in defiance of thefacts, as unconstitutional. But Jackson, strong in the support of thenation, could afford to disregard such natural ebullitions of badtemper. The charter of the Bank lapsed and was not renewed, and a fewyears later it wound up its affairs amid a reek of scandal, whichsufficed to show what manner of men they were who had once capturedCongress and attempted to dictate to the President. The Whigs were atlast compelled to drink the cup of humiliation to the dregs. Anotherelection gave Jackson a majority even in the Senate, and in spite of theprotests of Clay, Webster and Calhoun the censure on the President wassolemnly expunged from its records. 

After the triumphant termination of the Bank, Jackson's second term ofoffice was peaceful and comparatively uneventful. There were indeed someimportant questions of domestic and foreign policy with which it fell tohim to deal. One of these was the position of the Cherokee Indians, whohad been granted territory in Georgia and the right to live on their ownlands there, but whom the expansion of civilization had now made itconvenient to displace. It is impossible for an admirer of Jackson todeny that his attitude in such a matter was too much that of afrontiersman. Indeed, it is a curious irony that the only Americanstatesman of that age who showed any disposition to be careful ofjustice and humanity in dealing with the native race was John C. Calhoun, the uncompromising defender of Negro Slavery. At any rate, theIndians were, in defiance, it must be said, of the plain letter of thetreaty, compelled to choose between submission to the laws of Georgiaand transplantation beyond the Mississippi. Most of them were in theevent transplanted. 

Jackson's direction of foreign policy was not only vigorous butsagacious. Under his Presidency long-standing disputes with both Franceand England were brought to a peaceful termination on terms satisfactoryto the Republic. To an Englishman it is pleasant to note that the greatPresident, though he had fought against the English--perhaps because hehad fought against them--was notably free from that rooted antipathy toGreat Britain which was conspicuous in most patriotic Americans of thatage and indeed down to very recent times. "With Great Britain, alikedistinguished in peace and war, " he wrote in a message to Congress, "wemay look forward to years of peaceful, honourable, and elevatedcompetition. Everything in the condition and history of the two nationsis calculated to inspire sentiments of mutual respect and to carryconviction to the minds of both that it is their policy to preserve themost cordial relations. " It may also be of some interest to quote theverdict of an English statesman, who, differing from Jackson in allthose things in which an aristocratic politician must necessarily differfrom the tribune of a democracy, had nevertheless something of the samesymbolic and representative national character and something of the samehold upon his fellow-countrymen. A letter from Van Buren, at that timerepresenting the United States at the Court of St. James's, to Jacksonreports Palmerston as saying to him that "a very strong impression hadbeen made here of the dangers which this country had to apprehend fromyour elevation, but that they had experienced better treatment at yourhands than they had done from any of your predecessors. "

So enormous was Jackson's popularity that, if he had been the ambitiousCæsarist that his enemies represented, he could in all probability havesafely violated the Washington-Jefferson precedent and successfullysought election a third time. But he showed no desire to do so. He hadundergone the labours of a titan for twelve eventful and formativeyears. He was an old man; he was tired. He may well have been glad torest for what years were left to him of life in his old frontier State, which he had never ceased to love. He survived his Presidency by nineyears. Now and then his voice was heard on a public matter, and, whenever it was heard, it carried everywhere a strange authority as ifit were the people speaking. But he never sought public office again. 

Jackson's two periods of office mark a complete revolution in Americaninstitutions; he has for the Republic as it exists to day thesignificance of a second founder. From that period dates the frankabandonment of the fiction of the Electoral College as an independentdeliberative assembly, and the direct and acknowledged election of thenation's Chief Magistrate by the nation itself. In the constitution ofthe Democratic Party, as it grouped itself round him, we get the firstbeginnings of the "primary, " that essential organ of direct democracy ofwhich English Parliamentarism has no hint, but which is the most vitalfeature of American public life. But, most of all, from his triumph andthe abasement of his enemies dates the concentration of power in thehands of the President as the real unifying centre of authority. Hisattitude towards his Cabinet has been imitated by all strong Presidentssince. America does not take kindly to a President who shirks personalresponsibility or hides behind his Ministers. Nothing helped Lincoln'spopularity more than the story--apocryphal or no--of his taking the voteof his Cabinet on a proposition of his own and then remarking: "Ayesone; Noes six. The Ayes have it. " Even the "Spoils System, " whatever itsevils, tended to strengthen the Elect of the People. It made the powerof an American President more directly personal than that of the mostdespotic rulers of Continental Europe; for they are always constrainedby a bureaucracy, while his bureaucracy even down to its humblestmembers is of his own appointment and dependent on him. 

The party, or rather coalition, which opposed these changes, selectedfor itself, as has been seen, the name of "Whig. " The name was, perhaps, better chosen than the American Whigs realized. They meant--and it wastrue as far as it went--that, like the old English Whigs, they stood forfree government by deliberative assemblies against arbitrary personalpower. They were not deep enough in history to understand that they alsostood, like the old English Whigs, for oligarchy against the instinctand tradition of the people. There is a strange irony about the fate ofthe parties in the two countries. In the Monarchy an aristocraticParliamentarism won, and the Crown became a phantom. In the Republic apopular sovereignty won, and the President became more than a king. 

 CHAPTER VII

 THE SPOILS OF MEXICO

The extent of Jackson's more than monarchical power is well exemplifiedby the fact that Van Buren succeeded him almost as a king is succeededby his heir. Van Buren was an apt master of electioneering and had astrong hold upon the democracy of New York. He occupied in the newDemocratic Party something of the position which Burr had occupied inthe old. But while Burr had sought his own ends and betrayed, Van Burenwas strictly loyal to his chief. He was a sincere democrat and a cleverman; but no one could credit him with the great qualities which thewielding of the immense new power created by Jackson seemed to demand. None the less he easily obtained the Presidency as Jackson's nominee. Since the populace, whose will Jackson had made the supreme power in theState, could not vote for him, they were content to vote for thecandidate he was known to favour. 

Indeed, in some ways the coalition which called itself the Whig partywas weakened rather than strengthened by the substitution of a small fora great man at the head of the Democracy. Antagonism to Jackson was thereal cement of the coalition, and some of its members did not feelcalled upon to transfer their antagonism unabated to Van Buren. 

The most eminent of these was Calhoun, who now broke away from the Whigsand appeared prepared to give a measure of independent support to theAdministration. He did not, however, throw himself heartily into theDemocratic Party or seek to regain the succession to its leadershipwhich had once seemed likely to be his. From the moment of his quarrelwith Jackson the man changes out of recognition: it is one of the mostcurious transformations in history, like an actor stripping off hisstage costume and appearing as his very self. Political compromises, stratagems, ambitions drop from him, and he stands out as he appears inthat fine portrait whose great hollow eyes look down from the walls ofthe Capitol at Washington, the enthusiast, almost the fanatic, of afixed idea and purpose. He is no longer national, nor pretends to be. His one thought is the defence of the type of civilization which hefinds in his own State against the growing power of the North, which heperceives with a tragic clearness and the probable direction of which heforesees much more truly than did any Northerner of that period. Hemaintains continually, and without blurring its lines by a word ofreservation or compromise, the dogma of State Sovereignty in its mostextreme and almost parricidal form. His great pro-Slavery speechesbelong to the same period. They are wonderful performances, full ofrestrained eloquence, and rich in lucid argument and brilliantillustration. Sincerity shines in every sentence. They serve to show howstrong a case an able advocate can make out for the old pre-Christianbasis of European society; and they will have a peculiar interest ifever, as seems not improbable, the industrial part of Northern Europereverts to that basis. 

Van Buren, on the whole, was not an unsuccessful President. He had manydifficulties to contend with. He had to face a serious financial panic, which some consider to have been the result of Jackson's action inregard to the Bank, some of the machinations of the Bank itself. Hesurmounted it successfully, though not without a certain loss ofpopularity. We English have some reason to speak well of him in that heresisted the temptation to embroil his country with ours when arebellion in Canada offered an opportunity which a less prudent manmight very well have taken. For the rest, he carried on the governmentof the country on Jacksonian lines with sufficient fidelity not toforfeit the confidence of the old man who watched and advised him, sympathetically but not without anxiety, from his "Hermitage" inTennessee. 

One singular episode may conveniently be mentioned here, though theincident in which it originated rather belongs to the Jacksonian epoch. This is not the place to discuss the true nature of that curiousinstitution called Freemasonry. Whatever its origin, whether remote andderived from Solomon's Temple as its devotees assert, or, as seems moreintrinsically probable, comparatively modern and representing one of thehundreds of semi-mystical fads which flourished in the age ofCagliostro, it had acquired considerable importance in Europe at the endof the eighteenth century. At some unknown date it was carried acrossthe Atlantic, and sprouted vigorously in America; but it does not seemto have been taken particularly seriously, until the States werestartled by an occurrence which seemed more like part in what is knownin that country as "a dime novel" than a piece of history. 

A journalist named Morgan, who had been a Freemason, announced hisintention of publishing the inviolable secrets of the Society. Theannouncement does not seem to have created any great sensation; probablythe majority of Americans were as sceptical as is the present writer asto the portentous nature of the awful Unspeakabilities which so manyprosperous stock-brokers and suburban builders keep locked in theirbosoms. But what followed naturally created a sensation of the moststartling kind. For on the morrow of his announcement Morgan disappearedand never returned. What happened to him is not certainly known. A bodywas found which may or may not have been his. The general belief wasthat he had been kidnapped and murdered by his fellow-Craftsmen, and, indeed, it really seems the natural inference from the acknowledgedfacts that at least some one connected with the Brotherhood wasresponsible for his fate. A violent outcry against Masonry was thenatural result, and, as some of the more prominent politicians of theday, including President Jackson himself, were Masons, the cry took apolitical form. An Anti-Masonic Party was formed, and at the nextPresidential election was strong enough to carry one State and affectconsiderably the vote of others. The movement gradually died down andthe party disappeared; but the popular instinct that secret societies, whether murderous or not, have no place in a Free State was none theless a sound one. 

I have said that Van Buren's election was a sign of Jackson's personalinfluence. But the election of 1840 was a more startling sign of thecompleteness of his moral triumph, of the extent to which his genius hadtransformed the State. In 1832 the Whigs pitted their principles againsthis and lost. In 1840 they swallowed their principles, mimicked his, andwon. 

The Whig theory--so far as any theory connected the group of politicianswho professed that name--was that Congress and the political class whichCongress represented should rule, or at least administer, the State. From that theory it seemed to follow that some illustrious Senator orCongressman, some prominent member of that political class, should bechosen as President. The Whigs had acted in strict accord with theirtheory when they had selected as their candidate their ablest and mostrepresentative politician, Clay. But the result had not beenencouraging. They now frankly abandoned their theory and sought toimitate the successful practice of their adversaries. They looked roundfor a Whig Jackson, and they found him in an old soldier from Ohio namedHarrison, who had achieved a certain military reputation in the Indianwars. Following their model even more closely, they invented for him thenickname of "Old Tippercanoe, " derived from the name of one of hisvictories, and obviously suggested by the parallel of "Old Hickory. "Jackson, however, really had been called "Old Hickory" by his soldierslong before he took a leading part in politics, while it does not appearthat Harrison was ever called "Tippercanoe" by anybody except forelectioneering purposes. However, the name served its immediate purpose, and--

 "Tippercanoe, And Tyler too!"

became the electoral war-cry of the Whigs. Tyler, a Southern Whig fromVirginia, brought into the ticket to conciliate the Southern element inthe party, was their candidate for the Vice-Presidency. 

Unfortunately for themselves, the Democrats played the Whig game byassailing Harrison with very much the same taunts which had previouslybeen used by the Whigs against Jackson. The ignorance of the oldsoldier, his political inexperience, even his poverty and obscurity oforigin, were exploited in a hundred Democratic pamphlets by writers whoforgot that every such reflection made closer the parallel betweenHarrison and Jackson, and so brought to the former just the sort ofsupport for which the Whigs were angling. 

"Tippercanoe" proved an excellent speculation for the Whig leaders. Itwas "Tyler too, " introduced to meet the exigencies of electioneering(and rhyme) that altogether disconcerted all their plans. 

Tyler was a Southerner and an extreme Particularist. He had been aNullifier, and his quarrel with Jackson's Democracy had simply been aquarrel with his Unionism. His opinions on all subjects, political, administrative, and fiscal, were as remote from those of a man like Clayas any opinions could be. This was perfectly well known to those whochose him for Vice-President. But while the President lives andexercises his functions the Vice-President is in America a merelyornamental figure. He has nothing to say in regard to policy. He is noteven a member of the Administration. He presides over the Senate, andthat is all. Consequently there has always been a strong temptation forAmerican wire-pullers to put forward as candidate for theVice-Presidency a man acceptable to some more or less dubious anddetached group of their possible supporters, whose votes it is desiredto obtain, but who are not intended to have any control over theeffective policy of the Government. Yet more than one example has shownhow perilous this particular electioneering device may turn out to be. For if the President should die before the expiration of his term, thewhole of his almost despotic power passes unimpaired to a man whorepresents not the party, but a more or less mutinous minority in theparty. 

It was so in this case. Harrison was elected, but barely lived to takethe oath. Tyler became President. For a short time things wentcomparatively smoothly. Harrison had chosen Webster as Secretary ofState, and Tyler confirmed his appointment. But almost at once it becameapparent that the President and his Secretary differed on almost everyimportant question of the day, and that the Whig Party as a whole waswith the Secretary. The President's views were much nearer to those ofthe Democratic opposition, but that opposition, smarting under itsdefeat, was not disposed to help either combatant out of thedifficulties and humiliations which had so unexpectedly fallen on bothin the hour of triumph. Yet, if Webster were dismissed or driven toresign, someone of note must be found to take his place. Personalfollowers the President had none. But in his isolation he turned to theone great figure in American politics that stood almost equally alone. It was announced that the office vacated by Webster had been offered toand accepted by John Caldwell Calhoun. 

Calhoun's acceptance of the post is sometimes treated as an indicationof the revival of his ambitions for a national career. It is suggestedthat he again saw a path open to him to the Presidency which he hadcertainly once coveted. But though his name was mentioned in 1844 as apossible Democratic candidate, it was mentioned only to be found whollyunacceptable, and indeed Calhoun's general conduct when Secretary wasnot such as to increase his chances of an office for which no one couldhope who had not a large amount of Northern as well as Southern backing. It seems more likely that Calhoun consented to be Secretary of State asa means to a definite end closely connected with what was now themaster-passion of his life, the defence of Southern interests. At anyrate, the main practical fruit of his administration of affairs was theannexation of Texas. 

Texas had originally been an outlying and sparsely peopled part of theSpanish province of Mexico, but even before the overthrow of Spanishrule a thin stream of immigration had begun to run into it from theSouth-Western States of America. The English-speaking element became, ifnot the larger part of the scant population, at least the politicallydominant one. Soon after the successful assertion of Mexicanindependence against Spain, Texas, mainly under the leadership of herAmerican settlers, declared her independence of Mexico. The occasion ofthis secession was the abolition of Slavery by the native MexicanGovernment, the Americans who settled in Texas being mostly slave-ownersdrawn from the Slave States. Some fighting took place, and ultimatelythe independence of Texas seems to have been recognized by one of themany governments which military and popular revolutions andcounter-revolutions rapidly set up and pulled down in Mexico proper. Thedesire of the Texans--or at least of that governing part of them thathad engineered the original secession--was to enter the American Union, but there was a prolonged hesitation at Washington about admitting them, so that Texas remained for a long time the "Lone Star State, "independent alike of Mexico and the United States. This hesitation isdifficult at first sight to understand, for Texas was undoubtedly avaluable property and its inhabitants were far more willing to beincorporated than, say, the French colonists of Louisiana had been. Thekey is, no doubt, to be found in the internecine jealousies of thesections. The North--or at any rate New England--had been restive overthe Louisiana purchase as tending to strengthen the Southern section atthe expense of the Northern. If Texas were added to Louisiana thebalance would lean still more heavily in favour of the South. But whatwas a cause of hesitation to the North and to politicians who looked forsupport to the North was a strong recommendation to Calhoun. He had, ashe himself once remarked, a remarkable gift of foresight--anuncomfortable gift, for he always foresaw most clearly the things hedesired least. He alone seems to have understood fully how much theSouth had sacrificed by the Missouri Compromise. He saw her hemmed inand stationary while the North added territory to territory and State toState. To annex Texas would be, to an extent at least, to cut the bondswhich limited her expansion. When the population should have increasedsufficiently it was calculated that at least four considerable Statescould be carved out of that vast expanse of country. 

But, though Calhoun's motive was probably the political strengthening ofthe South, his Texan policy could find plenty of support in every partof the Union. Most Northerners, especially in the new States of theNorth-West, cared more for the expansion of the United States than forthe sectional jealousies. They were quite prepared to welcome Texas intothe Union; but, unfortunately for Calhoun, they had a favourite projectof expansion of their own for which they expected a correspondingsupport. 

The whole stretch of the Pacific slope which intervenes between Alaskaand California, part of which is now represented by the States ofWashington and Oregon and part by British Columbia, was then knowngenerally as "Oregon. " Its ownership was claimed both by British andAmerican Governments upon grounds of prior exploration, into the meritsof which it is hardly necessary to enter here. Both claims were in factrather shadowy, but both claimants were quite convinced that theirs wasthe stronger. For many years the dispute had been hung up without beingsettled, the territory being policed jointly by the two Powers. Now, however, there came from the Northern expansionists a loud demand for animmediate settlement and one decidedly in their favour. All territorysouth of latitude 47° 40' must be acknowledged as American, or thedispute must be left to the arbitrament of arms. "Forty-seven-forty orfight!" was the almost unanimous cry of the Democracy of the North andWest. 

The Secretary of State set himself against the Northern Jingoes, andthough his motives may have been sectional, his arguments were reallyunanswerable. He pointed out that to fight England for Oregon at thatmoment would be to fight her under every conceivable disadvantage. AnEnglish army from India could be landed in Oregon in a few weeks. AnAmerican army sent to meet it must either round Cape Horn and traversethe Atlantic and Pacific oceans in the face of the most powerful navy inthe world or march through what was still an unmapped wilderness withoutthe possibility of communications or supports. If, on the other hand, thequestion were allowed to remain in suspense, time would probably redressthe balance in favour of the United States. American expansion would intime touch the borders of Oregon, and then the dispute could be taken upand settled under much more favourable circumstances. It was a perfectlyjust argument, but it did not convince the "forty-seven-forty-or-fighters, "who roundly accused the Secretary--and not altogether unjustly--of caringonly for the expansion of his own section. 

Calhoun was largely instrumental in averting a war with England, but hedid not otherwise conduct himself in such a manner as to conciliateopinion in that country. England, possibly with the object ofstrengthening her hand in bargaining for Oregon, had intervenedtentatively in relation to Texas. Lord Aberdeen, then Peel's ForeignSecretary, took up that question from the Anti-Slavery standpoint, andexpressed the hope that the prohibition of Slavery by Mexico would notbe reversed if Texas became part of the American Union. Theintervention, perhaps, deserved a snub--for, after all, England had onlyrecently emancipated the slaves in her own colonies--and a sharpreminder that by the Monroe Doctrine, to which she was herself aconsenting party, no European Power had a right to interfere in thedomestic affairs of an American State. Calhoun did not snub LordAberdeen: he was too delighted with his lordship for giving him theopportunity for which he longed. But he did a thing eminentlycharacteristic of him, which probably no other man on the Americancontinent would have done. He sat down and wrote an elaborate and veryable State Paper setting forth the advantages of Slavery as a foundationfor civilization and public liberty. It was this extraordinary dispatchthat led Macaulay to say in the House of Commons that the AmericanRepublic had "put itself at the head of the nigger-driving interestthroughout the world as Elizabeth put herself at the head of theProtestant interest. " As regards Calhoun the charge was perfectly true;and it is fair to him to add that he undoubtedly believed in Slaverymuch more sincerely than ever Elizabeth did in Protestantism. But he didnot represent truly the predominant feeling of America. NorthernDemocratic papers, warmly committed to the annexation of Texas, protested vehemently against the Secretary's private fad concerning thepositive blessedness of Slavery being put forward as part of the body ofpolitical doctrine held by the United States. Even Southerners, whoaccepted Slavery as a more or less necessary evil, did not care to seeit thus blazoned on the flag. But Calhoun was impenitent. He was proudof the international performance, and the only thing he regretted, ashis private correspondence shows, was that Lord Aberdeen did notcontinue the debate which he had hoped would finally establish hisfavourite thesis before the tribunal of European opinion. 

Texas was duly annexed, and Tyler's Presidency drew towards its close. He seems to have hoped that the Democrats whom he had helped to defeatin 1840 would accept him as their candidate for a second term in 1844;but they declined to do so, nor did they take kindly to the suggestionof nominating Calhoun. Instead, they chose one Polk, who had been astirring though not very eminent politician in Jacksonian days. Thechoice is interesting as being the first example of a phenomenonrecurrent in subsequent American politics, the deliberate selection of amore or less obscure man on the ground of what Americans call"availability. "

It is the product of the convergence of two things--the fact ofdemocracy as indicated by the election of a First Magistrate by a methodalready frankly plebiscitary, and the effect of a Party System, becoming, as all Party Systems must become if they endure, at onceincreasingly rigid and increasingly unreal. 

The aim of party managers--necessarily professionals--was to get theirparty nominee elected. But the conditions under which they worked weredemocratic. They could not, as such professionals can in an oligarchylike ours, simply order the electors to vote for any nincompoop who waseither rich and ambitious enough to give them, the professionals, moneyin return for their services, or needy and unscrupulous enough to betheir hired servant. They were dealing with a free people that would nothave borne such treatment. They had to consider as a practical problemfor what man the great mass of the party would most readily andeffectively vote. And it was often discovered that while the nominationof an acknowledged "leader" led, through the inevitable presence (in ademocracy) of conflicts and discontents within the party, to the loss ofvotes, the candidate most likely to unite the whole party was oneagainst whom no one had any grudge and who simply stood for the"platform" which was framed in a very democratic fashion by the peoplethemselves voting in their "primaries. " When this system is condemnedand its results held up to scorn, it should be remembered that amongother effects it is certainly responsible for the selection of AbrahamLincoln. 

Polk was not a Lincoln, but he was emphatically an "available"candidate, and he won, defeating Clay, to whom the Whigs had once morereverted, by a formidable majority. He found himself confronted with twopressing questions of foreign policy. During the election the Democratshad played the "Oregon" card for all it was worth, and the new Presidentfound himself almost committed to the "forty-seven-forty-or-fight"position. But the practical objections to a war with England on theOregon dispute were soon found to be just as strong as Calhoun hadrepresented them to be. Moreover, the opportunity presented itself for awar at once much more profitable and much less perilous than such acontest was likely to prove, and it was obvious that the two wars couldnot be successfully undertaken at once. 

The independence of Texas had been in some sort recognized by Mexico, but the frontier within which that independence formally existed wasleft quite undefined, and the Texan view of it differed materially fromthe Mexican. The United States, by annexing Texas, had shouldered thisdispute and virtually made it their own. 

It is seldom that historical parallels are useful; they are never exact. But there are certain real points of likeness between the war waged bythe United States against Mexico in the 'forties and the war waged byGreat Britain against the Boer Republics between 1899 and 1902. In bothcases it could be plausibly represented that the smaller and weakerPower was the actual aggressor. But in both cases there can be littledoubt that it was the stronger Power which desired or at leastcomplacently contemplated war. In both cases, too, the defenders of thewar, when most sincere, tended to abandon their technical pleas and totake their stand upon the principle that the interests of humanity wouldbest be served by the defeat of a "backward" people by a more"progressive" one. It is not here necessary to discuss the merits ofsuch a plea. But it may be interesting to note the still closer parallelpresented by the threefold division of the opposition in both cases. TheWhig Party was divided in 1847, almost exactly as was the "Liberal"Party in 1899. There was, especially in New England, an ardent andsincere minority which was violently opposed to the war and openlydenounced it as an unjustifiable aggression. Its attitude has been madefairly familiar to English readers by the first series of Lowell's"Bigelow Papers. " This minority corresponded roughly to those who inEngland were called "Pro-Boers. " There was another section which warmlysupported the war: it sought to outdo the Democrats in their patrioticenthusiasm, and to reap as much of the electoral harvest of theprevalent Jingoism as might be. Meanwhile, the body of the party took upan intermediate position, criticized the diplomacy of the President, maintained that with better management the war might have been avoided, but refused to oppose the war outright when once it had begun, andconcurred in voting supplies for its prosecution. 

The advocates of the war had, however, to face at its outset onepowerful and unexpected defection, that of Calhoun. No man had been moreeager than he for the annexation of Texas, but, Texas once annexed, heshowed a marked desire to settle all outstanding questions with Mexicoquickly and by a compromise on easy terms. He did all he could to avertwar. When war actually came, he urged that even the military operationsof the United States should be strictly defensive, that they shouldconfine themselves to occupying the disputed territory and repellingattacks upon it, but should under no circumstances attempt acounter-invasion of Mexico. There can be little doubt that Calhoun'smotive in proposing this curious method of conducting a war was, asusual, zeal for the interests of his section, and that he acted as hedid because he foresaw the results of an extended war more correctlythan did most Southerners. He had coveted Texas because Texas wouldstrengthen the position of the South. Slavery already existed there, andno one doubted that if Texas came into the Union at all it must be as aSlave State. But it would be otherwise if great conquests were made atthe expense of Mexico. Calhoun saw clearly that there would be a strongmovement to exclude Slavery from such conquests, and, having regard tothe numerical superiority of the North, he doubted the ability of hisown section to obtain in the scramble that must follow the major part ofthe spoil. 

Calhoun, however, was as unable to restrain by his warnings the warlikeenthusiasm of the South as were the little group of Peace Whigs in NewEngland to prevent the North from being swept by a similar passion. EvenMassachusetts gave a decisive vote for war. 

The brief campaign was conducted with considerable ability, mainly byGenerals Taylor and Scott. Such army as Mexico possessed was crushinglydefeated at Monterey. An invasion followed, and the fall of Mexico Citycompleted the triumph of American arms. By the peace dictated in thecaptured capital Mexico had, of course, to concede the original point ofdispute in regard to the Texan frontier. But greater sacrifices weredemanded of her, though not without a measure of compensation. She wascompelled to sell at a fixed price to her conqueror all the territory towhich she laid claim on the Pacific slope north of San Diego. ThusArizona, New Mexico, and, most important of all, California passed intoAmerican hands. 

But before this conclusion had been reached a significant incidentjustified the foresight of Calhoun. Towards the close of the campaign, aproposal made in Congress to grant to the Executive a large supply to beexpended during the recess at the President's discretion in purchasingMexican territory was met by an amendment moved by a Northern Democratnamed Wilmot, himself an ardent supporter of the war, providing thatfrom all territory that might be so acquired from Mexico Slavery shouldbe for ever excluded. The proviso was carried in the House ofRepresentatives by a majority almost exactly representative of thecomparative strength of the two sections. How serious the issue thusraised was felt to be is shown by the fact that the Executive preferreddispensing with the money voted to allowing it to be pushed further. Inthe Senate both supply and condition were lost. But the "Wilmot Proviso"had given the signal for a sectional struggle of which no man couldforesee the end. 

Matters were further complicated by a startlingly unexpected discovery. On the very day on which peace was proclaimed, one of the Americansettlers who had already begun to make their way into California, indigging for water on his patch of reclaimed land, turned up instead anugget of gold. It was soon known to the ends of the earth that theRepublic had all unknowingly annexed one of the richest goldfields yetdiscovered. There followed all the familiar phenomena which Australiahad already witnessed, which South Africa was later to witness, andwhich Klondyke has witnessed in our time. A stream of immigrants, notonly from every part of the United States but from every part of thecivilized world, began to pour into California drunk with the hope ofimmediate and enormous gains. Instead of the anticipated gradualdevelopment of the new territory, which might have permittedconsiderable delay and much cautious deliberation in the settlement ofits destiny, one part of that territory at least found itself within ayear the home of a population already numerous enough to be entitled toadmission to the Union as a State, a population composed in great partof the most restless and lawless of mankind, and urgently in need ofsome sort of properly constituted government. 

A Convention met to frame a plan of territorial administration, andfound itself at once confronted with the problem of the admission orexclusion of Slavery. Though many of the delegates were from the SlaveStates, it was decided unanimously to exclude it. There was nothingsentimentally Negrophil about the attitude of the Californians; indeed, they proclaimed an exceedingly sensible policy in the simple formula:"No Niggers, Slave or Free!" But as regards Slavery their decision wasemphatic and apparently irreversible. 

The Southerners were at once angry and full of anxiety. It seemed thatthey had been trapped, that victories won largely by Southern valourwere to be used to disturb still more the balance already heavilyinclining to the rival section. In South Carolina, full of the traditionof Nullification, men already talked freely of Secession. The South, asa whole, was not yet prepared for so violent a step, but there was afeeling in the air that the type of civilization established in theSlave States might soon have to fight for its life. 

On the top of all this vague unrest and incipient division came aPresidential election, the most strangely unreal in the whole history ofthe United States. The issue about which alone all men, North andSouth, were thinking was carefully excluded from the platforms andspeeches of either party. Everyone of either side professed unboundeddevotion to the Union, no one dared to permit himself the faintestallusion to the hot and human passions which were patently tearing it intwo. The Whigs, divided on the late war, divided on Slavery, divided onalmost every issue by which the minds of men were troubled, yet resolvedto repeat the tactics which had succeeded in 1840. And the amazing thingis that they did in fact repeat them and with complete success. Theypersuaded Zachary Taylor, the victor of Monterey, to come forward astheir candidate. Taylor had shown himself an excellent commander, butwhat his political opinions might be no-one knew, for it transpired thathe had never in his life even recorded a vote. The Whigs, however, managed to extract from him the statement that if he had voted at theelection of 1844--as, in fact, he had not--it would have been for Clayrather than for Polk; and this admission they proceeded, rathercomically, to trumpet to the world as a sufficient guarantee from "aconsistent and truth-speaking man" of the candidate's lifelong devotionto "Whig" principles. Nothing further than the above remark and thefrank acknowledgment that he was a slave-owner could be extracted fromTaylor in the way of programme or profession of faith. But theConvention adopted him with acclamation. Naturally such a selection didnot please the little group of Anti-War Whigs--a group which waspractically identical with the extreme Anti-Slavery wing of theparty--and Lowell, in what is perhaps the most stinging of all hissatires, turned Taylor's platform or absence of platform to ridicule inlines known to thousands of Englishmen who know nothing of theiroccasion:--

 "Ez fer my princerples, I glory In hevin' nothin' of the sort. I ain't a Whig, I ain't a Tory, I'm jest a--Candidate in short. "

"Monterey, " however, proved an even more successful election cry than"Tippercanoe. " The Democrats tried to play the same game by puttingforward General Cass, who had also fought with some distinction in theMexican War and had the advantage--if it were an advantage--of havingreally proved himself a stirring Democratic partisan as well. But Taylorwas the popular favourite, and the Whigs by the aid of his name carriedthe election. 

He turned out no bad choice. For the brief period during which he heldthe Presidential office he showed considerable firmness and a soundsense of justice, and seems to have been sincerely determined to holdhimself strictly impartial as between the two sections into which theUnion was becoming every day more sharply divided. Those who expected, on the strength of his blunt avowal of slave-owning, that he would showhimself eager to protect and extend Slavery were quite at fault. Hedeclared with the common sense of a soldier that California must comeinto the Union, as she wished to come in, as a Free State, and that itwould be absurd as well as monstrous to try and compel her citizens tobe slave-owners against their will. But he does not appear to have hadany comprehensive plan of pacification to offer for the quieting of thedistracted Union, and, before he could fully develop his policy, whatever it may have been, he died and bequeathed his power to MillardFilmore, the Vice-President, a typical "good party man" withoutoriginality or initiative. 

The sectional debate had by this time become far more heated anddangerous than had been the debates which the Missouri Compromise hadsettled thirty years before. The author of the Missouri Compromise stilllived, and, as the peril of the Union became desperate, it came to besaid more and more, even by political opponents, that he and he alonecould save the Republic. Henry Clay, since his defeat in 1844, hadpractically retired from the active practice of politics. He was an oldman. His fine physique had begun to give way, as is often the case withsuch men, under the strain of a long life that had been at oncelaborious and self-indulgent. But he heard in his half-retirement thevoice of the nation calling for him, and he answered. His patriotism hadalways been great, great also his vanity. It must have been strangelyinspiring to him, at the end of a career which, for all its successes, was on the whole a failure--for the great stake for which he played wasalways snatched from him--to live over again the great triumph of hisyouth, and once more to bequeath peace, as by his last testament, to adistracted nation. God allowed him that not ignoble illusion, andmercifully sent him to his rest before he could know that he had failed. 

The death of Taylor helped Clay's plans; for the soldier-President haddiscovered a strong vein of obstinacy. He had his own views on thequestion, and was by no means disposed to allow any Parliamentary leaderto over-ride them. Filmore was quite content to be an instrument in thehands of a stronger man, and, after his succession, Clay had theadvantage of the full support of the Executive in framing the lines ofthe last of his great compromises. 

In the rough, those lines were as follows: California was to be admittedat once, and on her own terms, as a Free State, Arizona and New Mexicowere to be open to Slavery if they should desire its introduction; theirTerritorial Governments, when formed, were to decide the question. Thisadjustment of territory was to be accompanied by two balancing measuresdealing with two other troublesome problems which had been foundproductive of much friction and bitterness. The district ofColumbia--that neutralized territory in which the city of Washingtonstood--having been carved out of two Slave States, was itself within thearea of legalized Slavery. But it was more than that. It was what we arecoming to call, in England, a "Labour Exchange. " In fact, it was theprincipal slave mart of the South, and slave auctions were carried on atthe very doors of the Capitol, to the disgust of many who were notviolent in their opposition to Slavery as a domestic institution. Tothis scandal Clay proposed to put an end by abolishing the Slave Tradein the district of Columbia. Slavery was still to be lawful there, butthe public sale and purchase of slaves was forbidden. In return for thisconcession to Anti-Slavery sentiment, a very large counter-concessionwas demanded. As has already been said, the Constitution had provided ingeneral terms for the return of fugitive slaves who escaped from SlaveStates into the Free. But for reasons and in a fashion which it will bemore convenient to examine in the next chapter, this provision of theConstitution had been virtually nullified by the domestic legislation ofmany Northern States. To put an end to this, Clay proposed a FugitiveSlave Law which imposed on the Federal Government the duty of recoveringescaped slaves, and authorized the agents of that Government to do sowithout reference to the Courts or Legislature of the State in which theslave might be seized. 

The character of the settlement showed that its author's hand had in noway forgotten its cunning in such matters. As in the MissouriCompromise, every clause shows how well he had weighed and judged theconditions under which he was working, how acutely he guessed the pointsupon which either side could be persuaded to give way, and theconcessions for which either would think worth paying a high price. Andin fact his settlement was at the time accepted by the great mass ofUnion-loving men, North and South. Some Northern States, and especiallyMassachusetts, showed a disposition to break away under what seemed tothem the unbearable strain of the Fugitive Slave Law. But in dealingwith Massachusetts Clay found a powerful ally in Webster. That oratorwas her own son, and a son of whom she was immensely proud. He had, moreover, throughout his public life, avowed himself a convincedopponent of Slavery. When, therefore, he lent the weight of his supportto Clay's scheme he carried with him masses of Northern men whom no oneelse could have persuaded. He proclaimed his adhesion of the Compromisein his famous speech of the 10th of May--one of the greatest that heever delivered. It was inevitable that his attitude should be assailed, and the clamour raised against him by the extreme Anti-Slavery men atthe time has found an echo in many subsequent histories of the period. He is accused of having sold his principles in order that he might makean unscrupulous bid for the Presidency. That he desired to be Presidentis true, but it is not clear that the 10th of May speech improved hischances of it; indeed, the reverse seems to have been the case. A candidexamination of the man and his acts will rather lead to the conclusionthat throughout his life he was, in spite of his really noble gift ofrhetoric, a good deal more of the professional lawyer-politician thanhis admirers have generally been disposed to admit, but that his"apostacy" of 1850 was, perhaps, the one act of that life which wasleast influenced by professional motives and most by a genuineconviction of the pressing need of saving the Union. 

The support of a Southern statesman of like authority might have donemuch to give finality to the settlement. But the one Southerner whocarried weight comparable to that of Webster in the North was foundamong its opponents. A few days after Webster had spoken, the Senatelistened to the last words of Calhoun. He was already a dying man. Hecould not even deliver his final protest with his own lips. He sat, aswe can picture him, those great, awful eyes staring haggardly withouthope into nothingness, while a younger colleague read that protest forhim to the Assembly that he had so often moved, yet never persuaded. Calhoun rejected the settlement; indeed, he rejected the whole idea of aterritorial settlement on Missouri lines. It is fair to his sagacity toremember that the mania for trying to force Slavery on unsuitable andunwilling communities which afterwards took possession of those who ledthe South to disaster could claim no authority from him. His ownsolution is to be found in the "Testament" published after his death--anamazing solution, based on the precedent of the two Roman Consuls, whereby two Presidents were to be elected, one by the North and one bythe South, with a veto on each other's acts. He probably did not expectthat the wild proposal would be accepted. Indeed, he did not expect thatanything that he loved would survive. With all his many errors on hishead, there was this heroic thing about the man--that he was one ofthose who can despair of the Republic and yet not desert it. With anawful clearness he saw the future as it was to be, the division becomingever wider, the contest more bitter, the sword drawn, and at thelast--defeat. In the sad pride and defiance of his dying speech onecatches continually an echo of the tragic avowal of Hector: "For in myheart and in my mind I know that Troy shall fall. "

He delivered his soul, and went away to die. And the State to which hehad given up everything showed its thought of him by carving above hisbones, as sufficient epitaph, the single word: "_CALHOUN_. "

 CHAPTER VIII

 THE SLAVERY QUESTION

The Compromise of 1850, though welcomed on all sides as a finalsettlement, failed as completely as the Missouri Compromise hadsucceeded. It has already been said that the fault was not in any lackof skill in the actual framing of the plan. As a piece of politicalworkmanship it was even superior to Clay's earlier masterpiece, as therally to it at the moment of all but the extreme factions, North andSouth, sufficiently proves. That it did not stand the wear of a fewyears as well as the earlier settlement had stood the wear of twenty wasdue to a change in conditions, and to understand that change it isnecessary to take up again the history of the Slavery Question where thefounders of the Republic left it. 

It can hardly be said that these great men were wrong in toleratingSlavery. Without such toleration at the time the Union could not havebeen achieved and the American Republic could not have come into being. But it can certainly be said that they were wrong in the calculation bymeans of which they largely justified such toleration not so much totheir critics as to their own consciences. They certainly expected, whenthey permitted Slavery for a season, that Slavery would gradually weakenand disappear. But as a fact it strengthened itself, drove its rootsdeeper, gained a measure of moral prestige, and became every year harderto destroy. 

Whence came their miscalculation? In part no doubt it was connected withthat curious and recurrent illusion which postulates in human affairs--athing called "Progress. " This illusion, though both logically andpractically the enemy of reform--for if things of themselves tend togrow better, why sweat and agonize to improve them?--is none the lesscharacteristic, generally speaking, of reforming epochs, and it was notwithout its hold over the minds of the American Fathers. But there werealso certain definite causes, some of which they could hardly haveforeseen, some of which they might, which account for the fact thatSlavery occupied a distinctly stronger position halfway through thenineteenth century than it had seemed to do at the end of theeighteenth. 

The main cause was an observable fact of psychology, of which a thousandexamples could be quoted, and which of itself disposes of the whole"Progressive" thesis--the ease with which the human conscience gets usedto an evil. Time, so far from being a remedy--as the "Progressives" dovainly talk--is always, while no remedy is attempted, a factor in favourof the disease. We have seen this exemplified in the course of thepresent war. The mere delay in the punishment of certain gross outragesagainst the moral traditions of Europe has made those outrages seem justa little less horrible than they seemed at first, so that men can evenbear to contemplate a peace by which their authors should escapepunishment--a thing which would have been impossible while the anger ofdecent men retained its virginity. So it was with Slavery. Accepted atfirst as an unquestionable blot on American Democracy, but one whichcould not at the moment be removed, it came gradually to seem somethingnormal. A single illustration will show the extent of this decline inmoral sensitiveness. In the first days of the Republic Jefferson, aSoutherner and a slave-owner, could declare, even while compromisingwith Slavery, that he trembled for his country when he remembered thatGod was just, could use of the peril of a slave insurrection this finephrase: "The Almighty has no attribute that could be our ally in such acontest. " Some sixty years later, Stephen Douglas, as sincere a democratas Jefferson, and withal a Northerner with no personal interest inSlavery, could ask contemptuously whether if Americans were fit to rulethemselves they were not fit to rule "a few niggers. "

The next factor to be noticed was that to which Jefferson referred inthe passage quoted above--the constant dread of a Negro rising. Such arising actually took place in Virginia in the first quarter of thenineteenth century. It was a small affair, but the ghastly massacre ofwhites which accompanied it was suggestive of the horrors that might bein store for the South in the event of a more general movement among theslaves. The debates which this crisis produced in the Virginianlegislature are of remarkable interest. They show how strong the feelingagainst Slavery as an institution still was in the greatest of SlaveStates. Speaker after speaker described it as a curse, as a permanentperil, as a "upas tree" which must be uprooted before the State couldknow peace and security. Nevertheless they did not uproot it. And fromthe moment of their refusal to uproot it or even to make a beginning ofuprooting it they found themselves committed to the opposite policywhich could only lead to its perpetuation. From the panic of that momentdate the generality of the Slave Codes which so many of the SouthernStates adopted--codes deliberately framed to prevent any improvement inthe condition of the slave population and to make impossible even theirpeaceful and voluntary emancipation. 

There was yet another factor, the economic one, which to most modernwriters, starting from the basis of historical materialism, hasnecessarily seemed the chief of all. It was really, I think, subsidiary, but it was present, and it certainly helped to intensify the evil. Itconsisted in the increased profitableness of Slavery, due, on the onehand, to the invention in America of Whitney's machine for extractingcotton, and, on the other, to the industrial revolution in England, andthe consequent creation in Lancashire of a huge and expanding market forthe products of American slave labour. This had a double effect. It notonly strengthened Slavery, but also worsened its character. In place ofthe generally mild and paternal rule of the old gentlemen-planters camein many parts of the South a brutally commercial _régime_, whichexploited and used up the Negro for mere profit. It was said that inthis further degradation of Slavery the agents were often men from thecommercial North; nor can this be pronounced a mere sectional slanderin view of the testimony of two such remarkable witnesses as AbrahamLincoln and Mrs. Beecher Stowe. 

All these things tended to establish the institution of Slavery in theSouthern States. Another factor which, whatever its other effects, certainly consolidated Southern opinion in its defence, was to be foundin the activities of the Northern Abolitionists. 

In the early days of the Republic Abolition Societies had existedmainly, if not exclusively, in the South. This was only natural, for, Slavery having disappeared from the Northern States, there was noobvious motive for agitating or discussing its merits, while south ofthe Mason-Dixon line the question was still a practical one. TheSouthern Abolitionists do not appear to have been particularly unpopularwith their fellow-citizens. They are perhaps regarded as something ofcranks, but as well-meaning cranks whose object was almost everywhereadmitted to be theoretically desirable. At any rate, there is not thesuspicion of any attempt to suppress them; indeed, the very year beforethe first number of the _Liberator_ was published in Boston, a greatConference of Anti-Slavery Societies, comprising delegates from everypart of the South, met at Baltimore, the capital city of the Slave Stateof Maryland. 

Northern Abolitionism was, however, quite a different thing. It owed itsinception to William Lloyd Garrison, one of those enthusiasts whoprofoundly affect history solely by the tenacity with which they hold toand continually enforce a burning personal conviction. But for thattenacity and the unquestionable influence which his conviction exertedupon men, he would be a rather ridiculous figure, for he was almostevery sort of crank--certainly a non-resister, and, I think, avegetarian and teetotaller as well. But his burning conviction was theimmorality of Slavery; and by this he meant something quite other thanwas meant by Jefferson or later by Lincoln. When these great men spokeof Slavery as a wrong, they regarded it as a social and political wrong, an evil and unjust system which the community as a community ought assoon as possible to abolish and replace by a better. But by Garrisonslave-holding was accounted a personal sin like murder or adultery. Theowner of slaves, unless he at once emancipated them at whatever cost tohis own fortunes, was by that fact a wicked man, and if he professed adesire for ultimate extinction of the institution, that only made him ahypocrite as well. This, of course, was absurd; fully as absurd as thesuggestion sometimes made in regard to wealthy Socialists, that if theywere consistent they would give up all their property to the community. A man living under an economic system reposing on Slavery can no morehelp availing himself of its fruits than in a capitalist society he canhelp availing himself of capitalist organization. Obviously, unless heis a multi-millionaire, he cannot buy up all the slaves in the State andset them free, while, if he buys some and treats them with justice andhumanity, he is clearly making things better for them than if he leftthem in the hands of masters possibly less scrupulous. But, absurd asthe thesis was, Garrison pushed it to its wildest logical conclusions. No Christian Church ought, he maintained, to admit a slave-owner tocommunion. No honest man ought to count a slave-owner among his friends. No political connection with slave-owners was tolerable. The Union, since it involved such a connection, was "a Covenant with Death and anAgreement with Hell. " Garrison publicly burnt the Constitution of theUnited States in the streets of Boston. 

Abolitionist propaganda of this kind was naturally possible only in theNorth. Apart from all questions of self-interest, no Southerner, noreasonable person who knew anything about the South, though theknowledge might be as superficial and the indignation against Slavery asintense as was Mrs. Beecher Stowe's, could possibly believe theproposition that all Southern slave-owners were cruel and unjust men. But that was not all. Garrison's movement killed Southern Abolitionism. It may, perhaps, be owned that the Southern movement was not bearingmuch visible fruit. There was just a grain of truth, it may be, inGarrison's bitter and exaggerated taunt that the Southerners were readyenough to be Abolitionists if they were allowed "to assign the guilt ofSlavery to a past generation, and the duty of emancipation to a futuregeneration. " Nevertheless, that movement was on the right lines. It wason Southern ground that the battle for the peaceful extinction ofSlavery ought to have been fought. The intervention of the North wouldprobably in any case have been resented; accompanied by a solemnaccusation of specific personal immorality it was maddeninglyprovocative, for it could not but recall to the South the history of theissue as it stood between the sections. For the North had been theoriginal slave-traders. The African Slave Trade had been theirparticular industry. Boston itself, when the new ethical denunciationcame, had risen to prosperity on the profits of that abominable traffic. Further, even in the act of clearing its own borders of Slavery, theNorth had dumped its negroes on the South. "What, " asked theSoutherners, "could exceed the effrontery of men who reproach us withgrave personal sin in owning property which they themselves have sold usand the price of which is at this moment in their pockets?"

On a South thus angered and smarting under what is felt to be undeservedreproach, yet withal somewhat uneasy in its conscience, for its publicopinion in the main still thought Slavery wrong, fell the powerful voiceof a great Southerner proclaiming it "a positive good. " Calhoun'sdefence of the institution on its merits probably did much to encouragethe South to adopt a more defiant tone in place of the old apologies fordelay in dealing with a difficult problem--apologies which soundedover-tame and almost humiliating in face of the bold invectives nowhurled at the slave-owners by Northern writers and speakers. I cannot, indeed, find that Calhoun's specific arguments, forcible as theywere--and they are certainly the most cogent that can be used in defenceof such a thesis--were particularly popular, or, in fact, were ever usedby any but himself. Perhaps there was a well-founded feeling that theyproved too much. For Calhoun's case was as strong for white servitude asfor black: it was a defence, not especially of Negro Slavery, but ofwhat Mr. Belloc has called "the Servile State. " More general, in thelater Southern defences, was the appeal to religious sanctions, which ina nation Protestant and mainly Puritan in its traditions naturallybecame an appeal to Bible texts. St. Paul was claimed as a supporter ofthe fugitive slave law on the strength of his dealings of Onesimus. Butthe favourite text was that which condemns Ham (assumed to be theancestor of the Negro race) to be "a servant of servants. " TheAbolitionist text-slingers were not a whit more intelligent; indeed, Ithink it must be admitted that on the whole the pro-Slavery men had thebest of this absurd form of controversy. Apart from isolated texts theyhad on their side the really unquestionable fact that both Old and NewTestaments describe a civilization based on Slavery, and that in neitheris there anything like a clear pronouncement that such a basis isimmoral or displeasing to God. It is true that in the Gospels are to befound general principles or, at any rate, indications of generalprinciples, which afterwards, in the hands of the Church, proved largelysubversive of the servile organization of society; but that is a matterof historical, not of Biblical testimony, and would, if followed out, have led both Northern and Southern controversialists further thaneither of them wanted to go. 

It would, however, be hasty, I think, to affirm that even to the veryend of these processes a majority of Southerners thought with Calhounthat Slavery was "a positive good. " The furthest, perhaps, that most ofthem went was the proposition that it represented the only relationshipin which white and black races could safely live together in the samecommunity--a proposition which was countenanced by Jefferson and, to aconsiderable extent at least, by Lincoln. To the last the fullJeffersonian view of the inherent moral and social evil of Slavery washeld by many Southerners who were none the less wholeheartedly on theside of their own section in the sectional dispute. The chief soldier ofthe South in the war in which that dispute culminated both held thatview and acted consistently upon it. 

On the North the effect of the new propaganda was different, but therealso it tended to increase the antagonism of the sections. The actualAbolitionists of the school of Garrison were neither numerous norpopular. Even in Boston, where they were strongest, they were oftenmobbed and their meetings broken up. In Illinois, a Northern State, oneof them, Lovejoy, was murdered by the crowd. Such exhibitions ofpopular anger were not, of course, due to any love of Slavery. TheAbolitionists were disliked in the North, not as enemies of Slavery butas enemies of the Union and the Constitution, which they avowedly were. But while the extreme doctrine of Garrison and his friends met withlittle acceptance, the renewed agitation of the question did bring intoprominence the unquestionable fact that the great mass of sober Northernopinion thought Slavery a wrong, and in any controversy between masterand slave was inclined to sympathize with the slave. This feeling wasprobably somewhat strengthened by the publication in 1852 and thesubsequent huge international sale of Mrs. Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin. "The practical effect of this book on history is generally exaggerated, partially in consequence of the false view which would make of the CivilWar a crusade against Slavery. But a certain effect it undoubtedly had. To such natural sympathy in the main, and not, as the South believed, tosectional jealousy and deliberate bad faith, must be attributed those"Personal Liberty Laws" by which in many Northern States the provisionof the Constitution guaranteeing the return of fugitive slaves wasvirtually nullified. For some of the provisions of those laws anarguable constitutional case might be made, particularly for theprovision which assured a jury trial to the escaped slave. The Negro, itwas urged, was either a citizen or a piece of property. If he were acitizen, the Constitution expressly safeguarded him against imprisonmentwithout such a trial. If, on the other hand, he were property, then hewas property of the value of more than $50, and in cases where propertyof that value was concerned, a jury was also legally required. If twomasters laid claim to the same Negro the dispute between them would haveto be settled by a jury. Why should it not be so where a master claimedto own a Negro and the Negro claimed to own himself? Nevertheless, theeffect, and to a great extent the intention, of these laws was to defeatthe claim of _bonâ fide_ owners to fugitive slaves, and as such theyviolated at least the spirit of the constitutional compact. Theytherefore afforded a justification for Clay's proposal to transfer thepower of recovering fugitive slaves to the Federal authorities. But theyalso afforded an even stronger justification for Lincoln's doubt as towhether the American Commonwealth could exist permanently half slave andhalf free. 

Finally, among the causes which made a sectional struggle the moreinevitable must be counted one to which allusion has already been madein connection with the Presidential Election of 1848--the increasinglypatent unreality of the existing party system. I have already said thata party system can endure only if it becomes unreal, and it may be wellhere to make clear how this is so. 

Fundamental debates in a Commonwealth must be _settled_, or theCommonwealth dies. How, for instance, could England have endured if, throughout the eighteenth century, the Stuarts had alternately beenrestored and deposed every seven years? Or, again, suppose a dispute sofundamental as that between Collectivism and the philosophy of privateproperty. How could a nation continue to exist if a CollectivistGovernment spent five years in attempting the concentration of all themeans of production in the hands of the State and an Anti-CollectivistGovernment spent the next five years in dispersing them again, and so onfor a generation? American history, being the history of a democracy, illustrates this truth with peculiar force. The controversy betweenJefferson and Hamilton was about realities. The Jeffersonians won, andthe Federalist Party disappeared. The controversy between Jackson andthe Whigs was originally also real. Jackson won, and the Whigs wouldhave shared the fate of the Federalists if they stood by their originalprinciples and refused to accept the consequences of the JacksonianRevolution. As a fact, however, they did accept these consequences andso the party system endured, but at the expense of its reality. Therewas no longer any fundamental difference of principle dividing Whigsfrom Democrats: they were divided arbitrarily on passing questions ofpolicy, picked up at random and changing from year to year. Meanwhile anew reality was dividing the nation from top to bottom, but was dividingit in a dangerously sectional fashion, and for that reason patriotism aswell as the requirements of professional politics induced men to veil itas much as might be. Yet its presence made the professional play-actingmore and more unmeaning and intolerable. 

It was this state of things which made possible the curious interlude ofthe "Know-Nothing" movement, which cannot be ignored, though it is akind of digression from the main line of historical development. TheUnited States had originally been formed by the union of certainseceding British colonies, but already, as a sort of neutral ground inthe New World, their territory had become increasingly the meeting-placeof streams of emigration from various European countries. As wasnatural, a certain amount of mutual jealousy and antagonism was makingitself apparent as between the old colonial population and the newerelements. The years following 1847 showed an intensification of theproblem due to a particular cause. That year saw the Black Famine inIreland and its aggravation by the insane pedantry and folly of theBritish Government. Innumerable Irish families, driven from the land oftheir birth, found a refuge within the borders of the Republic. Theybrought with them their native genius for politics, which for the firsttime found free outlet in a democracy. They were accustomed to acttogether and they were soon a formidable force. This force was regardedby many as a menace, and the sense of menace was greatly increased bythe fact that these immigrants professed a religious faith which thePuritan tradition of the States in which they generally settled held inpeculiar abhorrence. 

The "Know-Nothings" were a secret society and owed that name to the factthat members, when questioned, professed to know nothing of the ultimateobjects of the organization to which they belonged. They proclaimed ageneral hostility to indiscriminate immigration, for which a fair enoughcase might be made, but they concentrated their hostility specially onthe Irish Catholic element. I have never happened upon any explanationof the secrecy with which they deliberately surrounded their aims. Itseems to me, however, that a possible explanation lies on the surface. If all they had wanted had been to restrict or regulate immigration, itwas an object which could be avowed as openly as the advocacy of atariff or of the restriction of Slavery in a territory. But if, as theirpractical operations and the general impression concerning theirintentions seem to indicate, the real object of those who directed themovement was the exclusion from public trust of persons professing theCatholic religion, then, of course, it was an object which could not beavowed without bringing them into open conflict with the Constitution, which expressly forbade such differentiation on religious grounds. 

Between the jealousy of new immigrants felt by the descendants of theoriginal colonists and the religious antagonism of Puritan New Englandto the Catholic population growing up within its borders; intensified bythe absence of any genuine issue of debate between the officialcandidates, the Know-Nothings secured at the Congressional Election of1854 a quite startling measure of success. But such success had nopromise of permanence. The movement lived long enough to deal adeath-blow to the Whig Party, already practically annihilated by thePresidential Election of 1852, wherein the Democrats, benefiting by thedivision and confusion of their enemies, easily returned theircandidate, Franklin Pierce. 

It is now necessary to return to the Compromise of 1850, hailed at thetime as a final settlement of the sectional quarrel and accepted as suchin the platforms of both the regular political parties. That Compromisewas made by one generation. It was to be administered by another. HenryClay, as has already been noted, lived long enough to enjoy his triumph, not long enough to outlive it. Before a year was out the grave hadclosed over Webster. Calhoun had already passed away, bequeathing toposterity his last hopeless protest against the triumph of all that hemost feared. Congress was full of new faces. In the Senate among therising men was Seward of New York, a Northern Whig, whose speech inopposition to the Fugitive Slave clause in Clay's Compromise had givenhim the leadership of the growing Anti-Slavery opinion of the North. Hewas soon to be joined by Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, null injudgment, a pedant without clearness of thought or vision, but giftedwith a copious command of all the rhetoric of sectional hate. The placeof Calhoun in the leadership of the South had been more and more assumedby a soldier who had been forced to change his profession by reason ofa crippling wound received at Monterey. Thenceforward he had achieved anincreasing repute in politics, an excellent orator, with the sensitiveface rather of a poet than of a man of affairs, vivid, sincere andcareful of honour, though often uncertain in temper and judgment:Jefferson Davis of Mississippi. But for the moment none of these sodominated politics as did the Westerner whom Illinois had recently sentto the Senate--Stephen Douglas, surnamed "the Little Giant. "

The physical impression which men seem to have received most forciblyconcerning Douglas, and which was perhaps responsible for his nickname, was the contrast between his diminutive stature and the enormous powerof his voice--trained no doubt in addressing the monster meetings of theWest, where tens of thousands crowded everywhere to hear him speak. Along with this went the sense of an overwhelming vitality about theman; he seemed tingling with excess of life. His strong, square, handsome face bore a striking resemblance to that of Napoleon Bonaparte, and there was really something Napoleonic in his boldness, hisinstinctive sense of leadership, and his power of dominating weaker men. Withal he was a Westerner--perhaps the most typical and completeWesterner in American history, for half of Clay was of Washington, andJackson and Lincoln were too great to be purely sectional. He had aWesterner's democratic feeling and a Westerner's enthusiasm for thenational idea. But, especially, he had a peculiarly Western vision whichis the key to a strangely misunderstood but at bottom very consistentpolitical career. 

This man, more than any other, fills American history during the decadethat intervened between the death of Clay and the election of Lincoln. That decade is also full of the ever-increasing prominence of theSlavery Question. It is natural, therefore, to read Douglas's career interms of that question, and historians, doing so, have been bewilderedby its apparent inconsistency. Unable to trace any connecting principlein his changes of front, they have put them down to interested motives, and then equally unable to show that he himself had anything to gainfrom them, have been forced to attribute them to mere caprice. The factis that Douglas cannot be understood along those lines at all. Tounderstand him one must remember that he was indifferent on the SlaveryQuestion, "did not care, " as he said, "whether Slavery was voted up orvoted down, " but cared immensely for something else. That something elsewas the Westward expansion of the American nation till it should bridgethe gulf between the two oceans. The thought of all those millions ofacres of virgin land, the property of the American Commonwealth, cryingout for the sower and the reaper, rode his imagination as the wrongs ofthe Negro slave rode the imagination of Garrison. There is a realityabout the comparison which few will recognize, for this demagogue, whommen devoted to the Slavery issue thought cynical, had about him alsosomething of the fanatic. He could forget all else in his oneenthusiasm. It is the key to his career from the day when he enteredCongress clamouring for Oregon or war with England to the day when hedied appealing for soldiers to save the Union in the name of its commoninheritance. And it is surely not surprising that, for the fulfilment ofhis vision, he was willing to conciliate the slave-owners, when oneremembers that in earlier days he had been willing to conciliate theMormons. 

Douglas stands out in history, as we now see it, as the man who by theKansas and Nebraska Bill upset the tottering Compromise of 1850. Why didhe so upset it? Not certainly because he wished to reopen the SlaveryQuestion; nothing is less likely, for it was a question in which heavowedly felt no interest and the raising of which was bound to unsettlehis plans. Not from personal ambition; for those who accuse him ofhaving acted as he did for private advantage have to admit that in facthe lost by it. Why then did he so act? I think we shall get to the rootof the matter if we assume that his motive in introducing his celebratedBill was just the avowed motive of that Bill and no other. It was to setup territorial governments in Kansas and Nebraska. Douglas's mind wasfull of schemes for facilitating the march of American civilizationwestward, for piercing the prairies with roads and railways, for openingup communications with Oregon and the Pacific Slope. Kansas andNebraska were then the outposts of such expansion. Naturally he waseager to develop them, to encourage squatters to settle within theirborders, and for that purpose to give them an assured position and aform of stable government. If he could have effected this withouttouching the Slavery Question I think that he would gladly have done so. And, as a matter of fact, the Nebraska Bill as originally drafted by himwas innocent of the clause which afterwards caused so much controversy. That clause was forced on him by circumstances. 

The greater part of the territory which Douglas proposed to develop laywithin the limits of the Louisiana Purchase and north of latitude 36°30'. It was therefore free soil by virtue of the Missouri Compromise. But the Southerners now disputed the validity of that Congressionalenactment, and affirmed their right under the Constitution as theyinterpreted it to take and hold their "property" in any territoriesbelonging to the United States. Douglas had some reason to fear Southernopposition to his plans on other grounds, for the South would naturallyhave preferred that the main road to the Pacific Slope should run fromTennessee through Arizona and New Mexico to California. If Kansas andNebraska were declared closed against slave property their oppositionwould be given a rallying cry and would certainly harden. Douglastherefore proposed a solution which would at any rate get rid of theSlavery debate so far as Congress was concerned, and which had also ademocratic ring about it acceptable to his Western instincts and, as hehoped, to his Western following. The new doctrine, called by him that of"Popular Sovereignty" and by his critics that of "Squatter Sovereignty, "amounted to this: that the existing settlers in the territoriesconcerned should, in the act of forming their territorial governments, decide whether they would admit or exclude Slavery. 

It was a plausible doctrine; but one can only vindicate Douglas'smotives, as I have endeavoured to do, at the expense of his judgment, for his policy had all the consequences which he most desired to avoid. It produced two effects which between them brought the sectional quarrelto the point of heat at which Civil War became possible and perhapsinevitable. It threw the new territories down as stakes to be scrambledfor by the rival sections, and it created by reaction a new party, necessarily sectional, having for its object the maintenance andreinforcement of the Missouri Compromise. It will be well to take thetwo points separately. 

Up to the passing of Kansas and Nebraska Law, these territories had beenpopulated exactly as such frontier communities had theretofore beenpopulated, by immigrants from all the States and from Europe who mingledfreely, felt no ill-will to each other, and were early consolidated bythe fact of proximity into a homogeneous community. But from the momentof its passage the whole situation was altered. It became a politicalobject to both sections to get a majority in Kansas. Societies wereformed in Boston and other Northern cities to finance emigrants whoproposed to settle there. The South was equally active, and, to set offagainst the disadvantage of a less fluid population, had the advantageof the immediate proximity of the Slave State of Missouri. Such acontest, even if peaceably conducted, was not calculated to promoteeither the reconciliation of the sections or the solidarity andstability of the new community. But in a frontier community without asettled government, and with a population necessarily armed forself-defence, it was not likely to be peaceably conducted. Nor was it. For years Kansas was the scene of what can only be described asspasmodic civil war. The Free Soil settlement of Lawrence was, aftersome bloodshed, seized and burnt by "border ruffians, " as they werecalled, from Missouri. The North cried out loudly against "Southernoutrages, " but it is fair to say that the outrages were not all on oneside. In fact, the most amazing crime in the record of Kansas wascommitted by a Northerner, the notorious John Brown. This man presentsrather a pathological than a historical problem. He had considerablemilitary talents, and a curious power of persuading men. But he wascertainly mad. A New England Puritan by extraction, he was inflamed onthe subject of Slavery by a fanaticism somewhat similar to that ofGarrison. But while Garrison blended his Abolitionism with the Quakerdogma of Non-Resistance, Brown blended his with the ethics of aseventeenth-century Covenanter who thought himself divinely commanded tohew the Amalakites in pieces before the Lord. In obedience to hispeculiar code of morals he not only murdered Southern immigrants withoutprovocation, but savagely mutilated their bodies. If his act did notprove him insane his apology would. In defence of his conduct heexplained that "disguised as a surveyor" he had interviewed his victimsand discovered that every one of them had "committed murder in hisheart. "

The other effect of the Kansas-Nebraska policy was the rise of a newparty formed for the single purpose of opposing it. Anti-Slavery partieshad already come into being from time to time in the North, and had atdifferent times exerted a certain influence on elections, but they madelittle headway because they were composed mainly of extremists, andtheir aim appeared to moderate men inconsistent with the Constitution. The attack on the time-honoured Missouri Compromise rallied such men tothe opposition, for it appeared to them clearly that theirs was now thelegal, constitutional, and even conservative side, and that the SlavePower was now making itself responsible for a revolutionary change toits own advantage. 

Nor was the change on the whole unjust. The programme to which the Southcommitted itself after the direction of its policy fell from the handsof Calhoun was one which the North could not fail to resent. It involvedthe tearing up of all the compromises so elaborately devised and sonicely balanced, and it aimed at making Slavery legal certainly in allthe new territories and possibly even in the Free States. It was, indeed, argued that this did not involve any aggravating of the evil ofSlavery, if it were an evil. The argument will be found very ingeniouslystated in the book which Jefferson Davis subsequently wrote--professedlya history of the Southern Confederacy, really rather an _Apologia proVita Sua_. Davis argues that since the African Slave Trade wasprohibited, there could be no increase in the number of slaves save bythe ordinary process of propagation. The opening of Kansas to Slaverywould not therefore mean that there would be more slaves. It wouldmerely mean that men already and in any case slaves would be living inKansas instead of in Tennessee; and, it is further suggested, that thetaking of a Negro slave from Tennessee, where Slavery was rooted andnormal, to Kansas, where it was new and exceptional, would be a positiveadvantage to him as giving him a much better chance of emancipation. Theargument reads plausibly enough, but it is, like so much of Davis'sbook, out of touch with realities. Plainly it would make all thedifference in the world whether the practice of, say, the Catholicreligion were permitted only in Lancashire or were lawful throughoutEngland, and that even though there were no conversions, and the sameCatholics who had previously lived in Lancashire lived wherever theychose. The former provision would imply that the British Governmentdisapproved of the Catholic religion, and would tolerate it only whereit was obliged to do so. The latter would indicate an attitude ofindifference towards it. Those who disapproved of Slavery naturallywished it to remain a sectional thing and objected to its being madenational. But the primary feeling was that it was the South that hadbroken the truce. The Northerners had much justification in saying thattheir opponents, if not the aggressors in the Civil War, were at leastthe aggressors in the controversy of which the Civil War was theultimate outcome. 

Under the impulse of such feelings a party was formed which, adopting--without, it must be owned, any particular appropriateness--theold Jeffersonian name of "Republican, " took the field at thePresidential Election of 1856. Its real leader was Seward of New York, but it was thought that electioneering exigencies would be better servedby the selection of Captain Frémont of California, who, as a wanderingdiscoverer and soldier of fortune, could be made a picturesque figure inthe public eye. Later, when Frémont was entrusted with high militarycommand he was discovered to be neither capable nor honest, but in 1856he made as effective a figure as any candidate could have done, and theresults were on the whole encouraging to the new party. Buchanan, theDemocratic candidate, was elected, but the Republicans showed greaterstrength in the Northern States than had been anticipated. The WhigParty was at this election finally annihilated. 

The Republicans might have done even better had the decision of theSupreme Court on an issue which made clear the full scope of the newSouthern claim been known just before instead of just after theelection. This decision was the judgment of Roger Taney, whom we haveseen at an earlier date as Jackson's Attorney-General and Secretary tothe Treasury, in the famous Dred Scott case. Dred Scott was a Negroslave owned by a doctor of Missouri. His master had taken him for a timeinto the free territory of Minnesota, afterwards bringing him back tohis original State. Dred Scott was presumably not in a position toresent either operation, nor is it likely that he desired to do so. Later, however, he was induced to bring an action in the Federal Courtsagainst his master on the ground that by being taken into free territoryhe had _ipso facto_ ceased to be a slave. Whether he was put up to thisby the Anti-Slavery party, or whether--for his voluntary manumissionafter the case was settled seems to suggest that possibility--the wholecase was planned by the Southerners to get a decision of the territorialquestion in their favour, might be an interesting subject for inquiry. Ican express no opinion upon it. The main fact is that Taney, supportedby a bare majority of the judges, not only decided for the master, butlaid down two important principles. One was that no Negro could be anAmerican citizen or sue in the American courts; the other and moreimportant that the Constitution guaranteed the right of the slave-holderto his slaves in all United States territories, and that Congress had nopower to annul this right. The Missouri Compromise was thereforedeclared invalid. 

Much of the Northern outcry against Taney seems to me unjust. He wasprofessedly a judge pronouncing on the law, and in giving his ruling heused language which seems to imply that his ethical judgment, if he hadbeen called upon to give it, would have been quite different. But, though he was a great lawyer as well as a sincere patriot, and thoughhis opinion is therefore entitled to respect, especially from aforeigner ignorant of American law, it is impossible to feel that hisdecision was not open to criticism on purely legal grounds. It restedupon the assertion that property in slaves was "explicitly recognized"by the Constitution. If this were so it would seem to follow that sinceunder the Constitution a man's property could not be taken from him"without due process of law" he could not without such process lose hisslaves. But was it so? It is difficult, for a layman at any rate, tofind in the Constitution any such "explicit recognition. " The slave isthere called a "person" and defined as a "person bound to service orlabour" while his master is spoken of as one "to whom such service orlabour may be due. " This language seems to suggest the relation ofcreditor and debtor rather than that of owner and owned. At any rate, the Republicans refused to accept the judgment except so far as itdetermined the individual case of Dred Scott, taking up in regard toTaney's decision the position which, in accordance with Taney's owncounsel, Jackson had taken up in regard to the decision which affirmedthe constitutionality of a bank. 

Douglas impetuously accepted the decision and, forgetting the precedentof his own hero Jackson, denounced all who challenged it as wickedimpugners of lawful authority. Yet, in fact, the decision was as fatalto his own policy as to that of the Republicans. It really made "PopularSovereignty" a farce, for what was the good of leaving the question ofSlavery to be settled by the territories when the Supreme Court declaredthat they could only lawfully settle it one way? This obvious point wasnot lost upon the acute intelligence of one man, a citizen of Douglas'sown State and one of the "moderates" who had joined the Republican Partyon the Nebraska issue. 

Abraham Lincoln was by birth a Southerner and a native of Kentucky, afact which he never forgot and of which he was exceedingly proud. Afterthe wandering boyhood of a pioneer and a period of manual labour as a"rail-splitter" he had settled in Illinois, where he had picked up hisown education and become a successful lawyer. He had sat in the House ofRepresentatives as a Whig from 1846 to 1848, the period of the MexicanWar, during which he had acted with the main body of his party, neitherdefending the whole of the policy which led to the war nor opposing itto the extent of refusing supplies for its prosecution. He had voted, as he said, for the Wilmot Proviso "as good as fifty times, " and hadmade a moderate proposition in relation to Slavery in the district ofColumbia, for which Garrison's _Liberator_ had pilloried him as "theSlave-Hound of Illinois. " He had not offered himself for re-election in1848. Though an opponent of Slavery on principle, he had accepted theCompromise of 1850, including its Fugitive Slave Clauses, as asatisfactory all-round settlement, and was, by his own account, losinginterest in politics when the action of Douglas and its consequencescalled into activity a genius which few, if any, had suspected. 

A man like Lincoln cannot be adequately described in the short spaceavailable in such a book as this. His externals are well appreciated, his tall figure, his powerful ugliness, his awkward strength, his racyhumour, his fits of temperamental melancholy; well appreciated also hisfirmness, wisdom and patriotism. But if we wish to grasp the peculiarquality which makes him almost unique among great men of action, weshall perhaps find the key in the fact that his favourite privaterecreation was working out for himself the propositions of Euclid. Hehad a mind not only peculiarly just but singularly logical, one mightreally say singularly mathematical. His reasoning is always so good asto make his speeches in contrast to the finest rhetorical oratory aconstant delight to those who have something of the same type of mind. In this he had a certain affinity with Jefferson. But while inJefferson's case the tendency has been to class him, in spite of hisgreat practical achievements, as a mere theorizer, in Lincoln it hasbeen rather to acclaim him as a strong, rough, practical man, and toignore the lucidity of thought which was the most marked quality of hismind. 

He was eminently practical; and he was not less but more practical forrealizing the supreme practical importance of first principles. According to his first principles Slavery was wrong. It was wrongbecause it was inconsistent with the doctrines enunciated in theDeclaration of Independence in which he firmly believed. Really goodthinking like Lincoln's is necessarily outside time, and therefore hewas not at all affected by the mere use and wont which had tended toreconcile so many to Slavery. Yet he was far from being a fanaticalAbolitionist. Because Slavery was wrong it did not follow that it shouldbe immediately uprooted. But it did follow that whatever treatment itreceived should be based on the assumption of its wrongness. Anexcellent illustration of his attitude of mind will be found in theexact point at which he drew the line. For the merely sentimentalopponent of Slavery, the Fugitive Slave Law made a much more movingappeal to the imagination than the extension of Slavery in theterritories. Yet Lincoln accepted the Fugitive Slave Law. He supportedit because, as he put it, it was "so nominated in the bond. " It was partof the terms which the Fathers of the Republic, disapproving of Slavery, had yet made with Slavery. He also, disapproving of Slavery, couldhonour those terms. But it was otherwise in regard to the territorialcontroversy. Douglas openly treated Slavery not as an evil difficult tocure, but as a thing merely indifferent. Southern statesmen werebeginning to echo Calhoun's definition of it as "a positive good. " Onthe top of this came Taney's decision making the right to own slaves afundamental part of the birthright of an American citizen. This was muchmore important than the most drastic Fugitive Slave Law, for itindicated a change in first principles. 

This is the true meaning of his famous use of the text "a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand, " and his deduction that the Union could not"permanently exist half slave and half free. " That it had so existed foreighty years he admitted, but it had so existed, he considered, becausethe Government had acted on the first principle that Slavery was an evilto be tolerated but curbed, and the public mind had "rested in thebelief that it was in process of ultimate extinction. " It was now, as itseemed, proposed to abandon that principle and assume it to be good orat least indifferent. If _that_ principle were accepted there wasnothing to prevent the institution being introduced not only into thefree territories but into the Free States. And indeed the reasoning ofTaney's judgment, though not the judgment itself, really seemed to pointto such a conclusion. 

Lincoln soon became the leader of the Illinois Republicans, and madeready to match himself against Douglas when the "Little Giant" shouldnext seek re-election. Meanwhile a new development of the Kansas affairhad split the Democratic Party and ranged Senator Douglas and PresidentBuchanan on opposite sides in an open quarrel. The majority of thepopulation now settled in Kansas was of Northern origin, for theconditions of life in the North were much more favourable to emigrationinto new lands than those of the slave-owning States. Had a free ballotbeen taken of the genuine settlers there would certainly have been alarge majority against Slavery. But in the scarcely disguised civil warinto which the competition for Kansas had developed, the Slave-Stateparty had the support of bands of "border ruffians" from theneighbouring State, who could appear as citizens of Kansas one day andreturn to their homes in Missouri the next. With such aid that partysucceeded in silencing the voices of the Free State men while they helda bogus Convention at Lecompton, consisting largely of men who were notreally inhabitants of Kansas at all, adopted a Slave Constitution, andunder it applied for admission to the Union. Buchanan, who, though aNortherner, was strongly biassed in favour of the Slavery party, readilyaccepted this as a _bonâ fide_ application, and recommended Congress toaccede to it. Douglas was much better informed as to how things wereactually going in Kansas, and he felt that if the Lecompton Constitutionwere acknowledged his favourite doctrine of Popular Sovereignty would bejustly covered with odium and contempt. He therefore set himself againstthe President, and his personal followers combined with the Republicansto defeat the Lecompton proposition. 

The struggle in Illinois thus became for Douglas a struggle forpolitical life or death. At war with the President and with a largesection of his party, if he could not keep a grip on his own State hispolitical career was over. Nor did he underrate his Republican opponent;indeed, he seems to have had a keener perception of the great qualitieswhich were hidden under Lincoln's rough and awkward exterior than anyoneelse at that time exhibited. When he heard of his candidature he lookedgrave. "He is the strongest man of his party, " he said, "and thoroughlyhonest. It will take us all our time to beat him. "

It did. Douglas was victorious, but only narrowly and after ahard-fought contest. The most striking feature of that contest was theseries of Lincoln-Douglas debates in which, by an interesting innovationin electioneering, the two candidates for the Senatorship contended faceto face in the principal political centres of the State. In readingthese debates one is impressed not only with the ability of bothcombatants, but with their remarkable candour, good temper and evenmagnanimity. It is very seldom, if ever, that either displays malice orfails in dignity and courtesy to his opponent. When one remembers thewhite heat of political and sectional rivalry at that time--when onerecalls some of Sumner's speeches in the Senate, not to mention thepublic beating which they brought on him--it must be confessed that thefairness with which the two great Illinois champions fought each otherwas highly to the honour of both. 

Where the controversy turned on practical or legal matters thecombatants were not ill-matched, and both scored many telling points. When the general philosophy of government came into the questionLincoln's great superiority in seriousness and clarity of thought was atonce apparent. A good example of this will be found in their dispute asto the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence. Douglas deniedthat the expression "all men" could be meant to include Negroes. It onlyreferred to "British subjects in this continent being equal to Britishsubjects born and residing in Great Britain. " Lincoln instantly knockedout his adversary by reading the amended version of the Declaration: "Wehold these truths to be self-evident, that all British subjects who wereon this Continent eighty-one years ago were created equal to all Britishsubjects born and then residing in Great Britain. " This was more than aclever debating point. It was a really crushing exposure of intellectualerror. The mere use of the words "truths" and "self-evident" and theirpatently ridiculous effect in the Douglas version proves conclusivelywhich interpreter was nearest to the mind of Thomas Jefferson. And thesense of his superiority is increased when, seizing his opportunity, heproceeds to offer a commentary on the Declaration in its bearing on theNegro Question so incomparably lucid and rational that Jefferson himselfmight have penned it. 

In the following year an incident occurred which is of some historicalimportance, not because, as is sometimes vaguely suggested, it didanything whatever towards the emancipation of the slaves, but because itcertainly increased, not unnaturally, the anger and alarm of the South. Old John Brown had suspended for a time his programme of murder andmutilation in Kansas and returned to New England, where he approached anumber of wealthy men of known Abolitionist sympathies whom he persuadedto provide him with money for the purpose of raising a slaveinsurrection. That he should have been able to induce men of sanity andrepute to support him in so frantic and criminal an enterprise says muchfor the personal magnetism which by all accounts was characteristic ofthis extraordinary man. Having obtained his supplies, he collected aband of nineteen men, including his own sons, with which he proposed tomake an attack on the Government arsenal at Harper's Ferry in Virginia, which, when captured, he intended to convert into a place of refuge andarmament for fugitive slaves and a nucleus for the general Negro risingwhich he expected his presence to produce. The plan was as mad as itsauthor, yet it is characteristic of a peculiar quality of his madnessthat he conducted the actual operations not only with amazing audacitybut with remarkable skill, and the first part of his programme wassuccessfully carried out. The arsenal was surprised, and its sleepingand insufficient garrison overpowered. Here, however, his success ended. No fugitives joined him, and there was not the faintest sign of a slaverising. In fact, as Lincoln afterwards said, the Negroes, ignorant asthey were, seem to have had the sense to see that the thing would cometo nothing. As soon as Virginia woke up to what had happened troops weresent to recapture the arsenal. Brown and his men fought bravely, but theissue could not be in doubt. Several of Brown's followers and all hissons were killed. He himself was wounded, captured, brought to trialand very properly hanged--unless we take the view that he should ratherhave been confined in an asylum. He died with the heroism of a fanatic. Emerson and Longfellow talked some amazing nonsense about him which isfrequently quoted. Lincoln talked some excellent sense which is hardlyever quoted. And the Republican party was careful to insert in itsplatform a vigorous denunciation of his Harper's Ferry exploit. 

Both sides now began to prepare for the Presidential Election of 1860. The selection of a Republican candidate was debated at a large andstormy Convention held in Chicago. Seward was the most prominentRepublican politician, but he had enemies, and for many reasons it wasthought that his adoption would mean the loss of available votes. Chasewas the favourite of the Radical wing of the party, but it was fearedthat the selection of a man who was thought to lean to Abolitionismwould alienate the moderates. To secure the West was an importantelement in the electoral problem, and this, together with the zealousbacking of his own State, within whose borders the Convention met, andthe fact that he was recognized as a "moderate, " probably determined thechoice of Lincoln. It does not appear that any of those who chose himknew that they were choosing a great man. Some acute observers haddoubtless noted the ability he displayed in his debates with Douglas, but in the main he seems to have been recommended to the ChicagoConvention, as afterwards to the country, mainly on the strength of hishumble origin, his skill as a rail-splitter, and his alleged ability tobend a poker between his fingers. 

While the Republicans were thus choosing their champion, much fiercerquarrels were rending the opposite party, whose Convention met atCharleston. The great majority of the Northern delegates were forchoosing Douglas as candidate, and fighting on a programme of "popularsovereignty. " But the Southerners would not hear of either candidate orprogramme. His attitude on the Lecompton business was no longer the onlycount against Douglas. The excellent controversial strategy of Lincolnhad forced from him during the Illinois debates an interpretation of"popular sovereignty" equally offensive to the South. Lincoln had askedhim how a territory whose inhabitants desired to exclude Slavery could, if the Dred Scott decision were to be accepted, lawfully exclude it. Douglas had answered that it could for practical purposes exclude it bywithholding legislation in its support and adopting "unfriendlylegislation" towards it. Lincoln at once pointed out that Douglas wasvirtually advising a territorial government to nullify a judgment of theSupreme Court. The cry was caught up in the South and was fatal toDouglas's hopes of support from that section. 

The Charleston Convention, split into two hostile sections, broke upwithout a decision. The Douglas men, who were the majority, met atBaltimore, acclaimed him as Democratic candidate and adopted hisprogramme. The dissentients held another Convention at Charleston andadopted Breckinridge with a programme based upon the widestinterpretation of the Dred Scott judgment. To add to the multiplicity ofvoices the rump of the old Whig Party, calling themselves the party of"the Union, the Constitution and the Laws, " nominated Everett and Bell. 

The split in the Democratic Party helped the Republicans in another thanthe obvious fashion of giving them the chance of slipping in over theheads of divided opponents. It helped their moral position in the North. It deprived the Democrats of their most effective appeal to Union-lovingmen--the assertion that their party was national while the Republicanswere sectional. For Douglas was now practically as sectional as Lincoln. As little as Lincoln could he command any considerable support south ofthe Potomac. Moreover, the repudiation of Douglas seemed to manyNortherners to prove that the South was arrogant and unreasonable beyondpossibility of parley or compromise. The wildest of her protagonistscould not pretend that Douglas was a "Black Abolitionist, " or that hemeditated any assault upon the domestic institutions of the SouthernStates. If the Southerners could not work with him, with whatNortherner, not utterly and unconditionally subservient to them, couldthey work? It seemed to many that the choice lay between a vigorousprotest now and the acceptance of the numerically superior North of apermanently inferior position in the Confederation. 

In his last electoral campaign the "Little Giant" put up a plucky fightagainst his enemies North and South. But he had met his Waterloo. In thewhole Union he carried but one State and half of another. The South wasalmost solid for Breckinridge. The North and West, from New England toCalifornia, was as solid for Lincoln. A few border States gave theirvotes for Everett. But, owing to the now overwhelming numericalsuperiority of the Free States, the Republicans had in the ElectoralCollege a decided majority over all other parties. 

Thus was Abraham Lincoln elected President of the United States. Butmany who voted for him had hardly recorded their votes before theybecame a little afraid of the thing they had done. Through the wholecontinent ran the ominous whisper: "What will the South do?"

And men held their breath, waiting for what was to follow. 

 CHAPTER IX

 SECESSION AND CIVIL WAR

It is a significant fact that the news of Lincoln's election whichcaused so much dismay and searching of heart throughout the Southern andBorder States was received with defiant cheers in Charleston, the chiefport of South Carolina. Those cheers meant that there was one SouthernState that was ready to answer on the instant the whispered questionwhich was troubling the North, and to answer it by no means in awhisper. 

South Carolina occupied a position not exactly parallel to that of anyother State. Her peculiarity was not merely that her citizens held thedogma of State Sovereignty. All the States from Virginia southward, atany rate, held that dogma in one form or another. But South Carolinaheld it in an extreme form, and habitually acted on it in an extremefashion. It is not historically true to say that she learnt herpolitical creed from Calhoun. It would be truer to say that he learnt itfrom her. But it may be that the leadership of a man of genius, whocould codify and expound her thought, and whose bold intellect shrankfrom no conclusion to which his principles led, helped to give apeculiar simplicity and completeness to her interpretation of the dogmain question. The peculiarity of her attitude must be expressed by sayingthat most Americans had two loyalties, while the South Carolinian hadonly one. Whether in the last resort a citizen should prefer loyalty tohis State or loyalty to the Union was a question concerning which mandiffered from man and State from State. There were men, and indeed wholeStates, for whom the conflict was a torturing, personal tragedy, and atearing of the heart in two. But practically all Americans believedthat some measure of loyalty was due to both connections. The SouthCarolinan did not. All his loyalty was to his State. He scarcelypretended to anything like national feeling. The Union was at best auseful treaty of alliance with foreigners to be preserved only so far asthe interests of the Palmetto State were advantaged thereby. Hisrepresentatives in House and Senate, the men he sent to take part aselectors in the choosing of a President, had rather the air ofambassadors than of legislators. They were in Congress to fight thebattles of their State, and avowed quite frankly that if it should everappear that "the Treaty called the Constitution of the United States"(as South Carolina afterwards designated it in her Declaration ofIndependence) were working to its disadvantage, they would denounce itwith as little scruple or heart-burning as the Washington Governmentmight denounce a commercial treaty with England or Spain. 

South Carolina had been talking freely of secession for thirty years. AsI have said, she regarded the Union simply as a diplomatic arrangementto be maintained while it was advantageous, and again and again doubtshad been expressed as to whether in fact it was advantageous. The fiscalquestion which had been the ostensible cause of the Nullificationmovement in the 'thirties was still considered a matter of grievance. Asan independent nation, it was pointed out, South Carolina would be freeto meet England on the basis of reciprocal Free Trade, to market hercotton in Lancashire to the best advantage, and to receive in return acheap and plentiful supply of British manufactures. At any moment since1832 a good opportunity might have led her to attempt to break away. Theelection of Lincoln was to her not so much a grievance as a signal--andnot altogether an unwelcome one. No time was lost in discussion, for theState was unanimous. The legislature had been in session choosingPresidential electors--for in South Carolina these were chosen by thelegislature and not by the people. When the results of the voting inPennsylvania and Indiana made it probable that the Republicans wouldhave a majority, the Governor intimated that it should continue to sitin order to consider the probable necessity of taking action to savethe State. The news of Lincoln's election reached Charleston on the 7thof November. On the 10th of November the legislature unanimously votedfor the holding of a specific Convention to consider the relations ofSouth Carolina with the United States. The Convention met early inDecember, and before the month was out South Carolina had in her ownview taken her place in the world as an independent nation. The Starsand Stripes was hauled down, and the new "Palmetto Flag"--a palm-treeand a single star--raised over the public buildings throughout theState. 

Many Southerners, including not a few who were inclined to Secession asthe only course in the face of the Republican victory, considered theprecipitancy of South Carolina unwise and unjustifiable. She should, they thought, rather have awaited a conference with the other SouthernStates and the determination of a common policy. But in fact there canbe little doubt that the audacity of her action was a distinct spur tothe Secessionist movement. It gave it a focus, a point round which torally. The idea of a Southern Confederacy was undoubtedly already in theair. But it might have remained long and perhaps permanently in the airif no State had been ready at once to take the first definite andmaterial step. It was now no longer a mere abstract conception orinspiration. The nucleus of the thing actually existed in the Republicof South Carolina, which every believer in State Sovereignty was boundto recognize as a present independent State. It acted, so to speak, as amagnet to draw other alarmed and discontented States out of the Union. 

The energy of the South Carolinian Secessionists might have producedless effect had anything like a corresponding energy been displayed bythe Government of the United States. But when men impatiently looked toWashington for counsel and decision they found neither. The conduct ofPresident Buchanan moved men at the time to contemptuous impatience, andhistory has echoed the contemporary verdict. Just one fact may perhapsbe urged in extenuation: if he was a weak man he was also in a weakposition. A real and very practical defect, as it seems to me, in theConstitution of the United States is the four months' interval betweenthe election of a President and his installation. The origin of thepractice is obvious enough: it is a relic of the fiction of theElectoral College, which is supposed to be spending those months insearching America for the fittest man to be chief magistrate. But nowthat everyone knows on the morrow of the election of the College who isto be President, the effect may easily be to leave the immense power andresponsibility of the American Executive during a critical period in thehands of a man who has no longer the moral authority of a popularmandate--whose policy the people have perhaps just rejected. So it wasin this case. Buchanan was called upon to face a crisis produced by thedefeat of his own party, followed by the threatened rebellion of the mento whom he largely owed his election, and with it what moral authorityhe might be supposed to possess. Had Lincoln been able to take commandin November he might, by a combination of firmness and conciliation, have checked the Secessionist movement. Buchanan, perhaps, could dolittle; but that little he did not do. 

When all fair allowance has been made for the real difficulties of hisposition it must be owned that the President cut a pitiable figure. Whatwas wanted was a strong lead for the Union sentiment of all the Statesto rally to. What Buchanan gave was the most self-confessedly futilemanifesto that any American President has ever penned. His message tothe Congress began by lecturing the North for having voted Republican. It went on to lecture the people of South Carolina for seceding, and todevelop in a lawyer-like manner the thesis that they had noconstitutional right to do so. This was not likely to produce mucheffect in any case, but any effect that it might have produced wasnullified by the conclusion which appeared to be intended to show, inthe same legal fashion, that, though South Carolina had noconstitutional right to secede, no one had any constitutional right toprevent her from seceding. The whole wound up with a tearfuldemonstration of the President's own innocence of any responsibility forthe troubles with which he was surrounded. 

It was not surprising if throughout the nation there stirred a name andmemory, and to many thousands of lips sprang instinctively andsimultaneously a single sentence: "Oh for one hour of Jackson!"

General Scott, who was in supreme command of the armed forces of theUnion, had, as a young man, received Jackson's instructions for "theexecution of the laws" in South Carolina. He sent a detailedspecification of them to Buchanan; but it was of no avail. The greatengine of democratic personal power which Jackson had created andbequeathed to his successors was in trembling and incapable hands. Witha divided Cabinet--for his Secretary of State, Cass, was for vigorousaction against the rebellious State, while his Secretary for War, Floyd, was an almost avowed sympathizer with secession--and with a Presidentapparently unable to make up his own mind, or to keep to one policy fromhour to hour, it was clear that South Carolina was not to be dealt within Jackson's fashion. Clay's alternative method remained to be tried. 

It was a disciple of Clay's, Senator Crittenden, who made the attempt, aWhig and a Kentuckian like his master. He proposed a compromise verymuch in Clay's manner, made up for the most part of carefully balancedconcessions to either section. But its essence lay in its proposedsettlement of the territorial problem, which consisted of aConstitutional Amendment whereby territories lying south of latitude 36°30' should be open to Slavery, and those north of that line closedagainst it. This was virtually the extension of the Missouri Compromiseline to the Pacific, save that California, already accepted as a FreeState, was not affected. Crittenden, though strenuously supported byDouglas, did not meet with Clay's measure of success. The Senateappointed a committee to consider the relations of the two sections, andto that committee, on which he had a seat, he submitted his plan. Butits most important clause was negatived by a combination of extremes, Davis and the other Southerners from the Cotton States combining withthe Republicans to reject it. There is, however, some reason to believethat the Southerners would have accepted the plan if the Republicans haddone so. The extreme Republicans, whose representative on the committeewas Wade of Ohio, would certainly have refused it in any case, but themoderates on that side might probably have accepted and carried it hadnot Lincoln, who had been privately consulted, pronounced decidedlyagainst it. This fixes upon Lincoln a considerable responsibility beforehistory, for it seems probable that if the Crittenden Compromise hadbeen carried the Cotton States would not have seceded, and SouthCarolina would have stood alone. The refusal, however, is verycharacteristic of his mind. No-one, as his whole public conduct showed, was more moderate in counsel and more ready to compromise on practicalmatters than he. Nor does it seem that he would have objected stronglyto the Crittenden plan--though he certainly feared that it would lead tofilibustering in Mexico and Cuba for the purpose of obtaining more slaveterritory--if it could have been carried out by Congressional actionalone. But the Dred Scott judgment made it necessary to give it the formof a Constitutional Amendment, and a Constitutional Amendment on thelines proposed would do what the Fathers of the Republic had socarefully refrained from doing--make Slavery specifically and in so manywords part of the American system. This was a price which hisintellectual temper, so elastic in regard to details, but so firm in itsinsistence on sound first principles, was not prepared to pay. 

The rejection of the Crittenden Compromise gave the signal for the newand much more formidable secession which marked the New Year. BeforeJanuary was spent Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi were, in their ownview, out of the Union. Louisiana and Texas soon followed their example. In Georgia the Unionists put up a much stronger fight, led by AlexanderStephens, afterwards Vice-President of the Confederacy. But even therethey were defeated, and the Cotton States now formed a solid phalanxopenly defying the Government at Washington. 

The motives of this first considerable secession--for I have pointed outthat the case of South Carolina was unique--are of great importance, forthey involve our whole view of the character of the war which was tofollow. In England there is still a pretty general impression that theStates rose in defence of Slavery. I find a writer so able and generallyreliable as Mr. Alex. M. Thompson of the _Clarion_ giving, in a recentarticle, as an example of a just war, "the war waged by the NorthernStates to extinguish Slavery. " This view is, of course, patently false. The Northern States waged no war to extinguish Slavery; and, had theydone so, it would not have been a just but a flagrantly unjust war. No-one could deny for a moment that under the terms of Union theSouthern States had a right to keep their slaves as long as they chose. If anyone thought such a bargain too immoral to be kept, his properplace was with Garrison, and his proper programme the repudiation of thebargain and the consequent disruption of the Union. But the North hadclearly no shadow of right to coerce the Southerners into remaining inthe Union and at the same time to deny them the rights expresslyreserved to them under the Treaty of Union. And of such a grosslyimmoral attempt every fair-minded historian must entirely acquit thevictorious section. The Northerners did not go to war to abolishSlavery. The original basis of the Republican party, its platform of1860, the resolutions passed by Congress, and the explicit declarationsof Lincoln, both before and after election, all recognize specificallyand without reserve the immunity of Slavery in the Slave States from allinterference by the Federal Government. 

American writers are, of course, well acquainted with such elementaryfacts, and, if they would attempt to make Slavery the cause of therebellion, they are compelled to use a different but, I think, equallymisleading phrase. I find, for instance, Professor Rhodes saying thatthe South went to war for "the extension of Slavery. " This sounds moreplausible, because the extension of the geographical area over whichSlavery should be lawful had been a Southern policy, and because thevictory of the party organized to oppose this policy was in fact thesignal for secession. But neither will this statement bear examination, for it must surely be obvious that the act of secession put a final endto any hope of the extension of Slavery. How could Georgia and Alabama, outside the Union, effect anything to legalize Slavery in the Unionterritories of Kansas and New Mexico?

A true statement of the case would, I think, be this: The South feltitself threatened with a certain peril. Against that peril theextension of the slave area had been one attempted method of protection. Secession was an alternative method. 

The peril was to be found in the increasing numerical superiority of theNorth, which must, it was feared, reduce the South to a position ofimpotence in the Union if once the rival section were politicallyunited. Lowell spoke much of the truth when he said that the Southerngrievance was the census of 1860; but not the whole truth. It was thecensus of 1860 plus the Presidential Election of 1860, and the moral tobe drawn from the two combined. The census showed that the North wasalready greatly superior in numbers, and that the disproportion was anincreasing one. The election showed the North combined in support of aparty necessarily and almost avowedly sectional, and returning itscandidate triumphantly, although he had hardly a vote south of theMason-Dixon line. To the South this seemed to mean that in future, if itwas to remain in the Union at all, it must be on sufferance. ANortherner would always be President, a Northern majority would alwaysbe supreme in both Houses of Congress, for the admission of California, already accomplished, and the now certain admission of Kansas as a FreeState had disturbed the balance in the Senate as well as in the House. The South would henceforward be unable to influence in any way thepolicy of the Federal Government. It would be enslaved. 

It is true that the South had no immediate grievance. The only action ofthe North of which she had any sort of right to complain was theinfringement of the spirit of the Constitutional compact by the PersonalLiberty Laws. But these laws there was now a decided disposition toamend or repeal--a disposition strongly supported by the man whom theNorth had elected as President. It is also true, that this man wouldnever have lent himself to any unfair depression of the Southern part ofthe Union. This last fact, however, the South may be pardoned for notknowing. Even those Northerners who had elected Lincoln knew littleabout him except that he was the Republican nominee and had been a"rail-splitter. " In the South, so far as one can judge, all that washeard about him was that he was a "Black Abolitionist, " which wasfalse, and that in appearance he resembled a gorilla, which was, atleast by comparison, true. 

But, even if Lincoln's fairness of mind and his conciliatory dispositiontowards the South had been fully appreciated, it is not clear that thelogic of the Secessionist case would have been greatly weakened. Theessential point was that the North, by virtue of its numericalsuperiority, had elected a purely Northern candidate on a purelyNorthern programme. Though both candidate and programme were in factmoderate, there was no longer any security save the will of the Norththat such moderation would continue. If the conditions remainedunaltered, there was nothing to prevent the North at a subsequentelection from making Charles Sumner President with a programme conceivedin the spirit of John Brown's raid. It must be admitted that the policyadopted by the dominant North after the Civil War might well appear toafford a measure of posthumous justification for these fears. 

In the North at first all seemed panic and confusion of voices. Tomany--and among them were some of those who had been keenest inprosecuting the sectional quarrel of which Secession was the outcome--itappeared the wisest course to accept the situation and acquiesce in thepeaceable withdrawal of the seceding States. This was the positionadopted almost unanimously by the Abolitionists, and it must be ownedthat they at least were strictly consistent in taking it. "When I calledthe Union 'a League with Death and an Agreement with Hell, '" saidGarrison, "I did not expect to see Death and Hell secede from theUnion. " Garrison's disciple, Wendell Phillips, pronounced the matter onefor the Gulf States themselves to decide, and declared that you couldnot raise troops in Boston to coerce South Carolina or Florida. The sameline was taken by men who carried greater weight than did theAbolitionists. No writer had rendered more vigorous service to theRepublican cause in 1860 than Horace Greeley of the _New York Tribune_. His pronouncement in that journal on the Southern secessions wasembodied in the phrase: "Let our erring sisters go. "

But while some of the strongest opponents of the South and of Slaverywere disposed to accept the dismemberment of the Union almostcomplacently, there were men of a very different type to whom it seemedan outrage to be consummated only over their dead bodies. During thewretched months of Buchanan's incurable hesitancy the name of Jacksonhad been in every mouth. And at the mere sound of that name there was arally to the Union of all who had served under the old warrior in thedays when he had laid his hand of steel upon the Nullifiers. Some ofthem, moved by that sound and by the memory of the dead, broke throughthe political ties of a quarter of a century. Among those in whom thatmemory overrode every other passion were Holt, a Southerner and of latethe close ally of Davis; Cass, whom Lowell had pilloried as the typicalweak-kneed Northerner who suffered himself to be made the lackey of theSouth; and Taney, who had denied that, in the contemplation of theAmerican Constitution, the Negro was a man. It was Black, an oldJacksonian, who in the moment of peril held the nerveless hands of thePresident firm to the tiller. It was Dix, another such, who sent to NewOrleans the very Jacksonian order: "If any man attempts to haul down theAmerican flag, shoot him at sight. "

War is always the result of a conflict of wills. 

The conflict of wills which produced the American Civil War had nothingdirectly to do with Slavery. It was the conflict between the will ofcertain Southern States to secede rather than accept the position of apermanent minority and the will expressed in Jackson's celebrated toast:"Our Union, it must be preserved. " It is the Unionist position whichclearly stands in need of special defence, since it proposed thecoercion of a recalcitrant population. Can such a defence be framed inview of the acceptance by most of us of the general principle which hasof late been called "the self-determination of peoples"?

I think it can. One may at once dismiss the common illusion--for it isoften in such cases a genuine illusion, though sometimes a piece ofhypocrisy--which undoubtedly had possession of many Northern minds atthe time, that the Southern people did not really want to secede, butwere in some mysterious fashion "intimidated" by a disloyal minority. How, in the absence of any special means of coercion, one man can"intimidate" two was never explained any more than it is explained whenthe same absurd hypothesis is brought forward in relation to Irishagrarian and English labour troubles. At any rate in this case there isnot, and never has been, the slightest justification for doubting thatSecessionism was from the first a genuine popular movement, that it wasenthusiastically embraced by hundreds of thousands who no more expectedever to own a slave than an English labourer expects to own a carriageand pair; that in this matter the political leaders of the States, andDavis in particular, rather lagged behind than outran the generalmovement of opinion; that the Secessionists were in the Cotton States agreat majority from the first; that they became later as decided amajority in Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee; and that by thetime the sword was drawn there was behind the Confederate Government aunanimity very rare in the history of revolutions--certainly muchgreater than existed in the colonies at the time of the Declaration ofIndependence. To oppose so formidable a mass of local opinion and toenforce opposition by the sword was for a democracy a graveresponsibility. 

Yet it was a responsibility which had to be accepted if America was tojustify her claim to be a nation. To understand this certain furtherpropositions must be grasped. 

First, the resistance of the South, though so nearly universal, was notstrictly national. You cannot compare the case with that of Ireland orPoland. The Confederacy was never a nation, though, had the war had adifferent conclusion, it might perhaps have become one. It is importantto remember that the extreme Southern view did not profess to regard theSouth as a nationality. It professed to regard South Carolina as onenationality, Florida as another, Virginia as another. But this view, though it had a strong hold on very noble minds, was at bottom alegalism out of touch with reality. It may be doubted whether any manfelt it in his bones as men feel a genuine national sentiment. 

On the other hand _American_ national sentiment was a reality. It hadbeen baptized in blood. It was a reality for Southerners as well as forNortherners, for Secessionists as well as for Union men. There wasprobably no American, outside South Carolina, who did not feel it as areality, though it might be temporarily obscured and overborne by localloyalties, angers, and fears. The President of the Confederacy hadhimself fought under the Stars and Stripes, and loved it so well that hecould not bear to part with it and wished to retain it as the flag ofthe South. Had one generation of excited men, without any cognate anddefinable grievance, moved only by anger at a political reverse and thedread of unrealized and dubious evils, the right to undo the mighty workof consolidation now so nearly accomplished, to throw away at once theinheritance of their fathers and the birthright of their children? Norwould they and their children be the only losers: it was the greatprinciples on which the American Commonwealth was built that seemed tomany to be on trial for their life. If the Union were broken up, whatcould men say but that Democracy had failed? The ghost of Hamilton mightgrin from his grave; though his rival had won the laurel, it was he whowould seem to have proved his case. For the first successful secessionwould not necessarily have been the last. The thesis of StateSovereignty established by victory in arms--which always does inpractice establish any thesis for good or evil--meant the break-up ofthe free and proud American nation into smaller and smaller fragments asnew disputes arose, until the whole fabric planned by the Fathers of theRepublic had disappeared. It is impossible to put this argument betterthan in the words of Lincoln himself. "Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak tomaintain its own existence?" That was the issue as he saw it, an issuewhich he was determined should be decided in the negative, even at thecost of a long and bloody Civil War. 

I have endeavoured to state fairly the nature of the conflict of willswhich was to produce Civil War, and to explain how each side justifiedmorally its appeal to arms. Further than that I do not think itnecessary to go. But I will add just this one historical fact which, Ithink, supplies some degree of further justification for the attitude ofthe North--that concerning this matter of the Union, which was the realquestion in debate, though not in regard to other subsidiary matterswhich will demand our attention in the next chapter, the South wasultimately not only conquered but persuaded. There are among themillions of Southerners alive to-day few who will admit that theirfathers fought in an unjust cause, but there are probably still fewer, if any at all, who would still wish to secede if they had the power. Jefferson Davis himself could, at the last, close his record of his owndefeat and of the triumph of the Union with the words _Esto Perpetua_. 

Lincoln took the oath as President on March 4, 1861. His InauguralAddress breathes the essential spirit of his policy--firmness in thingsfundamental, conciliation in things dispensable. He reiterated hisdeclaration that he had neither right nor inclination to interfere withSlavery in the Slave States. He quoted the plank in the Republicanplatform which affirmed the right of each State to control its ownaffairs, and vigorously condemned John Brown's insane escapade. Hedeclared for an effective Fugitive Slave Law, and pledged himself to itsfaithful execution. He expressed his approval of the amendment to theConstitution which Congress had just resolved to recommend, forbiddingthe Federal Government ever to interfere with the domestic institutionsof the several States, "including that of persons held to service. " Buton the question of Secession he took firm ground. "I hold that, incontemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the union ofthese States is perpetual. .. . It follows from these views that no Stateupon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; thatresolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that actsof violence within any State or States, against the authority of theUnited States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according tocircumstances. " He accepted the obligation which the Constitutionexpressly enjoined on him, to see "that the laws of the Union befaithfully executed in all the States. " He would use his power "to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Governmentand to collect the duties and imposts, " but beyond that there would beno interference or coercion. There could be no conflict or bloodshedunless the Secessionists were themselves the aggressors. "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine is the momentousissue of Civil War. .. . You have no oath registered in heaven to destroythe Government, while I have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protectand defend it. '"

He ended with the one piece of rhetoric in the whole address--rhetoricdeliberately framed to stir those emotions of loyalty to the nationalpast and future which he knew to endure, howsoever overshadowed by angerand misunderstanding, even in Southern breasts. "We are not enemies, butfriends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained itmust not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every livingheart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell thechorus of Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by thebetter angels of our nature. "

But there was not much evidence of the active operation of such "betterangels" at the moment. Half the Southern States had not only seceded, but had already formed themselves into a hostile Confederacy. Theyframed a Constitution modelled in essentials on that of the UnitedStates, but with the important difference that "We the deputies of theSovereign and Independent States" was substituted for "We the people ofthe United States, " and with certain minor amendments, some of whichwere generally thought even in the North to be improvements. 

They elected Jefferson Davis as President, and as Vice-PresidentAlexander Stephens of Georgia, who had been a Unionist, but had acceptedthe contrary verdict of his State. 

The choice was, perhaps, as good as could have been made. Davis was insome ways well fitted to represent the new Commonwealth before theworld. He had a strong sense of what befitted his own dignity and thatof his office. He had a keen eye for what would attract the respect andsympathy of foreign nations. It is notable, for instance, that in hisinaugural address, in setting forth the grounds on which secession wasto be justified, he made no allusion to the institution of Slavery. There he may be contrasted favourably with Stephens, whose unfortunatespeech declaring Slavery to be the stone which the builders of the oldConstitution rejected, and which was to become the corner-stone of thenew Confederacy, was naturally seized upon by Northern sympathizers atthe time, and has been as continually brought forward since byhistorians and writers who wish to emphasize the connection betweenSlavery and the Southern cause. Davis had other qualifications whichmight seem to render him eminently fit to direct the policy of aConfederation which must necessarily begin its existence by fighting andwinning a great and hazardous war. He had been a soldier and served withdistinction. Later he had been, by common consent, one of the best WarSecretaries that the United States had possessed. It was under hisadministration that both Lee and McClellan, later to be arrayed againsteach other, were sent to the Crimea to study modern war at first hand. 

But Davis had faults of temper which often endangered and perhaps atlast ruined the cause he served. They can be best appreciated by readinghis own book. There is throughout a note of querulousness which weakensone's sympathy for the hero of a lost cause. He is always explaining howthings ought to have happened, how the people of Kentucky ought to havebeen angry with Lincoln instead of siding with him, and so on. Oneunderstands at once how he was bested in democratic diplomacy by hisrival's lucid realism and unfailing instinct for dealing with men asmen. One understands also his continual quarrels with his generals, though in that department he was from the first much better served thanwas the Government at Washington. A sort of nervous irritability, perhaps a part of what is called "the artistic temperament, " iseverywhere perceptible. Nowhere does one find a touch of that spiritwhich made Lincoln say, after an almost insolent rebuff to his personaland official dignity from McClellan: "Well, I will hold his horse forhim if he will give us a victory. "

The prize for which both parties were contending in the period ofdiplomatic skirmishing which marks the opening months of Lincoln'sadministration was the adherence of those Slave States which had not yetseceded. So far disruptional doctrines had triumphed only in the CottonStates. In Virginia Secession had been rejected by a very decidedmajority, and the rejection had been confirmed by the result of thesubsequent elections for the State legislature. The Secessionists hadalso seen their programme defeated in Tennessee, Arkansas, and NorthCarolina, while Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland had as yet refused tomake any motion towards it. In Texas the general feeling was on thewhole Secessionist, but the Governor was a Unionist, and succeeded for atime in preventing definite action. To keep these States loyal, whilekeeping at the same time his pledge to "execute the laws, " was Lincoln'sprincipal problem in the first days of his Presidency. 

His policy turned mainly on two principles. First, the South must seethat the administration of the laws was really impartial, and that thePresident executed them because he had taken an oath to do so; notbecause the North wanted to trample on the South. This considerationexplains the extreme rigour with which he enforced the Fugitive SlaveLaw. Here was a law involving a Constitutional obligation, which he, with his known views on Slavery, could not possibly like executing, which the North certainly did not want him to execute, which he could beexecuting only from a sense of obligation under the Constitution. Suchan example would make it easier for moderate Southern opinion to acceptthe application of a similar strictness to the seceding States. 

The second principle was the strict confinement of his interventionwithin the limits presented by his Inaugural. This was calculated tobear a double effect. On the one hand, it avoided an immediate practicalchallenge to the doctrine of State Sovereignty, strongly held by many inthe Middle States who were nevertheless opposed to Secession. On theother, it tended, if prolonged, to render the Southern assumption of the_rôle_ of "a people risen against tyrants" a trifle ridiculous. Afreeman defying the edicts of the oppressor is a dignified spectacle:not so that of a man desperately anxious to defy edicts which theoppressor obstinately refuses to issue. It was possible for Lincoln toput the rebels in this position because under the American Constitutionnine-tenths of the laws which practically affected the citizen wereState and not Federal laws. When people began to talk of protestingagainst tyranny by refusing to allow the tyrant to deliver their mailsto them, it was obvious how near the comic the sublime defiance of theConfederates was treading. There were men in the South who fullyrealized the disconcerting effect of the President's moderation. "Unlessyou baptize the Confederacy in blood, " said a leading Secessionist ofAlabama to Jefferson Davis, "Alabama will be back in the Union within amonth. "

Unfortunately Lincoln's attitude of masterly inactivity could not bekept up for so long, for a problem, bequeathed him by his predecessor, pressed upon him, demanding action, just where action might, as he wellknew, mean a match dropped in the heart of a powder-magazine. On anisland in the very harbour of Charleston itself stood Fort Sumter, anarsenal held by the Federal Government. South Carolina, regardingherself as now an independent State, had sent an embassy to Washingtonto negotiate among other things for its surrender and transfer to theState authorities. Buchanan had met these emissaries and temporizedwithout definitely committing himself. He had been on the point ofordering Major Anderson, who was in command of the garrison, to evacuatethe fort, when under pressure from Black, his Secretary of State, hechanged his mind and sent a United States packet, called _Star of theWest_, with reinforcements for Anderson. The State authorities atCharleston fired on the ship, which, being unarmed, turned tail andreturned to Washington without fulfilling its mission. The problem wasnow passed on to Lincoln, with this aggravation: that Anderson's troopshad almost consumed their stores, could get no more from Charleston, and, if not supplied, must soon succumb to starvation. Lincolndetermined to avoid the provocation of sending soldiers and arms, but todespatch a ship with food and other necessaries for the garrison. Thisresolution was duly notified to the authorities at Charleston. 

Their anger was intense. They had counted on the evacuation of the fort, and seem to have considered that they held a pledge from Seward, who wasnow Secretary of State, and whose conduct in the matter seems certainlyto have been somewhat devious, to that effect. The Stars and Stripeswaving in their own harbour in defiance of their Edict of Secessionseemed to them and to all their people a daily affront. Now that thePresident had intimated in the clearest possible fashion that heintended it to be permanent, they and all the inhabitants of Charleston, and indeed of South Carolina, clamoured loudly for the reduction of thefortress. In an evil hour Jefferson Davis, though warned by his ablestadvisers that he was putting his side in the wrong, yielded to theirpressure. Anderson was offered the choice between immediate surrender orthe forcible reduction of the fortress. True to his military duty, though his own sympathies were largely Southern, he refused tosurrender, and the guns of three other forts, which the Confederates hadoccupied, began the bombardment of Sumter. 

It lasted all day, the little fortress replying with great spirit, though with insufficient and continually diminishing means. It is anastonishing fact that in this, the first engagement of the Civil War, though much of the fort was wrecked, no life was lost on either side. Atlength Anderson's ammunition was exhausted, and he surrendered atdiscretion. The Stars and Stripes were pulled down and the new flag ofthe Confederacy, called the Stars and Bars, waved in its place. 

The effect of the news in the North was electric. Never before and neverafter was it so united. One cry of anger went up from twenty millionthroats. Whitman, in the best of his "Drum Taps, " has described thespirit in which New York received the tidings; how that greatmetropolitan city, which had in the past been Democrat in its votes andhalf Southern in its political connections--"at dead of night, at newsfrom the South, incensed, struck with clenched fist the pavement. "

It is important to the true comprehension of the motive power behind thewar to remember what this "news from the South" was. It was not the newsof the death of Uncle Tom or of the hanging of John Brown. It had notthe remotest connection with Slavery. It was an insult offered to theflag. In the view of every Northern man and woman there was but oneappropriate answer--the sentence which Barrère had passed upon the cityof Lyons: "South Carolina has fired upon Old Glory: South Carolina is nomore. "

Lincoln, feeling the tide of the popular will below him as a goodboatman feels a strong and deep current, issued an appeal for 75, 000militia from the still loyal States to defend the flag and the Unionwhich it symbolized. The North responded with unbounded enthusiasm, andthe number of volunteers easily exceeded that for which the Presidenthad asked and Congress provided. In the North-West Lincoln found apowerful ally in his old antagonist Stephen Douglas. In the dark andperplexing months which intervened between the Presidential Election andthe outbreak of the Civil War, no public man had shown so pure andselfless a patriotism. Even during the election, when Southern voteswere important to him and when the threat that the election of theRepublican nominee would lead to secession was almost the strongest cardin his hand, he had gone out of his way to declare that no possiblechoice of a President could justify the dismemberment of the Republic. When Lincoln was elected, he had spoken in several Southern States, urging acquiescence in the verdict and loyalty to the Union. He hadtaken care to be present on the platform at his rival's inauguration, and, after the affair of Sumter, the two had had a long and confidentialconversation. Returning to his native West, he commenced the last of hiscampaigns--a campaign for no personal object but for the raising ofsoldiers to keep the old flag afloat. In that campaign the "LittleGiant" spent the last of his unquenchable vitality; and in the midst ofit he died. 

For the North and West the firing on the Stars and Stripes was thedecisive issue. For Virginia and to a great extent for the otherSouthern States which had not yet seceded it was rather the President'sdemands for State troops to coerce a sister State. The doctrine of StateSovereignty was in these States generally held to be a fundamentalprinciple of the Constitution and the essential condition of theirliberties. They had no desire to leave the Union so long as it wereunderstood that it was a union of Sovereign States. But the proposal touse force against a recalcitrant State seemed to them to upset the wholenature of the compact and reduce them to a position of vassalage. Thisattitude explains the second Secession, which took Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas out of the Union. It explains also why themoment the sword was drawn the opinion of these States, strongly dividedup to that very moment, became very nearly unanimous. Not all theircitizens, even after the virtual declaration of war against SouthCarolina, wanted their States to secede, but all, or nearly all, claimedthat they had the _right_ to secede if they wanted to, and thereforeall, or nearly all, accepted the decision of their States even if itwere contrary to their own judgment and preference. 

It is important to understand this attitude, not only because it wasvery general, but because it was the attitude of one of the noblest sonsthe Republic ever bore, who yet felt compelled, regretfully but withfull certitude that he did right, to draw the sword against her. 

Robert Lee was already recognized as one of the most capable captains inthe service of the United States. When it became obvious that GeneralScott, also a Virginian, but a strong Unionist, was too old to undertakethe personal direction of the approaching campaign, Lee was sounded asto his readiness to take his place. He refused, not desiring to takepart in the coercion of a State, and subsequently, when his own Statebecame involved in the quarrel, resigned his commission. Later heaccepted the chief command of the Virginian forces and became the mostformidable of the rebel commanders. Yet with the institution, zeal forwhich is still so largely thought to have been the real motive of theSouth, he had no sympathy. Four years before the Republican triumph, hehad, in his correspondence, declared Slavery to be "a moral andpolitical evil. " Nor was he a Secessionist. He deeply regretted and sofar as he could, without meddling in politics--to which, in the fashionof good soldiers, he was strongly averse--opposed the action which hisState eventually took. But he thought that she had the right to take itif she chose, and, the fatal choice having been made, he had no optionin his own view but to throw in his lot with her and accept his portionof whatever fate might be in store for her armies and her people. 

Virginia now passed an Ordinance of Secession, and formed a militaryalliance with the Southern Confederacy. Later she was admitted tomembership of that Confederacy, and the importance attached to heraccession may be judged by the fact that the new Government at oncetransferred its seat to her capital, the city of Richmond. The exampleof Virginia was followed by the other Southern States alreadyenumerated. 

There remained four Southern States in which the issue was undecided. One of them, Delaware, caused no appreciable anxiety. She was thesmallest State in the Union in population, almost the smallest in area, and though technically a Slave State, the proportion of negroes withinher borders was small. It was otherwise with the three formidable Stateswhich still hung in the balance, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland. Thatthese were saved to the Union was due almost wholly to the far-sightedprudence and consummate diplomacy of Abraham Lincoln. 

Missouri was the easiest to hold. Geographically she was not really aSouthern State at all, and, though she was a Slave State by virtue ofClay's Compromise, the institution had not there struck such deep rootsas in the true South. The mass of her people were recruited from all theolder States, North and South, with a considerable contingent fresh fromEurope. Union feeling was strong among them and State feelingcomparatively weak. Her Governor, indeed, was an ardent Southernsympathizer and returned a haughty and defiant reply to Lincoln'srequest for soldiers. But Francis Blair, a prominent and popularcitizen, and Captain Lyon, who had raised and commanded a Union forcewithin her borders, between them carried the State against him. He wasdeposed, a Unionist Governor substituted, and Missouri ranged herselfdefinitely with the North. 

The case of Maryland was much more critical, for it appeared to involvethe fate of the Capital. Washington lay between Maryland and Virginia, and if Maryland joined Virginia in rebellion it could hardly be held. Yet its abandonment might entail the most serious politicalconsequences, certainly an enormous encouragement to the secedingConfederacy, quite probably its immediate recognition by foreign Powers. At first the omens looked ugly. The populace of Baltimore, the capitalof the State, were at this time pronouncedly Southern in theirsentiments, and the first Massachusetts regiment sent to the relief ofWashington was hustled and stoned in its streets. The soldiers fired onthe mob and there were casualties on both sides. Immediately afterwardsthe legislature of Maryland protested against the violation of itsterritory. Lincoln acted with admirable sense and caution. He pointedout that the Federal armies could not fly, and that therefore to reachWashington they must pass over the soil of Maryland; but he made nopoint of their going through Baltimore, and he wisely provided thatfurther contingents should, for a time, proceed by water to Annapolis. Meanwhile he strained every nerve to reassure and conciliate Marylandwith complete success. Within a month or two Federal troops could bebrought to Baltimore without the smallest friction or disturbance. Laterthe loyalty of Maryland was, as we shall see, put to a much morecritical test and passed it triumphantly. 

The President naturally felt a special interest in the attitude of hisnative state, Kentucky. That attitude would have perplexed andembarrassed a less discerning statesman. Taking her stand on the dogmaof State Sovereignty Kentucky declared herself "neutral" in theimpending war between the United and Confederate States, and forbade thetroops of either party to cross her territory. Lincoln could not, ofcourse, recognize the validity of such a declaration, but he was carefulto avoid any act in open violation of it. Sometimes openly and sometimessecretly he worked hard to foster, consolidate, and encourage the Unionparty in Kentucky. With his approval and probably at his suggestionloyalist levies were voluntarily recruited on her soil, drilled andprepared for action. But no Northern troops were sent across herfrontier. He was undoubtedly working for a violation of Kentuckian"neutrality" by the other side. Circumstances and geographicalconditions helped him. The frontier between Kentucky and Tennessee was amere degree of latitude corresponding to no militarily defensible line, nor did any such line exist to the south of it capable of covering thecapital of Tennessee. On the other hand, an excellent possible line ofdefence existed in Southern Kentucky. The Confederate commanders wereeager to seize it, but the neutrality of Kentucky forbade them. When, however, they saw the hold which Lincoln seemed to be acquiring over thecounsels of the "neutrals, " they felt they dared not risk further delay. Justifying their act by the presence in Kentucky of armed bodies oflocal Unionists, they advanced and occupied the critical points ofColumbus and Bowling Green, stretching their line between them onKentuckian soil. The act at once determined the course of the hesitatingState. Torn hitherto between loyalty to the Union and loyalty to Staterights, she now found the two sentiments synchronize. In the name of herviolated neutrality she declared war on the Confederacy and took herplace under the Stars and Stripes. 

The line between the two warring confederations of States was nowdefinitely fixed, and it only remained to try the issue between them bythe arbitrament of the sword. 

At first the odds might seem very heavy against the Confederacy, for itstotal white population was only about five and a half million, while theStates arrayed against it mustered well over twenty million. But therewere certain considerations which tended to some extent to equalize thecontest. 

First there is the point which must always be taken into considerationwhen estimating the chances of war--the political objective aimed at. The objective of the North was the conquest of the South. But theobjective of the South was not the conquest of the North. It was thedemonstration that such conquest as the North desired was impracticable, or at least so expensive as not to be worth pursuing. That the Union, ifthe States that composed it remained united and determined and no otherfactor were introduced, could eventually defeat the Confederacy was fromthe first almost mathematically certain; and between complete defeat andconquest there is no such distinction as some have imagined, for amilitary force which has destroyed all military forces opposed to it canalways impose its will unconditionally on the conquered. But that theseStates would remain united and determined was not certain at all. If theSouth put up a sufficiently energetic fight, there might arise in thedominant section a considerable body of opinion which felt that too higha price was being paid for the enterprise. Moreover, there was alwaysthe possibility and often the probability of another factor--theintervention of some foreign Power in favour of the South, as France hadintervened in favour of the Americans in 1781. Such were the notunlikely chances upon which the South was gambling. 

Another factor in favour of the South was preparation. South Carolinahad begun raising and drilling soldiers for a probable war as soon asLincoln was elected. The other Southern States had at various intervalsfollowed her example. On the Northern side there had been no preparationwhatever under the Buchanan _régime_, and Lincoln had not much chance ofattempting such preparation before the war was upon him. 

Further, it was probably true that, even untrained, the mass ofSoutherners were better fitted for war than the mass of Northerners. They were, as a community, agrarian, accustomed to an open-air life, proud of their skill in riding and shooting. The first levies of theNorth were drawn mostly from the urban population, and consisted largelyof clerks, artisans, and men of the professional class, in whoseprevious modes of life there was nothing calculated to prepare them inany way for the duties of a soldier. To this general rule there was, however, an important reservation, of which the fighting at FortDonelson and Shiloh afforded an early illustration. In dash andhardihood, and what may be called the raw materials of soldiership theSouth, whatever it may have had to teach the North, had little to teachthe West. 

In the matter of armament the South, though not exactly advantageouslyplaced, was at the beginning not so badly off as it might well havebeen. Floyd, at one time Buchanan's Secretary for War, was accused, andindeed, after he had joined the Secessionists, virtually admitted havingdeliberately distributed the arms of the Federal Government to theadvantage of the Confederacy. Certainly the outbreak of war found somewell-stocked arsenals within the grasp of the rebellion. It was notuntil its later phases that the great advantage of the industrial Northin facilities for the manufacture of armaments made itself apparent. 

But the great advantage which the South possessed, and which accountsfor the great measure of military success which it enjoyed, must beregarded as an accidental one. It consisted in the much greater capacityof the commanders whom the opening of the war found in control of itsforces. The North had to search for competent generals by a process oftrial and error, almost every trial being marked by a disaster; nor tillthe very end of the war did she discover the two or three men who wereequal to their job. The South, on the other hand, had from the beginningthe good luck to possess in its higher command more than one captainwhose talents were on the highest possible level. 

The Confederate Congress was summoned to meet at Richmond on July 20th. A cry went up from the North that this event should be prevented by thecapture before that date of the Confederate capital. The cry was basedon an insufficient appreciation of the military resources of the enemy, but it was so vehement and universal that the Government was compelledto yield to it. A considerable army had by this time been collected inWashington, and under the command of General McDowell it now advancedinto Virginia, its immediate objective being Manassas Junction. Theopposing force was under the Southern commander Beauregard, aLouisianian of French extraction. The other gate of Eastern Virginia, the Shenandoah Valley, was held by Joseph Johnstone, who was to be keptengaged by an aged Union general named Patterson. Johnstone, however, broke contact and got away from Patterson, joining Beauregard behind theline of a small river called Bull Run, to which the latter had retired. Here McDowell attacked, and the first real battle of the Civil Warfollowed. For a time it wavered between the two sides, but the arrivalin flank of the forces of Johnstone's rearguard, which had arrived toolate for the opening of the battle, threw the Union right wing intoconfusion. Panic spread to the whole army, which, with the exception ofa small body of regular troops, flung away its arms and fled in panicback to Washington. 

Thus unauspiciously opened the campaign against the Confederacy. Theimpression produced on both sides was great. The North set its teeth anddetermined to wipe out the disgrace at the first possible moment. TheSouth was wild with joy. The too-prevalent impression that the "Yankees"were cowards who could not and would not fight seemed confirmed by thefirst practical experiment. The whole subsequent course of the warshowed how false was this impression. It has been admitted that theSoutherners were at first, on the whole, both better fitted and betterprepared for war than their opponents. But all military history showsthat what enables soldiers to face defeat and abstain from panic in theface of apparent disaster is not natural courage, but discipline. Hadthe fight gone the other way the Southern recruits would probably haveacted exactly as did the fugitive Northerners. Indeed, as it was, at anearlier stage of the battle a panic among the Southerners was onlyaverted by the personal exertions of Beauregard, whose horse was shotunder him, and by the good conduct of the Virginian contingent and itsleader. "Look at Jackson and his Virginians, " cried out the Southerncommander in rallying his men, "standing like a stone wall. " The greatcaptain thus acclaimed bore ever after, through his brief but splendidmilitary career, the name of "Stonewall" Jackson. 

Bull Run was fought and won in July. The only other important operationsof the year consisted in the successful clearing, by the Northerncommander, McClellan, of Western Virginia, where a Unionist populationhad seceded from the Secession. Lincoln, with bold statesmanship, recognized it as a separate State, and thus further consolidated theUnionism of the Border. In recognition of this service McClellan wasappointed, in succession to McDowell, to the command of the army of thePotomac, as the force entrusted with the invasion of Eastern Virginiawas called. 

At the first outbreak of the war English sympathies, except perhaps fora part of the travelled and more or less cosmopolitan aristocracy whichfound the Southern gentleman a more socially acceptable type than theYankee, seem to have been decidedly with the North. Public opinion inthis country was strong against Slavery, and therefore tended to supportthe Free States in the contest of which Slavery was generally believedto be the cause. Later this feeling became a little confused. Our peopledid not understand the peculiar historical conditions which bound theNorthern side, and were puzzled and their enthusiasm damped by thePresident's declaration that he had no intention of interfering withSlavery, and still more by the resolution whereby Congress specificallylimited the objective of the war and the preservation of the Union, expressly guaranteeing the permanence of Slavery as a domestic institution. These things made it easy for the advocates of the South to maintain thatSlavery had nothing to do with the issue--as, indeed, directly, it hadnot. Then came Bull Run--the sort of Jack-the-Giant-Killer incident whichalways and in a very human fashion excites the admiration of sportsmanlikeforeigners. One may add to this the fact that the intelligent governingclass at that time generally regarded the Americans, as the Americansregarded us, as rivals and potential enemies, and would not have beensorry to see one strong power in the New World replaced by two weak ones. On the other hand, the British Government's very proper proclamation ofneutrality as between the United States and the Confederacy had beensomewhat unreasonably criticized in America. 

Yet the general sympathy with the Free as against the Slave States mighthave had a better chance of surviving but for the occurrence inNovember, 1861, of what is called the "Trent" dispute. The Confederacywas naturally anxious to secure recognition from the Powers of WesternEurope, and with this object despatched two representatives, Mason ofVirginia and Slidell of South Carolina, the one accredited to the Courtof St. James's and the other to the Tuileries. They took passage toEurope in a British ship called the _Trent_. The United States cruiser_San Jacinto_, commanded by Captain Wilkes of the American Navy, overhauled this vessel, searched it and seized and carried off the twoConfederate envoys. 

The act was certainly a breach of international law; but that was almostthe smallest part of its irritant effect. In every detail it wascalculated to outrage British sentiment. It was an affront offered to uson our own traditional element--the sea. It was also a blow offered toour traditional pride as impartial protectors of political exiles of allkind. The _Times_--in those days a responsible and influential organ ofopinion--said quite truly that the indignation felt here had nothing todo with approval of the rebellion; that it would have been just asstrong if, instead of Mason and Slidell, the victims had been two oftheir own Negro slaves. Indeed, for us there were no longer Northern andSouthern sympathizers: there were only Englishmen indignant at an insultopenly offered to the Union Jack. Northerners might have understood usbetter, and been less angry at our attitude, if they had remembered howthey themselves had felt when the guns opened on Sumter. 

The evil was aggravated by the triumphant rejoicings with which theNorth celebrated the capture and by the complicity of responsible andeven official persons in the honours showered on Captain Wilkes. Seward, who had a wild idea that a foreign quarrel would help to heal domesticdissensions, was somewhat disposed to defend the capture. But theeminently just mind of Lincoln quickly saw that it could not bedefended, while his prudence perceived the folly of playing the Southerngame by forcing England to recognize the Confederacy. Mason and Slidellwere returned, and the incident as a diplomatic incident was closed. Butit had its part in breeding in these islands a certain antagonism to theGovernment at Washington, and thus encouraging the growing tendency tosympathize with the South. 

With the opening of the new year the North was cheered by a signal andvery important success. In the course of February Fort Henry and FortDonelson, essential strategic points on the front which the Confederateinvaders had stretched across Southern Kentucky, were captured byGeneral Ulysses Grant, in command of a Western army. The Confederateforces were compelled to a general retirement, sacrificing the defensiveline for the sake of which they had turned the "neutral" border Stateinto an enemy, uncovering the whole of Western Tennessee, including thecapital of Nashville, and also yielding the Upper Mississippi. Theimportance of the latter gain--for the Mississippi, once mastered, wouldcut the Confederacy in two--was clearly apparent to Beauregard, who atonce marched northward and attacked Grant at Shiloh. The battle wasindecisive, but in its military effect it was a success for the North. Grant was compelled to abandon the ground upon which his army stood, buthe kept all the fruits of his recent campaign. 

Another incident, not only picturesque in itself but of great importancein the history of naval war, marks the opening months of 1862. After thefailure of the first attempt to take Richmond by a _coup de main_ thewar became in its essence a siege of the Confederacy. To give it thischaracter, however, one thing was essential--the control of the sea bythe Union forces. The regular United States navy--unlike the regulararmy, which was divided--was fully under the control of the FederalGovernment, and was able to blockade the Southern ports. Davis hadattempted to meet this menace by issuing letters of marque toprivateers; but this could be little more than an irritant to thedominant power. It so happened, however, that a discovery had recentlybeen made which was destined to revolutionize the whole character ofnaval war. Experiments in the steel-plating of ships had already beenmade in England and in France, but the first war vessel so fitted forpractical use was produced by the Southern Confederacy--the celebrated_Merrimac_. One fine day she steamed into Hampton Roads under the gunsof the United States fleet and proceeded to sink ship after ship, theheavy round shot leaping off her like peas. It was a perilous moment, but the Union Government had only been a day behind in perfecting thesame experiment. Next day the _Monitor_ arrived on the scene, and thefamous duel between the first two ironclads ever constructed commenced. Each proved invulnerable to the other, for neither side had yetconstructed pieces capable of piercing protection, but the victory wasso far with the North that the hope that the Confederacy might obtain, by one bold and inventive stroke, the mastery of the sea was for themoment at an end. 

Meanwhile all eyes were fixed on McClellan, who was busy turning the mobthat had fled from Bull Run into an army. His work of organization anddiscipline was by common consent admirable; yet when the time came whenhe might be expected to take the field, that defect in his quality as acommander showed itself which was to pursue him throughout hiscampaigns. He was extravagantly over-cautious. His unwillingness tofight, combined with the energy he put into bringing the army into anefficient state and gaining influence over its officers and men, gaverise to the wildest rumours and charges. It was suggested that heintended to use the force he was forming, not against Richmond butagainst Washington; to seize supreme power by military force andreconcile the warring States under the shadow of his sword. It iscertain that there was no kind of foundation for such suspicions. He wasa perfectly patriotic and loyal soldier who studied his professiondiligently. Perhaps he had studied it too diligently. He seems to haveresolved never to risk an engagement unless under conditions whichaccording to the text-books should assure victory. Ideal conditions ofthis sort were not likely to occur often in real war, especially whenwaged against such an antagonist as Robert Lee. 

McClellan remained in front of the Confederate positions throughout thewinter and early spring. In reply to urgent appeals from Washington hedeclared the position of the enemy to be impregnable, and grosslyexaggerated his numbers. When at last, at the beginning of March, he wasinduced to move forward, he found that the enemy had slipped away, leaving behind, as if in mockery, a large number of dummy wooden gunswhich had helped to impress McClellan with the hopelessness of assailinghis adversaries. 

The wooden guns, however little damage they could do to the Federalarmy, did a good deal of damage to the reputation of the Federalcommander. Lincoln, though pressed to replace him, refused to do so, having no one obviously better to put in his room, and knowing that theoutcry against him was partly political--for McClellan was a Democrat. The general now undertook the execution of a plan of his own for thereduction of Richmond. Leaving McDowell on the Potomac, he transportedthe greater part of his force by water and effected a landing on thepeninsula of Yorktown, where some eighty years before Cornwallis hadsurrendered to Washington and Rochambeau. 

The plan was not a bad one, but the general showed the same lack ofenterprise which had made possible the escape of Johnstone. It isprobable that if he had struck at once at the force opposed to him, hecould have destroyed it and marched to Richmond almost unopposed. 

Instead of striking at a vulnerable point he sat down in a methodicalfashion to besiege Yorktown. While he was waiting for the reinforcementshe had demanded, the garrison got away as Johnstone had done from beforeManassas, and an attempt to push forward resulted in the defeat of hislieutenant, Hooker, at Williamsburg. 

McDowell, who was at Fredericksburg, was ordered to join and reinforceMcClellan, but the junction was never made, for at the moment Jacksontook the field and effected one of the most brilliant exploits of thewar. The Union troops in the Shenandoah Valley were much more numerousthan the force which Jackson had at his disposal, but they werescattered at various points, and by a series of incalculably rapidmovements the Southern captain attacked and overwhelmed each in turn. The alarm at Washington was great, and McDowell hastened to cut him off, only to discover that Jackson had slipped past him and was back in hisown country. Meanwhile McClellan, left without the reinforcements he hadexpected, was attacked by Lee and beaten back in seven days' consecutivefighting right to Harrison's Landing, where he could only entrenchhimself and stand on the defensive. Richmond was as far off as ever. 

One piece of good news, however, reached Washington at about this time, and once again it came from the West. Towards the end of April Farragut, the American admiral, captured the city of New Orleans. The event wasjustly thought to be of great importance, for Grant already dominatedthe Upper Mississippi, and if he could join hands with a Union forceoperating from the mouth of the great river, the Confederacy would becut in two. 

Perhaps the contrast between the good fortune which had attended theFederal arms in the West and the failure of the campaign in EasternVirginia was responsible for the appointment of a general taken from theWestern theatre of war to command the army of the Potomac. Lincoln, having supported McClellan as long as he could, was now obliged toabandon his cause, and General Pope was appointed to supreme command ofthe campaign in Eastern Virginia. 

The change brought no better fortune; indeed, it was the prelude to adisaster worse than any that McClellan had suffered. Pope advanced bythe route of the original invasion, and reached exactly the point whereMcDowell's army had been routed. Here he paused and waited. While he laythere Jackson made another of his daring raids, got between him andWashington and cut his communications, while Lee fell upon him andutterly destroyed his army in the second battle of Bull Run. 

Lee's victory left him in full possession of the initiative, with noeffective force immediately before him and with a choice of objectives. It was believed by many that he would use his opportunity to attackWashington. But he wisely refrained from such an attempt. Washington wasguarded by a strong garrison, and its defences had been carefullyprepared. To take it would involve at least something like a siege, andwhile he was reducing it the North would have the breathing space itneeded to rally its still unexhausted powers. He proposed to himself analternative, which, if he had been right in his estimate of thepolitical factors, would have given him Washington and much more, andprobably decided the war in favour of the Confederacy. He crossed thePotomac and led his army into Maryland. 

The stroke was as much political as military in its character. Marylandwas a Southern State. There was a sort of traditional sisterhood betweenher and Virginia. Though she had not seceded, it was thought that hersympathies must be with the South. The attack on the Union troops inBaltimore at the beginning of the war had seemed strong confirmation ofthis belief. The general impression in the South, which the Southerngeneral probably shared, was that Maryland was at heart Secessionist, and that a true expression of her will was prevented only by force. Thenatural inference was that when a victorious Southern commander appearedwithin her borders, the people would rally to him as one man, Washingtonwould be cut off from the North, the President captured, the Confederacyrecognized by the European Powers, and the North would hardly continuethe hopeless struggle. This idea was embodied in a fierce war-song whichhad recently become popular throughout the Confederate States and wascaught up by Lee's soldiers on their historic march. It began--

 "The despot's heel is on thy shore, Maryland! My Maryland!"

And it ended--

 "She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb! Hurrah! She spurns the Yankee scum! She breathes! She lives! She'll come! she'll come! Maryland! My Maryland!"

But Maryland did not come. The whole political conception which underlayLee's move was false. It may seem curious that those who, wheneverything seemed to be in favour of the North, had stoned Unionsoldiers in the streets of the State capital, should not have moved afinger when a great Southern soldier came among them with the glamour ofvictory around him and proclaimed himself their liberator. Yet so itproved. The probable explanation is that, Maryland lying under theshadow of the capital, which was built for the most part on herterritory, Lincoln could deal with her people directly. And wherever hecould get men face to face and show the manner of man he was, he couldpersuade. Maryland was familiar with "the despot" and did not find his"heel" at all intolerable. The image of the horrible hairy Abolitionistgloating constantly over the thought of a massacre of Southerners byNegroes, which did duty for a portrait of Lincoln in the South, was notconvincing to Marylanders, who knew the man himself and found him akindly, shrewd, and humorous man of the world, with much in his personand character that recalled his Southern origin, who enforced the lawwith strict impartiality wherever his power extended, and who, aboveall, punctiliously returned any fugitive slaves that might seek refugein the District of Columbia. 

Lee issued a dignified and persuasive proclamation in which he declaredthat he came among the people of Maryland as a friend and liberator. ButMaryland showed no desire to be liberated. He and his soldiers wereeverywhere coldly received. Hardly a volunteer joined them. In manytowns Union flags were flaunted in their faces--a fact upon which isbased the fictitious story of Barbara Fritchie. 

The political failure of the move led to considerable militaryembarrassments. Lee met with no defeat in arms, but his difficultiesincreased day by day. 

Believing that he would be operating among a friendly population he hadgiven less thought than he would otherwise have done to the problem ofsupplies, supposing that he could obtain all he needed from the country. That problem now became acute, for the Marylanders refused to accept theConfederate paper, which was all he had to tender in payment, and thefact that he professed to be their liberator actually made his positionmore difficult, for he could not without sacrificing a moral asset treatthem avowedly as an enemy people. He found himself compelled to sendJackson back to hold Harper's Ferry lest his communications might beendangered. Later he learnt that McClellan, who had been restored to thechief command after Pope's defeat, was moving to cut off his retreat. Hehastened back towards his base, and the two armies met by AntietamCreek. 

Antietam was not really a Union victory. It was followed by theretirement of Lee into Virginia, but it is certain that such retirementhad been intended by him from the beginning--was indeed his objective. The objective of McClellan was, or should have been, the destruction ofthe Confederate army, and this was not achieved. Yet, as marking the endof the Southern commander's undoubted failure in Maryland, it offeredenough of the appearance of a victory to justify in Lincoln's judgmentan executive act upon which he had determined some months earlier, butwhich he thought would have a better effect coming after a militarysuccess than in time of military weakness and peril. 

We have seen that both the President and Congress had been careful toinsist that the war was not undertaken on behalf of the Negroes. Yet theevents of the war had forced the problem of the Negro into prominence. Fugitive slaves from the rebel States took refuge with the Union armies, and the question of what should be done with them was forced on theGovernment. Lincoln knew that in this matter he must move with theutmost caution. When in the early days of the war, Frémont, who had beenappointed to military commander in Missouri, where he showed an utterunfitness, both intellectual and moral, for his place, proclaimed on hisown responsibility the emancipation of the slaves of "disloyal" owners, his headstrong vanity would probably have thrown both Missouri andKentucky into the arms of the Confederacy if the President had notpromptly disavowed him. Later he disavowed a similar proclamation byGeneral Hunter. When a deputation of ministers of religion from Chicagourged on him the desirability of immediate action against Slavery, hemet them with a reply the opening passage of which is one of the world'smasterpieces of irony. When Horace Greeley backed the same appeal withhis "Prayer of Twenty Millions, " Lincoln in a brief letter summarizedhis policy with his usual lucidity and force. 

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union withoutfreeing any slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeingsome and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do aboutSlavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it helps to savethe Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe itwould help to save the Union. "

At the time he wrote these words Lincoln had already decided on a policyof military emancipation in the rebel States. He doubtless wrote themwith an eye of the possible effects of that policy. He wished theNorthern Democrats and the Unionists of Border States to understand thathis action was based upon considerations of military expediency and inno way upon his personal disapproval of Slavery, of which at the sametime he made no recantation. On the military ground he had a strongcase. If, as the South maintained, the slave was simply a piece ofproperty, then the slave of a rebel was a piece of enemy property--andenemy property used or usable for purposes of war. To confiscate enemyproperty which may be of military use was a practice as old as waritself. The same principle which justified the North in destroying aSouthern cotton crop or tearing up the Southern railways justified theemancipation of Negroes within the bounds of the Southern Confederacy. In consonance with this principle Lincoln issued on September 22nd aproclamation declaring slaves free as from January 1, 1863, in suchdistricts as the President should on that date specify as being inrebellion against the Federal Government. Thus a chance was deliberatelyleft open for any State, or part of a State, to save its slaves bysubmission. At the same time Lincoln renewed the strenuous efforts whichhe had already made more than once to induce the Slave States whichremained in the Union to consent voluntarily to some scheme of gradualand compensated emancipation. 

One effect of the Emancipation Proclamation upon which Lincoln hadcalculated was the approval of the civilized world and especially ofEngland. This was at that moment of the more importance because thegrowing tendency of Englishmen to sympathize with the South, which waslargely the product of Jackson's daring and picturesque exploits, hadalready produced a series of incidents which nearly involved the twonations in war. The chief of these was the matter of the _Alabama_. Thiscruiser was built and fitted up in the dockyards of Liverpool by theBritish firm of Laird. She was intended, as the contractors of courseknew, for the service of the Confederacy, and, when completed, she tookto the sea under pretext of a trial trip, in spite of the protests ofthe representative of the American Republic. The order to detain herarrived too late, and she reached a Southern port, whence she issued tobecome a terror to the commerce of the United States. That the fittingup of such a vessel, if carried out with the complicity of theGovernment, was a gross breach of neutrality is unquestionable. Thatthe Government of Lord Russell connived at the escape of the _Alabama_, well knowing her purpose and character, though generally believed inAmerica at the time, is most unlikely. That the truth was known to theauthorities at Liverpool, where Southern sympathies were especiallystrong, is on the other hand almost certain, and these authorities mustbe held mainly responsible for misleading the Government and sopreventing compliance with the quite proper demands of Adams, theAmerican Ambassador. Finally, an International Court found that GreatBritain had not shown "reasonable care" in fulfilling her obligations, and in this verdict a fair-minded student of the facts will acquiesce. At a later date we paid to the United States a heavy sum as compensationfor the depredations of the _Alabama_. 

Meanwhile, neither Antietam nor the Proclamation appeared to bring anyluck to the Union armies in the field. McClellan showed his customaryover-caution in allowing Lee to escape unhammered; once more he wassuperseded, and once more his supersession only replaced inaction bydisaster. Hooker, attempting an invasion of Virginia, got caught in thetangled forest area called "the Wilderness. " Jackson rode round him, cutting his communications and so forcing him to fight, and Lee beat himsoundly at Chancellorsville. The battle was, however, won at a heavycost to the Confederacy, for towards the end of the day the mistake of apicket caused the death by a Southern bullet of the most brilliant, ifnot the greatest, of Southern captains. As to what that loss meant wehave the testimony of his chief and comrade-in-arms. "If I had hadJackson with me, " said Lee after Gettysburg, "I should have won acomplete victory. " This, however, belongs to a later period. Burnside, succeeding Hooker, met at Lee's hands with an even more crushing defeatat Fredericksburg. 

And now, as a result of these Southern successes, began to becomedangerous that factor on which the South had counted from the first--theincreasing weariness and division of the North. I have tried in thesepages to put fairly the case for the defeated side in the Civil War. Butone can have a reasonable understanding of and even sympathy with theSouth without having any sympathy to waste on those who in the Northwere called "Copperheads. " A Northerner might, indeed, honestly thinkthe Southern cause just and coercion of the seceding States immoral. Butif so he should have been opposed to such coercion from the first. TheConfederate case was in no way morally stronger in 1863 than it had beenin 1861. If, therefore, a man had been in favour of coercion in 1861--aspractically all Northerners were--his weakening two years later couldnot point to an unwillingness to do injustice, but only to the operationof fear or fatigue as deterrents from action believed to be just. Moreover, the ordinary "Copperhead" position was so plainly incontradiction of known facts that it must be pronounced either imbecileor dishonest. If these men had urged the acceptance of disunion as anaccomplished fact, a case might be made out for them. But they generallyprofessed the strongest desire to restore the Union, accompanied byvehement professions of the belief that this could in some fashion beachieved by "negotiation. " The folly of such a supposition was patent. The Confederacy was in arms for the one specific purpose of separatingitself from the Union, and so far its appeal to arms had been on thewhole successful. That it would give up the single object for which itwas fighting for any other reason than military defeat was, on the faceof it, quite insanely unlikely; and, as might have been expected, theexplicit declarations of Davis and all the other Confederate leaderswere at this time uniformly to the effect that peace could be had by therecognition of Southern independence and in no other fashion. The"Copperheads, " however, seem to have suffered from that amazing illusionwhich we have learnt in recent times to associate with the RussianBolsheviks and their admirers in other countries--the illusion that ifone side leaves off fighting the other side will immediately do thesame, though all the objects for which it ever wanted to fight areunachieved. They persisted in maintaining that in some mysteriousfashion the President's "ambition" was standing between the country anda peace based on reunion. The same folly was put forward by Greeley, perhaps the most consistently wrong-headed of American public men: inhim it was the more absurd since on the one issue, other than that ofunion or separation, which offered any possible material for acompromise, that of Slavery, he was professedly against all compromise, and blamed the President for attempting any. 

Little as can be said for the "Copperhead" temper, its spread in theNorthern States during the second year of the war was a serious menaceto the Union cause. It showed itself in the Congressional elections, when the Government's majority was saved only by the loyalty of theBorder Slave States, whose support Lincoln had been at pains toconciliate in the face of so much difficulty and misunderstanding. Itshowed itself in the increased activity of pacifist agitators, of whomthe notorious Vallandingham may be taken as a type. 

Lincoln met the danger in two fashions. He met the arguments and appealsof the "Copperheads" with unanswerable logic and with that lucidity ofthought and expression of which he was a master. One pronouncement ofhis is worth quoting, and one wishes that it could have been reproducedeverywhere at the time of the ridiculous Stockholm project. "Supposerefugees from the South and peace men of the North get together andframe and proclaim a compromise embracing a restoration of the Union: inwhat way can that compromise be used to keep Lee's army out ofPennsylvania? Meade's army can keep Lee's out of Pennsylvania, and, Ithink, can ultimately drive it out of existence. But no papercompromise, to which the controllers of Lee's army are not agreed, canat all affect that army. " Reasoning could not be more conclusive; butLincoln did not stop at reasoning. Now was to be shown how powerful aninstrument of authority the Jacksonian revolution had created in thepopular elective Presidency. Perhaps no single man ever exercised somuch direct personal power as did Abraham Lincoln during those fouryears of Civil War. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended by executivedecree, and those whose action was thought a hindrance to militarysuccess were arrested in shoals by the orders of Stanton, the newenergetic War Secretary, a Jacksonian Democrat whom Lincoln had put inthe place of an incompetent Republican, though he had served underBuchanan and supported Breckinridge. The constitutional justification ofthese acts was widely challenged, but the people in the main supportedthe Executive. 

Lincoln, like Jackson, understood the populace and knew just how toappeal to them. "Must I shoot a simple-minded boy for deserting, andspare the wily agitator whose words induce him to desert?" Vallandinghamhimself met a measure of justice characteristic of the President'shumour and almost recalling the jurisprudence of Sir W. S. Gilbert'sMikado. Originally condemned to detention in a fortress, his sentencewas commuted by Lincoln to banishment, and he was conducted by thePresident's orders across the army lines and dumped on the Confederacy!He did not stay there long. The Southerners had doubtless some reason tobe grateful to him; but they cannot possibly have liked him. With theirown Vallandinghams they had an even shorter way. 

The same sort of war-weariness was perhaps a contributory cause of aneven more serious episode--the Draft Riots of New York City. Here, however, a special and much more legitimate ground of protest wasinvolved. The Confederacy had long before imposed Conscription upon theyouth of the South. It was imperative that the North should do the same, and, though the constitutional power of the Federal Government to makesuch a call was questioned, its moral right to do so seems to meunquestionable, for if the common Government has not the right in thelast resort to call upon all citizens to defend its own existence, it isdifficult to see what rights it can possess. Unfortunately, Congressassociated with this just claim a provision for which there was plentyof historical precedent but no justification in that democratic theoryupon which the American Commonwealth was built. It provided that a manwhose name had been drawn could, if he chose, pay a substitute to servein his stead. This was obviously a privilege accorded to mere wealth, odious to the morals of the Republic and especially odious to the verydemocratic populace of New York. The drawing of the names was thereinterrupted by violence, and for some days the city was virtually in thehands of the insurgents. The popular anger was complicated by along-standing racial feud between the Irish and the Negroes, and a goodmany lynchings took place. At last order was restored by the police, whoused to restore it a violence as savage as that of the crowd they weresuppressing. 

We must now turn back to the military operations. Lee had once morebroken through, and was able to choose the point where a _sortie_ mightmost effectually be made. He resolved this time to strike directly atthe North itself, and crossing a strip of Maryland he invadedPennsylvania, his ultimate objective being probably the great bridgeover the Susquehanna at Harrisburg, the destruction of which wouldseriously hamper communication between North and West. At first he metwith no opposition, but a Federal army under Meade started in pursuit ofhim and caught him up at Gettysburg. In the battle which followed, as atValmy, each side had its back to its own territory. The invader, thoughinferior in numbers, was obliged by the conditions of the struggle totake the offensive. The main feature of the fighting was the charge andrepulse of Pickett's Brigade. Both sides stood appalling losses withmagnificent steadiness. The Union troops maintained their ground inspite of all that Southern valour could do to dislodge them. It isgenerally thought that if Meade had followed up his success by avigorous offensive Lee's army might have been destroyed. As things were, having failed in its purpose of breaking the ring that held theConfederacy, it got back into Virginia unbroken and almost unpunished. 

Gettysburg is generally considered as the turning-point of the war, though perhaps from a purely military point of view more significanceought to be attached to another success which almost exactlysynchronized with it. The same 4th of July whereon the North learnt ofLee's failure brought news of the capture of Vicksburg by Grant. Thismeant that the whole course of the Mississippi was now in Federal hands, and made possible an invasion of the Confederacy from the West such asultimately effected its overthrow. 

Lincoln, whose judgment in such matters was exceptionally keen for acivilian, had long had his eye on Grant. He had noted his successes andhis failures, and he had noted especially in him the quality which hecould not find in McClellan or in Meade--a boldness of plan, a readinessto take risks, and above all a disposition to press a success vigorouslyhome even at a heavy sacrifice. "I can't spare that man; he fights, " hehad said when some clamoured for Grant's recall after Shiloh. For thosewho warned him that Grant was given to heavy drinking he had an evenmore characteristic reply: "I wish I knew what whisky he drinks: I wouldsend a cask to some of the other generals. "

Meade's hesitation after Gettysburg and Grant's achievement at Vicksburgbetween them decided him. Grant was now appointed to supreme command ofall the armies of the Union. 

Ulysses S. Grant stands out in history as one of those men to whom auniform seems to be salvation. As a young man he had fought with creditin the Mexican war; later he had left the army, and seemingly gone tothe dogs. He took to drink. He lost all his employments. He became toall appearances an incorrigible waster, a rolling stone, a man whom hisold friends crossed the road to avoid because a meeting with him alwaysmeant an attempt to borrow money. 

Then came the war, and Grant grasped--as such broken men often do--atthe chance of a new start. Not without hesitation, he was entrusted witha subordinate command in the West, and almost at once he justified thosewho had been ready to give him a trial by his brilliant share in thecapture of Fort Donelson. From that moment he was a new man, repeatedlydisplaying not only the soldierly qualities of iron courage and athorough grasp of the practice of fighting, but moral qualities of ahigh order, a splendid tenacity in disaster and hope deferred, and invictory a noble magnanimity towards the conquered. One wishes that thestory could end there. But it must, unfortunately, be added that when atlast he laid aside his sword he seemed to lay aside all that was best inhim with it, while the weaknesses of character which were so conspicuousin Mr. Ulysses Grant, and which seemed so completely bled out of GeneralGrant, made many a startling and disastrous reappearance in PresidentGrant. 

Grant arrived at Washington and saw the President for the first time. The Western campaign he left in the hands of two of his ablestlieutenants--Sherman, perhaps in truth the greatest soldier thatappeared on the Northern side, and Thomas, a Virginian Unionist who hadleft his State at the call of his country. There was much work for themto do, for while the capture of Vicksburg and its consequences gave themthe Mississippi, the first attempt to invade from that side underRosecrans had suffered defeat in the bloody battle of the Chickamauga. Sherman and Thomas resolved to reverse this unfavourable decision andattacked at the same crucial point. An action lasting four days and fullof picturesque episodes gave them the victory which was thestarting-point of all that followed. To that action belongs the strangefight of Look Out Mountain fought "above the clouds" by men who couldnot see the wide terrain for the mastery of which they were contending, and the marvellous charge of the Westerners up Missionary Ridge, one ofthose cases where soldiers, raised above themselves and acting withoutorders, have achieved a feat which their commander had dismissed asimpossible. To the whole action is given the name of the Battle ofChattanooga, and its effect was to give Sherman the base he needed fromwhich to strike at the heart of the Confederacy. 

Grant in Virginia was less successful. An examination of his campaignwill leave the impression that, however superior he was to previousNorthern commanders in energy, as a strategist he was no match for Lee. The Southern general, with inferior forces, captured the initiative anddid what he chose with him, caught him in the Wilderness as he hadpreviously caught Hooker, and kept him there on ground which gave everyadvantage to the Confederate forces, who knew every inch of it, whereGrant's superiority in numbers could not be brought fully into play, andwhere his even greater superiority in artillery was completelyneutralized. At the end of a week's hard fighting, Grant had gained noadvantage, while the Northern losses were appalling--as great as thetotal original numbers of the enemy that inflicted them. AtSpottsylvania, where Grant attempted a flanking movement, the sametactics were pursued with the same success, while a final attempt of theNorthern general at a frontal assault ended in a costly defeat. 

In the darkest hour of this campaign Grant had told the Government atWashington that he would "fight it out on that line if it took all thesummer. " It was, however, on another line that the issue was beingfought out and decided against the Confederacy. From ChattanoogaSherman moved on Atlanta, the capital of Georgia. Joseph Johnstonedisputed every step of the advance, making it as costly as possible, butwisely refused to risk his numerically inferior army in a generalengagement. He fell back slowly, making a stand here and there, till theNorthern general stood before Atlanta. 

It was at this moment that the leaders of the Confederacy would haveacted wisely in proposing terms of peace. Their armies were still inbeing, and could even boast conspicuous and recent successes. If the warwent on it would probably be many months before the end came, while theNorth was bitterly weary of the slaughter and would not tolerate therefusal of reasonable settlement. Yet, if the war went on, the end couldno longer be in doubt. Had that golden moment been seized, the secedingStates might have re-entered the Union almost on their own terms. Certainly they could have avoided the abasement and humiliation whichwas to come upon them as the consequence of continuing their resistancetill surrender had to be unconditional. It might seem at first thatEmancipation Proclamation had introduced an additional obstacle toaccommodation. But this was largely neutralized by the fact that everyone, including Jefferson Davis himself, recognized that Slavery had beeneffectively destroyed by the war and could never be revived, even werethe South victorious. The acceptance by the Confederacy of a policysuggested by Lee, whereby Negroes were to be enlisted as soldiers andfreed on enlistment, clinched this finally. On the other hand, Lincolnlet it be clearly understood that if the Union could be restored byconsent he was prepared to advocate the compensation of Southern ownersfor the loss of their slaves. The blame for the failure to takeadvantage of this moment must rest mainly on Davis. It was he whorefused to listen to any terms save the recognition of Southernindependence; and this attitude doomed the tentative negotiationsentered into at Hampton Roads to failure. 

Meanwhile, in the North, Lincoln was chosen President for a second term. At one time his chances had looked gloomy enough. The Democratic Partyhad astutely chosen General McClellan as its candidate. His personalpopularity with the troops, and the suggestion that he was an honestsoldier ill-used by civilian politicians, might well gain him muchsupport in the armies, for whose voting special provision had been made, while among the civil population he might expect the support of all who, for one reason or another, were discontented with the Government. At thesame time the extreme Anti-Slavery wing of the Republican Party, alienated by the diplomacy of the President in dealing with the BorderStates, and by the moderation of his views concerning the Negro and hisfuture, put forward another displaced general, Frémont. But in the endcircumstances and the confidence which his statesmanship had createdcombined to give Lincoln something like a walk-over. The DemocraticParty got into the hands of the "Copperheads" at the very moment whenfacts were giving the lie to the "Copperhead" thesis. Its platformdescribed the course of the war as "four years of failure, " and itsissue as hopeless, while before the voting began even a layman could seethat the Confederacy was, from the military point of view, on its lastlegs. The War Democrats joined hands with the Republicans, and thealliance was sealed by the selection of Andrew Johnson, a JacksonianDemocrat from Tennessee, as candidate for the Vice-Presidency. TheRadical Republicans began to discover how strong a hold Lincoln hadgained on the public mind in the North, and to see that by pressingtheir candidate they would only expose the weakness of their faction. Frémont was withdrawn and McClellan easily defeated. A curious error hasbeen constantly repeated in print in this country to the effect thatLincoln was saved only by the votes of the army. There is no shadow offoundation for this statement. The proportion of his supporters amongthe soldiers was not much greater than among the civil population. Butin both it was overwhelming. 

Meanwhile Atlanta had fallen, and Davis had unwisely relieved Johnstoneof his command. It was now that Sherman determined on the bold schemewhich mainly secured the ultimate victory of the North. Cutting himselfloose from his base and abandoning all means of communication with theNorth, he advanced into the country of the enemy, living on it andlaying it waste as he passed. For a month his Government had no news ofhim. Ultimately he reached the sea at Savannah, and was able to tell hissupporters that he had made a desert in the rear of the main Confederatearmies. Thence he turned again, traversed South Carolina, and appeared, so to speak, on the flank of the main Confederate forces which wereholding Grant. 

The ethics of Sherman's famous March to the Sea have been much debated. He was certainly justified by the laws of war in destroying the militaryresources of the Confederacy, and it does not seem that more than thiswas anywhere done by his orders. There was a good deal of promiscuouslooting by his troops, and still more by camp followers and by theNegroes who, somewhat to his annoyance, attached themselves to hiscolumns. The march through South Carolina was the episode marked by theharshest conduct, for officers and men had not forgotten Sumter, andregarded the devastation of that State as a just measure of patrioticvengeance on the only begetter of the rebellion; but the burning ofColumbus seems to have been an accident, for which at least Shermanhimself was not responsible. It is fair to him to add that in the veryfew cases--less than half a dozen in all--where a charge of rape ormurder can be brought home, the offender was punished with death. 

As a military stroke the March to the Sea was decisive. One sees itsconsequences at once in the events of the Virginian campaign. Lee hadsuffered no military defeat; indeed, the balance of military success, sofar as concerned the army directly opposed to him, was in his favour. Sheridan's campaign in the Shenandoah Valley had delighted the North asmuch as Jackson's earlier exploits in the same region had delighted theSouth; but its direct military effect was not great. From the moment, however, of Sherman's successful completion of his march, the problem ofthe Southern general becomes wholly different. It is no longer whetherhe can defeat the enemy, but whether he can save his army. He determinedto abandon Richmond, and effect, if possible, a union with Johnstone, who was again watching and checking Sherman. 

Did space permit, it would be a noble task to chronicle the lastwonderful fight of the Lion of the South; how, with an exhausted andcontinually diminishing army, he still proved how much he was to befeared; how he turned on Sheridan and beat him, checked Grant and brokeaway again only to find his path barred by another Union army. 

At Appomattox Court House the end came. The lion was trapped and caughtat last. There was nothing for it but to make the best terms he couldfor his men. The two generals met. Both rose to the nobility of theoccasion. Lee had never been anything but great, and Grant was never sogreat again. The terms accorded to the vanquished were generous andhonourable to the utmost limit of the victor's authority. "This willhave the happiest effect on my people, " said Lee, in shaking hands withhis conqueror. They talked a little of old times at West Point, wherethey had studied together, and parted. Lee rode away to his men andaddressed them: "We have fought through this war together. I did my bestfor you. " With these few words, worth the whole two volumes of JeffersonDavis's rather tiresome apologetics, one of the purest, bravest, andmost chivalrous figures among those who have followed the nobleprofession of arms rides out of history. 

 CHAPTER X

 "THE BLACK TERROR"

The surrender of Lee and his army was not actually the end of the war. The army of General Johnstone and some smaller Confederate forces werestill in being; but their suppression seemed clearly only a matter oftime, and all men's eyes were already turned to the problem ofreconstruction, and on no man did the urgency of that problem press moreominously than on the President. 

Slavery was dead. This was already admitted in the South as well as inthe North. Had the Confederacy, by some miracle, achieved itsindependence during the last year of the war, it is extremely unlikelythat Slavery would have endured within its borders. This was thepublicly expressed opinion of Jefferson Davis even before the adoptionof Lee's policy of recruiting slaves and liberating them on enlistmenthad completed the work which the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincolnhad begun. Before the war was over, Missouri, where the Slavery problemwas a comparatively small affair, and Maryland, which had always had agood record for humanity and justice in the treatment of its slavepopulation, had declared themselves Free States. The new Governmentsorganized under Lincoln's superintendence in the conquered parts of theConfederacy had followed suit. It was a comparatively easy matter tocarry the celebrated Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution declaringSlavery illegal throughout the Union. 

But, as no one knew better than the President, the abolition of Slaverywas a very different thing from the solution of the Negro problem. Sixyears before his election he had used of the problem of Slavery in theSouth these remarkable words: "I surely will not blame them (theSoutherners) for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. Ifall earthly power was given I should not know what to do as to theexisting institution. " The words now came back upon him with an awfulweight which he fully appreciated. All earthly power was given--directpersonal power to a degree perhaps unparalleled in history--and he hadto find out what to do. 

His own belief appears always to have been that the only permanentsolution of the problem was Jefferson's. He did not believe that blackand white races would permanently live side by side on a footing ofequality, and he loathed with all the loathing of a Kentuckian thethought of racial amalgamation. In his proposal to the Border States hehad suggested repatriation in Africa, and he now began to develop asimilar project on a larger scale. 

But the urgent problem of the reconstruction of the Union could not waitfor the completion of so immense a task. The seceding States must be gotinto their proper relation with the Federal Government as quickly aspossible, and Lincoln had clear ideas as to how this should be done. Thereconstructed Government of Louisiana which he organized was a workingmodel of what he proposed to do throughout the South. All citizens ofthe State who were prepared to take the oath of allegiance to theFederal Government were to be invited to elect a convention and frame aconstitution. They were required to annul the ordinances of Secession, to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment, and to repudiate the ConfederateDebt. The Executive would then recognize the State as already restoredto its proper place within the Union, with the full rights of internalself-government which the Constitution guaranteed. The freedmen were ofcourse not citizens, and could, as such, take no part in theseproceedings; but Lincoln recommended, without attempting to dictate, that the franchise should be extended to "the very intelligent and thosewho have fought for us during the war. "

Such was Lincoln's policy of reconstruction. He was anxious to get asmuch as possible of that policy in working order before Congress shouldmeet. His foresight was justified, for as soon as Congress met thepolicy was challenged by the Radical wing of the Republican Party, whose spokesman was Senator Sumner of Massachusetts. 

Charles Sumner has already been mentioned in these pages. The time hascome when something like a portrait of him must be attempted. He was ofa type which exists in all countries, but for which America has foundthe exact and irreplaceable name. He was a "high-brow. " The phrasehardly needs explanation; it corresponds somewhat to what the Frenchmean by _intellectuel_, but with an additional touch of moralpriggishness which exactly suits Sumner. It does not, of course, implythat a man can think. Sumner was conspicuous even among politicians forhis ineptitude in this respect. But it implies a pose of superiorityboth as regards culture and as regards what a man of that kind calls"idealism" which makes such an one peculiarly offensive to hisfellow-men. "The Senator so conducts himself, " said Fessenden, aRepublican, and to a great extent an ally, "that he has no friends. " Hehad a peculiar command of the language of insult and vituperation thatwas all the more infuriating because obviously the product not of suddentemper, but of careful and scholarly preparation. In all mattersrequiring practical action he was handicapped by an incapacity forunderstanding men; in matters requiring mental lucidity by an incapacityfor following a line of consecutive thought. 

The thesis of which Sumner appeared as the champion was about as sillyas ever a thesis could be. It was that the United States were bound bythe doctrine set out in the Declaration of Independence to extend theFranchise indiscriminately to the Negroes. 

Had Sumner had any sense it might have occurred to him that the authorof the Declaration of Independence might be presumed to have someknowledge of its meaning and content. Did Thomas Jefferson think thathis doctrines involved Negro Suffrage? So far from desiring that Negroesshould vote with white men, he did not believe that they could even livein the same free community. Yet since Sumner's absurd fallacy has acertain historical importance through the influence it exerted onNorthern opinion, it may be well to point out where it lay. 

The Declaration of Independence lays down three general principlesfundamental to Democracy. One is that all men are equal in respect oftheir natural rights. The second is that the safeguarding of men'snatural rights is the object of government. The third that the basis ofgovernment is contractual--its "just powers" being derived from theconsent of the governed to an implied contract. 

The application of the first of these principles to the Negro is plainenough. Whatever else he was, the Negro was a man, and, as such, had anequal title with other men to life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness. But neither Jefferson nor any other sane thinker everincluded the electoral suffrage among the _natural_ rights of men. Voting is part of the machinery of government in particular States. Itis, in such communities, an acquired right depending according to thephilosophy of the Declaration of Independence on an implied contract. 

Now if such a contract did really underlie American, as all humansociety, nothing can be more certain than that the Negro had neitherpart nor lot in it. When Douglas pretended that the black race was notincluded in the expression "all men" he was talking sophistry, but whenhe said that the American Republic had been made "by white men for whitemen" he was stating, as Lincoln readily acknowledged, an indisputablehistorical fact. The Negro was a man and had the natural rights of aman; but he could have no claim to the special privileges of an Americancitizen because he was not and never had been an American citizen. Hehad not come to America as a citizen; no one would ever have dreamed ofbringing him or even admitting him if it had been supposed that he wasto be a citizen. He was brought and admitted as a slave. The fact thatthe servile relationship was condemned by the democratic creed could notmake the actual relationship of the two races something wholly otherthan what it plainly was. A parallel might be found in the case of a manwho, having entered into an intrigue with a woman, wholly animal andmercenary in its character, comes under the influence of a philosophywhich condemns such a connection as sinful. He is bound to put an end tothe connection. He is bound to act justly and humanely towards thewoman. But no sane moralist would maintain that he was bound to marrythe woman--that is, to treat the illicit relationship as if it were awholly different lawful relationship such as it was never intended to beand never could have been. 

Such was the plain sense and logic of the situation. To drive such senseinto Sumner's lofty but wooden head would have been an impossibleenterprise, but the mass of Northerners could almost certainly have beenpersuaded to a rational policy if a sudden and tragic catastrophe hadnot altered at a critical moment the whole complexion of public affairs. 

Lincoln made his last public speech on April 11, 1865, mainly in defenceof his Reconstruction policy as exemplified in the test case ofLouisiana. On the following Good Friday he summoned his last Cabinet, atwhich his ideas on the subject were still further developed. ThatCabinet meeting has an additional interest as presenting us with one ofthe best authenticated of those curious happenings which we mayattribute to coincidence or to something deeper, according to ourpredilections. It is authenticated by the amplest testimony that Lincolntold his Cabinet that he expected that that day would bring someimportant piece of public news--he thought it might be the surrender ofJohnstone and the last of the Confederate armies--and that he gave as areason the fact that he had had a certain dream, which had come to himon the night before Gettysburg and on the eve of almost every otherdecisive event in the history of the war. Certain it is that Johnstonedid not surrender that day, but before midnight an event of far graverand more fatal purport had changed the destiny of the nation. AbrahamLincoln was dead. 

A conspiracy against his life and that of the Northern leaders had beenformed by a group of exasperated and fanatical Southerners who met atthe house of a Mrs. Suratt in the neighbourhood of Washington. One ofthe conspirators was to kill Seward, who was confined to his bed byillness, but on whom an unsuccessful attempt was made. Another, it isbelieved, was instructed to remove Grant, but the general unexpectedlyleft Washington, and no direct threat was offered to him. The task ofmaking away with the President was assigned to John Wilkes Booth, adissolute and crack-brained actor. Lincoln and his wife were presentthat night at a _gala_ performance of a popular English comedy called"Our American Cousin. " Booth obtained access to the Presidential box andshot his victim behind the ear, causing instant loss of consciousness, which was followed within a few hours by death. The assassin leapt fromthe box on to the stage shouting: "_Sic semper Tyrannis!_" and, thoughhe broke his leg in the process, succeeded, presumably by the aid of aconfederate among the theatre officials, in getting away. He was laterhunted down, took refuge in a bar, which was set on fire, and was shotin attempting to escape. 

The murder of Lincoln was the work of a handful of crazy fools. Alreadythe South, in spite of its natural prejudices, was beginning tounderstand that he was its best friend. Yet on the South the retributionwas to fall. It is curious to recall the words which Lincoln himself hadused in repudiating on behalf of the Republican Party the folly of oldJohn Brown, words which are curiously apposite to his own fate and itsconsequences. 

"That affair, in its philosophy, " he had said, "corresponds to the manyattempts related in history at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancieshimself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures theattempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini'sattempt on Louis Napoleon and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferrywere, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to castblame on Old England in the one case and on New England in the otherdoes not disprove the sameness of the two things. " It may be added thatthe "philosophy" of Booth was also "precisely the same" as that ofOrsini and Brown, and that the "eagerness to cast blame" on theconquered South was equally unjustifiable and equally inevitable. 

The anger of the North was terrible, and was intensified by therecollection of the late President's pleas for lenity and aforgetfulness of the past. "This is their reply to magnanimity!" was thealmost universal cry. The wild idea that the responsible heads of theConfederacy were privy to the deed found a wide credence which wouldhave been impossible in cooler blood. The justifiable but unrestrainedindignation which Booth's crime provoked must be counted as the first ofthe factors which made possible the tragic blunders of theReconstruction. 

Another factor was the personality of the new President. Andrew Johnsonoccupied a position in some ways analogous to that of Tyler a generationearlier. He had been chosen Vice-President as a concession to the WarDemocrats and to the Unionists of the Border States whose support hadbeen thought necessary to defeat McClellan. With the NorthernRepublicans who now composed the great majority of Congress he had nopolitical affinity whatever. Yet at the beginning of his term of officehe was more popular with the Radicals than Lincoln had ever been. Heseemed to share to the full the violence of the popular mood. Hisdeclaration that as murder was a crime, so treason was a crime, and"must be made odious, " was welcomed with enthusiasm by the very men whoafterwards impeached him. Nor, when we blame these men for traffickingwith perjurers and digging up tainted and worthless evidence for thepurpose of sustaining against him the preposterous charge of complicityin the murder of his predecessor, must we forget that he himself, without any evidence at all, had under his own hand and seal brought thesame monstrous accusation against Jefferson Davis. Davis, whenapprehended, met the affront with a cutting reply. "There is one man atleast who knows this accusation to be false--the man who makes it. Whatever else Andrew Johnson knows, he knows that I preferred Mr. Lincoln to him. "

It was true. Between Johnson and the chiefs of the Confederacy there wasa bitterness greater than could be found in the heart of any Northerner. To him they were the seducers who had caught his beloved South in a netof disloyalty and disaster. To them he was a traitor who had soldhimself to the Yankee oppressor. A social quarrel intensified thepolitical one. Johnson, who had been a tailor by trade, was the onepolitical representative of the "poor whites" of the South. He knew thatthe great slave-owning squires despised him, and he hated them inreturn. It was only when the issues cut deeper that it became apparentthat, while he would gladly have hanged Jeff Davis and all his Cabineton a sufficient number of sour apple trees (and perhaps he was the oneman in the United States who really wanted to do so), he was none theless a Southerner to the backbone; it was only when the Negro questionwas raised that the Northern men began to realize, what any Southerneror man acquainted with the South could have told them, that the attitudeof the "poor white" towards the Negro was a thousand times more hostilethan that of the slave-owner. 

Unfortunately, by the same token, the new President had not, as Lincolnwould have had, the ear of the North. 

Had Lincoln lived he would have approached the task of persuading theNorth to support his policy with many advantages which his successornecessarily lacked. He would have had the full prestige of the undoubtedElect of the People--so important to an American President, especiallyin a conflict with Congress. He would have had the added prestige of theruler under whose administration the Rebellion had been crushed and theUnion successfully restored. But he would also have had an instinctiveunderstanding of the temper of the Northern masses and a thoroughknowledge of the gradations of opinion and temper among the Northernpoliticians. 

Johnson had none of these qualifications, while his faults of temperwere a serious hindrance to the success of his policy. He was perhapsthe purest lover of his country among all the survivors of Lincoln: thefact that told so heavily against his success, that he had no party, that he broke with one political connection in opposing Secession andwith another in opposing Congressional Reconstruction, is itself a signof the integrity and consistency of his patriotism. Also he was on theright side. History, seeing how cruelly he was maligned and howabominably he was treated, owes him these acknowledgments. But he wasnot a prudent or a tactful man. Too much importance need not be attachedto the charge of intemperate drinking, which is probably true but notparticularly serious. If Johnson had got drunk every night of his lifehe would only have done what some of the greatest and most successfulstatesmen in history had done before him. But there was an intemperanceof character about the man which was more disastrous in its consequencesthan a few superfluous whiskies could have been. He was easily drawninto acrimonious personal disputes, and when under their influence wouldpush a quarrel to all lengths with men with whom it was most importantin the public interest that he should work harmoniously. 

For the extremists, of whom Sumner was a type, were still a minorityeven among the Republican politicians; nor was Northern opinion, evenafter the murder of Lincoln, yet prepared to support their policy. Theredid, however, exist in the minds of quite fair-minded Northerners, inand out of Congress, certain not entirely unreasonable doubts, which itshould have been the President's task--as it would certainly have beenLincoln's--to remove by reason and persuasion. He seems to have failedto see that he had to do this; and certainly he altogether failed to doit. 

The fears of such men were twofold. They feared that the "rebel" States, if restored immediately to freedom of action and to the full enjoymentof their old privileges, would use these advantages for the purpose ofpreparing a new secession at some more favourable opportunity. And theyfeared that the emancipated Negro would not be safe under a Governmentwhich his old masters controlled. 

It may safely be said that both fears were groundless, though they wereboth fears which a reasonable man quite intelligibly entertains. Naturally, the South was sore; no community likes having to admitdefeat. Also, no doubt, the majority of Southerners would have refusedto admit that they were in the wrong in the contest which was nowclosed; indeed, it was by pressing this peculiarly tactless questionthat Sumner and his friends procured most of their evidence of thepersistence of "disloyalty" in the South. On the other hand, two factsalready enforced in these pages have to be remembered. The first is thatthe Confederacy was not in the full sense a nation. Its defenders felttheir defeat as men feel the downfall of a political cause to which theyare attached, not quite as men feel the conquest of their country byforeigners. The second is that from the first there had been many who, while admitting the _right_ of secession--and therefore, byimplication, the justice of the Southern cause--had yet doubted itsexpediency. It is surely not unnatural to suppose that the disastrousissue of the experiment had brought a great many round to this point ofview. No doubt there was still a residue--perhaps a large residue--ofquite impenitent "rebels" who were prepared to renew the battle if theysaw a good chance, but the conditions under which the new SouthernGovernments had come into existence offered sufficient security againstsuch men controlling them. Irreconcilables of that type would not havetaken the oath of allegiance, would not have repealed the Ordinances ofSecession or repudiated the Confederate Debt, and, if they had no greatobjection to abolishing Slavery, would probably have made it a point ofhonour not to do it at Northern dictation. What those who were nowasking for re-admission to their ancient rights in the Union had alreadydone or were prepared to do was sufficient evidence that moderation andan accessible temper were predominant in their counsels. 

The other fear was even more groundless. There might in the South be acertain bitterness against the Northerner; there was none at all againstthe Negro. Why should there be? During the late troubles the Negro haddeserved very well of the South. At a time when practically every activemale of the white population was in the fighting line, when a slaveinsurrection might have brought ruin and disaster on every Southernhome, not a slave had risen. The great majority of the race had gone onworking faithfully, though the ordinary means of coercion were almostnecessarily in abeyance. Even when the Northern armies came among them, proclaiming their emancipation, many of them continued to perform theirordinary duties and to protect the property and secrets of theirmasters. Years afterwards the late Dr. Booker Washington could boastthat there was no known case of one of his race betraying a trust. Allthis was publicly acknowledged by leading Southerners and one-timesupporters of Slavery like Alexander Stephens, who pressed the claims ofthe Negro to fair and even generous treatment at the hands of theSouthern whites. It is certain that these in the main meant well of theblack race. It is equally certain that, difficult as the problem was, they were more capable of dealing with it than were alien theorizersfrom the North, who had hardly seen a Negro save, perhaps, as a waiterat an hotel. 

It is a notable fact that the soldiers who conquered the South were atthis time practically unanimous in support of a policy of reconciliationand confidence. Sherman, to whom Johnstone surrendered a few days afterLincoln's death, wished to offer terms for the surrender of all theSouthern forces which would have guaranteed to the seceding States thefull restoration of internal self-government. Grant sent to thePresident a reassuring report as to the temper of the South which Sumnercompared to the "whitewashing message of Franklin Pierce" in regard toKansas. 

Yet it would be absurd to deny that the cleavage between North andSouth, inevitable after a prolonged Civil War, required time to heal. One event might indeed have ended it almost at once, and that eventalmost occurred. A foreign menace threatening something valued by bothsections would have done more than a dozen Acts of Congress orAmendments to the Constitution. There were many to whom this had alwaysappeared the most hopeful remedy for the sectionable trouble. Among themwas Seward, who, having been Lincoln's Secretary of State, now held thesame post under Johnson. While secession was still little more than athreat he had proposed to Lincoln the deliberate fomentation of adispute with some foreign power--he did not appear to mind which. It isthought by some that, after the war, he took up and pressed the_Alabama_ claims with the same notion. That quarrel, however, wouldhardly have met the case. The ex-Confederates could not be expected tothrow themselves with enthusiasm into a war with England to punish herfor providing them with a navy. It was otherwise with the trouble whichhad been brewing in Mexico. 

Napoleon III. Had taken advantage of the Civil War to violate in a veryspecific fashion the essential principle of the Monroe Doctrine. He hadinterfered in one of the innumerable Mexican revolutions and takenadvantage of it to place on the throne an emperor of his own choice, Maximilian, a cadet of the Hapsburg family, and to support his nomineeby French bayonets. Here was a challenge which the South was even moreinterested in taking up than the North, and, if it had been persistedin, it is quite thinkable that an army under the joint leadership ofGrant and Lee and made up of those who had learnt to respect each otheron a hundred fields from Bull Run to Spottsylvania might have erased allbitter memories by a common campaign on behalf of the liberties of thecontinent. But Louis Napoleon was no fool; and in this matter he actedperhaps with more regard to prudence than to honour. He withdrew theFrench troops, leaving Maximilian to his fate, which he promptly met atthe hands of his own subjects. 

The sectional quarrel remained unappeased, and the quarrel between thePresident and Congress began. Congress was not yet Radical, but it wasalready decidedly, though still respectfully, opposed to Johnson'spolicy. While only a few of its members had yet made up their minds asto what ought to be done about Reconstruction, the great majority had astrong professional bias which made them feel that the doing or notdoing of it should be in their hands and not in those of the Executive. It was by taking advantage of this prevailing sentiment that theRadicals, though still a minority, contrived to get the leadership moreand more into their own hands. 

Of the Radicals Sumner was the spokesman most conspicuous in the publiceye. But not from him came either the driving force or the directionwhich ultimately gave them the control of national policy. 

Left to himself, Sumner could never have imposed the iron oppressionfrom which it took the South a life-and-death wrestle of ten years toshake itself free. At the worst he would have been capable of imposing afew paper pedantries, such as his foolish Civil Rights Bill, which wouldhave been torn up before their ink was dry. The will and intelligencewhich dictated the Reconstruction belonged to a very different man, aman entitled to a place not with puzzle-headed pedants or coat-turningprofessionals but with the great tyrants of history. 

Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania was in almost every respect theopposite of his ally, Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Sumner, empty ofmost things, was especially empty of humour. Stevens had abundance ofhumour of a somewhat fierce but very real kind. Some of his causticstrokes are as good as anything recorded of Talleyrand: notably hisreply to an apologist of Johnson who urged in the President's defencethat he was "a selfmade man. " "I am delighted to hear it, " said Stevensgrimly; "it relieves the Creator of a terrible responsibility. " Withthis rather savage wit went courage which could face the most enormousof tests; like Rabelais, like Danton, he could jest with death whendeath was touching him on the shoulder. In public life he was not somuch careless of what he considered conventions as defiantly happy inchallenging them. It gave him keen delight to outrage at once the racialsentiments of the South and the Puritanism of the North by compellingthe politicians whom he dominated and despised to pay public court tohis mulatto mistress. 

The inspiring motive of this man was hatred of the South. It seemsprobable that this sentiment had its origin in a genuine and honourabledetestation of Slavery. 

As a practising lawyer in Pennsylvania he had at an earlier period takena prominent part in defending fugitive slaves. But by the time that hestood forward as the chief opponent of the Presidential policy ofconciliation, Slavery had ceased to exist; yet his passion against theformer slave-owners seemed rather to increase than to diminish. I thinkit certain, though I cannot produce here all the evidence that appearsto me to support such a conclusion, that it was the negative rather thanthe positive aspect of his policy that attracted him most. Sumner mightdream of the wondrous future in store for the Negro race--of whosequalities and needs he knew literally nothing--under Bostonian tutelage. But I am sure that for Stevens the vision dearest to his heart wasrather that of the proud Southern aristocracy compelled to plead formercy on its knees at the tribunal of its hereditary bondsmen. 

Stevens was a great party leader. Not such a leader as Jefferson orJackson had been: a man who sums up and expresses the will of masses ofmen. Nor yet such a leader as later times have accustomed us to; a manwho by bribery or intrigue induces his fellow-professionals to supporthim. He was one of those who rule by personal dominance. His courage hasalready been remarked; and he knew how much fearlessness can achieve ina profession where most men are peculiarly cowardly. It was he whoforced the issue between the President and Congress and obtained at astroke a sort of captaincy in the struggle by moving in the House ofRepresentatives that the consideration of Reconstruction by Congresswould precede any consideration of the President's message asking forthe admission of the representatives of the reorganized States. 

By a combination of forceful bullying and skilful strategy Stevenscompelled the House of Representatives to accept his leadership in thismatter, but the action of Congress on other questions during these earlymonths of the contest shows how far it still was from accepting hispolicy. The plan of Reconstruction which the majority now favoured is tobe found outlined in the Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment which, atabout this time, it recommended for adoption by the States. 

The provisions of this amendment were threefold. One, for which aprecedent had been afforded by the President's own action, declared thatthe public debt incurred by the Federal Government should never berepudiated, and also that no State should pay or accept responsibilityfor any debt incurred for the purpose of waging war against theFederation. Another, probably unwise from the point of view offar-sighted statesmanship but more or less in line with the President'spolicy, provided for the exclusion from office of all who, having swornallegiance to the Constitution of the United States, had given aid to arebellion against its Government. The third, which was really thecrucial one, provided a settlement of the franchise question whichcannot be regarded as extreme or unreasonable. It will be rememberedthat the original Constitutional Compromise had provided for theinclusion, in calculating the representation of a State, of all "freepersons" and of three-fifths of the "other persons"--that is, of theslaves. By freeing the slaves the representation to which the South wasentitled was automatically increased by the odd two-fifths of theirnumber, and this seemed to Northerners unreasonable, unless the freedmenwere at the same time enfranchised. Congress decided to recommend thatthe representation of the South should be greater or less according tothe extent to which the Negro population were admitted to the franchiseor excluded from it. This clause was re-cast more than once in order tosatisfy a fantastic scruple of Sumner's concerning the indecency ofmentioning the fact that some people were black and others white, ascruple which he continued to enforce with his customary appeals to theDeclaration of Independence, until even his ally Stevens lost allpatience with him. But in itself it was not, perhaps, a bad solution ofthe difficulty. Had it been allowed to stand and work without furtherinterference it is quite likely that many Southern States would havebeen induced by the prospect of larger representation to admit in courseof time such Negroes as seemed capable of understanding the meaning ofcitizenship in the European sense. Such, at any rate, was the opinion ofGeneral Lee, as expressed in his evidence before the ReconstructionCommittee. 

The South was hostile to the proposed settlement mainly on account ofthe second provision. It resented the proposed exclusion of its leaders. The sentiment was an honourable and chivalrous one, and was wellexpressed by Georgia in her protest against the detention of JeffersonDavis: "If he is guilty so are we. " But the rejection of the Amendmentby the Southern States had a bad effect in the North. It may beconvenient here to remark that Davis was never tried. He was brought upand admitted to bail (which the incalculable Greeley found for him), andthe case against him was not further pressed. In comparison with almostevery other Government that has crushed an insurrection, the Governmentof the United States deserves high credit for its magnanimity in dealingwith the leaders of the Secession. Yet the course actually pursued, morein ignorance than in malice so far as the majority were concerned, probably caused more suffering and bitterness among the vanquished thana hundred executions. 

For the Radicals were more and more gaining control of Congress, nowopenly at war with the Executive. The President had been using his vetofreely, and, as many even of his own supporters thought, imprudently. The Republicans were eager to obtain the two-thirds majority in bothHouses necessary to carry measures over his veto, and to get it even themeticulous Sumner was ready to stoop to some pretty discreditablemanoeuvres. The President had taken the field against Congress andmade some rather violent stump speeches, which were generally thoughtunworthy of the dignity of the Chief Magistracy. Meanwhile alleged"Southern outrages" against Negroes were vigorously exploited by theRadicals, whose propaganda was helped by a racial riot in New Orleans, the responsibility for which it is not easy to determine, but thevictims of which were mostly persons of colour. The net result was thatthe new Congress, elected in 1866, not only gave the necessarytwo-thirds majority, but was more Radical in its complexion and morestrictly controlled by the Republican machine than the old had been. 

The effect was soon apparent. A Reconstruction Bill was passed by theHouse and sent up to the Senate. It provided for the military governmentof the conquered States until they should be reorganized, but was silentin regard to the conditions of their re-admission. The Republican caucusmet to consider amendments, and Sumner moved that in the newConstitutions there should be no exclusion from voting on account ofcolour. This was carried against the strong protest of John Sherman, thebrother of the general and a distinguished Republican Senator. But whenthe Senate met, even he submitted to the decision of the caucus, and theAmendment Bill was carried by the normal Republican majority. Johnsonvetoed it, and it was carried by both Houses over his veto. The Radicalshad now achieved their main object. Congress was committed toindiscriminate Negro Suffrage, and the President against it; thecontroversy was narrowed down to that issue. From that moment they hadthe game in their hands. 

The impeachment of Johnson may be regarded as an interlude. The mainmover in the matter was Stevens. The main instrument Ben Butler--a mandisgraced alike in war and peace, the vilest figure in the politics ofthat time. It was he who, when in command at New Orleans (after bravermen had captured it), issued the infamous order which virtuallythreatened Southern women who showed disrespect for the Federal uniformwith rape--an order which, to the honour of the Northern soldiers, wasnever carried out. He was recalled from his command, but his greatpolitical "influence" saved him from the public disgrace which shouldhave been his portion. Perhaps no man, however high his character, canmix long in the business of politics and keep his hands quite clean. Theleniency with which Butler was treated on this occasion must alwaysremain an almost solitary stain upon the memory of Abraham Lincoln. Onthe memory of Benjamin Butler stains hardly show. At a later stage ofthe war Butler showed such abject cowardice that Grant begged that ifhis political importance required that he should have some militarycommand he should be placed somewhere where there was no fighting. Thistime Butler saved himself by blackmailing his commanding officer. At theconclusion of peace the man went back to politics, a trade for which histemperament was better fitted; and it was he who was chosen as the chiefimpugner of the conduct and honour of Andrew Johnson!

The immediate cause of the Impeachment was the dismissal of Stanton, which Congress considered, wrongly as it would appear, a violation of anAct which, after the quarrel became an open one, they had framed for theexpress purpose of limiting his prerogative in this direction. In hisquarrel with Stanton the President seems to have had a good case, but hewas probably unwise to pursue it, and certainly unwise to allow it toinvolve him in a public quarrel with Grant, the one man whose prestigein the North might have saved the President's policy. The quarrel threwGrant, who was already ambitious of the Presidency, into the hands ofthe Republicans, and from that moment he ceased to count as a factormaking for peace and conciliation. 

Johnson was acquitted, two or three honest Republican Senators declaringin his favour, and so depriving the prosecution of the two-thirdsmajority. Each Senator gave a separate opinion in writing. Thesedocuments are of great historical interest; Sumner's especially--whichis of inordinate length and intensely characteristic--should be studiedby anyone who thinks that in these pages I have given an unfair idea ofhis character. 

In the meantime far more important work was being done in theestablishment of Negro rule in the South. State after State was"reconstructed" under the terms of the Act which had been passed overthe President's veto. In every case as many white men as possible weredisfranchised on one pretext or another as "disloyal. " In every case thewhole Negro population was enfranchised. Throughout practically thewhole area of what had been the Confederate States the position of theraces was reversed. 

So far, in discussing the Slavery Question and all the issues whicharose out of it, I have left one factor out of account--the attitude ofthe slaves themselves. I have done so deliberately because up to thepoint which we have now reached that attitude had no effect on history. The slaves had no share in the Abolition movement or in the formation ofthe Republican Party. Even from John Brown's Raid they held aloof. ThePresident's proclamation which freed them, the Acts of Congress whichnow gave them supreme power throughout the South, were not of theirmaking or inspiration. In politics the negro was still an unknownfactor. 

There can be little doubt that under Slavery the relations of the tworaces were for the most part kindly and free from rancour, that themaster was generally humane and the slave faithful. Had it not been so, indeed, the effect of the transfer of power to the freedmen must havebeen much more horrible than it actually was. On the other hand, it iscertain that when some Southern apologists said that the slaves did notwant their freedom they were wrong. Dr. Booker Washington, himself aslave till his sixth or seventh year, has given us a picture of thevague but very real longing which was at the back of their minds whichbears the stamp of truth. It is confirmed by their strange andpicturesque hymnology, in which the passionate desire to be "free, "though generally apparently invoked in connection with a future life, isnone the less indicative of their temper, and in their preoccupationwith those parts of the Old Testament--the history of the Exodus, forinstance--which appeared applicable to their own condition. Yet it isclear that they had but the vaguest idea of what "freedom" implied. Ofwhat "citizenship" implied they had, of course, no idea at all. 

It is very far from my purpose to write contemptuously of the Negroes. There is something very beautiful about a love of freedom whollyindependent of experience and deriving solely from the just instinct ofthe human soul as to what is its due. And if, as some Southerners said, the Negro understood by freedom mainly that he need not work, there wasa truth behind his idea, for the right to be idle if and when you choosewithout reason given or permission sought is really what makes theessential difference between freedom and slavery. But it is quiteanother thing when we come to a complex national and historical productlike American citizenship. Of all that great European past, without thememory of which the word "Republic" has no meaning, the Negro knewnothing: with it he had no link. A barbaric version of the more barbaricparts of the Bible supplied him with his only record of human society. 

Yet Negro Suffrage, though a monstrous anomaly, might have donecomparatively little practical mischief if the Negro and his whiteneighbour had been left alone to find their respective levels. The Negromight have found a certain picturesque novelty in the amusement ofvoting; the white American might have continued to control the practicaloperation of Government. But it was no part of the policy of those nowin power at Washington to leave either black or white alone. "Loyal"Governments were to be formed in the South; and to this end politicaladventurers from the North--"carpet-baggers, " as they were called--wentdown into the conquered South to organize the Negro vote. A certainnumber of disreputable Southerners, known as "scallywags, " eagerly tooka hand in the game for the sake of the spoils. So of course did thesmarter and more ambitious of the freedmen. And under the control ofthis ill-omened trinity of Carpet-Bagger, Scallywag, and Negroadventurer grew up a series of Governments the like of which the sun hashardly looked upon before or since. 

The Negro is hardly to be blamed for his share in the ghastly business. The whole machinery of politics was new to him, new and delightful as atoy, new and even more delightful as a means of personal enrichment. That it had or was intended to have any other purpose probably hardlycrossed his mind. His point of view--a very natural one, after all--waswell expressed by the aged freedman who was found chuckling over a pileof dollar bills, the reward of some corrupt vote, and, when questioned, observed: "Wal, it's de fifth time I's been bo't and sold, but, 'fo deLord, it's de fust I eber got de money!" Under administrations conductedin this spirit the whole South was given up to plunder. The looting wenton persistently and on a scale almost unthinkable. The public debtsreached amazing figures, while Negro legislators voted each other wadsof public money as a kind of parlour game, amid peals of hearty Africanlaughter. 

Meanwhile the Governments presided over by Negroes, or white courtiersof the Negro and defended by the bayonets of an armed black militia, gave no protection to the persons or property of the whites. 

Daily insults were offered to what was now the subject race. The streetsof the proud city of Charleston, where ten years before on that fatalNovember morning the Palmetto flag had been raised as the signal ofSecession, were paraded by mobs of dusky freedmen singing: "De bottomrail's on top now, and we's g'wine to keep it dar!" It says much for theessential kindliness of the African race that in the lawless conditionof affairs there were no massacres and deliberate cruelties were rare. On the other hand, the animal nature of the Negro was strong, andoutrages on white women became appallingly frequent and were perpetratedwith complete impunity. Every white family had to live in something likea constant state of siege. 

It was not to be expected that ordinary men of European origin wouldlong bear such government. And those on whom it was imposed were noordinary men. They were men whose manhood had been tried by four awfulyears of the supreme test, men such as had charged with Pickett up thebloody ridge at Gettysburg, and disputed with the soldiers of Grantevery inch of tangled quagmire in the Wilderness. They found a remedy. 

Suddenly, as at a word, there appeared in every part of the downtroddencountry bands of mysterious horsemen. They rode by night, wearing longwhite garments with hoods that hid their faces, and to theterror-stricken Negroes who encountered them they declaredthemselves--not without symbolic truth--the ghosts of the great armiesthat had died in defence of the Confederacy. But superstitious terrorswere not the only ones that they employed. 

The mighty secret society called the Ku-Klux-Klan was justified by theonly thing that can justify secret societies--gross tyranny and thedenial of plain human rights. The method they employed was the method sooften employed by oppressed peoples and rarely without success--themethod by which the Irish peasantry recovered their land. It was to putfear into the heart of the oppressor. Prominent men, both black andwhite, who were identified with the evils which afflicted the State, were warned generally by a message signed "K. K. K. " to make themselvesscarce. If they neglected the warning they generally met a sudden andbloody end. At the same time the Klan unofficially tried and executedthose criminals whom the official Government refused to suppress. Theseexecutions had under the circumstances a clear moral justification. Unfortunately it had the effect of familiarizing the people with theirregular execution of Negroes, and so paved the way for those"lynchings" for which, since the proper authorities are obviously ableand willing to deal adequately with such crimes, no such defence can beset up. 

Both sides appealed to Grant, who had been elected President on theexpiration of Johnson's term in 1868. 

Had he been still the Grant of Appomattox and of the healing message towhich reference has already been made, no man would have been betterfitted to mediate between the sections and to cover with his protectionthose who had surrendered to his sword. But Grant was now a mere tool inthe hands of the Republican politicians, and those politicians weredetermined that the atrocious system should be maintained. They had noteven the excuse of fanaticism. Stevens was dead; he had lived just longenough to see his policy established, not long enough to see itimperilled. Sumner still lived, but he had quarrelled with Grant andlost much of his influence. The men who surrounded the President caredlittle enough for the Negro. Their resolution to support African rule inthe South depended merely upon the calculation that so long as itendured the reign of the Republican party and consequently their ownprofessional interests were safe. A special Act of Congress was passedto put down the Ku-Klux-Klan, and the victorious army of the Union wasagain sent South to carry it into execution. But this time it found anenemy more invulnerable than Lee had been--invulnerable becauseinvisible. The whole white population was in the conspiracy and kept itssecrets. The army met with no overt resistance with which it could deal, but the silent terrorism went on. The trade of "Carpet-bagger" becametoo dangerous. The ambitious Negro was made to feel that the price to bepaid for his privileges was a high one. Silently State after State waswrested from Negro rule. 

Later the Ku-Klux-Klan--for such is ever the peril of Secret Societiesand the great argument against them when not demanded by imperativenecessity--began to abuse its power. Reputable people dropped out of it, and traitors were found in its ranks. About 1872 it disappeared. But itswork was done. In the great majority of the Southern States the votingpower of the Negro was practically eliminated. Negroid Governmentssurvived in three only--South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana. Forthese the end came four years later. 

The professional politicians of the North, whose motive for supportingthe indefensible _régime_ established by the Reconstruction Act hasalready been noted, used, of course, the "atrocities" of theKu-Klux-Klan as electioneering material in the North. "Waving the bloodyshirt, " it was called. But the North was getting tired of it, and wasbeginning to see that the condition of things in the conquered Stateswas a national disgrace. A Democratic House of Representatives had beenchosen, and it looked as if the Democrats would carry the nextPresidential election. In fact they did carry it. But fraudulent returnswere sent in by the three remaining Negro Governments, and these gavethe Republicans a majority of one in the Electoral College. A Commissionof Enquiry was demanded and appointed, but it was packed by theRepublicans and showed itself as little scrupulous as the scoundrels whoadministered the "reconstructed" States. Affecting a sudden zeal forState Rights, it declared itself incompetent to inquire into thecircumstances under which the returns were made. It accepted them on theword of the State authorities and declared Hayes, the Republicancandidate, elected. 

It was a gross scandal, but it put an end to a grosser one. Some believethat there was a bargain whereby the election of Hayes should beacquiesced in peaceably on condition that the Negro Governments were notfurther supported. It is equally possible that Hayes felt his moralposition too weak to continue a policy of oppression in the South. Atany rate, that policy was not continued. Federal support was withdrawnfrom the remaining Negro Governments, and they fell without a blow. Thesecond rebellion of the South had succeeded where the first had failed. Eleven years after Lee had surrendered to Grant at Appomattox, Grant'ssuccessor in the Presidency surrendered to the ghost of Lee. 

Negro rule was at an end. But the Negro remained, and the problem whichhis existence presented was, and is, to-day, further from solution thatwhen Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The signs of theBlack Terror are still visible everywhere in the South. They are visiblein the political solidarity of those Southern States--and only of thoseStates--which underwent the hideous ordeal, what American politicianscall "the solid South. " All white men, whatever their opinions, mustvote together, lest by their division the Negro should again creep inand regain his supremacy. They are visible in those strict laws ofsegregation which show how much wider is the gulf between the races thanit was under Slavery--when the children of the white slave-owner, inLincoln's words, "romped freely with the little negroes. " They arevisible above all in acts of unnatural cruelty committed from time totime against members of the dreaded race. These things are inexplicableto those who do not know the story of the ordeal which the Southendured, and cannot guess at the secret panic with which white mencontemplate the thought of its return. 

Well might Jefferson tremble for his country. The bill which the firstslave-traders ran up is not yet paid. Their dreadful legacy remains andmay remain for generations to come a baffling and tormenting problem toevery American who has a better head than Sumner's and a better heartthan Legree's. 

 CHAPTER XI

 THE NEW PROBLEMS

Most of us were familiar in our youth with a sort of game or problemwhich consisted in taking a number, effecting a series of additions, multiplications, subtractions, etc. , and finally "taking away the numberyou first thought of. " Some such process might be taken as representingthe later history of the Republican Party. 

That party was originally founded to resist the further extension ofSlavery. That was at first its sole policy and objective. And whenSlavery disappeared and the Anti-Slavery Societies dissolved themselvesit might seem that the Republican Party should logically have done thesame. But no political party can long exist, certainly none can longhold power, while reposing solely upon devotion to a single idea. Forone thing, the mere requirements of what Lincoln called "nationalhousekeeping" involves an accretion of policies apparently unconnectedwith its original doctrine. Thus the Republican Party, relying at firstwholly upon the votes of the industrial North, which was generally infavour of a high tariff, took over from the old Whig Party aProtectionist tradition, though obviously there is no logical connectionbetween Free Trade and Slavery. Also, in any organized party, especiallywhere politics are necessarily a profession, there is an even morepowerful factor working against the original purity of its creed in theimmense mass of vested interests which it creates, especially when it isin power--men holding positions under it, men hoping for a "career"through its triumphs, and the like. It may be taken as certain that nopolitical body so constituted will ever voluntarily consent to dissolveitself, as a merely propagandist body may naturally do when its objectis achieved. 

For some time, as has been seen, the Republicans continued to retain acertain link with their origin by appearing mainly as a pro-Negro andanti-Southern party, with "Southern outrages" as its electoralstock-in-trade and the maintenance of the odious non-American StateGovernments as its programme. The surrender of 1876 put an end even tothis link. The "bloody shirt" disappeared, and with it the last rag ofthe old Republican garment. A formal protest against the use of"intimidation" in the "Solid South" continued to figure piously for somedecades in the quadrennial platform of the party. At last even this wasdropped, and its place was taken by the much more defensible demand thatSouthern representatives should be so reduced as to correspond to thenumbers actually suffered to vote. It is interesting to note that if theRepublicans had not insisted on supplementing the Fourteenth Amendmentby the Fifteenth, forbidding disqualification on grounds of race orcolour, and consequently compelling the South to concede in theory thefranchise of the blacks and then prevent its exercise, instead offormally denying it them, this grievance would automatically have beenmet. 

What, then, remained to the Republican Party when the "number it firstthought of" had been thus taken away? The principal thing that remainedwas a connection already established by its leading politicians with theindustrial interests of the North-Eastern States and with the groups ofwealthy men who, in the main, controlled and dealt in those interests. It became the party of industrial Capitalism as it was rapidlydeveloping in the more capitalist and mercantile sections of the Union. 

The first effect of this was an appalling increase of politicalcorruption. During Grant's second Presidency an amazing number of veryflagrant scandals were brought to light, of which the most notoriouswere the Erie Railway scandal, in which the rising RepublicanCongressional leader, Blaine, was implicated, and the Missouri WhiskyRing, by which the President himself was not unbesmirched. The cry forclean government became general, and had much to do with the election ofa Democratic House of Representatives in 1874 and the return by a truemajority vote--thought defeated by a trick--of a Democratic President in1876. Though the issue was somewhat overshadowed in 1880, when Garfieldwas returned mainly on the tariff issue--to be assassinated later by adisappointed place-hunter named Guiteau and succeeded by Arthur--itrevived in full force in 1884 when the Republican candidate was James G. Blaine. 

Blaine was personally typical of the degeneration of the RepublicanParty after the close of the Civil War. He had plenty of brains, was aclever speaker and a cleverer intriguer. Principles he had none. Ofcourse he had in his youth "waved the bloody shirt" vigorously enough, was even one of the last to wave it, but at the same time he hadthroughout his political life stood in with the great capitalist andfinancial interests of the North-East--and that not a little to hispersonal profit. The exposure of one politico-financial transaction ofhis--the Erie Railway affair--had cost him the Republican nomination in1876, in spite of Ingersoll's amazing piece of rhetoric delivered on hisbehalf, wherein the celebrated Secularist orator declared that "like anarmed warrior, like a plumed knight, James G. Blaine strode down thefloor of Congress and flung his shining lance, full and fair"--at thosemiscreants who objected to politicians using their public status forprivate profit. By 1884 it was hoped that the scandal had blown over andwas forgotten. 

Fortunately, however, the traditions of the country were democratic. Democracy is no preservative against incidental corruption; you willhave that wherever politics are a profession. But it is a very realpreservative against the secrecy in which, in oligarchical countrieslike our own, such scandals can generally be buried. The Erie scandalmet Blaine on every side. One of the most damning features of thebusiness was a very compromising letter of his own which ended with thefatal words: "Please burn this letter. " As a result of its publication, crowds of Democratic voters paraded the streets of several greatAmerican cities chanting monotonously--

 "Burn, burn, burn this letter! James G. Blaine. Please, please! Burn this letter! James G. Blaine. Oh! Do! Burn this letter! James G. Blaine. "

The result was the complete success of the clean government ticket, andthe triumphant return of Grover Cleveland, the first Democrat to takethe oath since the Civil War, and perhaps the strongest and bestPresident since Lincoln. 

Meanwhile, the Republic had found itself threatened with another racialproblem, which became acute at about the time when excitement on bothsides regarding the Negro was subsiding. Scarcely had the expansion ofthe United States touched the Pacific, when its territories encountereda wave of immigration from the thickly populated countries on the otherside of that ocean. The population which now poured into California andOregon was as alien in race and ideals as the Negro, and it was, perhaps, the more dangerous because, while the Negro, so far as he hadnot absorbed European culture, was a mere barbarian, these people had avery old and elaborate civilization of their own, a civilizationpicturesque and full of attraction when seen afar off, but exhibiting, at nearer view, many characteristics odious to the traditions, instinctsand morals of Europe and white America. There was also the economicevil--really, of course, only an aspect of the conflict of types ofcivilization--arising from the fact that these immigrants, being used toa lower standard of life, undercut and cheapened the labour of the whiteman. 

Various Acts were passed by Congress from time to time for therestriction and exclusion of Chinese and other Oriental immigrants, andthe trouble, though not even yet completely disposed of, was got under ameasure of control. Sumner lived long enough to oppose the earlier ofthese very sensible laws, and, needless to say, trotted out theDeclaration of Independence, though in this case the application waseven more absurd than in that of the Negro. The Negro, at any rate, wasalready resident in America, and had been brought there in the firstinstance without his own consent; and this fact, though it did not makehim a citizen, did create a moral responsibility towards him on thepart of the American Commonwealth. Towards the Chinaman it had noresponsibility whatever. Doubtless he had, as a man, his natural rightsto "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--in China. But whoeversaid anything so absurd as that it was one of the natural rights of manto live in America? It was, however, less to the increased absurdity ofhis argument than to the less favourable bias of his audience thatSumner owed his failure to change the course of legislation in thisinstance. An argument only one degree less absurd had done well enoughas a reason for the enslavement and profanation of the South a year ortwo before. But there was no great party hoping to perpetuate its powerby the aid of the Chinese, nor was there a defeated and unpopularsection to be punished for its "treason" by being made over to Mongolianmasters. Indeed, Congress, while rejecting Sumner's argument, made aconcession to his monomania on the subject of Negroes, and a clause wasinserted in the Act whereby no person "of African descent" should beexcluded--with the curious result that to this day, while a yellow faceis a bar to the prospective immigrant, a black face is, theoretically atany rate, actually a passport. 

The exclusion of the Chinese does but mark the beginning of a veryimportant change in the attitude of the Republic towards immigration. Upto this time, in spite of the apparent exception of the Know-Nothingmovement, of which the motive seems to have been predominantlysectarian, it had been at once the interest and the pride of America toencourage immigration on the largest possible scale without troublingabout its source or character: her interest because her undevelopedresources were immense and apparently inexhaustible, and what was mainlyneeded was human labour to exploit them; her pride, because she boasted, and with great justice, that her democratic creed was a force strongenough to turn any man who accepted citizenship, whatever his origin, into an American. But in connection with the general claim, whichexperience has, on the whole, justified, there are two importantreservations. One is that such a conversion is only possible if theAmerican idea--that is, the doctrine set forth by Jefferson--when oncepropounded awakens an adequate response from the man whom it is hopedto assimilate. This can generally be predicted of Europeans, since theidea is present in the root of their own civilization: it derives fromRome. But it can hardly be expected of peoples of a wholly alientradition from which the Roman Law and the Gospel of Rousseau are alikeremote. This consideration lies at the root of the exception of theNegro, the exception of the Mongol, and may one day produce theexception of the Jew. 

The other reservation is this: that if the immigration of diversepeoples proceeds at too rapid a rate, it may be impossible forabsorption to keep pace with it. Nay, absorption may be grievouslyhindered by it. This has been shown with great force and clearness byMr. Zangwill under his excellent image of the "Melting Pot. " Anyone evencasually visiting New York, for instance, can see on every side thegreat masses of unmelted foreign material and their continualreinforcement from overseas, probably delaying continually the processof fusion--and New York is only typical in this of other great Americancities. 

A new tendency to limit immigration and to seek some test of its qualityhas been a marked feature of the last quarter of a century. Theprinciple is almost certainly sound; the right to act on it, to anyonewho accepts the doctrine of national self-government, unquestionable. Whether the test ultimately imposed by a recent Act passed by Congressover President Wilson's veto, that of literacy, is a wise one, isanother question. Its tendency may well be to exclude great masses ofthe peasantry of the Old World, men admirably fitted to develop by theirindustry the resources of America, whose children at least could easilybe taught to read and write the American language and would probablybecome excellent American citizens. On the other hand, it does notexclude the criminal, or at any rate the most dangerous type ofcriminal. It does not exclude the submerged population of great Europeancities, the exploitation of whose cheap labour is a menace to theAmerican workman's standard of life. And it does not, generallyspeaking, exclude the Jew. 

The problem of the Jew exists in America as elsewhere--perhaps moreformidably than elsewhere. This, of course, is not because Jews, assuch, are worse than other people: only idiots are Anti-Semites in thatsense. It arises from the fact that America, more than any other nation, lives by its power of absorption, and the Jew has, ever since the RomanEmpire, been found a singularly unabsorbable person. He has an intensenationalism of his own that transcends and indeed ignores frontiers, butto the nationalism of European peoples he is often consciously andalmost always subconsciously hostile. In various ways he tends to act asa solvent of such nationalism. Cosmopolitan finance is one example ofsuch a tendency. Another, more morally sympathetic but not much lessdangerous to nationalism in such a country as America, is cosmopolitanrevolutionary idealism. The Socialist and Anarchist movements ofAmerica, divided of course in philosophy, but much more akin in temperthan in European countries, are almost wholly Jewish, both in origin andleadership. For this reason, since America's entrance into the GreatWar, these parties, in contrast to most of the European Socialistparties, have shown themselves violently anti-national and what we nowcall "Bolshevist. "

But organized Socialism is, in America, almost a negligible force; notso organized labour. In no country has the Trade Union movementexercised more power, and in no country has it fought with bolderweapons. In the early struggles between the organized workers and thegreat capitalists, violence and even murder was freely resorted to onboth sides, for if the word must be applied to the vengeance oftenwreaked by the Labour Unions on servants of the employer and on traitorsto the organization, the same word must be used with a severer moralimplication of the shooting down of workmen at the orders of men likeCarnegie, not even by the authorized police force or militia of theState, but by privately hired assassinators such as the notoriousPinkerton used to supply. 

The labour movement in America is not generally Collectivist. Collectivism is alien to the American temper and ideal, which looksrather to a community of free men controlling, through personalownership, their own industry. The demand of American labour has beenrather for the sharp and efficient punishment of such crimes againstproperty as are involved in conspiracies to create a monopoly in someproduct and the use of great wealth to "squeeze out" the smallcompetitor. Such demands found emphatic expression in the appearance inthe 'nineties of a new party calling itself "Populist" and formed by acombination between the organized workmen and the farmers of the West, who felt themselves more and more throttled by the tentacles of the newcommercial monopolies which were becoming known by the name of "Trusts. "In the elections of 1892, when Cleveland was returned for a second timeafter an interval of Republican rule under Harrison, the Populistsshowed unexpected strength and carried several Western States. In 1896Democrats and Populists combined to nominate William Jennings Bryan astheir candidate, with a programme the main plank of which was the freecoinage of silver, which, it was thought, would weaken the hold of themoneyed interests of the East upon the industries of the Continent. TheEastern States, however, voted solid for the gold standard, and werejoined, in the main, by those Southern States which had not been"reconstructed" and were consequently not included politically in the"Solid South. " The West, too, though mainly Bryanite, was not unanimous, and McKinley, the Republican candidate, was returned. The Democraticdefeat, however, gave some indication of the tendencies which were toproduce the Democratic victory of 1916, when the West, with the aid ofthe "Solid South, " returned a President whom the East had all butunanimously rejected. 

McKinley's first term of office, saw the outbreak and victoriousprosecution of a war with Spain, arising partly out of American sympathywith an insurrection which had broken out in Cuba, and partly out of thebelief, now pretty conclusively shown to have been unfounded, that theAmerican warship _Maine_, which was blown up in a Spanish harbour, hadbeen so destroyed at the secret instigation of the Spanish authorities. Its most important result was to leave, at its conclusion, both Cuba andthe Philippine Islands at the disposal of the United States. Thispractically synchronized with the highest point reached in thiscountry, just before the Boer War, by that wave of national feelingcalled "Imperialism. " America, for a time, seemed to catch its infectionor share its inspiration, as we may prefer to put it. But the tendencywas not a permanent one. The American Constitution is indeed expresslybuilt for expansion, but only where the territory acquired can bethoroughly Americanized and ultimately divided into self-governingStates on the American pattern. To hold permanently subject possessionswhich cannot be so treated is alien to its general spirit and intention. Cuba was soon abandoned, and though the Philippines were retained, thedifficulties encountered in their subjection and the moral anomalyinvolved in being obliged to wage a war of conquest against those whomyou have professed to liberate, acted as a distinct check upon theenthusiasm for such experiments. 

After the conclusion of the Spanish war, McKinley was elected for asecond time; almost immediately afterwards he was murdered by anAnarchist named Czolgosz, sometimes described as a "Pole, " butpresumably an East European Jew. The effect was to produce a thirdexample of the unwisdom--though in this case the country was distinctlythe gainer--of the habit of using the Vice-Presidency merely as anelectioneering bait. Theodore Roosevelt had been chosen as candidate forthat office solely to catch what we should here call the "khaki"sentiment, he and his "roughriders" having played a distinguished andpicturesque part in the Cuban campaign. But it soon appeared that thenew President had ideas of his own which were by no means identical withthose of the Party Bosses. He sought to re-create the moral prestige ofthe Republican Party by identifying it with the National idea--withwhich its traditions as the War Party in the battle for the Union madeits identification seem not inappropriate--with a spirited foreignpolicy and with the aspiration for expansion and world-power. But healso sought to sever its damaging connection with those sordid andunpopular plutocratic combinations which the nation as a whole justlyhated. Of great energy and attractive personality, and gifted with astrong sense of the picturesque in politics, President Roosevelt openeda vigorous campaign against those Trusts which had for so long backedand largely controlled his party. The Republican Bosses were angry anddismayed, but they dared not risk an open breach with a popular andpowerful President backed by the whole nation irrespective of party. Socomplete was his victory that not only did he enjoy something like anational triumph when submitting himself for re-election in 1904, but in1908 was virtually able to nominate his successor. 

Mr. Taft, however, though so nominated and professing to carry on theRooseveltian policy, did not carry it on to the satisfaction of itsoriginator. The ex-President roundly accused his successor of sufferingthe party to slip back again into the pocket of the Trusts, and in 1912offered himself once more to the Republican Party as a rival to hissuccessor. The Party Convention at San Francisco chose Taft by a narrowmajority. Something may be allowed for the undoubtedly prevalentsentiment against a breach of the Washingtonian tradition of a two-termslimit; but the main factor was the hostility of the Bosses and theTrusts behind them, and the weapon they used was their control of theNegro "pocket boroughs" of the Southern States, which were representedin the Convention in proportion to their population of those States, though practically no Republican votes were cast there. ColonelRoosevelt challenged the decision of the Convention, and organized anindependent party of his own under the title of "Progressive, " composedpartly of the defeated section of the Republicans and partly of allthose who for one reason or another were dissatisfied with existingparties. In the contest which followed he justified his position bypolling far more votes than his Republican rival. But the division inthe Republican Party permitted the return of the Democratic candidate, Dr. Woodrow Wilson. 

The new President was a remarkable man in more ways than one. By birth aSoutherner, he had early migrated to New Jersey. He had a distinguishedacademic career behind him, and had written the best history of his owncountry at present obtainable. He had also held high office in hisState, and his term had been signalized by the vigour with which he hadmade war on corruption in the public service. During his term of officehe was to exhibit another set of qualities, the possession of which hadperhaps been less suspected: an instinct for the trend of the nationalwill not unlike that of Jackson, and a far-seeing patience andpersistence under misrepresentation and abuse that recalls Lincoln. 

For Mr. Wilson had been in office but a little over a year when Prussia, using Austria as an instrument and Serbia as an excuse, forced anaggressive war on the whole of Europe. The sympathies of most Americanswere with the Western Allies, especially with France, for which countrythe United States had always felt a sort of spiritual cousinship. England was, as she had always been, less trusted, but in this instance, especially when Prussia opened the war with a criminal attack upon thelittle neutral nation of Belgium, it was generally conceded that she wasin the right. Dissentients there were, especially among the large Germanor German-descended population of the Middle West, and the PrussianGovernment spent money like water to further a German propaganda in theStates. But the mass of American opinion was decidedly favourable to thecause of those who were at war with the German Empire. Yet it was atthat time equally decided and much more unanimous against Americanintervention in the European quarrel. 

The real nature of this attitude was not grasped in England, and theresultant misunderstanding led to criticisms and recriminations whicheveryone now regrets. The fact is that the Americans had very goodreason for disliking the idea of being drawn into the awful whirlpool inwhich Europe seemed to be perishing. It was not cowardice that held herback: her sons had done enough during the four terrible years of civilconflict in which her whole manhood was involved to repel that chargefor ever. Rather was it a realistic memory of what such war means thatmade the new America eager to keep the peace as long as it might. Therewas observable, it is true, a certain amount of rather silly Pacifistsentiment, especially in those circles which the Russians speak of as"Intelligenzia, " and Americans as "high-brow. " It went, as it usuallygoes, though the logical connection is not obvious, with teetotalismand similar fads. All these fads were peculiarly rampant in the UnitedStates in the period immediately preceding the war, when half the Stateswent "dry, " and some cities passed what seems to us quite lunaticlaws--prohibiting cigarette-smoking and creating a special female policeforce of "flirt-catchers. " The whole thing is part, one may suppose, ofthe deliquescence of the Puritan tradition in morals, and will probablynot endure. So far as such doctrinaire Pacifism is concerned, it seemsto have dissolved at the first sound of an American shot. But theinstinct which made the great body of sensible and patriotic Americans, especially in the West, resolved to keep out of the war, so long astheir own interests and honour were not threatened, was of a much moresolid and respectable kind. Undoubtedly most Americans thought that theAllies were in the right; but if every nation intervened in every warwhere it thought one or other side in the right, every war must becomeuniversal. The Republic was not pledged, like this country, to enforcerespect for Belgian neutrality; she was not, like England, directlythreatened by the Prussian menace. Indirectly threatened she was, for aGerman victory would certainly have been followed by an attempt torealize well-understood German ambitions in South America. But mostAmericans were against meeting trouble halfway. 

Such was the temper of the nation. The President carefully conformed toit, while at the same time guiding and enlightening it. For nearly twoyears he kept his country out of the war. The task was no easy one. Hewas assailed at home at once by the German propagandists, who wantedhim, in defiance of International Law, to forbid the sale of arms andmunitions to the Allies, and by Colonel Roosevelt, who wished America todeclare herself definitely on the Allied side. Moreover, Prussia couldunderstand no argument but force, and took every sign of the pacificdisposition of the Government at Washington as an indication ofcowardice or incapacity to fight. But he was excellently served inBerlin by Mr. Gerard, and he held to his course. The _Lusitania_ wassunk and many American citizens were drowned as a part of the Prussiancampaign of indiscriminate murder on the high seas; and the volume offeeling in favour of intervention increased. But the President stillresisted the pressure put upon him, as Lincoln had so long resisted thepressure of those who wished him to use his power to declare the slavesfree. He succeeded in obtaining from Germany some mitigation of herpiratical policy, and with that he was for a time content. He probablyknew then, as Mr. Gerard certainly did, that war must come. But he alsoknew that if he struck too early he would divide the nation. He waitedtill the current of opinion had time to develop, carefully thoughunobtrusively directing it in such a fashion as to prepare it foreventualities. So well did he succeed that when in the spring of 1917Prussia proclaimed a revival of her policy of unmitigated murderdirected not only against belligerents but avowedly against neutralsalso, he felt the full tide of the general will below him. And when atlast he declared war it was with a united America at his back. 

Such is, in brief, the diplomatic history of the intervention of theUnited States in the Great War. Yet there is another angle from which itcan be viewed, whereby it seems not only inevitable but strangelysymbolic. The same century that saw across the Atlantic the birth of theyoung Republic, saw in the very centre of Europe the rise of another newPower. Remote as the two were, and unlikely as it must have seemed atthe time that they could ever cross each other's paths, they were in astrange fashion at once parallel and antipodean. Neither has grown inthe ordinary complex yet unconscious fashion of nations. Both were, in asense, artificial products. Both were founded on a creed. And the creedswere exactly and mathematically opposed. According to the creed ofThomas Jefferson, all men were endowed by their Creator with equalrights. According to the creed of Frederick Hohenzollern there was noCreator, and no one possessed any rights save the right of thestrongest. Through more than a century the history of the two nations isthe development of the two ideas. It would have seemed unnatural if thegreat Atheist State, in its final bid for the imposition of its creed onall nations, had not found Jefferson's Republic among its enemies. Thatanomaly was not to be. That flag which, decked only with thirteen starsrepresenting the original revolted colonies, had first waved overWashington's raw levies, which, as the cluster grew, had disputed onequal terms with the Cross of St. George its ancient lordship of thesea, which Jackson had kept flying over New Orleans, which Scott andTaylor had carried triumphantly to Monterey, which on a memorableafternoon had been lowered over Sumter, and on a yet more memorablemorning raised once again over Richmond, which now bore its fullcomplement of forty-eight stars, symbolizing great and free Statesstretching from ocean to ocean, appeared for the first time on aEuropean battlefield, and received there as its new baptism of fire asalute from all the arsenals of Hell. 

 INDEX

Aberdeen, Lord, Calhoun's reply to, 118

Abolitionists, Southern, no attempt to suppress, 132; hold Congress in Baltimore, 132; Northern, different attitudes of, 132; their hostility to the Union, 133; their sectional character, 133; Southern Abolitionism killed by, 133; anger of South against, 134; unpopularity of, in North, 135; acquiesce in Secession, 164

Adams, Francis, American Minister in London, 192; protests against the sailing of the _Alabama_, 192

Adams, John, opposed by Democrats for Vice-President, 57; chosen President by Electoral College, 62; his character and policy, 62-63; defeated by Jefferson, 63; refuses to receive Jefferson at the White House, 67; fills offices with Federalists, 67

Adams, John Quincey, leaves Federalist Party, 71; a candidate for the Presidency, 92; chosen President by House of Representatives, 94; appoints Clay Secretary of State, 95; unpopularity of his government, 96; defeated by Jackson, 96

Alabama secedes from the Union, 161

_Alabama_, the, built in Liverpool, 191; her devastations, 191; Great Britain declared responsible for, 192; compensation paid on account of, 192

Alexander I. Of Russia wishes to intervene in America, 87

Aliens Law, 63

America, discovery of, 1; claimed by Spain, 3; English colonies in, 3; European intervention in, forbidden by Monroe Doctrine, 88. (_See also_ United States)

Anderson, Major, in command of Fort Sumter, 172; surrenders, 173

André, Major, relations of, with Arnold, 33; shot as a spy, 33

Antietam, Battle of, 189

Anti-Masonic Party formed, 112

Anti-Slavery Societies, Conference of, at Baltimore, 132; dissolve themselves, 227

Arkansas, only new Slave State possible under Missouri Compromise, 86; rejects Secession, 171; secedes, 175

Arizona acquired from Mexico, 122; open to Slavery, 126

Arnold, Benedict, career of, 32; treason of, 33; commands in South, 33

Arthur, President, succeeds Garfield, 229

Appomattox Court House, Lee's surrender at, 202

Atlanta, Georgia, Sherman moves on, 199; fate of, 200

Baltimore, Maryland, Congress of Anti-Slavery Societies meets in, 132; Douglas Democrats hold Convention at, 154; Union troops stoned in, 177

Baltimore, Lord, a Catholic, 4; founds colony of Maryland, 4; his family deposed, 5

Bank, United States, creation of, proposed by Hamilton, 56; opposition to, 56; constitutionality of, disputed, 56; Washington signs Bill for, 57; Supreme Court decides in favour of, 57; revived after War of 1812, 85; power--unpopularity of, 102-103; Jackson's attitude towards, 103; corrupt influence of, 103; Bill for re-charter of, passes Congress, 103; vetoed by Jackson, 103; Whig championship of, 105; elections adverse to, 105; Jackson removes deposits from, 106; its end, 106

Beaumarchais, instrumental in supplying arms to the Colonists, 30

Beauregard, General, opposed to McDowell in Virginia, 180; commands at Bull Run, 180; rallies Southern troops, 180; attacks Grant at Shiloh, 184

Belgium, Prussian invasion of, 237

Black, Judge, supports the Union, 165; urges reinforcement of Fort Sumter, 172

Blaine, James G. , implicated in Erie Railway scandal, 228; character of, 229; candidate for Presidency, 229-230; defeated by Cleveland, 230

Blair, Francis, saves Missouri for the Union, 176

Bland, Richard, appeals to "the Law of Nature, " 16

Boon, Daniel, 71

Booth, John Wilkes, assassinates Lincoln, 208; death of, 208

"Border Ruffians, " 143, 150

Boston, Mass. , taxed tea thrown into harbour at, 17; evacuated by Colonists, 25; abandoned by British troops, 25; Slave Trade profitable to, 49; Hartford Convention resolves to meet again at, 82

"Boston Tea Party, " the, 17, 18

Breckinridge, nominated for Presidency by Southern Democrats, 154; Southern support of, 155

Brown, John, character of, 143; his murders in Kansas, 144; his project for a slave insurrection, 152; captures Harper's Ferry, 152; execution of, 153; repudiated by Republican Convention, 153; Lincoln on, 153, 208

Bryan, William J. , nominated for Presidency, 234; defeated by McKinley, 234

Buchanan, James, elected President, 145; accepts Lecompton Constitution, 150; quarrels with Douglas, 150; weakness of, 158-159; his Message to Congress, 159; rejects advice of General Scott, 160; his divided Cabinet, 160; attempts to reinforce Fort Sumter, 172

Bull Run, first Battle of, 180-181; second Battle of, 187

Bunker's Hill, Battle of, 18

Burgoyne, General, commands British forces in Canada, 28; his plan, 28; his failure and surrender, 29

Burke, Edmund, inconsistency of, 15

Burnside, General, defeated by Lee at Fredericksburg, 192

Burr, Aaron, 65; Democratic candidate for the Vice-Presidency, 66; ties with Jefferson for the Presidency, 66; his intrigues with Federalists defeated by Hamilton, 66; elected Vice-President, 66; becomes an enemy of Jefferson, 67; candidate for Governorship of New York, 72; Hamilton's influence again defeats, 73; fights and kills Hamilton, 73; his plans regarding the West, 73-74; approaches Jackson, 74; Jackson on, 75; arrest and trial of, 75

Butler, Benjamin, instrumental in the impeachment of Johnson, 219; his character and career, 219

Calhoun, John Caldwell, superior to Clay as an orator, 79; in the running for the Presidency, 90; chosen Vice-President, 97; his connection with the Eaton affair, 97-98; his quarrel with Jackson, 98; defends Nullification, 99; compromises with Clay, 101; joins coalition against Jackson, 102; his attitude towards the Indians, 107; leaves the Whigs, 110; his transformation after quarrel with Jackson, 111; his advocacy of State Rights, 111; his defence of Slavery, 111, 134; appointed Secretary of State, 115; eager for annexation of Texas, 116; resists clamour for war with England, 117; his argument, 117; defends Slavery in despatch to Lord Aberdeen, 118; his action condemned by Northern Democrats, 118; not favoured for Presidency, 119; opposes war with Mexico, 121; advocates strictly defensive policy, 121; foresees consequences of large annexations, 121-122; opposes Compromise of 1850. . 128; his "Testament, " 128; his death and epitaph, 128; influence of his defence of Slavery on Southern opinion, 134; Jefferson Davis succeeds to position of, 140

California acquired from Mexico, 122; gold discovered in, 123; decision of, to exclude Slavery, 123; Taylor advocates admission of, as a Free State, 125; admitted under Compromise of 1850. . 126

Canada, a French colony, 9; conquered by Great Britain, 10; Burgoyne commands in, 28; not disposed to join rebellion, 28; conquest of, hoped for, 80; rebellion in, 111

Canning, George, opposes European intervention in America, 87; suggests joint action by Great Britain and U. S. , 88

Carnegie, Andrew, massacre of workmen by, 223

Carolinas, colonization of, 8; overrun by Cornwallis and Tarleton, 31. (_See also_ North and South Carolinas)

"Carpet-Baggers, " 221, 224

Cass, General, Democratic candidate for Presidency, 125; Secretary of State under Buchanan, 160; for vigorous action against Secession, 160, 165

Catholics, reasons of first Stuarts for leniency to, 4; find a refuge in Maryland, 5; establish religious equality, 5; dispossessed of power, 5; New England dislikes tolerating, 38; "Know-Nothing" movement directed against, 138-139

Chancellorsville, Battle of, 192

Charles I. Grants charter of Maryland, 4

Charles II. Grants William Penn charter for Pennsylvania, 7; grants charter of Carolinas to Hyde family, 8

Charleston, South Carolina, occupied by Cornwallis, 21; Democratic Convention meets at, 153; Breckinridge nominated at, 154; cheers election of Lincoln, 156; Fort Sumter in harbour of, 172; Negro demonstrations in, 222

Chatham, William Pitt, Earl of, directs war against France, 10; denounces employment of Indians, 28

Chattanooga, Battle of, 198

Cherokee Indians, problem of the, 107; Jackson's attitude towards, 107; removed beyond the Mississippi, 107

_Chesapeake_, the, duel with the _Shannon_, 80

Chickamauga, Battle of, 198

Chicago, Ill. , Republican Convention meets at, 153

Chinese, immigration of, 230; Sumner's plea for, 230; exclusion of, 231

Civil War, the, not fought over Slavery, 162; motives of South, 163-164; case for North stated, 166-167; issue of, as defined by Lincoln, 167; progress of, 180-202

Clay, Henry, leader of "war hawks, " 78; character of, 78-79; signs peace with Great Britain, 83; arranges Missouri Compromise, 85; a candidate for the Presidency, 91; deserted by the West, 95; supports Adams, 95; Secretary of State, 98; responsible for Protectionist policy, 100; seeks a compromise with Calhoun, 101; supports U. S. Bank, 105; crushing defeat of, 105; the appropriate Whig candidate for Presidency, 113; passed over for Harrison, 113; partial retirement of, 125; called upon to save the Union, 125; his last Compromise, 126-127; death of, 126, 129; Crittenden a disciple of, 160

Cleveland, Grover, elected President, 230; second election, 234

Clinton, Democratic candidate for Vice-Presidency, 57

Cobbett, William, on American prosperity, 37; supports Federalists, 59

Collectivism, alien to the American temper, 223

Colonies (_see_ English, French, Dutch, Spanish Colonies)

Columbia, South Carolina, burning of, 201

Columbia, district of, slavery legal in, 126; slave-trade abolished in, 126

Columbus, Christopher, discovers America, 1; American view of, 1; and the Renaissance, 2

Compromise of 1850, drafted by Clay, 126; supported by Webster, 127; opposed by Calhoun, 128; reasons for failure of, 129 _seq. _; administered by a new generation, 139; Seward's speech on, 139

Compromises (_see_ Constitution, Crittenden, Missouri)

Confederate Debt, repudiation of, demanded, 204, 216

Confederate States, Constitution of, 169; Davis President of, 169; flag of, raised over Fort Sumter, 173; Kentucky declares war on, 178; military position of, 178-180; Congress of, summoned to meet at Richmond, 180; send Mason and Slidell to Europe, 182; blockaded 184; opportunity to make peace offered to, 199; slavery dead in, 199, 203

Congress, how elected, 47; U. S. Bank secures, 103; recommends amendments to the Constitution protecting slavery, 168; opposed to policy of President Johnson, 214; committed to Negro Suffrage, 218

Connecticut, a Puritan colony, 5; accepts invitation to Hartford Convention, 81

Conscription, adopted by both sides in Civil War, 195; form of, imposed in the North, 195; New York City resists, 195

Constitution of United States not modelled on British, 45; essential principles of, 45-46; compromises of, 46-49; slavery protected by, 49, 162; opposition to, 51; publicly burnt by Garrison, 133; described by South Carolina as a "Treaty, " 157; in relation to expansion, 234-235; amendments to, 54, 67, 161, 168, 203, 216, 228

Constitution of Confederate States, 169

Continental Congress, first meets, 19; issues "Declaration of Colonial Right, " 19; meeting of, forbidden by British Government, 19; second meets, 19; issues a general call to arms, 19; resolves on separation from Great Britain, 21; adopts "Declaration of Independence, " 24; moribund, 41; attempt to remodel fails, 43

Convention meets to frame Constitution, 42; Washington presides over, 42; debates of, 42; Jefferson absent from, 42, 54; difficulties confronting, 43; decisions of, 44-49

"Copperheads, " name given to Northern Pacifists, 192; their futility, 193; Lincoln's policy regarding, 194-195; capture Democratic Party, 200

Cornwallis, Lord, invades South Carolina, 31; retreats to Yorktown, 34; surrender of, 34

Cotton industry in American colonies, 11; has nothing to gain from Protection, 85, 98, 157

Cowpens, Battle of, 32

Crawford, William, of Georgia, a candidate for the Presidency, 91-92

Creek Indians, descend on South-West, 81; Jackson overthrows, 82; take refuge in Florida, 87; pursued by Jackson, 87

Crittenden, Senator, a disciple of Clay, 160; proposes his compromise, 160; his compromise unacceptable to Lincoln, 161; rejected, 161

Cuba, Lincoln fears filibustering in, 161; American sympathy with insurrection in, 234; at disposal of U. S. , 234; abandoned, 235

Czolgosz, assassinates McKinley, 235

Davie, cavalry leader, 32; at Battle of Hanging Rock, 32

Davis, Jefferson, of Mississippi, successor of Calhoun, 140; on extension of Slavery, 144-145; elected President of the Confederacy, 169; his qualifications and defects, 169-170; an obstacle to peace, 199; believes Slavery dead, 199, 203; relieves Johnstone of his command, 200; accused of complicity with Lincoln's murder, 209; his retort on Johnson, 209; never brought to trial, 217

"Declaration of Colonial Right, " 19

"Declaration of Independence, " drafted by Jefferson, 22; quoted, 22; its implications, 23-24; Slave Trade condemned in original draft, 48-49; Slavery inconsistent with, 148; misinterpreted by Douglas, 151; misunderstood by Sumner, 205-207; invoked by Sumner in favour of Chinese, 232

De Grasse, in command of French fleet, 34

Delaware, acquired from Dutch, 7; small slave population of, 176

Democracy, in English colonies, 13, 16; theory of, 23-24; application of, in America, 36-37; unjust charges against, 65; characteristic of the West, 92; Jackson's loyalty to, 93; its true bearing on the Negro problem, 206-207; effect of, on corruption, 229

Democratic Party, name ultimately taken by followers of Jefferson, 57; organization of, under Jackson, 96, 108; unwise attacks on Harrison by, 113-114; refuses to come to rescue of Tyler, 115; chooses Polk as Presidential candidate, 119; holds Convention at Charleston, 153; split in, 154; captured by "Copperheads, " 200; defeated by trickery in 1876, 225, 229; returns Cleveland, 230; unites with Populists in support of Bryan, 234; returns Wilson, 236

Donelson, Fort, captured by Grant, 183

Douglas, Stephen, on Slavery, 130, 141; Senator for Illinois, 140; character of, 140-141; motives of, 141-142; introduces Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 142; his doctrine of "Popular Sovereignty, " 142; upsets Missouri Compromise, 142; results of his policy, 143-144; accepts Dred Scott decision, 147; rejects Lecompton Constitution, 150; his Quarrel with Buchanan, 150; his contest with Lincoln, 150; debates with Lincoln, 151-152; rejected by the South, 153; nominated for Presidency, 154; defeat of, 155; supports Crittenden Compromise, 160; his patriotism, 174; present at Lincoln's inauguration, 174; his last campaign and death, 174

Draft Riots in New York, 195

Dred Scott decision delivered by Taney, 146; its implications, 146-147; rejected by Republicans, 147; accepted by Douglas, 147; fatal to "Popular Sovereignty, " 147; necessitates an amendment to Constitution, 161

Dutch colonies in America, 7

Eaton, Major, in Jackson's Cabinet, 97; marriage of, 97; Calhoun accused of wishing to ruin, 98

Eaton, Mrs. , charges against, 97; boycott of, 97; Jackson takes part of, 97-98

Electoral College, original theory of, 46; responsible for choice of Adams, 62; tie between Jefferson and Burr in, 66; figment of, destroyed, 96; Lincoln's majority in, 155

Emancipation Proclamation, decision to issue after Antietam, 189; Lincoln's defence of, 191; effect abroad, 191

Embargo, imposed by Jefferson, 76; withdrawn, 77

Emerson on John Brown, 153

England and Spain, 3. (_See also_ Great Britain)

English colonies in America, 3; French attempt to hem in, 9; economic position of, 10-12; government of, 12-13; democracy in, 13; proposal to tax, 14-15, 17; attitude of, 16-17; unite, 19; declare their independence, 22; France forms alliance with, 30; independence of, recognized by Great Britain, 35; internal revolution in, 36

"Era of Good Feeling, " 86, 90

Erie Railway scandal, 228, 229

Erskine, British Minister at Washington, 77

Everett, nominated as candidate for Presidency, 154; Border States support, 155

Farragut, Admiral, takes New Orleans, 186

_Federalist, The_, established to defend the Constitution, 51; Hamilton and Madison contribute to, 51

Federalist Party, support a National Bank, 57; sympathies of, with England against France, 59; pass Alien and Sedition Acts, 63; Burr's intrigues with, 66, 72; oppose Louisiana Purchase, 70; suicide of, 71

Fessenden, Senator, on Charles Sumner, 205

Fifteenth Amendment, effect of, 228

Filmore, Millard, succeeds Taylor as President, 125; his succession favourable to Clay, 126

Florida, British land in, 82; Jackson expels British from, 82; acquired by U. S. , 86-87; secedes from Union, 161; Negro government of, makes fraudulent return, 225

Floyd, Secretary for War under Buchanan, 160; his sympathy with secession, 160; his distribution of the U. S. Armament, 179

Force Bills, demanded by Jackson, 100; supported by Webster, 101; precedence for, insisted on, 101; signed by Jackson, 101; nullified by South Carolina, 101

"Forty-Seven-Forty-or-Fight, " 117, 120

Fourteenth Amendment, provisions of, 216; Southern opposition to, 217; Lee's views on, 217

France and England in America, 9; War with, 9-10; hesitates to recognize American independence, 29; forms alliance with revolted colonies, 30; Jefferson Minister to, 42; Jefferson's sympathy with, 59-60; badly served by Genet, 60; anger with, over "X. Y. Z. Letters, " 63; acquires Louisiana, 68; sells to U. S. , 68; Jackson settles disputes with, 107; intervention of, in Mexico, 213; American sympathy with, 237

Franklin, Benjamin, goes to France to solicit help for, 29; represents Confederation at Peace Congress, 35; a member of the Convention, 42; dislikes provision regarding fugitive slaves, 48

Frederick the Great, his creed contrasted with Jefferson's, 239

Freemasons, origin of, 112; death of Morgan attributed to, 112; outcry against, 112; President Jackson a, 112

Free Trade, established between States, 44; with England, South Carolina's desire for, 157. (_See also_ Protection)

Frémont, General, Republican candidate for Presidency, 145; commands in Missouri, 190; proclamation of, regarding slaves repudiated by Lincoln, 190; candidate of Radical Republicans for the Presidency, 200; withdrawn, 200

French Canadians, antagonized by New England intolerance, 38

French Colonies in America, 9-10

French Revolution, Jefferson's interest in, 54; American enthusiasm for, 58; New England shocked at, 58; continued popularity of, 60; effect of, in Latin America, 87

Fugitive Slaves, their return provided for by Constitution, 48; provision nullified by some Northern States, 127, 136

Fugitive Slave Law, part of Compromise of 1850, 127; accepted by Lincoln, 149, 168; Lincoln's strict enforcement of, 171, 189

Garfield, President, elected, 229; murdered, 229

Garrison, William Lloyd, founder of Northern Abolitionism, 132; his view of Slavery, 133; his hostility to the Union, 133; on Southern Abolitionism, 133; on Secession, 164

Gates, General, Burgoyne surrenders to, 29

Genet, French Minister to U. S. , 60; his reception, 60; his mistakes, 60

George III. Determined on subjection of American Colonies, 17

German mercenaries employed by Great Britain, 27, 34

German population in U. S. , 237

German propaganda in U. S. , 237

Germany (_see_ Prussia)

Gerrard, James W. , American Ambassador at Berlin, 238; foresees war, 239

Gerry, a member of the Convention, 42

Gettysburg, Battle of, 196

Ghent, Peace of, 83

"Good Feeling, Era of, " 86, 90

Grant, Ulysses S. , captures Forts Henry and Donelson, 183; attacked at Shiloh, 184; captures Vicksburg, 196; appointed commander of U. S. Forces, 197; his career and character, 197; in Virginia, 198; outmanoeuvred by Lee, 198; fights in the Wilderness, 198; Lee surrenders to, 202; his report on temper of the South, 213; quarrel with Johnson, 219; elected President, 223; a tool of the politicians, 223; corruption under, 228; implicated in Missouri Whisky scandal, 228

Great Britain imposes taxes on her colonies, 14 _et seq. _; revokes charter of Massachusetts, 18; inadequate military action of, 19; prohibits Continental Congresses, 19; practical reasons for repudiating sovereignty of, 20; Continental Congress resolves on separation from, 21; sends out expedition under Howe, 27; effect of Burgoyne's surrender on, 29; loses mastery of the sea, 34; recognizes independence of the colonies, 35; complains of non-fulfilment of peace terms, 41; goes to war with French Revolution, 59; claims right to search American ships, 77; war with, 79; hatred of, consequent on burning of Washington, 80; sends fleet to the Gulf of Mexico, 81; weary of war, 83; peace concluded with, 83; separates from Holy Alliance, 87; proposes joint declaration with U. S. , 88; her postulate of naval supremacy compared with the Monroe Doctrine, 88-89; Jackson settles disputes with, 107; Jackson's tribute to, 107; war with, avoided, 111; claims in Oregon, 117; clamour for war with, 117; Calhoun's objections to war with, 117; intervenes in Texas question, 118; Calhoun's despatch to, 118; variation of opinion in, concerning Civil War, 181-182; proclaims neutrality, 182; anger in, over _Trent_ affair, 183; _Alabama_ built in, 192; declared not to have shown "reasonable care, " 192; pays compensation, 192; war with no remedy for sectional divisions, 213; less popular in America than France, 237; allowed to be in the right against Prussia, 237

Greeley, Horace, editor of _New York Tribune_, 164; on Secession, 164; his "Prayer of the Twenty Millions, " 190; Lincoln's reply to, 190; his inconsistency, 193; goes bail for Davis, 217

Grenville, George, proposes Stamp Duty for America, 14

Guiteau, murders President Garfield, 229

Hamilton, Alexander, a member of the Convention, 42; writes for the _Federalist_, 51; Secretary to the Treasury, 52; his opinions and policy, 53-54; his financial successes, 55; proposes taking over State Debts, 55; buys off Southern opposition, 55; proposes creation of National Bank, 56; opposition to, 57; defeats Burr's intrigues for the Presidency, 66; opposes Burr's candidature in New York, 73; death of, 73

Hampton Roads, negotiations at, 199

Hanging Rock, Battle of, 32

Harper's Ferry, John Brown captures, 152; Jackson sent back to hold, 189

Harrison, General, an imitation Jackson, 113; his nickname of "Tippercanoe, " 113; elected President, 114; dies soon after election, 114

Harrison, Benjamin, Republican President, 234

Hartford Convention, summoned, 81; proceedings of, 82; Jackson on conveners of, 100

Hawkins, Sir John, pioneer of the Slave Trade, 12

Hayes, President, fraudulent election of, 225

Henry Fort, captured by Grant, 183

Henry, Patrick, on Stamp Act, 16; opposes Constitution, 51

Holt, a Southerner, supports the Union, 165

Holy Alliance proposes to re-subjugate Spanish colonies, 87; Great Britain separated from, 87

Hooker, General Joseph, defeated at Williamsburg, 186; trapped in the Wilderness, 192; defeated at Chancellorsville, 192

House of Representatives, how elected, 47; Burr's intrigues in, 66; chooses Adams for President, 94; a Democratic majority secured in, 229

Howe, Lord, commands British expedition to America, 27

Illiterates, exclusion of, 232

Immigration of Irish, 138; of Chinese, 230; change in attitude towards, 231; Act passed over President Wilson's Veto, 232

Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, 218

Imperialism in U. S. , 234

Indians, Penn's Treaty with, 8; employed by Great Britain, 28; effect of, on the West, 71. (_See also_ Cherokee, Creek, Seminole)

Ingersoll, Robert, defends Blaine, 229

Irish, immigration of, 138; qualities and power of, 138; "Know-Nothing" agitation against, 138; antagonism to Negroes, 195. (_See also_ Scotch-Irish)

Jackson, Andrew, fights at Hanging Rock, 32; commands Tennessee militia, 74; relations with Burr, 74-75; defeats the Creek Indians, 82; expels British from Florida, 82; successful defence of New Orleans by, 83; pursues Indians into Florida, 87; conduct in Florida, 87; appointed Governor, 87; nominated for Presidency, 92; his character, 93-94; passed over for Adams, 94; shocked at the Adams-Clay bargain, 95; attacked through his wife, 96; elected President, 96; his clearance of Government offices, 96-97; coalition against, 97; his quarrel with Calhoun, 98; his toast at the Jefferson Banquet, 100; demands the coercion of S. Carolina, 100; dislikes Clay-Calhoun compromise, 101; insists on precedence for Force Bill, 101; signs Force Bill and New Tariff, 101; on Nullification and Secession, 102; his attitude towards U. S. Bank, 103; vetoes Bill for re-charter, 103; triumphant re-election, 105; orders removal of Bank deposits, 106; censured by Senate, 106; censure on, expunged, 107; treatment of Cherokees by, 107; foreign policy of, 107; on relations with Great Britain, 107; Palmerston on, 108; retirement of, 108; results of his Presidency, 108-109; nominates his successor, 110; Harrison's candidature an imitation of, 113; his memory invoked in, 1860, 160; his plans for coercing S. Carolina sent to Buchanan, 160

Jackson, "Stonewall, " nickname earned at Bull Run, 181; campaign in Shenandoah Valley, 186; sent back to hold Harper's Ferry, 189; death of, 192; Lee's tribute to, 192

Jackson, replaces Erskine as British representative at Washington, 77

Jacksonians, rally of, to the Union, 165

James I. , attitude of, towards Catholics, 4; approves Baltimore's project, 4

Jefferson, Thomas, delegate to Second Continental Congress, 20; his character, 20-21; his political creed, 21; drafts "Declaration of Independence, " 22; nearly captured by the British, 34; effects reforms in Virginia, 36; his belief in religious equality, 36; a Deist, 39; his project for extinguishing Slavery, 41; Minister to France, 42; on Slavery, 50, 130; returns to America, 54; Secretary of State, 54; accepts the Constitution, 54; helps to settle taking over of State Debts, 55; repents of his action, 55; his view of American neutrality, 59; his sympathy with France, 60; on insurrections, 61; drafts Kentucky Resolutions, 63-64; elected President, 64; his inauguration, 67; his Inaugural Address, 67; refuses to recognize Adams' appointments, 68; negotiates purchase of Louisiana, 68; his diplomacy, 69; his alleged inconsistency, 69-70; orders arrest of Burr, 74; re-elected, 75; attitude regarding Napoleonic Wars, 76; places embargo on American trade, 76; withdraws embargo, 77; favours prohibition of Slavery in Territories, 85; character of his government, 90; Democratic Banquet on his birthday, 100; his doctrine misrepresented by Sumner, 205; his fears justified, 226; his creed contrasted with Frederick the Great's, 239

Jewish problem in America, 232; influence in American Socialism, 233

Johnson, Andrew, elected Vice-President, 200; becomes President, 209; accuses Davis of complicity in murder of Lincoln, 209; Davis's retort on, 209; bitterness of, against Confederate leaders, 209; his difficulties and defects, 210; his electioneering campaign, 218; vetoes Reconstruction Bill, 218; impeachment of, 218; acquittal of, 218

Johnstone, General Joseph E. , in Shenandoah Valley, 180; joins Beauregard at Bull Run, 180; eludes McClellan, 186; contests Sherman's advance, 199; relieved of his command, 200; Lee attempts to effect a junction with, 201; surrenders to Sherman, 213

Kansas, sectional quarrels in, 143; constitution for, adopted at Lecompton, 150

Kansas-Nebraska Bill introduced by Douglas, 141; doctrine of "Popular Sovereignty" introduced into, 142; effect of, in Kansas, 143; Republican Party formed to oppose, 145

Kentucky, protest of, against Alien and Sedition Laws, 63-64; opened to colonization by Boon, 71; Lincoln a native of, 147; proclaims "neutrality" in Civil War, 177; Lincoln's diplomatic treatment of, 177-178; her soil violated by Confederates, 178; declares war on Confederacy, 179

Kentucky Resolutions, 63-64

"Know-Nothing" party, 138-139

Ku-Klux-Klan, organization and methods of, 223; Act passed to put down, 224; its work done, 224

Labour Unions, 223; movement not Collectivist, 223; hostility of, to the Trusts, 223-224

Lafayette, the Marquis de, comes to America, 34

Lawrence, Free Soil settlement of, burnt, 143

Lecompton Constitution framed, 150; accepted by Buchanan, 150; rejected and defeated by Douglas, 150

Lee proposes separation from Great Britain, 22

Lee, Robert E. , sent by Davis to the Crimea, 170; sounded as to accepting command of Federal forces, 175; refuses, 176; resigns his commission, 176; accepts Virginian command, 176; on Slavery, 176; opposed to Secession, 176; his view of State Rights, 176-177; defeats McClellan, 186; defeats Pope, 187; invades Maryland, 187; his proclamation, 189; fights McClellan at Antietam, 189; retires into Virginia, 189; defeats Hooker at Chancellorsville, 192; defeats Burnside at Fredericksburg, 192; invades Pennsylvania, 196; defeated at Gettysburg, 196; gets back unhammered, 196; outmanoeuvres Grant, 198; fights in the Wilderness, 198; his proposal to recruit Negroes, 199; effect of Sherman's march on, 201; attempts to join Johnstone, 201; surrenders to Grant, 202; his views on Fourteenth Amendment, 217

_Liberator, the_, founded by Garrison, 133; Lincoln denounced by, 148

Lincoln, Abraham, joins Republican Party, 147; his career and character, 148-149; his contest with Douglas, 150; debates with Douglas, 151; chosen candidate for the Presidency, 153; elected President, 155; objects to Crittenden Compromise, 161; South ignorant of character of, 163-164; defines issue of Civil War, 167; his Inaugural Address, 168-169; his policy, 171-172; sends supplies to Fort Sumter, 172; calls for soldiers, 174; returns Mason and Slidell, 183; refuses to supersede McClellan, 185; replaces McClellan by Pope, 187; effect of his personality on Maryland, 188; decides to issue Emancipation Proclamation, 189; his reply to Greeley, 190; defends proclamation as a military measure, 191; on Grant, 196-197; appoints Grant commander-in-chief, 197; prepared to compensate Southern slave owners, 199; re-elected, 199; opposition of Radicals to, 200; his policy of Reconstruction, 204; on Negro Suffrage, 204; last public speech, 207; assassinated, 208; his advantages lacked by Johnson, 210

"Little Giant, the, " nickname of Stephen Douglas, 140

Longfellow on John Brown, 153

Long Island, Battle of, 27

Look-Out Mountain, Battle of, 198

Louisiana, a French colony, 9; ceded to Spain, 10; re-ceded to Napoleon, 68; bought by U. S. , 68; Burr's plans regarding, 73-74; secedes from the Union, 161; Lincoln's plan for reconstruction of, 204; Negro government of, makes fraudulent returns, 225

Lovejoy, killed, 135

Lowell, James Russell, expresses sentiments of Anti-War Whigs, 121; his satire on Taylor's candidature, 124

_Lusitania_, the, sunk, 238

Lyon, Captain, commands Union forces in Missouri, 176

Macaulay on Calhoun's dispatch, 118

McClellan, General, sent to Crimea by Davis, 170; clears West Virginia of Confederates, 181; supersedes McDowell, 181; trains army of the Potomac, 185; his defects, 185; lands on Yorktown peninsula, 186; besieges Yorktown, 186; beaten by Lee, 186; retires to Harrison's Landing, 186; superseded, 187; reinstated, 189; fights Lee at Antietam, 189; Democratic candidate for the Presidency, 200; defeat of, 200

McDowell, General, advances into Virginia, 180; defeated at Bull Run, 180-181; superseded, 181; ordered to join McClellan, 186; fails to cut off Jackson, 186

McKinley, William, elected President, 234; re-elected, 235; assassinated, 235

McLane, Jackson's Secretary to the Treasury, 104; favourable to the U. S. Bank, 104; transferred to State Department, 106

Madison, James, a member of the Convention, 42; writes for the _Federalist_, 51; President, 77; his pacific leanings, 78; war forced on, 79; re-elected by sectional vote, 79

Maine, colonized from New England, 5; admitted as a State, 86

_Maine_, the, blown up, 234

March to the Sea, Sherman's, 201

Maryland, founded by Lord Baltimore, 4; early history of, 5; strategic importance of, 177; menacing attitude of, 177; Lincoln's success with, 177; Lee invades, 187; Southern illusions concerning, 188; refuses to rise, 188-189; becomes a Free State, 203

"Maryland! My Maryland!" 188

Mason-Dixon Line drawn, 7; becomes boundary of Slave States, 41

Mason and Slidell, Confederate envoys to Europe, 182; seized by Captain Wilkes, 182; English anger over seizure of, 183; Northern rejoicings over, 183; returned by Lincoln, 183

Massachusetts, a Puritan Colony, 5; resists Tea Tax, 17; charter of, revoked, 18; attempt to coerce, 25; Hartford Convention called by, 81; votes for War with Mexico, 120; Webster's influence with, 127; Sumner Senator for, 139; troops from, stoned in Baltimore, 177

Maximilian, placed on Mexican throne, 213; his death, 214

_Mayflower_, the, voyage of, 5

Meade, General, defeats Lee at Gettysburg, 196; permits him to retire unhammered, 196

_Merrimac_, the, exploits of, 184; duel with the _Monitor_, 184

Mexican War, outbreak of, 120; compared to Boer War, 120-121; opposition to, 121; successful prosecution of, 122; results of, 122-123

Mexico, Texas secedes from, 115; dispute with, over Texan boundary, 120; U. S. Goes to war with, 120; Calhoun opposes invasion of, 121; defeat of, 122; peace terms dictated to, 122; Lincoln fears filibustering in, 161; Napoleon III. Interferes in, 213

Mexico City taken, 120

Ministers, excluded from Congress, 45

Missionary Ridge, charge up, 198

Mississippi, Davis Senator for, 140; secedes from Union, 161

Mississippi River, upper, secured by Grant's victories, 184; whole in Federal control, 196

Missouri, disputes regarding admission of, 85; admitted as a Slave State, 86; settlers from, invade Kansas, 143, 150; defeat of Secessionists in, 176; becomes a Free State, 203

Missouri Compromise effected, 86; terms of, 86; validity of, disputed, 142; violated by Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 142; party formed to defend, 143; declared invalid, 147

Missouri Whisky Ring, 228

_Monitor_, the, duel with the _Merrimac_, 184

Monroe, James, a member of the War Party, 78; President, 84; declares European intervention unfriendly to U. S. , 88; last of the Virginian dynasty, 91

Monroe Doctrine, propounded, 88; keystone of American policy, 88-89; application to Texas, 118; Napoleon III. Violates, 213

Monterey, defeat of Mexicans at, 120; Davis wounded at, 140

Morgan, murder of, 112

Napoleon I. , obtains Louisiana, 68; sells to U. S. , 68; Jefferson's attitude towards, 76

Napoleon III. , intervenes in Mexico, 213; withdraws, 214

Nashville, Tennessee, abandoned by Confederates, 184

National Debt, establishment of, 55; not to be repudiated, 216

"National Republicans, " policy of, 84

Navigation Laws, 11, 15

Navy, U. S. , successes of, in War of, 1812, 80; use of, by North, 184; New Orleans captured by, 186

Negroes, brought to America as slaves, 12; Jefferson's views on, 75; Irish antagonism to, 195; Lee proposes recruitment of, 199; problem of, not settled by emancipation, 203; behaviour of, during Civil War, 212; Southern feeling towards, 212-213; their desire for freedom, 221; their political incompetence, 221; organization of, 221; conduct of, 222; thrown over by the Republican Party, 228; concession to, in Immigration Law, 231

Negro Rule, imposed on the South, 220; effects of, 222; resistance offered to, 223; overthrow of, 224-225; results of, 225-226

Negro Slavery (_see_ Slavery)

Negro Suffrage, Lincoln's proposals regarding, 204; provisions of Fourteenth Amendment as to, 217; Lee on prospects of, 217; Congress committed to, 218; imposed on the South, 220

New Hampshire, colonized for New England, 5

New Jersey, acquisition of, 7

New Mexico, acquired by U. S. , 122; open to Slavery, 126

New Orleans, attacked by British, 83; Jackson successfully defends, 83; message of Dix to, 165; captured by Farragut, 186; racial riot in, 218

New York, origin of, 6; becomes a British possession, 6; the objective of Lord Howe, 27; votes with the South, 58; Tammany Hall founded in, 58; Burr controls Democratic organization of, 66; runs for Governor of, 72; Van Buren fears power of Bank in, 104; riots against Draft in, 195

_New York Tribune_, on Secession, 164

North, the, insignificance of Slavery in, 40; Slavery abolished in, 40; divergence between South and, 47; balance between South and, 47, 85; Abolitionists unpopular in, 135; attitude of, towards slave owning, 136; resents abrogation of Missouri Compromise, 144; vote of, for Lincoln, 155; opinions in, regarding Secession, 164-165; anger of, over Fort Sumter, 173; effect of Lincoln's assassination on, 208-209; Johnson out of touch with, 210; doubts of, regarding Reconstruction, 211-212; tired of protecting Negro Governments, 224

North Carolina rejects Secession, 171; secedes from Union, 175

North, Lord, consents to coerce Colonies, 18; offers terms, 29; resignation of, 34

"Nullification" foreshadowed in Kentucky Resolutions, 63-64; proclaimed by South Carolina, 99; defended by Calhoun, 99; repudiated by Jackson, 100; applied to Force Bill, 101; not discredited in South, 102

Nullifiers, attitude of, 98-99; miscalculate Jackson's temper, 100; Jackson proposes to coerce, 100; Jackson's warning against, 102

Ohio, invaded by British, 80

"Old Hickory, " nickname of Andrew Jackson, 93, 113

Oregon, dispute concerning territory of, 117; outcry for war over, 117; Calhoun on disadvantages of war over, 117

"Palmetto Flag" of South Carolina, 158

Parliament, claim of, to tax the colonies, 14 _et seq. _

Party System, unreality necessary to a, 137

Penn, William, founds Pennsylvania, 7; establishes religious equality, 8; his treaty with the Indians, 8; disapproves of Slavery, 12

Pennsylvania, founded by Penn, 7; cleared of the French, 10; Slavery legal in, 12; Washington retreats into, 28; "Whisky Insurrection" in, 61; invaded by Lee, 196

Pensacola, British occupy, 82; dislodged from, 82

Perry, Commander, burns British fleet on the Lakes, 80

Personal Liberty Laws passed in certain Northern States, 136; disposition to repeal, 163

Personal Rights Bill, Sumner's, 214

Philadelphia, capital of Pennsylvania, 8; abandoned by Washington, 28; Convention meets at, 42

Philippine Islands, left at disposal of U. S. , 234; annexed, 235

Phillips, Wendell, on Secession, 164

Pickett's Brigade, charge of, 196

Pierce, Franklin, elected President, 139; Sumner compares Grant to, 213

Pinckney, of South Carolina, a member of the Convention, 42

Pinkerton, private assassinators hired by, 233

Polk, chosen as Democratic candidate for Presidency, 119; elected, 120; embarrassed over Oregon question, 120; decides for war with Mexico, 120; asks for supply to purchase Mexican territory, 122

Pope, General, succeeds McClellan, 187; defeated at second Battle of Bull Run, 187

Populist Party, objects of, 234; supports Bryan, 234

President, powers of, 45; method of election, 46; effect of Jacksonian Revolution on position of, 109

Progressive Party formed by Roosevelt, 236

Protection adopted after War of 1812. . 84; Cotton States opposed to, 85, 98; Republican Party and tradition of, 227

Prussia forces war on Europe, 237; attacks neutral Belgium, 237; sinks _Lusitania_, 238; revives campaign of murder at sea, 239; contrasted with U. S. , 239

Puritan Colonies in America, 5-6; dislike of Catholicism in, 38; feeling against Irish, 138-139

Quebec, taken by Wolfe, 10

Quincey, Josiah, protest of against Louisiana Purchase, 70

Radical Republicans, Chase favoured by, 153; adopt Frémont as candidate, 200; oppose Lincoln on Reconstruction, 204; Sumner spokesman of, 205; still a minority, 211; increased power in Congress, 218; commit Congress to Negro Suffrage, 218

Raleigh, Sir Walter, projects Colony of Virginia, 3-4

Randolph, John, draws up declaration of neutrality, 59

Randolph, Peyton, presides at first Continental Congress, 19; absent from second, 20

Reconstruction, Lincoln's views on, 204; Congress takes up, 216; Bill passed by Congress over Johnson's veto, 218. (_See also_ Negro Rule)

Religious Equality, established in Maryland, 5; in Pennsylvania, 8; true theory of, 36-38; in American Constitution, 38

"Republican" original name of Jefferson's party, 57. (_See also_ Democratic Party)

Republican Party formation of, 145; Frémont Presidential candidate of, 145; adopts Lincoln as candidate, 153; victory of, 155; Johnson out of touch with, 209; reasons for supporting Negro rule, 224; secures Presidency by a trick, 225; change in character of, 227-228; abandons cause of Negro, 228; becomes Capitalist party, 228; Roosevelt's efforts to reform, 235

Revolution of 1689 transfers government of Maryland to Protestants, 5; Hamilton's admiration for, 54

Revolution, French (_see_ French Revolution)

Rhode Island, a Puritan Colony, 5; provisional acceptance of invitation to Hartford Convention, 81

Richmond, Virginia, capital of Confederacy transferred to, 176; Confederate Congress to meet at, 180; Northern demand for capture of, 180; abandoned by Lee, 201

Rochambeau, co-operates with Washington against Cornwallis, 34

Rockingham Whigs, repeal Stamp Act, 16; conclude peace, 35

Roosevelt, Theodore, elected Vice-President, 235; succeeds McKinley, 235; his campaign against Trusts, 235; popularity of, 235; denounces his successor, 236; founds Progressive Party, 236; wishes U. S. To join Allies, 238

Rosecrans, General, defeated at Chickamauga, 198

San Francisco, Republican Convention at, 236

Saratoga, Burgoyne's surrender at, 29; effect of, 29-30

"Scallywags, " 221

Scotch-Irish, immigration of, 8-9

Secession, contemplated at Hartford Convention, 81; talked of in South Carolina, 123; of South Carolina, 158; of Gulf States, 161; motives, of, 163-164; Northern views of, 164; Abolitionists favour, 164; Greeley on, 164; Jacksonians oppose, 165; a popular movement, 166; Lincoln denies right of, 160; Douglas resists, 174; of Virginia, etc. , 176

Sedition Law, 63

Seminole Indians, Jackson pursues, 87

Senate, how chosen, 47; Whig majority in, 106; refuses to confirm appointment of Taney, 106; censures Jackson, 106; Censure expunged, 107; Northern majority in, 163

Seven Years' War, outbreak of, 9

Seward, William, Senator, for New York, 139; his speech on Fugitive Slave Law, 139; passed over for Frémont, 145; for Lincoln, 153; Secretary of State, 172; attempt to assassinate, 207; his desire for foreign war, 213

_Shannon_, the, duel with the _Chesapeake_, 80

Shay's Insurrection, 42; Jefferson on, 61

Shenandoah Valley, Johnstone in, 180; Jackson's campaign in, 186; Sheridan in, 201

Sheridan, General, his campaign in Shenandoah Valley, 201

Sherman, Senator John, opposes Negro Suffrage, 218

Sherman, General William T. , left in command in the West, 197; wins Battle of Chattanooga, 198; moves on Atlanta, 199; takes Atlanta, 200; his march to the sea, 201; receives surrender of Johnstone, 213; his proposed terms of peace, 213

Slavery, reappears in New World, 3; legal in all English Colonies, 12; difference in North and South, 12; general disapproval of, 40; disappears in Northern States, 40; Jefferson's proposals for extinction of, 41; Constitutional Compromises over, 48-49; opinion on American Fathers regarding, 49, 50, 129; Jefferson on, 50; excluded from North-West Territories, 85; Missouri Compromises concerning, 86; Calhoun's defence of, 111, 118, 134; California decides to exclude, 123; Arizona and New Mexico open to, 126; strengthening of, 129; decline in public reprobation of, 130; debates on, in Virginian legislature, 131; effect of economic changes on, 131; Garrison's view of, 133; Scriptural appeals regarding, 134-135; Douglas's attitude towards, 141; Lincoln's view of, 148-149; Crittenden compromise concerning, 160; not the issue of the Civil War, 162; Lincoln's pledge regarding, 168; not referred to by Davis, 169-170; Stephens on, 170; Lee on, 176; Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, 189-191; destroyed by the War, 199; dead, 203; Thirteenth Amendment abolishes, 203

Slave Trade, in hands of Northern Colonists, 12; condemned in first draft of Declaration of Independence, 49; suffered to continue for 20 years, 49; prohibition of, 49; abolished in District of Columbia, 126

Slidell (_see_ Mason and Slidell)

Socialism, character of American, 233

"Solid South, the, " 225, 228, 234

South, the, staple industries of, based on Slavery, 40; divergence between North and, 47; balance between North and, 47, 85; changes of view of Slavery in, 129-135; aggressive policy of, 144-145; rejects Douglas, 153; votes for Breckinridge, 155; motives of Secession of, 163-164; military capabilities of, 179; attitude of, after the war, 211-212; attitude of, towards Negroes, 212; Grant on temper of, 213; Negro rule established in, 221-222; liberation of, 224-225; Negro problem in, 225-226

South America, colonized by Spain, 1; influence of French Revolution on, 87; freedom of, guaranteed by Monroe Doctrine, 88; German ambitions in, 238

South Carolina, colonization of, 8; "Tories" in, 31; Cornwallis and Tarleton in, 31; dislike of Protection in, 98; nullifies Tariff, 99; nullifies Force Bill, 101; talk of Secession in, 123; election of Lincoln cheered in, 156; peculiar attitude of, 156-157; secedes from the Union, 158; demands surrender of Sumter, 172; anger against, 173-4; Sherman's march through, 201

Southern Confederacy, anticipated by Jackson, 102; formed, 169. (_See also_ Confederate States. )

Spain, Columbus sails from, 1; claims the New World, 3; decline of, 9; Louisiana transferred to, 10; dominated by Napoleon, 68; Burr seeks support from, 73; proposes war with, 74; neutral in war of 1812. . 82; U. S. Complaints against, 86-87; sells Florida to U. S. , 87; war with, 234

Spanish Colonies, 1, 3; revolt of, 87

"Spoils System, " the, Jefferson accused of originating, 68; Jackson inaugurates, 96; effect of, 109

Spottsylvania, Battle of, 198

"Squatter Sovereignty, " hostile nickname for "Popular Sovereignty" (_q. V. _), 142

Stamp Act, imposed, 14; resistance to, 15-16; repealed, 17

Stanton, appointed Secretary for War, 194; dismissal of, 219

Stars and Bars, the flag of the Confederacy, 173

Stars and Stripes, the, origin of, 35; South Carolina hands down, 158; affection of Davis for, 167; anger at affront to, 173-174; first appearance of, on European battlefields, 239-240

States, independence of, recognized severally, 35; powers of, under the Constitution, 44; representation of, in Congress, 47

State Sovereignty, question of, left undefined by the Convention, 43; doctrine of, affirmed by Quincey, 70; Hartford Convention takes its stand on, 82; Calhoun maintains, 111; extreme view of, taken by South Carolina, 156-157; Lincoln avoids overt challenge to, 171; Virginia's adherence to, 174-175; Lee's belief in, 175-176; Kentucky's interpretation of, 177-178

Stephens, Alexander H. , opposes secession of Georgia, 161; chosen Vice-President of the Confederacy, 169; on Slavery, 170; urges claims of Negroes, 212

Stevens, Thaddeus, dictator of Reconstruction policy, 214; his character and aims, 214-216; compels House to accept his leadership, 216; mover in Impeachment of Johnson, 218; death of, 224

Stowe, Mrs. Beecher, 132, 133, 136

Sumner, Charles, enters Senate, 139; his speeches and beating, 151; spokesman of Radicals, 205; his character, 205; misunderstands Declaration of Independence, 205-207; censures Grant's report, 213; not director of Reconstruction, 214; his scruple about mentioning black men, 217; his opinion on the Impeachment of Johnson, 220; his contention regarding Chinese, 230; concession to, 231

Sumter, cavalry leader, 32

Sumter Fort, held by Federal Government, 172; attempt to reinforce, 172; Lincoln sends supplies to, 172; Davis consents to bombardment of, 173; surrender of, 173; anger at attack on, 173-174

Supreme Court, independence of, 45; pronounces a National Bank constitutional, 57; Jackson on, 105; decides against Dred Scott, 146

Suratt, Mrs. , 207

Taft, President, succeeds Roosevelt, 236; denounced by Roosevelt, 236

Talleyrand and "X. Y. Z. Letters, " 63; Jefferson's negotiations with, 69

Tammany Hall, foundation of, 58

Taney, Roger, a Catholic, 39; Attorney-General, 105; and Jackson's Veto Message, 105; appointed Secretary to the Treasury, 106; Senate refuses to confirm, 106; his judgment in the Dred Scott case, 146; supports the Union, 165

"Tariff of Abominations, " the, 98

Tarleton, leader of South Carolina "Tories, " 31; defeated at Cowpens, 31

Taxation of the Colonies, 14-16

Taylor, Zachary, defeats Mexicans, 122; Whig candidate for Presidency, 124; Lowell's satire on, 124; elected, 125; on California, 125; an obstacle to Clay, 126; death of, 126

Tea Tax, imposed, 17; resisted in Boston, 17

Tennessee, Jackson commands in, 74; nominates Jackson for Presidency, 92; rejects Secession, 171; secedes, 175

Territories surrendered to Federal Government, 44; Slavery in, 85, 142 _et seq. _, 160; Douglas eager for development of, 141-142

Texas, secedes from Mexico, 115; the "Lone Star State, " 116; seeks admission to the Union, 116; Calhoun eager to annex, 116; boundary of, in dispute, 117; Secessionism in, 171

Thirteenth Amendment, Slavery abolished by, 203

Thomas, General, a Virginian Unionist, 97; associated with Sherman in the West, 97

"Tippercanoe, " nickname of Harrison, 113

Tobacco industry in American colonies, 11

Townshend, Charles, proposes taxation of Colonies, 17

_Trent_, the, Mason and Slidell take passage on, 182; stopped by Captain Wilkes, 182; anger in England over, 183

Trusts, unpopularity of, 234; Roosevelt attacks, 235

Tyler, Whig candidate for Vice-Presidency, 113; succeeds Harrison as President, 114; differences with Whig leaders, 114-115; appoints Calhoun Secretary of State, 115; Democrats refuse to accept as candidate, 119

"Uncle Tom's Cabin, " 136

Union, urgent need for, 41-42; difficulties of, 43; achieved, 51; Western feeling for, 72; Jackson's devotion to the, 100; Clay called upon to save the, 125; Abolitionists hostile to the, 133, 136; South Carolina's view of the, 157; Lincoln declares perpetual, 168; calls for soldiers to defend the, 174

United States, Constitution framed for, _42 et seq. _; neutrality of, 59; enthusiasm for France in, 60; Louisiana purchased by, 68; war with Great Britain, 79; Great Britain makes peace with, 83; feeling of victory in, 84; Florida acquired by, 87; European intervention in America declared unfriendly to, 88; Monroe Doctrine essential to, 88-89; Jackson's importance for, 108; claims of, to Oregon, 117; Texas desires to join, 118; dispute between Mexico and, 120; successful in war against Mexico, 122; California, etc. , acquired by, 122; secessions from, 158, 161, 176; anger in Great Britain with, 183; protests of, in _Alabama_ case, 192; compensation paid to, 192; Napoleon III. Avoids conflict with, 214; immigration problems in, 230-231; labour movement in, 233-234; attitude of, towards European War, 237-238; declares war, 239; contrast between Prussia and, 239

Vallandingham, a typical "Copperhead, " 194; sent across Confederate lines, 195

Van Buren, accuses Calhoun of conspiring against Eaton, 98; fears power of U. S. Bank in New York, 104; reports Palmerston on Jackson, 108; President, 110; avoids war with Great Britain, 111

Vermont, a Puritan Colony, 5; refuses invitation to Hartford Convention, 81

Vice-President, how chosen, 46; change in method of choosing, 67; Calhoun, 97; Tyler, 114; unimportance of, 114; Johnson, 200; Roosevelt, 235

Vicksburg, capture of, 196

Vikings, unimportance of, 2

Virginia, foundation of, 3-4; opposition to Stamp Act in, 16; sends Jefferson to Continental Congress, 20; invaded by British forces, 34; Jefferson's reforms in, 36 _et seq. _; fails to adopt his plan regarding Slavery, 41; slave insurrection in, 130; legislature of, discusses slavery, 130; John Brown plans slave rising in, 152; rejects Secession, 171; objects to coercion of a State, 174-175; secedes from the Union, 176; joins Confederacy, 176; invaded, 180, 186, 187, 192, 198

War of 1812, 79-84; effect of, 84, 87

War of Independence, 25-35

War with Spain, 234-235. (_See also_ Civil War, Mexican War)

Washington, City of, site agreed on, 55; Jefferson inaugurated in, 67; burnt by British, 80; Slave Trade abolished in, 126; attack on, feared, 187

Washington, Booker, quoted, 212, 220

Washington, George, serves in French War, 10; chosen to command American forces, 25; his character and strategy, 26-27; defeated at Long Island, 27; abandons Philadelphia, 28; defeats Tarleton at Cowpens, 31; besieges Yorktown, 34; presides over Convention, 42; President, 51; national confidence in, 52; signs Bill for a National Bank, 57; re-elected, 57; declares U. S. Neutral, 59; suppresses "Whisky Insurrection, " 61; condemns Democratic societies, 61; declines a third term, 62; his farewell address, 62

Webster, Daniel, as an actor, 79, 100; supports Force Bill, 101; leagued with Clay and Calhoun, 102; Secretary of State, 114; supports Compromise of 1850. . 127; death of, 139

Wellington, proposal to send to America, 83

West, the, opened up by Daniel Boon, 71; its governing conditions, 71-72; influence of, on Clay, 78; Slavery in, 85; deserts Clay for Jackson, 95; Douglas a product of, 140-141; Douglas appeals to, 174; military qualities of, 196

West Virginia, cleared by McClellan, 181; recognized as a State, 181

Whig Party, name adopted by Coalition against Jackson, 105; committed to defence of Bank, 105; defeat of, 105; appropriateness of name for, 109; abandonment of principles by, 113; victory of, 114; Tyler out of sympathy with, 114; runs Taylor for President, 124; disappearance of, 139, 145

Whitman, Walt, quoted, 173

Wilderness, the, Hooker trapped in, 192; Lee fights Grant in, 198

Williamsburg, Hooker defeated at, 186

Wilkes, Captain, seizes Mason and Slidell, 182; compliments to, 183

Wilmot Proviso, 122

Wilson, Woodrow, elected President, 236; career and character of, 236; his policy regarding European War, 238-239; supported by nation in declaring war, 239

Wolfe, James, takes Quebec, 160

"X. Y. Z. " Letters, 63

Yorktown Peninsula, Cornwallis retires to, 34; McClellan lands on, 186

Yorktown, surrenders, 34; McClellan besieges, 186

 PRINTED IN ENGLAND BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+| ALPHABETICAL CATALOGUE OF BOOKS || IN || GENERAL LITERATURE AND FICTION || || PUBLISHED BY || || CHATTO & WINDUS || || 97 & 99 ST. MARTIN'S LANE, CHARING CROSS || || LONDON, W. C. 2 || || _Telegrams_ _Telephone No. _ PERCY SPALDING, || _Bookstore, London_ _1624 Gerrard_ ANDREW CHATTO, || C. H. C. PRENTICE, || C. F. M. TOZER. |+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

 =ADAM (GEORGE). --Behind the Scenes at the Front. = With a Frontispiece. Demy 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =ADAMS (W. DAVENPORT). --A Dictionary of the Drama. = Vol. I. (A to G). Demy 8vo, cl. , _10s. 6d. _ net. 

 =ALLEN (GRANT), Books by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Babylon. = With 12 Illustrations. =Strange Stories. = =The Beckoning Hand. = =For Maimie's Sake. = =Philistia. = =The Devil's Die. = =In all shades. = =Tents of Shem. = =This Mortal Coil. = =Dumaresq's Daughter. = =Under Sealed Orders. = =The Duchess of Powysland. = =Blood Royal. = =The Great Taboo. = =Ivan Greet's Masterpiece. = =The Scallywag. = With 24 Illustrations =At Market Value. = * * * * * =The Tents of Shem. = POPULAR EDITION medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =ALEXANDER (Mrs. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo. Cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Valerie's Fate. = =Mona's Choice. = =A Life Interest. = =Blind Fate. = =By Woman's Wit. = =The Cost of her Pride. = =A Golden Autumn. = =Barbara, Lady's Maid & Peeress. = =Mrs. Crichton's Creditor. = =A Missing Hero. = =A Fight with Fate. = =The Step-mother. =

 =ANTROBUS (C. L. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo. Cloth. _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Quality Corner. = =Wildersmoor. = =The Wine or Finvarra. = =Stone Ezel. =

 =ARCHER (WILLIAM). --The Pirate's Progress. = Demy 8vo. Coloured wrapper, _3d. _ net. 

 =ART: A Critical Essay. = By CLIVE BELL. With 6 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, buckram, _5s. _ net. 

 =ARNOLD (E. L. ), Stories by. = =The Wonderful Adventures of Phra the Phoenician. = Crown 8vo, cloth, with 12 Illusts, by H. M. PAGET, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Constable of St. Nicholas. = With a Frontispiece. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =ART and LETTERS LIBRARY (The)= Large crown 8vo. Each volume with 8 Coloured Plates, and 24 in Half-tone. Bound in cloth, _5s. _ net per vol. EDITION DE LUXE, small 4to. Printed on pure rag paper, with additional Plates, parchment, _10s. 6d. _ net per vol. =Stories of the Italian Artists from Vasari. = Collected and arranged by E. L. SEELEY. =Artists of the Italian Renaissance=: their Stories as set forth by Vasari, Rinolfi, Lanzi, and the Chroniclers. Collected and arranged by E. L. SEELEY. =Stories of the Flemish and Dutch Artists=, from the time of the Van Eycks to the End of the Seventeenth Century, drawn from Contemporary Records. Collected and arranged by VICTOR REYNOLDS. =Stories of the English Artists=, from Van Dyck to Turner (1600-1851). Collected and arranged by RANDALL DAVIES and CECIL HUNT. =Stories of the French Artists=, from Clouet to Delacroix. Collected and arranged by P. M. TURNER and C. H. COLLINS BAKER. =Stories of the Spanish Artists=, from Goya. By Sir WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELL. Selected and arranged by LUIS CARREÑO. With Introduction by EDWARD HUTTON. =Stories of the German Artists=. By Prof. Dr. HANS W. SINGER. * * * * * =The Little Flowers of S. Francis of Assisi. = Translated by Prof. T. W. ARNOLD. With 8 Illustrations in Colour and 24 in Half-tone. =Of the Imitation of Christ. = By THOMAS À KEMPIS. Translated by RICHARD WHYTFORD. With Historical Introduction by WILFRID RAYNAL, O. S. B. , and 8 Reproductions in Colour and other decorations by W. RUSSELL FLINT. The EDITION DE LUXE has four additional Plates in Colour and may be had bound in pigskin with clasps, _25s. _ net. =The Confessions of Saint Augustine. = Translated by Dr. E. B. PUSEY. Edited by TEMPLE SCOTT. With an Introduction by Mrs. MEYNELL, and 12 Plates in Colour by MAXWELL ARMFIELD. The EDITION DE LUXE may be had bound in pigskin with clasps, _25s. _ net. =The Master of Game=: The Oldest English Book on Hunting. By EDWARD, Second Duke of York. Edited by W. A. And F. BAILLIE-GROHMAN. Introduction by THEODORE ROOSEVELT, Photogravure Frontispiece and 23 full-page Illustrations. Large crown 8vo, cloth, _7s. 6d. _ net; parchment, _10s. 6d. _ net. 

 =ARTEMUS WARD'S Works. = Crown 8vo, cloth, with Portrait, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =ARTIST (The Mind of the). = Edited by Mrs. LAURENCE BINYON. With 8 Plates. Small cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =ASHTON (JOHN). --Social Life in the Reign of Queen Anne. = With 85 Illusts. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =ATKINS (J. B. ) and CYRIL IONIDES. --A Floating Home. = The Log of a Thames Sailing Barge. With 8 Coloured Illustrations by Arnold Bennett. Fcap. 4to, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net. 

 =AUSTEN (JANE), The Works of=, in Ten Volumes, each containing Ten Illustrations in Colour by A. WALLIS MILLS. With Notes by R. BRIMLEY JOHNSON. Post 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net per vol. The Novels are as follows: I. And II. , PRIDE AND PREJUDICE; III. And IV. , SENSE AND SENSIBILITY; V. , NORTHANGER ABBEY; VI. , PERSUASION; VII. And VIII. , EMMA; IX. And X. , MANSFIELD PARK. 

 =AUTHORS for the POCKET. = Choice Passages, mostly selected by A. H. HYATT. 16mo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net each: leather, _4s. _ net each. =The Pocket R. L. S. = =The Pocket George Borrow. = =The Pocket Thackeray. = =The Pocket Charles Dickens. = =The Pocket Richard Jefferies. = =The Pocket George MacDonald. = =The Pocket Emerson. = =The Pocket Thomas Hardy. = =The Pocket George Eliot. = =The Pocket Charles Kingsley. = =The Pocket Lord Beaconsfield. = =The Flower of the Mind. =

 =AUZIAS-TURENNE (RAYMOND). --The Last of the Mammoths=: A Romance. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =AYSCOUGH (JOHN), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =Jacqueline. = =Hurdcott. = =Faustula. = * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Prodigals and Sons. = =Outsiders--and In. = =Mezzogiorno. = =Monksbridge. = * * * * * =Marotz. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _2s. _ net. 

 =BAILDON (H. B. ). --Robert Louis Stevenson=: A Study. With 2 Portraits. Crown 8vo, buckram, _5s. _ net. 

 =BALLADS and LYRICS of LOVE=, selected from PERCY'S 'Reliques. ' Edited with an Introduction by F. SIDGWICK. With 10 Plates in Colour after BYAM SHAW, R. I. Large fcap. 4to, cloth, _6s. _ net. =Legendary Ballads=, selected from PERCY'S 'Reliques. ' Edited with an Introduction by F. SIDGWICK. With 10 Plates in Colour after BYAM SHAW, R. I. Large fcap. 4to, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 ***The above 2 volumes may also be had in the ST. MARTIN'S LIBRARY, pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net each; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net each. 

 =BARDSLEY (Rev. C. W. ). --English Surnames=: Their Sources and Significations. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =BARING-GOULD (S. ), Novels by. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each; POPULAR EDITIONS, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =Red Spider. = =Eve. =

 =BARR (ROBERT), Stories by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =In a Steamer Chair. = With 2 Illusts. =From Whose Bourne=, &c. With 47 Illustrations by HAL HURST and others. =A Woman Intervenes. = =A Prince of Good Fellows. = With 15 Illustrations by E. J. SULLIVAN. =The Unchanging East. = * * * * * =The Speculations of John Steele. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net: POPULAR EDITION, medium 8vo. _9d. _ net. 

 =BARRETT (FRANK), Novels by. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Found Guilty. = =Folly Morrison. = =For Love and Honour. = =Between Life and Death. = =Fettered for Life. = =A Missing Witness. = With 8 Illusts. =The Woman of the Iron Bracelets. = =The Harding Scandal. = =A Prodigal's Progress. = =Under a Strange Mask. = 19 Illusts. =Was She Justified?= =Lady Judas. = =The Obliging Husband. = =Perfidious Lydia. = With Frontispiece. =The Error of Her Ways. = =John Ford=; and =His Helpmate. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS. Medium 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =Fettered for Life. = =Found Guilty. =

 =BARRINGTON (MICHAEL), The Knight of the Golden Sword. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =BASKERVILLE (JOHN). = By RALPH STRAUS and R. K. DENT. With 13 Plates. Quarto, buckram, _21s. _ net. 

 =BAYEUX TAPESTRY, The Book of the. = By HILAIRE BELLOC. With 76 facsimile Coloured Illustrations. Royal 8vo, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net. 

 =BEACONSFIELD, LORD. = By T. P. O'CONNOR, M. P. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =The Pocket Beaconsfield. = 16mo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =BENNETT (ARNOLD), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Leonora. = =Teresa of Watling Street. = =Tales of the Five Towns. = =Hugo. = =Sacred and Profane Love. = =The Gates of Wrath. = =The Ghost. = =The City of Pleasure. = =The Grand Babylon Hotel. = * * * * * =Leonora. = POPULAR EDITION, _2s. _ net. * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =The Grand Babylon Hotel. = =The City of Pleasure. = =Hugo. = =Sacred and Profane Love. = =A Great Man. = =Leonora. = * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =Books and Persons. = _See also under_ ATKINS (J. B. ), p. 2. 

 =BELL (CLIVE). Art: a Critical Essay. = With 6 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo, buckram, _5s. _ net. =Books and Pictures. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =BELLOC (HILAIRE). The Book of the Bayeux Tapestry. = With 76 facsimile Coloured Illustrations. Royal 8vo, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net. =The Conditions of Victory. = Small crown 8vo, coloured wrapper, _1s. _ net. 

 =BESANT and RICE, Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Ready-Money Mortiboy. = =The Golden Butterfly. = =My Little Girl. = =With Harp and Crown. = =This Son of Vulcan. = =The Monks of Thelema. = =By Celia's Arbour. = =The Chaplain of the Fleet. = =The Seamy Side. = =The Case of Mr. Lucraft. = ='Twas in Trafalgar's Bay. = =The Ten Years' Tenant. =

 =BESANT (Sir WALTER), Novels by. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =All Sorts and Conditions of Men. = With 12 Illustrations by FRED. BARNARD. =The Captains' Room=, &c. =All in a Garden Fair. = With 6 Illustrations by HARRY FURNISS. =Dorothy Forster. = With Frontispiece. =Uncle Jack=, and other Stories. =Children of Gibeon. = =The World Went Very Well Then. = With 12 Illustrations by A. FORESTIER. =Herr Paulus. = =The Bell of St. Paul's. = =For Faith and Freedom. = With Illusts. By A. FORESTIER and F. WADDY. =To Call Her Mine=, &c. With 9 Illusts. =The Holy Rose=, &c. With Frontispiece. =Armorel of Lyonesse. = With 12 Illusts. =St. Katherine's by the Tower. = With 12 Illustrations by C. GREEN. VERBENA CAMELLIA STEPHANOTIS. =The Ivory Gate. = =The Rebel Queen. = =Beyond the Dreams of Avarice. = With 12 Illustrations by W. H. HYDE. =In Deacon's Orders=, &c. With Frontis. =The Revolt of Man. = =The Master Craftsman. = =The City of Refuge. = =A Fountain Sealed. = =The Changeling. = =The Fourth Generation. = =The Orange Girl. = With 8 Illustrations by F. PEGRAM. =The Alabaster Box. = =The Lady of Lynn. = With 12 Illustrations by G. DEMAIN-HAMMOND. =No Other Way. = With 12 Illustrations. * * * * * FINE PAPER EDITIONS, pott 8vo, cloth gilt, _2s. 6d. _ net each; leather gilt top, _4s. _ net each. =London. = =Westminster. = =Jerusalem. = (In collaboration with Prof. E. H. PALMER) =Sir Richard Whittington. = =Gaspard de Coligny. = =All Sorts and Conditions of Men. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =All Sorts and Conditions of Men. = =The Golden Butterfly. = =Ready-Money Mortiboy. = =By Celia's Arbour. = =The Chaplain of the Fleet. = =The Monks of Thelema. = =The Orange Girl. = =For Faith and Freedom. = =Children of Gibeon. = =Dorothy Forster. = =No Other Way. = =Armorel of Lyonesse. = =The Lady of Lynn. = =My Little Girl. = * * * * * Demy 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =London. = With 125 Illustrations. =Westminster. = With Etching by F. S. WALKER, and 130 Illustrations. =South London. = With Etching by F. S. WALKER, and 118 Illustrations. =East London. = With Etching by F. S. WALKER, and 56 Illustrations by PHIL MAY, L. RAVEN HILL, and J. PENNELL. * * * * * =Art of Fiction. = Fcap. 8vo, cloth, _1s. _ net. 

 =BIERCE (AMBROSE). --In the Midst of Life. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net; crown 8vo, picture cover, _1s. _ net. 

 =BINDLOSS (HAROLD), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Mistress of Bonaventure. = =Daventry's Daughter. = =A Sower of Wheat. = =The Concession-hunters. = =Ainslie's Ju-ju. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo. _9d. _ net each. =The Concession-hunters. = =The Mistress of Bonaventure. =

 =BLAKE (WILLIAM): A Critical Study= by A. C. SWINBURNE. With a Portrait. Crown 8vo, buckram, _6s. _ net. =The Marriage of Heaven and Hell=, and =A Song of Liberty=. With Introduction by F. G. STOKES. A FLORENCE PRESS BOOK. Cr. 8vo, hand-made paper, bds. , _3s. 6d. _ net; parchmt. , _5s. _ net. 

 =BOCCACCIO. --The Decameron. = With a Portrait. Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. (_See also under_ FLORENCE PRESS BOOKS. )

 =BOHEMIA'S CLAIM FOR FREEDOM. =--Edit. By J. PROCHAZKA. With an Introduction by G. K. CHESTERTON. Illust. Post 8vo, paper, _1s. _ net. 

 =BORENIUS (TANCRED). --The Painters of Vicenza. = With 15 full-page Plates. Demy 8vo. , cloth, _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =BORROW (GEORGE), The Pocket. = Arranged by EDW. THOMAS. 16mo, cloth _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =BOSSES AND CORBELS OF EXETER CATHEDRAL. = By E. K. PRIDEAUX and G. R. HOLT SHAFTO. With Illusts. Dy. 8vo, cl. , _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =BOURGET (PAUL). --The Night Cometh. = Translated by FREDERIC LEES. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =BRAND (JOHN). --Observations on Popular Antiquities. = With the Additions of Sir HENRY ELLIS. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =BRANFORD (BENCHARA). --Janus and Vesta. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =BREWER'S (Rev. Dr. ) Dictionary. = =The Reader's Handbook of Famous Names in Fiction, Allusions, References, Proverbs, Plots, Stories, and Poems. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =BRIDGE CATECHISM: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS=: including the PORTLAND CLUB CODE. By ROBERT HAMMOND. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net. 

 =BRIDGE (J. S. C. ). --From Island to Empire=: A History of the Expansion of England by Force of Arms. With Maps and Plans. Large crown 8vo, cl. , _6s. _ net; also crown 8vo, cloth. _2s. _ net. 

 =BROWNING'S (ROBT. ) POEMS. = Large fcap. 4to, cl. , _6s. _ net ea. ; LARGE PAPER EDITION, parchment, _12s. 6d. _ net each. --Also in the ST. MARTIN'S LIBRARY, pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net each; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net each. =Pippa Passes=; and =Men and Women. = With 10 Plates in Colour after E. FORTESCUE BRICKDALE. No parchment copies. =Dramatis Personæ=; and =Dramatic Romances and Lyrics. = With 10 Plates in Colour after E. F. BRICKDALE. * * * * * =Browning's Heroines. = By ETHEL COLBURN MAYNE. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =BUCHANAN (ROBERT), Poems and Novels by. = =The Complete Poetical Works of Robert Buchanan. = 2 Vols. , crown 8vo, buckram, with Portrait Frontispiece to each volume, _12s. _ net. * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Shadow of the Sword. = =A Child of Nature. = =God and the Man. = With 11 Illustrations by F. BARNARD. =Lady Kilpatrick. = =The Martyrdom of Madeline. = =Love Me for Ever. = =Annan Water. = =Foxglove Manor. = =The New Abelard. = =Rachel Dene. = =Matt=: A Story of a Caravan. =The Master of the Mine. = =The Heir of Linne. = =Woman and the Man. = =Red and White Heather. = =Andromeda. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =The Shadow of the Sword. = =God and the Man. = =Foxglove Manor. = =The Martyrdom of Madeline. = * * * * * =The Shadow of the Sword. = FINE PAPER EDITION. Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. * * * * * =The Charlatan. = By ROBERT BUCHANAN and HENRY MURRAY. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =BURTON (ROBERT). --The Anatomy of Melancholy. = With a Frontispiece. Demy 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =BYRD (JOHN WALTER). --The Born Fool. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =BYZANTINE ENAMELS IN MR. PIERPONT MORGAN'S COLLECTION. = By O. M. DALTON. With Note by ROGER FRY, and Illustrations in Colour. Royal 4to, boards, _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =CAINE (HALL), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Shadow of a Crime. = =A Son of Hagar. = =The Deemster. =

 Also POPULAR EDITIONS, picture covers, _9d. _ net each; and the FINE PAPER EDITION of =The Deemster=, pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, _4s. _ net. 

 =CAINE (WILLIAM). --Monsieur Segotin's Story. = Demy 8vo, coloured wrapper, _3d. _ net. 

 =CAMBRIDGE FROM WITHIN. = By CHARLES TENNYSON. With 12 illustrations in Colour and 8 in Sepia by HARRY MORLEY. Demy 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =CAMERON (V. LOVETT). --The Cruise of the 'Black Prince' Privateer. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, with 2 Illusts. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =CANZIANI (ESTELLA), Books by. = =Costumes, Traditions, and Songs of Savoy. = With 50 Illustrations in Colour and some in Line. Demy 4to, cl. Gilt, _21s. _ net; vellum gilt. _31s. 6d. _ net. =Piedmont. = By ESTELLA CANZIANI and ELEANOUR ROHDE. With 52 Illustrations in Colour and many in Line, Demy 4to, cloth, _21s. _ net. 

 =CARROLL (LEWIS), Books by. = =Alice In Wonderland. = With 12 Col. And many Line Illus. By MILLICENT SOWERBY. Large cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =Feeding the Mind. = With a Preface by W. H. DRAPER. Post 8vo, boards, _1s. _ net, leather, _2s. _ net. 

 =CATHOLICITY, WHAT IS?=--Letters from the _Church Times_ and the _Tablet_, Collected by W. W. Crown 8vo, paper, _1s. _ net. 

 =CHAPMAN'S (GEORGE) Works. = Vol. I. , Plays Complete, including the Doubtful Ones. --Vol. II. , Poems and Minor Translations, with Essay by A. C. SWINBURNE. --Vol. III. , Translations of the Iliad and Odyssey. Three Vols. , crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. 

 =CHAUCER for Children: A Golden Key. = By Mrs. H. R. HAWEIS. With 8 Coloured Plates and 30 Woodcuts. Crown 4to. Cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =Chaucer for Schools. = With the Story of his times and his Work. By Mrs. H. R. HAWEIS. Demy 8vo. Cl. , _2s. 6d. _ net. 

 ***See also THE KING'S CLASSICS, p. 16. 

 =CHESNEY (WEATHERBY), Novels by. = Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Cable-man. = =The Claimant. = =The Romance of a Queen. =

 =CHESS, The Laws and Practice of=; with an Analysis of the Openings. By HOWARD STAUNTON. Edited by R. B. WORMALD. Crown 8vo, cl. , _5s. _ net. =The Minor Tactics of Chess:= A Treatise on the Deployment of the Forces in obedience to Strategic Principle. By F. K. YOUNG and E. C. HOWELL. Long fcap. 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net. =The Hastings Chess Tournament=, Aug. -Sept. , 1895. With Annotations by PILLSBURY, LASKER, TARRASCH, STEINITZ, SCHIFFERS, TEICHMANN, BARDELEBEN, BLACKBURNE, GUNSBERG, TINSLEY, MASON and ALBIN; also Biographies and Portraits. Edited by H. F. CHESHIRE. Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =CHESTERTON (G. K. ). --A Short History of England. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =CHRISTMAS CAROLS, ANCIENT ENGLISH. = Collected and arranged by EDITH RICKERT. Post 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. Parchment, _5s. _ net. 

 _See also_ NEW MEDIEVAL LIBRARY, p. 19. 

 =CLAUDEL (PAUL). --The Tidings Brought to Mary. = Translated by LOUISE MORGAN SILL. Pott 4to, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =CLODD (EDWARD). --Myths and Dreams. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =COLLINS (J. CHURTON, M. A. ). Jonathan Swift. = Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =COLLINS (WILKIE), Novels by. = Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Antonina. = =Basil. = =Hide and Seek. = =The Woman in White. = =The Moonstone. = =Man and Wife. = =The Dead Secret. = =After Dark. = =The Queen of Hearts. = =No Name. = =My Miscellanies. = =Armadale. = =Poor Miss Finch. = =Miss or Mrs. ?= =The Black Robe. = =The New Magdalen. = =Frozen Deep. = =A Rogue's Life. = =The Law and the Lady. = =The Two Destinies. = =The Haunted Hotel. = =The Fallen Leaves. = =Jezebel's Daughter. = =Heart and Science. = ="I Say No. "= =The Evil Genius. = =Little Novels. = =The Legacy of Cain. = =Blind Love. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =Antonina. = =Poor Miss Finch. = =The Woman in White. = =The Law and the Lady. = =Moonstone. = =The New Magdalen. = =The Dead Secret. = =Man and Wife. = =No Name. = =Armadale. = =The Haunted Hotel. = =Blind Love. = =The Legacy of Cain. = * * * * * =The Woman in White. = LARGE TYPE, FINE PAPER EDITION. Pott 8vo, cloth, gilt top, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. =The Frozen Deep. = LARGE TYPE EDIT. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, _1s. _ net. 

 =COLVILL (HELEN H. ). --The Incubus. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =COMPENSATION ACT (THE), 1906. = By A. CLEMENT EDWARDS, M. P. Crown 8vo, cloth, _1s. 6d. _ net. 

 =COMPTON (HERBERT), Novels by. = =The Inimitable Mrs. Massingham. = POPULAR EDITION, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net. * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Wilful Way. = =The Queen can do no Wrong. = =To Defeat the Ends of Justice. =

 =CORNWALL. --Popular Romances of the West of England=: Collected by ROBERT HUNT, F. R. S. With two Plates by GEORGE CRUIKSHANK. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =CREIGHTON (BASIL). --The History of an Attraction. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =CRESSWELL (C. M. )--The Making and Breaking of Almansur. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =CROSS (MARGARET B. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =Opportunity. = =Up to Perrin's. = * * * * * =A Question of Means. = Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. POPULAR EDITION, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =CRUIKSHANK'S COMIC ALMANACK. = Complete in TWO SERIES: the FIRST from 1835 to 1843; the SECOND, from 1844 to 1853. With many hundred Woodcuts and Steel Plates by GEORGE CRUIKSHANK and others. Two Vols. , crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net each. 

 =CROKER (B. M. ), Novels by. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =A Bird of Passage. = =Mr. Jervis. = =Diana Barrington. = ="To Let. "= =A Family Likeness. = =Terence. = =A Third Person. = =Interference. = =Beyond the Pale. = =Two Masters. = =Infatuation. = =Some One Else. = =In the Kingdom of Kerry. = =Jason, &c. = =Married or Single?= =Miss Balmaine's Past. = =Pretty Miss Neville. = =Proper Pride. = =The Cat's-paw. = =The Real Lady Hilda. = =The Spanish Necklace. = =Village Tales & Jungle Tragedies. = =A Rolling Stone. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =Proper Pride. = =The Cat's-paw. = =Diana Barrington. = =A Bird of Passage. = =A Family Likeness. = =The Spanish Necklace. = =A Rolling Stone. = =Infatuation. = =Pretty Miss Neville. = =Beyond the Pale. = =The Real Lady Hilda. = =Married or Single?=

 =CUPID AND PSYCHE. = With 8 Illustrations in colour by DOROTHY MULLOCK. Fcap. 4to, boards, _5s. _ net. 

 =CUSSANS (JOHN E. ). --A Handbook of Heraldry. = With 408 Woodcuts and 2 Colrd. Plates. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _5s. _ net. 

 =DAVIES (Dr. N. E. YORKE-). = Crown 8vo, _1s. _ net; cloth, _1s. 6d. _ net. =The Dietetic Cure of Obesity (Foods for the Fat). = * * * * * =Aids to Long Life. = Cr. 8vo, _2s. _ net; cl. _2s. 6d_, net. * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _1s. 6d. _ net. =Wine and Health=: How to enjoy both. =One Thousand Medical Maxims and Surgical Hints. = =Nursery Hints=: A Mother's Guide. 

 =DELSTANCHE (ALBERT). --The Little Towns of Flanders. = Twelve Woodcuts, with Prefatory Letter from EMILE VERHAEREN. Fcap. 4to, boards, _3s. 6d. _ net. _See also_ under FLORENCE PRESS BOOKS, page 10. 

 =DEVON: Its Moorlands, Streams, and Coasts. = By Lady ROSALIND NORTHCOTE. Illustrated in Colours by F. J. WIDGERY. Fcap. 4to, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net. =Folk Rhymes of Devon. = By W. CROSSING. Demy 8vo, cloth. _4s. 6d. _ net. =Lynton and Lynmouth. = By JOHN PRESLAND. Illustrated in Colour by F. J. WIDGERY. Crown 8vo, cloth. _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =DEWAR (GEORGE A. B. ). --This Realm, This England. = With 9 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, _2s. _ net. 

 =DEWAR (T. R. ). --A Ramble Round the Globe. = With 220 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =DICKENS (CHARLES), The Speeches of. = With a Portrait. Pott 8vo, cloth. _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, _4s. _ net. =Charles Dickens. = By ALGERNON CHARLES SWINBURNE. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Pocket Charles Dickens:= Passages chosen by ALFRED H. HYATT. 16mo. Cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =DICTIONARIES. = =A Dictionary of the Drama. = By W. DAVENPORT ADAMS. Vol I. (A to G). Demy 8vo, cloth. _10s. 6d. _ net. =The Reader's Handbook. = By Rev. E. C. BREWER, LL. D. Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =Familiar Allusions. = By W. A. And C. G. WHEELER. Demy 8vo, cl. _7s. 6d. _ net. =Familiar Short Sayings of Great Men. = With Explanatory Notes by E. EDWARDS. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =DOBSON (AUSTIN), Works by. = Crown 8vo, buckram, _5s. _ net each. =Four Frenchwomen. = With Portraits. =Eighteenth Century Vignettes. = In Three Series, also FINE-PAPER EDITIONS, pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net each; leather, _4s. _ net each. =A Paladin of Philanthropy, and other Papers. = With 2 Illustrations. =Side-walk Studies. = With 5 Illusts. =Old Kensington Palace, &c. = With 6 Illustrations. =At Prior Park, &c. = With 6 Illustrations. =Rosalba's Journal. = 8vo, with 6 Illus. 

 =DIMNET (ERNEST). --France Herself Again. = Demy 8vo, cloth, _16s. _ net. 

 =DIRCKS (HELEN). --FINDING. = Pott 8vo, _2s. 6d. _ net. 

 =DIXON (W. WILLMOTT), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Rogue of Rye. = =King Hal of Heronsea. =

 =DONOVAN (DICK), Detective Stories by. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Suspicion Aroused. = =In the Grip of the Law. = =The Man from Manchester. = =The Mystery of Jamaica Terrace. = =Wanted!= =Chronicles of Michael Danevitch. = =Tracked to Doom. = =Tracked and Taken. = =A Detective's Triumphs. = =Who Poisoned Hetty Duncan?= =Caught at Last. = =Link by Link. = =Riddles Read. = =From Information Received. = =The Man-Hunter. = =Tales of Terror. = =Deacon Brodie. = =Tyler Tatlock, Private Detective. = =The Records of Vincent Trill. =

 =DOSTOEVSKY (FYODOR), Letters of. = Translated by ETHEL COLBURN MAYNE. With 16 Illustrations. Demy 8vo, buckram, _7s. 6d. _ net. NEW AND CHEAPER EDITION, reset with all the original illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =DOYLE (A. CONAN). --The Firm of Girdlestone. = Cr. 8vo. Cl. _3s. 6d. _ net; POPULAR EDITION, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =DRAMATISTS, THE OLD. = Edited by Col. CUNNINGHAM. Cr. 8vo, cloth, with Portraits. _3s. 6d. _ net per Vol. =Ben Jonson's Works. = With Notes and a Biographical Memoir by WILLIAM GIFFORD. Three Vols. =Chapman's Works. = Three Vols. --Vol. I. The Plays complete; Vol. II. Poems and Translations, with Essay by A. C. SWINBURNE, Vol. III. The Iliad and Odyssey. =Marlowe's Works. = One Vol. =Massinger's Plays. = One Vol. 

 =DRAPER (W. H. ). --Poems of the Love of England. = Crown 8vo, Decorated cover, _1s. _ net. 

 (_See also under_ PETRARCH. )

 =DU MAURIER (GEORGE), The Satirist of the Victorians. = By T. MARTIN WOOD. With 41 Illustrations. Fcap. 4to, cloth, _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =DUMPY BOOKS (The) for Children. = Royal 32mo, cloth, _1s. _ net each. =1. The Flamp, The Ameliorator, and The School-boy's Apprentice. = By E. V. LUCAS. =4. The Story of Little Black Sambo. = By HELEN BANNERMAN. Illustrated in colours. =7. A Flower Book. = Illustrated in colours by NELLIE BENSON. =8. The Pink Knight. = By J. R. MONSELL. Illustrated in colours. =9. The Little Clown. = By T. COBB. =10. A Horse Book. = By MARY TOURTEL. Illustrated in colours. =11. Little People=: an Alphabet. By HENRY MAYER and T. W. H. CROSLAND. Illustrated in colours. =12. A Dog Book. = By ETHEL BICKNELL. With Pictures in colours by CARTON MOORE PARK. =15. Dollies. = By RICHARD HUNTER. Illustrated in colours by RUTH COBB. =17. Peter Piper's Practical Principles. = Illustrated in colours. =18. Little White Barbara. = By ELEANOR MARCH. Illustrated in colours. =22. The Old Man's Bag. = By T. W. H. CROSLAND. Illus. By J. R. MONSELL. =25. More Dollies. = By RICHARD HUNTER. Illus. In colours by RUTH COBB. =28. The Sooty Man. = By E. B. MACKINNON and EDEN COYBEE. Illus. =30. Rosalina. = Illustrated in colours by JEAN C. ARCHER. =31. Sammy and the Snarlywink. = Illustrated in colours by LENA and NORMAN AULT. =33. Irene's Christmas Party. = By RICHARD HUNTER. Illus. By RUTH COBB. =34. The Little Soldier Book. = By JESSIE POPE. Illustrated in colours by HENRY MAYER. =35. The Dutch Doll's Ditties. = By C. AUBREY MOORE. =36. Ten Little Nigger Boys. = By NORA CASE. =37. Humpty Dumpty's Little Son. = By HELEN R. CROSS. =38. Simple Simon. = By HELEN R. CROSS. Illustrated in colours. =39. The Little Frenchman. = By EDEN COYBEE. Illustrated in colours by K. J. FRICERO. =40. The Story of an Irish Potato. = By LILY SCHOFIELD. Illust. In colours. 

 =DUTT (ROMESH C. ). --England and India=: Progress during One Hundred Years. Crown 8vo, cl. , _2s. _ net. 

 =EDWARDS (ELIEZER). --Words, Facts, and Phrases=: A Dictionary of Curious, Quaint, and Out-of-the-Way Matters. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =EGERTON (Rev. J. C. ). --Sussex Folk and Sussex Ways. = With Four Illusts. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =ELIZABETHAN VERSE, The Book of. = Edited, with Notes, by W. S. BRAITHWAITE. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net; vellum gilt, _12s. 6d. _ net. 

 =EPISTOLÆ OBSCURORUM Virorum (1515-1517). = Latin Text, with Translation, Notes, &c. , by F. G. STOKES. Royal 8vo, buckram, _25s. _ net. 

 =EXETER SCHOOL, The Founding of. = By H. LLOYD PARRY. Crown 4to, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =FAIRY TALES FROM TUSCANY. = By ISABELLA M. ANDERTON. Square 16mo, cloth, _1s. _ net. 

 =FAMILIAR ALLUSIONS. = Miscellaneous Information. By W. A. And C. G. WHEELER. Demy 8vo, cl. , _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =FAMILIAR SHORT SAYINGS of Great Men. = By S. A. BENT, A. M. Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =FARADAY (MICHAEL), Works by. = Post 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Chemical History of a Candle=: Lectures delivered before a Juvenile Audience. Edited by WILLIAM CROOKES, F. C. S. With numerous Illusts. =On the Various Forces of Nature, and their Relations to each other. = Edited by WILLIAM CROOKES, F. C. S. With Illustrations. 

 =FARMER (HENRY). --Slaves of Chance=: A Novel, Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =FARRAR (F. W. , D. D. ). --Ruskin as a Religious Teacher. = Square 16mo, cloth, with Frontispiece, _1s. _ net. 

 =FENN (G. MANVILLE), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The New Mistress. = =Witness to the Deed. = =The Tiger Lily. = =The White Virgin. = =A Woman Worth Winning. = =Cursed by a Fortune. = =The Case of Ailsa Gray. = =Commodore Junk. = =In Jeopardy. = =Double Cunning. = =A Fluttered Dovecote. = =King of the Castle. = =The Master of the Ceremonies. = =The Story of Antony Grace. = =The Man with a Shadow. = =One Maid's Mischief. = =The Bag of Diamonds, and Three Bits of Paste. = =Black Shadows. = =Running Amok. = =The Cankerworm. = =So Like a Woman. = =A Crimson Crime. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =A Crimson Crime. = =A Woman Worth Winning. =

 =FILIPPI (ROSINA). --Inhaling: A Romance. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =FIREWORK-MAKING, The Complete Art of. = By T. KENTISH. With 267 Illusts. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net

 =FISHER (ARTHUR O. ). --The Land of Silent Feet. = With a Frontispiece by G. D. ARMOUR. Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =FLAMMARION (CAMILLE). --Popular Astronomy. = Translated by J. ELLARD GORE, F. R. A. S. With Illustrations. Medium 8vo, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net. 

 =FLOWER BOOK (The). = By CONSTANCE SMEDLEY-ARMFIELD and MAXWELL ARMFIELD. Large fcap 4to, cl. , _5s. _ net. 

 =FLORENCE PRESS BOOKS (The). = Set in the beautiful FLORENCE TYPE designed by Mr. HERBERT P. HORNE. Printed on hand-made paper. =Virginibus Puerisque, &c. = By R. L. STEVENSON. With 12 Illustrations in Coloured Collotype after the Drawings of NORMAN WILKINSON. (235 numbered copies. ) Crown 4to, bds. , _£2 12s. 6d. _ net; vellum, _£3 3s. _ net. =The Floretti or Little Flowers of S. Francis. = Translated by Prof. T. W. ARNOLD, M. A. With 29 Illustrations in Collotype from the MSS. In the Laurentian Library. (475 numbered Copies. ) Printed in red and black. Demy 4to, boards, _30s. _ net; vellum, _42s. _ net. =Songs before Sunrise. = By ALGERNON CHARLES SWINBURNE. (475 numbered copies. ) Printed in red and black. Crown 4to, boards, _26s. _ net; limp vellum, _36s. _ net. =The Marriage of Heaven and Hell=; and =A Song of Liberty=. By WILLIAM BLAKE. With Introduction by F. G. STOKES. Crown 8vo, boards, _3s. 6d. _ net; parchment, _5s. _ net. =Sappho=: One Hundred Lyrics. By BLISS CARMAN. Small crown 8vo, boards, _5s. _ net; parchment gilt, _6s. _ net. =Memoriale di Molte Statue e Pitture, Sono Inclyta Cipta di Florentia. = (Edition limited to 450 copies. ) Demy 8vo, _5s. _ net; limp vellum, _12s. 6d. _ net. =Olympia: The Latin Text of Boccaccio's Fourteenth Eclogue=, with an English rendering, and other supplementary matter, by ISRAEL GOLLANCZ, Litt. D. , and a Photogravure facsimile of a part of the MS. Limited to 500 copies fcap. 4to, hand-made paper, boards, _6s. _ net; vellum, _12s. 6d. _ net. =Stevenson's Poems. = Complete Edition. Small fcap, 4to, gilt top, _12s. 6d. _ net. =The Poems of John Keats. = Newly arranged in chronological order, and Edited by Sir SIDNEY COLVIN. In 2 vols. , small 4to, boards, _15s. _ net; buckram, _21s. _ net. LARGE PAPER EDITION, limited to 250 copies, fcap. 4to, hand-made paper, parchment, _31s. 6d. _ net; vellum, _45s. _ net. =The Lyrical Poems of Shelley. = Newly Edited by Prof. C. H. HERFORD. 1 Vol. Small 4to, boards, _12s. 6d. _ net; buckram, _16s. _ net. Also a LARGE PAPER EDITION, limited to 250 numbered copies. Parchment, _25s. _ net. =Flanders, The Little Towns of. = 12 Woodcuts by ALBERT DELSTANCHE, with a Prefatory Letter from EMILE VERHAEREN. Edition limited to 500 numbered copies. Demy 4to, bds. , _12s. 6d. _ net; vellum, _£1 1s. _ net. 

 =FRANKAU (GILBERT). --One of Us=: A Novel in Verse. Crown 8vo, paper, _1s. _ net. Special Edition with Illustrations by "FISH. " Fcap. 4to, boards, _5s. _ net. 100 copies bound in parchment and signed by the Author and Artist, _12s. 6d. _ net. Only a few remain. ="Tid'Apa"=: A Poem. Demy 8vo, boards, _2s. 6d. _ net. =The City of Fear. = Pott 4to, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Judgement of Valhalla. = Pott 4to, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Woman of the Horizon. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =FREEMAN (R. AUSTIN). --John Thorndyke's Cases. = Illustrated by H. M. BROCK, &c. POPULAR EDITION, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =FRY'S (HERBERT). --Royal Guide to the London Charities. = Edited by JOHN LANE. Published Annually. Crown 8vo, cloth, _1s. 6d. _ net. 

 =FRY (ROGER). --Children's Pictures and the Teaching of Art. = Illustrated in Colour and Monochrome. Fcap. 4to, boards, _2s. 6d. _ net. 

 =GARDENING BOOKS. = Post 8vo, _1s. 6d. _ net each. =A Year's Work in Garden and Greenhouse. = By GEORGE GLENNY. Also an edition at _1s. _ net. =Household Horticulture. = By TOM and JANE JERROLD. Illustrated. =The Garden that Paid the Rent. = By TOM JERROLD. * * * * * =Our Kitchen Garden. = By TOM JERROLD. Post 8vo, cloth, _1s. _ net. 

 =GIBBON (CHARLES), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Robin Gray. = =The Golden Shaft. = =The Flower of the Forest. = =The Braes of Yarrow. = =Of High Degree. = =Queen of the Meadow. = =By Mead and Stream. = =For Lack of Gold. = * * * * * =The Dead Heart. = POPULAR EDITION, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =GIBBS (A. HAMILTON). --Cheadle and Son. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =GIBSON (L. S. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Freemasons. = =Burnt Spices. = =Ships of Desire. = * * * * * =The Freemasons. = Cheap Edition, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =GILBERT'S (W. S. ) Original Plays. = In 4 Series. FINE-PAPER EDITION, Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net each; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net each. The FIRST SERIES contains: The Wicked World--Pygmalion and Galatea--Charity--The Princess--The Palace of Truth--Trial by Jury--Iolanthe. The SECOND SERIES contains: Broken Hearts--Engaged--Sweethearts --Gretchen--Dan'l Druce--Tom Cobb--H. M. S. 'Pinafore'--The Sorcerer--The Pirates of Penzance. The THIRD SERIES contains: Comedy and Tragedy--Foggerty's Fairy --Rosencrantz and Guildenstern--Patience--Princess Ida--The Mikado--Ruddigore--The Yeomen of the Guard--The Gondoliers --The Mountebanks--Utopia. The FOURTH SERIES contains: The Fairy's Dilemma--The Grand Duke --His Excellency--'Haste to the Wedding'--Fallen Fairies--The Gentleman in Black--Brantinghame Hall--Creatures of Impulse --Randall's Thumb--The Fortune-hunter--Thespis. With Portrait of the Author. * * * * * =Eight Original Comic Operas. = Two Series, demy 8vo, cl. , _2s. 6d. _ net each. The FIRST SERIES contains: The Sorcerer--H. M. S. 'Pinafore'--The Pirates of Penzance--Iolanthe--Patience--Princess Ida--The Mikado--Trial by Jury. The SECOND SERIES contains: The Gondoliers--The Grand Duke--The Yeomen of the Guard--His Excellency--Utopia, Limited--Ruddigore --The Mountebanks--Haste to the Wedding. * * * * * =The Gilbert and Sullivan Birthday Book. = Compiled by A. WATSON. Royal 16mo, decorated cover, _1s. _ net. 

 =GISSING (ALGERNON), Novels by. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Knitters in the Sun. = =The Wealth of Mallerstang. = =An Angel's Portion. = =Baliol Garth= =The Dreams of Simon Usher. =

 =GLANVILLE (ERNEST), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Lost Heiress. = With 2 Illusts. =The Fossicker=: A Romance of Mashonaland. Two Illusts. By HUME NISBET. =A Fair Colonist. = With Frontispiece. =The Golden Rock. = With Frontispiece. =Tales from the Veld. = With 12 Illusts. =Max Thornton. = With 8 Illustrations by J. S. CROMPTON, R. I. 

 =GOLDEN TREASURY of Thought, The. = By THEODORE TAYLOR. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =GRACE (ALFRED A. ). --Tales of a Dying Race. = Cr. 8vo, cloth. _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =GRACE, E. M. : A Memoir. = By F. S. ASHLEY-COOPER. Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =GRANDE (JULIAN). --A Citizens' Army: The Swiss Military System. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =GREEKS AND ROMANS, The Life of the=, By ERNST GUHL and W. KONER. Edited by Dr. F. HUEFFER. With 545 Illusts. Demy 8vo, cl. , _6s. _ net. 

 =GREEN (ARTHUR). --The Story of a Prisoner of War. = Pott 8vo, _1s. _ net. 

 =GREEN (F. E. )--The Surrey Hills. = Illustrated by ELLIOTT SEABROOKE. Fcap. 4to, cloth, _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =GRIMM. --German Popular Stories. =--Collected by the Brothers GRIMM and Translated by EDGAR TAYLOR. With an Intro. By JOHN RUSKIN. Illustrated by GEORGE CRUIKSHANK. Square 8vo, cloth, gilt top, _5s. _ net. 

 =HABBERTON (JOHN). --Helen's Babies. = With Coloured Frontis. And 60 Illustrations by EVA ROOS. Fcap. 4to, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =HALL (Mrs. S. C. ). --Sketches of Irish Character. = Illusts. By CRUIKSHANK and others. Demy 8vo, cl. , _6s. _ net. 

 =HAMILTON'S (COSMO) Stories. = =Two Kings, &c. = Cr. 8vo, cl. , _2s. _ net. * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =Nature's Vagabond, &c. = =The Door that has no Key. = =Plain Brown. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. POPULAR EDITION, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. * * * * * =A Plea for the Younger Generation. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net. 

 =HAPPY TESTAMENT, The. = By CHARLES LOUNDSBERRY. Illustrated in Colour by RACHEL MARSHALL. Post 8vo, decorated cover, _1s. _ net. 

 =HAPSBURGS, The Cradle of the. = By J. W. GILBART-SMITH, M. A. With numerous Illusts. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =HARDY (THOMAS). --Under the Greenwood Tree. = Post 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net; FINE PAPER EDITION, pott 8vo. Cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather gilt, _4s. _ net; CHEAP EDITION, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. Also the LARGE TYPE EDITION DE LUXE, with 10 Illustrations in Colour by KEITH HENDERSON. Fcap. 4to, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Pocket Thomas Hardy. = 16mo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =HARRIS (JOEL CHANDLER)=: =Uncle Remus. = With 9 Coloured and 50 other illustrations by J. A. SHEPHERD. Fcap. 4to, cloth, _6s. _ net. =Nights with Uncle Remus. = With 8 Coloured and 50 other Illustrations by J. A. SHEPHERD. Fcap. 4to, cl. _6s. _ net. 

 =HARTE'S (BRET) Collected Works. = LIBRARY EDITION. (Ten Volumes now ready). Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. Vol. I. POETICAL AND DRAMATIC WORKS. With Portrait. " II. THE LUCK OF ROARING CAMP--BOHEMIAN PAPERS--AMERICAN LEGENDS. " III. TALES OF THE ARGONAUTS--EASTERN SKETCHES. " IV. GABRIEL CONROY. " V. STORIES--CONDENSED NOVELS. " VI. TALES OF THE PACIFIC SLOPE. " VII. TALES OF THE PACIFIC SLOPE--II. With Portrait by JOHN PETTIE. " VIII. TALES OF PINE AND CYPRESS. " IX. BUCKEYE AND CHAPPAREL. " X. TALES OF TRAIL AND TOWN. =Bret Harte's Choice Works= in Prose and Verse. With Portrait and 40 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. * * * * * Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net each; leather, _4s. _ net each. =Mliss, Luck of Roaring Camp, &c. = =Condensed Novels. = Both Series. =Complete Poetical Works. = * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =On the Old Trail. = =Trent's Trust. = =Under the Redwoods. = =From Sandhill to Pine. = =Stories in Light and Shadow. = =Mr. Jack Hamlin's Mediation. = * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =In a Hollow of the Hills. = =Maruja. = =Gabriel Conroy. = =A Ward of the Golden Gate. = With 59 Illustrations by STANLEY L. WOOD. =The Bell-Ringer of Angel's=, &c. With 39 Illusts. By DUDLEY HARDY, &c. =Clarence=: A Story of the American War. With 8 Illustrations by A. JULE GOODMAN. =Barker's Luck=, &c. With 39 Illustrations by A. FORESTIER, PAUL HARDY, &c. =Devil's Ford=, &c. =The Crusade of the 'Excelsior. '= With Frontis. By J. BERNARD PARTRIDGE. =Tales of Trail and Town. = With Frontispiece by G. P. JACOMB HOOD. =A Sappho of Green Springs. = =Colonel Starbottle's Client. = =A Protégée of Jack Hamlin's. = With numerous Illustrations. =Sally Dows=, &c. With 47 Illustrations by W. D. ALMOND and others. =An Heiress of Red Dog. = =Californian Stories. = =Luck of Roaring Camp. = =Condensed Novels: New Burlesques. = * * * * * =Three Partners. = POPULAR EDITION, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =HAWEIS (Mrs. H. R. ), Books by. = =The Art of Dress. = With 32 Illustrations. Post 8vo. Cloth, _1s. 6d. _ net. =Chaucer for Schools. = With Frontispiece. Demy 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net. =Chaucer for Children. = With 8 Coloured Plates and 30 Woodcuts. Crown 4to, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =HAWTHORNE (JULIAN), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Garth. = =Ellice Quentin. = =Fortune's Fool. = =Dust. = Four Illusts. =Beatrix Randolph. = With Four Illusts. =D. Poindexter's Disappearance. = =Sebastian Strome. = =Love--or a Name. =

 =HEAD (Mrs. HENRY). --A Simple Guide to Pictures. = With 34 Illustrations (24 in Colour). Fcap. 4to, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =HEALY (CHRIS), Books by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =Confessions of a Journalist. = =Heirs of Reuben. = =Mara. =

 =HENDERSON (KEITH). --Letters to Helen: The Impressions of an Artist on the Western Front. = Illustrated. Demy 8vo, boards, _6s. _ net. 

 =HENTY (G. A. ), Novels by. = =Rujub, the Juggler. = Post 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Queen's Cup. = =Dorothy's Double. = =Colonel Thorndyke's Secret. =

 =HERBERTSON (JESSIE L. ). --Junia. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =HILL (HEADON). --Zambra the Detective. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =HOFFMANN (PROF. ). --King Koko. = A Magic Story. Cr. 8vo. Cl. , _1s. _ net. 

 =HOFFMANN, TALES OF. Retold from OFFENBACH'S Opera. = By CYRIL FALLS. Illustrated in Colour by A. BRANTINGHAM SIMPSON, R. O. I. Small 4to, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =HOLMES (CHARLES J. , M. A. ), Books by. = Dy. 8vo, cl. , _7s. 6d. _ net each. =Notes on the Science of Picture-making. = With Photogravure Frontis. =Notes on the Art of Rembrandt. = With Frontispiece and 44 Plates. 

 =HOME OF TO-DAY (The)=--By a Woman Who Keeps One. Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =HOOD'S (THOMAS) Choice Works in Prose and Verse. = With Life of the Author. Portrait, and 200 Illusts. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =HOOK'S (THEODORE) Choice Humorous Works. = With Life and Frontispiece. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =HORNIMAN (ROY), Novels by. = =Bellamy the Magnificent. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net and _2s. _ net. =Lord Cammarleigh's Secret. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =Israel Rank. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =HORNUNG (E. W. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Stingaree. = =A Thief in the Night. = =The Shadow of the Rope. = Also at _2s. _ net. 

 =HOUGHTON (MARY). --In the Enemy's Country. = Foreword by EDWARD GARNETT. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =HUEFFER (FORD MADOX), Novels by. = =A Call: The Tale of Two Passions. = Crown 8vo. Cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Young Lovell. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =HUGO (VICTOR). --The Outlaw of Iceland. = Translated by Sir GILBERT CAMPBELL. Crown 8vo. Cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =HULL (ELEANOR), Selected and Annotated by. --The Poem-book of the Gael. = Small cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =HUME (FERGUS), Novels by. = =The Lady From Nowhere. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Millionaire Mystery. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Wheeling Light. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =HUNGERFORD (Mrs. ), Novels by. = Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Professor's Experiment. = =Lady Verner's Flight. = =Lady Patty. = =Peter's Wife. = =The Red-House Mystery. = =An Unsatisfactory Lover. = =A Maiden All Forlorn. = =A Mental Struggle. = =Marvel. = =A Modern Circe. = =In Durance Vile. = =April's Lady. = =The Three Graces. = =Nora Creina. = =An Anxious Moment. = =A Point of Conscience. = =The Coming of Chloe. = =Lovice. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =The Red-House Mystery. = =A Modern Circe. =

 =HUNT (Mrs. ALFRED) and VIOLET HUNT. --The Governess. = Cr. 8vo, cl. , _6s_, net. 

 =HYAMSON (ALBERT). --A History of the Jews in England. = With 18 Illusts. Demy 8vo, cloth, _4s. 6d. _ net. 

 =HYATT (A. H. ), Topographical Anthologies= compiled by. Crown 8vo, cloth, full gilt side, gilt top, _5s. _ net each. Also, FINE-PAPER EDITIONS, without Illustrations, Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net each; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net each. =The Charm of Venice=: an Anthology. With 12 Ill. In Colour by HARALD SUND. =The Charm of London. = With 12 Illusts. In Colour by YOSHIO MARKINO. =The Charm of Paris. = With 12 Illustrations in Colour by HARRY MORLEY. =The Charm of Edinburgh. = With 12 Illusts. In Colour by HARRY MORLEY. 

 =INCE (MABEL), Novels by. = Each with Frontispiece, cr. 8vo, cl. , _6s. _ net each. =The Wisdom of Waiting. = =The Commonplace & Clementine. =

 =INCHBOLD (A. C. ), Novels by. = =The Road of No Return. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =Love in a Thirsty Land. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =INDUSTRIAL OUTLOOK (The). =--By Various Authors. Edited by H. SANDERSON FURNISS. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =INTERNATIONAL CARTOONS OF THE WAR. = Selected by H. PEARL ADAM. Demy 4to, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =IONIDES (CYRIL). --=_See under_ ATKINS (J. B. ), p. 2. 

 =IRVING (WASHINGTON). --Old Christmas. = Square 16mo, cl. , _1s. _ net. 

 =JAMES (G. W. ). --Scraggles: The Story of a Sparrow. = Illust. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net. 

 =JAMES (HENRY), Pictures and other Passages from. = Selected by RUTH HEAD. Post 8vo, bds. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 ="JASON"--Past and Future. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =JEFFERIES (RICHARD), by. = =The Pageant of Summer. = Long fcap. Decorated cover, _1s. _ net. =The Life of the Fields. = Post 8vo, cl. , _2s. 6d. _ net; LARGE TYPE, FINE PAPER EDITION, pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. _Also_ a NEW EDITION, with 12 Illustrations in Colours by M. U. CLARKE, cr. 8vo, cl. , _5s. _ net. =The Open Air. = Post 8vo, cl. , _2s. 6d. _ net. LARGE TYPE, FINE PAPER EDITION, pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. _Also_ a NEW EDITION. Illustrated. Uniform with above. =Nature near London. = Crown 8vo, buckram, _5s. _ net; post 8vo, cl. , _2s. 6d. _ net; LARGE TYPE, FINE PAPER EDITION, pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. _Also_ a NEW EDITION. Illustrated. Uniform with above. =The Pocket Richard Jefferies:= Passages chosen by A. H. HYATT. 16mo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =JENKINS (HESTER D. ). --Behind Turkish Lattices. = With 24 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =JERROLD (TOM), Books by. = Post 8vo, cl. , _1s. 6d. _ net each. =The Garden that Paid the Rent. = =Household Horticulture. = * * * * * =Our War-Time Kitchen Garden=: The Plants We Grow, and How We Cook Them. Post 8vo, cloth, _1s. _ net. 

 =JOFFRE (General). --My March to Timbuctoo. = With a Character Sketch by ERNEST DIMNET. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _2s. _ net. 

 =JOHNSTONE (Arthur). --Recollections of R. L. Stevenson in the Pacific. = With Portrait and Facsimile Letter. Crown 8vo, buckram, _6s. _ net. 

 =JONES (CECIL DUNCAN). --The Everlasting Search=: A Romance. Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =JONSON'S (BEN) Works. = With Notes, etc. , by WILLIAM GIFFORD. Edited by Colonel CUNNINGHAM. Three Vols. , crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. 

 =JOSEPHUS, The Complete Works of. = Translated by WILLIAM WHISTON. Illustrated. Two Vols. , demy 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net each. 

 =KEATS (JOHN), The Poems of. = _See_ FLORENCE PRESS BOOKS, page 10. 

 =KEMPLING (W. BAILEY-). --The Poets Royal of England and Scotland. = With 6 Portraits. Small 8vo, parchment, 6s. Net; vellum, _7s. 6d. _ net. (See also KING'S CLASSICS, p. 16. )

 =KENT (Lieut. -Comm. ). --Poor Dear Providence=: A Naval Love Story. Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =KEYNES (HELEN MARY), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =The Spanish Marriage. = =Honour the King. =

 =KING (LEONARD W. , M. A. ). --A History of Babylonia and Assyria from Prehistoric Times to the Persian Conquest. = With Plans and Illustrations. 3 vols. Royal 8vo, cloth. Each vol. Separately, _18s. _ net; or the 3 vols. If ordered at one time, _£2 10s. _ net. Vol. I. --=A History of Sumer and Akkad=: An account of the Early Races of Babylonia from Prehistoric Times to the Foundation of the Babylonian Monarchy. Vol. II. --=A History of Babylon= from the Foundation of the Monarchy, about B. C. 2000, until the Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus. B. C. 539. Vol. III. --=A History of Assyria= from the Earliest Period until the Fall of Nineveh. B. C. 606. [_Preparing. _

 =KING'S CLASSICS (The). = Under the General Editorship of Prof. ISRAEL GOLLANCZ, D Litt. Post 8vo, quarter-bound antique grey boards or red cloth. _2s. 6d. _ net: Double Vols. , _3s. 6d. _ net. Quarter vellum, grey cl. Sides, _3s. 6d. _ net: Double Vols. , _5s. _ net. Three-quarter vellum, Oxford side-papers, gilt top, _5s. _ net: Double Vols. , _7s. 6d. _ net. + signifies Double Volumes. * can be supplied for School use in wrappers at _1s. _ net each. =1. The Love of Books: the Philobiblon of Richard de Bury. = Trans. By E. C. THOMAS. +=2. Six Dramas of Calderon. = Trans. By ED. FITZGERALD. Edited by H. OELSNER, M. A. =3. The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brakelond. = Trans. From the Latin, with Notes, By L. C. JANE, M. A. Introd. By ABBOT GASQUET. =4. Life of Sir Thomas More. = by WILLIAM ROPER. With Letters To and From His Daughter. =5. Eikon Basilike. = Ed. By ED. ALMACK, F. S. A. =6. Kings' Letters. Part I. =: From Alfred To the Coming of the Tudors. Edited By ROBERT STEELE, F. S. A. =7. Kings' Letters. Part II. =: From the Early Tudors; With Letters of Henry VIII. And Anne Boleyn. =8. Chaucer's Knight's Tale. = _In modern English by_ Prof. SKEAT. *=9. Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale, Squire's Tale, and Nun's Priest's Tale. = _In modern English by_ Prof. SKEAT. *=10. Chaucer's Prioress's Tale, Pardoner's Tale, Clerk's Tale, and Canon's Yeoman's Tale. = _In modern English by_ Prof. SKEAT. (see Also Nos. 8, 47, 48. ) =11. The Romance of Fulk Fitzwarine. = Translated by ALICE KEMP-WELCH; Introduction by Prof. BRANDIN. =12. The Story of Cupid and Psyche. = From "The Golden Ass, " ADLINGTON'S Translation. Edited by W. H. D. ROUSE. =13. Life of Margaret Godolphin. = By JOHN EVELYN. =14. Early Lives of Dante. = Translated by Rev. P. H. WICKSTEED. =15. The Falstaff Letters. = By JAMES WHITE. =16. Polonius= By EDWARD FITZGERALD. =17. Mediæval Lore. = From BARTHOLOMÆUS ANGLICUS. Edited by ROBERT STEELE. With Preface by WILLIAM MORRIS. =18. The Vision of Piers the Plowman. = By WILLIAM LANGLAND. _In modern English by_ Prof. SKEAT. =19. The Gull's Hornbook. = By THOMAS DEKKER. Edited by R. B. MCKERROW, M. A. +=20. The Nun's Rule, Or Ancren Riwle in modern English. = Edited by ABBOT GASQUET. =21. Memoirs of Robert Cary, Earl of Monmouth. = Edited by G. H. POWELL. =22. Early Lives of Charlemagne. = Translated by A. J. GRANT. (see also No. 45. ) =23. Cicero's "Friendship, " "Old Age, " and "Scipio's Dream. "= Edited by W. H. D. ROUSE, Litt D. +=24. Wordsworth's Prelude. = With Notes by W. B. WORSFOLD, M. A. =25. The Defence of Guenevere, and other Poems by William Morris. = With Introduction by ROBERT STEELE. =26, 27. Browning's Men and Women. = Notes by W. B. WORSFOLD, M. A. [_In 2 Vols. _ =28. Poe's Poems. = Notes by EDWARD HUTTON. =29. Shakespeare's Sonnets. = Edited by C. C. STOPES. =30. George Eliot's Silas Marner. = With Introduction by Dr. R. GARNETT. =31. Goldsmith's Vicar of Wakefield. = With Introduction by Dr. R. GARNETT. =32. Charles Reade's Peg Woffington. = With Introduction by Dr. R. GARNETT. =33. The Household of Sir Thomas More. = By ANNE MANNING. With Preface by Dr. R. GARNETT. (see Also Nos. 4, 40. ) =34. Sappho: One Hundred Lyrics. = By BLISS CARMAN. =35. Wine, Women, and Song: Mediæval Latin Students' Songs. = Translated, with Introd. , by J. ADDINGTON SYMONDS. =36, 37. George Pettie's Petite Pallace Of Pettie His Pleasure. = Edited by Prof. I. GOLLANCZ. [_In Two Volumes. _ =38. Walpole's Castle of Otranto. = With Preface by Miss SPURGEON. =39. The Poets Royal of England and Scotland. = Original Poems by Royal And Noble Persons. Edited by W. BAILEY KEMPLING. =40. Sir Thomas More's Utopia. = Edited by ROBERT STEELE, F. S. A. *=41. Chaucer's Legend of Good Women. = _In modern English by_ Prof. SKEAT. =42. Swift's Battle of the Books=, &c. Edited by A. GUTHKELCH. =43. Sir William Temple upon the Gardens Of Epicurus, with other XVIIth Century Essays. = Edited by A. FORBES SIEVEKING, F. S. A. =45. The Song of Roland. = Translated By Mrs CROSLAND. With Introduction by Prof. BRANDIN. (See also No. 22. ) =46. Dante's Vita Nuova. = The Italian Text, with ROSSETTI'S translation, and Introd. By Dr H. OELSNER. (See also No. 14. ) =47. Chaucer's Prologue and Minor Poems. = _In modern English by_ Prof. SKEAT. *=48. Chaucer's Parliament of Birds And House of Fame. = _In modern English by_ Prof. SKEAT. =49. Mrs. Gaskell's Cranford. = With Introduction by R. BRIMLEY JOHNSON. =50. Pearl. = An English Poem of the Fourteenth Century. Edited, with Modern Rendering, By Prof. I. GOLLANCZ. [_Preparing. _ =51, 52. Kings' Letters. Parts III. And IV. = Edited by ROBERT STEELE, F. S. A. [_In Two Volumes. Preparing. _ =53. The English Correspondence of Saint Boniface. = Trans. By EDWARD KYLIE, M. A. =56. The Cavalier to His Lady=: XVIIth Century Love Songs. Edited by FRANK SEDGWICK. =57. Asser's Life of King Alfred. = Translated by L. C. JANE, M. A. =58. Translations from the Icelandic. = Translated by Rev W. C. GREEN, M. A. =59. The Rule of St Benedict. = Translated by ABBOT GASQUET. =60. Daniel's "Delia" and Drayton's "Idea. "= Ed. By ARUNDELL ESDAILE, M. A. =61. The Book of the Duke of True Lovers. = Translated from CHRISTINE DE PISAN by ALICE KEMP-WELCH. =62. Of the Tumbler of Our Lady, and other Miracles. = Translated from GAUTIER DE COINCI, &c. , by ALICE KEMP-WELCH. =63. The Chatelaine of Vergi. = Translated by ALICE KEMP-WELCH. With Introduction by L. BRANDIN, Ph. D. 

 =KRYSHANOVSKAYA, (V. I. )--The Torch-Bearers of Bohemia. = Translated from the Russian by J. M. SOSKICE. Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =LAMB'S (CHARLES) Collected Works= in Prose and Verse, including 'Poetry for Children' and 'Prince Dorus. ' Edited by R. H. SHEPHERD. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Essays of Elia. = (Both Series. ) FINE PAPER EDITION, pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =LANE (EDWARD WILLIAM). The Arabian Nights. = Illustrated by W. HARVEY. With Preface by STANLEY LANE-POOLE. 3 Vols. , demy 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net each. 

 =LASAR (CHARLES A. ). --Practical Hints for Art Students. = Illustrated. Post 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =LAURISTOUN (PETER). --The Painted Mountain. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =LAWRENCE (D. H. ). --Look! We have come Through!= Small fcap. 4to, boards, _5s. _ net. 

 =LEE (VERNON). --The Ballet of the Nations=: A Present-day Morality. Decorated by MAXWELL ARMFIELD. Demy 4to, boards, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =LEITH (MRS. DISNEY). --The Boyhood of Algernon Charles Swinburne. With Extracts from Private Letters. = Illustrated. Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. See also under Swinburne, p. 30. 

 =LELAND (C. G. ). --A Manual of Mending and Repairing. = With Diagrams. Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =LEPELLETIER (EDMOND). --Madame Sans-Gêne. = Translated by JOHN DE VILLIERS. Post 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net; POPULAR EDITION, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =LITTLE (MAUDE), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. Each. =At the Sign of the Burning Bush. = =A Woman on the Threshold. = =The Children's Bread. =

 =LLOYD (Theodosia). --Innocence in the Wilderness. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =LINTON (E. LYNN), Works by. = Crown 8vo. Cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Patricia Kemball. = =Ione. = =The Atonement of Leam Dundas. = =The World Well Lost. = 12 Illusts. =The One Too Many. = =Under which Lord?= With 12 Illusts. ='My Love. '= =Sowing the Wind. = =Paston Carew. = =Dulcie Everton. = =With a Silken Thread. = =The Rebel of the Family. = =An Octave of Friends. = * * * * * =Patricia Kemball. = POPULAR EDITION, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =LUCAS (E. V. ), Books by. = =Anne's Terrible Good Nature=, and other Stories for Children. With 12 Illustrations, Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. =A Book of Verses for Children. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =Three Hundred Games and Pastimes. = By E. V. LUCAS and ELIZABETH LUCAS. Pott 4to, cloth, _6s. _ net. =The Flamp, and other Stories. = Royal 16mo, cloth, _1s. _ net. 

 =LYRE D'AMOUR (La). --An Anthology of French Love Poems. = Selected, with Introduction and Notes, by C. B. LEWIS. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =MACNAIR (WILSON). --Glass Houses. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =McCARTHY (JUSTIN), Books by. = =A History of the Four Georges and of William the Fourth. = Four Vols. , demy 8vo, cl. , _10s. 6d. _ net ea. =A History of Our Own Times= from the Accession of Queen Victoria to the General Election of 1880. LIBRARY EDITION. Four Vols. , demy 8vo, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net each. --Also the POPULAR EDITION, in Four Vols. , crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net each. -- And the JUBILEE EDITION, with an Appendix of Events to the end of 1886, in 2 Vols. , large post 8vo, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net. =A History of Our Own Times=, Vol. V. , from 1880 to the Diamond Jubilee. Demy 8vo, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net; crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =A History of Our Own Times=, Vols. VI. And VII. , from 1897 to Accession of Edward VII. 2 Vols. , demy 8vo, cloth, _21s. _ net; crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net each. =A Short History of Our Own Times=, from the Accession of Queen Victoria to the Accession of King Edward VII. Crown 8vo, cloth, gilt top, _5s. _ net; also the POPULAR EDITION, post 8vo, cl. , _2s. 6d. _ net; and the CHEAP EDITION (to the year 1880), med. 8vo, _9d. _ net. =Our Book of Memories. = Letters from JUSTIN MCCARTHY to Mrs. CAMPBELL PRAED. With Portraits and Views. Demy 8vo, cloth, _12s. 6d. _ net. * * * * * FINE PAPER EDITIONS. Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net per vol. ; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net per vol. =The Reign of Queen Anne=, in 1 Vol. =A History of the Four Georges and of William IV. =, in 2 vols. =A History of Our Own Times= from Accession of Q. Victoria to 1901, in 4 Vols. * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Waterdale Neighbours. = =My Enemy's Daughter. = =A Fair Saxon. = =Linley Rochford. = =Dear Lady Disdain. = =The Dictator. = =Miss Misanthrope. = With 12 Illusts. =Donna Quixote. = With 12 Illustrations. =The Comet of a Season. = =Maid of Athens. = With 12 Illustrations. =Camiola. = =Red Diamonds. = =The Riddle Ring. = =The Three Disgraces. = =Mononia. = =Julian Revelstone. = * * * * * ='The Right Honourable. '= By JUSTIN MCCARTHY and MRS. CAMPBELL PRAED. Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =MacCARTHY (MARY). --A Pier and a Band. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =McCARTHY (J. H. ), Works by. = =The French Revolution. = (Constituent Assembly, 1789-91. ) Four Vols. , demy 8vo, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net each. =An Outline of the History of Ireland. = Crown 8vo, _1s. _ net; cloth, _1s. 6d. _ net. =Our Sensation Novel. = Crown 8vo, _1s. _ net; cloth, _1s. 6d. _ net. =Doom=: An Atlantic Episode. Cr. 8vo, _1s. _ net. =Lily Lass. = Cr. 8vo, _1s. _ net; cl. , _1s. 6d. _ net. =A London Legend. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =MACAULAY (LORD). --The History of England. = LARGE TYPE, FINE PAPER EDITION, in 5 vols. Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net per vol. ; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net per vol. 

 =McCURDY (EDWARD). --Essays in Fresco. = With 6 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, buckram, _5s. _ net. 

 =MACDONALD (Dr. GEORGE), Books by. = =Works of Fancy and Imagination. = Ten Vols. , 16mo, Grolier cloth. _2s. 6d. _ net each. Also in 16mo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net per Vol. ; leather, gilt top, 4s. Net per Vol. Vol. I. WITHIN AND WITHOUT--THE HIDDEN LIFE. " II. THE DISCIPLE--THE GOSPEL WOMEN--BOOK OF SONNETS--ORGAN SONGS. " III. VIOLIN SONGS--SONGS OF THE DAYS AND NIGHTS--A BOOK OF DREAMS--ROADSIDE POEMS--POEMS FOR CHILDREN. " IV. PARABLES--BALLADS--SCOTCH SONGS. " V. & VI. PHANTASTES. " VII. THE PORTENT. " VIII. THE LIGHT PRINCESS--THE GIANTS HEART--SHADOWS. " IX. CROSS PURPOSES--GOLDEN KEY CARASOYN--LITTLE DAYLIGHT. " X. THE CRUEL PAINTER--THE WOW O'RIVVEN--THE CASTLE--THE BROKEN SWORDS--THE GRAY WOLF--UNCLE CORNELIUS. * * * * * =Poetical Works. = 2 Vols. , cr. 8vo, buckram, _12s. _ net; pott 8vo, cl. , _2s. 6d. _ net per vol. ; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net per vol. =Heather and Snow. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =Lilith. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. * * * * * =The Pocket George MacDonald=: Passages Chosen by A. H. HYATT. 16mo. Cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =MACHRAY (ROBERT), Novels by. = Crown 8vo. Cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =A Blow over the Heart. = =The Private Detective. = =Sentenced to Death. = =The Mystery of Lincoln's Inn. = =Her Honour. = * * * * * =The Woman Wins. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =MACKAY (WILLIAM). --A Mender of Nets. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =McLEOD (IRENE RUTHERFORD). --Songs to Save a Soul. = Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; parchment gilt, _3s. 6d. _ net. =Swords for Life. = Pott 8vo, cl. _2s. 6d. _ net. =One Mother= (Reprinted from above). Cr. 8vo, paper, with photogravure, _6d. _ net. 

 =MAGNA CHARTA=: A Facsimile of Original, in Gold and Colours, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =MALLOCK (W. H. ), Works by. = =The New Republic. = FINE PAPER EDITION, pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. =Is Life Worth Living?= Cr. 8vo. _5s. _ net. 

 =MALLORY (Sir THOMAS). --Mort d'Arthur=, Selections from, edited by B. M. RANKING. Post 8vo, cl. , _2s. _ net. 

 =MARGUERITTE (PAUL and VICTOR), Novels by. = =The Disaster. = Translated by F. LEES. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. WAR EDITION, cloth, _2s. _ net. =Vanity. = Translated by K. S. WEST. Crown 8vo, cl. , Portrait-Frontispiece, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =MARKINO (Yoshio), Books by. = =A Japanese Artist in London. = By YOSHIO MARKINO. With 8 Illusts. In Three Colours and 4 in Monochrome by the Author. Cr. 8vo, cloth. _6s. _ net. =My Recollections and Reflections. = by YOSHIO MARKINO. With 9 Illusts. In Colour and 6 in Sepia by the Author. Crown 8vo, cloth. _6s. _ net. =The Charm of London. = Passages selected by A. H. HYATT. With 12 Illusts. In Colour by YOSHIO MARKINO. Cr. 8vo, cloth gilt, _5s. _ net. =Oxford from Within. = By HUGH DE SÉLINCOURT. With a Note and 12 Illusts. In Three Colours and 8 in Sepia by YOSHIO MARKINO. Demy 8vo, cl. , _5s. _ net. * * * * * Large fcap. 4to, cloth. _10s. 6d. _ net. =The Colour of London. = By W. J. LOFTIE, F. S. A. With Introduction by M. H. SPIELMANN. Preface and 48 Illustrations in Colour and 12 in Sepia by YOSHIO MARKINO. =The Colour of Paris=. By MM. LES ACADÉMICIENS GONCOURT. With Introduction by L. Bénédite. Preface and 48 Illustrations in Colour and 12 in Sepia by YOSHIO MARKINO. =The Colour of Rome. = By OLAVE M. POTTER. With Introduction by DOUGLAS SLADEN, Preface and 48 Illustrations in Colour and 12 in Sepia by YOSHIO MARKINO. =London=: Pictured by YOSHIO MARKINO 16 Coloured Plates, with Literary Extracts. Large fcap. 4to, boards, _1s. 6d. _ net. * * * * * Crown 8vo. Cloth. 6s. Net. =The Story of Yone Noguchi. = By Himself. With 8 Illusts. By YOSHIO MARKINO. 

 =MARLOWE'S Works=, including his Translations. Edited with Notes by Col. CUNNINGHAM. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =MARSH (RICHARD), Novels by. = =A Spoiler of Men. = Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net; POPULAR EDITION, med. 8vo. _9d. _ net. * * * * * Crown 8vo cloth. =Justice--Suspended. = _3s. 6d. _ net. =Margot--and her Judges. = _6s. _ net. =His Love or His Life. = _6s. _ net. 

 =MARSHALL (RACHEL). --A Ride on a Rocking Horse. = Illustrated in Colour by the Author. Fcap. 4to, boards, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =MASSINGER'S Plays. = From the Text of WILLIAM GIFFORD. Edited by Col. CUNNINGHAM. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =MASTER OF GAME (THE): The Oldest English Book on Hunting. = By EDWARD, Second Duke of York. Edited by W. A. And F. BAILLIE-GROHMAN. With Introduction by THEODORE ROOSEVELT. Photogravure Frontis. And 23 Illustns. Large cr. 8vo. Cl. , _7s. 6d. _ net; parchment, _10s. 6d. _ net. 

 =MAX O'RELL, Books by. = Crown 8vo, cloth. _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Her Royal Highness Woman. = =Between Ourselves. = =Rambles in Womanland. = * * * * * =H. R. H. Woman, = POPULAR EDITION, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =MAYNE (ETHEL COLBURN). --Browning's Heroines. = With Frontispiece and Title in Colour and other Decorations by MAXWELL ARMFIELD. Large crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =MEADE (L. T. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =A Soldier of Fortune. = =In an Iron Grip. = =The Siren. = =Dr. Rumsey's Patient. = =On the Brink of a Chasm. = =The Way of a Woman. = =A Son of Ishmael. = =An Adventuress. = =The Blue Diamond. = =A Stumble by the Way. = =This Troublesome World. =

 =MEDIEVAL LIBRARY (The New). = Small crown 8vo, pure rag paper, boards, _5s. _ net per vol. ; pigskin with clasps, _7s. 6d. _ net per vol. =1. The Book of the Duke of True Lovers. = Translated from the Middle French of CHRISTINE DE PISAN, with Notes by ALICE KEMP-WELCH. Woodcut Title and 6 Photogravures. =2. Of the Tumbler of our Lady, and other Miracles. = Translated from the Middle French of GAUTIER DE COINCI, &c. , with Notes by ALICE KEMP-WELCH. Woodcut and 7 Photogravures. =3. The Chatelaine of Vergi. = Translated from the Middle French by ALICE KEMP-WELCH, with the original Text, and an Introduction by Dr. L. BRANDIN. Woodcut Title and 5 Photogravures. =4. The Babees' Book. = Edited, with Notes, by EDITH RICKERT. Woodcut Title and 6 Photogravures. =5. The Book of the Divine Consolation of Saint Angela da Foligno. = Translated by MARY G. STEEGMANN. Woodcut Title and Illusts. Small crown 8vo, pure rag paper, boards, _5s. _ net per vol. ; pigskin with clasps, _7s. 6d. _ net per vol. =6. The Legend of the Holy Fina, Virgin of Santo Geminiano. = Translated by M. MANSFIELD. Woodcut Title and 6 Photogravures. =7. Early English Romances of Love. = Edited in Modern English by EDITH RICKERT. 5 Photogravures. =8. Early English Romances of Friendship. = Edited, with Notes, by EDITH RICKERT. 6 Photogravures. =9. The Cell of Self-Knowledge. = Seven Early Mystical Treatises printed in 1851. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by EDMUND GARDNER, M. A. Collotype Frontispiece in two colours. =10. Ancient English Christmas Carols, 1400-1700. = Collected and arranged by EDITH RICKERT. With 8 Photogravures. Special price of this volume, boards, _7s. 6d. _ net; pigskin with clasps, _10s. 6d. _ net. =11. Trobador Poets=: Selections. Translated from the Provençal, with Introduction and Notes, by BARBARA SMYTHE. With Coloured Frontispiece and Decorative Initials. =12. Cligés=: A Romance. Translated with an Introduction by L. J. GARDINER, M. A. Lond. , from the Old French of CHRÉTIEN DE TROYES. With a Frontisp. 

 =MÉRAL (PAUL). --The Book of Recitatives. = Translated from the French by LADY ROTHERMERE. 188 copies printed on hand-made paper. Demy 4to, _£2 2s. _ net. Also 12 copies printed on vellum and signed by the Author, _£6 6s. _ net. 

 =MERRICK (LEONARD), by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Man who was Good. = =This Stage of Fools. = =Cynthia. =

 =METHVEN (PAUL), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. Each. =Influences. = =Billy. =

 =MEYNELL (ALICE). --The Flower of the Mind: a Choice among the Best Poems. = In 16mo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net: leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =MITCHELL (EDM. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Lone Star Rush. = With 8 Illusts. =The Belforts of Culben. = =Only a Nigger. =

 =MITFORD (BERTRAM), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Renshaw Fanning's Quest. = =Triumph of Hilary Blachland. = =Haviland's Chum. = =Harley Greenoak's Charge. = =The Gun-Runner. = =The Luck of Gerard Ridgeley. = =The King's Assegai. = With 6 Illusts. * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =The Gun-Runner. = =The Luck of Gerard Ridgeley. =

 =MOLESWORTH (Mrs. ). --Hathercourt Rectory. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =MONCRIEFF (W. D. SCOTT-). --The Abdication: A Drama. = With 7 Etchings. Imp. 4to, buckram, _21s. _ net. 

 =MORROW (W. C. ). --Bohemian Paris of To-Day. = With 106 Illusts. By EDOUARD CUCUEL. Small demy 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =MOZART'S OPERAS: a Critical Study. = By E. J. DENT. Illustrated. Demy 8vo, cloth, _12s. 6d. _ net. 

 =MUDDOCK (J. E. ), Stories by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Basile the Jester. = =The Golden Idol. =

 =MURRAY (D. CHRISTIE), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net each. =A Life's Atonement. = =Joseph's Coat. = With 12 Illustrations. =Coals of Fire. = With 3 Illustrations. =Val Strange. = =A Wasted Crime. = =A Capful o' Nails. = =Hearts. = =The Way of the World. = =Mount Despair. = =A Model Father. = =Old Blazer's Hero. = =By the Gate of the Sea. = =A Bit of Human Nature. = =First Person Singular. = =Bob Martin's Little Girl. = =Time's Revenges. = =Cynic Fortune. = =In Direst Peril. = =This Little World. = =A Race for Millions. = =The Church of Humanity. = =Tales in Prose and Verse. = =Despair's Last Journey. = =V. C. = =Verona's Father. = =His Own Ghost. = * * * * * =Joseph's Coat. = POPULAR EDITION, _9d. _ net. 

 =MURRAY (D. CHRISTIE) and HENRY HERMAN, Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =One Traveller Returns. = =The Bishops' Bible. = =Paul Jones's Alias. = With Illustrations. 

 =NEVILL (RALPH). = =The Man of Pleasure. = With 28 Illustrations, Coloured and plain. Demy 8vo, cloth, _12s. 6d. _ net. 

 =NEWBOLT (HENRY). --Taken from the Enemy. = With 8 Coloured Illusts. By GERALD LEAKE. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net and _2s. _ net. 

 =NICHOLS (ROBERT). --Ardours and Endurances. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Assault, and other War Poems from 'Ardours and Endurances. '= Crown 8vo, paper with cover design by C. R. W. NEVINSON. _1s. 3d. _ net. 

 =NIJINSKY, THE ART OF. = By GEOFFREY WHITWORTH. Illustrated in Colour by DOROTHY MULLOCK. Post 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =NISBET (HUME). --'Bail Up!'= Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net; medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =NOGUCHI (YONE), The Story of. = Told by Himself. With 8 Illustrations by YOSHIO MARKINO. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _6s. _ net. 

 =NORRIS (W. E. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Saint Ann's. = =Billy Bellew. = =Miss Wentworth's Idea. =

 =OHNET (GEORGES), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =A Weird Gift. = =The Path of Glory. = =Love's Depths. = =The Money-maker. = =The Woman of Mystery. = =The Conqueress. =

 =OLIPHANT (Mrs. ), Novels by. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Primrose Path. = =The Greatest Heiress in England. = =Whiteladies. = =The Sorceress. =

 =OLYMPIA: the Latin Text of Boccaccio's Fourteenth Eclogue, = with an English rendering and other Supplementary Matter by ISRAEL GOLLANCZ, Litt. D. , and Photogravure Frontispiece. Printed in the Florence Press Type upon hand-made paper. Edition limited to 500 copies. Fcap. 4to, boards, 6s. Net; vellum, _12s. 6d. _ net. 

 =O'SHAUGHNESSY (ARTHUR). Music & Moonlight. = Fcp. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =OUIDA, Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Tricotrin. = =Ruffino. = =Othmar. = =Frescoes. = =Wanda. = =Ariadne. = =Pascarel. = =Chandos. = =Moths. = =Puck. = =Idalia. = =Bimbi. = =Signa. = =Friendship. = =Guilderoy. = =A Dog of Flanders. = =Cecil Castlemaine's Gage. = =Princess Napraxine. = =Held in Bondage. = =Under Two Flags. = =Folle-Farine. = =Two Little Wooden Shoes. = =A Village Commune. = =In a Winter City. = =Santa Barbara. = =In Maremma. = =Strathmore. = =Pipistrello. = =Two Offenders. = =Syrlin. = =A Rainy June. = =The Massarenes. = =The Waters of Edera. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =Under Two Flags. = =Held in Bondage. = =Strathmore. = =The Massarenes. = =Friendship. = =Moths. = =Puck. = =Tricotrin. = =Chandos. = =Ariadne. = =Two Little Wooden Shoes. = =Idalia. = =Othmar. = =Pascarel. = =Folle-Farine. = =Princess Napraxine. = =Wanda. = =In Maremma. = * * * * * =Two Little Wooden Shoes. = LARGE TYPE EDITION. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, _1s. _ net. * * * * * =Wisdom, Wit, and Pathos=, selected from the Works of OUIDA by F. SYDNEY MORRIS. Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =OXFORD FROM WITHIN, = By HUGH DE SÉLINCOURT. With a Note and 12 Illustrations in Colour and 8 in Sepia by YOSHIO MARKINO. Demy 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =PAIN (BARRY). --Eliza's Husband. = Fcap. 8vo, _1s. _ net; cl. , _1s. 6d. _ net. 

 =PANDURANG HARI; or, Memoirs of a Hindoo. = Post 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =PARIS. --Bohemian Paris of To-day. = By W. C. MORROW. With 106 Illustrations by E. CUCUEL. Small demy 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =The Illustrated Catalogue of the Paris Salon. = With about 300 illusts. Published annually to 1914. Demy 8vo, _3s. _ net. 

 See also under Markino (Yoshio), p. 19. 

 =PATTERSON (MARJORIE). --The Dust of the Road:= A Novel. Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =PAYN (JAMES), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Lost Sir Massingberd. = =The Clyffards of Clyffe. = =A County Family. = =Less Black than We're Painted. = =By Proxy. = =For Cash Only. = =High Spirits. = =Sunny Stories. = =A Confidential Agent. = =A Grape from a Thorn. = 12 Illusts. =The Family Scapegrace. = =Holiday Tasks. = =At Her Mercy. = =The Talk of the Town. = 12 Illusts. =The Mystery of Mirbridge. = =The Word and the Will. = =The Burnt Million. = =A Trying Patient. = =Gwendoline's Harvest. = =A Woman's Vengeance. = =The Best of Husbands. = =The Foster Brothers. = =Found Dead. = =Kit: A Memory. = =Murphy's Master. = =Not Wooed but Won. = =Married Beneath Him. = =Under One Roof. = =A Modern Dick Whittington. = With Portrait of Author. * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =Lost Sir Massingberd. = =Walter's Word. = =By Proxy. =

 =PEACE ON EARTH: The Story of the Birth of Christ in the Words of the Gospel. = Illust. By THOMAS DERRICK. Small 4to, bds. , _1s. _ net. 

 =PENNY (F. E. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Sanyasi. = =Caste and Creed. = =Dilys. = =The Tea-Planter. = =Inevitable Law. = =The Rajah. = =The Unlucky Mark. = =Sacrifice. = =Dark Corners. = =Love in the Hills. = =The Malabar Magician. = =The Outcaste. = * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. Each. =Love in a Palace. = =Love by an Indian River. = =Missing!= =A Love Tangle. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =The Tea-Planter. = =Inevitable Law. = =Caste and Creed. = =The Sanyasi. =

 =PERRIN (ALICE), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =A Free Solitude. = =East of Suez. = =The Waters of Destruction. = =Red Records. = =The Stronger Claim. = =Idolatry. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =The Stronger Claim. = =The Waters of Destruction. = =Idolatry. = =A Free Solitude. =

 =PETIT HOMME ROUGE (Le). = See under Vizetelly (E. A. ), page 31. 

 =PETRARCH'S SECRET; or, The Soul's Conflict with Passion. = Three Dialogues. Translated from the Latin by W. H. DRAPER. With 2 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =PHIL MAY'S Sketch-Book:= 54 Cartoons. Crown folio, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net. 

 =PHIPSON (Dr. T. L. ). --Famous Violinists and Fine Violins. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =PICKTHALL (MARMADUKE). --Larkmeadow. = Crown 8vo, cl. , _6s. _ net. 

 =PLUTARCH'S Lives of Illustrious Men. = With Portraits. Two Vols. , 8vo, half cl. , _10s. 6d. _ net. 

 =POE'S (EDGAR ALLAN) Choice Works. = With an Introduction by CHAS. BAUDELAIRE. Crown 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =POLLEN (A. H. ). --The Navy in Battle. = Illust. Dy. 8vo. Cl. , _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =POUGIN (ARTHUR). --A Short History of Russian Music. = Translated by LAWRENCE HAWARD. Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =PRAED (Mrs. CAMPBELL), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Outlaw and Lawmaker. = =Christina Chard. = =Mrs. Tregaskiss. = With 8 Illustrations. =Nulma. = =Madame Izan. = =The Lost Earl of Ellan. = * * * * * =Our Book of Memories. = Letters from JUSTIN MCCARTHY. With Ports. And Views. Demy 8vo, cl. , _12s. 6d. _ net. See also under JUSTIN MCCARTHY. 

 =PRESLAND (JOHN), Dramas by. = Fcap. 4to, cloth, _5s. _ net each. =Mary Queen of Scots. = =Manin and the Defence of Venice. = =Marcus Aurelius. = =Belisarius, General of the East. = =King Monmouth. = * * * * * Small crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Deluge, and other Poems. = =Songs of Changing Skies. = * * * * * =Lynton and Lynmouth. = Illustrated in Colour by F. J. WIDGERY. Demy 8vo, cloth, _7s. 6d_ net. 

 =PROCTOR (RICHARD A. ), Books by. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Easy Star Lessons. = With Star Maps. =Flowers of the Sky. = With 55 Illusts. =Familiar Science Studies. = =Saturn and its System. = With 13 Steel Plates. Demy 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =PRYCE (RICHARD). --Miss Maxwell's Affections. = Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =RAB AND HIS FRIENDS. = By Dr. JOHN BROWN. Square 16mo, with Frontispiece, cloth, _1s. _ net. 

 =READE'S (CHARLES) Novels. = Collected LIBRARY EDITION, in Seventeen Volumes, crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net ea. =Peg Woffington=; and =Christie Johnstone. = =Hard Cash. = =The Cloister and the Hearth. = With a Preface by Sir WALTER BESANT. ='It is Never Too Late to Mend. '= =The Course of True Love Never Did Run Smooth=; and =Singleheart and Doubleface. = =The Autobiography of a Thief=; =Jack of all Trades=; =A Hero and a Martyr=; =The Wandering Heir. = =Love Me Little, Love Me Long. = =The Double Marriage. = =Put Yourself in His Place. = =A Terrible Temptation. = =Griffith Gaunt. = =A Woman-Hater. = =Foul Play. = =A Simpleton. = =The Jilt=; and =Good Stories of Man and other Animals. = =A Perilous Secret. = =Readiana=; and =Bible Characters. = * * * * * LARGE TYPE. FINE PAPER EDITIONS. Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net each; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net each. =The Cloister and the Hearth. = With 32 Illustrations by M. B. HEWERDINE. ='It is Never Too Late to Mend. '= * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =The Cloister and the Hearth. = ='It is Never Too Late to Mend. '= =Foul Play. = =Hard Cash. = =Peg Woffington=; and =Christie Johnstone. = =Griffith Gaunt. = =Put Yourself in His Place. = =A Terrible Temptation. = =The Double Marriage. = =Love Me Little, Love Me Long. = =A Perilous Secret. = =A Woman-Hater. = =The Course of True Love. = =The Wandering Heir. = LARGE TYPE EDITION, fcap. 8vo, cloth, _1s. _ net. =The Cloister and the Hearth. = Illustrations by MATT. B. HEWERDINE. Small 4to, cloth _6s. _ net. --Also Illustrated by BYAM SHAW, R. I. Demy 8vo, cloth, _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =REITLINGER (FRÉDÉRIC). --A Diplomat's Memoir of 1870. = Translated by HENRY REITLINGER. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _2s. _ net. 

 =RICHARDSON (Frank), Novels by. = =The Man who Lost his Past. = With 50 Illustrations by TOM BROWNE, R. I. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Bayswater Miracle. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =The King's Counsel. = =There and Back. =

 =RIDDELL (Mrs. ), Novels by. = =A Rich Man's Daughter. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =Weird Stories. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =RIVES (AMELIE), Stories by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Barbara Dering. = =Meriel=: A Love Story. 

 =ROBINSON (F. W. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Hands of Justice. = =The Woman in the Dark. =

 =ROLFE (FR. ). --Don Tarquinio. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =ROLL OF BATTLE ABBEY, THE=: List of the Principal Warriors who came from Normandy with William the Conqueror, 1066. In Gold and Colours, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =ROSENGARTEN (A. ). --A Handbook of Architectural Styles. = Translated by W. COLLETT-SANDARS. With 630 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =ROSHER (HAROLD). --In the Royal Naval Air Service. = With a Preface by ARNOLD BENNETT. Illust. Crown 8vo, _3s. 6d. _ net. Paper, _1s. _ net. 

 =ROWLANDS (EFFIE ADELAIDE), Novels by. = Cr. 8vo, cloth. =The Price Paid. = _3s. 6d. _ net. =Her Husband. = _6s. _ net. 

 =RUSKIN (JOHN). --The King of the Golden River. = Square 16mo, with Frontispiece, _1s. _ net. =Ruskin as a Religious Teacher. = By F. W. FARRAR, D. D. Square 16mo, _1s. _ net. =The Pocket Ruskin. = 16mo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net. ; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =RUSSELL (W. CLARK), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Round the Galley-Fire. = =In the Middle Watch. = =On the Fo'k'sle Head. = =A Book for the Hammock. = =The Mystery of the 'Ocean Star. '= =The Romance of Jenny Harlowe. = =The Tale of the Ten. = =An Ocean Tragedy. = =My Shipmate Louise. = =Alone on a Wide Wide Sea. = =The Good Ship 'Mohock. '= =The Phantom Death. = =Is He the Man?= =The Last Entry. = =The Convict Ship. = =Heart of Oak. = =A Tale of Two Tunnels. = =The Death Ship. = =Overdue. = =Wrong Side Out. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med. 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =The Convict Ship. = =Is He the Man?= =My Shipmate Louise. =

 =RUSSELL (DORA), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =A Country Sweetheart. = =The Drift of Fate. =

 =RUSSIAN BASTILLE, THE= (The Fortress of Schluesselburg). By I. P. YOUVATSHEV. Translated by A. S. RAPPOPORT, M. A. With 16 Plates. Demy 8vo, cloth, _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =SAINT AUBYN (ALAN), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =A Fellow of Trinity. = With a Note by OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES. =The Junior Dean. = =Orchard Damerel. = =The Master of St. Benedict's. = =In the Face of the World. = =To His Own Master. = =The Tremlett Diamonds. = =The Wooing of May. = =Fortune's Gate. = =A Tragic Honeymoon. = =Gallantry Bower. = =A Proctor's Wooing. = =Bonnie Maggie Lauder. = =Mrs. Dunbar's Secret. = =Mary Unwin. = With 8 Illustrations. 

 =SANDEMAN (GEORGE). --Agnes. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =SAROLEA (CHARLES). --German Problems and Personalities. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =SCOTT (CYRIL). --The Celestial Aftermath. = Pott 4to, cloth, _5s. _ net. _Also_ LARGE PAPER EDITION limited to 50 Signed Copies, parchment, _21s. _ net. 

 =SÉLINCOURT (HUGH DE), Books by. = =Oxford from Within. = With a Note and 20 Illustrations in colour and Monochrome by YOSHIO MARKINO. Demy 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =A Daughter of the Morning. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =SERGEANT (ADELINE), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Under False Pretences. = =Dr. Endicott's Experiment. = =The Missing Elizabeth. =

 =SERMON ON THE MOUNT (The). = Illuminated in Gold and Colours by ALBERTO SANGORSKI. Fcap. 4to. Jap. Vellum, _3s. 6d. _ net; parchment, full gilt, with silk ties, _6s. _ net. 

 =ST. MARTIN'S LIBRARY (The). = In pocket size, cloth. _2s. 6d. _ net per Vol. ; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net per Vol. By WALTER BESANT. =London. = =Westminster. = =Jerusalem. = By BESANT and PALMER. =All Sorts and Conditions of Men. = =Sir Richard Whittington. = =Gaspard de Coligny. = By GIOVANNI BOCCACCIO. =The Decameron. = By ROBERT BROWNING. Illustrated in Colours by E. F. BRICKDALE. =Pippa Passes=; and =Men and Women=. =Dramatis Personæ; and Dramatic Romances and Lyrics. = By ROBERT BUCHANAN. =The Shadow of the Sword. = By HALL CAINE. =The Deemster. = By WILKIE COLLINS. =The Woman in White. = By DANIEL DEFOE. =Robinson Crusoe. = With 37 Illustrations by G. CRUIKSHANK. By CHARLES DICKENS. =Speeches. = With Portrait. By AUSTIN DOBSON. =Eighteenth Century Vignettes. = In Three Series, each Illustrated. By W. S. GILBERT. =Original Plays. = In Four Series, the Fourth Series with a Portrait. By THOMAS HARDY. =Under the Greenwood Tree. = By BRET HARTE. =Condensed Novels. = =Mliss=, =The Luck of Roaring Camp=, and other Stories. With Portrait. =Poetical Works. = By OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES. =The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table. = Illustrated by J. G. THOMSON. Compiled by A. H. HYATT. =The Charm of London=: An Anthology. =The Charm of Edinburgh. = =The Charm of Venice. = =The Charm of Paris. = By RICHARD JEFFERIES. =The Life of the Fields. = =The Open Air. = =Nature near London. = By CHARLES LAMB. =The Essays of Elia. = By LORD MACAULAY. =History of England=, in 5 Volumes. By JUSTIN McCARTHY. =The Reign of Queen Anne=, in 1 Vol. =A History of the Four Georges and of William IV. =, in 2 Vols. =A History of Our Own Times= from Accession of Q. Victoria to 1902, in 4 Vols. By GEORGE MacDONALD. =Poetical Works. = In 2 vols. =Works of Fancy and Imagination= in 10 Vols. 16mo. (For List, see p. 18. ) By W. H. MALLOCK. =The New Republic. = By OUIDA. =Wisdom, Wit, and Pathos. = By CHARLES READE. =The Cloister and the Hearth. = With 32 Illustrations by M. B. HEWERDINE. ='It is Never Too Late to Mend. '= By PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY. =Prose Works. = 2 vols. , with 2 Ports. =Poetical Works. = 2 vols. , with 2 Plates. Selected by FRANK SIDGWICK, and Illustrated in Colours by BYAM SHAW. =Ballads and Lyrics of Love. = =Historical and Legendary Ballads. = In pocket size, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net per Vol. ; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net per Vol. By ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON. =An Inland Voyage. = =Travels with a Donkey. = =The Silverado Squatters. = =Memories and Portraits. = =Virginibus Puerisque. = =Men and Books. = =New Arabian Nights. = =Across the Plains. = =The Merry Men. = =Prince Otto. = =In the South Seas. = =Essays of Travel. = =Weir of Hermiston. = =Tales and Fantasies. = =The Art of Writing. = =Lay Morals, etc. = =Poems. = By H. A. TAINE. =History of English Literature, = in 4 Vols. With 32 Portraits. By TCHEHOV. =Tales. = Translated by CONSTANCE GARNETT. Six Vols. Now ready. By MARK TWAIN. --=Sketches. = By WALTON and COTTON. =The Complete Angler. = By WALT WHITMAN. =Poems. = Selected and Edited by W. M. ROSSETTI. With Portrait. 

 =SANGORSKI (ALBERTO), Books Illuminated by. = Fcap. 4to, Jap. Vellum _3s. 6d. _ net each; parchment gilt, with silk ties, _6s. _ net each. =Prayers Written at Vailima= by ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON. =The Sermon on the Mount. = =Morte d'Arthur=, by LORD TENNYSON. 

 =SCOTT (CYRIL). --The Celestial Aftermath. = Pott 4to, cloth, _5s. _ net. LARGE PAPER EDITION, limited to 50 copies, signed by the Author, _21s. _ net. 

 =SHADOWLESS MAN (THE): Peter Schlemihl. = By A. VON CHAMISSO. Illustrated by GORDON BROWNE. Demy 8vo, cloth, _2s. _ net. 

 =SHAKESPEARE LIBRARY= PART I. =The Old-Spelling SHAKESPEARE. = Edited by F. J. FURNIVALL, M. A. , D. Litt. , and F. W. CLARKE, M. A. Demy 8vo, cl. , _2s. 6d. _ net each Play. Of some of the plays a Library Edition may be had at _5s. _ net each. A list of volumes on application. * * * * * PART II. =The SHAKESPEARE CLASSICS. = Small crown 8vo, quarter-bound antique grey boards, _2s. 6d. _ net per vol. ; those marked + may also be had in velvet persian at _4s. _ net; and those marked * on large paper, half parchment, _5s. _ net. Per vol. Each volume with Frontispiece. +*=1. Lodge's 'Rosalynde': the original of Shakespeare's 'As You Like it. '= Edited by W. W. GREG, M. A. [_Ready. _

 Volumes published or in preparation. +*=2. Greene's 'Pandosto, ' or 'Dorastus and Fawnia': the original of Shakespeare's 'Winter's Tale. '= Ed. By P. G. THOMAS. [_Ready. _ +*=3. Brooke's Poem of 'Romeus and Juliet': the original of Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet. '= Edited by P. A. DANIEL. Modernised and re-edited by J. J. MUNRO. [_Ready. _ =4. 'The Troublesome Reign of King John': the Play rewritten by Shakespeare as 'King John. '= Edited by Dr. F. J. FURNIVALL and JOHN MUNRO, M. A. [_Ready. _ =5, 6. 'The History of Hamlet'=: With other Documents illustrative of the sources of Shakspeare's Play, and an Introductory Study of the LEGEND OF HAMLET by Prof. I. GOLLANCZ. +*=7. 'The Play of King Leir and His Three Daughters': the old play on the subject of King Lear. = Edited by SIDNEY LEE, D. Litt. [_Ready. _ +*=8. 'The Taming of a Shrew'=: Being the old play used by Shakespeare in 'The Taming of the Shrew. ' Edited by Professor F. S. BOAS, M. A. [_Ready. _ +*=9. The Sources and Analogues of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream. '= Edited by FRANK SIDGWICK. [_Ready. _ =10. 'The Famous Victories of Henry V. '= =11. 'The Menæchmi': the original of Shakespeare's 'Comedy of Errors. '= Latin text, with the Elizabethan Translation. Edited by W. H. D. ROUSE, Litt. D. [_Ready. _ =12. 'Promos and Cassandra': the source of 'Measure for Measure. '= =13. 'Apolonius and Silla'=: the source of 'Twelfth Night. ' Edited by MORTON LUCE. [_Ready. _ =14. 'The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of York and Lancaster, '= and ='The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York'=: the originals of the second and third parts of 'King Henry VI. ' =15. The Sources of 'The Tempest. '= =16. The Sources of 'Cymbeline. '= =17. The Sources and Analogues of 'The Merchant of Venice. =' Edited by Professor I. GOLLANCZ. =18. Romantic Tales=: the sources of 'The Two Gentlemen of Verona, ' 'Merry Wives, ' 'Much Ado about Nothing, ' 'All's Well that Ends Well. ' +*=19, 20. Shakespeare's Plutarch=: the sources of 'Julius Cæsar, ' 'Antony and Cleopatra. ' 'Coriolanus, ' and 'Timon. ' Ed. C. F. TUCKER BROOKE, M. A. [_Ready. _ * * * * * PART III. =THE LAMB SHAKESPEARE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE. = With Illustrations and Music. Based on MARY AND CHARLES LAMB'S TALES FROM SHAKESPEARE, and edited by Professor I. GOLLANCZ, who has inserted within the prose setting those scenes and passages from the Plays with which the young reader should early become acquainted. The Music arranged by T. MASKELL HARDY. Imperial 16mo, cloth, _1s. 6d. _ net per vol. ; leather, _2s. 6d. _ net per vol. ; School Edit. , linen, _1s. _ net per vol. 

 =I. The Tempest. = =II. As You Like It. = =III. A Midsummer Night's Dream. = =IV. The Merchant of Venice. = =V. The Winter's Tale. = =VI. Twelfth Night. = =VII. Cymbeline. = =VIII. Romeo and Juliet. = =IX. Macbeth. = =X. Much Ado About Nothing. = * * * * * =XI. Life of Shakespeare for the Young. = By Prof. I. GOLLANCZ. [_Preparing. _ =XII. An Evening with Shakespeare=: 10 Dramatic Tableaux for Young People, with Music by T. MASKELL HARDY, and Illustrations. Cloth, _2s. _ net; leather, _3s. 6d. _ net; linen, _1s. 6d. _ net. * * * * * PART IV. =SHAKESPEARE'S ENGLAND. = A series of volumes illustrative of the life, thought, and letters of England in the time of Shakespeare. =Robert Laneham's Letter=, describing part of the Entertainment given to Queen Elizabeth at Kenilworth Castle in 1575. With Introduction by Dr. FURNIVALL, and Illustrations. Demy 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =The Rogues and Vagabonds of Shakespeare's Youth=: reprints of Awdeley's 'Fraternitye of Vacabondes. ' Harman's 'Caveat for Common Cursetors. ' Parson Haben's or Hyberdyne's 'Sermon in Praise of Thieves and Thievery, ' &c. With many woodcuts. Edited, with Introduction, by EDWARD VILES and Dr. FURNIVALL. Demy 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =Shakespeare's Holinshed=: a reprint of all the passages in Holinshed's 'Chronicle' of which use was made in Shakespeares Historical Plays, with Notes. Edited by W. G. BOSWELL STONE. Royal 8vo, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net. =The Shakespeare Allusion Book. = Reprints of all references to Shakespeare and his Works before the close of the 17th century, collected by Dr. INGLEBY, Miss L. TOULMIN SMITH, Dr. FURNIVALL, and J. J. MUNRO. Two vols. , royal 8vo, cloth, _21s. _ net. =The Book of Elizabethan Verse. = Edited with Notes by WILLIAM STANLEY BRAITHWAITE. With Frontispiece and Vignette. Small crown 8vo cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net; vellum gilt, _12s. 6d. _ net. * * * * * =A Study of Shakespeare. = By A. C. SWINBURNE. Crown 8vo, cloth, _8s. _ =The Age of Shakespeare. = By A. C. SWINBURNE. Cr. 8vo, buckram, _6s. _ net. 

 =SHELLEY'S (PERCY BYSSHE)= Complete Works in VERSE (2 Vols. ) and PROSE (2 Vols. ), each with Frontispiece. Edited by RICHARD HERNE SHEPHERD. ST. MARTIN'S LIBRARY Edition. Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net per vol. ; leather gilt, _4s. _ net per vol. 

 ***Also an Edition in 5 vols. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net per vol. , in which the POETICAL WORKS form 3 vols. And the PROSE WORKS 2 vols. 

 _See also_ under FLORENCE PRESS BOOKS, page 10. 

 =SHERIDAN'S (RICHARD BRINSLEY) Complete Works. = Edited by F. STAINFORTH. With Portrait and Memoir. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =SHIEL (M. P. ), Novels by. = =The Purple Cloud. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =Unto the Third Generation. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =SIGNBOARDS=: The History of, from the Earliest Times; including Famous Taverns and Remarkable Characters. By JACOB LARWOOD and J. C. HOTTEN. With 95 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =SIMS (GEORGE R. ), Books by. = Crown 8vo, picture cover, 1s. Net each; cloth, _1s. 6d. _ net each. =The Dagonet Reciter and Reader. = =Dagonet Ditties. = =Life We Live. = =Young Mrs. Caudle. = =Li Ting of London. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Mary Jane's Memoirs. = =Mary Jane Married. = =Rogues and Vagabonds. = =Anna of the Underworld. = =Joyce Pleasantry. = With a Frontispiece by HUGH THOMSON. =For Life--and After. = =Once upon a Christmas Time. = With 8 Illustrations by CHAS. GREEN, R. I. =In London's Heart. = =A Blind Marriage. = =Without the Limelight. = =The Small-part Lady. = =Biographs of Babylon. = =The Mystery of Mary Anne. = =His Wife's Revenge. = =Tinkletop's Crime. = =Dramas of Life. = =Zeph. = =Ring o' Bells. = =Dagonet Abroad. = * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, med, 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =Mary Jane's Memoirs. = =Mary Jane Married. = =Rogues and Vagabonds. = * * * * * =How the Poor Live=; and =Horrible London. = Cr. 8vo, leatherette, _1s. _ net. =Dagonet Dramas. = Crown 8vo, _1s. _ net. 

 =SLADEN (DOUGLAS). --A Japanese Marriage. = Med. 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =SLANG DICTIONARY (The):= Historical and Anecdotal. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _6s. _ net. 

 =SMEDLEY (CONSTANCE: Mrs. Maxwell Armfield), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =Service. = With Frontispiece. * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. Each. =Mothers and Fathers. = Frontispiece. =Commoners' Rights. = With 8 Illustrations by MAXWELL ARMFIELD. =Una and the Lions. = See also =The Flower Book=, p. 10. 

 =SNAITH (J. C. ). --The Coming. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =SOMERSET (Lord HENRY). --Songs of Adieu. = 4to, Jap. Vell. , _5s. _ net. 

 =SPALDING (Kenneth J. ). --A Pilgrim's Way. = Fcap. 4to, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =SPANISH ISLAM: A History of the Moslems in Spain. = By REINHART DOZY. Translated, with Biographical Introduction and additional Notes, by F. G. STOKES. With Frontispiece and Map. Royal 8vo, buckram, _21s. _ net. 

 =SPEIGHT (E. E. ). --The Galleon of Torbay. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =SPEIGHT (T. W. ), Novels by. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =Her Ladyship. = =The Grey Monk. = =The Master of Trenance. = =The Secret of Wyvern Towers. = =Doom of Siva. = =As it was Written. = =The Web of Fate. = =Experiences of Mr. Verschoyle. = =Stepping Blindfold. =

 =SPIELMANN (MRS. M. H. ), Books by. = =Margery Redford and her Friends. = With Illustrations by GORDON BROWNE. Large crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =The Rainbow Book: Sixteen Tales of Fun and Fancy. = With 37 Illustrations by ARTHUR RACKHAM, HUGH THOMSON and other artists. Large crown 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net. 

 ='SPY' (FORTY YEARS OF), by LESLIE WARD. = With over 150 Illustrations after Portraits and Caricatures by the Author. Demy 8vo, cloth, _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =STATHAM (H. HEATHCOTE). --What is Music?= With Frontispiece. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =STEDMAN (E. C. ). --Victorian Poets. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _9s. _ net. 

 =STERNE (LAURENCE). --A Sentimental Journey. = With 89 Illustrations by T. H. ROBINSON, and Portrait. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net; post 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, _4s. _ net. 

 =STEVENSON (R. LOUIS), Works by. = =Virginibus Puerisque, and other Papers. = FLORENCE PRESS EDITION. With 12 Illustrations in Coloured Collotype by NORMAN WILKINSON. Cr. 4to, bds. , _£2 12s. 6d. _ net; vellum, _£3. 3s. _ net. =Stevenson's Poems=: Complete Edition. Printed in the Florence Type. Small fcap. 4to, gilt top, _12s. 6d. _ net. * * * * * Crown 8vo, buckram, 6s. Net each. =Travels with a Donkey. = With a Frontispiece by WALTER CRANE. =An Inland Voyage. = With a Frontispiece by WALTER CRANE. =Familiar Studies of Men & Books. = =The Silverado Squatters. = =New Arabian Nights. = =The Merry Men. = =Lay Morals, &c. = =Underwoods=: Poems. =Memories and Portraits. = =Virginibus Puerisque. = =Ballads. = =Songs of Travel. = =Prince Otto. = =Across the Plains. = =Weir of Hermiston. = =In the South Seas. = =Essays of Travel. = =Tales and Fantasies. = =Essays in the Art of Writing. = =Records of a Family of Engineers. = The above books are also issued in a FINE PAPER EDITION, pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net each; leather, _4s. _ net, with the exception of 'Underwoods' and 'Ballads, ' which are printed in 1 vol. Together with 'Songs of Travel, ' under the title of 'Poems. ' 'Records of a Family of Engineers' is published at _6s. _ net only. * * * * * =A Lowden Sabbath Morn. = With Coloured Front. And numerous Illus. By A. S. BOYD. Cr. 8vo, buckram, _5s. _ net. * * * * * Large crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net each; parchment, _7s. 6d. _ net each; or, LARGE PAPER EDITIONS, vel. , _12s. 6d. _ net each. =An Inland Voyage. = Illustrated in Colour by NOEL ROOKE. =Travels with a Donkey in the Cevennes. = Illustrated in Colour by NOEL ROOKE. * * * * * =A Child's Garden of Verses. = Illustrated in Colour by MILLICENT SOWERBY. Large crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net; LARGE PAPER ED. , parchmt. , _10s. 6d. _ net. * * * * * Long fcap. 8vo, quarter-cloth, _1s. _ net each. =Father Damien. = =Talk and Talkers. = * * * * * =A Christmas Sermon. = Post 8vo, bds. , _1s. _ net; leather, _2s. _ net. Also a MINIATURE EDITION in velvet calf, _2s. _ net. =Prayers Written at Vailima. = Post 8vo, bds. , _1s. _ net; leather, _2s. _ net. Also a MINIATURE EDITION in velvet calf yapp, _2s. _ net. ; and the EDITION DE LUXE, Illum. By A. SANGORSKI in gold and colours, fcap. 4to. Jap. Vel. , gilt top, _3s. 6d. _ net. ; parch. Gilt, with ties, _6s. _ net. = New Arabian Nights. = POPULAR EDITION, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. =The Suicide Club=; and =The Rajah's Diamond. = (From NEW ARABIAN NIGHTS. ) With 8 Illustrations by W. J. HENNESSY. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. * * * * * 16mo, decorated cloth, _1s. _ net each. =The Sire de Malétroit's Door. = =A Lodging for the Night. = =The Waif Woman. = =On the Choice of a Profession. = * * * * * =The Pavilion on the Links. = With Illustrations by GORDON BROWNE, R. I. Demy 8vo, cloth, _2s. _ net. =The Stevenson Reader. = Post 8vo, cl. , _2s. 6d. _ net; buckram, gilt top, _3s. 6d. _ net; SCHOOL EDITION, cloth, _1s. 6d. _ net. =The Pocket R. L. S. =: Favourite Passages. 16mo, cl. , _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, _4s. _ net. =Brave Words about Death. = Selected from the Writings of Stevenson. Pott 8vo decorated cover, _1s. _ net. * * * * * =R. L. Stevenson=: A Study. By H. B. BAILDON. Crown 8vo, buckram, _5s. _ net. =Recollections of R. L. Stevenson in the Pacific. = By ARTHUR JOHNSTONE. Cr. 8vo, buckram, _6s. _ net. 

 =STOCKTON (FRANK R. ). --The Young Master of Hyson Hall. = With 36 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =STOKES (FRANCIS GRIFFIN), = Translated and Edited by: =Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum. = The Latin text with English Rendering. Royal 8vo, buckram, _25s. _ net. =Spanish Islam: a History of the Moslems in Spain. = By REINHART DOZY. Royal 8vo, buckram, _21s. _ net. 

 =STONE (CHRISTOPHER), = Novels by. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =They also Serve. = =The Shoe of a Horse. = * * * * * =The Noise of Life. = _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =STOTT (BEATRICE). --Christian Derrick. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =STRACHEY (LYTTON). --Eminent Victorians. = With 6 Portraits. Demy 8vo, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net. 

 =STRAUS (RALPH), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =The Man Apart. = =The Little God's Drum. =

 =STRUTT (JOSEPH). --The Sports and Pastimes of the People of England. = With 140 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =STUART (H. LONGAN), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =Weeping Cross. = =Fenella. =

 =STUCKENBERG (VIGGO). --By the Wayside. = Translated from the Danish and illustrated by Una Hook. Small fcap. 4to, boards, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =SUTRO (ALFRED). --The Foolish Virgins. = Fcp. 8vo, cloth, _1s. 6d. _ net. 

 =SWIFT'S (Dean) Choice Works=, in Prose and Verse. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. =Jonathan Swift=: A Study. By J. CHURTON COLLINS. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =SWINBURNE'S (ALGERNON CHARLES) Works. = =Mr. Swinburne's Collected Tragedies. = In 5 Vols. , cr. 8vo, _30s. _ net the set. =Songs before Sunrise. = FLORENCE PRESS EDITION. Crown 4to, hand-made paper, boards, _26s. _ net; vellum, _36s. _ net. =Selections. = Fcap. 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ =Dolores. = Small 4to, boards, _1s. _ net. * * * * * =The Queen-Mother; and Rosamond. = Crown 8vo, _7s. 6d. _ net. =Atalanta in Calydon. = Crown 8vo, _6s. _ =Chastelard=: A Tragedy. Crown 8vo, _7s. _ =Poems and Ballads. = FIRST SERIES Crown 8vo, _9s. _ =Poems and Ballads. = SECOND SERIES Crown 8vo, _9s. _ =Poems and Ballads. = THIRD SERIES Crown 8vo, _7s. _ =Songs before Sunrise. = Cr. 8vo, _10s. 6d. _ =Bothwell=: A Tragedy. Crown 8vo, _12s. 6d. _ =Songs of Two Nations. = Crown 8vo, _6s. _ =George Chapman. = (in Vol. II. Of G. CHAPMAN'S Works. ) Cr. 8vo, _3s. 6d. _ net. =Essays and Studies. = Crown 8vo, _12s. _ =Erechtheus=: A Tragedy. Crown 8vo, _6s. _ =A Note on Charlotte Bronte. = Crown 8vo, _6s. _ =A Study of Shakespeare. = Cr. 8vo, _8s. _ =Songs of the Springtides. = Cr. 8vo, _6s. _ =Studies in Song. = Crown 8vo, _7s. _ =Mary Stuart:= A Tragedy. Crown 8vo, _8s. _ =Tristram of Lyonesse. = Crown 8vo, _6s. _ =A Century of Roundels. = Cr. 8vo, _6s. _ =A Midsummer Holiday. = Cr. 8vo, _7s. _ =Marino Faliero=: A Tragedy. Cr. 8vo, _6s. _ =A Study of Victor Hugo. = Cr. 8vo, _6s. _ =Miscellanies. =Crown 8vo, _12s. _ =Locrine=: A Tragedy. Crown 8vo, _6s. _ =A Study of Ben Jonson. = Cr. 8vo, _7s. _ =The Sisters=: A Tragedy. Crown 8vo, _6s. _ =Astrophel, &c. = Crown 8vo, _7s. _ =Studies in Prose and Poetry. = Crown 8vo, _9s. _ =The Tale of Balen. = Crown 8vo, _7s. _ =Rosamund, Queen of the Lombards=: A Tragedy. Crown 8vo, _6s. _ =A Channel Passage. = Crown 8vo, _7s. _ =Love's Cross-Currents=: A Year's Letters. Crown 8vo, _6s. _ net. =William Blake. = Crown 8vo, _6s. _ net. =The Duke of Gandia. = Crown 8vo, _5s. _ =The Age of Shakespeare. = Crown 8vo, _6s. _ net. =Charles Dickens. = Cr. 8vo, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

=SWINNERTON (FRANK), Novels by. = =The Young Idea. = =The Casement. = =The Merry Heart. = _3s. 6d. _ net ea. 

 =SYRETT (NETTA), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Anne Page. = =A Castle of Dreams. = =Olivia L. Carew. = * * * * * Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net each. =Drender's Daughter. = =The Endless Journey, &c. = =Three Women. = =Barbara of the Thorn. = * * * * * =Troublers of the Peace. = _5s. _ net. * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. =Anne Page. = =Olivia L. Carew. = =Three Women. =

 =TAINE'S History of English Literature. = Trans. By HENRY VAN LAUN. Four Vols. , with 32 Portraits, pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net each; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net each. 

 =TCHEHOV (ANTON). --Tales translated from the Russian by Constance Garnett. = Six vols. Now ready. I. The Darling, etc. II. The Duel, etc. III. The Lady with the Dog, etc. IV. The Party, etc. V. The Wife, etc. VI. The Witch, etc. Pott 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. Net; leather, _4s. _ net each. 

 =TENNYSON (CHARLES). --Cambridge from Within. = Illusts. By HARRY MORLEY. Dy. 8vo, cl. , _5s. _ net. 

 =THACKERAY (W. M. ). --The Rose and The Ring. = Illusts. By GORDON BROWNE. Demy 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Pocket Thackeray. = Arranged by A. H. HYATT. 16mo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =THOMPSON (FRANCIS). The Hound of Heaven. = Ten Drawings Illustrating, by FRIDESWITH HUDDART. Royal 4to, boards, _7s. 6d. _ net. Also 50 copies on parchment. 

 =THOREAU: His Life and Aims. = By H. A. PAGE. Post 8vo, buckram, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =TIMBS (JOHN), Works by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Clubs and Club Life in London. = With 41 Illustrations. =English Eccentrics and Eccentricities. = With 48 Illustrations. 

 =TROLLOPE (ANTHONY), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =The Way We Live Now. = =Frau Frohmann. = =Marion Fay. = =The Land-Leaguers. = =Mr. Scarborough's Family. = =John Caldigate. =

 =TURKISH ENIGMA, The. = Translated from the French by WINIFRED STEPHENS. Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =TWAIN'S (MARK) Books. = UNIFORM LIBRARY EDITION. Crown 8vo, cloth, _4s. 6d. _ net each. =Mark Twain's Library of Humour. = With 197 Illustrations by E. W. KEMBLE. =Roughing It=: and =The Innocents at Home. = With 200 Illustrations by F. A. FRASER. =The American Claimant. = With 81 Illustrations by HAL HURST and others. =Pudd'nhead Wilson. = With Portrait and Six Illustrations by LOUIS LOEB. 

 *=The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. = With 111 Illustrations. =Tom Sawyer Abroad. = With 26 Illustrations by DAN BEARD. =Tom Sawyer, Detective=, With Port. *=A Tramp Abroad. = With 314 Illusts. *=The Innocents Abroad=: and =The New Pilgrim's Progress. = With 234 Illusts. (The _2s. 6d. _ edition is also known as MARK TWAIN'S PLEASURE TRIP. ) *=The Gilded Age. = BY MARK TWAIN and C. D. WARNER. With 212 Illusts. *=The Prince and the Pauper. = With 190 Illustrations. *=Life on the Mississippi. = 300 Illusts. *=The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. = 174 Illusts. By E. W. KEMBLE. *=A Yankee at the Court of King Arthur. = 220 Illusts. By DAN BEARD. *=The Stolen White Elephant. = *=The £1, 000, 000 Bank-Note. = =A Double-barrelled Detective Story. = With 7 Illustrations. =Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc. = With 12 Illusts. By F. V. DU MOND. =More Tramps Abroad. = =The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg. = With Frontispiece. =The Choice Works of Mark Twain. = With Life, Portrait, and Illustrations. 

 ***The Books marked * may be had in post 8vo, cl. , without Illustrations, at _2s. 6d_ net each. * * * * * POPULAR EDITIONS, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =Tom Sawyer. = =A Tramp Abroad. = =The Prince and the Pauper. = =Huckleberry Finn. = * * * * * =Mark Twain's Sketches. = Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net; post 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net. =Mark Twain's Letters. = Two vols. Demy 8vo, cloth, _18s. _ net. 

 =TYTLER (SARAH), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Buried Diamonds. = =The Blackhall Ghosts. = =What She Came Through. = =The Macdonald Lass. = =The Witch-Wife. = =Rachel Langton. = =Sapphira. = =Mrs. Carmichael's Goddesses. = =A Honeymoon's Eclipse. = =A Young Dragon. = =Three Men of Mark. = =In Clarissa's Day. = =Sir David's Visitors. = =The Poet and His Guardian Angel. =

 =UPWARD (ALLEN), Novels by. = =The Queen against Owen. = Crown 8vo, cl. _3s. 6d. _ net. =The Phantom Torpedo-Boats. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =VAN VORST (MARIE). --Fairfax and his Pride. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _6s. _ net. 

 =VICENZA (The PAINTERS of). = By TANCRED BORENIUS. With 15 full-page Plates. Demy 8vo, cloth, _7s. 6d. _ net. 

 =VIOLIN TONE. = By HIDALGO MOYA and TOWRY PIPER. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _5s. _ net. 

 =VIZETELLY (ERNEST A. ), Books by. = =A Path of Thorns. = Cr. 8vo, cloth _6s. _ net. * * * * * =My Days of Adventure: the Fall of France, 1870-71. = With a Frontisp. Demy 8vo, cloth, _7s. 6d. _ net. =The True Story of Alsace-Lorraine. = With Map. Demy 8vo, cloth, _10s. 6d. _ net. * * * * * =The Court of the Tuileries, 1852-1870. = Demy 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =My Adventures in the Commune. = Demy 8vo, cl. , _12s 6d. _ net. =In Seven Lands. = Demy 8vo, cloth, _12s. 6d. _ net. 

 =WALTON and COTTON'S Complete Angler. = Pott 8vo, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, gilt top, _4s. _ net. 

 =WARDEN (FLORENCE), by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Joan, the Curate. = =The Heart of a Girl. = With 8 Illusts. =Tom Dawson. = =The Youngest Miss Brown. = =A Fight to a Finish. = =The Old House at the Corner. = =Love and Lordship. = =What Ought She to Do?= =My Lady of Whims. = * * * * * =Tom Dawson. = Medium 8vo, _9d. _ net. 

 =WARRANT to Execute Charles I. = With the 59 Signatures and Seals. _2s. _ net. =Warrant to Execute Mary Queen of Scots. = _2s. _ net. 

 =WESTALL (WILL. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =Trust-Money. = =A Woman Tempted Him. = =For Honour and Life. = =Her Two Millions. = =Two Pinches of Snuff. = =With the Red Eagle. = =A Red Bridal. = =Nigel Fortescue. = =Ben Clough. = =Birch Dene. = =Sons of Belial. = =Strange Crimes. = =Her Ladyship's Secret. = =The Phantom City. = =Ralph Norbreck's Trust. = =A Queer Race. = =Red Ryvington. = =Roy of Roy's Court. = =As Luck would have it. = =As a Man Sows. = =The Old Bank. = =Dr. Wynne's Revenge. = =The Sacred Crescents. = =A Very Queer Business. = * * * * * =With the Red Eagle. Med. = 8vo, _9d. Net. _

 =WHISHAW (FRED. ), Novels by. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net each. =A Forbidden Name. = =Mazeppa. = =Many Ways of Love. = With 8 Illusts. =Near the Tsar, near Death. =

 =WHITMAN (WALT), Poems by. = Selected by W. M. ROSSETTI. Pott 4to, cloth, _2s. 6d. _ net; leather, _4s. _ net. =Drum Taps. = Special War Edition. Small 4to; decorated cover, _1s. _ net. 

 =WILDE (LADY). --The Ancient Legends, Charms, and Superstitions of Ireland. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _3s. 6d. _ net. 

 =WILLIAMS (W. MATTIEU). --The Chemistry of Cookery. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =WILSON (Dr. ANDREW), by. = =Leisure-Time Studies. = With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. =Common Accidents, and how to Treat Them. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _1s. _ net; paper cover, _6d. _ net. 

 =WOLSELEY (LADY). --Women and the Land. = Cr. 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =WRAGGE (CLEMENT L. ). --The Romance of the South Seas. = With 84 Illusts. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _6s. _ net. 

 =WRAY (ROGER). --Madcaps and Madmen. = Crown 8vo, cloth, _5s. _ net. 

 =ZOLA (ÉMILE), Novels by. = UNIFORM EDITION. Mostly Translated or Edited, with Introductions, by ERNEST A. VIZETELLY. Cr. 8vo, cl. , _3s. 6d. _ net each. =His Masterpiece. = =The Joy of Life. = =Germinal. = =Thérèse Raquin. = =The Honour of the Army. = =Abbe Mouret's Transgression. = =The Fortune of the Rougons. = =The Conquest of Plassans. = =The Dram Shop. = =The Fat and the Thin. = =Money. = =His Excellency. = =The Dream. = =The Downfall. = =Doctor Pascal. = =Lourdes. = =Fruitfulness. = =Rome. = =Work. = =Paris. = =Truth. = * * * * * =The Downfall. = WAR EDITION. Cr. 8vo, cloth, _2s. _ net. POPULAR EDITIONS, medium 8vo, _9d. _ net each. =Abbe Mouret's Transgression. = =The Fortune of the Rougons. = =Lourdes. = =Rome. = =The Downfall. = =Paris. = =Money. = =The Dram Shop. = =The Joy of Life. = =Germinal. = =Thérèse Raquin. = =Dr. Pascal. =

=UNWIN BROTHERS, LIMITED, THE GRESHAM PRESS, WOKING AND LONDON. =

 NOTABLE NEW BOOKS PUBLISHED BY CHATTO & WINDUS

 IN THE FOURTH YEARBy H. G. WELLS THE BEST AND CLEAREST EXPOSITION OF THE LEAGUE OFNATIONS AND DEMOCRACY Third impression Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d. Net

 A SHORT HISTORY OF ENGLANDBy G. K. CHESTERTON Sixth impression Cr. 8vo, 6s. Net

 THE NAVY IN BATTLEBy ARTHUR POLLEN With many illustrations Demy 8vo, 12s. 6d. Net

 THE TITLEBy ARNOLD BENNETT A New Comedy In Three Acts Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d. Net

 EMINENT VICTORIANSBy LYTTON STRACHEY Fifth impression Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d. Net

 A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATESBy CECIL CHESTERTON Cr. 8vo, 6s. Net

 GUYNEMER: KNIGHT OF THE AIRBy HENRY BORDEAUX Translated by LOUISE MORGAN SILLWith a Prelatory Letter by RUDYARD KIPLING Cr. 8vo, 6s. Net

 THE SOLDIER COLONISTSBy W. H. WARMAN With Two Chapters by COLLIN BROOKSand an Intro. By LORD SELBORNE Cr. 8vo, 5s. Net

 A FLOATING HOMEBy CYRIL IONIDES & J. B. ATKINS Illustrated in Colour by ARNOLD BENNETT A description of Life on a Thames sailing barge Large fcap. 4to, 12s. 6d. Net

 NATIONALITY AND GOVERNMENTBy ALFRED E. ZIMMERN Author of 'The Greek Commonwealth' Dy. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Net

 THE LEGEND OF TYL ULENSPIEGELBy CHARLES DE COSTER With 20 Woodcuts by ALBERT DELSTANCHE. Demy 8vo, 7s. 6d. Net. Presentation Edition, the plates mounted, 12s. 6d. Net. Also a Special Edition de Luxe, parchment, the woodcutshand-pulled and signed (10 copies), £6 6s. Net

 97 & 99 ST. MARTIN'S LANE, LONDON, W. C. 2

 [Illustration]

 +-------------------------------------------------+ | Transcriber's Note: | | | | Typographical errors corrected in text: | | | | Page viii debator changed to debater | | Page viii extrordinary changed to extraordinary | | Page 2 irrelevent changed to irrelevant | | Page 29 Triconderoga changed to Ticonderoga | | Page 32 Bourgoyne changed to Burgoyne | | Page 61 Layfayette changed to Lafayette | | Page 69 reuirements changed to requirements | | Page 70 Nullifyers changed to Nullifiers | | Page 72 Carolinan changed to Carolinian | | Page 81 South-west changed to South-West | | Page 83 Fontainbleau changed to Fontainebleau | | Page 91 politicans changed to politicians | | Page 99 Carolinans changed to Carolinians | | Page 100 Hertford changed to Hartford | | Page 113 Tippercanoe should be Tippecanoe | | Page 114 Tippercanoe should be Tippecanoe | | Page 119 Taxas changed to Texas | | Page 124 Tippercanoe should be Tippecanoe | | Page 140 Bounaparte changed to Bonaparte | | Page 146 ems changed to seems | | Page 156 Carolinan changed to Carolinian | | Page 180 Manasses changed to Manassas | | Page 182 Tuilleries changed to Tuileries | | Page 189 Fritchit changed to Fritchie | | Page 223 Appomatox changed to Appomattox | | Page 225 Appomatox changed to Appomattox | | Page 228 quatrennial changed to quadrennial | | Page 233 absorbtion changed to absorption | | Page 235 Colgosc changed to Czolgosz | | Page 243 Cozolgose changed to Czolgosz | | Page 243 Donalson changed to Donelson | | Page 244 Farrague changed to Farragut | | Page 245 Donalson changed to Donelson | | Page 245 Henay changed Henry | | Page 245 Tippercanoe should be Tippecanoe | | Page 249 Chicamange changed to Chickamauga | | Page 250 136 changed to 236 | | Page 250 Surratt changed to Suratt | | Page 251 Tippercanoe should be Tippecanoe | | Page 253 Vasar changed to Vasari | | Ad Page 32 Dramshop changed to Dram Shop | | Ad Page 32 Dram-Shop changed to Dram Shop | +-------------------------------------------------+