THE
REVIEWERS REVIEWED;
A SUPPLEMENT TO THE "WAR BETWEEN
THE STATES," ETC.,
WITIH
AN APPENDIX IN BElVIEW  O'"RlECONSTRUCTTIOi,"
SO CALLED.
BY
ALEXANDER H "STEPHENS.
NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
549 & 551 BROADWAY.
1872.




ENTERED, according to act of Congress, in the year 1872, by
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS,
In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.




TO
AD'"AM   L'..AL'EX-A'N'DER,
The only, -survivor of my, early beniefActors,, a gentleman distinguished for integrity, pety, urbanty, nd high culture, it
all that pertains to A rt, Scie.e, and iterature, this volume
is most ~respectfidly and grtefuly iwencbed, with a fervent
wish that hUis days. may yet be continued for  many years to
come, in tIhe enjoyment of that" -otium cum dignitate" wZice
always imparts a hafllowig  -charm to the crowning glory of a
long, hacppy, prosperous,- and wellspent. life.
ALEXANDER.H. STEPHENS.
LIBERTY HALL,.RAWFORDVILLE, GA., t
January 1;. 1872.








PREFACE.
TEEn two volumes of the "Constitutional View of the Late
War Between the States," etc., have been before the public
nearly two years. The object of the writer of that work was,
with perfect impartiality, and without any of the bias or prejudice which usually accompanies passion, from any cause whatever, to vindicate the, truth of history, that posterity may have
a clear perception and understanding of those principles of
Local Self-Government, and of Federative Union, upon which
the Free Institutions of the United States were founded and
established by the Fathers; and upon the maintenance of
which'alone he believes these Institutions can be preserved
and perpetuated.
Since the publication of the work, he has closely watched
the criticisms which have been made upon it from all quarters,
to see to what extent any attempt would be made to assail the
facts therein set forth, or the positions therein assumed. He
did not expect that a work so directly at issue, in matters of
public record, with the current histories of the day, would escape criticism and assault. In this he has not been disappointed. Attacks have been made from several high quarters.
It is his object, in this volume, to give to the public o1 the
present generation, and to leave for all coming generations, in
an induring form, his answer to each one of these attacks which
have come to his notice from a source deserving attention.




6                         PREFACE.
Each assailant ihas.been treated.separat'ely.and dealt fairly by,
as the author believes.  Whatever opinion ma'y be entertained
as to results, it is not thought: by hi'm that any-.one'will venture to say, that the'adversary or objeetor in any of the several
cases has not been.' squarely met,' ad upon his own grounds.
It, is, therefore, let' for an.nlightened and just.public, now
and hereafter, to deteranine whetler' any successful assault has
as yet been made upon what.are.claimed in the work. to be
irrefutable truths and irresistible conclusions.. It is also left
for the same public to determine whether the doctrines of the'two volumes, as therein -set forth, and. herein maintained, are
in accordance with the essential'principles. of, Public Liberty:
taught by the Founders:of our Federal.'.Republic,. or.' are;
of.a character. so "perncou  I?" that they..:should be'" suppressed," according.to the,,public announcement of Mr. Attorney-General Ackerman.
"Audi alteram. partern.".......
"Prove al th'ings; hond fast that which.i good.'
These are masims:wthich,ithrough'ol:t'these dfscussions, have
governed the action of the'




CONTENTS.
ARTICLE  I.
PA0G
MR. STEPHENS' REVIEW OF DR. A. T. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW OF THE "-WAR BETWEEN.
THE STATES," EXC.,...                        9
ARTICLE II.
I.-Mr. Stephens' Reply to Hon. S. S. Nicholas, of Kentucky,.39
IL —Rejoinder of Judge Nicholas,...             50. 
III.-Mr. Stephens' Sur-rejoinder to Judge Nicholas,...       53
ARTI-CLE  III.
THE CURTIS CONTROVERSY, OR MR. WEBSTER'S MODIFIED VIEWS,...
-1-Hon. George T. Curtis' Review of the World,....  61
II.-Mr. Stephens' Reply,.......                        91
III.-Rejoinder of Mr. Curtis,.....                              114
IV.-Sur-rejoinder of Mr. Stephens,........   123
ARTICLE  IV.
MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO HON. HORACE GREELEY'S CRITICISM ON THE WORK,. 137
ARTICLE V.
THE SUBJECT OF THE ELECTION OF MR. DAVIS TO THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES,...   14'7
I.-Letter of Hon. Alexander M. Clayton, of Mississippi, criticising Mr.
Stephens' Statement concerning it,....... 147
IL-Reply of Mr. Stephens, with his Statement upon the Subject,..   149
III.-Letter of Hon. Martin J. Crawford upon the same Subject,... 151




8                             CONTENTS.
ARTICLE VI.
FAGB
CONFEDERATE INACTIVITY AFTER THE FIRST BATTLE OF MANASSAS, 1861. —
CRITICISM OF HoN. E. BARKSDALE, OF MISSISSIPPI, ON THIS POINT,. 155
I.-Editorial of the Augusta (Ga.) Constitutionalist, 31st July, 1870, by
J. R. Randall: with Letters from President Davis and General
Joseph E. Johnston,.                                          155
II.-Letters referred to by Mr. Randall,.......   157
III.-The interesting Paper referred to by Mr. Randall,...    162
IV.-Conclusion of Mr. Randall's Editorial in which the Foregoing Letters
and Paper had been incorporated,.167
V.-Mr. Stephens' Rejoinder to Mr. Barksdale's Reply to his First Letter,   169
VI. —Mr. Barksdale's Sur-rejoinder, ~......   171
VII.'-Mr. Stephens' Letter in Rebuttal,....... 173
ARTICLE  VII.
THE BATTLE OF OLUSTEE, OR OCEAN POND,                ~..          177
I.-Editorial of the Savannah Republican, July, 1870, on the Subject,. 1'7
II.-Letter of Mr. Stephens (referred to) on the same Subject,..   177
ARTICLE VIII.
THE FORGED SPEECH,...                                        180
L —Letter of Mr. Stephens on this Subject,.180
ARTICLE IX.
REPLY OF ]MR. STEPHENS TO MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AKERAN'S.DENUNCIATIONS OF THE WOR,......                      188
ARTICLE X.
1.-Reply of Mr. Stephens to Criticism of the Atlanta (Ga.) "New Era,". 196
II.-Rejoinder of the "New Era,".......   207
III. —Mr. Stephens' Sur-rejoinder to the "New Era,"..           214
APPENDIX.
L —Speech of Hon. Linton Stephens, in Macon, Georgia, on the "Reconstruction Measures," and the "Enforcement Act" of 1870, delivered 23d of January, 1871,......   227
II.-Speech of Hon. Linton Stephens, at the City Hall in Augusta, Ga., on
the night of the 18th of February, 1871,.                  243
III.-Letter of Ex-Governor Charles J. Jenkins to His Excellency James M.
Smith, Present Governor of Georgia,...                        253
GENERAL ANALYTICAL INDEX, \..                  271




THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
ARTICLE  I.
SMR. STEPHENS' REVIEW OF DR. A. T. BLEDSOE'S iREVIEW OF
THE " WAR BETWEEN THE STATES," ETC.
LIBERTY HALL,
CRAWFORDVILLE, GEORGIA, October 22, 1868. [
M/essrs. Editors of the Statesman, Baltimore, Jcfaryland:
GENTLEMEN:-In the Leader of. the. third instant (which
journal has since been merged into yours), there is an article
of a character to justify some notice from me; otherwise, silence
might be construed into assent. The subject is of too much
importance, not to me personally, but to the public interests
involved in the questions, for me to allow such an'inference
to be drawn.
The article alluded to is the one under the head of Book
Notices.  In this, after referring to The,Southern,  Review for
October of this year, and the high merits of that Quarterly,
etc., special attention is called to the paper entitled "Alexander H. Stephens on the War," and it then goes to say:
"The writer accuses Mr. Stephens of book-making, and cites the great
~amount of irrelevant matter which encumbers the volume. He shows the
inconsistency of complaining of the want of space, and at the same time
crowding his pages with such'documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United
States, etc., and with almost entire Congressional and other speeches.
He condemns also the cold-bloodedness with which he charges the history is written, and insists that.the true historian of a passionate period
must have passion enough to enable him to sympathize with the fierce




10              THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
energies he records. He denies that the protracted. struggle.through
which we have just passed arose from a mere conflict of political ideas,
and shows that that conflict existed from the foundation of the government. "The Reviewer insists, on the contrary, that the revolution was the
product of a'multitude of converging causes,' such'as the destruction
*of the'balance of power, sectional legislation, formation of a geographical faction,.the disregard of the checks'of the Constitution, the unfair
treatment of the slavery question, and the violent tone with which the
question of Secession was discussed at the North. He also convicts Mr.
Stephens, by citation from his own speeches, of inconsistency on the sub*ject.of Secession, showing that the North did not misrepresent him when
it quoted:him as an opponent of that method of righting the wrongs of
the South. He also draws a very clear distinction. between the right- of:Revolution.and that of Secession, as entirely distinct, though Mr. Stephens
has'confounded them."
From  this it appears, that the author of this article'in the
Leader'is of opinion that I, in the first volume of the " Costitutional Vriew of the'late War,'" etc., had confounded the
right of Secession with the right'of Revolution, while the
Reviewer referred to'has drawn' a very clear distinction between the two; and, moreover,' that. the Reviewer, besides
several other rather extraordinary feats, has actually convicted:me of inconsistency upon the subject of the right of Secession,
and that, -too, most strangely, by showing that the.orth did
ot:.m;srepresent me when it quoted me as an opponent.of. that
method of righting the wrongs of the South.' This is the judgment he has given to the world.  Whether it' is founded barely
upon the ez parte statement of the Reviewer, and his.pretended extracts'from  the book and speeches' referred tQo," or
upon a full investigation and examination, by himself, of the
facts and merits of the points made -by the Reviewer,' does
not appear. -But, be.that as it may,'I very respectfully appeal
from that judgment, and ask the privilege, through the columns
~of the Statesman,.the successor:of the leader, to present these
facts and points to your readers; that the whole case, with its
merits, on both sides, may be properly submitted to thedecision.of a. higher. tribunal.,'That. Dr. Bledsoe,.the Editor of Thee Southern; Review
(who, I take it for granted, is the writer), did, in the paper




REVIEW'OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.              11
referred to, put'forth the utmost of his powers in an endeavor
to convict'rme' of an inconsistency upon the subject of Secession,.is' quite. app.arent from his very labored effort. Indeed,
his' whole review of the book, which he had before him, is mani-'festly directed much. more against the author than against the
book'itself, or the doctrines and principles it maintains. At
the outset,.it is true, there is something about it, and "the
myst6rious.Comptny'"'.by which. it is issued, that he does not
like.: But,:as he advances, it appears to him to have some of
the merits qf'"a real book."  "The one living element, the
one vital'principle,; which constitutes it a real book," says he,;"is the great and imperishable truth, that the Government of
the;.United' States was Federal, and not National, in its origin;"'' This gr eat truth is, we think, fully and unanswerably:established.by Mr. S.tephens."  (Page 280.) In the same mood,
in another. place, he says:-"We hail it, then, as a real thing,'as a veritable luminary in the political heavens. Not as' a star
"of the first. magnitude,'however," etc. *(Page 254.) In his'
varying fanoy, this. "veritable luminary" soon becomes nothing
but "a comet "with.    " an immense train," etc.' Then, suddenly,. as if under the baleful influence of a real
Comnet':(wihich,::accrdilng. to the opinions of many, less.imagi-.a.ti've.'than~:.tis " lened Doctor of Laws, is, always, a portent,of.'evil, scattering disorders, pestilence, and wars among mankind':in its courseheseems to lose his self-possession, and
bu;.t.' forth into a furious -rage., turning upon the author, assailjg' h.is'want    of'passion5 or cold-bloodedness, -and his various
other short-comings, fancied pretensions, and inconsistencies.'In this line of criticism, more evidences of hot-bloodedness and
indiscretion, w'hhi'ch usnally go together in writing, as in -all'things else, are rarely to:be. found compressed in a like numb.er of fifty-one [pagesJ than  this self-same Review  contains.
With all this.sort' of personal tirade, of course, it is not my
urpose now,. or at any time, to trouble you or annoy your
readers, fufrther than is'absolutely necessary to my own vindicatin.against his perversions, and' the judgment thus rendered
on themn. My object In this notice is to deal mainly with the
facts'of the case'involved in the iLeader's presentation of the




A12           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
merits of the paper in question, and for the purpose, mainly,
of correcting some of the numerous misrepresentations, with
which this article of Thve Southern Revqiew abounds, on the
points embraced in that presentation.
In the prosecution of this design, allow me, then, in the
first place, upon the subject of inconsistency on the subject
of Secession, to say that Dr. Bledsoe does not attempt to
accomplish his object, in this particular, in the manner, and
on the point, as stated in the Leader. He makes no citations
from my speeches to show that I was not misrepresented at
the North, when I was quoted as being an opponent of that
method of righting the wrongs of the South. This was more
than even he attempted. Nothing connected with my public
life is more generally known North as well as South, than
that I did oppose that method of redressing what I considered
great wrongs to the Southern States of the Union.
His object was to convict me of inconsistency upon the
right of a State to adopt this mode of redress5 if. she; in her
sovereign character, chose to adopt it. The argument of the
book maintains this right, and vindicates the justifiableness
of the measure as matter of sovereign right,, though as matter of public policy it might have been injudicious, and unwise, as I held it to be at.the time. Many things may be
legally and morally.right in themselves, which, nevertheless,
may not be either wise or expedient in public as well as in
private affairs. This is the doctrine of the book on this question, and Dr. Bledsoe quotes from.the report of a speech made
by me, 14th November, 1860 (known as my "Union Speech"),.
to show that I did not then believe in this sovereign right of
Secession; but, on the contrary, denied it / This is the inconsistency that he endeavored to show, and which he claims that
he has established. iHe maintains that I denied this right in
that speech. I maintain that I did not, but fully recognized
the same.principles in it; on this question, which are set forth
in the book. This is the issue between us.
To enable that tribunal, to which. I appeal, more clearly
and fully to understand the merits oft both sides, it is proper
that the principles set forth ini the " Constitutional.View ofj




REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.                   13
the Late War between the States," etc., on this subject, should
first be presented.  These are as follows:
" Now, as to the rightfulness of the State thus resuming her sovereign
powers. In doing it she seceded from that Union, to which, in the language of Mr. Jefferson, as well as General Washington, she had acceded as
a sovereign State.  She repealed her ordinance by which she ratified and
agreed to the Constitution ind became a party to the Compact under it.
She declared herself no longer bound by that Compact, and dissolved her
alliance with the other parties to it. The Constitution of the United
States, and the laws passed in pursuance of it, were no longer the supreme
law of the people of Georgia, any more than the treaty with France was
the supreme law of both countries after its abrogation, in 1798, by the
same rightful authority which had made it in the beginning. In answer
to your question, whether she could do this without a breach of her
solemn obligations, under the Compact, I give this full and direct answer:
She had a perfect right so to do, subject to no authority but the great
moral law which governs the intercourse between Independent Sovereign
Powers, Peoples, or Nationis. Her action was subject to the authority of
that law, and none other. It is the inherent right of Natibns, subject to
this law alone, to disregard the obligations of Compacts of all sorts, by
declaring themselves no longer bound in any way by them. This, by'universal consent, may be rightfully done when there has been a breach
of the Compact by the other party or parties. It was on this principle
that the United States abrogated their treaty with France, in 1798. The
justifiableness of the act depends, in every instance, upon the circumstances of the case. The general rule is, if all the other States-the
parties to the Confederation-faithfully comply with their obligations,
under the Compact of Union, no State would be morally justified in withdrawing from.a Union sp formed, unless it were necessary for her own
preservation.,Self-preservation is the first law of nature, with States or
Nations, as it is with individuals.
"But in this case the breach of plighted faith was not on the part of
Georgia, or those States which withdrew, or attempted to withdraw,
from the Union. Thirteen of their Confederates had openly and avowedly
disregarded their obligations under that clause of the Constitution which
covenanted for the.rendition of fugitives from service, to say nothing of
the acts of several of them, in a like open and palpable breach of faith,
in the matter of the rendition of fugitives from justice.'These are facts
about which there can be no dispute. Then, by universal law, as recognized by all Nations, savage as well as civilized, the Compact, thus broken
by -some of the parties, was no longer binding upon the others.  The
breach was not made by the Seceding. States. Under the circumstances,
qand the facts of.this case, therefore,' the legal as well as moral right, on




14              TIHE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.,
the part of Georgia, according to the laws -of Nations and nature, to deeclare herself no longer bound by the Compact, and to withdraw from:'the
-Union under it, was perfect and complete.  These principles are too.
incontestably established to be questioned, much less denied; in the forum
of reason and justice."-(Constitutional View, etc., vol. i., page 4695.)
Such are the doctrines and principles set forth.in the book
upon the subject of the Right of Secessiou.  These,'Dr; Bledsoe asserts, are inconsistent with the principles'and doctrines
held by me in the speech'referred to.  To sustain his side of
this' issue, he quotes, or pretends to quote, from  that,speech.
After producing a part of it, he says:
"Now -here, without the least reference to the mode of Secession, it is
broadly and plainly' asserted'that'Secession would be a violation- of that.
sacred instrument, the Constitution, which so' many of his hearers had
sworn to support.' If this does not deny the C.onstitutional- right of
Secession, then may we despair of ever arriving at the.real import bofthe
plainest possible modes of expression.?'-(Page 27:5 9f Review.)'In reply. to this your readers may be'surprised to be. informed that no such expressions as quoted.b!y  r.:Bledo'e, is
to be found' in the speech to which he refers,' from  the beginning to the end of it.  It is a distorted: fabri'cation.' It' is but
the figment of his own disordered imagination: the creation'
of that fierce passion with which he seems to think' critical
reviews, as well as histories, should be written.  The speech
from  which he pretends to quote, as is, well known, was an
earnest remonstrance before the Legislature.of Georgia against
Secession, for any of'the grievances then complained of.  All
these were discussed in order.  Some of them  I'did not thinlk
sufficient to justify the exercise of this right.  On these the
Doctor fully admits I had the best of the argument (page 266
of Review).  Others I did believe- to be sufficient, as will be
seen; though even for a redress of themi, I advised the adoption of another, and which I thought al better, liine of policy.
That speech, moreover, it may be here stated for'the information of those who have not seen the.volu'me in'which it. is published, and from which the Doctor quotes, was entirely extemporary.  It stands in the'words of a reporter, with only: a
hurried revision by me;  That part of it,'as it thus stands,




REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.
including what was reproduced by him, and from which this
expression attributed to me is manufactured, is in'these words:
"The first question that presents itself is: Shall the people of the
South secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of: the United States? My countrymen, I tell you
frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In
my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen, to that
high'office, is sufficient cause for any State to separate from the' Union.
It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the
country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, fo withdraw
from it because a man has been constitutionally elected, puts"us in the
wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution. Manyof.us have
sworn to support it. Can we, therefore, for the mere election of a man
to the Presidency, and that, too, in accordance with the prescribed forms
of the Constitution, make a point of resistance to the Government with;
out. becoming the breakers of that sacred instrument ourselves, by withdrawing ourselves from it?. Would we not be in the'wrong? Whatever
fate:is'to befall this country, let it never be laid to the charge of the
people of the South, and especially to the people of Georgia, that we
were untrue to our national engagements."
All this refers, as clearly appears, especially and exzclusively
to the election of Mr. Lincoln, as a sufficient cause to justify
Secession.  The opinion was given that his election) or the
bare -election of any man, constitutionally chosen, however
dangeirous the principles he might entertain, was not, in my.
individual judgment, sufficient cause to justify it.  But is there
any.thing in the whole extract which looks any thing'like the
broad,. Ungucalifjed denial of the right which Dr. Bledsoe puts
in, my. mouth. If there be not the least refer enee here to the
modle of Secession, is there not a much more: pertinent, and
special reference to a ycarticular cause that would not justify
it. Is the're any thing'here like a denial'that any cause would
justify Secession or the withdrawal of a State from the Union?
or like the assertion that no cause would justify such action 
Is not' the inference clearly the other way?  That. some other
cause or causes might?
But the matter is not left to inference only.  It is' put
beyond doubt or cavil, as I maintain, in the after part of the
same speech, which Dr.'Bledsoe had before him.  As the




16               THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
greater part of his, as well as your readers, perhaps, have never
seen the whole of the speech, I therefore submit for their consideration, on the points at issud between us, the following
additional extracts:
"But it is said that Mr. Lincoln's policy and principles are against the
Constitution, and that, if he carries them out, it will be destructive of
our rights! Let us not anticipate a threatened evil! If he violates the
Constitution, then will come our time to act."
Again, after going through with all the other grievances
complained of, I proceeded as follows (the parts are now italicized for special notice):
" Now, upon another point, and that the most difficult, and deserving your most serious consideration, I will speak! That is, the course
which this State should pursue toward these Northern States which, by
their legislative acts, have attempted to nullify the fugitive slave law...
Northern States, on entering into the Flederal Compact, pledged themselves
to surrender such fugitives; and it is in disregard of their constitutional
obligations that they have passed laws which even tend to hinder or inhibit the fulfilment of that obligation. They have violated their plighted
faith! What ought we to do in view of this? That is the question.
What is to -be done? By the law of Nations you would have a right to
demand the carrying out of this article of agreement, and I do not see
that it should be otherwise woith respect to the States of this Union....  The
States of this Union stand upon the same footing" [toward each other, of
course] "with foreign nations in this respect.... Suppose it were Great
Britain that had violated some compact of agreement with the General
Government —what would be first done? In that case our Minister would
be directed, in the first instance, to bring the matter to the attention of
that Government, or a Commissioner be sent to that country to open
negotiations with her, ask for redress, and it would only be after argument
and reason had been exhausted in vain that we would take the last resort
of Nations. That would be the course toward a Foreign Government, and.
toward a member of this'Confederacy I woould recommend the same course.
Let us not, therefore, act hastily or ill-temperedly in this matter. Let
your Committee on the State of the Republic make out a bill of grievances; let it be sent by the Governor to those faithless States; and if
reason and argument shall be tried in vain-if all shall fail to induce
them to return'to their constitutional obligations-I would befor retaliatory measures, such as the Governor has suggested to you. This mode of
resistance in the Union is in our power. It might be effectual, and if [not],
in the last resort we would be justified in the eyes of Nations, not only




REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.
in separating from them, but by using force... At least, let these offending and derelict States know what your grievances are, and if they refuse,
as I said, to give us. our rights under the Constitution, I should be willing,
as a last resort, to sever the ties of our Union with them. My own opinion
is, that if this course be pursued, and they are informed of the consequences of refusal, these States will recede, will repeal their nullifying
acts; but if they should not, then let the consequences be with them, and
the responsibility of the consequences rest upon them.... Now, then,
my recommendation to you would be this: In view of all these questions
of difficulty, let a Convention of the people of Georgia be called, to which
they may be all referred. Let the sovereignty of the people speak. Some
think that the election of 3Mr. Lincoln is cause sufficient to dissolve the
Union. Some think those other grievances are sufficient to dissolve the
same, and that the Legislature has the power thus to act. I have no
hesitancy in saying that the Legislature is not the proper body to sever
our Federal relations, if that necessity shoftld arise..... Sovereignty is
not in the Legislature! We, the people, are Sovereign!  I am one of
them, and have a right to be heard, and so has every other citizen of
the State.  You legislators-I speak it respectfully-are but our servants!  You are the servants of the people, and not their masters!
Power resides with the people in this. country.... This principle of
popular sovereignty, however much derided lately, is the foundation of
our. Institutions. Constitutions are but the channels through which the
popular will may be expressed.  Our Constitution came from the people.
They made it, and they alone can rightfully unmake it.... I am for presenting the question fairly to the people, by calling together an untrammelled Convention, and presenting all the questions to them-whethei
they will go out of the Union, or. what cause of resistance in the Union
they may think best-and then let the Legislature act, when the people
in their m'jesty are heard.... Now, when this Convention assembles, if
it shall be called, as I hope it may, I would say, in my judgment, without dictation, for I am conferring with you freely and frankly, and it is
thus that I give my views-it should take into consideration all those
questions which distract the public mind; should view all the grounds of
Secession, etc.... Another thing I would have that Convention to do:
Reaffirm the Georgia platform with an additional plank in it. Let that
plank be the fulfilment of these constitutional obligations on the part of
those States-their repeal of these obnoxious laws as the condition of our
remaining in the Union..  Should Georgia determine to go out of the
Union, I speak for one, though my views might not agree with them,
whatever the result may be, I Shall bow to the will of her people."
Is there any thing in this speech, as appears from  any of
these extracts, taken singly or collectively, inconsistent with
2




18              THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
the doctrines and principles set forth in the book?  Is not the
great Sovereign Right of Secession as clearly admitted and
recognized in the speech, under the same principles of the
laws of Nations, as it is more elaborately argued and set forth
in the book 2 It is not admitted in the one, nor set forth in
the other, either as a Constitutional right or a Revolutionary
right.  There is no such nonsense in the speech, or in the
book. It has ever been held by me, on all occasions, as a Sovereign Right.  All the confusion on this subject is with the
Doctor himself.  It was not by virtue of the Constitution that
this right was to be exercised, but by virtue of that Sovereignty
of the State by which the Constitutional Compact was entered
into by her.  The doctrine of the book on this point is as
follows:
"This right of a State to consider herself no longer bound by a Compact which, in her judgment, has been broken by her Confederates, and
to secede from a Union, formed as ours was, has nothing about it either
new or novel. It is incident to all Federal Republics. It is not derived
from the Compact itself. It does not spring from it at all. It is derived
from the same source that the right is derived to abrogate a treaty by
either or any of the parties to it. That is seldom set forth in the treaty
itself, and yet it exists, whether it be set forth or not. So in any Federal
Compact whatever, the parties may or may not expressly provide for
breaches of it. But where no such provision is made the right exists by
the same laws of Nations which govern in all matters of treaties or conventions between Sovereigns." —(Vol. i., Con. View, p. 500.)
These are the principles in which I was educated.  From
the time that I entered public life, and even before, I held the
same, as the records can abundantly establish.  However profoundly ignorant -the Doctor confesses himself to have been
upon the subject when he was " an old line Whig" (page 270,
S. R.), he should not take it for granted that all others were
as uninformed as himself.  He is, according to his own acknowledgment, even now but a neophyte. This may account
for his seeing, as yet, the great truth.so dimly.
He seems really to think, because I did not say much about
this right of Secession until I reached the latter part of the
volume, that I did not know what I was about, and that what




REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.            19
is there said was but an "after-thought."  One would suppose
that he had filled the chair of Mathematics in the University
of Virginia long enough to have learned, that conclusions are
logical results reached after a regular process of reasoning, and
that they are seldom. stated, by those who are masters of the
problem in hand, until: they are reached. This is the regular
order of demonstration.  This was the order pursued by me
in establishing what, notwithstanding all his carping, this exprofessor himself admits to be an "imperishable truth!'"
The real gravamen, however, of:the Doctor, may-perhaps
be,. that I did not follow him in presenting the "numerous
and converging causes" or grounds of Secession which he had
set forth in the Southern Quarterly (pages 264-65, S. Review),
such as the destruction of the balance of power, sectional legislation, formation of a geographical faction, the disregard of the
checks of the Constitution, the unfair treatment of the slavery
question, and the violent tone with which the question of Se-.cession was discussed at the North-as he sets -them forth.
Upon a more careful and dispassionate reading of the "Constitutional View of the War'ebetween the States," however, he
may find several of these topics very fully treated of in its
pages. If some of them are entirely omitted, such as his leading one, to wit: "Firstly, the destruction of the balance of
power which was originally established between the North and
the South, and which was deemed by the authors of the Constitution to be essential to the freedom, safety, and happiness,
of those sections of the Union" (page 264 of Review), it may
be some relief to him to be informed that'this was omitted
simply because it has no fact in history to rest upon. I was
writing for the informed as well as the uninformed-for the
present as well as: the future-and had some respect for my own
character, as well as a proper devotion to the truth. There was
no balance of power established between the North -and the
South, as sections, in the Constitution. The only balance of
power established in that Compact in this respect, which was
deemed by the authors of it to  te essential to the freedom,
safety, and happiness, of each and all the States, was the
equality of the States, the reserved Sovereignty of -the States,




20             TIlE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
and -the equal representation- of their sovereignty in the Congress of States. Had I made such a statement as the Doctor
has ventured to announce, I'certainly should not have appended
a copy of the Constitution to the work.. For if I had, it'would
have; been'a complete refutation of the text.  No wonder he
complains so lustily at these everlasting proofs,, by which the
positions in the book: are fortified in the accompanying appendix.  So with the rest- of his: omitted grounds.  "The violent
tone with which tlie: question of Secession was discussed at the
North," I: did: not think wa sufficient cause for Secession, and
therefore omitted:it, though the Doctor may have announced it.as a proper one some time before.  So of the bare "formation
of a ge'ogiaphical faction."
But.that.the "unfair treatment of the slavery question,"
when it amounted to a breach of the Federal Compact, on the
part of seyeral of the:'Northern States, did fully justify Secession, is. certainly very fully- discussed, if not clearly established,
in the book. Were it anybody else but Dr. Bledsoe-who makes
this statement, it would be a matter of wonder that this should
be placed among the omitted grounds. 
But still, in his opinion, I did not "grapple" sufficiently
with the subject; did not sufficiently comprehend its height,
length, depth, and- breadth; did not show  causes enough!
The one great cause, the violation of the fundamental principle of'the Federal system, as set forth:in the book, was not
sufficient for. such stupendous results! Indeed, he' says, that
Thucydides, two thousand years ago, in assigning the causes
for the: Peloponnesian war,.came nearer the mark, in assigning
the causes of'our war, than I have come.  This author- he
allows -to. be a'.'truly philosophic historian," and he pretends
to: quote what he said  ere the causes of the great Grecian
Twenty,-seven Years' War;- but he is as unfortunate in his
quotation from. Thucydides. as-he is from me. Read what.he
says:
"Mr. Stephens attempts to cescribe what has passed before his eyes,
and to assign its'real'causes.  Yet, -by a truly'philosophic historian'
was the thiinfinitely~ better!done more than two' thousandyears' before
the events:f the late war happened. We allude, of course, to Thucydides.




REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.                  21
who, in his history of the Peloponnesian War, says:.'And the cause of
all these things was.power pursued for the gratification- of -avarice, and
the consequent violence of parties when once engaged in the contest.'
Thus, in his account of the memorable war in which' Greek met Greek,'
is the cause of the late war depicted, with an insight far more profound,
and an accuracy far more perfect, than it is in the history of Mr. Stephens." —(Page 283, Review.)
Now, I was not writing a History: of our late war.  I was
only giving a Constitutional View of its causes, character, conduct, and results.
But Thucydides assigned no such cause as that,stated for
the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, of which he is the
great historian.  The one great cause which he assigned for
that war, and from which all its evils, sufferings, and demoralization -sprung, was "tlle breaking the thirty-years' truce after
the taking of Eubea."-(See TAhucydides, Book 1, sec. 23.)
In what the Doctor quotes, the historian is speaking only of
the evils of dissensions and factions, which first arose in Corcyra, and afterward spread through all Greece during the continuance of the war.  HIIs exact language on the subject of
these dissensions, and not the causes of the war (which is, as
usual with the Doctor, misquoted), is as follows:
" Now, the cause of all these things was power pursued for the gratification of covetousness and ambition [italics mine], and the consequent violence of parttes when once engaged in contention. For the leaders in the
cities, having a specious profession on each side, putting forward, respectively, the political equality of: the'people, or a moderate aristocracy,
while in word they served the common interests-in truth, they made
them their prizes."-(Thucydides, Book 3, sec. 82.)
This reference to: Thucydides was very unfortunate for the
Doctor, in several respects.  He not only misquotes him, and
then misapplies what he attempts to- quote, but directs attention to the highest authority against -himself, on the very points
he was making on me, in this violent outburst of temper.  He
is answered by his own: authority.  Thucydides assigned but
one cause:for:the Great War between the Grecian States.-  This
was the breach of the thirty-years' truce.  "As: for the'reason
why they broke- it " he gives the grounds of complaints at large,




22:.          THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
on both sides, and with such dispassionate impartiality-' coldbloodedness,' if you please-that no one, unless otherwise informed, could come to any correct opinion as to his own
position in the contest, or on which side he stood, though he was
actually an active and zealous participant in the scenes he
describes.
If he, then, assigned but one leading cause for this great
war, which was the true one, and could treat of it, after taking
the part he did in it, with such cold-bloodedness as he. didwriting it, as he said,' not as a prize-task to listen to at the
present nioment," but as "a possession forever" (as it is likely
to prove to be with the test of two thousand years)- does not
the Doctor himself, by this reference, bring forward an illustrious example in refutation of his positions, in the identical
particulars he is so furious upon against me in this case.
From this "truly philosophic historian" the Doctor might
learn some other useful lessons upon the subject of passion,
even in war! [For instance, in book 1, section 122, he would
see it stated that "' war, least of all things, proceeds. on definite
principles, but adopts most of its contrivances from itself, to
suit the occasion; in the course of which he that deals with it
with good temper is more secure; while he that engages in it
with passion makes the greater failure." Itad the Doctor, and
those associated with him in the War Department at Richmond, during our late struggle, been governed more by calm'
good sense, and less by mere fierce and fiery passion and personal prejudices (such as he still exhibits), our present condition might have been infinitely better than it is!
But let us proceed to look at some other of his points of
inconsistency. First, -at the complaint of the want of space,
while the book is loaded with so much surplus matter! Out
of the 654 pages of the volume, one hundred and four of them
(he has counted them) are taken up, he says, with cumbrous
documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,
the Virginia Resolutions of'98-'99, and Mr. Madison's report
thereon-documents which, he says, are in every gentleman's
library. He has them in at least a dozen volumes, etc. (p. 251,




REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.           23
Review). Now, by far the longest of these documents is MlIr.
Madison's Report of 1799 on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798.
If the Doctor possesses this in even a half dozen other volumes,
or even the half of that, he is much luckier than I am; and I
believe I have quite as large a miscellaneous library as most
country gentlemen. So far from its being on every book-shelf
in America, I will venture the opinion against his that it cannot be found on one in a hundred thousand of the book-shelves
in America. I never saw but three copies of this Report before its republication in this volume. One is an old pamph7et
copy in my possession, one is in the supplement to the 33d
volume of Niles' Register, and the other in the 4th volume of
Elliot's Debates. If the Doctor is fortunate enough to possess
these two very rare works, he has two copies, among the numerous volumes on his shelves, but I doubt if one in a thousand
of his readers ever saw a copy of it, or knew where to obtain
it. I very much question if he himself ever saw a copy of it
before in his life, as his article has strong internal evidence that
he never had read it up to the time his article was written.
In 1861, while he was bogging about in search of knowledge
upon the nature of-the Government, "when the tremendous
shock" of the warring elements which underlay the foundation
of its whole superstructure came so suddenly.and alarmingly
upon him, if he had blundered upon Niles' Register, or some
kind friend had been able to turn hima to a copy of Elliot, and
he had then read and studied this report, he might have found
that light which he so eagerly sought far, but failed to obtain,
in the speech of Mr. Benjamin-! (p. 269, Review). Perhaps,
if he will yet read it, he will see its great relevcncy and essential pertinency to the questions discussed in the volume he had
under review, as well as the like relevancy of the speeches of
iHolcombe and Toombs. Upon a more careful reading he may
also see the pertinency and great relevancy of the reproduction
of the time-honored Declaration of Independence, with quite
enough "scraps of brains" (page 251, Review) in the Text to
show this  relevancy. Upon examining this copy thus reproduced-taken from " the bowels. of Elliot's Debates "-he may
see that its differs, in its Title, very essentiglly from the other




24            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
numerous copies of the same Document with which his shelves
may be burdened. He will see, if he will look, that the Title,
when acted upon by the Congress, was made to conform to their
action upon it as a Congress of States. At least it so appears
in Elliot. There it stands thus: In Congress, July 4, 1776.
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of
America." I-How it stands on the Journal I do not know, as I
have no copy of that; but as it stands in Elliot it was put forth
as the Declaration, not of a collective body of men, but the
Declaration of States!  It was no Declaration of National
Independence, or the Independence of one people as a Nation,
but the Independence of Separate States! The use made of it
in the argument, arid particularly the use made of this striking
difference between the Title as it there stands, and the Title
of copies usually met with, rendered it altogether proper and
essential to the force of the argument, that the proof should
accompany it. But apart from all this, how many of the thousands of readers for: whom the book was intended, ever saw the
Declaration at all, or the Articles of the Confederation? And
who could properly appreciate or estimate the argument in
connection with either without a copy before him?;
How, again, does the book compare, in this respect, with
others on like or kindred subjects, by authors of character,
repute, and distinction 2
Dr. Francis Lieber's celebrated volume on " Civil Liberty
and Self-Government " consists of 614 pages without counting
the index; of these one hundred andfifty-one consist of nothing
but an appendix of documentary matter, such as Magna
Charta, the Petition of Right, the Act of Parliament against
Imprisonment for Debt, the tHabeas Corpus Act, and, besides
various other papers of value referred to in the text, this very
same Declaration of the Independence of these States, but not
with the title as it stands in Elliot  This work was published by
J. B. Lippincott & Co., of Philadelphia. Was this an exhibition
of " the vice of book-making," either by this noted author or his
highly respectable publishers? Wherein is the KNational Publishing Company less so than the Lippincotts?
Is there a single, paper in this most valuable appendix of Dr.




REVIEW OF. DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.            25
Lieber which a careful reader would not wish to have before
him in perusing the text, even if he had the same paper in a
dozen other volumes?
L ord Mahon (since Earl of Stanhope) published, not many
years ago, an exceedingly interesting history of England, from
the " Peace of Utrecht to: the Peace of Paris," in 2 volumes.
To the first volume, consisting of 567 pages, he has an appendix
of 79- pages, very little short of the. ratio so querulously complained of by Dr. Bledsoe, in the book he was reviewing. Was
Lord Mahon guilty of " the vice of book-making? " or of swelling out his volumes for money, with the hope of effecting: sales
by a great reputation?  Hume, a standard historian, to his first
volume of the History of England, consisting of 483 pages, has
appendices Nos. 1 and 2, besides notes amounting to 70 pages.
Here again the ratio is very little short of that so much com-r
plained of by Dr. Bledsoe.  Napoleon, the present Emperor
of France, has lately published a life of Julius Csesar, in 2
volumes.'The first is out of place in my library;. but to the
second I see an appendix of 65 pages out of 659. Is he guilty
of the." vice of book-making," or writing for means wherewith
to live?
-But the Doctor complains that so many extracts of speeches
are interspersed through the text of the book, and other documentary evidence. This he calls the workl of "scissors" "in
book-malking" (page 250 of Review).  Ifow would his " truly
philosophic historian," Thucydides, pass the scrutiny of such
criticism. How much of his work which was to be a "possession forever" is made up entirely of speeches? If the Doctor
had criticised Thucydides: by tape, as he did the Constitutional
View, he might have found, perhaps, quite as large a portion- of
his volume' taken up in this way as in the one before him.
Were these speechles'of Thucydides' own making, or were they
correct reports of those that were really made by the persons to
whom they are attributed?  If the former, then his work is
not history, but fiction.  We have his word, however, and
authority for it, that all of them which he -heard are reported as:
accurately, in substance, as possible; and those that he did not
hear are as accurate as he could make themn from reports through




26             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
the most authentic sources he could find (Thucydides, Book 1,
sec. 22). His object, as a true historian, was to have them as
accurate in substance as they could be made. On this point,
in this country, there is not so much difficulty.  Most of the
speeches introduced in the "6 Constitutional View," etc., are,
moreover, of much higher authority than any bare ex tempore
addresses, however accurately reported. They are the carefully
prepared arguments of the principal actors in the'passing scenes;
and, in giving an accurate and truthful history of the progress
of ideas, and the development, as well as the workings of the
opposing principles of ocur system of government, they are worth
more than all the speculations and word-paintings on the subject that could be produced by the most accomplished masters
of rhetoric. They daguerreotype a life-picture, whether with
agreeable or hideous features, of the great movement, in each
varying phase of its onward progress! To collect, select, and
arrange such matters for such a picture is not " the work of
scissors " merely! It requires toil and labor, as well as' brains!"
Not the irksome toil for "-daily bread," either; much less for
"filthy lucre;" but that unwearyirng labor which is prompted
and sustained by the soul-inspiring object of exposing error and
defending truth! This is the kind of labor I am now performing, and even in this I have found it necessary to make frequent
use of " scissors."  There is another instrument I am making
considerable use of also, and that is a pen. For my purposes
these are both essentially necessary; but it requires " brains"
to direct either, as well as both, for the accomplishment of the
end desired.
So it is in all the business of life, as well as in all the works
of art. It is eminently so in all historical productions. In
these, he who undertakes to' speak, to write, to paint, or to
sculpture, must take the materials as he finds them. He cannot
create them or change their substance, and in dealing with them
he must use instruments at his command. To dig down into
the annals of the past;  to quarry out the materials of other
epochs, where they lie buried in remote and distant.strata; to
put them in proper shape; to bring them together; to adjust
them and to place them in proper position, so as to erect out of




REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.             2'
them, with due symmetry and proper proportions, an enduring
monument of facts-of indestructible truths-which, in their
artistic presentation, shall afford to the world, for the present
and the future, a subject of study both agreeable and instructive,
necessarily requires tools or timplements of some sort and of
various sorts. These it is the function of "brains " to direct;
and when the attempt to make such a presentation is successful, be it on stone, or canvas, or on paper, the consummation of
the whole is the work of " brains;" of genius-it is a "veritable
creation!   In " making a book " accomplishing this objecttherefore, "scissors' may be as necessary and as useful as in
bare "book-making."
Whether the " Constitutional View of the Late War between the States," etc., is an instance of the one or the other,
is not for me to say: nor do I mean hereby to express or intimate any opinion, one way or the other, upon that point; but
I do mean to reaffirm what is said in the book itself upon the
introduction of these documents, and that is, that they bear
upon them c" the deep foot-:rints of trut/h, impressed upon our
earlier history; which assertion can never obliterate, argument
cannot remove, sophistry cannot obscure, time cannot erase,
and which even wars can never destroy!t However upheaved
the foundations of society may be by political convulsions, these
will stick to the very fragments of the rocks of our primitive
formation, bearing their unerring testimony to the ages to
come! "  I mean further to affirm that whether such presentation as the one stated above be successfully made in this volume or not, these materials bearing these footprints here collected, constitute the only materials out of which such presentation, on the subjects whereof it treats, in abler and more skilful
hands, can ever be made; and further still, that no oae who
looks upon them as "nuisances'  is a proper judge of how true
histories or historical views should be composed!
But one of the strange things in this review is that "scissors " did not do enough! More quotations ought to have been
made from The Federalist!  The proof, it is said, that Madison
and Hamilton had styled the Constitution a Compact between
Sovereign States is to be found in Numbers 39, 40, and 85 of




28              THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
like Federalist  Webster, it is further said, in his great speech
of 1833, had boldly appealed to all contemporary history, to
the numbers of TlCe Federalist, to the debates in the Convention, to the publications of friends and foes, to sustain him in
his position, that:the Constitution was not a Compact between
States.
"Now," asks Dr. Bledsoe, "how does- Mr Stephens meet this bold,
broad, and unscrupulous assertion?. Does:he go to the history of the
times, to The Federalist, to the various productions and.publications
alluded to by Mr. Webster, and show his assertion to be utterly and recklessly false? )Does he even show this, in regard to the one great point of
his book, that'the Constitution was a Compact between the States:?'
He does not.'The broad assertion' of Mr. Webster, says he;'doubtless
made a deep impression at the time upon those not conversant with the
facts, but it can have no effect upon- us woho have travelled so carefully through
the records of those days.' But this will not do; we Want something more
than bare assertion.  In questions of such magnitude, the bare assertions
of neither Mr. Webster nor of Mr. Stephens will do. We want to see their
arguments; especially the arguments of those who have'travelled so
carefully through the records ofthose days.' What records? Is not The
Federalist (the only record to which Mr. Webster specifically -appeals),
worthy of notice? Nay, is not this, beyond- all comparison, the most important of all the' records of those'days  which relate to the nature of
the Constitution? Most assuredly it is.".Aost assuredly, be it said back to' Dr. Bledsoe, t its not!
It is not the only record to which M3r. Webster specially appealed; nor is it the most important of all those to which he
appealed; neither is it the most'important of all the records of
those days which relate to the nature of the Constitution! Far
firom it!                                            
The debates in the'Federal Convention, and in the State
Conventions, and the official acts of the States in calling the
Convention, and in'assenting to and ratifying the Constitution,
are records of:amuchl higher order.  These are the records
through which the colloquists had travelled so carefully. These
are the records which encumber the ninety-six pages which the
Doctor most probably counted without reading, else he would
not clamor so petulantly for additional minor proof from lhe
Federlalist!  He complains that more work of " scissors  did




REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.                29
not show that Madison and Hamilton, in:Tle Federalist, gave
it as their o piionr that the Constitution was a Compact between
States; while, if he had been more studious and less querulous,
he would have seen that this fact had been proved by evidence
of a much higher order! He would have seen that the tenure
of State Sovereignty had been established, not by secondary
evidence of any sort, but by the original "title deed&s  themselves!
The Doctor would do well to study a book, at least to understand it, before he undertakes to assail its author for such delin-quencies, unless his object be only to distort and misrepresent.
This, indeed, appears to have been his leading, if not sole object, in his notice of this book.  Of this many evidences could
be given. A few will suffice.
On page 268 of the Review, he makes quotations from my
speech on 14th of November, 1860, interlarded with words of
his own, so as to marke the impression on the minds of his readers that he was quoting connectedly from me; ending with a
grand poetic climax of his own interposition, which, by punctuation, is made to appear as if taken from  the speech, and on
which he comments as follows:
"'Now, all this is very fine. We believe it is called poetry; and surely
nothing, in its proper place, is better than poetry," etc.
Now I wonder if the Doctor really thinks that this stanza
from Bryant,
"Truth crushed to earth will rise again," etc.,
which he so surreptitiously interpolated into my speech, is
poetry proerl pt "in its proper place  "?  How does he excuse such "lese-majyesty, such a petty treason against the great
republic of letters-the only republic we have- -left to us now 2"
(Review, page 254.)  Again, page:272, he says:
"We did not credit the statement of a correspondent, who had visited
Mr. Stephens at Liberty Hall, that he represented himself as having always been a Secessionist, and denied that Mr. Davis was originally one.
But, in the volume before us, thereis something like these extraordinary
assertions."




30              THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
In this statement there is a double misrepresentation. No
correspondent, who had visited me, ever stated that I represented myself as having always been a Secessionist, and denied
that Mr. Davis was originally one, that ever I heard of or believe; and it is utterly untrue-that there is in the volume before
him any thing like these extraordinary assertions.  Let any one
read what I have said of Mr. Davis, and then read what Dr.
Bledsoe has said upon it, and he will see something quite as
pitiful, perhaps, as " the pitifullest thing" the Doctor has lived
to see.!
On this subject of "pity" (page 292), witness how lugubriously he rages and rants!
"We have seen," says he, "many pitiful things in our time. Butpitifullest of all!-we have, at last, come to see the Vice-President of the
late Confederate States, the second officer over a great people, claiming to
be a prophet, and yet actually expecting'the down-trodden people of the
Earth' to be regenerated by-' an idea!' If this thing had happened in
the hey-day of our prosperity, when all was joyous, and smiling, and
happy around us, there might, perhaps, have been some little excuse for
such wild extravagance of folly. But we have passed through all the
whirlwinds, and darkness, and distress, and storms, and wide-wasting
desolations of the late Revolution, only to be told that some'new idea,'
or some little raree-show, will yet regenerate the world! And is this a
philosopher, or a statesman, or a historian, who thus speaks to us?  Or
is it some little jeering spirit, whom the Arch-Fiend has sent to us, to
make a mockery of all the mighty hopes lying blasted on all sides around
us?"
Did any roving knight in the "Great Republic of Letters"
ever before wield a more "trenchant blade" than is here so
truculently thrust about?  Is there any thing in the exploits
of the most renowned of the Order in Chivalry, even of him of
the " Sorrowful Figure" in his most noted adventure against
the windmills, to be compared to this?
Passing such exhibitions of ire and folly, without further
comment, let us return to his charges of inconsistency, with his
perversions and misrepresentations. On page 276, he says:
" It is evident that Mr. Stephens did not believe in the right of Secession as late as March 14, 1860 [November, 1860, perhaps was meant, for
the Doctor hardly ever quotes any thing correctly]; and, even to the




REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.                 31
present day, he seems to entertain no very clear, well-defined, or established
views on the subject. In the first colloquy of the volume before us, he
speaks, it is true, of the right of Secession; but he seems to confound this'constitutional right' with the extra-constitutional'right of revolution.'
Thus, in what he.calls'The issue presented,' he says:'The war was
inaugurated and waged by those at the head of the Federal Government
against these States, or the people of these States, to prevent their withdrawal from the Union. On the part of these. States, which had allied
themselves in a common cause, it was maintained and carried on purely in
defence of this great right, claimed by them, of State Sovereignty and
Self-Government, which they, with their associates, had achieved in their
common struggle with Great Britain, under the Declaration of 1776, and
which, in their judgment, lay at the foundation of the whole structure of
American free institutions.''.Now here'the great Right of withdrawal from the Union,' is represented as the same with that exercised by those who withdrew from the
British Government, and set up the great Republic of this continent."
This contains a palpable misrepresentation, as well as a
latent error.  The great Right claimed by the Seceding States,
and in' defence of which the war was waged on their part, is not
(in the quotation from  me) represented as the same with that
exercised by those who withdrew from the British Government.
No such thing.  But it is clearly and distinctly stated to be the
great right of State Sovereignty and Self-Government which had
been achieved by the war of Independence.  This is the mispresentation.
Those who achieved their Independence under that Declaration did not set up the great Republic of this continent.  There
is no such thing as one, great single Republic on this continent.
In the idea here conveyed, that there is, consists the latent
error. They set up thirteen separate and distinct Republics.
These thirteen separate and distinct Republics set up the great
Federal Republic, of this continent.  This Federal Republic,
like all Federal Republics, is entirely -Conventional in its origin,
structure, nature, and powers.  Its constituents were thirteen
distinct Sovereign States.  This is what the whole discussion
on this branch of the subject was intended to elucidate and
establish.  But the Doctor goes on:
"In thosechapters he merely discusses and establishes the doctrine
of the Sovereignty of the States, and the nature of the Constitution as a




32              THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
compact between the States, without even once alluding to the constitutional right of Secession.- It cannot be said, that as he held these doctrines
he must have.believed in the right of Secession, for Mr. Calhoun held the
same doctrines, and established them in his great Senatorial speech of
1833, and yet he denied the right of Secession. Mr. Stephens may have done
the same thing, for all that we know, or for all that he has shown to the
contrary.'
What is said of me in this place is another palpable misrepresentation, while what is said of Mr. Calhoun, by all sensible, intelligent people, can be regarded as little short of a downright.u-nchautsenism!  For in that very speech in 1833 (page
281 of the" Constitutional View,': etc.), to say nothing else of
the teachings of his whole life, Mr. Calhoun distinctly said:
" Having established this point, I now claim, as I stated I would
do in the course of the discussion, the admissions of the Senator,
and among them, the right of Secession," etc.
What is said by him in the extract, about nothing being said
by me in the book upon the " CUonstitutional Right " of Secession, is true; but there is a vast deal said in it about the Sovereigqn Right of Secession. This great right is maintained throughout the workl not as a Constitutional Right, or a Revolutionary
Right, but as a Sovereign Right. It exists, not by virtue of the
Constitution, but by virtue of State Sovereignty.  Mr. Calhoun
evidently claimed.it upon the same grounds.  But who, in the
face of all these facts, can say that either I or he ever denied the
Right of Secession?
On page 278, Dr. Bledsoe says:
"In this discussion he (Mr. Stephens) makes the wonderful discovery,
that for' forty years after the Government had gone into operation,' the'fathers generally, as well as the great mass of the people throughout the
country,' maintained the opinion that the right of Secession existed. This
wonderful conclusion is established, not by an appeal to. the historic
records of the country, butt by logic.'The right of a State to withdraw
from the Union,' says he,'was never denied or questioned, that I am
aware of, by any jurist, publicist, or statesman of character or standing,
until Kent's Commentaries8 appeared, in. 1826, nearly forty years after the
Government had gone into operation.' Hence, as the right was not denied
by any one, he concludes that'it was generally recognized in all parts of
the Union.' The truth is, the subject was not discussed, or considered,
by the public men. of the country'at all during the period referred to; and




REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.                33
hence there was no occasion for the expression of an opinion as to the
right of Secession."
W]as Dr. Bledsoe mad, crazy, or only excessively torn by his
passions, under the influence and instigation of some "little
jeering spirit " of evil, or " the Arch-Fiend himself," when he
made such statements?  The subject not discussed during the
period referred to!  Did not Judge Tucker's Commentaries
appear during this period?  Did not he clearly maintain the
right? Did not. some of the New England States, during this
period, threaten to secede?.Was not a Convention looking to
this end called? Were not resolutions passed embracing this
right?  Was not this an occasion for the expression of an opinion on the subject?  Did not Mr. Rawle write his Treatise
during this period, clearly vindicating the right?  Are not these
hi'storic records appealed to and produced in the boolk.  There
they are regarded by him as "Inuisances;" and yet he assumes
to rail at the author for not having adduced them! Was there
ever a more reckless assertion than that this " wonderful conclusion" was arrived at, "not by an appeal to the historic records
of the country, but by logic? " Does he show that these records
are wrong, or that the statements founded upon them were not
true?  Incontrovertibly and imperishably true?
But read him further:
"Is it not wonderful that, instead of studying history in the light of
its own records, Mr. Stephens should have attempted to reconstruct it by
logic?"
Is not a stiaight-jacket more appropriate for a man who thus
raves, than the business he had in hand?
On page 285, Dr. Bledsoe says:
"'The Government of the United States,' says Mr. Stephens,'I did
think, and do still think, the best the world ever saw, and I fear the world
will never see its like again.' "-(Page 31.)
This is another palpable and gross perversion of the text, as
any one can see by turning to the page cited. As it there stands,
(except that the italics are now made,) it is in these words:
"The object in quitting the Union was not to destroy, but to save the
principles of the Constitution. The form of government therein embodied I
3




34              TITE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
did think, and do still think, the best the world ever saw, and I fear the
world will never see its like again."
The object of this perversion, which runs through his entire
review, is apparent.  It was that by confounding the form  of
the Government with its administration, he might indulge his
passion, in holding up the monstrous spectacle of my extolling
a Government whicli, in its present mal-administrationr, has inflicted such wrongs upon me personally, and has brought such
ruin upon the country generally.
On page 293, in speaking of my attributing to Mr. Jefferson
the "new idea" in a Federal system  (by which the common
agent is empowered to act, to a limited extent, directly upon
the individual citizens of the respective States, the States remaining sovereign), which was adopted in our system, (and from
which new principle, in the opinion of De Tocqueville, so
momentous and advantageous consequences ensued), the Doctor
says:
"It did not originate with 3Mr. Jefferson, or first impregnate -his brain
with celestial fire. Or, if it did, the fact was wholly unknown to James
Madison.- For, in his Introduction to the great Debates of 1787, Mr.
Madison goes into the origin of this' new idea;' and he does not even so
much as allude to his great friend Mr. Jefferson. He is, on the contrary,
compelled to give the credit of this'new idea' to Noah Webster-the
same who made the little spelling-book and the big Dictionary."
Now, Mr. Madison, in the paper referred to, does not go
into the question of this "new idea," nor does he give the credit
of it to Noah Webster.  IIc makes no specific reference to it or
its origin at all.  What he attributes to Dr. Webster was the
idea of a,' new system," which should act, it is true, directly
upon individuals, and not on the States.  But he says nothing
ab5ut the Sovereignty of the States being retained under that
system.  His language on the subject is this:
" In the winter of 1784-5, Noah Webster, whose political and other
valuable writings had made him known to the public, proposed, in one
of his publications, a new system of government which should act, not on
the States; but directly on individuals, and vest in Congress full power to
carry its laws into effect." —(Elliot's Debates, vol. 5, p. 118.)




REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.                35
In this, it is seen, there is no: allusion to any idea of permitting the Federal Government to act on the individual citizens of the States, in limited and specified. cases only, and with
the full reservation of the Sovereignty of each of the States
respectively.  In other words, there is nothing in this statement
attributing to Dr. Webster any idea whatever which is different
from the idea of doing away entirely with the Federal system,
and instituting a- new- systemr  of a General and National
Government, vesting in- Congress full power to carry its laws
into effect, such as Hamilton, Randolph, and other Nationalists
espoused in the Convention afterwards. Such a change would
have been a "new system," but it would not have been based
upon the " new -idea," or new principle in Federal Republics
referred to.  I have never seen the pamphlet of Dr. Webster.
It may have contained this identical " new idea," or new principle, which was subsequently incorporated in our Federal
system, for he was a very profound philosopher on more subjects
than language, notwithstanding the jeering remarks of the
redoubtable Dr. Bledsoe.
But Mr. Madison could not, I think, have intended to attribute the idea of this new principle of our present Federal
system to Dr. Webster, for on page 120 of the 5th volume of
Elliot's Debates (in the same paper referred to by Dr. Bledsoe),
he says:
" As a sketch on paper, the earliest, perhaps, of a Constitutional government for the Union (organized into regular departments, with physical
-means operating on individuals), to be sanctioned by the people of the
States, acting in their original and sovereign character, was contained in
the letters of James Madison to Thomas Jefferson of the 19th of March;
to Governor Randolph, of the 8th April; and to General Washington, of
the 16th of April, 1787-for which see their respective dates."
Now, in the letter to Governor Randolph of the 8th of April,
1787, alluded to, Mr. Madison expressly states: " I hold it for
a fundamental point that an individual independence of the
States is utterly irreconcilable with the idea of an aggregate
Sovereignty."-Garland's ]ife of J. Randolph, vol. 1, page 36.)
This shows clearly that he had, up to that time (April, 1787),
no clear conception himself or appreciation of this " new idea,"




36            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
and he can hardly, therefore, be supposed to have meant by
what is said of Dr. Webster's "new system," to attribute to him
this " new  idea " for the structure of a Federal system.
What he said of Dr. Webster's " new system," was in the same
paper, as stated, in which he alludes to his own subsequent
sketch.  This sketch or plan is to be found in his letter to
General Washington referred to, (VWashington's Writings by
Sparks, page 516, vol. 9); and though, it does give a general
outline for "a new system" of Government, organized into
regular departments, operating directly upon i/individuals, and
not the States; yet it does not contain this " new idea," for in
his plan the Sovereignty of the separate States was not retained.
It was but the outline of Governor Randolph's National plan,
which was afterwards submitted to the Philadelphia Convention,
when it met in May, 1787. This sketch does, also, provide for
a division of the powers of Government, under the new system
proposed, into -Legislative, Executive, and Judicial -De)epartments.
But was not even this -idea of such a division of powers and
general organization, set forth in this plan, which he says was
the first sketch on paper of a Constitutional government for the
Union, derived by him from Mr. Jefferson, to whom I attributed it, though Mr. Madison says nothing about where he got
it from. The evidence is strong, if not conclusive, that it was.
For this division of powers and general system of organization
for a Federal system of Government was distinctly pointed out
by Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Madison, in a letter from Paris, the
16th of December, 1786. (See this letter in the " Constitutional
Vliew of, the Wcar between the States, etc., page 94.) May not
Mr. Madison's letter of the 19th of March, 1787. referred to by
him, have been. a reply to this one from Mr. Jefferson, of
December previous? In acknowledging his of the 16th of
December before, and in reply to it, may he not have sent him
a copy of the same sketch on paper to which he refers (a copy
of which was sent to Washington a short time afterwards), and
which is found among'Washington's papers?  Is not the
probability, the weight of evidence, strongly that way? especially
as all we have, so far as I can find, of that letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. Jefferson, of 19th of March, 1787, is a short ex



REVIEW  OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW.                37
tract (5th Elliot, 107), in which there is no reference whatever
to this subject.
Now, in this letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Madison, of 16th
of December, 1786, this outline of organization in a new system,
as set forth in Mr. Madison's sketch, is fully given; and not only
this, but in that same letter this "new idea" is clearly enmbraced, though not distinctly expressed. - It was because it was
so embraced that I attributed the first " impulse of its quickening life " to the " brain of Mr. Jefferson," (page 479).
The general outline suggested in that letter (of the 16th
December, 1786, for a new system, was that the Union should
be so modelled as "to make us one nation as to Foreign concerns, and to keep us distinct in Domestic ones."  "But to
enable the Federal Head to exercise the powers given to it,-to
the best advantage," Mr. Jefferson said that the General. Government should be "organized" as the State Governments were,
"into  Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary" Departments.
Now, what I said about this letter of Mr. Jefferson, written to
Mr. Madison four months before his sketch was put upon paper,
is as follows:
" This, as far as I have been able to discover, after no inconsiderable
research, is the first embodied conception of the general outline of those
proper changes of the'old Constitution, or' Articles of'Confederation,
which were subsequently, as we shall see, actually, and in fact, engrafted
on the old system of Confederations, and which makes the most marked
difference between ours and all other like systems."-(Page 94.)
The same opinion I still repeat, notwithstanding all that
Dr. Bledsoe has said, for his own amusement, about Dr. Webster's "little spelling-boolk and big Dictionary." I repeat, I
have not been able to see Dr. Webster's pamphlet alluded to
by Mr. Madison. It may. be that in it he anticipated Mr. Jefferson in recommending that a Federal Government should be so
formed as to make us one Nation as to foreign ones, and separate and distinct ones as to ourselves, with an organization and
machinery in the Conventional State thus formed, for the full
exercise of all its delegated and limited powers, similar to those
of the separate States creating it. If so, then he is entitled to
the honor of this " new idea," and no small honor it is, how



38             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
ever little it may be estimated or appreciated by superficial
pretenders.  But, certainly, Mr. Madison's statement referred
to furnishes no just grounds upon which to base a claim of it
for him.  Dr. Bledsoe has furnished no new light upon the
subject, and I'am  therefore still of opinion that the credit of
this " new  idea." and" new principle " in Federal Republics,
which was introduced into our system, is due to Mr. Jefferson.
In conclusion, I may be excused for indulging in a very few
words in reference to other portions of this review, which do
not come within the limits marked out for this notice.
For such general reference let this suffice.  The whole article (including the parts I have felt it a personal duty thus to
notice, as well as all the rest), was evidently written in ill-humor-perhaps during the heated term  of the dog-days; and
what Dr. Bledsoe says in the same number of the Quarterly
(page 433), of Dr. B1rownson, might be very appropriately said
of himself, in -relation to this production; and might be suggested to him as.the only appropriately fitting, answer to it, so
far as he is concerned, to wit:
"Had Dr. Brownson bestowed more conscientious labor on his political productions, with an eye single to truth and always steady [in?] its
movements, he would have written far less than he did; but then his
writings would have been far more worthy of the attention of posterity.
As it is, they were born of the passions of the hour, and, with the passions
of the hour, they will pass away."
But this he would look upon as the work of" scissors," and
we know how distasteful that might be to him.
Very respectfully,
ALEXABDER H. STEPHENS.




ARTICLE II
I. —MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TOHON. S. S. NICHaOLA, OF
KENTUCKY.
LIBERTY HALL,
CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., June 4, 1869..Messrs. Editors -National Irntelligencer, Tas]hington, 1D. C. 
I NOTICED in an issue of your paper some weeks ago, an editorial in the following words:
" The Prime Cause of the Rebellion. —We publish to-day a communication from Hon. S. S. Nicholas, of Kentucky, upon the' causa causans of
the rebellion, its remedies, etc.' Judge Nicholas has long -been a close
and intelligent student of our political affairs. A life-long and unswerving advocate of the maintenance of constitutional right, he has watched
with zealous regard every movement to impair its force. To these observations he has brought the aid of a powerful intellect, an iron energy, the
experience of half a century devoted'to judicial and literary labors, and a
patriotic devotion that is questioned by none who know him, although
oftentimes differing widely from his opinions. A communication upon
such a subject from such a source must always command respectful consideration and invite serious reflection."
In the same paper appeared the communication of Judge
Nicholas referred to, which is entitled "The Causa Causans f of
the Late Rebellion."
In this article the writer indulges in some remarks in reference to myself which I do not think ought to be permitted to
pass unnoticed by me, coming from the high source they do,
and being endorsed, as they are, by so high authority as the
National In~telligencer.  The cause of truth, as I understand it,
requires that they should not be permitted thus to pass. I
must, therefore, ask your indulgence in allowing me to make




40              THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
such comments in reply as I think the matter deserves. This'
would have been done at an earlier day, but for continued
severe bodily affliction. The remarks to which I specially refer
are as follows:
"The following condensed extracts are taken from the elaborate and
able book of the Hon. A. H. Stephens on the causes of the late rebellion,
and in attempted vindication of the pernicious dogma of secession.
"' In the nature of the United States Government and character of the
Union can alone be discovered the remote but real causes of the war. All
these troubles resulted as inevitable consequences from the violation of
the fundamental laws governing our political system.
"' Negro slavery was unquestionably the occasion of the war, the main
exciting cause on both sides, but was not the real cause, the ceausa causans,
of it.
"'The war was inaugurated on the one side to vindicate the Right
of Secession, and on the other in denial of the Right and to resist its exercise. It grew out of opposing views as to the nature of the Government,
and where, under our system, ultimate sovereign power or paramount
authority resides.'
"Mr. Stephens has a perfect right to use his time and talents in selfjustification as an aider of the rebellion; but he is not. justifiable in even
unintentionally drawing upon the orthodox State Rights principle additional obloquy by his attempt to show that'opposing views' as to those
rights was the true cause of the civil war."
What Judge Nicholas means by " the orthodox State Rights
principle " he has not stated; nor has he intimated wfherein I
have in the book, to which he refers, "unintentionally" or
otherwise attempted to draw upon this orthodox principle, according to his idea of it, additional obloquy or obloquy of any
kind. Nothing certainly was further from my design than
what is thus imputed to the result of my labors.  The great
object with me was not self-justification barely, as he intimates,
but the vindication of the only true State Rights principles
which are consistent with the facts of the history of our country.  On these alone our entire fabric of Constitutional Liberty
was based in the beginning, and on these alone can it be maintained and preserved for the future.  These principles, from
the indisputable and irrefragable facts of history adduced in
their vindication, (and, I may say, establishment beyond the
power of refutation), necessarily carry with -them  the sovereignty of the several States.




REPLY TO JUDGE NICHOLAS.                 41
Whatever ideas Judge Nicholas may have of the orthodox
principle of State Rights, I venture to affirm that it would be
impossible for him, or anybody else,' to name, any single right
of a State, or any single principle of State Rights under our
system, which does not depend for its existence upon the necessarily admitted sovereignty of the several States! There
is no such thing as State rights without State sovereignty.
The States severally possess no power, nor enjoy any privilege,
by favor, grant, or delegation. All their rights and powers, as
well those retained as those delegated, are inherent and sovereign. This is an indisputable truth. It is equally true on the
other side, that the General Government possesses no power by
inherent or sovereign right.  All its rights and powers are
held by delegation only; and held in trust by delegation from
the sovereign States constituting it. Of course I speak of
matters as they stood "ante bellum'.
If the facts of our history be as set forth in the volume referred
to (and the world is challenged to disprove them), then the conclusions to which they lead are inevitable, even though they
lead to a complete justification of the Sovereign Right of Secession as the only sure check and barrier against the usurpation
of undelegated power on the part of the General Government.
In the domain of reason the conclusions of logic are inexorable. This is the appropriate domain of history. Within its
limits my labors were strictly confined.
But my object in this note is not to join or raise any discussion with Judge Nicholas on the matter of " the orthodox State
Rights principle."  It will be time enough for me to do this
with him or anybody else when there is an attempt made, by
reason and argument, to refute the positions of the book upon
that subject. What I do not wish to permit to pass unnoticed
is what he styles " condensed extracts " from the book referred
to. Against one of these " condensed extracts " it is my wish
to enter a respectful protest. MlIany of your readers, in this as
well as in foreign countries, may see these extracts who may
never see the book itself. I do not wish them to remain under
the impression that I am therein accurately quoted; at least, if
they give sufficient attention to the subject to be impressed by




42              THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
the matter at all, I think it essential to a correct understanding
that their opinions should be formed from my own language,
and not his representations of it.
What I said about the chief cause, the origin, and actual inaucguzration of the war is in these words:
"Slavery, so-called, or that legal subordination of the black race to the
white, which existed in all but one of the States when the Union was formed,
and in fifteen of them when the war began, was unquestionably the occasion of the war, the main exciting, proximate cause on both sides-on the
one as well as the other. But.it was not the real cause, the' causa causans'of it. That was the assumption on the part of the Federal authorities that the people of the several States were, as you say, citizens of the
United States, and owed allegiance to the Federal Government as the absolute sovereign power over the whole country, consolidated into one nation. The war sprung from the very idea you have expressed, and from
the doctrines embraced in the question propounded to me. It grew out
of different and directly opposite views as to the nature of the Government of the United States, and where, under our system, ultimate sovereign power or paramount authority properly resides.
"Considerations connected with the legal status of the black race in
the Southern States, and the position of several of the Northern States
toward it, together with the known sentiments and principles of those
just elected to the two highest offices of the Federal Government, (Messrs.
Lincoln and Hamlin), as to the powers of that Government over this subject, and others which threatened, as was supposed, all their vital interests, prompted the Southern States to withdraw from the Union, for the
very reason that had induced them at first to enter into it: that is, for
their own better protection and security. Those who had the control of
the administration of the Federal Government denied this right to withdraw or secede. The war was inaugurated and waged by those at the
head of the Federal Government against these States, or the people of
these States, to prevent their withdrawal from the Union. On the part
of these States which had allied themselves in a common cause, it was
maintained and carried on purely in defense of this great right, claimed
by them, of State Sovereignty and Self-Government, which they with
their associates had achieved in their common struggle with Great Britain, under the Declaration of 1776; and which, in their judgment, lay at
the foundation of the whole structure of American free institutions.
"This is a succinct statement of the issue, and when the calm and enlightened judgment of mankind, after the passions of the day shall have
passed off, and shall be buried with the many gallant and noble-spirited'
men who fell on both sides in the gigantic struggle which ensued, shall
be pronounced, as it will be, upon the right or wrong of the mighty con



REPLY TO JUDGE NICHOLAS.                  43
test, it must be rendered in favor of the one side or the other, not according to results, but according to the right in the issue thus presented."Constitutional View of the Late War between the States, Vol. 1, p. 28.
Now, if Judge Nicholas saw no difference between the issue
as thus presented by me touching the inauguration of the war,
and that in his "condensed extract," then, perhaps, it would be.a useless waste of time to argue with him upon the subject of
State Rights, or any other question which requires close attention to the proper import of words. If he did see the difference,
then, there is no need for any further defense before an intelligent public for his arraignment of me for doing what he is
pleased so gratuitously to. say I had no right to do, or was " not
justifiable" in doing. The real cause of the war, as set forth
min the issue presented by me, condensed in few words, was the
denial of the fact that ours was a Federal Government; and a
violation of this fundamental principle of our complicated political organization on the part of those controlling the General
Government at the time, by assuming that the United States
constituted a nation of individuals,: with a consolidated sovereignty in the Central Government, to which the ultimate as
well as primary allegiance of the citizens of the several
States was due; and that any attempt by the several States, or
any of them, to resume the sovereign powers which had been
previously delegated in trust only by them  to the Federal
agency, was rebellion on their part. This violation of organic
principles is stated to have been the immediate and real cause
of the war-the " causa causans" of it. This statement, sustained by indestructible facts as it is, must remain the truth of
history for all time to come.
As to the origin of the war, or the first outbreak of hostilities, I did not say that it was "inaugurated on the one side to
vindicate the Right of Secession, and on the other in denial of
the right and to resist its exercise."
It was not inaugurated by the Seceding States at all. It
was inausguirated and waged by those then controlling the Federal Government to prevent Secession. On the part of the
Seceding States, it was carried on purely in defense of their
right to withdraw from the Federal Union of States, which they




44            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
claimed as a Sovereign Right. This is the substance of the
statement on that point; and so the fact will go down to posterity.
The truth is well established that the Seceding States did
not wish or desire war. Very few of the public men in these
States even expected war. All of them, it is true, held themselves in readiness for it, if it should be forced upon them
against their wishes and most earnest protestations.
This is abundantly and conclusively apparent from the
speeches and addresses of their leading public men at the time.
It is apparent from the resolutions of the State Legislatures and
the State Conventions, before and in their Acts of Secession.
It is apparent and manifest from their Acts in their new Confederation at Montgomery. It is apparent from the Inaugural
Address of President Davis. It is apparent from the appointment of Commissioners to settle all matters involved in the
separation from their former confederates, honorably, peaceably,
amicably, and justly. It is apparent and manifest from every
act that truly indicates the objects and motives of men, or from
which their real aims can be justly arrived at. Peace not only
with the States from which they had separated, but peace
with all the world, was the strong desire of the Confederate
States.
The war was not only inaugurated by the authorities at
Washington, as stated, but it was inaugurated by them while
the Confederate Commissioners, with the (live-branch of peace
in their hands, were at the seat of the General Government;
and were given to understand by those in authority there, that
Fort Sumter, which became the scene of the first conflict of
arms, would, at an early day, be peacefully evacuated by the
Federal troops then holding it. The war was inaugurated, if
not begun, when the hostile fleet set out for Charleston for the
purpose of reinforcing that fort, "fas aut nefas."  Hallam has
well said, that the "aggressor in a war is not the first who uses
force, but the first who renders force necessary."  And so the
facts of history will ever show how and by whom this late terrible and most lamentable war was inaugurated as well as by
whom it was begun. They will show who were the actual




REPLY TO JUDGE NICHOLAS.                45
aggressors, and who first violated the organic principles and
laws of our American system of Self-Government by the people.
Whatever may be the ultimate results of this war, so far as
the fate of Constitutional Liberty on this continent is concerned,
the responsibility of its inacuguration can never be justly and
truly charged upon the Seceding States.
Their object in separating from their associates, with whom
they considered they had been united in a Federal compact, was
not only to remain in: peace with them, but to preserve and
perpetuate the principles of that Constitution which had demonstrated such wondrous results as a bond of Union between
Sovereign States so long as its principles had been adhered to;
but which they apprehended, under erroneous construction, if
not checked, would soon lead to consolidation and despotism.
If they were right in their position that ours was a Federal'Government, then the authorities at Washington were the aggressors in inaugurating the war to prevent the exercise of the
right of withdrawal; if they were wrong in their position as to
the character of the General Government; if it, in fact, was not
Federal in its nature and character, but was a Government with
a consolidated sovereignty in the central head, then they were
the aggressors in: rendering the inauguration of the war necessary for the maintenance of central supremacy.  The whole
matter of right or wrong in the beginning of the war, as well
as its disastrous consequences, depends upon the great question,
whether the General Government was a Federal Republic or
not, and what, under the Constitution, was the true "orthodox
State rights principle " to which Judge Nicholas refers, but does
not enlighten the public upon.  In other words, it depends
upon the true answer to the question, where, under our system,
does sovereignty reside'? Is it lodged in the General Government, or has it passed to the whole people of the United States
as one aggregate mass, or does it still remain with the people
of the several States as distinct political organizations?
The doctrine of the book is that sovereignty resides just
where it did in 1776, 1778, and 1787-that is, with the people
of the several States!  It maintains that all that the States did
by the adoption of the Constitution was to delegate, in trust,




46            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
the exercise of certain specific and limited sovereign powers to
the General Government, while they retained to themselves,
severally, sovereignty itself, that great source from which all
political powers emanate.
This doctrine, I must insist, too, is not only the true doctrine, but the orthodox doctrine upon the subject; Judge Nicholas' opinion to the contrary, notwithstanding.  Upon the
point of orthodoxy, in reference to this matter, I know of but
one standard on the subject, and that is the Jefferson standard,
erected and established in the first of Kentucky's great resolves
of 1798. The doctrine of this chief apostle of State Rights and
human rights, then' announced, rescued and saved the country
from consolidation and centralism in 1801. Under the operation of this most orthodox principle so established, with the
general and tacit acknowledgment of its correctness by all the
Departments of the Government, we increased, grew, and prospered for sixty years as no nation on earth ever did before.
Whatever disturbances temporarily marred the harmony of the
general system in the interval upon the subjects of tariffs, internal improvements, the stat8z of the African population, etc.,
grew out of departures, or attempted departures, in the Federal
Administrations from the standard th-us erected by Jefferson as
to the nature and extent of the powers of the Federal Government. The more nearly the principles taught by him were
adhered to, the more prosperous and happy the nation was in all
its parts and members.
I use the word nation in this connection purposely; for,
notwithstanding the very great abuse of this word, in very
recent times, we are nevertheless a nationr in a very proper use
of that term. Far was it from my object in the argument, in
the volume referred to by Judge Nicholas, to show that " the
United States do not constitute a nation," as I have seen it
stated by some writer, in what he was pleased to consider a
review of the work. The great object with me, on the contrary,
was to show not only'that we are a nation, but what sort of a
nation we are! It is most clearly demonstrated in' that argument that we are not a nation of individuals, blended in a
common mass, with a consolidated sovereignty over the whole;




REPLY TO JUDGE NICHOLAS.                  47
but it is shown With equal clearness that we are a nation,. the
constituent elements or members of which are separate and
distinct political organizations, States, or Sovereignties!
It is shown that' ours is a conventional nationl /  one created
by compact. All federal republics, and: all confederations between separate and distinct sovereign powers, are conventional
nations. We were a nation under the first Articles of Confederation, and we are just such a nation now-not a nation of one
people or one political organization, but a nation of several distinct political organizations. We are a " confederated nation,"
as Washington properly styled' the present Union. That is, a
nation of States, or, what is the same thing, a nation of nations!
-Hence the appropriateness of the motto adopted by the fathers
to express the idea'of the workNT-" Epluribbus unun?,."
In this sense we are not only a nation, but a nation in the
highest and grandest type that the world ever saw. It rises
above the simple to the complex form.
It is, indeed, in many respects, a peculiar nation, even in
its complex form-; differing from  all other nations of its own
type in many of its most striking characteristics. These peculiar'
features of its structure place it far in advance of all other Confederate Republics in its wise provisions for the preservation
of free institutions, if it be bitt rightly administered. The most
important of these features is' the new principle which it introduced in the plan of federal unions, of permitting the common
government, the conventional power or nation, to execute its
delegated powers, within their limited sphere, directly upon the
citizens of the several States, or smaller nationalities composing
it.
This new idea of so constituting a Federal Republic as to
make of its separate members " one nation as to all Foreign
concerns, and to keep them distinct as to Domestic ones," with
a division of the powers delegated into " Legislative, Executive,
and Judicial departments," with  a perfect machinery of
government to operate within prescribed limits in the execution
of the delegated powers, constitutes the most striking difference
between our present Federal Union and all former republics of
its class. It marks the greatest stride of progress in free insti



48              THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
tutions ever before made.  It is this which has so impressed the
minds and excited the admiration of intelligent foreigners in
contemplating the wonderful workings of the American system.
This is the feature to which the learned and philosophic De
Tocqueville refers when, speaking of our Constitution, he
says:
"This Constitution, which may at first be confounded with the federal
constitutions which have preceded it, rests in truth upon a wholly novel
theory, which may be considered as a great discovery in modern science...... JAnd this difference produced the most momentous consequences."
Of the same feature Lord Brougham has recorded his opinion
in the following words of high import:
"It is not at all a refinement that a Federal Union should be formed;
this is the natural result of men's joint operations in a very rude state of
society.  But the regulation of such a Union upon preestablished principles, the formation of a system of g6vernment and legislation in which
the different subjects shall be, not individuals, but States, the application
of legislative principles to such a body of States, and the devising means
for keeping its integrity as a Federacy while the rights and powers of the
individual States are maintained entire, is the very greatest refinement in
social policy to which any state of circumstances has ever given rise, or to
which ally age has ever given birth."-Brougharn's Poiitical Philosophy,
Yol. 3, p. 336.
This grand conception of so forming, modelling, and constituting our Union of States, which so impressed De Tocqueville,
and which Lord -Brougham.considered "the very greatest refinement in social policy" "to which any age has ever given
birth," originated with Mr. Jefferson.  It came from the same
master-mind whose master hand drew the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and in 1798 set forth with so much clearness
and power the true, if not at present orthodox principles of the
whole structure of our Federal organization, in the entire series
of Kentucky's famous Resolutions, before referred to, and which
were so thoroughly endorsed and established by the country in
1801.  To the administration of the Government in conformity
with these principles, or with but slight departure from them,
the " momentous consequences" spoken of by De Tocqueville,




REPLY TO JUDGE NICHOLAS.               4i9
distinguishing our unparalleled carer, for sixty years, in growth,
prosperity, happiness, and real greatness, are mainly attributable.
And now, Messrs. Editors, do you ask, Cti bono?  Why so
much written upon the dead issues of the past, when questions
of so much magnitude of a practical character press upon the
public mind?  If so, the reply is twofold. First, to vindicate
the truth of history, which is itself a high duty on the part of
every one who has it in his power to do it; and, in the second
place, to show the people of these States, in this vindication,
not only the true cause, the real "causa causans," of the late
war, but the real cause of their present troubles. The Federal
machinery for the last ten years has been abnormal in its action.
It must be brought back to the Jeffersonian doctrines, and
made to conform in its workings with the organic principles of
its structure, before there can possibly be a return of the days
of peace, harmony, prosperity, and happiness which formerly
marked our course. There is no other hope for constitutional
liberty on this continent.  Judge Nicholas may "dream
dreams" about another Constitutional Amendment, providing
a new mode of electing the President, but the remedy lies in
no such device as that. It lies simply in bringing back the
Government in its administration to original first principles.
This is to be done, not by Secession, however rightful and efficient a remedy that might be. That is abandoned. Nor is it to be
done by force or violence of any kind, except the force of reason
and the power of truth. It is to be done, if at all, at the ballotbox. Free institutions are more generally lost than established or'
strengthened by a resort to physical force. They are eminently
the achievement of virtue, patriotism, and reason. That our
institutions, and even nominal form of government, are now in
great danger, the prudent, sagacious, and wise everywhere virtually admit. An able editorial in your own paper, not long
since, put the pertinent and grave question,'"Whither are we
drifting? "  To this question I take the occasion, for one, to
give you a direct and positive answer. We are drifting to consolidation and empire, and will land there at no distant period
as certainly as the sun will set this day, unless the people of the
several States awake to a proper appreciation of the danger,
4




So            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
and save themselves from the impending catastrophe by arresting the present tendency of public affairs.  This they can
properly do only at the ballot-boi. All friends of Constitutional Liberty, in every section and State, must -unite in this
grand effort. They must seriously consider, and even reconsider many questions to which they have given but slight attention heretofore.  They must acquaint themselves with the
principles of their Government, and provide -security for the
future by studying and correcting the errors of the past.
This is the only hope, as I have stated, for the continuance
of even our present nominal form:of government. Depend
upon it, there is no difference between consolidatzion and empire! No difference tetween centralism and imperialism! The
end of either, as well as all of these, is the overthrow of liberty
and the establishment of despotism. - I give you the words of
truth in great earnestness-words which, however received or
heeded now, will be rendered eternally true by the developments of the future.
Yours, most respectfully,
ALEXANDEIR H. STEPHENS.
II.-REJOINDER OF JUDGE NICHOLAS.
MR. STEPHENS, in reponse to my former number, complains
of injustice done him by my "condensed extracts" from his
book. The sole object in'the condensation was to attain that
brevity so indispensable in newspaper discussion. If it has been
so unsuccessful as to make him fancy even that injustice has
been done him, I must make the amende of an ample apology
and the expression of sincere regret.
He now says that the Federal Government' must be brought
back to the Jeffersonian doctrines, and made to conform in its
workings with the organic principles of its structure, before
there can possibly be a return of the days of peace, harmony,
prosperity, and happiness which formerly marked our course.
There is no other hope for constitutional liberty on this continent.... This is to be done, not by secession, however rightful and efficient a remedy that might be.  That is abandoned




REJOINDER OF JUDGE NICHOLAS.                51
Nor is it to be done by force' or violence of any:kind, except the
force of reason and the power of truth.  It is:to be done, if at
all, at the ballot-box."  In another place he speaks of "the
Sovereign Right of Secession as ithe only:'checli and barrier
against the usurpation of undelegated power on the part of the
General Government."
Whilst thus concedingithat the ballot-box is the only remedy
for the restoration of the prostrate Constitution, he takes care
to claim that -the only valuable restoration must be aecompanied
by recognition of the right of secession as a part. of the only
orthodox principle of State-rights. Nor does he insist upon this
alone' for the protection of State-rights, but involves the individual rights of citizens'in the same category, declaring:,the
Sovereign Rlight of:Secession as:the only check and barrier
against the usurpation of undelegated power."
Concurring most:heartily in the great: necessity for a restoration of the Constitution through the ballot-box, and in view of
the great influence which Mr. Stephens has at the: South, the
propriety and expediency of these utterances of his becomes an
important, living issue, well worthy the serious consideration
of all who sincerely desire. a speedy restoration of:the' Constitution.  The remedy being exclusively in the ballot-box, there
must be concert of action, if not identity of proclaimed views,
North and South, in the party attempting the restoration. Any
recognition direct or indirect of the right of secession must be
a great obstacle in obtaining such concert of action, as there are
not probably five hundred men at the North who believe in or
are at all willing to concede such a right.l If, as he says, that
right as a remedy is abandoned, where the expediency or policy
for thus pertinaciously insisting upon its legitimacy, where it
will require all the suasion that can be used to make the people
of the North believe that it is veritably abandoned, and is not
to continue the aim of a ceaseless -controversy at the'South,and
of all those elsewhere who claim the-protection of orthodox
State-rights as a healing motive for the'restoration of: the Constitution.
The verity of this being a living issue consists in the obvious
necessity of influential men at the South doing what they can




52             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
to obviate the injury which these utterances of IMr. Stephens
will cause both North and South, if they remain uncontradicted,
as a true exposition of Southern sentiment. No hearty cooperation at the North for a restoration of the Constitution can be
rationally expected so long as it is even suspected that, in the
pursuit of constitutional restoration, Southern men are looking
to it as a means for the ultimate recognition of the right of
secession. These utterances are as ill-advised as was the disastrous interference with the New York convention by unpardoned Southern generals.
If Southern men of influence concur with him in the opinion
that the right of secession is the only barrier against Federal
usurpation, then they can have little motive for aiding Constitution restoration; its great purpose being our restoration to the
protection of that legitimate barrier against usurpation which is
sufficient, according to the former creed of all lovers and admirers of the Constitution.
So far from there being any chance of ever revolutionizing
the anti-secession sentiment of the North, it is the belief of men
fully as sagacious as Mr. Stephens on questions of practical statesmanship, that if a National Convention for revising the Constitution be held ten or twenty. years hence, not a voice will be
raised in it-no, not even from  South Carolina —for the direct
recognition of the right of secession. Instead of establishing
such a loose impracticability as a form of government, the danger
is altogether the other way; that is, the increase of territory and
population, by demonstrating the necessity of. strong government, will induce public sentiment in favor of one that will be
unnecessarily strong. As things now are, there seems to be a
disposition on the part of men of Mr. Stephens' stamp to waive,
for the present at least, the right of secession as an impracticable
dogma, resting, as it does, upon a non-expressed, but purely
inferential, hypothesis. But that in truth should constitute no
reason for withholding a total abnegation of the dogma whose
falsity is proved by the admission of its impracticability. If the
right of secession were distinctly recognized in the Constitution,
it would never be used for any available purpose. If, for instance, Louisiana, Kentucky, or Pennsylvania were to exercise




MR. STEPHENS' SUR-REJOINDER.               53
the right by declaring its independence, the only result would
be giving the Government the trouble of declaring war against
it and conquering its reinnexation as foreign territory. No
statesman of ordinary practical sagacity can doubt this.
As to ultimate sovereignty and paramount allegiance, there
is no need for diving into the abstractions of political metaphysics for ascertaining what they are in reference to American
citizens. LThey both belong to the Federal Constitution'. All
of us who have passed through office, Federal or State, have
bound ourselves to that supremacy and allegiance by a solemn
oath.
As to orthodox State rights, they consist of such power as
is neither granted to the Federal Government nor forbid to the
States by the Constitution, with a plainly-implied negation of
any right to nullify or secede, which negation is to be taken as
part of what is forbidden to the States.
State rights are very important and sacred, but not more so
than the individual rights of citizens. Politically speaking, the
sacredness of both rests mainly on the consecration given them
by the nation in the Constitution.
III.-Mn. STEPHENS' SUR-REJOINDER TO JUDGE NICHOLAS.
LIBERTY HALL, 
CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., June 23, 1] 869.
Ilessrs. Editors of the National Intelligeneer, IFashfingtOrn,. C.:
GENTLEMEN: You will please allow me, I trust, a few words
in rejoinder to Judge Nicholas. It is not my purpose or intention to protract a useless controversy with him. Discussions
are seldom instructive, or even entertaining, when the positions
or "Cutterances" of one side are either not comprehended, or
not fully and fairly set forth by the other.
In his response to my former letter correcting the statement
in his'" condensed extracts " from the book referred to, as to
my position therein assumed, tofiching the inauguration of the
late war, etc., he makes all the armende and apology that was
expected. This, in substance, is, that he saw no difference be



54              THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
tween the position in the book and the, one assigned in the
"condensed extracts; " and that if I fancied there was any, he
sincerely regrets. it, etc.: To your readers, who now have both
fully before them, no further comments are necessary-not even
on the amende and apology.as made.  There that matter may
rest; and. if he:..had stopped, there himself, I should not have
asked your indulgence for any further hearing.
- But, in his response, he tales occasion to comment upon
certain:ztterances (as he styles them) of mine in that letter,, and,
in these comments, is quite as mucieh at fault in quoting from
the letter as he was in his "condensed extracts " from the book.
This error was quite as unintentional on his part, no doubt, as
the others; still it is of too grave a character to be allowed to
pass unnoticed.
In his comments upon the letter the following paragraph
appears:
" He (alluding to me) now says that the Federal Government'must be
brought back to the Jeffersonian doctrines, and made to conform in its
workings with the organic principles of its structure, before there can
possibly be a return of the days of peace, harmony, prosperity, and happiness which formerly marked our course. There is no other hope for Constitutional Liberty on this continent..... This is to be done, not by Secession, however rightful and efficient a remedy that might be. That is
abandoned  Nor is it to be done by force or violence of any kind, except
the force of reason and the power of truth. It is to be done, if at all, at
the ballot-box.' "
In all this I am  quoted correctly enough.  But the next
sentence is as follows:
" In another place he speaks of'the Sovereign Right of Secession as
the only check and barrier against the usurpation of undelegated power
on the part of the General Government."'
The comments then go on, with a great deal of misplaced
rhetoric, to demolish this position, which is his own, and not
mine; or at least one which he. assigns to me, but which I
never assumed.  No such utterance emanated from me.  What.
I did say was this:
"If the facts of our history be as set forth in the volume referred to,
(and the world is challenged to disprove them,) then the conclusions to




MR. STEPENS'-" SUR-REJOINDER.'             55
which they lead are inevitable, even though they lead to a complete justi-.fication of the sovereign right of secession, as the only sure check and
barrier against the usurpation of undelegated power on the part of the
General Government."
The sentence immediately preceding is in these words: "Of
course I speak of matters ante bellum'."
The proposition, therefore, as stated by me, even Judge
Nicholas, if he will study it closely, will, as a logician, hardly
venture to deny.
As an investigator of truth, if he had been inclined to avoid
the conclusion, (as matters stood ante belluqn, of course,) he
would have seen that this could only be done by a successful
attack upon the facts; and not by resorting to the expedient of
severing the sentence, and even distorting the conclusion, as it,appears in its proper connection.
Secession, before the war, was regarded by many of the
ablest men at the South-men whose patriotism is unquestionable-as the only sure check and barrier in the last' resort
against usurpations of undelegated power; but, since its trial,
not one is to be found who considers it a practical remedy for
Federal wrongs of any sort. I therefore distinctly stated in
another, and in the after part of the letter, that this remedy,
however rightful under the system it might be, had been abardoned.&  This clearly appears from his own quotations from the
letter; but it does not appear from  those quotations, as they
stand in his response, that it was in the after part of the letter,
when I was speaking of matters as they stand since the war.
When I stated that Secession had been abandoned by the people of the. Southern States, I meant all that I said, and uttered
nothing but the truth. Its abandonment was accepted in good
fa;th/ as one of the results of the war. It is no longer looked
to, in any continggency, as a practical remedy or check against
any usurpations or abuses of power on the part of the Federal
Government.  -This abandonment on their-part has been manifested in every form in which public as well as private honor
can be pledged. - All. the States in their conventions have, without equivocation, given it an emphatic abandonment. Even the
Southern Generals, in the New York Convention, last year, to




56            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
whom such an unkind allusion is made by Judge Nicholas, gave
their pledged honor to this abandonment by unanimously sustaining the platform of principles then announced. Whether
they were "unipardoned" or not, their individual honor and
integrity as men were certainly untarnished and nnsullied, far
beyond the reach of all impeachment or reproach. - This fling
of Judge Nicholas at the Southern Generals was, as it'seems to
me, no less unkind than unjust. Why he should. have applied
to them the epithet of "unpardoned," I know not; for, if I am
correct in my recollection, the imputation is utterly without
foundation in fact.
No utterance of mine, therefore, presents to the people of
the North or South the question of Secession as a living issue.
This is but the work of the imagination on the part of Judge
Nicholas. I opposed it as an expedient remedy at the time its
was resorted to, though I believed it to be a rightf/ul one. And
though I believe it to be a rightful one, I did not believe it to
be the only one, much less the surest or the best one. I then
thought, and still think, that there were other remedies much
more practicable and expedient. Among these were appeals to
the good sense, virtue, intelligence, and patriotism of the people of the several States, and earnest invocations to them to
adhere to the principles of the Constitution, as the palladium
of the common rights and interests of us all. The utterances
now complained of are but appeals and invocations of this character.
Representative Governments under no form can be maintained by any people long who have not the intelligence to understand, the patriotism to approve, the virtue to maintain inviolate its forms and principles as established. In arriving at a
correct knowledge of these, under our complex system, which
the people nmust doif they w6uld preserve their free institutions
under it, there is no necessity for a resort to "political metaphysics," as Judge Nicholas intimates, or metaphysics of any
sort. Neither is it a question involving' any sort of abstractions. It is a question purely offacts, of unquestioned and
unquestionable historic records. These clearly show that it is,
as I maintain, a Federal. Republic-ail its powers being dele



MR. STEPHENS' SUR-REJOINDER.            57
gated, specific, and limited; and that. there is in it no such feature or principle as a consolidated sovereignty, with general and
unlimited powers in the Federal head, as maintained by those
who have lately controlled its action, under their construction,
to such mischievous and disastrous results. Shall this abnormal
action of the Government be corrected by the people at the
ballot-box? Shall the administration be brought back to the
standard of principles so generally recognized in the better days
of our history, or shall it be permitted to go on in its present
course until even the name of Republic is ignored?
This is the living issue I presented!
It is now the chief practical question before the people of
the several States. It involves, on the one side, Constitutional
Liberty, as established by the Fathers; on the other, Consolidation, Absolutism, and Monarchy of some sort or other. There
is no middle ground-no half-way house-between the alternatives of this issue as above stated. Between these the people
must choose. They must take one side or the other. There
are but two great political principles in antagonism in this country at this time. The one is for the continued maintenance of
free institutions by popular government; the other is for an
overthrow of these, and the establishment of monarchy. The
crown has already been paraded for the fascination of the unreflecting multitude, with its guileful promises as to the nature
and character of that peace which empire will bring!
It is quite immaterial, therefore, whether five hundred men
at the North can be found who will concede what Judge Nicholas so emphatically denies that they would or not. No such
issue as he represents was presented to them by me. But, to
come to real, practical considerations, is it true that five hundred men at the North cannot be found who will sustain the
nature and character of our Government as expounded by the
Fathers; and under whose administration of it, according to
the principles enunciated by them, the country grew and prospered for sixty years as no other country ever did before 2 Is
it true that five hundred men cannot be found there to maintain its complex character as declared by Washington, and expounded by Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, to say nothing of




58               THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
others?  Is it true that live hundred men, cannot be found
throughout the Northern, States: to endorse the following sentiments and earnest utterances of General Jackson, upon the
same subject, in his Farewell Address to the people. of the
United States:
"It is well known that there have always been those among us who
wish to enlarge the powers of the General Government; and experience
would seem to indicate that, there is a tendency on the: part of this Government to overstep the boundaries marked out for it by the Constitution.
Its legitimate authority is abundantly sufficient for all the purposes for
which it was created; and, its powers being expressly enumerated, there can
be no justification for claiming any. thing beyond them.'Every attempt
to exercise power beyond these limits should be promptly and firmly opposed, for one evil example will lead to other measures still more mischievous; and, if the principle of constructive powers, or supposed advantages, or temporary circumstances, shall ever be permitted to justify the
assumption of a power not given by the Constitution,'the General Government will, before: long, absorb all- the powers of legislation, and you will
have, in effect,. but- one consolidated government. From the extent of ouiit,
country, its diversified interests, different pursuits, and different habits, it
is too obvious for argument that a single consolidated government would be
wholly inadequate to watch over and protect its interests; and every
friend of our free institutions should be always prepared to maintain,
unimpaired and in full vigor, the frights and sovereignty of the States, and
to confine the action. of the General Government strictly to the sphere of its
appropriate duties."
General Jackson was in no way tainted with "the pernicious
dogma of Secession," as I suppose Judge Nicholas will readily
admit, whatever he may think of Mr. Jefferson and the Kentucky resolutions of 1798.' Are my utterances at all inconsistent with the utterances of General Jackson's solemn warnings,
even touching the sovereignty of the several States?
The hint of Judge Nicholas as to the propriety and expediency of such utterances coming from' me is. duly considered
and properly appreciated; but, in reply to all he has said on
that point, I have this to say to him: IfJ I were a prisoner, and
under arrest, with no hope of ".pardon," I should not feel relieved from my sense of high moral obligation, to give, though.
unasked, counsel of safety, if I thought it important, even to




MR. STEPHENS' SUR-REJOINDER.            59
my captors and accusers in a time of imminent danger, whether
it was heeded or not.
Paul, while in custody as a rebel, so-called, on his way to the
judgment-seat of Cesar, did not hesitate to give warning for
the safety of those who had him in charge, as well as for the
ship on which they were all embarked. }Had his admonition
been heeded, a wreck might have been avoided, and notwithstanding "the Centurion believed the master and owner of the
ship more than these things which were spoken by Paul," and
went on in their course heedless of his warning; yet no sense
of its impropriety kept: him from again standing "forth in their
midst" when all hope of the ship's safety was gone, and warning them oiice more how only their lives could be saved. This'
time his advice was taken, and the whole crew were saved,
though the ship was lost. Neither shall I abstain, in a case
where imminent dangers of much greater magnitude threatenwhere not only the future destiny of the whole country, with
its liberties, but with these the surest hopes of mankind, are
jeoparded-from uttering words of admonition and warning,
however unseemly, improper, or even impertinent they may be
deemed to be by Judge Nicholas, or ever so many other equally
clever and equally well-meaning people..In conclusion, and in taking my leave of Judge Nicholas,
unless it becomes necessary again to make other corrections of
matters'wherein he may speak of me, etc., I will barely add,
(with thanks to you for the courtesy of the use of your columns, which I trust I have not abused), that if it be true that
what I really said in the former communication, and not what
he attributes to me, will have the effect of doing injury at the
North or South, as he intimates, it only shows the hopelessness
of our condition, and the inevitableness of the common doom
of the liberties of both sections. The liberties of the North
cannot long ~survive the loss of those of the South; and if I had
supposed the condition of the Northern mind was as it might
be inferred to be from his representations of it, I certainly
should not have made any such utterances as I did. I should
have refrained from making them, however, from no such sense
of the impropriety in my doing it as he intimates; but I should




60            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
have been governed in withholding them entirely by those
promptings of humanity which not only debar all excitements,
but rigidly forbid the slightest unguarded movement, or even
an audible whisper, that may possibly disturb the quiet repose
of a dying friend-one in extremis, 1in carticulo mortis, past all
power of reaction, all effort, all remedy, all hope.
How this really is, the developments of the future will determine. What I have said, however, is upon record; and
Judge Nicholas, you, and the country may be assured that
these developments will bring with them the realization of the
fact that these utterances will remain forever as living truths.
Very respectfully,
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.




ARTICLE III.
THE CURTIS CONTROVERSY ON MR. WEBSTERMS MODIFIED VIEWS.
I.-HON. GEORGE T. CURTIS' REVIEW OF THE WORK.
A CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE LATE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES:
Its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Results. Presented in a Series of Colloquies at Liberty Hall. By ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. In two vols. Vol. 1.
THE author of the book, the title of which is placed at the
head of this article, is one of the representatives of a lost and
ruined cause. In that cause he has suffered; suffered with
heroic fidelity to an idea respecting the nature of the Constitution of the United States. He is a gentleman for whose patriotism  and purity of purpose I entertain entire respect. I
could not, however prompted, treat otherwise than with tenderness, those whom the dread arbitrament of civil war has
stricken down, and whom I believe to have been conscientious
in their efforts to establish the Southern Confederacy. I
learned long ago to regard the question of the right of State
secession from the Union as one on which men could honestly
differ from the views that have generally prevailed in the
North; and now that. the doctrine has been, after every form
of forensic discussion, rendered practically obsolete by the terrible trial of arms, I shall be, I trust, the last person in the
land to utter a word with intent to injure the feelings of those
who stand on the lost side of this great National controversy.
But I may be permitted to express the'astonishment with which
I have read a portion of Mr. Stephens' recent publication, in
which he claims that Mr. Webster, in the later years of his life,
changed his opinions respecting the nature of the Constitution,
and became a convert, or almost a convert, to the views of




62            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
State sovereignty, on which the right of State secession from
the Union was claimed by Mr. Calhoun and his disciples as a
right under the Constitution. This suggestion, I venture to
say, is a very novel one to Mr. Webster's personal friends in
this part of the country. Considering the source from which
it comes, and the manner in which it has been put forth, it
claims their attention. It ought to be: answered by some one.
There is no living representative of Mr. Webster's blood of an
age to undertake this duty.  Of his four literary executors,
to whom  he, confided the care of his name and fame by
testamentary and other injunctions, two alone survive. Of
these I am one; and circumstances which I need not detail,
have devolved it upon me to examine Mr. Stephens' proofs, and
to submit to the public the proper refutation -of his position in
regard to Mr. Webster.
Let it be observed, however, that I enter into no vindication
of Mr. Webster's opinions as they were expressed in 1830-'33,
and as they have always been understood in this region to have
been held to the day'of his death. I make no issue with Mr.
Stephens or any one else as to the correctness of the doctrine
which has, until now, been regarded as the doctrine -of Mr.
Webster, although I never was able to see how the opposite
doctrine is consistent with the facts respecting the establishment
of the Constitution and its unquestionable language.  But
with the main purpose of Mr. Stephens' book I have now
nothing to do. In that book he has put forth the assertion
that Mr. Webster changed his opinions; and, if this is true,
Mir. Webster is really to be cited as an authority for the supposed right of State secession.  This assertion, an.d the
proofs on which it is made, I propose to examine, and nothing
else.
That I may do no injustice to Mr. Stephens' assertion, I
proceed to quote his words. Speaking of the debate in 1833,
in which he thinks Mr. Calhoun not only annihilated Mr. Webster, but convinced him that he: had been wrong in 1830, Mr.
Stephens observes (p. 387):
"The power and force of this speech (lMr. Calhoun's) must have been
felt by Mr. Webster himself. He was a man of too much reason and logic




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                      63
not to have felt it. This opinion I am morelinclined to from the fact that
he not only did not attempt a general reply to it at the time, but from the
further fact that in after-life he certainly, to say the least of it, greatly
modified the opinions held by him in that debate."
In the next chapter, Mr. Stephens': interlocutor having called
for proofs, he proceeds to give them. -He then (p. 405) after
citing, as the latest evidence, a speech made by Mr. Webster in
1851, observes:'That this speech shows a modification of the opinions expressed in
his speech of 1833, must be admitted by all. He had grown older and
wiser. The speech of 1851 was in his maturer years, after the nature of the
Government had been more fully discussed by the men of his own generation than it had been in 1830 and 1833. He was too great a man, and had
too great an intellect, not to see the truth when it was presented, and he
was too honest and too patriotic a man not to proclaim a truth when he
saw it, even to an unwilling people."
The proofs on which Mr. Stephens relies, to show that Mr.
Webster in 1851 had reversed the opinions of his whole previous life, and had come to hold the Constitution to be a " compact between Sovereign  States," will be fully stated hereafter. Before examining them, however, it will occur, perhaps,
to the reader to ask how it happens that Mr. Webster should
have reached a change of opinion so extraordinary as to amount
to a total renunciation of that which constituted the chief glory
of his own great fame, and yet should have given to his countrymen no more distinct notice that he had done so than is to
be gained from the evidence on which Mr. Stephens relies.  It
will certainly be admitted to be true that he thought himself
right in 1830, in the.celebrated controversy with Mr. Hayne.
But this is not all.  It is likewise true that the views he then
maintained respecting the nature of the Constitution were
accepted by a large majority of the nation, of all parties, as a
true exposition, and that they were adopted by General Jackson's administration as the basis of its action when it became
necessary afterwards to resist the threatened Nullification in
South Carolina.  General Jackson's proclamation of 1832
against the Nullifiers was written by his Secretary of State,
Edward Livingston, and it followed, throughout, the doctrine




64            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
maintained by Mr. Webster in his reply to Hayne, in 1830. So
remarkable was this adoption of Mr. Webster's argument, that
popular opinion at that time regarded it as a manifest, but, of
course, a very excusable plagiarism.  Mr. Webster, when the
proclamation was issued, was on his way to Washington,
ignorant of what had occurred. At an inn in New Jersey he
met a traveller just from Washington. Neither of them was
known to the other. Mr. Webster inquired the news. " Sir,"
said the gentleman," the President has issued a proclamation
against the Nullifiers, taken entirely from Mr. Webster's reply
to Hayne."  In the course of the ensuing session, and not long
after Mr. Webster reached the Capital, it became necessary for
the administration to act. MIr. Webster was in the opposition;
and, excepting in regard to the integrity of the Union and the
just powers of the Government, there was a wide gulf between
the administration and him. He was absent from his seat for
several days when the Force bill was about to be introduced as
an adni~nistration measure. As portion of General Jackson's
original supporters hung back from that issue. At this juncture
there was much inquiring among the President's friends in the
House as to " where Mr. Webster was."  At length a member
of General Jackson's cabinet went to Mr. Webster's rooms, told
him the nature of the bill about. to be introduced, and asked
him, as a public duty, to go into the Senate and defend the bill
and the President. It is well known to the whole country that
Mr. Webster did so; and it is known to me that General Jackson personally thanked him for his powerful aid; that many of
the President's best friends afterwards sought to make a union
between him and Mr. Webster, and that nothing continued to
separate them but an irreconcilable difference of opinion about
the questions relating to the currency.
It is, in fact, matter of historical- certainty that Mr. Webster's opinions respecting the character of the Constitution, as
maintained in 1830, shaped the course of the Government
towards Nullification; that they shaped the opinion of the
country which rallied to the support of the administration; that
he himself, through his whole life, regarded his reply to Hayne
as the most important of all his public efforts; and that it was




MR., CURTIS' REVIEW.                65
the one that produced the widest and most enduring impression
upon the National intellect. Whether he was right, or wrong,
it is to him that we are to trace that great body of public convictions which, ten years after he was laid in the tomb, enabled
the Government of the United States to draw forth the energies
of a people who would never have gone through the late civil
war without those convictions, and finally to prevent the threatened disruption of the United States. Mr. Webster was not
compelled to witness this sad spectacle; but he foresaw the possibility of its occurrence; and he knew well that, if the issue did
come in this terrible form, he had prepared the intellect of his
country with that which could alone justify and support the
efforts that must be made. He knew always that his own fame
was completely identified with the doctrine that regards the
Constitution not as compact but as a aw / that in that great postulate he had lived and acted until he had made it plain to all
but the people of a section; and that, if this opinion were to be
renounced by him, it would be his clear duty to make that renunciation known in the most unequivocal terms.  All this
every man knows, too, who knows much of the history and
feelings of Daniel Webster. Yet we are told that, in his " maturer years," he changed his opinions on this subject. Why,
then, did he not say that he had changed? Mr. Stephens gives
him credit for moral grandeur of character. The credit is his
due. He was never afraid of admitting that he had modified
his opinions. His love of truth was more powerful than his
love of himself. But I think I can tell Mr. Stephens why he
did not inform us that he had changed these opinions. The
reason is because he had not changed them; because they were
inseparable from the very structure of his intellect, and therefore could not be renounced. I-e who wishes to see whether
this is true, must compare the intellectual natures and mental
characteristics of the two great antagonists, Webster and Calhoun, and must observe how their respective modes of reasoning
led to conclusions diametrically opposite.
Mr. Stephens speaks of a change that came' over Mr. Webster in his " maturer years."  In 1830, when he electrified the
country by his reply to Hayne, he was forty-eight years of age.
5




66            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
In 1833, when the debate with Mr. Calhoun occurred, he was
fifty-one. In 1851, when Mr. Stephens thinks him more' mrature," and the subject had been "more fully discussed," he was
sixty-nine. He died on the 24th of October, 1852, in his
seventy-first year.
I am- not aware that at any period of his life, Mr. Webster
exhibited any material abatement of his intellectual powers. In
the judgment of those who saw him most frequently and observed him most closely, there was Less change in him from the
age of fifty to the age of seventy than is common in men of
intellectual- pursuits.  He himself was sometimes observed,
during the last ten years of his life, when called upon to make
some particular and unusual effort; to be a little anxious concerning the comparisons that men might make of him with
what he had formerly been. No one, however, would say that
the speech of the 7th March, 1850, exhibits any decay of intellectual strength, or that the famous "i ulsemann letter" is less
vigorous than any of his former productions.
On the other hand, if we were to look for the period when
his powers of all kinds were in their fullest vigor and highest
development, we should unhesitatingly place it, in his case, as
in that of most men, between the ages of forty and sixty. Mr.
Stephens makes a great. mistake, too, as it seems to me, in
supposing that the nature of the Government had been more
fully discussed after 1833, and before 1851, than it- had been
down to the time when Nullification was encountered. -Nothing of any importance had been added to the Southern side of
the controversy after 1833, nor has there been any thing new
said or written on that side of the question since Mr. Hayne
and Mr. Calhoun left it in their arguments of 1830 and 1833.
If Mr. Webster ever thought that he had occasion to revise the
subject, hQ certainly had nothing new to examine after 1833,
for - Mr. Calhoun had then exhausted his' own side of the question, in one of the greatest arguments he ever made, and all
that he ever said afterwards was but a repetition of himself.
Moreover, it would be an error to imagine that Mr. Webster,
in 1830, came to the discussion of this great question as to
something which he had not previously studied. The debate




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                67
itself of that year sprang up suddenly; but Mr. Webster's
preparation for it had been made long before the occasion
arose, and he could have made the reply to Hayne just as well
as he did make it, at any time during the preceding ten years.
To him there was no side of this question that needed to be examined when he was called upon to encounter the doctrine of
Nullification; and the proof' of this is, that the second speech
on Foote's resolution which contains the development of his
doctrine respecting the nature of the Government and his reply to the whole of Mr. Hayne's argument, was made from a
brief prepared in a single night. This brief, covering but a
few pages of ordinary letter paper, is now in my possession.
There is, too, a singular error of Mr. Stephens on which I
desire to make a-few observations before I quote his proofs of
M3r. Webster's change of opinions. -He seems to imagine that
Mr. Webster was staggered even in 1833, and begun then to
entertain doubts, in consequence of the "crushing and extinguishing" speech of Mr. Calhoun. He says, without hesitation, that Mr. Webster made "no rejoinder" to Mr. Calhoun,
but merely explained how he had used the term " constitutional
compact " in 1830, and attempted to parry one'or two of the
blows " but never made anry set reply ovr rejoinder."  " Mr. Calhoun stood master of the arena" (p. 387). Now the facts are
these:
The autumn of 1832 and the winter of 1833 witnessed the
crisis of' Nullification."  The revenue laws of the United
States had been prostrated in South Carolina by a system of
State law, which directly obstructed the collection of any
revenue whatever. It had become necessary for the President
of the United States to act; and that President was Andrew
Jackson.  His proclamation warned the nullifiers that their
acts were acts of "treason;" and when Congress assembled in
December, he asked for the passage of a law adapted to the
exigency, to enable him to enforce the collection of the revenue.
It became known, very soon, that Mr. Webster intended top
support the President in this course, notwithstanding their
political differences on almost all other subjects. Mr. Calhoun
iaw what was impending, and after the introduction of the




68           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
Force bill he offered in the Senate what he called a " plea in
bar," consisting of his celebrated resolutions on the nature of
the Union, embodying, in very terse and perspicuous language,
the doctrine of the right of Nullification as a constitutional
remedy. On the 11th of February, Mr. Clay announced in the
Senate his purpose to introduce his Compromise bill to modify
the tariff. This bill was introduced and was pending at the
same time with the Force bill. On the 15th of February, the
Force bill being under consideration, MIr. Calhoun commenced
the great speech in which he resisted the passage of that bill,
developed his views on the nature of the Constitution and the
right of State Nullification, as embodied in his resolutions,
and explained the attitude taken by South Carolina.  The
doctrine of this very able speech maintained the Union to be a
confederacy of sovereign States, in contradistinction to a con-'
solidated government.  Its argument was that the States,
being sovereign and having reserved to themselves all powers
not granted to the general government, had reserved, among
others, the power of judging of any infractions of the 1" Federal compact;" which power, from the necessity of the case,
Mr. Calhoun said could exist nowhere else. He maintained,
therefore, that when a State, in its sovereign capacity, has
solemnly pronounced an act of Congress to be unwarranted by
the Federal Constitution, the paramount allegiance of her citizens is due to her authority, and she stands between the citizen and the State to protect him from the consequence of resistance. As an exposition of the doctrines of nullification,
this speech was a much abler one than that of Mr. Hayne,
which Mr. Webster answered in 1830. B3ut let it be observed
that this is not the speech which Mr. Stephens thinks annihilated Mr. Webster, and to which the latter "made no rejoinder." It was, however, a speech which contained the development of Mr. Calhoun's whole doctrine, and it was the one
which Mr. Webster answered as soon as Mr. Calhoun had concluded. The answer stands in the third volume of Mr. Webster's works under the title " The Constitution not a compact
between sovereign States."  It comprehended and maintained
the following propositions:




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                  69
1. That the Constitution of the United States is not a
league, confederacy, or compact between the people of the several States in their sovereign capacities; but a government
proper, founded on tle adoption of the people, and creating
direct relations between itself and individuals.
2. That no State authority has power to dissolve these relations; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution; and
that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession
without revolution.
3. That there is a supreme law, consisting of the Constitution of the United States, and acts of Congress passed in pursuancmee of it, and treaties; and that, in cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit in law or equity, Congress must
judge of, and finally interpret, this supreme law so often as it
has occasion to pass acts of legislation; and in cases'capable of
assuming, and actually assuming, the character of a suit, the
Supreme Court of the United States is the final interpreter.
4. That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul, or nullify
an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation within her limits,
is a direct usurpation on the just, powers of the general government, and on the equal rights of other States; a plain violation of the Constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary in its character and tendency.
On the 26th of February, Mr. Calhoun called up his own
resolutions, and commenced an elaborate reply to hMr. Webster, reasserting the doctrines of State nullification. Whoever
will examine this speech and compare it with that which Mr.
Calhoun made on the 15th, will see that although the two are
of about equal length, theb latter one advanced little in the way
of argument which is not contained in the former, to which Mr.
Webster had already replied..By this time the discussion
turned in a considerable degree on the sense in which the
speakers had used certain terms: and although Mr. Calhoun
reasserted his own argument at length, he in fact added to it
nothing that was important, although he restated it in a very'clear, perspicuous, and logical method. If Mr. Webster was,
or ought to have been "annihilated," or "convinced," those
conditions ought to have happened to him after hearing Mr.




707             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
Calhoun's speech of the 15th.  But Mr. Webster's answer to
that speech-made immediately, it is true-does not read as if
he -had been impressed with the soundness of Mr. Calhoun's
views, and his rejoinder to Mr. Calhoun's speech of the 26th
shows quite plainly that, gn his own judgment, he was then
called upon to. say but little more.  That little, however, he
put into a "nutshell."  As the rejoinder is not long, and as
it is not repeated in Mr. Webster's works, I quote it entire,
that the reader may judge whether Mr. Calhoun had convinced
Mr. Webster that this Union is a "compact between sovereign
States."
"As soon as Mr. Calhoun had concluded, Mr. Webster rose in reply.
He said that, having already occupied so much of the time of the Senate
on the general subject, he should not do more than to make a very few
observations in reply to what the honorable member from South Carolina
had now advanced.'The gentleman', said Mr. W.,'does me injustice in
suggesting the possibility that any remarks of mine could have been made
for the purpose: of obtaining favor in any quarter, by an appearance of
hostility to him.'
"[Mr. Calhoun rose and said he had only suggested it as a matter of
possibility.]
I' I hope it is not even possible,' continued Mr. W.,'that my support or
opposition of important measures should be influenced by considerations
of that kind. Between the honorable member and myself personal relations have always been friendly. We came into Congress now near twenty
years ago, both ardent young men; and, however widely we may have
differed at any time on political subjects, our private intercourse has-been
one of amity and kindness.'
"[Mr. Calhoun rose and said these remarks were just such as he himself had intended to make.]
"' The honorable member considers my remarks on his use of the phrase
" constitutional compact," as not well founded, and says he has my own
authority against myself. He quotes from my speech in 1830. But I did
not on that or any occasion call the Constitution a constitutional compact. In the passage to which he refers I was speaking of one part of the
agreement on which the Constitution was founded, viz., the agreement
that the Slaveholding States should possess more than an equal proportion of Representatives. That, I observed, was matter of compact, sanctioned by the Constitution; it was an agreement which, being adopted in
the Constitution, may be well enough called a constitutional compact;
but that is not equivalent to saying that the Constitution of the United
States is nothing but a constitutional compact between sovereign States.




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                        71
The gentleman must certainly remember that my main object on that occasion was to establish the proposition, stated in the same speech, that
the Constitution was not a compact between the States, but a constitution
established by the people, with a government founded on popular election, and directly responsible to the people themselves. The honorable
gentleman attempts also to find an authority for his use of the word
"' accede." He says the same word was used by General Washington, in
speaking of the adoption of the Constitution by North Carolina. It was
so, and it is used by the biographer of Washington, also, in reference to
the same occurrence; and although both, probably, adopted the same
phrase from the popular language of the day, yet the language in that
case was not, perhaps, improper. By the adoption of the Constitution,
by nine States, the old confederacy was effectually dissolved.  North
Carolina not having adopted it until after the government went into operation, was out of the Union. She had, at that moment, no distinct connection with other States. The old Union was broken up, and she had
not come into the new. There was propriety, therefore, perhaps, in calling her adoption of the Constitution an accession. Yet, when she afterward adopted the Constitution, she used the same terms of ratification as
the other States. "Accede " is unknown to all those ratifications, and to
the Constitution itself. But the honorable gentleman insists that he can
change that phraseology of his resolutions, so as to avoid my objections,
and yet maintain their substantial sense and import. He says his first
resolution may stand thus:'
".'Resolved, That the people of the several States composing these
United States are united as parties to a compact, under the title of the
Constitution of the United States, which the people of each State ratified as a separate and sovereign community, each binding itself by its own
particular -ratification; and that the Union, of which the said compact
is the bond, is a union between the States ratifying the same.'
"This is a change, it is true, but it is a mere verbal change. It rejects
certain words, but adopts their exact synonyms. In his resolution he calls
the Constitution a'constitutional compact.' In the amended form which
he now suggests, he calls it a' compact, under the title of the Constitution.'  These are just the same thing. Both call it a compact, and a
compact between sovereign communities, and in both the attempt is to
make the Constitution not one substantive thing, but merely the qualification of something else. Now, sir, the Constitution does not call itself a
compact of any kind; the people did not call it such when they ratified it.
No State said'We, as a sovereign community, accede to a Constitutional
compact;' or,'We, as a sovereign community, ratify a compact under
the title of a Constitution.' No State said one word about compact; no
State said one word about acting as a sovereign community. On the
contrary, in each and every State the language is, that the conventions,




72               IITHE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
in the name and by the authority of the people, ratify this Constitution
or frame of government. Neither of the resolutions, therefore, of the
honorable member, nor this amended form of it, follows the official and
authentic language applied to the transaction to which it refers.'I again
say, if he will follow that language, if he will state accurately what was
done, and then state his proposed inference, that inference will be out of
all sight from his premises. Let him say nothing of compact, because the
people said nothing ofit; let him not assert that the people of the States
acted as sovereign communities, because they have not said so. Let him
describe what the people did in their own language. It will then stand
that the people ratified this Constitution or frame of government.
"Now, sir, the mere substitution of this just and true phraseology
strikes away the whole foundation of the gentleman's argument. Hle cannot stand a moment except on the ground of a compact between sovereign
communities.  Compact, therefore, and such a compact, must keep its
place in his first resolution, or else his chain of reasoning breaks in the
first link. He is, therefore, driven to the necessity of assuming what cannot be proved, and of giving a history of the formation of this Constitution essentially different from, its true history. He is compelled to reject the language of the Constitution itself, and to reject also the
language used by the people of every one of the States when they
adopted it, and to lay the corner-stone of his whole argument on mere
assumption.  The honorable gentleman does not understand how the
Constitution can. have a compact or consent for its basis, and yet not be a
compact between sovereign States. It appears to me the distinction is
broad and plain enough. The people may agree to form a government;
this is assent, consent, or compact; this is the social compact of European
writers. 5When the government is formed, it rests on this assent of the
governed; that is, it rests on the assent of the people. The whole error.
of the gentleman's argument arises from the notion that the people, of
their own authority, can make but one government, or that the people of
all the States have not united, and cannot unite, in establishing a Constitution, connecting them together directly; as individuals, united under one
government: He seems unwilling to admit, that while the people of a single
State may unite together, and form a government for sonle purposes, the
people of all the States may also unite together and form another government for other purposes. But what he will not thus admit appears to me
to be the simple truth, the plain matter of fact, in regard to our political
institutions. The honorable gentleman thinks, sir,- that I overlooked a
very important part of the Constitution, favorable to his side of the question. He says it is declared in the seventh article that the ratification of
the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of
the Constitution between the States ratifying the, same. If I have overlooked this provision, sir, it is because it appears to me not to have that
bearing on the question' which the honorable gentleman supposes. The




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                      73
honorable member has said, in one of his publications, that the word'States' as used in the Constitution, sometimes means the States, in their
corporative capacities or governments; sometimes it means their territory,
merely; and sometimes it means the people of the States. This is very
true; and it is perfectly clear, that in the clause quoted, the word means
the people of the States. The same clause speaks of the conventions of
States; that evidently means conventions of the people of the States; else
the whole provision would be absurd. All that this part of the Constitution intended was simply to declare that, so soon as the people of nine
States should adopt and ratify it, it should, as to these States, go,into
operation.  The gentleman has concluded, sir, by declaring again, that
the contest is between power on one side and liberty on the other -and
that he is for liberty. All this is easily said. But what is that liberty
whose cause he espouses? It is liberty given to a part to govern the
whole. It is liberty, claimed by a small minority, to govern and control
the:great majority. And what is the power which he resists? It is the
general power'of the popular will; it is the power of all.the people, exercised by majorities, in the Houses of the- Legislature, in the form of
which all free governments exercise power. Mr. President, turn this question over, and present it as we will-'argue upon it' as we may-exhaust
upon it all the fountains of metaphysics-stretch over it all the meshes of
logical or political subtlety-it still comes to this: Shall we have a general
government? Shall we continue the Union of the States under a government instead of a league? This is the upshot of the whole matter; because, if we are to have a government, that government must act like other
governments, by majorities, it must have this power, like other governments, of enforcing its own laws and its own decisions; clothed with authority by the people, and always responsible to the people, it must be
able to hold on its course unchecked by external interposition. According
to the'gentleman's view of the matter, the Constitution is a league; according to mine, it is a regular popular government. This vital and all-important question the people will decide, and in deciding it, they will determine whether by ratifying the present Constitution and frame of government, they meant to do nothing more than to amend the articles of the old
confederation."
But it is time to quote the whole of Mlr. Stephens' proofs
of Mr. WVebster's change of opinions. They consist of
1. The assumption that Mr. Webster did not and could not
reply to MlIr. Calhoun's argument of 1833, and that he must
have felt it to be unanswerable.
2. An argument made by Mr. Webster in 1839, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of The Bank of
Augusta vs. Earle.




74            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
3. An opinion given by Mr. Webster to the Barings in 1839,
respecting the capacity of the States to contract debts.
4. A speech made by Mr. Webster at Capon Springs in
Virginia, June 28, 1851.
Every thing relating to the specific sources of proof is now
before me. The 1st, 2d, and 3d are embraced in Mr. Webster's
published works. The speech at Capon Springs is not included
in his works, but I have a pamphlet copy of it before me, which
once belonged to him. The specifications, then, may be examined in their order.
i.-The Debate of 1833.
Whether Mr. Webster must have felt Mr. Calhoun's speech
to be unanswerable must be judged of by the reader after examining the whole debate. Mr. Stephens may think that Mr.
Webster's rejoinder was insufficient; but I do not understand
how he is entitled to say that Mr. Webster made no rejoinder,
or how it was that "' Mr. Calhoun remained master of the arena,"
through any failure of Mr. Webster to continue standing on his
own ground. A rejoinder does not necessarily embrace a full
repetition of the original argument. As a reissertion of one's
position, its contents depend on one's judgment of the necessity
for saying more than one has already said; and when the question is, not whether a speaker had the best of the argument, but
whether his rejoinder shows that he felt himself to have been
floored by his opponent, we must enter into his own estimate
of what was required to be said in that rejoinder. Having already given the history of that great debate it is unnecessary
for me to say more concerning the success with which Mr.
Webster maintained his position.
2.-TShe Argument in the Bark Case.
Mr. Webster's argument in the case of The Bank of Augusta
vs. Earle, in 1839.
Mr. Stephens makes the following quotation from Mr. Webster's argument, the meaning of which he appears to have misapprehended.*
* I preserve the italics as Mr. Stephens has made them.




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                       75
"' But it is argued,' said Mr. Webster,'that though this law of comity
exists as between independent nations, it does not exist between the States
of this Union. That argument appears to have been the foundation of the
judgment in the Court below.
"' In respect to this law of comity, it is said, States are not Nations;
they have no National Sovereignty; a sort of residuum of Sovereignty is
all that remains to them. The National Sovereignty, it is said, is conferred
on this Government, and part of the municipal Sovereignty. The rest of
the municipal Sovereignty belongs to the States. Notwithstanding the
respect which I entertain for the learned judge who presided in that
Court, I cannot follow in the train of his argument. I can make no diagram, such as this, of the partition of national character between the State
and General Governments. I cannot map it out, and say, so far is national
and so far municipal; and here is the exact line where one begins and the
other ends. We have no second La Place-and we never shall have-with
his " Mlcanique Politique," able to define and describe the orbit of each
sphere in our political system with such exact mathematical precision.
There is no such thing as arranging these governments of ours by the laws
of gravitation so that they will be sure to go on forever without impinging.
These institutions are practical, admirable, glorious, blessed creations
Still they were, when created, experimental institutions: and if the conven-'tion which framed the Constitution of the United States had set down in
it certain general definitions of power, such as have been alleged in the
argument of this case, and stopped there, I verily believe that in the course
of fifty years which have since elapsed, this government would have never
gone into operation.
"' Suppose that this Constitution has said, in terms of the' language of
the Court below, all National Sovereignty shall belong to the United States;
all municipal sovereignty to the several States. I will say, that however
clear, however distinct, such a definition may appear to those who use it,
the employment of it in the Constitution could only have led to utter confusion
and uncertainty. I am not prepared to say that the States have no National Sovereignty. The laws of some of the States-Maryland and Virginia,
for, instance-provide punishment for treason. The power thus exercised
is certainly not municipal. Virginia has a law of alienage; that is a power
exercised against a foreign nation. Does not the question necessarily
arise) when a power is exercised concerning an alien enemy-enemy to
whom?  The law of escheat, which exists in all the States, is also the
exercise of a great sovereign power.
"' The term " Sovereignty" does not occur in the Constitution at all.
The Constitution treats States as States, and the United States as the
United States; and, by a careful enumeration, declares all the powers that
are granted to the United States, and all the rest are reserved to the
States. If we pursue, to the extreme point the powers granted, and the




76              THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
powers reserved, the powers of the General and State governments will
be found, it is to be feared, impinging, and in conflict. Our hope is, that
the prudence and patriotism of the States, and the wisdom of this government, will prevent that catastrophe. For myself, I will pursue the advice
of the court in Deveaux's case, I will avoid nice metaphysical subtilities,
and all useless theories; I will keep ny feet out of tha traps of general definition; I will keep my feet out of all traps; I will keep to things as they are,
and go no further to inquire what they might be, if they were not what
they are. The States of this Union, as States, are subject to all the voluntary and customary laws of Nations.'
"[Mr. Webster here referred to and quoted a passage from Vattel (page
61), which, he said, clearly showed that States connected together, as are
the States of this Union, must be considered as much component parts of
the law of nations as any others.]
"'If, for the decision of any question, the proper rule is to be found in
the law of nations, that law adheres to the subject. It follows the subject
through, no matter into what place, high or low. You cannot escape the
law of nations in a case where it is applicable. The air of every judicature is full of it. It pervades the courts of law of the highest character,
and the court of piepoudre; aye, even the constable's court. It is part
of the universal law. It may share the glorious eulogy pronounced by.Hooker upon law itself; that there is nothing so high as to be beyond the,
reach of its power, nothing so low as to be beneath its care. If any
question be within the influence of the law of nations, the law of nations
is there. If the law of comity does not exist between the States of this
Union, how can it exist between a State and the subjects of any foreign
sovereignty?' "
Before introducing this extract, Mr. Stephens makes the extraordinary observation that "in this case the nature of the
general government and the nature of the State government,
in their relations to each other, came up for adjudication."  If
Mr. Stephens means that there was any thing in this case which
presented for adjudication the question of State sovereignty,
that lies at the foundation of the doctrine of State Secession
from  the Union, or that the decision affords any color for that
doctrine, he is quite mistaken. The question in the case which
led to the course of reasoning embraced in the extract from
Mr. Webster's argument was simply whether a corporation
created by one State can make a valid contract in another
State and can maintain a suit upon it in the courts of that
other State.  No denial of this capacity can be maintained,




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                  77
except by showing that the States of this Union are not bound
as between themselves by the comity of nations, which, by the
law of nations, permits the citizens of the different sovereignties to contract and to sue in each other's dominions in the
absence of any prohibitory law or declared prohibitory policy
of the State where the right is claimed. Of course, in order
to make the comity of nations, in this respect, applicable to the
States of this Union in their relations with each other, it is
necessary to regard each Sta.te as, for certain purposes, a nation;
or, in other words, to regard it as a sovereign State; for such a
State alone can be affected by the law of nations, as it exists
when not curtailed by the sovereign will, or can declare by
legislation or by its public policy that it does not mean to be
bound by a particular rule of that law. But neither Mr. Webster nor any one else, in claiming that the States are sovereign
in respect to their liability to be affected by the voluntary law
of nations, in their relations to the citizens of other States, in
matters of property, thereby admits that they are sovereigns in
respect to their capacity to withdraw from the Union. It is
remarkable that Mlr. Stephens should have confounded these
two things which are as wide asunder as the poles. When did
Mr. Webster ever deny that the States are sovereign in respect
to all those political powers which are not conferred on the
general government?  He did not deny this in 1830 or 1833,
and he had no new views to acquire or to express upon it in
1839. It is just as much a fixed doctrine in the Webster school
of constitutional law that the States are sovereign States as it
is in the school of Mr. Calhoun.;But the question is, sovereign
as to what?  That they are sovereign in respect to the power
of declaring what contracts may be made within their limits, or
what remedies may be pursued in their courts, all will agree;
and a State being to this extent a nation, Mr. Webster argued
that it is bound by the comity of nations to permit the citizens
of other States to contract and to sue in its jurisdiction; and
so the court held. But what has all this to do with that other
claim of sovereignty, which makes it competent for a State, as
a constitutional right resulting from the nature of the Union,
to break up the Union by secession? The two things can be




78            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
connected only by assuming that he who calls the States sovereign for some purposes must of necessity so regard them for
all other purposes. I know that it has always been so assumed
by Mr. Calhoun and his followers, whose cardinal'doctrine has
been that sovereignty is indivisible.. But this was never Mr.
Webster's doctrine; and therefore when he argued that as to
regulating the right to contract and to sue within its own jurisdiction a State is a nation, and is bound by the comity of nations, he modified no previous opinion respecting the final and
irrevocable grant of political powers which he had always maintained was made by the States when they ratified the Constitution of the United States.
I presume that Mr. Webster would have been very much
astonished if, on the argument of this case, one of his opponents had risen and said, "So, then, sir, it appears that you
have modified your opinions ab'out the nature of the General
Government, for you have distinctly said that the States are
nations; that they are sovereign; that the Constitution treats
the States as States, and if they are sovereign, States, you must
have changed your views as you expressed them in the Senate
in 1830 and 1833."  I fancy that Mr. Webster would have answered thus:
"When did I ever deny that the States are independent
political communities, with full attributes of sovereignty in respect to all the powers of government not embraced in the
Constitution of the United States, and not therein expressly
restricted?. B e pleased to observe, sir, that the idea that a State
cannot part with a portion of its sovereignty and remain a State
may be yours, but it is not mine. It has always been my doctrine, and is still, that the States did this Very thing when they
ratified the Constitution; that they parted with a portion of
their sovereignty and yet remained States."
Mr. Stephens may say this is impossible, but he has no
ground for saying that Mr. Webster ever regarded it as impossible. His argument in the bank case could have been made
on the same day.with his reply to Hayne or his reply to Calhoun, and no man could have found the smallest departure
from what he had previously maintained.




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                      79
3.-The Opinion given to the Barrings in 1831.
In the summer of 1839 Mr. Webster was in England.  It
was the era of "repudiation."  Several of the States proposed
torefuse payment of the bonds which they had issued for railroads and other improvements.  The firm of Baring Brothers,
in London, representing the holders of a great amount of these
securities, aware of the misconceptions prevailing in Europe
concerning the nature of our political systems, and also of the
grounds takeh by some of the State governments, in excuse for
their repudiation, applied to Mr. Webster for an opinion on the
question,''Whether the Legislature of one of the States has
legal and constitutional power to contract loans at home and
abroad?`" To a question so plain to every American constitutional lawyer there could be, of course, but one answer; and it
seems extraordinary that Mr. Stephens should have found in
the answer given by Mr. Webster any views of State sovereignty different from  those which Mr. Webster' had always
maintained.  It would be difficult to describe our political system with greater precision or more correctly than Mr. Webster
stated it in this opinion.  Having repeated the question propounded to him, he said:
"To this I answer that the Legislature Of a State has such power; and
how any doubt could have arisen on this point it is difficult for me to
conceive. Every State is an independent, sovereign, political community,
except in so far as certain powers, which it might otherwise have exercised,
have been conferred on a General Government established under a written
Constitution and exercising its authority over the people of all the States.
This General Government is a limited Government. Its powers are specific
and enumerated. All powers not conferred on it still remain with the
States or with the people. The State Legislatures, on the other hand,
possess all usual and ordinary powers of government, subject to any limitations which may be imposed in their own Constitutions, and with the
exception, as I have said, of the operation on those powers of the Constitution of the United States."
Is there any thing in this inconsistent with the doctrine
maintained by Mr. Webster in 1830 and 1833 a If there is any
thing ever uttered by Mr. Webster which does not sanction the
idea of State independence of the authority of the General




80             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
Government as that authority is established by the Constitution
of the United States, it is this opinion, given to the Barings in
1839. Mr. Stephens may think that it is impossible for any one
to speak of the States as "independent, sovereign, political
communities,'   without conceding what is claimed by Mr. Calhoun's theory of our system. But he must remember when
Mr. Webster imputed these attributes to the States, he limited
them in the. same sentence by an exception, which comprehends
the whole doctrine of Mr. Webster's previous life, namely, that
the powers of the States are circumscribed in certain particulars by a general Constitution, which exercises a certain authority over the people of ALL the States. But as this Constitution contains no limitation on the powers of the States to
make loans for their own purposes-it is strictly correct to
speak of the States as "independent, sovereign, political communities," in this and many other respects. It all comes back
to the question whether the sovereign powers of a people are
divisible, so that a part can be granted irrevocably and a part
can be retained. In the Calhoun theory this is regarded as impossible; in the Webster theory it is regarded as perfectly practicable. But because the disciples of the former hold political
sovereignty to be in itself indivisible, they are not warranted
in imputing to Mr. Webster an adoption of their opinions, for
the reason that he uniformly treated the States as independent
political communities, except in so far as they are restrained
or limited by the powers which they granted to the General
Government when they ratified the Constitution of the United
States.
4.-Tlwe Speech made by i/f. ITebster in June, 1851, at Capon
Sp2rings, in Virginia.
The citation from Mr. Webster's speech at Capon Springs,
as proof of his " change of views as to the Constitution being
a compact between the States," is made by Mr. Stephens in the
following manner:
"But, besides all this, as a further proof of Mr. Webster's change of
views as to the Constitution being a compact between the States, I cite you




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                      81
to a later speech made by him at Capon fprings, in Virginia, on the 28th
June, 1851. Here it is. In this he says:'The leading sentiment in the toast from the Chair is the Union of
the, States. The Union of the States! What mind can comprehend the
consequences of that Union, past, present, and to come? The Union of
these.States is the all-absorbing topic of the day.; on it all men write,
speak, think, and dilate, from the rising of the sun to the going down
thereof.; And yet, gentlemen, I fear its importance has been but insufficiently appreciated.' 
" Further on he says:
"''How absurd is it to suppose that when different parties enter into a
compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and
expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest. I intend, for one, to
regard and maintain, and carry out, to the fullest extent, the Constitution
of the United States, which I have sworn to support in all its parts and
all its provisions. It is written in the Constitution: "No person held to
service or labor in ohe State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another
shall, in consequence of any law or regulation-therein, be discharged from
such service or labor, but'shall be delivered up on claim of the party to
whom such service or labor may be due."
"' That is as much a part of the Constitution as any other, and as equally binding and obligatory as any other on all men, public or private. And
who denies this? None but the abolitionists of the North. And pray
what is it they will not deny? They have but the one idea; and it would
seem that these fanatics at the North and the secessionists at the South
are putting their heads together to devise means to defeat the good designs of honest and patriotic men. They act to the same end and the
same object, and the Constitution has to take the fire from both sides.
"' I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States
refuse, wilfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress
provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the
compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the
other side. I say to you gentlemen in Virginia, as I said on the shores of
Lake' Erie and in the city of Boston, as I may say again in that city or
elsewhere in the North, that you of the South have as much.right to receive your fugitive slaves, as the North has to any of its rights or privileges of navigation and commerce.'
" Again, said he:'I am as ready to fight and to fall for the Constitutional rights of Virginia as I am for those of Massachusetts.'
"In this speech Mr. Webster distinctly held that the Union was a.Union of States. That the Union was founded upon a compact. And
that a compact broken on one side could not dontinue to bind the other."
As a historian, Mr. Stephens is singularly unfortunate.  He
cites Mr. Webster for the purpose.of proving that he had come,
in 1851, to regard the Coonstitution as a comypact between the
States, yet'he overlooks the passages in the same speech which
show that he did not so regard it.  He refers to the sentiment
uttered by Mr.'Webster, that a compact broken on one side
6




82            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
could not continue to bind the other, and yet he omits the contemporary evidence which shows in what sense and by what
mea/s Mr. Webster supposed the compact could be broken by
"the other side."  Let the whole truth, therefore, be told.
Every one will recollect that when the compromise measures
of 1850 were before Congress, the passage of the new fugitive
slave law was resisted, on the'ground that the clause of the
Constitution, which required the extradition, was a mere treaty
or comnpact between the States; that.if the Northern States did
not choose to execute it, but preferred to break the compact,
there was no remedy, or none that Congress could interpose;
and that, as the Northern States had come to regard this treaty
as immoral, no law on the subject ought to be voted for by'their representatives in Congress. These sentiments were rife
throughout the North after the act of 1.850 was passedcl, and
Mr. Webster had occasion to refer to them in a great many
popular addresses in 1850, 1851, and 1852. In substance, this
Northern doctrine was identical with the Southern doctrine
which maintained the right of secession from the Union; for
the two concurred in imputing to the Constitution the character
of. a cornpact between the States, although the Northern.advocates of this view applied it to but one provision of the Constitution; while the Southern politicians applied it to the whole.
During the entire period from 1850 to a time long after- the
death of Mr. Webster, the right of secession was muchl discussed in the South; and in speaking at Capon Springs, he had
occasion to consider the Southern and the Northern phases
of a kindred doctrine, and to show how they both led to
revQlution, how there is no such thing as constitutional and
peaceable secession, and how, consequently, the Constitution is
not to be regarded as a mere compact. Now, it is proper that
what Mr. Webster actually did say at Capon Springs should be
brought forward, from a report published in a pamphlet at
Washington, which I have reason to know had his sanction.
The fact is that he made two speeches at the same dinner,
which was given to him by the inhabitants of the surrounding
country for fifty miles around. In the first speech he said, in
conclusion:




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                         83
-"GENTLEMEN —I  am aware that the respect paid to me to-day is in consequence of my support of the adjustment measures of the last Congress.
Although I wished to raise no false alarm, nor create any fears, yet I. believed. in my conscience that a crisis was at hand-a dangerous, a fearful
crisis; and I resolved to meet it at all hazards, and with whatever, strength
I possessed. A true patriot, like a faithful mariner, must be prepared for
all exigencies. In the words of the old song:
--' He is borin for all weathers,
Let the winds blow high or blow low;
His duty keeps him to his tethers,
And where the gale drives he must go.'
(Applause.)
"The support of the Union is a great practical subject, involving the
prosperity and glory of the whole country, and affecting the prosperity
of every individual in it. We ought to take a large and comprehensive
view of it; to look to its vast results,- and to the consequences which
would flow from its overthrow. It is not a mere topic for ingenious disquisition, or theoretical or fanatical criticism. Those who assail the
Union at the present day seem to be persons of one idea only, and many
of them of but half an idea. (Applause.) They plant their batteries on
some useless abstraction, some false dogma, or some gratuitous assumption. Or, perhaps, seeking for some spot, or speck, or blot, or blur, and
if they find any thing of this kind, they are at once for overturning the
whole fabric. And, when nothing else will' answer, they invoke religion
and speak of a higher law. Gentlemen, this North Mountain is high; the
Blue Ridge higher still; the Alleghany higher than either; hn; yet this
higher law ranges farther than an eagle's flight above the highest peak of
the.AAlleghany.  (Laughter.) No common vision can discern it; no conscience, not transcendental and ecstatic, can feel it; the hearing of common men never listens to its highest behests; and, therefore, one should
think it is not a safe law to be acted on in matters of the highest practical
moment. It is the code, however, of the fanatical and factious abolitionists of the North. The secessionists of the South take a different course
of remark. They are learned and eloquent; they are animated and full
of spirit; they are high-minded and chivalrous; they state their supposed
injuries and causes of complaint in elegant phrases and exalted tones of
speech. But these complaints are all vague and general. I confess to
you, gentlemen, that I know no hydrostatic pressure strong enough to
bring them into any solid form in which they. could be seen or felt.
(Laughter and applause.) They think otherwise, doubtless. But, for one,
I Gan discern nothing real or well-grounded in their complaints. If I may
be allowed to be a little professional, I would say that all their complaints
and alleged grievances are like a very insufficient plea in the law; they
are bad on general demurrer for want of substance. (Loud laughter.) But




!84             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
I am not disposed to reproach those gentlemen, or to speak of them with
disrespect. I prefer to leave them to their own reflections..I make no
arguments against resolutions, conventions, secession speeches, or- proclamations. Let these things go on. The whole matter, it is to be hoped,
will blow over, and men will return to a sounder mode of thinking. But
one thing, gentlemen, be assured of-the first step taken in the programme
of secession, which shall be an actual infringement of the Constitution
or the laws, will be promptly met. (Great applause.) And I would not
remain an hour in any Administration that should not immediately meet
any such violation of, the Constitution and law effectually, and at once.
(Prolonged applause.)- And I-can assure you, gentlemen, that all those
with whom I am at present associated in the Government entertain the
same decided purpose. (Renewed applause and cheers.) And now, gentlemen, let me advert.to a cheering and gratifying occurrence. Let me do
honor to your great and ancient commonwealth of Virginia. Let me say
that, in my opinion, the resolutions passed by her Legislature at the last
session, in which some gentlemen now present bore a. part, have effectually
suppressed, or greatly tended.to. suppress, the notion of separate governments -and new confederacies.. (Great applause.) All hopes of disunion,
founded upon the probable course of Virginia, are dissipated into thin
air. (Cheers.)  An eminent gentleman in the Nashville Convention ejaculated:' Oh, that Virginia were with us.! If Virginia would but take the
lead in going out of the Union, other Southern States would cheerfully
follow that lead,' Ah, but that' if' was a great obstacle. (Laughter.) It
was pregnant with important meaning.'If Virginia would take the
lead.' Aut who, that looked for any consistency in Virginia, expected to
see her leading States out of the Union, since she took such great pains,
under the counsels of her: ablest and wisest men, to lead them into it?
(Applause.). Her late resolutions have put a decided negative upon'that'if,' and the country cordially thanks her for it. Fellow-citizens, I must
bring these remarks to a close. Other gentlemen are present to whom you
expect to have the pleasure of listening. (Cries of' Go on!') My concluding sentiment is: The Union of the States; may those ancient friends,
Virginia and Massachusetts, continue to uphold it so long as the waves of
the Atlantic shall beat on the shores of the one, or the Alleghanies remain
firm on their bases in the territories of the other!"
He was again called up by a Democratic gentleman, who
expressed his concurrence in all that Mr. Webster had said in
his previous remarks, although he had long differed from him
on all other questions of public policy.  In the second speech
Mr. Webster said:
c" Whatever may have been the differences of opinion which have heretofore existed between the Democratic and Whig parties on other subjects,




MR. CURTIS': REVIEW.                        85
they are now forgotten, or at least have become subordinate, and the
important question that is now asked is,' Are you a Union man?' (Great
applause.), The question at this time is, the Union, and how we shall
preserve its blessings for the present, and for all time to come. To main-,
tain that Union, we must observe, in good faith, the Constitution and all
its parts. If the Constitution be not observed in all its parts but its provisions be deliberately and permanently set aside in some parts, the whole
of it ceases to be binding; but.the case must be clear, flagrant, undeniable,
and in a point of vital interest. In short, it must be such as would justify
revolution, for, after all, secession, disruption of the Union, or successful
nullification are but other names for revolution. Where the whole system
of laws and government is overthrown, under whatever name the thing is
done, what is it but revolution? For it would be absurd to suppose that,
by whole States and large.portions of the country, either the North or
the South has the power or the right to violate any part of that Constitution, directly and of purpose, and still claim from the other observance of
its provisions. (Applause.)  If the South were to violate any part of the
Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing year
after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer
bound by the rest of it? And if the North. were deliberately, habitually,
and of fixed purpose to disregard one. part of it, would the South be
bound any longer to observe its other obligations? This is, indeed, to be
understood with some qualification, for I do not mean, of course, thatevery violation by a State of an article of the Constitution would discharge
other States from observing its provisions. No State can decide for itself
what is constitutional and what is not. When any part of the Constitution is supposed to be violated by a State law, the true mode of proceeding
is to bring the case before the judicial tribunals, and. if the unconstitutionality of the State law is made out, it is to be set aside. This has been
done in repeated cases, and is the ordinary remedy. But what I mean to
say is, that if the public men of a large portion of the country, and especially their representatives in Congress, labor to prevent, and do permanently prevent the passage of laws necessary to carry into effect a provision
of the Constitution particularly intended for the benefit of another part of
the country, and which is of the highest importance to it, it cannot. be
expected that that part of the country will long continue to observe the
other constitutional provisions made in favor of the rest of the country;
because, gentlemen, a disregard of constitutional duty in sluch a case, cannot be brought within the corrective authority of the judicial power. If
large portions of public bodies, against their duties and their oaths, will
persist in refusing to execute the Constitution, and do in fact prevent such
execution, no remedy seems to be by any application to the Supreme
Court. The case now before the country clearly exemplifies my meaning.
Suppose the North to have decided majorities in Congress,' and suppose




86'              THE R.EVIEWERS REVIEWED.
these majorities to persist in refusing to pass laws for carrying into effect the.
clause of the Constitution which declares that fugitive slaves shall be
restored, it would be evident that no judicial process could compel them,
to do their duty, and what remedy would the South have? How absurd
it is to suppose that when different parties enter into a compact for certain
purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and expect, nevertheless,
the other to observe the rest.! I intend, for one, to regard and maintain
and carry out, to the fullest extent, the Constitution of the United States,
which I have sworn to. support in all its parts and all its provisions.
(Loud cheers.) It is written in the Constitution:
"'No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence-of any law or regulation therein,. be discharged from  such service or labor, but shall be
delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor may
be due.''"That is as much a part of the Constitution'.as any other, and as
equally binding and obligatory as any other on all men, public or private.
(Applause.)  And who denies this?  None but the abolitionists of the
North. And pray what is it they will not deny? They have but one
idea; and it would seem that these fanatics at the North and the secessionists at the South are putting their heads together to devise means to
defeat the good designs of honest and patriotic men. They act to the
same end and to the same object, and the CQnstitution has to take the fire
from both sides. I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the
Northern States refuse, wilfully and deliberately, to' carry into effect that
part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves,
and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to
observe the compact. (Immense applause.)'A bargain cannot be broken
on one side and still bin'd the other side. I say to you, gentlemen, in Virginia, as I said on the shores of Lake Erie and in the city of Boston, as I
may say again, in that city or elsewhere in the North, that you of the
South have as much right to receive your fugitive slaves as the North has
to any of its rights and privileges of navigation and commerce. I desire
to be understood here among you, and throughout the country, and in
hopes, thoughts, and feelings I profess to be an American-altogether and
nothing but an American-(long and continued cheering)-and that I am
for the Constitution. I am as ready to fight and to fall for the Constitutional rights of, Virginia as I am for those of Massachusetts. I pour out
to you, gentlemen, my whole heart, and I assure you these are my sentiments. (Cheers.) I would no more see a feather plucked unjustly from
the honor. of Virginia than I would see one so plucked from the honor of
Massachusetts..(Great applause.) It has been said that I have, by the
course I have thought proper to pursue, displeased a portion of the people
of Massachusetts. That is true, and if' I had dissatisfied more'of them,
what of that? (Great and continued applause.)




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                      87
"I was in the Senate of the United States, and had sworn to support
the Constitution of the United States.  That Constitution made me a
Senator of the United States, acting for all the States, and my vote was to
bind the whole country. I was a Senator for the whole country. (Applause.) What.exclusive regard had I to pay to the wishes of Massachusetts upon a question affecting the whole nation, and in which my vote
was to bind Virginia as well as Massachusetts? My vote was to affect the
interests of the whole country, and was to be given on matters of high
constitutional character. I assure you, gentlemen, I no more respected the
instructions of Massachusetts than I would have respected those of Virginia. It would be just as reasonable to expect me to vote as the particular interests of Massachusetts required as it would be to expect that, as
an arbitrator, a referee, or an umpire between two individuals, I was bound
to obey the instructions of one of them. (Applause.) Could I do that?
Have I descended, or am I expected to descend, to that level? (Cries of'Never, never. You are not the man to do it.') I hope not."
The reader now has the whole context; and he will see that
in. speaking of a particular clause in the Constitution which
may properly enough, like many others in it, be regarded
as founded in a compact between different classes of the States,
Mr. Webster uttered the very familiar truth that if a bargain
is broken on. one side it may be broken on the other.  But
how  broken2  B 3y the supposed remedy of " constitutional
secession?"  Not at all.  It must be broken by revolutiomn,
which secession is, however provoked.  Mr. Webster was addressing himself to the Northern fanatics, and he tells them
that if they undertake to treat the Constitution as a nullity in
the matter of surrendering fugitive slaves the South will have
the right, which is the foundation of all revolutions, to break up
the Union by making a revolution.  At the same time, he tells
the South, just as plainly, that if, on imaginary grievances, or
any grievances that can be redressed under the Constitution,
they "take the first step in the programme of secession —
which means the alleged constitutional right of States to withdraw from the Union-that step will "be promptly met," and
that he will not remain an hour in any administration that does
lint meet it effectually and at once. The distinction is palpable,
and it should not have been overlooked by Mr. Stephens. Still
less should he have overlooked the following correspondence,
which was published in the newspapers, at the time, and which




88              THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
ought effectually to end all controversy about Mr. WVebster's
later or earlier opinions as to the character of the Constitution:
[FROM A CITIZEN OF NORTH CAROLINA TO MR. WEBSTER. ]
Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER:
DEAR SIR: The question of the right of a State to secede'from the
Union is, as you are doubtless aware, producing at this time, in this part
of the Union, no inconsiderable degree of excitement.  And as it is a
question in which every free American is directly concerned, a question
upon which every free American should be correctly informed, as upon its
decision may depend the future prosperity and happiness or misfortune
and ruin of this great country; and believing, as I do, that from your intimate acquaintance with the principles upon which our government is
based, and the operation of all of its machinery, you are entirely competent to give upon this, as upon all other questions of like character, correct information; and being anxious myself, as many others are, to possess
correct views with regard to the subject, I desire you, valuable as I know:
your time to be, to devote a moment in giving an answer to the following
interrogatory:'Do you believe that a State has a right to secede from
the Union?' By answering this question, sir, you will confer a favor upon
many of your countrymen here, who believe, as I do, that an opinion of
yours, thus expressed, would go very far towards quieting the excitement
that the agitation of this subject has produced in this section of the Union.
With profound admiration for your character as an American statesman,
and sincere regard for you as an American citizen,
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Jzuly 20, 1851.
[MR. WEBSTER'S ANSWER.]
Augbut 1, 1851.
DEAR SIR: I have received your letter of the 20th July. The Constitution of the United States recognizes no right of secession, as existing
in the people of any one State or any number of States. It is not a limited
confederation, but a government; and it proceeds upon the idea that it is
to be perpetual, like other forms. of government, subject only to be dissolved by revolution. I confess I can form no idea of secession but as the
result of a revolutionary movement. How is it possible, for instance, that
South Carolina should secede and establish a government foreign to that
of the United States, thus dividing Georgia, which, does not secede, from
the rest of the Union? Depend upon it,:my dear sir, that the secessidn
of any one State would be but the first step in a process which must
inevitably break up the entire Union into more or fewer parts. What I
said at Capon Springs was an argument addressed to the North. and




MR. CURTIS' REVIEW.                    89
intended to convince the North that if, by its superiority of numbers, it
should defeat the operation of a plain, undoubted, and undeniable injunction of the Constitution, intended for the especial protection of the South,
such a proceeding must necessarily end in the breaking up of the government: that is to say, in a revolution.
I am, dear sir, with respect, your obedient servant,
DANIEL WEBSTER.
I have thus gone over the proofs adduced by Mr. Stephens
to show that Mr. Webster had changed his opinions; and have
made it plain, I trust, that what he said in 1839 or 1851, is
entirely consistent with his theory of the Constitution as maintained in 1830-33. Both he and Mr. Calhoun held the States
to be sovereign political communities; but the point at which
they diverged from  each other, and in consequence of which
divergence they never could unite, was this: that Mr. Webster
held the grant of political powers embraced in the Cohstitution
to be perpetual and irrevocable, constituting -a government
proper, to the extent of those powers, by the establishment of a
fundamental law, which rests on the same obligations and sanctions which are the support of all law; whereas Mr. Calhoun
held that the powers of the Constitution were only delegated
by the States to an agent, and could be resumed at any time
when the sovereign who delegated them sees fit, for cause of
which he is to judge, to withdraw them. It is perfectly easy to
see that this difference of view springs from opposite opinions
respecting the divisibility of sovereign powers. It has always
been a dogma of the South Carolina school'that sovereignty is
indivisible-incapable of being granted away in part and in part
reserved;' that it is a unit, and must be wholly retained or
wholly surrendered.  On the other hand, Mr. Webster and all
those before him or after him, who have regarded the Constitution of the United States as something more than a mere federal
league or a federal compact between independent States, have
always held that sovereign powers are capa~ble of division;, that
a part can be granted in fee and the residue can be retained,,
and that thus there is in this country, by the grants. of the Constitution, a national sovereignty of a limited character,, and by
the reservations impliedly made and expressly declared a separate
State sovereignty which embraces every political power not




~90;            THE,REVIEWERS: REVIEWED.
enumerated in the Constitution of the United- States.  Whichever of the theories is the correct one, they agree in attributing
independent sovereignty to the States in respect to their reserved powers.  They differ only in respect to the legal capacity
of the States, under the Constitution, to withdraw  or resume
the powers conferred by their people on the government of the
United States. Mr. Webster never denied that the States, in
their'original capacities, could break up the Union by a revolution; but he denied that they could make a legal secession from
the Union as a right resulting to them from  the nature and
intent of the Constitution. On the very last occasion on which
he referred to this subject in the Senate (March, 1850,) he Said:
"I hold that the breaking up of this Union by any such- thing as
voluntary secession of States is impossible. I know that the Union can
be broken as other governments have been; and I admit that there may
be such a degree of oppression by one part, being the majority, upon the
minority, as will warrant resistance. and forcible severance. That is revolution. On that ultimate right of revolution I have not been speaking; I
know that law of necessity does exist. I forbear fiom. going further, because I do not wish to run into discussion upon the nature of this government. The honorable member and myself have broken lances sufficiently
often heretofore."
Mr. CALUHOur (in his seat)-" I do not desire it now.'?
Mir. WEBSTER-" I presume the honorable Senator does not desire it
now. I have quite as little desire as he."
This occurred in a colloquy after the close of Mr. Webster's
speech of March 7, 1850.  Does it look as if he had changed
his opinions since 1830 or 1833? a It is the very essence of what
he said in those years: a denial of that uncontrolled and unimpaired State sovereignty on which the constitutional right of
secession is founded, and an admission that the States can make
a revolution if they are subjected tointolerable oppression.




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS.                91
II.-MR. STEPHENS' REPLY.
LIBERTY HALL,
CRAWFORDVILLE, GEORGIA, August 31, 1869..lessrs. Editors of the NI. Y. World:
You will, I trust, allow me space enough in your columns
to reply to the article of Mr. George T. Curtis in your issue of
the 23d/ inst., which reached me only a few days ago. If Mr.
Curtis had given close attention to the language and the due
import,of the words used in the text of that part of the book he
undertook to review, it seems to me he would have been relieved
from the great astonishment he expresses at it, as well as from
the no very small labor he has bestowed'upon an attempted
refutation of the positions therein maintained. - He must certainly be quite as "lunfortutnate " a reader as he imagines me to
be a " historian" if he perceives in any thinig said by me upon
the subject the slightest ground for supposing that I intended
even to intimate or suggest that Mr. Webster, in the later years
of his life, or at any timej had so far changed or nmodified any
of his previous opinions " respecting the nature of the Constitution, as to become a convert or almost a convert," to the doctrine of "State Secession from the Union as a;Right under the
Constitution."  Certainly nothing he quotes from me can properly bear any such construction, and just as certainly nothing
said by'me, which he has not quoted, can bear any such construction.
His quotations are as follows:
"Mr. Stephens observes (p. 887):
" The power and force of this speech (Mr. Calhoun's) must have been
felt by Mr. Webster himself. He was a man of too much reason and.logic
not to have felt it. This opinion I am more inclined-to from the fact that
he not only did not attempt a general reply to it at the time, but from the
further fact that in after life h'e certainly, to -say the least of it, greatly
modified the opinions held.by him in that debate.'
"In the  next' chapter Mr. Stephens': interlocutor having called for
proofs, he proceeds to give them. He then (p. 405) after citing, as the
latest. evidence, a speech made by Mr. Webster in 1851, observes:'"',That this speech shows a: modification of the opinions expressed in
his speech of. 1883, must be admitted by all. He had grown older and




92             THE- REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
wiser. The speech of 1851 was in his maturer years, after the nature of
the Government had been more fully discussed by the men of his own
generation than it had been in 1830 and 1833.:'He was too great a man,
and had too great an intellect not to see the truth when it was presented,
and he was too honest and too patriotic a man not to proclaim the truth
when he saw it, even to an unwilling people."'
Is there any thing in either of these even intimating or
suggesting that Mr. Webster had changed his opinions upon
the question of State secession in any way, either under the
Constitution or as a revoluqtionary right?  The citations made
by me from his speech before the Supreme Court, in 1839, and
his letter to the JBarings the same year, as well as the citation
from  his speech in 1851-a11 of which are admitted by Mr.
Curtis to be correct, and which are reproduced by himself-were
not made with the view  to show that Mr. Webster favored
secession as a constitutional remedy for wrongs of any sort, or
that he was not opposed to any such remedy either theoretically
or practically; nor was any such use or application made of them
by me.  Secession was not the point in issue.between the colloquists at the time.  That was the isolated question, whether
or not the Constitutioh was a compact between sovbreign States.
For a clear understanding of the whole subject, and to enable
your readers to judge correctly how far Mr. Curtis has been
successful in detecting any error in my statements, or in refuting any assertions of mine in the premises, it is proper that they
should know not only what I said but the connection in which
it was said. Then, let it be distinctly understood that the fact
at issue between the colloquists, at the time the remarks about
the modification of Mr. Webster's opinions were made, was
simply whether the Constitution was a Compact between the
States, as distinct, separate' sovereign political bodies.  This
was one point, first to be clearly established beyond all doubt
and question, in the line of my argument. I had maintained
that it was. lProfessor Norton had read Mr. Webster's  great:
speech in the Senate in 1833, on'Mr. Calhoun's resolutions, to
show that it was not.: This argument, he insisted, conclusively
showed that the Constitution was not a Compact between Sovereign States.  Let it also be understood that the first of Mv[r. Calhoun's resolutions, against which -all- Mr. Webster's powers




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS.                93
were put forth in that speech, according to his own view, and
as stated by him in the speech, embraced this doctrine:
"That the political system under which we live, and under which
Congress is now assembled, is a Compact, to which the people of the
several States, as separate and sovereign communities, are the parties."
Let your readers also bear in mind that the doctrine so set
forth in this resolution, as Mr. Webster understood it, he opposed toto calo —root and branch.  (See Con. View of the late1
War between the States, Vol. I., p. 301.)  In direct opposition
to it he planted himself upon the following proposition:
"That the Constitution of the United States is not a league, confederacy, or compact between the people of the several States in their sovereign capacities, but a government proper, founded on the adoption of the
people, and creating direct relations between itself and individuals."
In his speech he broadly and unequivocally denied that the
"Constitution was a compact between the States," holding that
if "our instrument of government be a constitution, then
for.that very reason, it cannot be a compact between sovereigns."  "A  constitution of Government,' said he, "'and' a
compact between sovereign powers being things essentially unlike in their. very natures, and incapable of ever being the:same."' The line of argument in the speech was to show that
the Federative character of the Government, as it had'existed
under the Articles of Confederation, had been entirely done
away with by the adoption of the Constitution; and that'a
National Government, without any sort of Federal alliance, had
been thereby established.  He maintained that the Union established under the Constitution was no longer a union of
States, but a union of the whole people of all the States in one
body politic. Among.other things on this point, he said, with
emphasis:
" You will observe, sir, that it is the people, and not the States, who
have entered into this compact - and it is the people of all the- United
States. These conventions, by this form of expression, meant merely to
say that the people of the United States had, by the blessing of Provi-:dence, enjoyed the opportunity of establishing a new Constitution founded
in the consent of the people. This consent of the people has been called,
by European writers, the social compact; and, in conformity to this com



94   -          THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
meon mode of expression, these conventions speak of that assent, on -which
the new Constitution was to rest, as an explicit and solemn compact, not
which the States had entered into with each other, but which the people
of the United States had entered into.
"Finally, sir, how can any man get over the words of the Constitution
itself?'We, the.eople of the pele  United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.' These words must-cease to be a part of the Constitution, they
must be obliterated from the parchment on which they are written, before
any human ingenuity or human argument can remove the popular basis
on which that Constitution rests, and turn the instrument into a mere compact between sovereign States! "
This speech, be it remembered, had just been read by Professor Norton, as a conclusive refutation of my position in the
Colloquies; and after some comments of:my own upon it (see
page 337), for a full answer to it, following his example, I had
read Mr. Calhoun's speech in reply.  At the close of this the
colloquy proceeds as follows, page 387:
"This is quite enough," said I, " of Mr. Calhoun's reply. I have read
adl of it that bears directly upon the main points in issue between them.
On these points never.was a man more completely answered than Mr.
Webster was. The argument is a crusher, an, extinguisher, an annihilator!"
" Professor NoRTO —' Where is Mr. Webster's rejoinder?' "
"'Mr. STEPHENS-' He made none.. He followed with' a: few remarks
only, disavowing any personal unkind feelings to Mr. Calhoun, explaining
how he had used the term "Constitutional Compact," in 1830; and attempting to parry one or two of the blows, but he never made any regular
set reply or rejoinder. He never came back at his opponent at all on the
real question at issue. Mr. Calhoun stood master of the arena. This
speech of his was not answered then; it has not been answered since; andj
in my judgment, never will be or can be answered while truth has its
legitimate influence and reason controls the judgment of men!  The
power and force of this speech must have been felt by Mr. Webster himself. He was a man of too much reason and logic not to have felt it.
This opinion I am the more inclined to from the fact that he not only did
not attempt a general reply to it at the time, but from the further fact
that in after life he certainly, to say the least of it, greatly modified the
opinions held by him in that debate."'
" Professor NORTON-' To what do you refer?'
" Mr. STEPHENS-' I refer specially to a speech made by him before the
Supreme Court of the United States, in 1839, and to his speech at Capon
Springs, in Virginia, in 1851, as well as some other matters."'




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY  TO: MR. CURTIS.                9
Then follow  the citations quoted by MIr. Curtis from  the
speech before the -Supreme Court, from  the letter to the Barings, and from  the (Capon Springsa- speech.   These are the
essential facts of the case; and from which it clearly: appears
that the sole object in view in these citations was to show, as I
thought they did, and still think they do, great   odifcationzs,
to say tke least of it, of the opinions of M1r.: Webster as expressed in. the speech referred to, and on the main point then
at issue between him  and:lr. Calhoun, and not to show that
Mr.- Webster had become " a —convert " to the doctrine of State
Secession in any form. Mr. Curtis thinks that these- citations
show no such modification.  Be it so. This is a matter of opinion- only.  An intelligent publid can judge of our respective
opinions on the subject.  Mr. Webster, in his argument before
the Supreme Court, did certainly say:.
"In respect to this law of comity,: it is said States are not nations;;
they hive no'nationalZ sovereignty~; a sort of residuzum: of sovereignty is all
that remains to them. The national sovereignty, -it is said, is conferred on
this Government, and part of the municipal sovereignty. The rest of the
municipal sovereignty belongs to the States. Notwithstanding the respect
which I entertain for the learned judge who presided in that Court,: I cannot follow in the train of his argu.ment....   Suppose that
this Constitution had said, in terms after the language of the Court below, all national sovereignty:shall belong to the United States*; all municipal sovereignty to the:several States. I will-say that, however clear,
however -distinct, such, a definition may appear to those who use it, the
employmient of it in the Constitution would only have led to utter confusion and uncertainty. I am not'prepared to say that the States have no
national sovereignty.....  The term'sovereignity' does not
occur in the Constitution at all. The Constitution treats States as States,
and the United Stafes as the United States; and, by a careful enumeration,
declares all the powers that are granted to the United States, and all the
rest are reserved to the States....   The States of this Union,
as States, are subject to all the voluntary and customary laws of nations." art
These utterances were made by Mr. Webster in 1839, six
years after the speech in 1833; the italics are mine. - Mr. Curtis, in a note to his article; in his reproduction of my quotation,
says that he preserved my italics; but somehow or other my
italics were not preserved in his republication, as any one can
see by a reference to the book. Not a single sentence italicized




96:    THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
by me is italicized in his republication; nor did I put in italics
a single sentence printed in italics, in that republication. This
remark is made in passing, to let your readers know that I place
no stress whatever upon those portions of the speech which in
his republication were thus italicized, while I did place great
stress upon those that I had thus marked.  In my comments on
this speech I said (p. 392):
"In this carefully prepared argument Mr. Webster significantly says
that in the Constitution nothing is said about sovereignty. This is all
important. He admitted, in the debate with Mr. Calhoun, that the. States
were sovereign before the Constitution was adopted. In this argument he
holds the position that the powers delegated to the United States in theConstitution are specific and limited, and that all not delegated are reserved to the States. He states distinctly that the Constitution treats the
States as States. If the States, thenii were sovereign anterior to the Constitution, and sovereignty was not delegated or parted with by them in it
-(as it could- not have been, as the Qonstitution is silent upon the subject),
then, of course, it is still reserved to the States. If the sovereignty of the
States was not delegated or parted with in the Constitution, was it not of
necessity retained by them? He clearly so argues. This is the inevitable
conclusion from the rules of inexorable logic. The decision of the Su-.preme Court in this case was on the line of his argument, and fully sustained his position."
The Sovereignty of the States was one of the points in issue
between him  and Mr. Calhoun.  I did think, and still think,
the expressions in this speech showed a great modification of his
views as presented ini 1833.  But Mr. Curtis says:
*  "I presume that Mr. Webster would have been very much astonished
if, on the argument of this case, one of his opponents had risen and said:'So, then, sir, it appears that you have modified yout opinions about the
nature of the general government, for yofi have distinctly said that the
-States are nations; that they are sovereign; that the Constitution treats
the States as States, and, if they* are sovereign States, you must have
changed your views as you expressed them in the Senate in 1830 and' 1833.'
I fancy that Mr. Webster would have answered thus:
"' When did I ever deny that the States ate. independent political communities, with full attributes of sovereignty in respect to all the powers
of government not embraced in the Constitution of the United States and
not therein expressly restricted? Be pleased to observe, sir, that the idea
that a State cannot part with a portion of its sovereignty and remain a




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS.               97
State may be yours, but it is not mine. It has always been my doctrine,
and is still, that the States did this very thing when they ratified the Constitution; that they parted with a portion of their,sovereignty and yet
remained States.' "
Let me say to Mr. Curtis, if I had been the person to whom
]Mr. Webster had offered such a defense of himself, I should
have said to him in reply:
"Why:y, Mr. Webster, how can you say that'it has always.
been your doctrine, and is still, that the States did this very
thing when they ratified the Constitu.tion,' in the face of the
emphatic declaration in your speech on SIr. Calhoun's resolutions, that the Constitution was not ratifiedc  y tie States at all?
That the States as States had nothing to do with it? You then
said:' You will observe, sir, that it is the people and not the
States, who have entered into this compact; and it is the people
of all the United States'- not the people of the States acting
separately as distinct political bodies, much less nations-who
ratified it; that it was the people of the whole country united
as one nation, and that no'human ingenuity or human argument' could'turn the instrument into a mere compact between
sovereign States.'
" Your reply to my remark, as well as your whole argument
before the court, is based upon the doctrine that our Union is
one of States, perfect States, or Nations, as you call them, joined
together by some Isort of agreement or compact wherein are
distinctly set forth certain specific. powers of government carefully enumerated, which are to be exercised by the general government within their respective jurisdiction.  You quote Vattel to show how States may be thus united and still be' as much
component parts of the laws of nations as any others.' This
author does very clearly set forth the nature of the union of
these States as I now understand you to hold it to be. He says
pointedly:
"' Several sovereign independent States may unite themselves together
by a perpetual Confederacy without ceasing each to be individually a perfect State. They will together constitute a Federal republic; their joint
deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each, though they may in
certain respects put some restraint on the exercise of it in virtue of voluntary engagements.'
7




98             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
i This clearly shows the nature of our Union, as I understand you now hold it to be. But is not this view of it a great
modification of the view entertained when you maintained in
your speech of 1833 that it was not a Confederacy or Federal
Republic in any sense whatever? How is this? Will you please
to explain further? "
Will Mr. Curtis, as M1r. Webster's representative, be pleased'
to give us what answer he imagines Mr. Webster could give to
this reply without admitting a modification of his views?
But to proceed. It is an admitted fact that Mr. Webster did
say in his letter to the Barings, in 1839, in: speaking of the
States of this Union: "'Every State is an independent sovereign
political community, except in so far: as certain powers which
otherwise it might have exercised have been conferred on a general government, established under.a written constitution, and
exerting its authority over the people of all the States.  This
general government is a limited government.; Its powers are
s peeic and enumerated. All powers not conferred upon it still
remain with the States and with the people."
Mr. Curtis says " It would be difficult to describe our political system with a greater precision or more correctly than Mr.
Webster stated in this opinion."  With Mr. Curtis in this view
I concur thoroughly.  In as few words it would be difficult to
give a more correct or accurate idea of its general principles.
1But let me ask Mr. Curtis, or any intelligent man, wherein is
there any essential or conceivable difference between the natuse
or character of the government thus described and the governmIent of the United States under their first Articles of Union,
the words of one of these Articles being:
"Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and
every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation
expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
The only possible difference is as to the extent of the powers
delegated and the: machinery for their exercise. )Does Mr. Curtis see no modification of the views expressed in this letter
from  those presented in Mr. Webster's first proposition as to
the nature of our government in 1833, above set forth, wherein




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS.                99
he maintained that ours was not a Confederacy of any sort?
Could such a government as he describes in his letter to the
Barings be instituted without some aglreement or compact between the members of it or parties to'it, settling by eznumeration the specific powers parted with by them'?  In that speech
he declared there was no such compact.- The views, therefore,
expressed in 1839 by him do appear to me to be considerably
modified from those expressed by him  on the, same subject in
1833.  If Mr. Curtis thinks differently, so be it. It is only a
difference of opinion between us.
Again.  It is an admitted fact that Mr. Webster, in his
speech at Capon Springs, in 1851, did use the following language:
I I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States
refuse, wilfully and deliberately, to carry-into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Coigress
provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the
compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side: and still bind the
other side."
In the previous part of the same speech it is admitted that
he said:
"How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties enter into a
compact for certain purposes either can disregard any one provision, and
expect, nevertheless, the other to observe- the rest! I intend, for- one, to
regard,'and maintain, and carry out, to the fullest extent, the Constitution
of the United States, which I have sworn to support in all its parts and
all its provisions."
In this speech I maintain that Mr. Webster fully admitted
the Constitution to be a Compact between -the States of the
Union, and recognized the obligation of each State as well as
his own to observe its provisions as such.  This did seem  to
me to be a very great modification of his views onthe' same
subject as expressed in 1833, when all his powers were put
forth -to show that it was -not a Compact between the States.
The views, expressed in this speech amount, in my opinion, to
an admission in: effect of all that was set forth in:Mr. C/lhoun's
first resolution, against which Mr. WXebster's speech in 1833
was chiefly directed.  Let Mr. Curtis,' or any one else, read that




100           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
resolution as I have given it above, as it was stated in' substance
by Mr. Webster himself, and then read that part of his Capon
Springs speech, and point out any essential difference between
them if he can. If Mr. Curtis sees no modification, no difference between the doctrine expressed in the Capon Springs
speech and that set forth by Mr. WVebster in his resolution
above cited, on which he planted himself in his great speech of
1833, to say nothing farther of the argument in the body of
that speech, wherein he maintained that the Constitution was
not a Compact between the States, then again I say be it so.
I thought, and still think, there is a very great modification, to
say. the least of it, of the views in. the latter from the views expressed -in the former, and directly upon the main point at
issue between him and Mr. Calhoun. That point then at issue
on Mr. Calhoun's first resolution was not nullification or secession,'but, the isolated question whether the Constitution is a
Compact between the States.
My comments on this speech appear in the second of Mr.
Curtis' quotations, from the book as above given. From this
it appears that I used it. for no such purpose as he seems to imagine. I did not use it even to show an inconsistency in Mr.
Webster, to his discredit.  He was a man whom I greatly
admired. Of this I have given many and abundant proofs.
His memory I shall ever revere. His reputation, while in life,
I defended on several occasions when unjustly assailed, and I
am not the less ready to do the same thing now,- when he is no
longer amongst the living. His fame and good name belong
not exclusively to those of his own blood or executors; they
belong to the country, the age, and to the world; and should be
safe in the hands of every just and upright man. I did believe,
and do believe, that he felt the power of Mr.'Calhoun's reply
to his great argument made to prove that'the Constitution is
not a Compact between the States. I have no idea, however,
that he became a convert to Mr. Calhoun's views, with the
logical sequences he claimed from his premises. On the contrary, I believe and feel well assured that he did not; but I do
believe his own opinion on the main question involved in the
debate in 1833, that is, the question of the Constitution being




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS.          101
a Compact between the States, underwent considerable modification, to say the least of it, in the after part-of his life. It
was solely with a view to show the reason of this opinion of
mine that the citations from his speeches and letter referred to
were made.
But Mr. Curtis says I- am "singularly unfortunate," as a
historian, in this, that I "cited this Capon Springs speech of
Mr. Webster for the purpose of showing that he -had come in
1851 to regard the Constitution as a Compact between the
States, yet overlooked the passages in the same speech which
show that he did not so regard it."' If what Mr. Curtis here
says be correct, I am very justly chargeable with being something worse than an " unfortunate historian."  In reply to the
criticism, I have this to say: If there is any thing in the speech
from which the citation is taken that goes to show or tends to
show that Mr. Webster did not mean just what'he said, and
just what his words clearly import, and just what I understood
him and quoted him as meaning, it not only escaped my attention when the citation was made, but after the most diligent
search through that speech and the other made att the same
place, both of which Mr. Curtis has published, it still escapes
my search. I can find nothing of the sort. I find, as I found
when the citation was made, a great deal which conclusively
shows that he was utterly opposed to secession as a constitutional remedy against any supposed wrongs on the part of the
General Government; but not one word qualifying' in the least
about the Union being "a union of States," and the Constitution being a Compact between them. If Mr. Curtis found any
thing of that kind in either of these speeches, he most unfortunately failed to point it out. The citation, therefore, was not
only pertinent, but exceedingly fortunate for my purpose.
Another "singular error" which Mr. Curtis is pleased to
charge me with is in relation to the rejoinder of Mr. Webster
to Mr. Calhoun's speech in 1833. I said that Mr. Webster
made no regular set reply or rejoinder to Mr. Calhoun. He
had followed with a few remarks only, explaining and attemnpting to parry one or two of the blows. He never came back at
his opponent at all on the real question at issue. That he did
p~~~    




102            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
not make any general reply Mr. Curtis admits, but attempts to
show, by giving a history of- the debate, that it was not called
for; that Mr. Webster's speech was, in fact, a reply to one from
Mr. Calhoun on the same subject; and Mr. Calhoun's speech,
to which I referred, was itself a rejoinder to Mr. Webster's,
which brought out no: new matter. of importance, and needed
no farther special notice. This seems to be the object of his
narrative in giving the history of the debate, and-in exposing
what.he calls an error of mine. Now, the truth of this matter
is just as -stated in the book. The Force Bill was introduced
on the 21st day of January, 1833. Mr. Calhoun's resolutions
were introduced the next day. They took their place on the
table. The Force Bill was taken up first.:Mr. Calhoun spoke
against that on the 15th and 16th of February. Immediately
on the conclusion of -Mr. Calhoun's speech on the Force Bill,
Mr. Webster arose and addressed the Senate oli Mr. Calhoun's
resolutions, which were not then before them for consideration
(Niles' Register, Vol. xliii., App., p. 170).  He devoted his
speech almost entirely to these resolutions. He did not in his
speech from beginning to end allude specially to'a single position or argument of Mr. Calhoun's speech just delivered upon
the Force Bill. Some very general references to it are all that
he made. It was on the 26th of February, when his resolutions
were before the Senate for consideration, that Mr. Calhoun replied to Mr. Webster's speech delivered on these resolutions ten
days before. This speech.was made in defence of his resolutions against the assault that had been made on them. It coVered ground never before occupied, and presented arguments
never before presented by Mr. Calhoun in the- Senate. On
these new grounds and new arguments Mr. Webster never
came back at him.  He did, I said, make a few remarks at-.
tempting to parry some of the blows. Mr. Curtis' has published the. whole of these. He thinks, from his account of the
debate, that 6ubt little was necessary to be said, and that little
was said in a "buztshell." - This "nutshell," however, as he calls
it, as your readers perceive, is just of the character I had represented it to be!:VWhat Mr. Webster said in it,about " accession" and his other attacks upon the language of Mr. Calhoun's




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS.              103resolution, can be looked upon as nothing but efforts to parry.
Calhoun had demolished him. on all these.  The same is true
of what he said on the resolution when modified by Mr. Calhoun to meet the full demands of his criticism.: The only other
attempted parry was what he said about Mr. Calhoun's crushing
argument, drawn from the 7th Article of the Constitution itself.
This is inl these words:
"The ratification of the.Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient
for the establishment of this Constitution BETWEEN the States so ratifying
the same."
His rejoinder to this, as will be seen' in Ir. Curtis' article,
stated substantially in a "nutshell," amounted to this, and this
only; that the words "between the States so ratifyingg" meant
between the people so  ratifying!  Does Mr. Curtis think that
this little was all that was necessary to be said to sustain before
an intelligent audience his position " that it was not the States
but the people who had entered into the compact," and not the
people of the States separately, but the people of all the States?
If he does so think, so let it be. Mr. Webster, however, I suppose, thought this was a very proper occasion on which to adhere to the-proverb, " the least said the soonest mended."  Be
that also as it may, I can consider it as nothing but a struggling,
ineffectual effort of a strong man, as Mr. Webster certainly was,
to hold his own under the effects: of a stunnirqng blow   Whoever
heard the word between so used?  Had his position been correct, it might have been proper enough to declare, that the
Constitution should be established over or for or by the people
so ratifying it in nine States.  But what an unheard-of inalpopropriateness in the application of a word would it not be to
speak of establishing a Constitution or any thing else between
the people ing  a collective mass!  He then doubtless felt the
force of Mirabeau's remark, which in his speech he had quoted,
that "words are things."  He felt that the word between as it
here stands in the Constitution is a real, a solid and tremendous
thing! A thing, that utterly demolished the whole superstructure of his argument!
Let me ask 5Mr. Curtis, if this argument, to say nothing of
many others urged by Mr. Calhoun in his reply to Mr. Webster,




104           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
was not new ground, not before occupied by him; and then let
]Mr. Curtis say to an intelligent world, whether hQ thinks that
Mr. Webster's "nutshell " rejoinder did successfully meet Mir.
Calhoun upon it?  Mr. Curtis states distinctly that " he enters
into no vindication of the opinions of Mr. Webster as expressed
in 1830 and 1833."  Is he not discreet in this? For in his own
History of the Constitution, has he not himself utterly demol-.
ished one of the main arguments of Mr. Webster, whether 1Mr
Calhoun did or not? Mr. Webster, as we have seen, broadly
asserted that the Constitution could. not be a Compact between
the States because said he, "if our instrument of government be
a Constitution, then for that very reason it cannot be a compact
between sovereigns; a constitution of government and a compact between sovereign powers being things essentially unlike
in their very natures, and inctpable of ever being the same."
But Mr. Curtis, in his History of the Constitution, has shown
that the first Articles of Confederation; which were a Compact
between the Sovereign States then composing the Union, were
a Constitution of government between the sovereign parties
making it. These articles of union between these sovereign
powers were, he says, "the first written Constitution of the
United States."  (Vol. i., p. 139.) And he further says that
"the parties to this instrument (the Articles of Confederation)
were free, sovereign, political communities, each possessing
within itself powers of legislation and government over its own
citizens, which any political society can possess."  Now, if
"Mr. Webster always knew his fame was completely identified
with the doctrine that regards the Constitution not as a compact,' as Mr. Curtis said he did, then has he not himself completely overthrown one of the main pillars on which that fame
was erected a
In speaking thus, I do not mean to detract from Mir. Webster's real merits, or his true fame. Who could be justly supposed to intend detraction from the fame of Lord Mansfield,
either as a statesman, an orator, or a jurist, by stating that, on
one memorable occasion, in the House of Lords, he was dumbfounded by Lord Chatham in reply to one of his most celebrated
speeches-that he was for some time silent-and when forced




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS.                105
up, laboring " under the badness of his cause, spoke in a style
characterized as frigid and pettyfogging"  (See "Campbell's
Lives of Chief Justices," Vol. xi., p. 4T3). M- r. Webster was
truly a very great man, and his argument, which Mr. Calhoun
did so thoroughly demolish, was truly a masterpiece of transcendent intellect and eloquence combined. As evidence. of the
estimate I put upon him and his speech, I deem it proper in
in this connection to pr6sent to your readers what I said in the
colloquy upon both.
" It is true, I always regarded Mr. Webster as one of the ablest of our
statesmen; this the bust and the picture in the Hall fully attest. In many
respects I considered him the first man in this country, and, indeed, the first
man of the age in which he lived. In mental power, in grasp of thought
and in that force and manner of expression which constitute eloquence, he
had no superior. Intellectually, he was - a man of huge proportions, and
his patriotism was of the loftiest and purest character. Such was, and is,
my estimation of him... You did well, therefore, in selecting his
argument on this subject.-  It is the embodiment of all that can be said on
your side of the question.  It was the characteristic of Mr. Webster to
leave nothing unsaid on his side of any subject he spoke on that could be
said to strengthen it, and all that could be said he always said better than
anybody else. Hence, whether at the bar, on the hustings,' or in the
Senate, his speeches were always the best that were made on his side. It
used to be a remark, often made by our Chief Justice Lumpkin, who was
a man himself of wonderful genius, profound learning, and the first of
orators irrthis State, that Webster was always foremost amongst those with
whom he acted on any question; and that, even in books of selected
pieces, whenever selections were made from Webster, those were the best
in the book. This, I think, was not too great an eulogium upon his transcendent powers and varied abilities. But it is not the lot of any man to be
perfect. I am far from believing Mr. Webster free from political errors.
And this speech of his, which, by many (his biographer included, I believe), is considered the greatest of his life, you will allow me to say, contains more errors of this sort than any lie ever made. His premises being
erroneous, his conclusions must be of the same character. The superstructure is grand. It is the work of a master genius. But the foundations
are not solid. It was this speech, by the by, which gave him the appellation of the Great Expounder of the Constitution with the Consolidationists of that day. In it he did throw all the might of his gigantic and
Titan powers. But the subject was an overmatch for him; the undertaking was too great for even him. Facts were too stubborn. His whole
soul was in the subject, and he strove to establish what he wished, rather




106             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
than what actually existed. His effort was to make facts bend to theory.
This could not' be done. This speech, I readily admit, is the best and
ablest that was ever made upon that side of the question.. It stands as a
monument of genius and eloquence. As such it may well take its place
by the side of the great argument of Hume in the defence of the prerogative of the crown, claimed by the Stuarts, or Sir Robert Filmer's famous
productions in favor of the Divine Right of Kings, or Sir George Mackenzie's' Jus Regium,'' (p. 336).
This extract from  the book shows tny appreciation.of Mr.
Webster, and this speech of his.   But Mr. Curtis, in his
attempt to point out what he called a singular. error of mine,,
has committed a very important historical error himself, which
I do not intend to permit to pass unnoticed.  In his narrative
he says:
"The autumn of 1832 and the winter of 1833 witnessed the crisis of'nullification.' The revenue laws of the United States had been prostrated
in South Carolina by- a system' of;State laws which' directly obstructed the
collection of any revenue whatever.  It had become necessary for the
President of the -United States to act, and that President was Andrew
Jackson. His proclamation warned the nullifiers that their acts were-acts
of' treason;' and when Congress assembled in December, he asked for the
passage of a law adapted to the exigency, to enable him to enforce the collection of the revenue."
Now, the facts are, the system of laws known as the Nullifying Acts of South Carolina were. passed prospectively.  They
were not to go into effect until the 1st of February, 1833.  By
the interposition of the State of Virginia, through her commissioner, Benjamin Watkins Lee, the time for these laws to go
into effect was postponed until the close of that session of Congress, which was the 4th of Mlarch, under the hope and expecta*tion that Congress would redress the wrongs complained of.
Mr. Clay's Compromise Bill on the tariff was passed in the
mean time.  This satisfied South Carolina.  These laws were
repealed.  They never did go into effect, and the revenue laws
of the United States had never been prostrated or'obstructed by.
them in the State of South Carolina.
Another -matter in Mr. Curtis' article needs notice.. He
makes statements about Mr. Webster's speeches and GeneralJackson's proclamation, calculated to create the impression that
General Jackson approved the sentiments and doctrines of this




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS.               107
speech of his on the 16th February, 1833; and you, Mr. Editor,
are pleased editorially to say, that "Mr. Webster's view of our
constitutional system was the same with that held by the great
body of the Democratic party at the time when General Jackson
was President, and when a Democratic administration was
responsible for the course of the government on a critical occasion."  -Now I must be permitted most respectfully, but most
emphatically, to say that this is a great historical mistake.
General Jackson, doubtless, felt under great obligations to:Mr.
Webster for his powerful influence and aid against the doctrine
of nullification.  To this extent:I do not question he approved
his speech in 1830 on the Foote resolutions, and his speech in
1833 against Mr. Calhoun's resolutions; but he did not agree
with either of these speeches, so far as they denied the Federal
character of the Government, or maintained that the Constitution was not a Compact between the States as sovereign parties
to it.  Of this we have the most unquestionable testimony in
his authoritative explanation of the proclamation given through
the Washington  Globe.  In this, amongst other things, the
editor says:
"But we are authorized to be more explicit, and to say positively
that no part of the proclamation was meant to countenance principles
which have been ascribed to it. On the: contrary, its doctrines, if construed in the sense they were intended and carried out, inculcate that the
Constitution of the United States is founded on compact; that this compact derives its obligations from' the agreement entered into by the people
of each of'the'States in their political capacity with the people of'the
other States;.... that in the case of a violation'of the Constitution of the
United' States, and the usurpation of powers not:granted by it on: the part of
the functionaries of the General Government, the State governments have the
right to interpose, and arrest the evil upon the principles ohich were set
forth in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 -against the Alien and Sedition
laws, &c."
In another part of the same authoritative explanation, it is
said::'" The close of the preamble whichwe have have  uoted above,i connection
with itstfirst words,- preserves the same idea, The Constitution is declared
to be established, notfor an aggregate people, but'for the United States of'
America.' 




108            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
Such were the views of General Jackson and the great majority of the Democratic party at that time, and such have been
the views of the great majority of the Democratic party from
the days of Jefferson to this day, and ever will be so long as it
maintains the true standard of its time-honored principles. How
these principles were considered by the great majority of the
Democratic party and the great majority of the people of the
United States, at that time and subsequently, may be judged by
the actions of their duly accredited representatives on record.
Mr. Calhoun's resolutions were not acted on in the Senate in
1833. Three days after his speech upon them the controversy
with South Carolina was settled by the passage of Mr. Clay's
Compromise Bill.  Congress adjourned the 4th of March; but
the agitation of these principles did not cease, as is stated in the
book, and that part of it which Mr. Curtis reviews (p. 398).
The subject of the discussion, though the controversy that gave
rise to it was amicably adjusted, was taken up by the press, by.public speakers, by the State Legislatures, and by the people
generally. The great discussions of 1798, 1799, and 1800 were
revived. Old landmarks of principles were traced, and the rapid
strides of the Federal government towards consolidation were
again stopped. Mr. Calhoun, on the 28th of December, 1837,
renewed the subject in the Senate. He then.brought forward
another set of resolutions on the same subject, and pressed them
to a vote. The first of these resolutions is as follows:
"1. Resolved, That in the adoption of the Federal Constitution the
States adopting the same acted severally as free, independent, and sovereign States; and that each for itself by its own voluntary assent entered
the Union with a view to its increased security against all dangers, domestic as well as foreign, and the more perfect and secure enjoyment of its
advantages, natural, political, and social."
This resolution, which distinctly affirms the great truth set
forth in the first of his series in 1833, passed the Senate, by
the large majority of 32 to 13, on the 3d day of January, 1838.
(Congressional Globe, Second Session, 25th Congrdss, p. 74.)
This was certainly the highest authoritative exposition of the
subject that could be given. It was the amplest vindication
of the merits of Mr. Calhoun's argument in 1833. Iis argu



MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS.        109
ment and Mr. Webster's had gone to the country, and this
was the verdict of the States upon the issue presented by them.
More than two to one of the Senate of the United States affirmed most positively and solemnly that the Union of the
States was Federal, and that in entering into it, under the
Constitution, the States did so severally as free, independent,
sovereign powers; that the Union was one of States, formed
by States, and not by the people in the aggregate as one
nation. But upon an analysis of the vote upon this resolution
this authoritative exposition of Constitutional views derives
increased importance. For, if we look at the vote by States,
it will be seen that eighteen States voted for this resolution,
while only sxt voted against it. One was divided and one
did not vote. More than two-thirds of the States gave this
construction of tile character of the Government in 1838, in
direct opposition to the views. of Mlir. Webster in 1833. It is
true Mr. Webster was in the Senate in 1838, and did not vote
for this resolution of Mr. Calhoun, then passed; but he did
not take up the gauntlet thrown down by Mr. Calhoun for
another contest in debate on the principles thus reannounced.
3Mr. Clay, however, voted for it, which shows his understanding of the nature of the Government.
The facts above stated, Ir. Editor, show how far Mr. Curtis was correct in saying any thing calculated to make the inpression that General Jackson approved the principles of 3Mr.
Webster's speeches in 1830 and 1833; and how far you are
correct in stating that " Mr. Webster's view of our Constitutional System was the same with that held by the great body
of the Demociatic party at the time when General Jackson was
President, and when a Democratic administration was responsible for the course of the Government on a critical occasion."
This party was in power in 1837 and 1838. Mr. Van Buren
was President, but Mr. Calhoun was still "master of the
arena." in the Senate upon the principles of his resolution of
1833, with Mr. Clay as his backer!
Here I might very properly close this communication, which
is intended only to reply to lM~r. Curtis' article, that was given
to the public as a refutation of certain assertions of mine, in




110             THE REVIEWERS: REVIEWED.
that part of the book:he took in hand to review; and  here I
should close it if he had not, in the execution of his purpose,
travelled somewhat out of the limits he prescribed for himself,
and in several parts of his article trenched, by indirection at
least, upon other matters, questions, and principles discussed in
other parts of the book, which are not to be found in the portion he undertook specially to notice.. These other questions
and principles, and the logical sequences claimed from all the
facts in our history, first established beyond doubt or question,
and especially from  the great fact that the Constitution is a
Compact between Sovereign States, are doubtless what led him
to say so much about State Secession in connection with Sovereignty, and the opinion of Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Webster upon
them. On these general topics, so introduced into his article,
I wish, in conclusion, to add a few general remarks only, and
ask your further indulgence for that purpose.   Should Mr.
Curtis, or any one else, feel       ed directly to assail any of
the positions of the book on these other questions, either in
premises or conclusions, it will be time enough then for me to
undertake their defence. One of:the matters so introduced, as
I have stated, in Mr. Curtis' article, and which I:wish now in
a general way to notice, is embraced in his explanation of Mr.
Webster's speech before the Supreme Court, and is expressed
in the following words:
"Of course, in order to make the comity of nations, in this respect,
applicable to the States of this Union in their relations with each other, it
is necessary to regard each State as, for certain purposes, a nation; or, in
other words, to regard it as a sovereign State; for such a State alone can
be affected by the law of nations, as it exists when not curtailed by the
sovereign will, or can declare by legislation, or by its public policy, that
it does not mean to be bound by a particular rule of that law.. But
neither Mr. Webster nor any one else, in claiming that the States are sovereign in respect to their liability to be affected by the voluntary law of
nations, in their: relations to the citizens of other States, in matters of
property, there by admits that they are sovereign in respect to their capacity to withdraw from the Union. It is remarkable that Mr. Stephens
should have confounded these two things, which are as wide asunder as
the poles."
Now it is apparent that Mr. Curtis in these remarks alludes
to matters or positions of mine not in that part of the book he




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY: TO MiR. CURTIS.         111
undertook specially to review.  There is nothing about the
right or capacity of a-State to withdraw from the Union in
any of the extracts produced by him. This, therefore, is a sort
of side-bar remark of his upon-points: which he eschewed to
enter upon when he set out. But I say to him most respectfully, for I do entertain for him personally the highest respect
and kindest regards, that there is in no part of the book any
"confounding " of things of this sort, or of any things of any
sort whatever. There is in it from beginning to end no meddling with things which I did not clearly perceive and do not
thoroughly understand.
If there is any confusion of ideas on this subject, I apprehend that it is'with himself in supposing that a State or nation
can be sovereign for one poripose and got sotvereign for all purposes which lie within the domain of sovereignty itself. He'in another place (where he indulges in- a similar course of remarks): distinctly maintains that sovereignty is divisible, and
says thati Mr.  Webster so held. too. If so, when or where. I
certainly do not recollect of ever having seen: any thing from
him announcing such a doctrine..
Sovereignty is the paramount authority in any' State or
nation, to which all other powers or authority must yield. It
is that absolute right of self-determination, in any  separate and
distinct political body, which, in pursuit of the well-being of its
own organism, without injury to others, cannot be rightfully
interfered with by any other similar body. It is' that attribute
of the political body which corresponds with the will and power
of self-action in the.physical body, and by its very nature is gndivisible. Just as much so as the mind is, in the individual organism.
"Sic volo, sic jubeo; stat pro ratione:voluntas "-" Thus I
wish and order; my will stands in the place of reason " —is the
language of sovereignty.  There have been many methods
adopted to give exact ideas of this attribute or essential quality'of the body politic —some by definitions, and some by descriptions. But all publicists of note in both ancient and modern
times agree in holding that:it is in itself indivisible. Aristotle
so held; Grotius so held; Puffendorff so held; Vattel so held;




112           THE REYIEWERS REVIEWED.
and our own Lieber and Jameson so hold; to say nothing of
others. Sovereignty and allegiance, all agree, go together.
The latter follows the former. If sovereignty were divisible,
then allegiance would be also. But we have it from the Head
of a much higher school than that of either Mr. Webster or Mr.
Calhoun, that " no man can serve two masters."
The "'confounding" in this matter is on the part of MIr.
Curtis, in not recognizing the difference between the exercise
of sovereign powers and sovereignty itself, from which the powers exercised emanate. The exercise of sovereign powers may
be delegated, and the exercise of different powers of this kind
may in this way be intrusted to different hands. In this way,
and in this way only, can even the exercise of sovereign powers be divided. And in this way they are so divided in all
Free States.
The Legislative power, the Judicial power, and the Executive power are all sovereign powers; and yet in this country,
and in all countries where despotism does not prevail, they are
thus divided, and the exercise of them is committed to separate
and distinct hands, in trust, by delegation. Sovereignty itself,
however, from which they all emanate, remains, meanwhile, thie
same indivisible unit. This is the tinty in unity exhibited in
all properly constituted Representative Governments. Nor is
the delegation to another of the right to exercise a power of any
kind, whether sovereign or not, in any sense an alienation of it.
The fact of its being delegated shows that the source from
which the delegation proceeds continues to exist.
Mr. Webster doubtless held, as his great speech referred to
shows, that the right to exercise sovereign powers may be and
is delegated, and that in this way the exercise of sovereign
powers may be, and is divided. Mr. Calhoun certainly so held.
An essential point of difference between Mr. Webster and Mr.
Calhoun on that occasion was, whether the sovereign powers
intrusted to' the General Government came by delegation from
the sovereignty of the several States, as separate, distinct
bodies politic, or nations (thus forming a Federal Republic, of
which the States, as States, were the members and parties), or




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS.  1 l3
from -th  sovereignty of the whole people of all the States,
united as one body politic, or one nation,.While sovereignty itself then, by all writers of note, is held
to be indivisible, and by most of them to be i'naienable, yet it
is nevert.heless universally admitted by all of them that it may
imnpQe obligations upon itself. In other words, it is admitted
that Sovereign  States may enter into voluntary engagement
with: each other touching the exercise of any of their sovereign
pqwers they choose, even to the putting of restraints upon
thelr o-w exereise of them  without impairing in the least or
patin  -'with  any. portio  of their sovereignty itself.  This is
the: basis'of all treaties, conventions, or compacts of any sort
between separate States or nations. This, too, is the basis of
al. Cdnfederati ns or Federal Unions.  3ut in these voluntary
restraihnts upon the exercise of any of their sovereign powers,
there:i$ n   uo e sureder of the  ight. HIence, in all such cases,
ech  State, -notwithstanding these voluntarily imposed resstraint, remains a perfect State, a Sovereign State, and as such
contiues-.(as (a maihtainiied by Mr. Webster) " as much a component. part of:the laws of nations.as any others;" and as between.themseives all such States are as much subject to the laws of nations   pon uonall: questions.or controversies in the last resort, as
ove~e i) -                     e-ver
any other Soveitign States or nations whatever.  Such is exactlythee: condition of,the States of: this Union as maintained
throughout the book. So much for Mr.: Curtis' idea of the di;
visibili.tyof sovereignty, and of my having "confounded" on,the subject "two things as wide asunder as the poles."
But again, in several parts of his article, he speaks as if he
were under. the impression that: Mr. Calhoun considered the
right of a State of our Union-to withdraw, or secede, as a right
dePive   from the - Constitution; he seems also tq.be underthe
impres sion- that I have defended the rightfulniess of that measure upon:the same ground. In.these views.he is entirely mistalen'..:: Mr. -Calhoun  did..maintai. that Nullfication was a
ConStitutional remedy, but not. Secession   And if Mr. Curtis
will give the othe               book a more careful perusal,
he will see very-: clearly that I have not defended the Rightf.ulness of Secession..upon any grounds  derived from  any pro-:'8




114             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
vision in the Constitution.  On page 50Q he- will see it thus
stated:
"This right'of a State to consider herself no longer bound by a Compact which, in her- judgment,-has been broken by her confederates, and to
secede from a Union, formed as ours was, has nothing about it either new
or novel.- It is incident to all Feceral Republics.: It is not derived from
the. Compact itself. It does not spring from -it at all. It is derived from
the same source that the -right -is derived to abrogate a treaty, by either or
any of the parties to it. That is seldom set forth in the treaty itself, and
yet it exists, whether. it be set forth or not.: So, in any Federal Compact
whatever, the parties may or may not expressly provide for breaches of it.
But where no such provision is made, the right exists by the same.laws of
nations which govern in, all: matters of:treaties or~ conventions between
sovereigns."  
On page 496, he will see my answer to the:direct question,
whether a State of our Union could so act without a violation
of:her solemn obligations under: the cmp act.: XIt is- in these
words: 
" I give this full and direct answer: she had a perfect right so to do,
subject to no authority but the great moral law which' governs the-intercourse between independent sovereign powers, peoples, or nations."
There is nothing in the book which: treats Secession as a
right derived from  the. Constitution.  It is, om. the contrary, a
right derived from that Sovereign Power which made the Constitution.             Yours, respectfully,.
ALEXANDER I. STEPHENS. 
III.-7REJOINDER OF MR. CURTIS.
I have read Mr. Stephens' answer to: my defence of Mr.
Webster against the imputation; of having changed his:opinions
on the nature-of the Constitution.  My reply will be brief. -
There are two theories respecting:the Constitution of the
United States.  According to the one, it is a regular popular
Government, of a limited character, formed byv' the grant of
certain specified powers which the: people of each State thought:
fit to sever from  the whole mass of their respective sovereign



REJOINDER OF: MR. CURTIS.                i15
ties; and this Government, so constituted., operaes to -:the extent of its enumerated powers,'directly upon all individuals:inthe United States, just' as: a State' Government operates to the
extent of the powers which its people have reserved - to themselves,'directly, upon all the individuals- in -the State.' This' is,
the Webster-theory, as I undestandit.:'' 
*The other theory is, that the Cnstitution: is a Compact be-.
tween' Sovereign States, formed'by: the delegation of certain
political powers, which the people of the severa:l States did not
sever' and alieniate from the whole mass of their respecti've sover —
eignties, but: which they agreed with each other,- through the
Constitution, should be exercised by a common depositary or
*agent.  This is the'Calhoun theory, as I understand: it.
I do not mean that either of these statements comprehends
all that is peculiar to the two Opposite theories, but they are
enough to mark, for the present purpose, the broad li'ne of distinction- between'themr.
All who are accustomed to reason on these subjects are:per —
fectly aware that, if the first of these theories is the. tirue  ne,
there can be no- lawful resistance by the people of a State, to the
exercise of the powers conferred in: the Constitution, and no
lawful withdrawal of those powers.  On the other hand, if: the'
second' of these: theories is the true one, -the- sovereign parties to
the compact: ho have only delegated, not' alienated, some oI
their political powers, can break that compact whenever they
See fit; incurring only the-penalty which' attaches to any sovereign who breaks a treaty-namely, a liability to war to be waged
by the' parties who adhere to the compact. ~'Now, Mr. Editor,. I found it,'in a book written by Mr.
Stephens, imputed to Dani'e- l - leb;ster thait, whereas: in'1830-33
he held, and had always held, and hac assisted the Government
of tihe': ~United States to enforce, the: first of these theories, he
subseqiently,'changed his opinions, and'came to'regard:-the Constitution as a' ":Compact' between: Sovereign States;"  I undertook.to show that'there was no founda;tion for the suggestion;
with what success the public can judge.'i. -:do not propose to.
repeat the arguments or the proofs.'
Mr.; Stephens-complains that'I- represented him  as''having




116           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
charged Mr. Webster with the adoption of the doctrine and
right of State secession:from the Union; which he says he did
not charge, and he adds that he does not suppose Mr. Webster
ever believed in it. But I did not so represent Mr. Stephens'
charge or assertion or position. My language was guarded and
chosen. I said that he had; imputed to Mr. Webster that he
had become a convert, or almost a convert, to those vtews of
State sovereignty on which the doctrine, or supposed right, of
State secession isfounded by those who do believe in it. This'
is exactly what Mr. Stephens labored to show in his book, in
regard to Mr. Webster's change of views, and it is what he now
writes a second argument to prove. He thinks Mr., Webster so
far changed his opinions as to regard the Constitution as a
"Compact between Sovereign States."  This I denied. He
thinks, if I understand him rightly, that Mr. Webster could
regard the Constitution of the United States as being a compact
between sovereign States and at the same time reject the right
of secession'.. This I maintain could not be done; by Mr. Webster or any other man.
]Mr. Stephens finds fault with me for saying that President
Jackson, in 1832-3, gave -bhis sanction. to Mr. WebsteF's views
as maintained in 1830 against Mr. iayne; and he finds fault
with you, Mr,. Editor, for saying in your editorial columns that
Mir. Webster's view of the nature of the Constitution ".was the
same with that held by the great body of the Democratic party
at the time, when General Jackson was President, and when a
Democratic administration was responsible: for the course of the
GIovernment on a critical occasion."  Mr. Stephens, in opposition to this statement, reiterates what he had quoted in his, b.olk,
namely, an editorial article of the Globe newspaper, in which
the conductors of that paper undertook to qualify and explain
away the doctrines of the President's proclamation against the
Nullifiers, and said that they did this " by authority." ~ Now,
sir, it is quite notorious that there were politicians in the Democratic party at that time (cfliely Southern men) who we.re
greatly dissatisfied with Gen. Jackson's proclamation, and who
affected to disbelieve that the President had asked the Judiciary
Committee of the Senate for the extraordinary powers embraced




REJOINDER OF MR. CURTIS.          1        IX
in the Force Bill, until Mr. Webster told them  in the Senate,
in the plainest terms, what he personally knew, that the President had asked for those poweis,'" no matter how high may be
the offence.'"  It is quite true, however, that there was no justification for the Force Bill, excepting upon the grounds taken in
the previous proclamation andin the President's special message
after the steps of the Nullifiers in South Carolina had produced
cthe crisis which made it necessary for the President to act.  If
-those grounds were true-and they were. so entirely in accordance with MLr. Webbster's opinions that the moment he saw them
announced by the Executive he resolved to siupport the administrati6n in'this contest, against everybody, regardless of all
former differences-then General Jackson was a. patriot President, acting entirely within the scope and intent of the Con.
stitution. If those. grounds were not - true,'if the Constitution
was a "Compact between Sovereign States," General Jackson
was, as the Legislature.of Souith' Carolina after the proclamation
denounced him, a tyrant and'a usurper, and nullification was a
lawful' and constitutional remedy against.the alleged. wrongs:af the tariff. On this great issue there was a minority in the
Democratic party who did not like' the President's attitude;
and it is doubtless true that, for certain electioneering purposes,:chieflywanted in Virginia, the conductors-of the Globe persuaded
the." 61d hero"'to let them  put forth the' article X*hich Mr.
Stephens quotes, and which was the merest' muddle, from which
no man can extract any intelligible theory of'the. nature. of'our
constitutional system.  To say that a Presideht's constitutional
opinions, as expressed and acted upo in important State papers;
over'his official signature, and carried out in acts of Congress
approved by him, -are to be qualified: in.history by an electioneering article'in a newspaper, designed to, soothe some of' his irritated followers, is a new way' of authenticating the doctrines
which tle official head of a great party, and the offieial headof.the Goverment, meant to. impress upon the Constitution as its
rightful construction;
-But, sir, if there were time -and space for it, I could take
rissue with Mr. Stephens on.this question of what was regarded'by the great bddy' of the Democratic party at the time in ques



118             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
tion, as the truth,: in respect to the difference between Mr.
Webster and Mr. Calhoun on the nature of the Constitution.
I could print a volume of letters addressed to Mr.: Webster by
prominent Democrats throughout the North and West, and by
not a few in the South, both in 1830 and 1833, assuring him'
that they concurred in his constitutional opinions about the
character of the Constitution, and thanking him in the warmest
terms for what he had done in those great debates.  But I will
print but one.  It was written to Mr. Webster by Mr. Madison
after the debate of 1833, in which Mr. Stephens:thinks Mr.
Calhoun annihilated Mr. Webster.  Mr. Madison, I presume it
will be allowed, was a Democrat.  At all events, he was one
of the authiors of the much misunderstood and misrepresented
Virginia and IKentucky Resolutions of 1798.  He was as much
entitled to know what was good Democratic doctrine as any
man then alive; and he was as much entitled to know what the
Constitution is as any man who.had lived then or is living now.
The following letter was printed in Mr. Fletcher Webster's
collection of his father's correspondence, under an erroneous
date (1830), as if it referred to the reply to:Iayne. It was
written in 1833, after the debate with Calhoun, and it is printed
with its, correct date in Mr., Madison's: works.  I copy from the
attogr aph letter; and it will be seen that there is no differelce
between Mr. Webster's understanding of the Constitution and
Mr. Madison's,  The letter also incidentally throws- some light
on the well-known purpose of the Globe.article:
[MR.- MADrSON TO MR. WEBSTER.]
MONTPELIER, JM.arch 15, 1833.
DEAR SIRn:- I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in.the Senate of the United States. It crushes "nullification,"
and-must.hastenan abandonment of Secession. But this dodges the blow,
by confounding the claim to secede at will with the right of secedingy
from intolerable oppression,
The former answers itself, being a violation without cause, of a faith
solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about
which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless,
with. the countenance received from certain quarters, is giving it a popular
currency here, which may influence the approaching Elections, both for




REJOINDER OF MR. CURTIS                        9
Congress and for the State Legislatures. It has gained some advantage,
also, by mixing itself with the qqestion, whether the Constitution of the
United States was formed by the people or' by the States, now under a
theoretic discussion by animated' partisans.
It is fortunate when disputed' theories can be decided by undisputed
facts. And here the undisputed fact is,,that the Constitution was made
by the people, but as: embodied into. the, several States who were parties
to it, and therefore made-by the States, in their highest authoritative
capacity.
They might, by the same authority and by the same process, have
converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty, or continued it
with enlarged. or unabridged powers; or have embodied: the people of
their respective States into one people; nation, or sovereignty; or, as they
did by a mixed, make them one people, nation, or sovereignty for certain
purposes, and not so for others.
The Constitution of the United States being established by a competent authority-by that of the people of the several States, who were the
parties to it-it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is,.and here it
speaks for itself. It organizes a government into the usual Legislative,
Executive, and Judiciary departments; invests it with specified powers,
leaving others; to the.parties to. the Constitution; it makes the Government to operate directly on the people; places at its command the needful
physical means of executing its powers; and, finally, proclaims its supremacy, and that of'the laws made in pursuance of it, over the constitutions and laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised., as.'i other:elective;and responsible Governments, under the control
of its constituents, the people and'Legislatures of the States, and subject
to the revolutionary rights of. the people in extreme cases.
Such is the Constitution of the United States de jure and de facto; and
the name, whatever it.be that.may be given to it, can make it nothing
more nor less than what it actually is..Pardon this hasty effusion, which, whether according or not precisely
with your ideas, presents, I am aware, none that are new to you.
With great esteem and cordial salutation,.
JAMES MADISON.
It- would be difficult:to find fault with this description of
what the Constitution is, as it is impossible to find in it the doctrine of Compact between Sovereign States.  Mr. Madison had
too accurate a mind not to see that the right to secede at will
involves a violation without cause of a faith solemnly pledged;
and' that the right of seceding'from, intolerable oppression is
simply the right of revouition, which exists at all times against




120           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWEID,
all governments, be their nature what it may. Nor was Mr.
3Madison so inaccurate, or so fine iriihis political metaphysics, as
not to see that the peoples of independent States can macke
themselves one. people,-nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes and not so for others.
And now, Mr. Editor, let me conclude this controversy, so
far as I am concerned, by asking to what, but to the do'ctrine
that the Constitution was a "compact between sovereign States,"
do we owe the fact that we are now living under a. kind of-military despotism  carried on through the forMzms of the Constitution?  Look at what is transacting at this moment in and in
regard to Virginia; her people treated exactly as if they had
been a foreign sovereignty conquered in a regularwar;  held to
be out of' the Union; ordered to make a State Constitution to
suit the views of Congress; ordered to ratify a certain.amendment of the Federal Constitution; and held in suspense as to
her relations to the Union until she has satisfied the demands
of the only true " Consolidationists" that we have. ever had in
our political history.- To what, I repeat, do we oWe this state
of affairs. If the Constitution was a'" Compact between Sovereign States," the compact was broken by the secession of the
Southern States; and it was perfectly legitimate for Congress
to make war upon the States themselves, to conquer them as
sovereign parties to a war, and, having conquered them, to suppress their governments, and to mould them just as it. would
mould a foreign territory conquered -by. arms or acquired by
treaty. On the other hand, if the Constitution was what Mr.'.
Webster always maintained it to be, Treason was an individual
offence, liable as such to punishment, not by ex post facto laws
of disfranchisement or any subsequently created disqualifications, but according to the provisions.of the Constitution and
the previous laws of the land; the rebellion was a: mere insurrection; there could be no war uponi the States in the sense of
making -conquests of the States themselves;' and, consequently,
there could be no.reconstruction and no dictation of conditions
involving the question whether the States were in -or out of the
TUnion after the insurrection was over. But C(ongress,.by legislation, said to the Southern professors of the doctrine that the




REJOINDER OF MR. CURTIS.               121
Constitution is a Compact between Sovereign States: "We take
you at your word; you broke the Compact; we have conquered
you as'States that have broken a treaty; now take the consequences, and get back into the Union when we:choose to take
from your necks the iron heel of our military power," Has not
this been the result a: And is this the governm'ent of our
fathers?  Is this the Constitution which Washington and Madison framed and administered; which Hamilton and. Webster
expounded; which'Jaclkson prepared himself to carry out-?: It
is-. neither of them.:'It is a hybrid, born of the notion~ that:a
popular governm'ent —which:act directly on individuals: and
rests for: its sanctions on the will- of the people, and has its own
accurate definition of Treason drawn from the purified fountains of the common law —is an inter-State.league between a,
group of sovereign powers, which one  party may break and be.punished for breaking by an international conqfiest. I confess,
ir.. Editor; when I see.'or'hear persons who are accounted
Democrats maintaining-State Rights'upon the Calhoun theory
of' our. system, I -can only -wish they would point out fto me
upon'what. possible grouind of public law or political science'they can complain of what has been done by Congress' to the
-'South. Perhaps'there are. those iii the South,, disciples of the
doctrine of Compact, who, in strict consistency, do not complain
~ of;it..But we of the- North have State Rights'of our own to
defend, if haply there is any remain'ing'meaus of defending
them, and it behooves us to knrowv on what ground they can be
defended. It behooves' us' to see'that the idea of treating the
Constitutidn as a Compact between sovereign parties to; an
inter-State league is the merest delusion for those who mean to
confine the general government to the sphere of. its legitimate
and enumerated powers, and to assert the rights of the States
over all other subjects. The doctrine of "Compact" was a
snare which some of the great men of the South unwittingly
laid for the feet of their own people. They would not accept
Mr.. Webster's firm position on the subject of slavery, confriiihg
it ".Where it'was before the. acquisition of Texas, defending itby'
the unquestionable truth that, in the States where it: then existed, the North could not rightfully touch it, and thus leaving




122           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
it to be gradually worn out by the imperceptible but sure opera.tion of causes that were destined to extinguish it. They sought
for political defences of this institution by enlarging its area;
and they conceived, what the previous generation had not conceived, that the Constitution being a Compact between Sovereign States, two consequences would follow: first, that the
Constitution, proprio vigore, would give them a right to carry
slavery into the public domain, which was the common property
of -States thus united; second, that, if this -right were not admitted, the compact could be broken by secession, and that
there would be a case justifying that step. For all this. there
was more or less provocation and incitement in what was going
on in the North; but the grand error that was committed at
the South was in not seeing.that the true defence of slavery, as
a State institution, rested like the defence of all other State
Rights, upon the doctrine that the Constitution is no compact,
but a fundamental law, limiting the sphere of the general government by the sxanctions of enacted law, and -containing, as
part of the same enacted law, the strenuously asserted principle
that all the powers of government, not embraced in the Constitution, and' not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States or the people. And- now that the doctrine of: compact. has been played out to its legitimate and inevitable end;
now that the very result has come which Mr. Webster foresaw
and foretold; now that our institutions are converted, perhaps
beyond redemption, into what he predicted they would become
if the practical operation of Mr. Calhoun's theories'should produce a civil war; now that we have reaped the fruits of these
theories, by the excuse which they have afforded for a kind of
government that" out-herods Herod" in the assertion of the
compact principle, and makes the government of our fathers a
military colossus-it is, I admit, with some impatience that I
hear 2Mr. Webster claimed as a believer.in.the doctrine which
he spent more than twenty years of his life: in: resisting,. and
which he knew would ruin us at last.
G. T.'C.
NEW YORK, September, 1869.




SUR-REJOINDER OF MR. STEPHENS.              123
IY.-SUR-REJoINDER OF MR.: STEPHENS.
LIBERTY AL, 
CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., September 25., 1869.
Jfessr:ES torsE     of the New  York  Forld:
In your paper of the 13th instant, which reached me a few
days, ago through Ethe kind attentions of a friend, I see what
purports to be a rejoinder of IHon. GGeorge T. Curtis to my
reply to his article in review of that part of my book upon the
late war between the States which relates to the opinions of
2Mr. Webster, as expressed in 1833, upon the subject of the
Constitution of the -United. States being a: Compact between
the States, and his subsequent modification of those opinions
or views.' n'.:.this. "rejoinder," so. alled,: Mr. Curtis has, as your
readers. perceive, widely wandered from  the points. and issues
between us raiked. by his review and my reply to it. He makes
but one allusion in it to any of them.  I'e has virtually abandoned his own chosen aiid limited topics of discussion-gone
off into' entirely new matter, and after presenting other and
altogether new questions about two different theories of government,. &c., concludes, so far as he is concerned, the controversy
on: the points he had at first, raised.:.
Now, I am quite.as little inclined to pursue  a. rablng  con-'troversy, as: Mr. Curtis. evidently is to standby the results of
the one which he commenced with so much zeal and ardor; but
from. which he so "patiently".''retires..The rule. with me is:
One thing at a time, and all things in.their order. Discussions
are.seldom: either entertaining or instructive which are not confined as they advance step by step to the immediate points
under consideration at the time.  In this way'only can any
real progress ever be made towards the establishment, of any
truth byreaso4, and argument.
-It is not my intention, however, to permit the new questions now presented by him to pass unnoticed. They are themselves of too much importance. But, before taking them up,
it is,proper first to -see how matters stand between us upon




124:       THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
those heretofore' raised by him.  It is better, in discussions as
in navigation-to  use one 6f Mr. Webster's illustrations-to
make a'reckoning and see where we are, before taking a new
departure.  For this purpose I propose to recapitulate and examine the previous points of our controversy as briefly as possible in their order.
First; tile three points raised:by — him  in his review; and
secondly, the two raised by me on him in the reply.  Let these
facts, then, be kept in mind by your readers::.'
1. CMr. Curtis, in.is review said:
"But I may be perniitted to express the astonishment with which-I
have' read a portion of Mr.: Stephens' recent publication, in which he
claims that Mr. Webster,' in the later'years of his life, clianged his opinions, -respecting, the nature of the Constitution, and became a convert, or
almost a convert, to the views of State sovereignty, o  which- the right
of State secession from the Union fwavs claimed by Mr. Calhoun,and his
disciples as a Tight under the Constitution."'
In the reply, issue was joined with Mr. Curtis upon the fact
that there was any such statement, assertion; or claii. in any
part of the book to which he referred.  It was also denied that
Mr. Calhoun or his disciples:ever-'claimed the right of State
S,ecession from  the Union as a right under the Constitution.
Of Mr. Webster, it was simply affirmed that, in 1833, he had
held:the position that the Constitution  was not a'Compact between the States, and that, subsequently,.in his argument before
the' Supreme Count, and'in his, letter to tha- Barings, he had
used language-which, in my opinion, showed that he had modified the opinions so previously expressed by him  upon that
point.  It is also affirmed in the book- that, in 1851, at Capon
Springs, he spoke in, unequivocal. language of the Constitution
as a Compact.to which the States were parties.  The proofs
were given.  Mr. Curtis admits their correctness.  Do they not
fully sustain what.was affirmed in the book2-?  At any rate thus
stands ~ the issue between us; and how does MI2R Curtis treat it
in his rejoinder 2 Ddes he pretend to show that: there is any
thing in the book to sustain his statement, as it stands in the
review, or any thing which should have caused: astonishment
to anybody as well acquainted with the facts'as he ought to




SUR-REJOINDER OF MR.- STEPHENS.             125
have been? -Does he even undertake to show that he was correct in declaring that Mr. Calhoun or his disciples claimed the
right of State Secession under the Constitution?  Does he
make any answer to my respectful appeal to him  to give any
explanation he can imagine Mr. Webster could possibly have
given of his speech before the Supreme Court referred to& without admitting a change of his -views as expressed in 1833?  He
does not, but goes off in' his sort of dissertation upon two theories concerning the nature of the government. - Now, I say in
passing, right here, to Mr. Curtis, that these twb theories of the
government have nothing to do with this issue between us.
That was the isolated po'int whether Mr. Webster had or had
not modified or changed his iopinions upon the subject of the
Constitution being a Compact between the States. I ask him
also, as well' as your readers, if I am not warranted by his
silence on' that point in' coming to the conclusion that he cannot explain Mr. Webster's position in 1839 without admitting
the change of views ascribed to him in the book-. That was
the. point.at issue between him  and. me. I do come to this
conclusion, and am perfectly willing, therefore, so far as I am
concerned, to let the controversy on that point rest just where
and as it' stands.
2. Mr. Curtis, in his review, said:'"As an historian, Mr. Stephens is singularly unfortunate. li6 cited
Mr. Webster for the purpose of proving flthat he had come, in 1851, to
regard the Constitution as a compact between the States, yet he overlooked
the passages in the same speech which showed that he did not so regard
it."
This was. a grave charge. The Italics are his. The reply
was that, if there were any passages in the'  speech (the Capbn.Springs speech)- from  which the citation was made that did
show, or tended even to show, that he did not regard the Constitution as a Compact between the States, as his language cited
clearly showed that he'then so'held it to be, they-had escaped
my attention at the time the citation was made; and after the
most diligent search I was still,unable to find in any part bf
the speech any such qualifying language as he intimated was to
be found in some other portions of it.




126           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
How has lMr. Curtis met this issue2 Has he undertaken to
point out in the speech any such passages as he said I had overlooked   He has not. He has not produced one word from
the speech which shows, or tends to show, that Mr. Webster
did not mean, as I understood him by the language cited, to
declare that the Constitution was a Compact between the States,
and that "a bargain cannot be broken on one side and still
bind the other side?'"
The "'rejoinder" is entirely silent upon that subject. The
conclusion to which all intelligent readers must come, it seems
to me, is that M1r. Curtis gives up that point in issue between
us. Not without some restlessness, it is true, which is evinced
in the expression of "im?'atience" withwhich he hears "Mr.
Webster claimed as a believer in the doctrine which he spent
more than twenty years of his life in resisting, and which he
knew would ruin us at last."  This is, perhaps, what caused
him to change his ground and endeavor to relieve his position
as well as he could by plunging into other matters.
Now, the truth, Mr. Editor, is that the Constitution of the
United States is a Compact between Sovereign States.,  This is
a great and an important fact in our history. Upon it does
depend the nature and character of our government. SIr.
Webster's position on that subject in 1833 is utterly untenable.
Whether he subsequently modified or changed his opinions
upon it or not, however, is a collateral point altogether. The
great truth that it, is such a Compact is established in the book
referred to as clearly as any historic fact can be in this or any
other country. The argument by which this fact is so established, Milr. Curtis does not pretend to answer. He has not, as
yet, attempted to do it, and I here repeat that if he or anybody
else shall attempt directly to assail it, either in premises or conclusions, I hold myself in readiness to meet the assault, let it
come from whatever quarter it may. In the book it was barely
incidentally'stated as my opinion that Mr. Webster had changed
his views upon that subject; but whether he had changed them
or not has no bearing whatever upon the argument itself,
or any link in the chain of its structure. It was to the incidental remarks in the book, upon his supposed change of views,




SUR-REJOINDER OF MR. STEPHENS.             12T
that Mr. Curtis. took exception- How much he: hastaken by
his motion the public may now judge. I feeleperfectly content
with this issue also as: it stands.:.
3. Mr. Curtis, in his review, stated that I had committed " a.
singular error" in the-book in regard to the order of the debate
between Mr. Webster and Mr. Calhoun in the Senatesin 1833,
and argued from a version he gave of it that no regular or general rejoinder to Mr. Calhoun's speech was - called for from Mr.
Webster.
The reply to Athis by me set forth the facts of the case.'These show that no such error;rwas committed-in the book.
They show:that -r.: Calhoun's speech did present:iew- views
never before presented in the Senate by him, which not only
called.for but demanded an answer, or an abandonment by' Mr.
Webster of his positions. 
To this issue Mr. Curtis makes.no allusion whatever. Is-not
the: conclusion legitimate that he now admits there was no error
in the book on that point -?, I so regard.it.:.
These' are all the points and inaceuraeies ia the book specified in'the.' review. - So much for:them  their merits, and the
final.disposition of them on nmy part.,
Secondly.. Let us now proceed to see how the issues stand
on those made on the other side.: In the reply two errors on
his own part:are  set fort-h.::...!. Mr. Curtis stated in the review that the revenue laws of
the United States had been obstructed in the port of Charleston,
South Carolina, by the nullification acts of that State in 1832.
In my reply-it was shown that these acts never went into
operation at all, and could not have obstructed the revenue
laws. The protective policy was-agreed to be abandoned in
Mr. Clay's Compromise Bill, which passed before these acts
under their extension were to.go.into operation.' South Carolina being satisfied with that abandonment,'so agreed upon,
these acts were repealed before they ever went into effect.
The rejoinder is silent upon this point.  The conclusion to
be drawn from this is, that Mr. Curtis admits that he committed
an error-himself in his attempt to show that I had committed
one.




1.28:          THE THWERREVIEWERS  REVIEWED.
2. Mr, Curtis. made a statement in the review which implied
t.hatGeneral Jackson approved the position of Mr. Webster in
his debate with Mr.. Calhoun that the Constitution was not a
Compact: between the States.'':n';!my r'eply it was shown by direct proof that General Jackson did not give. that part of Mr. Webster's speech any such approval.:In his rejoinder -lr: Curtis admits the prooffered'by. m e,
showing that General Jackson: did not approve that'part of Mr,
Webster's speech.  This proo.f was: the:" authorized"'"  eplaniationof -certain parts of his proclamation by General Jackson
himself, which appeared in the Washington Globe newspaper.
But while he. admits the correctness of the proof, h'e says that
the "old hero  was persuaded by the conductors of that paper
to let them put forth this explanation for.certain electioneering
purposes[; and that the explanation, upon[ the:wh1ole, was-  " the
merest muddle, from which no man can extract any intelligible
-th:eoy' Of he nature of our constitutional system."'.:-;..2ddle or.nom d:dd, as a whole, in presenting a' "theory
of the nature of the governmn nt, it was certainly very::cear and
explic-it on the ppoint at, 5issuqe.between us".  This,: by.the by.,. is.
the only pointo in all the issues between us to which Mr. Curtls
makes the slightest allusion in'-is so-called-: " reoinde ";.and
- afer' thus disposing of' this: very pointedproof so fiered, which
showedhe was wrong, he goes into: a defence of his' position,
whichi.-amounts to:about this.. thatf General J.ackson did.-ot
approve that: part f Mr. Webst er,' speech, Other'disting ished
fDemocrats did  which could;be' shown by letters In his possession;which'would fill: a vblume if he shold publish.then: He.'chooses, however, to'pbish but one of this character,: and: that
one'was:from Mr. Madison.: 
-Now, to all that is: said onthis:poin in'the reJoiider, I have
this tO submit in anhswer:. I..  Mr. —dion,. or ever so. many
other  distinguishedDI emorats,did approve that' part of'Mr.
Webster's  speech, it is' no.eviden. that General Jackson.did;
especially' in the fce.f his explicit declaration that he.did not,
ana.can have: no bearing whatever upon the poit ibetween us.
2..':ir. Curtis was much.' more ": nfortuniate,"'  I.think,  S as a




SUR-REJOINDER OF!MR. STEPHENS.              129
"logician" in citing this letter to Mr. Madison, to sustain him
in his issue with me, than he supposed me to be " unfortunate"
"as an historian" in citing Mr. Webster's Capon Springs
speech in the book; for this letter of Mr,. Madison shows that
even he did not concur with Mr. Webster on the main point in
issue between him  and Mr. Calhoun, and which was in issue
between Mr. Curtis and myself in relation to the extent of General Jackson's approval of the principles of lMr. _Webster's
speech on that occasion.  That point was as to the Constitution
being a Compact between the -States. On this pointl Mr.
Madison's language in the very letter produced by Mr. Curtis
is this:
" It is fortunate when disputed theories can be decided. by undisputed
facts. And here the undisputed fact is that the Constitution was made
by the people, but as embodied in the several States who were parties:to it,
and, therefore, made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity."
The italics are mine. This part of the letter so adduced by
Mr. Curtis, therefore, shows clearly that. whatever other motives Mr. Madison -may have had in thus congratulating Mr.
Webster for his speech, so far as it related to the doctrine of
Nullification, and its general tenor against Secession as a politic
or practicable remedy for abuses of Federal -power, he evidently intended to: set him  right on one. point, and that was
that the -Constitution was not made by the whole people of
the United States as embodied in one nation, as he had contended, but that it was "made by the States in their highest
a/uthoritative eapacity"' That is, in their sovereign capacity,
and, being so made by them, was of necessity a Compact between them! 
This is the clear import of this language of Mr. Madison, in
which he meant nothing more than to reaffirm the princlples of
his own celebrated resolutions in the Virginia Legislature in
1798, and his report on them in 1799. It is true, Mr. Madison
was opposed to the doctrine of Nullification, as, perhaps, threefourths of the Democratic party in the United States were. He
was also opposed to Secession as a proper or practicable remedy
against the abuses of Federal power in the matter of the
9




130           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
protective policy, as were a large majority of even Southern
Democrats.
Mr. Webster's speech, so far as it related to these questions
and in this view of them, was approved by this entire class of
Democrats, North and South; but neither Mr. Madison, nor
any other distinguished Democrat anywhere, from Gen. Jackson
and Mr. Livingston, who wrote his proclamation, down to the
lowest on the list, ever approved in terms, I venture to say, that
part of the speech which denied that the Constitution was- a
Compact between the States. If Mr. Curtis can produce one
letter out of the mass he has from men of his class which does
so expressly endorse that part of Mr. Webster's speech, he is
respectfully asked to do so. The one which he selected from all
the rest for this purpose, certainly does not. Mr. Madison, in
this congratulatory letter, delighted with certain portions of Mr.
Webster's speech, and the high tone of patriotism which
breathed through the whole of it, seems, in the spontaneous expression of his admiration of those portions which pleased him
so much, to have acted, in not permitting even this occasion to
pass without inculcating an important truth, in a polite way,
upon the very wise maxim of Pope:
"Blunt truths more mischief than nice falsehoods do:
Men must be taught as if you taught them not,
And things unknown proposed as things forgot."
Whatever Mr. Curtis may think of it, I very much question
if Mr. Webster did not see and feel the point and force of this
language of Mr. Madison, so courteously and urbanely expressed.  Vte must have seen and must have felt that, while
this great statesman was highly gratified with the speech, as a
whole; yet, upon the main point at issue between him and Mr.
Calhoun, his distinguished correspondent differed toto owlo with
him.
So much, therefore, upon this point, the only one of the
former issues between Mr. Curtis and myself to which he has
alluded in his rejoinder. I have gone through with all of them.
Your readers will see clearly just how the controversy upon all
of them stands at present. Here I take my leave of them, and




SUR-REJOINDER OF MR6 STEPHENS.            131
am perfectly willing to let them rest just where and as they
stand, if Mr. Curtis is.
I now propose to take some notice of his new matter. In
doing this, I premise, by saying to Mr. Curtis and to your
readers that the questions which are involved in arriving at a
correct knowledge of the nature of the Government of the
United States are not speculative questions growing out of theories of any sort. They are questions of fact,-as Mr. Madison
says in his letter to Mr. Webster-questions of undisputable
facts, to be settled by evidence of the highest order. This evidence is to be found in the records and the documentary history
of the country, against which no speculations or theories can
have any weight with those whose sole object is the investigation
of truth. The proper solution of all these questions requires no
resort to the subtleties of metaphysics in any way. They are
clear and plain, when properly presented, to the commonest
understanding —even to "the wayfaring man, though he be a
fool."  They are only mystified when men, by resorting to
speculations, make a "mz2ucZdlea" of their theories upon them.
These are the questions which are discussed in other parts of
the book, which Mr. Curtis did not undertake' to review; and
the indisputable facts which must decide them, according to the
inexorable principles of logic in -the forum of reason, are therein
fully produced and - regularly presented. These facts, thus arrayed and set forth, establish the conclusion, beyond the power
of successful assault, that the Government of the United States
is a Government of States, made by States and for States-a
Federal Republic in every sense of the term, or " a Confederated Republic,": as Washington styled it, which means the same
thing. It is; in other words, just such a union of States as Vattel described in the quotation cited in the reply. This the facts
of our history show.
It is further maintained in the book, as a sound and indisputable principle, that where States are thus united, when one
or more of them palpably and intentionally violate any of the
terms or articles of their union, or fail to fulfil their obligations
according to those terms, the others are thereby absolved from
their obligations under the: Compact, and have a perfect right to




132           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
withdraw from a Union so formed-if, in so doing, they do their
former associates no other injury than that which results from
the loss to them of the advantages which the:Union secured to
them; and they have this perfect right so to withdraw without
any rightful or just: power or: authority on the part of their
former confederates to prevent their withdrawal.
It is also maintained in the book, as an unquestionable fact
in our.history, that one of the articles pof our Unioni was openly
and avowedly broken by several of the Northern Statesi. - The
article or clause in the Constitution so violated was one "without which," as declared by Judge Story from the bench of the
Supreme Court of the United: States,."the Union never would
have been formed."
Upon these points -of our history and indisputable principles
of public law, of reason, of right, and of justice, and not upon
any "muddled " theory of any sort, it, is maintained in the book
that the war which was inaugurated and waged by the Northern
States against the Southern States to prevent their withdrawal
from the Union, after their own open and palpable violation
of their Constitutional obligations, was utterly without rightful
authority, either by the Constitution or the laws of:nations;
that it was nothing short of a gross:and wanton aggression
against unoffendi'ng neighboring States; founded entirely upon
usurpation, and in direct violation of the fundamental principles
upon which American independence was declared and achieved.
-That independence-was not a national independence of the
people of all the Colonies united in one nation, as speculative
writers by "' mzuddled " theories have attempted to represent it
to be; but it was the independence of the States severally and
separately. - The principle upon which it rested, was the Sovereign Right of Local Self-Government in the people of each
Colony or State. The moving cause to it was the assault made
by the British Parliament upon the chartered rights of Massachusetts. It was against this:that the: "cry  was raised in  irginia, and- rang in shouts from the St. Croix- to the Alatamaha,
from the seaboard to the Alleghanies: "The Cause of Boston is
the cause of us all'!'  The cause. of Bost6nn then was; the Sovereign:Right of Local Self-Government.  This was the cause which




SUR-REJOINDER OF MR. STEPHENS.                133
triumphed by the joint action of: all the States in the achieve-'
ment of -their separate sovereignty and. independence..
X Mr. Curtis, in:his- rambling through the mazes of the new
matter. introduced, in his "rejoinder," is pleased to -say:;
"' If the Constitution was a Compact between Sovereign States,' the
Compact was broken by the secession of the Southern States; and it was
perfectly legitimate for Congress to make war upon the States themselves,
to conquer them as sovereign parties to a war, and, having conquered
them, to suppress their governments, and to mould them just as, it would:
mould a foreign territory conquered by arms or acquirede;by treaty."
Further on in the same strain he says:
"I confess, Mr. Editor, when I see or hear persons who are accounted
Democrats maintaining State Rights upon the Calhoun theory of our system, I can only wish'they would point'out to me upon' what possible
ground of- public law or political science they can complain of what has
been done by Congress to the South."
Now, in reply -to this, you will allow me to say to Mr. Curtis,
that I will promptly undertake to comply with his wish in this
respect.  This I do, however, not as:one accounted a: Democrat
"upon the Calhoun theory of our system," but as one who presumes to know something of the established principles of "publie law" as announced by those to wthom we are indebted for all
we have of what may be called "political science.".:The book referred -to shows that- he need not have qualified
his first sentence quoted above with an " if."  That "if" is forever disposed of, unless the argument in the book is shown to
be erroneous.  This neither he nor anybody else has as yet attempted to do, so far as I know.  The Constitution is a Compact- between Sovereign States, and from  this very fact the
enormity of the wrongs and outrages which have been- committed by Congress upon the South do but the more distinctly
and glaringly appear! This contract was not broken, however
by''the Secession of the Southern States, as:Mr. Curtis so flippantly'assumes.  I cannot permit myself to believe that he
would, upon cool reflection, venture to stake his reputation upol
the denial of the correctness of the position of the book, that it
was first intentionally and avowedly violated by several of-'the
orthern S-tates. No one knows better than Mr. Curtis, how




134  THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
devoted I was to the Union of the States under the Constitution,
and how he and I labored. together in the fall of 1860 to get the
"' offending States " to return to the discharge of their obligations
under it, that the Union might be preserved. He knows how
utterly opposed I was to Secession as a remedy for even this
breach of faith by the Northern members of the Union; not a
whit less so than MIr. Madison was to the like remedy for the
wrongs and oppressions of the Protective policy. He knows
equally well, too, that I then held as I now do, whether he did
or not, that the " aggrieved States " would be perfectly justified,
upon the principles of public law and natural justice, in: a resort
to this remedy in consequence of this continued breach of the
Compact, if they, in their sovereigni capacity, should so decide
to do; just as I doubt not Mr. Madison would have held in the
case of the Protective policy if the abandonment of the principle
upon which it was based had. not been agreed upon, as it was,
and if in consequence: of its continuance this "cutizma ratio"
had been resorted to by the States whose vital interests were
supposed to be affected by it, even though; it.had been done
against his judgment as to its expediency. He knows full well
that Secession was no favorite remedy with me for evils of any
sort under the Union. He knows also that, notwithstanding
all the efforts that were made everywhere, the "offending
States " would not, and did not right themselves in the matter
wherein they were so grossly derelict. And whether he will,
or will not, now seriously deny that that- Constitution was thus
openly and avowedly violated by several of the Northern States,
cannot affect the great fact in our history that it was. This
will forever remain one of the imperishable truths in the annals
of this country.
The Compact was first brolken by more than half of the very
States which projected and waged this war professedly with no.object but to make their confederates stand to their part of: the
bargain, while they most notoriously, if not shamefully, repudiated their own obligations under it!
Was not this a great wrong to the Seceding States, as well
as a huge crime against humanity a Does the history of the
world present a parallel of insolent and arrogant iniquity? The




SUR-REJOINDER OF MR. STEPHENS.           135
use of.power by which this most monstrous outrage upon right
and justice was perpetrated resulted in no way from the Compact
view of the Constitution. It sprang from, and was claimed
from, that "muddled" theory which assumed that the States,
by the adoption of the Constitution, had alienated a portion of
their sovereignty beyond their power of a rightful resumption
of it, and that that portion retained must yield to the portion
surrendered. This theoretic claim of power, in violation of the
fundamental principles of the whole structure of the Government, was the prime and leading cause of the war. To this is
to be attributed all the enormities of its inception, prosecution,
and present results. Moreover, the Compact view of the Constitution did not originate with Mr. Calhoun, or Democrats of
his faith, respecting State Rights.  It originated with the
framers of the Constitution itself, and was not denied by any
man of note for forty years of our history. It was the view of
Hamilton, Ames, Ellsworth, Sherman, Madison, Jefferson, and
Washington, to say nothing of others.  It was because he
thought this construction, which has in later times been put
upon it through the subtleties of a "muddled" theory, would
be put upon it, that Patrick Henry opposed its ratification.
But it was denied by the friends and advocates of the Constitution, in every State Convention where the question was raised,
that this construction could possibly be put upon it, in the face
of the notorious facts attending its formation. To quiet apprehensions, however, the Tenth Amendment was very soon unanimously adopted by the States, to settle that question forever.
The great truths relating to the nature and character of our
Federal Republic, peculiar in many respects as it is, were distinctly set forth by Mr. Jefferson in his Kentucky Resolutions
of 1798, long before the days of Mr. Calhoun. They are based
upon the fact, that the Constitution is a Compact between Sovereign States. These ICesolutions constituted the creed of the
Democratic party of that day, and of the only true Democratic
party or Constitutional party which has ever existed in'this
country since, or ever will hereafter. Under the administration
of the Government according to the principles of these Resolutions, for sixty years, no country in the world ever was more




136           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
happy, peaeeful, and prosperous than ours was; and I take: this
occasion to say to Mr. Curtis that neither he nor anybody else
may ever expect, or even hope for, a -restoration of those days
of peace, quiet, and happiness, with real Constitutional Liberty,
until the administration of the Federal government is brought
back to these principles: not by force, not by arms, but by the
expulsion from power of those who have committed these monstrous usurpations. This expulsion is to be by the people at
the ballot-boox!  In this way to-day, if they were: wise, the
"cry' would go forth throughout the entire North: "The cause
of Virginia is the cause of us all?"  For they may depend upon
it that what is now being enacted in that old and renowned
Commonwealth, as well as in other Southern States, will sooner
or later be enacted in their own States, if that theory and claim
of power under it, from which all these outrages legitimately
spring, is not entirely and speedily abandoned. It is utterly
inconsistent with that Sovereign Right of Local Self-Government on the part of the several States of this Union upon which
our entire system of American free institutions is based, and
upon which alone -these institutions can be maintained and
perpetuated.                    A..
ALEXANDE.. H. STEPHENS_




'ARTICLE IV.
3lR. STEPiEN1S' iREPLY TO HON. BOiRACE GCREELEY'S
CRITICISLf' ON THE WOR.E.
LIBERTY HALL,
CRAWFORDVILLE, GA.,: August 17, 1869.
2essrs. Editors of ithe Constituztionalist, Augutsta, GEa.:
WILL yOU please allow me -the use of-your columns to reply
to an article in a late number of the New  York Tribune, written by the Hon. Horace Greeley, and; which requires some notice from me.
In this article, Mr. Greeley, after alluding to.my work upon
the. "War between the States," and late. letters.in, reply to
Judge Nicholas upon the same subject, goes on to say:
"' Mr. Stephens' theory is, that the Union was a mere league of Sovereign Powers; and, of course, dissoluble at the pleasure of those Powers
respectively -of a minority, or,. in fact, of any one of them, so far as that
one is concerned. And he quotes sundry conspicuous Republicans -
among them, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin F. Wade, and Horace Greeley
- as having, at some time, favored this view.
" Mr. Stephens is utterly mistaken. Leaving others to speak for themselves, we can assure him that Horace Greeley never, at any moment of
his life, imagined that a single State, or a dozen of States, could rightfully dissolve the Union.  The doctrine of Horace.Greeley, which Mr.
Stephens has confounded with State Sovereignty, is that of Popzlar Sovereignty, or the right of a people -to recast or modify their political institutions and relations -the right set forth by Thomas Jefferson in the
Declaration of American Independence, as follows:
"'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;
that, to secure these rights, Governments: are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of Government becomes, destructive of these ends, it is the




138             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
right of thepeople to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers
in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness.'
"This doctrine of Jefferson's we have ever received; and we have held
it precisely as it reads. The same is true, we presume, of Messrs. Lincoln,
Wade, and other Republicans. Mr. Stephens may say it justifies the socalled Secession of the South; we think differently. We hold that Secession was the work of a violent, subversive, bullying, terrorizing minority,
overawing and stifling the voice of a decided majority of the Southern
people. The facts which justify this conclusion are embodied in The
American Conflict, more especially in vol. i., chap. xxii. According to Mr.
Stephens' conception, a majority of the people of Delaware, consisting
of less than 100,000 persons, might lawfully dissolve the Union; but
the whole population of New York south of the Highlands-at least
1,500,000 in number-could do nothing of the kind. Mr. Stephens' may
possibly be the true doctrine, but it certainly never was ours, nor of any
Republican so far as we know. The right we affirm is not based on the
Federal Constitution, but is before and above any and all Constitutions."
I quote him in full on the points to be commented on, that
your readers and the public may thoroughly understand them,
and be able to judge fairly and justly between us, and come to
a correct conclusion as to whether I or he was or is mistaken in
the premises.
Now  what is affirmed by me in the first volume of the
"Constitutional View  of the Late War between the States,"
and what Mr. Greeley, with other Republicans, is quoted therein to sustain, is this:
"lMen of great ability of our own day-men who stand high in the
Republican ranks at this time, who had and have no sympathy-with the
late Southern movement, are fully committed to the rightfulness of that
movement.  Mr. Lincoln himself was fully committed to it. Besides
him, I refer you to but two others of this class, now prominent actors
in public affairs. They are Senator Wade, of Ohio, at this time VicePresident of the United States, and Mr. Greeley, of the New York
Triburne, who is'a power behind the throne greater than the throne
itself.' "
Then after quoting Senator Wade, with comments on his
utterances, I go on to quote from  the New York Tribune, of
the 9th of November, 1860, an article which is acknowledged.
by Mr. Greeley to be his, and published in his history of the
war, the "American Conflict," page 359, vol. i., as follows:




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY  TO MR. GREELEY.                    39
"The telegraph informs us that most of the Cotton States are meditating a withdrawal from the Union, because of Lincoln's election. Very
well: they have a right to meditate, and meditation is a profitable employment of leisure. We have a chronic, invincible disbelief in Disunion
as a' remedy for either Northern or Southern grievances.  We cannot
see any necessary connection between the alleged disease and this ultraheroic remedy; still, we say, if any one sees fit to meditate Disunion,
let him do so unmolested. That was a base and hypocritic row that was
once raised at Southern dictation, about the ears of John Quincy Adams,
because he presented a petition for the dissolution of the Union. The
petitioner had a right to make the request; it was the Member's duty to
present it.  And now, if the Cotton States consider the value of the
Union debatable, we maintain their perfect right to discuss it.  Nay: we
hold with Jefferson,. to the inalienable right of Communities to alter or
abolish forms of Government that have become oppressive or injurious;
and, if the Cotton States shall decide that they can do better out of the - nion
than in it, twe insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be
a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless; and woe do not. see how. one
party can have a right to do ohat another party has. a right to prevent.  We
must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union, and
nullify or defy the laws thereof; to owithdraw from the Union is quite
another matter. And, whenever a considerable section of our Union shall'
deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a Republic, whereof one
section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.
"But, while we thus uphold the practical liberty, if not the abstract
right of Secession, we must insist that the step be taken, if it ever shall
be, with the deliberation and gravity befitting so momentous an issue.
Let ample time be given for reflection; let the subject be fully canvassed
before the people; and let a popular vote be taken in every case, before
Secession is decreed. Let the people be told just why they are asked to
break up the Confederation; let them have both sides of the question
fully presented; let them reflect, deliberate, then vote; and let the act
of Secession be the echo of an unmistakable popular fiat. A judgment
thus rendered, a demand for Separation so backed, would either be acquiesced in without the effusion of blood, or those who rushed upon carnage to defy and defeat it, would place themselves clearly in the wrong."
I give above, this quotation in full, as I-did in the book
referred to, that no injustice may be done to him  by partial
extracts.
What I quoted him to sustain, was, as clearly appears,:the
rightdfdelness of Secession in itself, and no particular theory of
mine touching the principles upon which it was based.  Does




140             THE P REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
not the article from  his own paper and book, above spread before your readers, fully sustain my affirmation for which the
quotation was made? -.Vcs I;" 1utterly mivstacken?. "  Or did I in
any way confound State:. Sovereignty with Popular -Sovereignty. What difference Mr. Greeley sees between State Sovereignty and Popular Sovereignty I know not.  By State Sover-.
eignty I understand the sovereignty of the people composing a
State in an organized political body.  But what I affirmed, and
quoted him to sustain,-rested upon no distinction between these
phrases.  It was simply as to the righltfulness of the act in itself, on the part of the people of a State, without reference to
the source of the right.  My comments- on this question in the
book, page 518, are as follows.  I give them in full also, that it
may be clearly seen that no. injustice was done to him: 
"What better argument could I make to show the rightfulness of
Secession, if the Southern States, of their own good will and pleasure,
chose to resort to it, even for no other cause than Mr. Lincoln's election,
than is herein set forth in his own pointed, strong, and unmistakable
language? It is true, he waives all questions of Compact between the
States. He goes deeper into fundamental principles, and plants the right
upon the eternal truths announced in the Declaration of Independence.
That is bringing up principles, which I have not discussed, not because I
do not endorse them as sound and' correct, to the word and letter, but because it"was not necessary for my purpose. Upon these immutable principles, the justifiableness of Georgia in'her Secession Ordinance of the 19th
of January, 1861, will stand clearly established for all time to come. For
if, with less than one hundred thousand population, she was such a people
in 1776 as had the unquestionable right to alter and change their form of
Government as they pleased, how much more were they such a people,
with more than ten times the number in 1861? The same principle applies to all the:States which quit the old and joined the new Confederation. Mr. Greeley here speaks of the Union as a Confederation and not a
3Nation. This was, perhaps, the unconscious utterance of a great truth
when the true spirit was moving him.
":The State of Georgia did not take this step, however, in withdrawing from the Confederation, without'the most thorough discussion. It
is true it was not a dispassionate discussion. Men seldom, if ever, enter
into such discussions with perfect calmness, or even that degree of calmness with which all such subjects ought to be considered. But the subject was fully canvassed before the people, Both sides were strongly presented. In the very earnest remonstrance against this measure made. by




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. GREELEY.'141
me, on the 14th of November, 1860, to which you have alluded, was an
appeal equally earnest for just such a vote as he suggests, in order that
the action of the State on the subject might be'the echo of an unmistakable popular fiat.' On the same occasion I did say, in substance, just
what he had so aptly said before, that.the people of Geogia, in their Sovereign capacity, had the right to- secede if they chose to do so, and that
in this event of their so determining -to do,. upon a mature consideration
of the question, that I should bow in submission to the majesty of their
will. so expressed I:" This, when so said by me, is what it seems was' the dead. fly in the
ointment;' of that speech, so sadly'marring its general perfume.'. This
was'the distinct avowal of the right of the State to overrule my personal
convictions and plunge me,' as he says,' into treason to the Nation.'
" Was not the same' dead fly in the ointment  of his article of the 9th
of -November, only five days before? iAnd if ging with my State in
what he'declared she'had a perfect right to do, pluliged me into treason
to the Nation, is he not clearly-an accessory before the fact, by a rule of
construction not more strained-than that laid down in the trial of State
cases by many judges not quite so notoriously infamous as Jeffreys? By
a rule not more strained than that which would make out treason in the
act itself'! But I do not admit the rule in its application either to the accessory or the principal." 
So much: for the allegation that I was utterly mistaken/
Now let me turn upon Mr. Greeley and ask, how it is with
him in the premises. Was he not " utterly mistaken" when
he said so vauntingly for himself in the article now under review, "fHorace Greeley never at any moment of his life imagined
that'a single State or a dozen of States could rightly. dissolve the
Union! " 
Did he not expressly say, on the 9th of November, 1860,
through the columns of the Tribune, that "if the Cotton States
shall decide that they can do better out of the Union than in it,
we insist on letting them go in peace.  The right to secede mary
be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless; and we do not
see: how one party can- have a right to do what another party
has a right to prevent.  We must ever resist the asserted right
of any State to remain in the Union, and nullify or defy the
laws thereof; to withdraw from  the Union is qzste another
matter  "
- But, besides what I quoted him as saying, did he not, on the




142             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
17th day of December, 1860, three days before the Secession of
South Carolina, in the Tribune, assert:
"If it" (the Declaration of Independence) "justiJled the Secession from
the British Empire of three millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why
it would not justify the Secession of five millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. If woe are mistaken on this point, why does not some one
attempt to show wherein and why?"
Again: Did he not in the Tribune, on the 23d day of February, 1861, five days after the inauguration of President Davis,
at Montgomery, use this language:
"We have repeatedly said, and toe once more insist, that the great principle
enbodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, is
sound and just; and that if the Slave States, the Cotton States, or the Gulf
States only, choose to form an Independent Nation, THEY HAVE A CLEAR,MORAL RIGHT TO DO SO.'
These quotations from  the Tribuqne I see set forth by exPresident Buchanan in his work entitled "Buchanan's Administration," page 97.  I take it for granted they are correct..
Then how, in the face of all these proofs, can the Tribune now
say, that "  orace Greeley never, at any moment of his life, i magined that a single State, or a dozen States, could rightfully dis-.solve the Unionr"
Is not this a full and explicit acknowledgment of the right
of a State to withdraw or secede?  Did the Southern States ever
attempt to dissolve the Union in any other way than by peaceably-seceding or withdrawingfrom it?  Mr. Greeley knows, and
the world knows, that they did not.
One other remark upon this editorial now under consideration.  In it MIr. Greeley says:
" According to Mr. Stephens' conception, a majority of the people of
Delaware, consisting of less than 100,000 persons, might lawfully dissolve
the Union, but the whole populationof New York, south of the Highlands - at least 1,500,000 in number- could do nothing of the kind. Mr.
Stephens' may possibly be the true doctrine, but it certainly never was
ours, nor of any Republican, so far as we know. The right, we affirm, is
not based on the Federal Constitution, but is before and above any and
all Constitutions."




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. GREELEY.        143
Just so, let it be said to Mr. Greeley, with the doctrine
advanced by me in the book referred to! It is not based on
the F ederal Constitution, but upon the authority that madce that
Compact. It is based upon. principles existing "before and
above any and all Constitutions."  It is based upon the Paramount Authority (call it Popular Sovereignty or State Sovereignty, or by any other name) by which all organized States or
Peoples can rightfully makce or ~unmake State or Federal Co.Qstitutions at their pleasure; subject only to the great moral law,
which regulates and governs the actions and conduct of nations!
My conception, however, involves no such nonsense as that
exhibited in his statement of it, touching the relative populations of the whole State of Delaware, and a portion only (being
a large minority, however,) of the population of the State of
New York. Populations in this respect must be looked to, and
considered in their organized character. The doctrine advocated by me with all its corollaries rests upon thefact that Delaware, however small her population, is a  perfectly organized
State-is a Sovereign State-and as such is an integral Member of our Federal Republic, and that New York with her ever
so many more people is no more.  The doctrine is that ours is
indeed a Federal Republic-constituted, not of one people in
mass, as a single Republic is, but composed of a number of
separate Republics.
In this Federal Republic, the little Republic of Delaware' by
the Constitution of the United States, which sets forth the terms
of the Compact between these several Republics composing the
*Union, has just as much political power in the enactment of all
Federal laws, as the great Republic of New York has, without
any regard to their relative, respective populations. In the'
Congress of States, which is provided for by the Constitution to
talke charge of all Federal matters entrusted to its control, Delaware, to-day, with her little over one hundred thousandc population, stands perfectly equal in political power to New York with
ier nearlyforty times that nuSber /  Congress under our system
means the same now it ever meant. It means the meeting or
assemblage of the States composing the Union by their accredited Representatives in Grand Council. In this Grand




144           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
Council, or Congress of States, Delaware has as much political
power as New York. It is true in one House of this Congress,
her one member has but little showing against the thirty odd
members of New York.  But her eszality of power is maintained
in the other. Here this perfect equality of political power
between all the States is as distinctly retained under the second
Articles of Union as it was under the first. No law can be
passed by the Congress, if a majority of the States, through their
" Ambassadors" in the Senate, object.
It is on this principle, that the six New England. States with
a fraction over three millions of population, under the census of
1860, have in the last resort in the Council Chambers of the
Congress, six times as much power in determining all questions
before them, as the State of New York, though New York
alone has a population of over half a million more than all these
other States together! It is upon this principle that these six
States have as much power in the administration of the Government'as the six States of New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois had with their aggregate population
of thirteen and a alfa millions in 1860!
These are facts which neither Mr. Greeley nor anybody else
can successfully controvert.
Ours, therefore, being a Federal Government, is and must be,
as all other Federal Governments are, "a Government iof States,
and for States," with limited powers directed to specific objects;
and not a Government in any sense or view for the masses of
the people of the respective States in their internal and municipal affairs. This great Sovereign Power of Local Self-Government, for which Independence was declared and achieved,
resides with the people of the respective States.
A ready and sufficient answer to Mr. Greeley's. distorted
"conception" about the political power of the comparative
populations of Delaware and New York, may be given to him
from his own doctrines. It is this: If a majority of the people
of Delaware, after due deliberation and full consideration, have
the same right, whether by virtue of State Sovereignty or Popular Sovereignty, to withdraw from the Unionwhich they had to
declare their Independence of Great Britain, which he admits




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. GREELEY.            145
they have, it does not therefore follow that less than half the
population of the State of New York can, wlith equal right, carry
that State out, against the will of the majority, though the
minority in New York wishing to do so be five hundred or'five
thousand -tdimes greater in number than the ncajority in Delaware! i He may, therefore, not be alarmed at any of the legitimate consequences of his own doctrines!
What he says about Secession having been carried in the
Southern States by "a violent, subversive, bullying, terrorizing,
minority, overawing and stifling" a majority of the people of
these States, is nothing but bald and naked assertion, which
cannot be maintained against the facts of history.. The question
was as thoroughly discussed as any ever was before the people.
Conventions were regularly called by the duly constituted
authorities of the States, and'members duly elected thereto,
according to -law in all the States, which seceded before Mr.
Lincoln's Proclamation of War.  These elections were as orderly
as elections usually are in any of the States on great occasions.
In these Conventions, Ordinances of Secession were passed by
decided major'ities! It is true -that a large minority in all these
Conventions, save. one, and in all these States, were opposed to
Secession as a question of policy; very few in any of them
questioned the Right, or doubted' their Duty to go with'the
majority.'B3ut after Mr. Lincoln's Proclamation of Var - after
his illegal and unconstitutional call for troops - after his suspension of the Writ of Habeas Co2ypus, no -people on, earth were
ever more' nanimous in any cause than were the people of the
Southern States, in defence' of what they deemed the greatessential'principles of American Free Institutions! There was
not one in ten thousand of the people, in at. least ten of the
Southern States, whose heart and soul were not thoroughly enlisted in' the cause! Nor' did any people on earth ever make
greater or, more heroic sacrifices f6r its success, during four long
years of devastation, blood, and carnage!
A majority of the people overawed and terrorized by a'minority! Indeedl!
If so, what becaume of this majority when the Confederate
Armies, which stood between them  and their deliverers, were~10




146           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
overpowered?'Where is this majority now, even with the
sweeping disfranchisement which silences so many of the overawing tyrants? Why has it not been permitted to exercise the
inalienable Right of Self-Government, even with the reinforcement of the enfranchised blacks? Why are so many of these
States, till -this day, held under, military rule, with their whole
populations "pinned " to very bad Government by Federal bayonets, under the pretext of their continued " cdisloyalty? " This
assertion, as to the state of things in the beginning, is as utterly
groundless in fact, as it is utterly inconsistent with the gratuitous assumptions on which the presentpretext is based!
Is it not amazing, Messrs. Editors, that Mr. Greeley in the
face of the facts for the last four years, to say nothing of those
of the war, when, according to his own showing, the Administration at Washington in rushing into it, were in "the wrong"
-I say, to omit all mention of the wrongs of the war, its
immense sacrifices of blood and treasure, is it not amazing in
the highest degree, that Mr. Greeley, in the face of the facts of
the last four years only, should now repeat to us the Principles
of American Independence as his creed? HIave not the Constitutions of ten States, as made and adopted by the people
thereof, "founded on such principles and organized in such form
as seemed to them most likely to effect their safety and happiness," been swept from existence by military edict? Have not
the people in these ten States, including the arbitrarily enfranchised blacks, been denied the right to form new Constitutions,
laying their foundations on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their safety and happiness? Have they not been required, and
literally cbmpelled, to form such Constitutions as seemed most
likely to effect the safety and security of the dominant faction
at Washington?
Is this holding up to our gaze these immutable and ever-tobe-reverenced Principles of the Declaration of Independence, at
this time and under the present circumstances, intended only as
mockery added to insult, injury, and outrage?
Yours, most respectfully,
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.




ARTICLE V.
THE SUBJECT OF THE ELECTION OF MR. DA VIS TO THE
PRESIDENCY OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES.
I.-LETTER OF HON. ALEXANDER LM. CLAYTON, OF MISISSIPPI,
CRITICISING MR. STEPHENS' STATEMENT CONCERNING IT.
WOOD COTE, MISS., June 1'7, 1870.
Editors Ajpeal:  The weekly Louisville Courier-Journal,
of the 17th inst., contains an extract from  the second volume
of Mr. Stephens' History of the War, which calls for some comment.  The passage alluded t6 is in these words:
"Toombs was to have been chosen President, but failed through a
singular misapprehension on the part of representatives from other States,
who had understood that he had refused to have his name put forward.
There was some misunderstanding, likewise, concerning Howell Cobb
being the choice of Georgia. By accidental complications, Mississippi had
the first choice, and chose Jefferson Davis, leaving Georgia the second,
which resulted in the Vice-Presidency of Mr. Stephens."
There is great error in this statement, unintentional no
doubt, and induced to some extent, by the modesty of Mr.
Stephens, which makes him unwilling to give that prominence
to himself, which really belongs to him.
I was at that time a member of the Provisional Congress
from Mississippi.  Believing that Mr. Davis was the choice of
the South for the position of President, before repairing to
Montgomery, I addressed him  a letter to ascertain if he would
accept it.  He replied that it was not the place he desired; that
if he could have his choice, he would greatly prefer to be in
active service as Commander-in-chief of the Army; but that he




148           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
would give himself to the cause in any capacity whatever. That
was the only letter of which I have any knowledge, that he
wrote on the subject, and that was shown only to a very few
persons, and only when I was asked if Mr. Davis would accept
the Presidency.
I intend no injustice or disrespect to any of the gentlemen named, but I am sure Mr. Stephens was himself the first
choice of Georgia. There was no electioneering, no management on the part of any one, each voter was left to determine
for himself in whose hands the destinies of the infant Confederacy should be'placed. By a law as fixed as gravitation itself,
and as little disturbed by outside influences, the minds of members centered upon Mr. Davis.
After a few days of anxious and intense labor, the Provision'al Constitution was framed and it became necessary to give
it vitality by'putting some one at head of the new Government.
Then Mr. Crawford, of Georgia, approached me and said that
it had been the wish of that State to make M3r. Stephens President; but he (Crawford) had become satisfied that it was the
wish of all the other States, that Mr. Davis should be assigned
to that position. He then asked me if Mr. Stephens would be
acceptable to the Mississippi delegation as Vice-President. I
replied, that I believed he would be their choice. Without any
effort on the part of the friends of either, the election was made
without the slightest dissent. Of the accidental complications
referred to, I have not the least knowledge; and always thought
that the election of Mr. Davis arose from the spontaneous conviction of his peculiar fitness. I have consulted no one on the
subject, and have appended my name, only to avoid resting an
important fact upon anonymous authority.
Very respectfully, yours,
ALEX. M. CLAYTO0.




MR. STEPHENS' STATEMENT.                149
II.-REPLY OF MR. STEPHENS, WITH HIS STATEMENT UPON THE
SUBJECT.
LIBERTY HALL,
CRAWFORDYILLE, GA., June 25, 1870. 
To the Editors of the ]iemnphis A2peal:
GENTLEMEN: —I have just seen a copy of your paper of the
21st, in which is published a letter from Hon. Alexander M.
Clayton, -of Mississippi, that is very properly entitled to some
notice from me.
In this letter -Judge Clayton quotes from  the Louisville
Courier Journal what purports, as he quotes it, to be an " extract" from the second volume of my work upon the war upon
the subject of the election of Mr. Davis to the Presidency of the
Southern Confederacy, and after giving the " extract " proceeds
to say: "There is great error in this statement, unintentional
no doubt," etc.
Now I have not seen a copy of the issue of the CourierJournal to which he refers; but I wish to say to you, and to
your readers, as I have written to Judge Clayton, that there
are no such'words used by me in the book alluded to, as those
said to be an " extract" from it. All who wish to know exactly
what I said upon this subject, as well as all others treated of,
had better consult the book itself than rely upon any other
source for correct information in regard to it.
What is said in the second volume of my work upon the war
upon the points referred to by Judge Clayton, I herewith append, that you may give it entire to your readers, if you think
it of sufficient public interest to do so. I think if Judge Clayton had seen this, he would not written his letter.
Yours, respectfully,
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.
[EXTRACT FROM BOOK APPENDED.]
"Major HEISTER - -'Pray tell us, Mr. Stephens, if you have no objection, how this came about-how Mr. Davis came to be chosen President,
and you Vice-President, under these circumstances.'




150             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
" Mr. STEPHENS -- I have no objection to giving you my opinion on
this subject, as to how Mr. Davis came to be chosen under the circumstances. It is, however, only an opinion. I was somewhat surprised myself at both results as they occurred; but as I took only a very small part
in the elections any way, I can speak of my own knowledge as to but few
facts connected with either. The conclusion that I came to from all facts
I learned from others, before and afterwards, was that the selection of Mr.
Davis grew out of a misapprehension on the part of some of the delegates
of one, or, perhaps two or three of the States, in their consultations of the
night before, as to the man that the Georgia delegation had determined
to present. A majority of the States, as I understood, and afterwards
learned, were looking to Georgia for the President.'
"Major HEISTER -'Who was the man Georgia had determined to
present'
" Mr. STEPHENS -' Georgia, at the time, had not acted in the matter.
Her delegation did not hold their consultation until next morning. Mr.
Toombs was the man whom they then unanimously agreed to present; at
least there was perfect unanimity on the subject with all the delegates in
attendance. Two, Mr. Hill and Mr. Wright, were absent. I now speak of
my own knowledge. I was at this meeting of the Georgia delegation, and
therein was acted the only part IRook in the matter. That was by making
the motion for Mr. Toombs' nomination to the Convention, supposing that
it would be unanimously acceptable to that body; but in this meeting it
was stated, after my motion was made, that two or three of the States, in
their consultations, which had been held the night before, had determined
to present the name of Mr. Davis. The -fact only, without any reason for
it, was stated, also, only as something which had been heard, but not
positively known. On this announcement, a committee of our delegation,
of which Mr.. Crawford was chairman, or perhaps he alone, (I am not certain whether any, or how many more were united with him,) was appointed
to ascertain if what had been heard in relation to the action of the other
States referred to was true; and if it was, it was understood, at the instance
of Mr. Toombs, that his name was not to be presented by Georgia, and
that our delegation would vote for Mr. Davis, and have no contest on the
subject.
"' In this meeting of our delegation, after the announcement alluded to
had been made, and the course in reference to it had been resolved upon,
Mr. Kenan moved, that in case what had been stated as rumor should be
found true, anid thename of Mr. Toombs should not be presented for the
first office, then mine should be for the second. This motion was cordially
seconded by Mr. Nisbet, and was unanimously agreed to, after a distinct
understanding arrived at, by what I said in reference to it; which was,
that in no event was my name to be presented, unless it was first ascertained positively, that Mr. Davis' name was to go before the Convention,




MR. CRAWFORD'S STATEMENT.                   151
and not that of Mr. Toombs; and further, that my name would be unanimously acceptable to the States and their respective delegations. These
points the committee of our delegation was instructed speedily to inquire
into and report."'
III.-L ETTER  OF HON. MARTIN J. CRAWFORD UPON THE SAME
SUBJECT.
[FROM THE sUN AND TIMES.]
COLUMBUS, GA.,,June 25, 1870.
M2essrs. Editors: -I see a communication this morning in
your paper from  Hon. A. M. Clayton, of Mississippi, in reference to the election of the President of the Confederate States,
in which the following paragraph occurs:
" After a few days of anxious and intense labor, the Provisional Co nstitutiofn was framed, and it became necessary to give it vitality by putting
some one at the head of the Government. Then Mr. Crawford, of Georgia,
approached me and said that it had been the wish of that State to make
Mr. Stephens President; but he (Crawford) had become satisfied that it
was the wish of all the other States that Mr. Davis should be assigned to
that position. He then asked me if Mr. Stephens would be acceptable to
the Mississippi delegation as Vice-President. I replied, that I believed bhe
would be their choice. Without any effort on the part of the friends of
either the election was made without the slightest dissent. Of the accidental complications referred to, I have not the least knowledge; and always thought the election of Mr. Davis arose from spontaneous conviction
of his peculiar fitness. I have consulted no one on the subject, and have
appended my name, only to avoid resting an important fact upon anonymous authority."
The mistake into which Mr. Clayton falls is that I should
have said to him  that Georgia had desired Mir. Stephens as
President.  On the contrary, Georgia desired Mr. Toombs; and
the delegation in conference upon the subject on the morning
of the election had so declared; and if, upon inquiry, South
Carolina and Florida had not determined to cast their votes for
Mr. Davis, then Mr, Toombs' name was to be brought forward.
To ascertain how this matter stood was made my duty by the
delegation, and with positive instructions from  Mr. Toombs




152           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
that his name was not to be presented if those States had declared for Mr. Davis in their separate meetings. This they had
done, and that made it necessary to act upon the subject-matter
of the Vice-Presidency as agreed upon in our meeting of the
Georgia Delegates; which was, that in the event Mr. Toombs'
name was not presented for the first place, Mr. Stephens' should
be for the second; and I had been also requested to see whether
that would be acceptable to the other States, hence my interview with Mr. Clayton. I intended to say to him, and had
always' supposed that he so understood me, that our State intended to present a name for the Presidency;' but the action
already taken by some of the States would prevent that, and I
had called to see him for the purpose of ascertaining whether
or not Mr. Stephens would be an acceptable man to his delegation for Vice-President.
Mr. Stephens never entertained an- idea of the Presidency;
and, indeed, thought that it would not be proper for'him to
have it.  This I know, because while the subject was being
considered, some members of the Congress mentioned the matter
to him, and he very promptly said that his name could not be
used in that way. After these gentlemen left our lodgings he
said to me, in his usual, frank manner, that he had not been a
leader in the movement which was about to result in the establishment of a new Government, and that "to make him President would be like talking a child out; of the hands of its mother
and giving it to a stepmother to raise."  "But," continued he,
"some one who has been identified with the cause should be
chosen, and whosoever he may be, he shall have the benefit of
whatsoever experience and ability I can bring to his support.
We are entering upon new and untried fields, and I greatly
fear that our people, are not prepared for the great responsibilities which are ahead of them. But Georgia, whose sovereign will I am bound to obey, has taken her course, and that
assigns me to my position, and in that, I will discharge to her
my duty honestly and faithfully; and if at last we shall lose all,
T do not care to survive the liberties of my country."
I give in substance, if not in words, the language of this
great and good man in the hours of our repose from the great




MRP. CRAWFORD'S STATEMENT.           153
duties then devolving upon us, and which neither he nor I ever
expected to be brought before the public eye.
A dark day, about the 20th of February, 1862, came over
us, and there was an interview and a solemn parting between
Mr. Stephens and myself which I have- never put upon. paper;
but which I do not intend to leave unknown to the world,
which'shows that he is as patriotic and true to his country as
were the bravest and best of the Spartans to theirs:
Touching the Presidency of the Confederate States, I have
this to say: That for more than ten years, I had looked for the
separation of the States, and the disconnection of the Southern
from the Northern States of the American Union. I had acted
for seven sessions of the Congress of the United States with the
extreme wing of the States' Rights men, and am free to say
that at Washington, during that time, Mr. Davis was looked
upon as the representative man, or at least as the man more
identified with our view of States' Rights and Southern Rights
than any other, and therefore was looked to as the man who
should be chosen the first President of the Confederate States,
or our new Government, under whatever name it might be
organized. But the Provisional Congress was composed, to a
large extent, of gentlemen who were not in the old Congress;
yet many of whom were men of experience, education, public
service and substance. Our first duty was to frame a constitution. Mr. Toombs, who had been for nearly twenty years in the
American Congress, and for ten of them in the Senate-in
the prime of his manhood and in the fulness of his intellectual
vigor - was a member of the body. He had never looked to
the Presidency of the new Republic, either at Washington or
Montgomery, but in framing of the Constitution and the organization of the Confederate Government, he showed himself to
be one so wonderfully endowed with the very knowledge at
that time mostly needed, that a manifestation in his favor was
made by the delegates from several States to put him at the
head of the government. He, by persons unacquainted with
him, is looked upon and considered as rash and impetuous. In
conversation this is so, but when anything is to be done, it is
not so. Notwithstanding all he may say in the highway, he is




154           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
the wisest and safest man mi counsel whom it has been my
fortune to meet.
It was this wisdom, knowledge and discretion which directed
attention to him at that time for the Presidency, and with the
vote of South Carolina or Florida, as I understood, he would
have been unanimously chosen as President; for it was well
agreed and understood that there should be but one name presented for each place, and whosoever should command four
States out of the six would receive the whole. I think that Mr.
Davis was elected because he had been long identified with the
theories which were then triumphant; because of his supposed
influence with the officers of the old army, as well as the fact
than Messrs. Toombs, Cobb and Stephens were all from the
same State, and the political waters were too shallow for them
to turn in without injury to each other.
Very respectfully,
~MARTm J. CRAWFORD.




ARTICLE VI.
CONFEDERATE INACTIVITY AFTER THE FIRST B.ATTLE OF ifANASSAS, 1861.-CRITICISfM OF iON E. BARKSDALE OF.MIrSSisIPP.
ON THIS POIVT.
I.-EDITORIAL OF THE AUGUSTA (GA.) "CONSTITUTIONALIST," 31ST
JULY, 1870, BY J. R. RANDALL: WITrr LETTERS FROM PRESIDENT DAvIS AND GENERAL JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON.
The Truth of History. —Mr. Stephens and Mr. Barksdale.
SEVERAL weeks ago, Hon. E. Barksdale, editor of the Jackson
(Miss.) Clarion, joined issue with Hon. Alexander H. Stephens
in his statement in the second volume of the " War Between
-the States," on the much mooted question of the inactivity of
the Confederate army at Manassas during the whole Fall of
1861, after the great victory of the 21st of July. This article
(which it now seems was not founded upon a perusal of the
exact language of Mr. Stephens upon the subject, but upon a
"sketch" which we gave of the substance, as we understood it,
of several parts of the book) maintained that Mr. Stephens had
committed "a grave error, scarcely excusable in one occupying
his position and who has undertaken to write for posterity."
To show this error, Mr. Barksdale published, for the first time,
a correspondence between President Davis and General Joseph
E. Johnston upon the subject. That correspondence, as a part
of the history of the times, we give to our readers. It is as
follows:
RICHMOND, VA., November 3, 1861.
General J. E. Johnston, Commanding Department of the Potomac:
SIR: Reports have been and are being widely circulated, to the effect
that I prevented General Beauregard from pursuing the enemy after the
battle of Manassas, and had subsequently restrained him from advancing
upon Washington City. Though such statements may have been made
merely for my injury, and in that view their notice might be postponed to




156              THIE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
a more convenient season, they have acquired importance from the fact
that they have served to create distrust, to excite disappointments and
must embarrass the administration in its further efforts to reinforce the
armies of the Potomac, and generally to provide for the public defence.
For these public considerations, I call upon you, as the CommandingGeneral, and as a party to all the conferences held by me on the 21st and
22d of July, to say whether I obstructed the pursuit of the enemy after
the victory at Manassas, or have ever objected to an advance or other active
operation which it was feasible for the army-to undertake?
Very respectfully, yours, etc.,
JEFFERSON DAVIS.
HEADQUARTERS, CENTREVILLE, November 10, 1861.
To His Excellency the President:
SIR: I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 3d inst.,. in
which you call upon me, " as the Commanding-General, and as a party to
all the conferences held by you on the 21st and 22d- of July, to say:
"Whether you obstructed the pursuit after the victory of Manassas.
" Or have ever objected to an advance or other active operations which
it was feasible for the army to undertake."
To the first question I reply No. The pursuit was " obstructed " by the
enemy's troops at Centreville, as I have stated in my official report. In
that report I have also said why no advance was made upon the enemy's
capital for reasons as follows:
The apparent freshness of the United States troops at Centreville,
which checked our pursuit; the strong force occupying the works near
Georgetown, Arlington, and Alexandria; the certainty, too, that General
Patterson; if needed, would reach Washington with his army of more than
30,000 sooner than we could; andc the condition and inadequate means of
the army in ammunition, provisions, and transportation, prevented any
serious thoughts:of advancing against the capital.
To. the second question I reply that it has never been feaible for the
army to advance further than it has done-to the line of Fairfax C. H.,
with its advanced post at Upton's, Munson's and Mason's Hill. After a
conference at Fairfax C. H., with the'three senior general officers, you announced it to be impracticable to give this army the strength which those
officers considered necessary.to enable it to assume the offensive. Upon
which I'drewv it back to its present position.
Most respectfully, your ob't. serv't
J. E. JOHNSTON.,A true copy:
G. W. C. LLE, Colonel and A. D. C.
To the President.




MR. STEPHENS' LETTER TO MR. BARKSDALE.   157
-ve took no notice of this at the time, because we saw no
new  light thrown upon the subject by this correspondence,
though it was never before published.
In the Memphis Appeal, of the 25th instant, we see a letter
from Mr. Stephens to Mr. Barksdale on the subject of his editorial in the Clarion, and Mr. iBarksdale's reply, as well as
another exceedingly interestng paper, which, as -far as we are
aware, hasnever before been made public. This paper and the
correspondence between Mr. Stephens and Mr. Barksdale we
give as we find them in the Appeal  feeling assured that they.
will be perused with no ordinary interest.
II. LETTERS REFERRED'TO BfY MR; RANDALL:
LIBERTY HALL,.
CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., July 6, 1870.
Hon. E. BARKSDALE:
IEAR Sm: —In the C>larion I see an editorial headed "The
Battle of Manassas, &c.," which requires: a notice from me.
You will pardon me; I trust, for saying that I feel quite sure
if you had seen what is' stated in the 2d volume of my book upon
the war, now being issued from the press, you would not have
expressed yourself as you did in this article; and that you may
know exactly what my statement in the book is, upon the subject of the advance of the Confederate ar"my, after the battle of
Manassas, I send you an accurate extract from  it'(pages 488489,) as follows:
"4 Major HEISTER-' One thing, Mr. Stephens; I should like to know just
at this point; and that is, why Gens. Johnston and Beauregard remained
entirely inactive atfManassas during the whole Fall after the rout of Gen.
McDowell's army on the 21st July?' Why did they not push on to
Washington? They must have had a very large force early in the Fall,
and flushed with victory as they' were, it has always been a mystery to me
why they stood so perfectly quiet until McClellan's new army was organized almost within their sight? Can you explain this?'
"Mr. STEPHENS-' I do not know that I can. With the military operations, as I have said before, it is not my purpose to'deal, except in so far
as they. bear upon the questions which we have directly in hand. A great




158             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
deal has been said and written upon the subject of your enquiry. It has
been said that Thomas J. Jackson, who afterwards became so famous
under the appellation of' Stonewall,' and who was the Colonel of that
name so favorably mentioned in Genieral Johnston's report of the battle of
the 21st of July, was urgent for an immediate pressing forward to Washington.  Some think his views were right. My own opinion, from the
reports of both General Johnston and General Beauregard, as well as from
other sources, is, that such a movement at that time, was altogether
impracticable. As to the state of things afterwards, that is a different
question. All I know upon that point is, that General Johnston did wish
to make some movement of the sort in the early part of the Fall, when he
was better prepared. Not, however, with'the forces he then had, for they
did not exceed forty thousand effective men, while McClellan had over
fifty thousand when he took command at Washington on the 27th of July.
Johnston's plan was to concentrate, as quickly as possible, at that place,
a force sufficient for this purpose, which could be done only by leaving
bare remote points, then defended. For this object a council of war was
held at Manas'sas. Mr. Davis went up from Richmond. He met Generals
Johnston, Beauregard, and Gustavus W. Smith in this council. General
Beauregard had been promoted to the rank of full General, for his gallantry,
and great services on the 21st of July. General Smith, at the time, commanded a division of this army, with the rank of Major-General. He was
a graduate of West Point, and recognized as an officer of great merit.
"' The result of the council of war so held was the disapproval, by Mr.
Davis, of the policy suggested. Upon the merits of the views presented
for or against its adoption, I have no speculative opinions to express. Of
course all that could now be said on the subject would amount to nothing
but speculations.  General Beauregard was, not very long afterwards,
transferred to a command in the West. This is all the explanation I can
give of the matter you inquire about.'"
The foregoing extract (which contains all that is said in the
book on the subject of your special comments in the article referred to) I have had made, and verified from the work itself,
and send it to you, with a request that you will present it, with
this letter, to your readers.  I deeply regret that I have not a
spare copy of the volume to send you, that you may have the
entire work before you in making any future comments upon
this or any other part of it.  In combatting any statement or
position of mine, when truth is the object, it is essential to refer
to the text itself, and not to the commentaries of others upon it.
In this instance I think you will readily admit, there is no
error in the statement as it stands in the book.  There is cer



MR. BARKSDALE'S REPLY.               159
tainly not the slightest inconsistency, or discrepancy between it
and any fact brought to light by the correspondence you published, for the first time, between President Davis and General
Joseph E. Johnston. The facts in this instance, as in all others,
as I understand them, are exactly as I have stated them; and
so I think you will find them to be. upon close examination
and full investigation.
Of one thing you may rest assured, the great object with me
throughout the work was the vindication of the truth- of history; and if it be shown that I have fallen into error upon any
point, however small or minor, it will be most cheerfully corrected in all subsequent editions.
Yours, most respectfully,
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.
[REPLY.]
JACKSON, July 16, 1870.
uHon. A. H. STEPHENS:
DEAR SmI:-I have cheerfully complied with your request,
to publish your letter, and also the extract enclosed, from your
forthcoming (2d) volume.
Finding in a newspaper published in your State what purported to be a sketch authorized by you, of your work, on the
subject alluded to, I reasonably inferred that you had been correctly reported. And as the newspapers and the public generally were receiving, as an unchallenged truth, the statement
thus apparently endorsed, that President Davis prevented the
General in command of the Confederate forces from pursuing
the enemy from the field of Manassas to Washington City, I
deemed the occasion proper to produce the unpublished correspondence between President Davis and General J. E. Johnston, forever putting the statement at rest. A similar charge
had been made in the Confederate Congress (in secret session),
and the correspondence was then employed to disprove it.
You will thus see that the responsibility of creating an apparent issue, in order to "vindicate the truth of history," did
not rest with me. I have no taste for controversy on the subject, and acted solely from a sense of duty to correct, with the




160           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
means in my possession, an injustice (which I did not suppose
to be intentional) to Mr. Davis, who, during the war, was silent
under misrepresentation and unmerited reproach; and who, by
the approbation of his, friends, has maintained a strict silence
since its close; but whose fame, nevertheless, is the property of
his countrymen, and is especially dear to the people of his own
State.
It is evident from the extract which you have enclosed, that
you were misreported by the Augusta Constituionalist, but Iregret to find that the issue is changed, from the statement that
President Davis prevented the Confederate troops from following the enemy dire6tly into Washington City from the battlefield, to a statement that three months thereafter,. the fruits of
the victory, which had then passed into history, were not reaped
by the Generals in consequence of his disapproval.
Candor compels me respectfully to dissent from your opinion that there is "no error, in the statement as it stands in the
book, nor discrepancy between it and the facts brought to light
by the correspondence."  Your language conveys a meaning
widely variant from the statement of General Johnston.  The
extract produces the impression that the President disapproved
the policy of activity and an advance movement, when in truth
he favored such plan; and it was not carried out because of his
inability to furnish the troops declared to be essential by the
Generals entrusted with command. In reply to his inquiry,
whether he had prevented the troops' from following up the
rout at Manassas, General Johnston answered, "'lo."   And
in- reply to his inquiry whether "he had ever objected to an
advance, or other active operations which it was feasible for the
army to undertake," General Johnston. replied:,." t hcas never
been feasible for the Armny Ito advance furthe er than rit ha's done.
After a conference at Fairfax C. H., with the three senior Generals, you announced it to be impracticable to give the army
the strength necessary to assume the offensive."  This letter
was date4 the 21st of Iovember of the Fall in the " early part"
of which you report that President Davis overruled their purpose to advance on Washington, It does not authorize the
statement, or warrant the inference, that they even advised an




MR. BARKSDALE'S REPLY.              161
advance movement; much less.-does it show that the President
objected to the assuming. of offensive operations. It only appears that he was unable to furnish the, troops thought by the
senior Generals to be necessary for a movement, if made against
their main force; because he was well aware that to have left
bare Yorktown and Norfolk, (which were not "'remote points,"
whether their proximity to the scene of active operations or
their relations to the vital parts of the Confederacy be considered), would have opened the way for the ascent of the enemy
ulp James River to take the Capital, and cut off the army of the
Potomac from  all supplies, by the destruction of railroads.
This could have been done by a small force; and still small
forces would have achieved a like destructive work at Charleston and other important points.
And while this discrepancy is shown to exist between the
extract from your work and the facts revealed by the correspon
dence, you will allow me further to say, that the statement is
faulty, not only in its erroneous representation of the plan of
campaign of at least one of the parties whose names are introduced, but in its failure to mention that while he (President
Davis) did not have the troops that were required for a direct
attack on Washington, three months after the panic of McDowell's army had died out, and when the enemy, warned by the
terrible lesson at Manassas, had prepared themselves to resist
such a movement, he did -advise an advance into lower Maryland for the protection of the people of that section from the
outrages to which they were subjected by troops under the
command of General Sickles. The expedition was deemed
feasible by the Generals; but was never undertaken for reasons
of which the public are not advised, but which may have been
entirely sufficient.- It is not my province to pronounce an
opinion. Certainly nothing could have more surprised President Davis, and the persons who were acquainted with the
views.which he had communicated to the officers in command,
than the attempt to hold him responsible either for the failure
to pursue the enemy at Manassas, or the inactivity which continned until the retreat- of the army to the defences at Richmond.. And it is worthy of /temark, that the allegation of dis-11




162           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
approving active operations was never made against President
Davis, after General Lee (with whose plans he entirely concurred) took command.
I am, very respectfully, yours,
E. BARESDALE.
III.-THEr INTERESTING PAPER REFERRED TO BY MR. RANDALL.
Memorandum of Council of War signed by Generals G. W. Smith,
G. T. Beauregard, and J. E. Johnston.
[A coPY.]
On the 26th of September, 1861, General Joseph E. Johnston addressed a letter to the Secretary of War in regard to the
importance of putting this army in condition to assume the
offensive, and suggested that his Excellency the President, or
the Secretary of War, or some one representing them, should,
at an early day, come to the headquarters of the army at or
near Fairfax Court House, for the purpose of deciding whether
the army could be reinforced to the extent that, the commanding General deemned necessary for an offensive campaign.
His Excellency the President arrived at Fairfax Court
House a few days thereafter, late in the afternoon, and proceeded to the quarters of General Beauregard. On the same
evening GeneralhJohnston and I called to pay our respects. No
official subjects of importance were alluded to in that interview.
At eight o'clock the next evening, by appointment of the President, a conference was had between himself, General Johnston,
General Beauregard and myself. Various matters of detail were
introduced by the President, and talked over between himself
and the two senior Generals.
Having but recently arrived, and not being well acquainted
with the special subjects referred to, I took little or no part in
this conversation. Finally, with perhaps some abruptness, I
said: "Mr. President, is it not possible to put this army in condition to assume the active offensive? " adding that this was a




MEMORANDUM OF COUNCIL OF WAR.              163
question of vital importance, upon which the success or failure
of our cause might depend.
This question brought on discussion.
The precise conversation which followed I do not propose
to give. It was an argument. There seemed to be little difference- of opinion between us in regard to general views and
principles. It was clearly stated and agreed to, that the military force of the Cbnfederate States was at the highest point it
could attain without arms from abroad; that the portion of this
particular army present for duty was in the finest fighting condition; that if kept inactive it must retrograde immensely in
every respect during the Winter, the effect of which was foreseen and dreaded by us all.
The enemy was daily increasing. We looked forward to a
sad state of things at the opening of a Spring campaign.
These and other points being agreed upon without argument, it was again asked: "Mr. President, is it not possible to
increase the effective streugth of this army, and put us in a
condition to' cross the Potomac and carry the war into- the
enemy's country?  Can you not, by stripping other:points to
the least they will bear, and even -risking defeat at all other
places, put us in condition to move forward?  Success here
gains all."  In explanation, and as an illustration of this, the
unqualified opinion was advanced that if for want of adequate
strength on our part in Kentucky the Federal forces should
take military possession of that whole State, and even enter
and occupy a portion of Tennessee, a victory gained by the
army beyond the:Potomac would, by threatening the heart of
the Northern States, compel their armies to fall back, free Kentucky, and give us the line of the Ohio within ten days thereafter. On the other hand, should our.forces in Tennessee and
Southern Kentucky be strengthened so as to enable us to take
and to hold the Ohio River as a boundary; a disastrous defeat of
this army would at once be followed by an overwhelming wave
of Northern invaders, that would sweep over ]Kentucky and
Tennessee, extending to the northern part of the cotton States,
if not to New Orleans. Similarviews were expressed in regard
to ultimate results in Northwestern Virginia being dependent




164           THE REVIEWERS: REVIEWED.
upon the success or failure of this;. and various other illustrations were offered, showing that success here was success everywhere; defeat here, defeat everywhere; and that this was the
point. upon which all the available forces of the Confederate
States:should be concentrated. 
It seemed to be conceded by, all that our force, at this time
here, was not  sufficient -for assuming the offensive beyond the
Potomac; and that even with a much. larger force, an attack.upon their army,: under the guns of their fortifications on this
side of the river, was out of the question. The President asked
me what: number of nlen was necessary, in my opinion, to: warrant an offensive campaign —to cross the Potomac, cut off the communications of the enemy with their fortified capital, and carry
the war into their own country. I answered fifty thousand seasoned soldiers-explaining that by'"seasoned soldiers" I meant
such men as we had.here present'for duty;: and added that they
would have to be drawn from the Peninsula: about Yorktown,
Norfolk, from Western Virginia, Pensacola, or wherever might
be most expedient. Generals Johnston and Beauregard both
said that a force of sixty thousand such men would'be necessary;
aud- that this force:would require large and additional transportation and munitions of war, the supplies' here being entirely
inadequate for an active campaign in the enemy's country, even
with our present force. In this connection there was some discussion of the difficulties to be overcome, and the probabilities
of success; but no one questioned the disastrous results of remaining inactive throughout the Winter. Notwithstanding the
belief that many in the Northern army were opposed on principle td invading the Southern States, and that they would fight
better in their own: homes, than.in attacking ours, it was believed that the:best, if not the only plan to insure success, was
to concentrate our forces and attack the enemy in their own
country.:. ThePresident, I think, gave no definite opinion in
regard to the number of men. necessary for that purpose; and I
am.sure that no one present considered this a question to be
finally decided by any other-person than the Commanding-General. of this army. Returning to- the question that had been
twice asked, the President expressed surprise and regret that




MEMORANDUtM:OF COUNCL OF: WAR.           165
the number- of surplus arms here was -, so siall,. and, I thought,
spoke bitterly of this disappointment.  He then stated that at'
that-time no reinforcements could be furnished to this army of
the character asked for, and that the most that could be done
would be to furnish recruits to take the surplus arms in store
here (say 2,500 stand); that the whole country was demanding
protection at his hands, and praying for arms and troops for
defence. He had long been expecting arms from abroad, but
he had been disappointed. He still hoped to get them; but he
had no positive assurance that they would.be received at all.
The manufacture of arms in- the Confederate States was- as yet
undeveloped to any considerable extent. -Want of arms was
the great difficulty. He: could: -not: take any. troops from  the
points named, and without arms frbom abroad could not reinforce,
this army.:. He expressed regret, and seemed to feel deeply, as
did every one present.
When the Presideit had thus clearly and positively stated
his inability to put this army in  the condition deemed by the
Generals.-necessary: before entering upon an active offensive
campaicgn, -it; was —felt that- it'might be better to run the risk of
almost certain destruction, fighting upon thee other side of the
Potomac, rather than see the gradual dying out and deterioration of this army during -a Winfer, at the end of which the
term of enlistment of half the force would -expire. The- prospect of the Spring-campaign to be commenced under such discouraging circumstances was rendered all the more gloomy by
the daily increasing strength of an enemy already: much superior in numbers. On the other hand was the hope  and expectatibon that before the end of Winter arms would be introduced
into the country, and all were confident- that we could then -not
only protect our own' country, but successfully invade that of
the enemy. General Johnston said that he did not.feel at liberty to express an opinion as to the practicability of reducing the
strength of our force at points not within the limits of his command; and with-but few further remarks from any one,.the
answer of the President was accepted as final, and it was felt
that there was no other course left but to take a defensive position and await the enemy.




166           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
If they did not advance we had but to await the Winter
and its results.
After the main question was dropped the President proposed, instead of an active, offensive campaign, we should
attempt certain partial operations. A sudden blow against
Sicldes and Banks, or to break the bridge over the iMIonocacy.
This, he thought, besides injuring the enemy, would exert a
good influence over our troops, and encourage the people of the
Confederate States generally.
In regard to attackling Sickles, it was stated in reply that,
as the enemy controlled the river with his ships of war, it would
be necessary for us to occupy two points on the river, one above
and the other below our point of crossing, that we might by
our batteries prevent their armed vessels from interfering with
the passage of the troops. In any case, the difficulty of crossing large bodies over wide rivers in the vicinity of such an enemy
and the re-crossing made such expeditions hazardous. It was
agreed, however, that if any opportunity should occur offering
reasonable chances of success, the attempt should be made.
During this conference or council, which lasted perhaps two
hours, all was earnest, serious, deliberate. The impression
made upon me was deep and lasting; and I am convinced that
the foregoing statement is not only correct as far as it goes, but,
in my opinion, it gives a fair idea of all that occurred at that
time in regard to the question of our crossing the Potomac.'
CENTREVILLE VA., January 31, 1862.
Signed in triplicate.
[Signed]                      G. W. SMrru,
Jifjor-General.
My recollection of the above conference agrees fully with
this statement of. General G. W. Smith.
[Signed]                      G. T. BEAIuREGARD,
General C. S. A.
[Signed]                      J. E. JOHNsTON,
General.




MR. RANDALL'S COMMENTS CONCLUDED.           167
IV.-CONCLUSION OF Mr. RANDALL'S EDrrORIAL IN WHICH THE
FOREGOING LETTERS AND PAPER. HAD BEEN INCORPORATED.
In reply to Mr. Barlksdale, so far as it concerns the " sketch"
in the Constitutionalist, to which he refers in his letter to Mr.
Stephens, we feel it incumbent on us, as a duty, to add, in conclusion, that he has fallen into two "grave errors" himself.
1st. The "sketch" in the Constitutionalist, to which he alludes, did not " purport " to be "authorized by " Mr. Stephens.
There was no such indication or intimation in it from beginning
to end. In point of fact, Mr. Stephens knew no more about it,
or the design of the editor of this paper to give such a " sketch"
of the book, until he saw it in print, than he did of the editorial
of the Clarion in question.
2d. There is in that' "sketch" or review of the book no
such statement as "that President Davis prevented the Generac
~in command of the Confederateforcesfrom, pursuing the enemy
from, the field of ifanassas to tFashington City."
It was to rebut this statement, Mr. Barksdale says, he procured for the first time the correspondence between President
Davis and General Johnston. The correspondence does conclusively rebut that statement, if anybody ever made it. But
M]r. Barksdale, added by the most powerful microscope, will
fail to find it in the article of the Constitutionalist referred to.
The language of that article, in giving briefly what we understood Mr. Stephens to say, in reply to the question touching the
inactivity of the army during the Fall of 1861, was: " The
responsibility for the failure to advance after the battle of Manassas is referred to President Davis."  There is nothing in
this about President Davis having "prevented the General in
command of the Confederate forces from pursuing the enemy
from the field of Manassas to Washington City."  There was
no allusion whatever to an immediate advance of the army.
The allusion was to the general inactivity of that army, embraced in the question put to Mr. Stephens by Major Heister.
On this point, we said the responsibility for the failure to advance is "referred to President Davis."




168            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
We did not understand Mr. Stephens as intending to cast
any censure upon President Davis in the detail of facts as far:as
he knew them; and we certainly did not mean to cast any upon
him in the version of the substance of those facts. Responsibility does not of itself imply -censure. That depends entirely
upon other considerations. Who'would think that any one
meant to cast censure upon Gen. Taylor for saying that the
responsibility of fighting the battleof Buena Vista rested entirely
upon him?  We may have misconceived Mr. Stephens' idea.
We have had no conference with him on this point, either before or since the publication of ouir "sketch" alluded to; but
we submit to intelligent readers, with; all the facts before them,
whether he was "nmisreported" by us, as the:Clarion says.With the full text of the work before us, we believe that Mr.
Stephens means by what he says in it, that the responsibility of
the inactivity of the army of Gen. Johnston, during. the Fall
of 1861, does rest upon Mr. Davis., But we do not understand
him in so holding to mean to pronounce any judgment of censure against the President for exercising that responsibility in
disapproving the plan of aggressive movements submitted to
him by the Generals in the Council of War that was held, the
account of which'now, for the first time, has -been given to the.public.
Whether President Davis' views or those of his Generals
were the wiser, under all the circumstances of the case, it is not
our province or disposition at this time to pass judgment. But
it does seem to us, in view of all the facts as thus far disclosed,
that the responsibility of the course of' events, in a military
aspect, during the Fall of 1861,. did rest upon him. This by no
means, however, implies censure; of itself.: It may be that his
views were founded upon a vast deal more of statesmanship and
generalship than those of Johnston, Beauregard, and Smith.That, as Mr. Stephens says, "'is a matter of -speculation.'"  His
views, however, prevailed. -e-was the Commander-in-Chief,
and we are surprised to see so devoted a friend to his reputation,
as 3Mr. Barksdale is:, so sensitive upon.' the simpe statement of
so palpablea fact.
We can assure Mr. Barksdale, in. malking -these remarks,




MR. STEPHENSl' REJOINDER'TO MR. BAiRKSDALE. 169
that we entertain no unkind feelings toward him or ir. Davis.
Our sole object is to set him rightSO    ar as the tonsttut ncaist
is concerned, and the " sketch" w"hich: was, -as' he says, the
foundation on which he produced his first article in the Clarion.
VY.-M~.  STEPHIENS' RE.JOnE TWO Ro:-BR. BRSsD:ES R-.EPLY~ TO
Hs FMST LE'T. -: 
LIBERTY HALL,  -
CRAWFORDVIILE, GA., August 6, 1870.'
1ok. E. Badsedale:   --
DEAR Sm: —A cO P of your paper of the 22d ult.,:contain-'ing myletter to- you of the 6th, about the events succeeding
the first " Battle of Manassas," and your reply to it, of the 16th,
etc., was received several days ago; but tle press of other business, when I have been able -towrite at all, since then, has prevented me from responding to you sooner upon the subject.
You will allow me, I: trust, a few words further to your
readers,  d. the public -generally, through': the: medium of the
Clarion,' by way of vindication.:: Not, however, for the purpose
or -in the spirit - of controversy,. Indeed,'upon the leading and
important facts, as they stand stated in the'extract I sent you,
it:does eem:to: me that there can; be: no controversy between
intelligent minds; and until:you distinctly specify-some error
in- that statement I have- nothing- more to say in reference to it.
My object at this time is. simply and briefly to call attention to
some points in:your reply which, if.permitted to pass unnoticedby ne, might lead many to form very erroneous conclusionstin
reference to. the matters embrace'd in them.':In the first-place, then, you will please allow me to remark
that:you were. mistaken in saying,'as you did tin your reply to
me, that the "sketch " of: thee 2d volume, of my work on the
war, published in the Augusta Contitutionalit,to which you
refer,-p"urported" to. - be-. "autthorized- by:me,."e- When I'saw
yourreply- I thought it'strange that any such.feature about"'that
article should have escaped my attention; for, in -point of fact,
I "knew nothing about it until I saw it in print.- I did not know




170           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
that the writer had any intention of preparing anything of the
kind; and upon reference to it since, I see that you were mistaken in this particular —there is nothing about that article
bearing any such "pourport."
In the second place, you will allow me to say, there is in
that " sketch," or review, no such statement as "that President
Davisprevented the General in command of the Confederate
forces from pursuing the enemy from  the field of i2fanassas to
Washington CUity," etc.
This is the statement so "' a2parently endorsed" by me which
you say you deemed it proper to put at rest forever, by the
publication of the correspondence between President DaVis and
General Johnston in your first article'in the CUlarion..
Now if.that "sketch" had represented me as having made
any such statement in the book as that thus attributed to it in
your reply to me, I should have corrected the Editor, and set
him right in this matter, as promptly as I did you upon seeing
your first article in the Clarion. The correspondence you produced did most certainly show, that any statement such as that,
by whomsoever made, if by anybody, was exceedingly erroneous.
But you must remember that I made no such statement, nor
did the Editor of the Constitutionalist in the article referred to.
In the third and last place, I wish now simply to add, that
in the extract from the book, which you had before you, and
which the public have, with your reply- in that part treating
of the events subsequent to the first Battle'of Manassas and
President Davis in connection with them, there is no such statement or expression as " that three months thereafter the fruits
of the victory which had then passed into history were not reaped
by the Generals in4 consequence of his disapproval."
This is the statement which you undertook to assail in your
reply to me; but I have onlly to remind you and your readers
that no such language as this is to be found in the extract or
the book-none such-was ever used by me on any occasion.
I am responsible only for my own language, and my own words
— their due and proper import I think I understand; and if
you can point out a single error in the statement of facts as it
stands in the extract and in the book, in my own language on




NMR. BARKSDALE'S SUR-REJOINDER.         171
the subject, I shall be greatly obliged to you to do it- this
you have certainly not yet done.
Yours most respectfully,
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.
VI.-MR. B&I SDALE'S SUR-REJOINDER.
JACKSON, August, 1870.
HIRon. A. H. STEPHENS:
DEAR SmR: —I will publish your letter with pleasure, accompanying it with a brief reply. The main object of the
correspondence so far as I am concerned, has been accomplished.
The "truth of history has been vindicated."  The heretofore
unpublished correspondence between President Davis and General J. E. Johnston has removed from the public mind the
erroneous impression that the failure of the Confederate Army
to pursue the enemy after the battle of iManassas was due to the
interference of the former; and the.no less erroneous statement
that he subsequently opposed a forward movement, and thus
prevented the fruits of the victory from being reaped, has also
been corrected. Since the appearance of my last letter on this
subject, both the facts have been verified by the publication of
an account of the Conference which was held in October, 1861,
over the signature of Generals Smith, Johnston, and Beauregard.
~You will pardon me for expressing the hope that corrections, or
explanations, corresponding to them, will appear in a revised
edition of your second volume.
In conclusion, I will briefly notice the points contained in
your last letter.
1. The inference that you authorized or sanctioned the
publication of the original "sketch," was warranted by your
having furnished its author with advance sheets of your work.
It was copied by the whole press of the country, North and
South, and accepted by the public as a true statement of the
facts to which it related; and yet after weeks of circulation, it
failed to receive your correction.
2. In writing that President Davis had been charged with




172            THE` REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
"preventing the General in command of the Confederate forces
from pursuing the enemy from Manasssa to Washington," I did
not pretend to quote the exact language employed, but was
commenting on a statement which you will admit has the same
meaning precisely.  The following is the extract from  the.
sketch, which elicited the comment: "T he responsibility of the
failure to advance after the battle is referred: (attributed) to i1r.
lDavis."
3. True, the extract from your book does not say, in- so
many words, that President Davis "prevented the fruits of the
victory'from being reaped three months after it had passed into
history by disapproving a forward movement."  Havingquoted
your precise language, I: culd' not have attributed'~ any other
words to you than those actually employed.  But Idid mean
to state that you had said in- efect precisely the same thing as the
following quotation from your book will show:
"Such a movement (as an imniediate pressing forward to Washington
after the battle) was altogether impracticable. As to the state of things
afterwards, that is a different question. All:I know on that; point is that
Gen. Johnston' did wish to make some wmovement of the sort early-ginf the fafl... For this object a council of war was held.'.:.:. T-he result -of the
council was. the -disapproval: by.:M r., Davi& of the plan proposedl":::
The battle was fought on the 21st:of July. The council. was
held in the e     parl t "of October-; and you must-concur with
me that IMr. Davis is represented to have "disapproved'" a
movement "to reap the fruits of the victory three months after
it had passed into history."
If the sketch had not erroneously reported you to have stated
that Mr. Davis was responsible "for the failure to advance after
the battle of Manassas; " and if you had not really. alleged that
he had "disapproved" " of some movement of the sort" inm the
council of war held in October, there could have -been no occasion for a correspondence; which I repeat has been conducted
on my part in no spirit of controversy,
I am yours, very respectfully,
E. BARXSDALE.




MR. STEPHENS' REBUTTAL.              173
VII. —MR. STEPrEaE s' LETTER L REBUTAL.
LIBERTY HALL,:
CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., AUgust 28, 18O0.
Hon. E. BARXESDALE:
DEAR Sm:-A copy. of the Cla'rion of the 18th inst., containing my letter to you of the 6th inst., (" by way of Rejoinder"
not of vindication as-printed); and yourcomments.about it,
was received this morning.
This requires further: notice from me, lest silence on my
part may be construed into an admission of some matters which
I am very far from.making.
You will therefore please allow me to say to you, and to
your readers, that I do not'admiit that  the statement in the
Constitutionalist, on which: you had commented in your previous letter, "has the same meaning precisely" as the paraphrase of it by you. I do. not -'admit that it had, in its whole
connection, any such meaning whatever, as that conveyed by
the words you used in giving: its purport.
You will allow me also to say, that I do not "concur:oith "
you in holding that " Mr.. Davis is represented " by me in the
2nd vol. of my work upon the war, as having " disapproved" a
movement, "to reap the fruits of the victory" (of the first
battle- of Manassas) "three months after it had passed into history."
You say in substance, that I must concur with you in holding
that this is the purport of my statement in the book. Now I
say to you, most respectfully and emphatically, that I do not
concur in any such construction of the language used by me as
that by which any such distorted meaning can be given to it;
and I enter my protest against any such: construction being put
upon it.
*   he substance of what is said in the. book as to my knowledge of the facts bearing upon the inactivity of the Confederate
Army at Manassas during the Fall of 1861 - after the battle
of the 21st July, you and your readers will recollect amounts to
this:




174           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
The Confederate Army at that place was, in my opinion, in
no condition to make an advance movement immediately after
that battle; that Gen. Johnston did wish to make some movement of the sort in the early Fall after he was better prepared.
That his plan was to concentrate as quickly as possible at
that place a force sufficient for that purpose, which could be done
only by leaving bare remote points then defended; that for the
consideration of that policy a Council of War was held at his
headquarters; that Mr. Davis went up from Richmond, and met
in this Council Generals Johnston, Beauregard, and Gustavus
W. Smith; that the result of this Council of War was the disapproval of Mr. Davis of the policy proposed - that is, he disapproved of the proposition submitted for an advance movement,
by concentrating at Manassas the required forces, which could be
done only by leaving bare remote places then defended.
This is a brief but clear statement of the substance of all
that is set forth in the book about the subject. In it there is
nothing but the mention of facts only, so far as my knowledge
extended.
On the merits or demerits of the policy suggested, I gave
you no opinion whatever; on the contrary, I expressly abstained
from giving any opinion. My object was simply to state the
facts accurately as far as they had come to my knowledge,
leaving all to form their own opinions from the facts stated.Now the only real question between us - that which gave
rise to this correspondence - is whether the statement of facts
as above set forth, being substantially the same as that set forth
in the book, be correct or not.
You wvill recollect that, in your first article on this subject in
the Clarion, you maintained that I had in it committed an
C" error, scarcely excusable in one occupying my position, and
who had undertaken to write for posterity." In my reply of
the 6th of July last, I gave you the exact extract of the book in
full upon the subject, and stated that " if it be shown that I had
fallen into an error upon any point, however small a one, it
would be most cheerfully corrected in all subsequent editions."
Without having pointed out any error in the statement, as it




MR. STEPHENS' REBUTTAL.              175
stands in my own language in the book, in either of your subsequent letters to me, you nevertheless express a " hope'" in the
last of these letters received to-day, that "corrections and
explanations will appear in a rev'ised edition of the 2d volume"
of my work, "corresponding" with the facts brought to light by
the correspondence (which you published for the first time)
between President Davis and General Joseph E. Johnston, and
by the account of the Council of War or Conference near
Manassas in the Fall of 1861, lately given to the public for the
first time over the signatures of Generals Smith, Beauregard,
and Johnston, and which, I may add, was most probably brought
to light by this correspondence.
Now in reply to this, I ask you most seriously and earnestly,
wherein is there the slightest discrepancy or derangement between any thing in either of these lately published papers, and
the statement as it stands in the book? Do they not confirm
it in every particular? If I had had the correspondence between President Davis and General Johnston, and the account
of the conference referred to by you (recently published over
the signatures of Generals Smith, Beauregard, and Johnston)
before me when I was penning the statement of the facts as it
stands in the book, could I have possibly made it more strictly
conform to both these papers than it does?
Does not General Johnston, in his letter to President Davis,
published by you, say, in substance, that the army at Manassas
was not in a condition to - make an advance movement immediately after the battle of the 21st of July, 1861? Is not this in
strict accordance with what I said upon that subject?
Does not General Johnston also in his letter of the 10th of.November, 1861, expressly say to Mr. Davis, "after a conference at Fairfax C. H. with these senior general officers, you announced it to be impracticable to give this army the strength
which these officers considered necessary to enable it to assume
the offensive? "
Does this statement conflict in the least with the statement
by me? So far from conflicting with it, does it not sustain it
to the very letter so far as it goes?
Then, as to the account of the Coniference or Council of




176           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
War. recently published by Generals Smith, Beauregard, and
Johnston.
Does not this show clearly that General Johnston did desire
in the early Fall of 1861 to.make some sort:of a forward or
aggressive movement?  Does it not show that a Council of
War was held upon the Subject at or near Manassas, at which
Mr. Davis was present, in the latter part of September a Does
it not show that General Johnston did submit for consideration
such plan as I stated for an advance movement? Does it not
show that Mr.. Davis disapproved of it a Does not the paper to
which you refer represent him as saying that "he could not
take any troops from the points named?"  Does not this paper
expressly state in. behalf of the General in. Command'that.this
answer of the President "was accepted as final and it was
felt that there was no other course left but to take a defensive
position and await the enemy."
Is there, my Dear-Sir, anything in this statement in conflict
with mine? Is there anything in the written paper to which
you refer:in conflict in the slightest particular with the statement of facts on this subject as it stands in the book.?  If there
is, I assure you it has escaped my attention, and. I repeat in
conclusion, that if I had had that paper before me when my
statement was written, I do not think that.I could have made it
more strictly in conformity. with its general details than it now
stands. I, therefore, as yet see no reason for revising or modifying the text in any particular.  If there be any error in it, I
do not yet perceive it.
Yours respectfully,
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.




ARTICLE'VII.
THE BA TTLE OF OL USTEE, OR OCEAN POND.
I.-EDrITORAL OF THE SAVANNAH " REPUBLICN," JULY, 18T70,
ON THE SUBJECT.'1 Olustee."
AT the instance of a friend, we some days ago published the
resolutions of the Confederate Congress thanking General
Finegan fbr the success of the battle of Olustee or'Ocean Pond,
Mr. Stephens in his history having given the credit to General
Colquitt. We had not the slightest idea then, nor have we
now, of engaging in any controversy on the subject, our object
being to bring to the attention of Mr. Stephens a fact which we
thought he may have overlooked in preparing the materials for
his history, viz.: that the command at Olustee was in the hands
of General Finegan; and however brave and skilful subordinates may prove themselves, it is usual to ascribe the greatest
glory of the victory to that officer. Mr. Stephens5 reply to that
publication, addressed to a gentleman of this city, who forwarded to him a copy of the Repblicacn's article, will be found
in another column.
II.-LETTER OF MR. STEPHENS (REFERRED TO) ON SAME
SUBJECT.
LIBERTY HALL, L
CRAWFORDVILLE, GEORGIA, JulCY 13, 1870.
MR. CHARLES ELLIS, Savannah, Gda.:' 
DEAR Sm IR:-Yours of the 11th instant, inclosing a slip from
the Savannah Republican of the 8th instant, was received by
me this morning. That slip is in these.words:
12




178             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
"' Honor to Whom tHonor is Due.' —As there has been some effort - we
are persuaded purely from the want of correct information - to deprive a
brave officer of the credit that is his due, we transcribe from the Acts of
the Confederate Congress as follows:
"' JOINT RESOLUTION OF THANKS  TO GENERAL FINEGAN AND  THE
OFFICERS AND MEN OF HIS COMMAND.
"' Resolved by the Congress of the Confederate States of America, That
the thanks of Congress are due and are hereby tendered to BrigadierGeneral Joseph Finegan, and the officers and men of his command, for
the skill and gallantry displayed in achieving the signal victory of Ocean
Pond, Florida, on the 20th of February last.
[Signed]                    Tnos. S. Bococ.
"' Speaker of the House of Representatives.
R. M. T. HUNTER,
"'President pro tern. of the Senate.
"'Approved 17th of May, 1864.
"'-JEFFERSON DAVIS.' "
You call my attention to this slip, but for what object or with
what purpose you do not state; and I should be at a loss to
imagine if I had not a few days ago received through the hands
of a friend, a slip from another paper, in which comments were
made upon the statement in the second volume of my work
upon the war, in relation to the battle of Ocean Pond, referred
to in the resolutions you have enclosed to me.
From this; and the language of the Editor of the Reppublcan
accompanying the reproduction of the resolutions, I am led to
infer that you as well as Mr. Sneed and others, may be of
opinion that the statement in the work referred to is calculated
"to deprive a -brave officer (General Finegan) of the credit
that is his due."
If so, you and all others may be assured that nothing was
further from my intention than any design of that character.
My object was to give the facts of the case without detracting
from or magnifying the merits of any one.
The statement in the book (vol. 2, page 581) is in these
words:
"This year " (the third year of the war) " was ushered in, even in its
dawn, by the splendid victory at Ocean Pond, Florida, on the 20th February, achieved under the lead of Brigadier-General Alfred H. Colquitt,
against General Truman Seymour, commanding the Federals. With less
than 5,000 men Colquitt put Seymour to rout, with more than 6,000;




MR. STEPHENS ON BATTLE OF OLUSTEE.             179
killing, wounding, and capturing 2,500 men, and taking three Napoleon
guns, two ten-pounder Parrots, and 3,000 stand of small-arms."
This is all in perfect accord with the facts as I understand
them. It is true, as is well known, that the brave and gallant
Finegan was in command of the general military operations on
the Confederate side at that time in Florida.
But it is equally true, as I understand it, that he had assigned the entire command of all the Confederate forces engaged
in the action at Ocean Pond to General Colquitt. The whole
battle then, from beginning to end, was committed to his discretion, direction, and control; with but one limitation, and
that was "if hard pressed to fall back to the works at Olustee
station."
This splendid victory, therefore, was certainly, as I understand it, "achieved under the lead of General Colquitt."
The affirmance of this truth, if the facts be as I think they
are, by no means detracts from  the honor conferred upon
General Finegan by Congress, for his superior skill and forecast
in having a concentration of forces to meet Gen. Seymour's
advance;: and in assigning the command of these forces to the
officer he did. It only renders to General Colquitt that honor
which is justly due him for the important part he acted, as one of
the officers under General Finegan (and embraced equally with
him though not named in the same resolution) " in achieving
this signal victory."
This great result at Ocean Pond, so far as depended upon
field operations, as I understand the fact, was achieved under
General Colquitt's immediate lead and general direction.  This
is the substance of the statement in the book upon that subject;
and I think upon close examination the facts will be found to be
substantially as therein stated.
This certainly does not detract from the high merits of Gen.
Finegan who had control of the general campaign.
You will please do me the favor to ask Mr. Sneed to give
this' communication a place in the columns of the Re]beulicanL.
With kindest regards and sentiments of the highest respect,
I remain yours truly,                       
A EXANDERM  S TEPHt' ENS




ARTICLE VIII.
TiE FORGED SPEECH.
I.-LETTER OF M., STEPHENS ON THIS SUBJECT.
LIBERTY HALL, 
CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., October 28, 1870. I
Col. John WF. Forney, Editor of the Sunday ]iliorning  Chronicle,
-Washington, D1. C.:
DEAR SIR: —I have just come in possession, through the
kindness of a friend, of a copy of your paper of the 4th ult.,
and my attention is called to quite an extended editorial in it
upon: the " Constitutional View of the Late War Between the
States," which requires special and prompt notice by me.
With.the general tone and character of:the editorial referred
to, I have'no disposition to complain, under the circumstances.
On the contrary, for what you say in it of my position, and the
general "respect" in which I was "held by the reflecting people of the country" before the " Rebellion," as you are pleased
to call the late "war between the States," and of my efforts to
preserve the -Institutions,'of our ancestors on the Federative
basis on which they were founded, you have my thanks.  Of
course all this was justly forfeited:in your estimation, according
to the,views you- entertain of the subject, by my subsequent
conduct. Hence, what you say of "Rebel -leaders," and other
things of lilre character, are but legitimate sequences from your
premises; as is also your seeming amazeament that any one
should attempt 8to jstify what you look rupon as treason.
These parts of your notice of the work, therefore, contain
nothing more than' might have'been expected from any one
occupying your position. Upon them I have no inclinationto
comment at' present.




MR. STEPHENS ON THE FORGED SPEECH.              181
But you will indulge me in saying, I trust, that there is
mratter incorporated in this editorial, which, coming from the
source it does, or'being in this instance endorsed by your authority, as it is, I cannot permit to pass in silence. The wrong
is too great, too grave, and to9 atrocious.  The error is too foul
and flagrant to be allowed to go to your leaders without an exposure. The cause of truth and justice demands its correction
by me.
In the article referred to, you say of the work you were
reviewing: 
"And we hate a second book of several hundred pages, justifying the,
rebellion against the Government, capable of all these great ends, and
quoting the Constitution of the United States in the caue  of that justification."
It is not my purpose at this time, to, take any exceptions at
your statement thus made of the object of the work; but what
I do most decidedly object to is the matter which you adduced
as argument "fully replying" to the positions maintained in
the two volumes.
These positions you do not even attempt to assail yourself
directly, nor do you venture to deny that, if they are correct,
the "jzustification" claimed is unquestionably established; but
you content yourself with an effort to meet and break the
whole force of the truths' set forth in the work, simply.by a
resort to tle aorguvmentur    ad honmizem.
This kind of argument, you very prudently concede, is not
always legitimate, much' less conclusive, inasmuch as you carefully admit- that able, as' well as: true men, engaged in public
affairs, are often inconsistent with'themselves; and hence, what
such may have said on one occasion is not always a sufficient
answer to what may be said by the same on' another occasion,
though directly in conflict with it. In this case, however, you
rely entirely upon this mode: of reasoning, and rest yourself
satisfied by saying that the positions~ of the book are "fully
answered" by myself in a speech' made by me in the Georgia
Secession Convention, in. 1861, which- speech you give to your
readers in the following words:




182             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
"This step (of secession) once taken, can never be recalled; and all
the baleful and withering consequences that must follow will rest on the
convention for all coming time. When we and our posterity shall see our
lovely South desolated by the demon of war, which this act of yours will
inevitably invite and call forth; when our green fields of waving harvest
shall be trodden down by the murderous soldiery and fiery car of war
sweeping over our land; our temples of justice laid in ashes; all the horrors and desolations of war upon us; who but this convention will be
held responsible for it? and who but him who shall give his vote for this
unwise and ill-timed measure, as I honestly think and believe, shall be
held to strict account for this suicidal act by the present generation, and
probably cursed and execrated by posterity for all coming time, for the.wide and desolating ruin that will inevitably follow this act you now propose to perpetrate? Pause, I entreat you, and consider for a moment
what reasons you can give that will even satisfy yourselves in calmer
moments-what reasons you can give to your fellow-sufferers in the
calamity that it will bring upon us. What reasons can you give to the
nations of the earth to justify it? They will be the calm and deliberate
judges in the case; and what cause or one overt act can you name or
point, on which to rest the plea of justification? What right has the
North assailed? What interest of the South has been invaded? What
justice has been denied? and what claim founded in justice aind right has
been withheld? Can either of you to-day name one governmental act of
wrong, deliberately and purposely done by the Government of Washington, of which the South has a right to complain? I challenge the answer.
While, on the other hand, let me show the facts (and believe me, gentlemen, I am not here the advocate of the North; but I am here the friend,
the firm friend and lover of the South and her institutions, and for this
reason I speak thus plainly and faithfully for yours, mine, and every other
man's interest, the words of truth and soberness) of which I wish.you to
judge, and I will only state facts which are clear and undeniable, and
which now stand as records authentic in the history of our country.
When we of the South demanded the slave trade, or the importation of
Africans for the cultivation of our lands, did they not yield the right for
twenty years? When we asked a three-fifths representation in Congress
for our slaves, was it not granted? When we asked and demanded the
return of any fugitive from justice, or the recovery of those persons owing
labor or allegiance, was it not incorporated in the Constitution, and again
ratified and strengthened by the fugitive slave law of 1850? But do you
reply that in many instances they have violated this compact, and have
not been faithful to their engagements? As individual' and local communities, they may have done so; but not by the sanction of Government,
for that has always been true to Southern interests. Again, gentlemen,
look at another act; when we have asked that more territory should be




MR. STEPHENS ON THE FORGED SPEECH.                 183
added, that we might spread the institution of slavery, have they not
yielded to your demands in giving us Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, out
of which four States have been carved, and ample territory for four more
to be added in due time; if you, by this unwise and impolitic act do not
destroy this hope, and, perhaps, by it lose all, and have your last slave
wrenched from you by stern military rule, as South America and Mexico
were; or by the sindictive decree of a universal emancipation, which may reasonably be expected to follow?
"Pause now while you can, gentlemen, and contemplate carefully and
candidly these important items. Look at another necessary branch of
government, and learn from stern statistical facts how matters stand in
that department. I mean the mail and post-office privileges that we now
enjoy under the General Government as it has been for years past. The
expense for the transportation.of the mail in free States was, by the report
of the Postmaster-General for the year 1860, a little over $13,000,000,
while the income was $19,000,000. But in the slave States the transpor-:
tation of the mail was $14,716,000, while the revenue from the same
was $8,001,026, leaving a deficit of $6,704,974, to be supplied by the North
for our accommodation, and without'it we must have been entirely cut off
from this most essential branch of Government.
"Leaving out of view, for the present, the countless millions of dollars
you must spend in a war with the North, with tens of thousands of your
sons and brothers slain in battle, and offered up as sacrifices upon the
altar of your ambition-and what for, we ask again? Is it for the overthrow of the American Government, established by our common ancestry,
cemented and built up by their sweat and blood, and founded on the
broad principles of Right, Joustice, and Humanity? And, as such, I must
declare here, as I have done before, and which has been repeated by the
wisest and greatest of statesmen and patriots in this and other lands, that
it is the best and freest Government-the most equal in its rights, the
most just in its decisions, the most lenient in its measures, and the most
aspiring in its principles, to elevate the race of men, that the sun of heaven
ever shone upon. Now, for you to attempt to overthrow such a Government as this, under which we have lived for more than three-quarters of
a century-in which we have gained our wealth, our standing as a nation,'
our domestic safety while the elements of peril are around us, with peace.
and tranquillity,' accompanied with unbounded prosperity and rights,unassailed-is the height of madness, folly, and wick7edness, to which I can
neither lend my sanction nor my vote."
Now, it is due to you and your readers, as well as myself,
that I should make it distinctly and specially known to you
and to them, as I hereby do, that I never made any such
speech as that quoted by you, either in that Convention or




184            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
anywhere else. It s forgery or gross yrricaton'from  begfin
ning to end.
You have, perhaps, been unwittingly drawn into a mistake
in this matter, as thousands of others have been imposed on in
like matters pertaining to the war, as well as the true nature
of the Government of the United States under the Federal
Constitution, by taking for granted, and accepting as true, what
you and they have received from others, without any examination, each for himself, into the truth of matters so surreptitiously served up and presented to public credulity. This
speech, so attributed to me, was most flagitiously gotten up,
and wickedlyf  circulated by the perpetrators of the. fraud,
throughout the Northern States as a Republican campaign
document in 1864, to'mislead, as perhaps it did, thousands of
voters in causing them to sustain those in power at Washington, who were then waging the war under the specious pretence
and false cry of preserving the Union "with all the dignity,
equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired," and
which they never would have done if they had fully understood
the real purposes, aims, and objects of the war on the part of
those who were thus fraudulently misleading them, or of its
ultimate results and consequences upon their own liberties, as
well as those of the peqples of the Southern States.
You are, perhaps, the more excusable for falling into this
great error from the fact that this forged speech has actually
found its way into many of the so-called.histories of the war,
even in those of the character. of Mr. Lossing's celebrated work,
and that of the learned Dr. Draper.  It is upon just such zmlreliable data and false dicta, however, you will please' allow me to
say, that'alii those so-called h.istories have been compiled, which
attempt to justify the subljugation. of the Southern Siates by the
Northern States. When you yourself are better informed, perhaps, you may see -the propriety.of modifying your expression
about Southern leaders. You will at least see that they are not
so "forgetful" of "records" as you.now imagine. They recollect not only "'their own records," but the records of others.
You will also find that nothing is more characteristic of them
than their habit of not relying'upon false records: eitherin- the




MR. STEPHENS ON THE FORGED SPEECH.           185
assertion of their rights or for' the'justification of their acts.
They remember, too, something more'" of the ante-bellum,
period than that there were Abolitionists in the North." They
have a- lively recollection not only of the fact. that there were
Revolutionists there bearing the cognomen of Abolitionists, but
also of the fact that these Revolutionists got- control of'the
Legislatures of a majority of the Northern States; which Legislatures, under their factious control and disloyal machinations,
openly repudiated that clause in the Federal Constitution without which it is well known that Compact would never have
been entered'into. They know full well that the records-the
true and imperishable records-which constitute. the basis of
every true history of this country established the fact, beyond
the power of successful assault, that the -Government of the
United States.is a. government " of States and for States."
Moreover, that the Constitution is a Compact between States,
and that this Compact was wantonly and avowedly broken by
these Northern States under the lead of these same Revolutionistis, whose aims and objects were and are Consolidation and
Empire! It is upon the genuine and unmutilated records of
the country Southern -men stand, and with full confidence
appeal to the enlightened judgment of mankind, now and forever, for the complete justification of their course and the
righteousness of their cause. These' records are exhibited in
the volumes referred to, and the world is challenged, either to
deny their authenticity or gainsay the conclusions therein drawn
from them. Until one or the other, or both, of these is successfully done, this justification must be acknowledged to be complete for all time to come.
- f you had carefully studied the work you we  reviPewing,
you would have seen that this very speech quoted by you, as a
part of my "]honorable record," is noticed in volume 1st, page
23, and there exposed as aforgery. On page 305, volume 2d,
you would also have seen what was really, and in truth said byme in the Georgia Convention' upon the subject of' secession.
That speech is the true record in this matter,'which I neither
forget nor ignore, and which it is proper your readers should'
see, and compare with the false one now in their hands. Its




186             THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
leading points on the subject you essayed to quote me upon,
as published in the papers of the day, are set forth in these
words:
" MR. PRESIDENT: It is well known that my judgment is against Secession for existing causes. I have not lost hope of securing our rights in
the Union and under the Constitution. My judgment on this point is as
unshaken as it was when the Convention was called. I do not now intend
to go into any arguments on the subject. No good could be effected by
it. That was fully considered in the late canvass; and I doubt not. every
delegate's mind is made up on the question. I have thought, and still
think, that we should not take this extreme step before some positive
aggression upon our rights by the General Government, which may never
occur; or until we fail, after effort made, to get a faithful performance of
their Constitutional obligations, on the part of those Confederate States
which now stand so derelict in their plighted faith. I have been, and am
still, opposed to Secession as a remedy against anticipated aggressions on
the part of the Federal Executive, or Congress. I have held, and do now
hold, that the point of resistance should be the point of aggression.
"Pardon me, Mr. President, for trespassing on your time but for a
moment longer. I have ever believed, and, do now believe, that it is to
the interest of all the States to be and remain united under the Constitution of the United States, with a faithful performance by each of all its
Constitutional obligations. If the Union could be maintained on this
basis, and on these principles, I think it would be the best for the security,
the liberty, happiness, and common prosperity of all. I do further feel
confident, if Georgia would now stand firm, and unite with the "Border
States," as they are called, in an effort to obtain a redress of these grievances on the part of some of their Northern Confederates, whereof they
have such just cause to complain, that complete success would attend their
efforts; our just and reasonable demands would be granted. In this opinion I may be mistaken; but I feel almost as confident of it as I do of my
existence. Hence, if upon this test vote, which I trust will be made upon
the motion now pending, to refer both the propositions before us to a
committee of twenty-one, a majority shall vote to commit them, then I
shall do all I can to perfect the plan of united Southern cooperation, submitted by the honorable delegate from Jefferson, and put it in such a
shape as will, in the opinion of the Convention, best secure its object.
That object, as I understand it, does not look to Secession by the sixteenth
of February, or by the fourth of March, if redress should not be obtained
by that time. In my opinion, it cannot be obtained by the 16th of February, or even by the 4th of March. But by the 16th of February we can
see whether the Border States and other non-Seceding Southern States
will respond to our call for the proposed Congress or Convention at
Atlanta. If they do, as I trust they may, then that body, so composed




MR. STEPHENS ON THE FORGED SPEECH.                187
of representatives, or delegates, or commissioners as contemplated, from
the whole of the Slaveholding States, could, and would, I doubt not,
adopt either our plan or some other, which would fully secure our rights
with ample guarantees, and thus preserve and maintain the ultimate peace
and union of the States. Whatever plan of peaceful adjustment might
be adopted by such a Congress, I feel confident would be acceded to by the
people of every Northern State. This would not be done in a month, or
two months, or perhaps short of twelve months, or even longer. Time
would necessarily have to be allowed for a consideration of the questions
submitted to the people of the Northern States, and for their deliberate
action on them in view of all their interests, present and future. How
long a time should be allowed, would be a proper question for that Congress to determine. Meanwhile, this Convention could continue its existence by adjourning over to hear and decide upon the ultimate result of
this patriotic effort.
"My judgment, as is well known, is against the policy of immediate
Secession for any existing causes. It cannot reCeive the sanction of my
vote; but if the judgment of a majority of this Convention, embodying,
as it does, the Sovereignty of Georgia, be against mine; if a majority of
the delegates in this Convention shall, by their votes, dissolve the Compact of Union which has connected her so long with her Confederate
States, and to which' I have been so ardently attached, and have made
such efforts to continue and perpetuate upon the principles on which it
was founded, I shall bow in submission to that decision."
Your readers, as well as yourself, I think will be constrained,
whether reluctantly or not, to come to the conclusion, if the
positions maintained in the "two volumes" under consideration are to be "fully answered" or can be "entirely demolished" by weapons from  my own armory, very different materials from any thing in this speech, or any thing really said by
me in that Convention will have to be brought forward for the
purpose.  I think, also, that an intelligent public in this day,
as well as in all future days, will require a different sort of
argument than any thing to be found in this speech to upset
those positions of the work whereby complete justification  is not
only claimed, but establishec, for what the Southern States did
in the late war for the maintenance of the great principle of
the Sovereign Right of Local Self-Government by the people
of the several States of this continent, and which lies at the
foundation of the whole fabric of the American Federative
System for the establishment and perpetuation of Free Institutions by neighboring States,       ALEXANDER IH. STEPHENS.




ARTICLE IX.REPL Y OF MR. STEPHENS TO MR. A TTORiEY- GENERAL"A EERMfAPS
DENUNCIATIONS OF THE WORKE
LIBERTY HALL,
CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., September 21, 1870.
To the Editor of the Constitutionalist, Azugsta, Georgia:
DEAR SIR:- YO   will, I trust, allow me the use of your
columns to take such notice of two speeches recently made by
IHon. Amos T. Akerman, Attorney-General of the United States,
as I think due to myself, due to him, and due to some, at least,
of the very grave matters referred to by him in both.
In the first of these speeches, made at NVashington City, 1
am directly charged and accused by him with having promulgated doctrines- which he characterizes as "pernicious," and
which he says "  ust be suppressed."
In the other'of these speeches, delivered at Atlanta, Georgia,
while my name is omitted; yet his official denunications, in
like spirit, are chiefly dir6cted against th'e same political heresies,
according to his standard.
These dangerous and "pernicious doctrines" he is pleased
to say, are to be found in the two volumes published by me
upon the "Late War between the States."
This u-asi public arraignment by the Attorney-General of
the United States, and would-be, perhaps,:" Crown Officer" of
a firmly established Empire, I am by'no means disposed to
evade; and,'therefore, ask the favor, through the meditim of the
Gonstitutiondalst, to'enter a traverse, and to make known to
him and to the world, that I hold myself in readiness to meet
him, or any body else, upon: the'merits of his " Bill of Information," thus filed; and without any:technical exceptions on my




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL.  189
part, as to the informality in which it has been brought forward.
The only tribunal I desire is the bar of an enlightened public
opinion. The only arena I wish, for the settlement of all the
questions involved, is the forum of reason; where no weapons
or force are to be used, but the power.of truth and logic. So
armed on such a field, I do not shrink from the fullest investigation of all matters discussed in the. work, to which he alludes,.
nor from  the judgment which may be rendered upon them,
after such a hearing, by the intelligent and unbiased of the present or future generations.
What, then, are the errors in fact or argument in: either of
the volumes referred to, which, in the opinion of this high officer,
are so dangerous and "pernicioqus" -so poisonous and deathproducing - as that they' ought not to be thus inquired into, or
even tolerated by discussion, but ought to be summarily and
arbitrarily " suppressed?"
1st. Is it an erroneous, and "cpernicious doctrine" to maintain, as the book does, that the United States constitute, not a
single Republic, but a Federal Republic; and that the Union,
about which Mr. Attorney-General says so much, is a Federal
Union -a Union of separate, distinct States, each State of the
Union being a perfect State, as known in Public Law?
2d. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain,'as the
book does, that these'States, upon entering into this Union,
were recognized by themselves, as well as other powers, as
separate, independent, Sovereign States?
3d. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the.book
does, that the Constitution of 178?7 is the basis of the present
Union; and that it was formed by the States in their.sovereign
character, and for them  in their sovereign character: or, in
other words, that it is a Constitution "made by States and for
States;" and that the Sovereignty of the States was not parted'
with by them in its ratification?
4th. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the
book does, that the Federal Government is entirely Conventional
in its character-that it was created by the States solely with
a view to the better regulation of their inter-State and foreign




190            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
affairs, and the greater security of their perpetual existence as
Sovereign States, by their mutual pledge and guaranty to this
end -and that the Federal Government, so created, possesses
no inherent powers whatever - that all the powers it rightfully
holds, or can rightfully exercise, are held from the States, and
from them by delegation only a
5th. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the book
does, that all the powers, so held by this Federal or Conventional Government, are particularly enumerated and limited in
the Constitution; and that the exercise of any power outside
of these limitations is nothing but a usurpation, and should be
set aside by the courts as a nullity?
6th.- Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the
book does, that the Constitution of the United States, so made,
was a Compact between the States ratifying it - the States being
the parties to it; and that it is binding between them, as all
other like Compacts by the laws of nations?'7th. Is it an. error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the
book does, that all delegated powers by Sovereign States can,
by the laws of nations, be rightfully resumed by the party delegating them, when the purposes for which they were delegated
are not attained?
8th. Is it an error in fact to assert, as the book does, that
quite a number of the Northern States of the Union, before the
Secession of any of its Southern members, (under the influence
of that faithless faction which now rules this country by fraud
and usurpation,) did openly and confessedly refuse to perform
their covenanted obligations under a clause of the Constitution,
without which that Compact never would have been agreed to,
or the Union, under it, entered into by the Southern States?
9th. Is it an error in fact to state, as the book does, that the
present Chief-Justice Chase fully admitted this breach of faith
on the part of these Northern States; and openly declared in
the Peace Congress in February, 1861, that they never would
perform these admitted obligations on their part?
10th. Is it an error in fact to maintain, as the book does,
that no one of the Southern States which seceded or attempted
to secede from the Union, because of this breach of faith, on the




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL.  191
part of their Confederates, was ever untrue to her covenants in
the Compact of Union a
11th. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the
book does, that this open and confessed breach of faith on the
part of their Northern Confederates, according to the laws of all
nations, whether savage or civilized, completely absolved the
Southern States from their obligations under the Compact, and
fully justified their withdrawal?
12th. Is it an error in fact to maintain, as the book does,
that the Covenant-Constitution-breadling States did afterwards
holtd, that the Seceding States were still bound to perform their
part of the Compact, notwithstanding their own acknowledged
breach of faith, and that they went to war against them to compel them to remain in the Union, and discharge their obligations under the Constitution?
13th. Is it an error in fact or doctrine, to maintain, as the
book does, that the war, thus inaugurated, was a " War between
States," and in no proper or just sense a Rebellion or Civil
War.
14th. Is it an error in fact to maintain, as the book does,
that the only pretext on the part of the Northern States, for
waging this war, thus inaugurated between the States, was "the
preservation of the Union of the States, with all the dignity,
equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired? "
15th. Is it an error in fact to maintain, as the book does, that
when the Seceding States abandoned their struggle for a separation, and agreed to the terms of capitulation, which was substantially an acquiescence, so far as armed resistance was concerned, in the declaration upon which the war was waged against
them; the other States, the Covenant-breakers themselvesunder the rule of the same revolutionary faction - after the
sacrifice of hundred of thousands of lives and thousands of milions of dollars, changed their position in Congress, and said
that they could not safely permit that to be done for which they
had waged the war  that they could not safely allow a restoration of the Union of the States under-the Constitution for which:
they -had shed so much blood and expendad so much treasure!
But that these acquiescing States should be shorn of their




192            THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
" dignity, equality and rights " by a process of "Reconstruction"
according to their liking, though outside of the Constitution,
before being allowed representation in the Congress of the
States 
16th. Is it an error in fact or doctrine, on the review of this
conduct, to ask, as tlle book does, "Is there to be found in the
annals of mankind a parallel of such unblushing, double-faced,
insolent, and infamous iniquity a?"
These, Mr. Editor, are a few of the positions and doctrines
maintained in the two volumes referred to by Mr. AttorneyGeneral; and if they, founded, as they are, upon indisputable
facts, set forth irrefutable truths, to what or whom, let me ask
him and tlhe world, is their promulgation either dangerous or
"jpernicions?"  Is it to the cause of public liberty, or to the
true friends of the institutions of our ancestors, or only to the
policy and secret designs of those who are aiming at their over*throw and subversion?
Mr. Attorney-General in his Bill of Information makes very
few distinct specifications touching the "pernicious" doctrines
of the two volumes which, he says, "' must be suppressed."  Two
only of these are deemed worthy of notice at this time.
The first is, that I have asserted that "the Reconstruction
measures were monstrous, and pronounced that all the Government had done for four years was monstrous, and threatened
the liberties of the people.'
In answer to this I have simply to say, that if the foregoing
positions maintained in the book are unassailable, is it not undeniably true that- the whole of "these Reconstruction measures," with all their concomitants, are not only monstrous outrages, but most deadly blows directed at the very vitals of the
Constitution, as well as the liberties of the people?
The other of these specifications is, that I have attempted
to show that "MhMarshall," and others named by him, "were
wrong, and that Calhoun was right" in his views of the Constitution.
In answer to this charge it is only necessary to refer to the
book itself, which Mr.- Attorney-General may very well wish to
have suppressed, if for no other object than to shield himself




MR.'SEPHiENS' REPLY TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL.  193
fr'oln'the' exposre ofhaving made a very unfair statement, not
to say. palpable misrepresentation.  In the book no opinion of
Marshall is.assailed; but, on the contrary, some of the most
important'. positions in it -those doubtless deemed by the
would-be "C'rown/ Officer," most "pernicious" to his. own
views, aims and. objects -are not only fortified but incontestably established by the authority of this eminent Chief-Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United States.
* It. was:he,.wl.o announced from the Bench of that Court the'most "pern'icious doctrine," that the States composing this
I.nion. at the'time, formed their present Constitution as Sover-.eign: States.
It Was -'he who held and proclaimed from the same Bench, that
a.all:theLeegisa;taive po'wers of the Congress of States, under the
A;Vonsititution:,'  depended upon the will of a majority of the States...It-. tas.he who held in' the Convention of Virginia that rati-.'fied thie'Constitution, that the powers conferred by that instrument. coiud be rightly resumed by those who conferred them..* This, perhaps, is the'most "perniious " of all thedoctrines
set forth in the book, which Mr. Attorney-General is so anxious
to.hjivve.u22ppressed.'":' And perhaps, moreover, the true solution.of hi's. unqualified denunciation of the whole workl is, that
th'e:array of facts presented in the two rolumes, and the irresistible concl:usions established by them, are so "pernicious" to the
sc6he'mes of'tt'h  w ould-be "Crown Officer" and his co-workers
in. the erection of a' Centralized Empire over the ruins of the
principles:  f that wonderful Federal Ufiion, established by the
~".Fathers;'" that. they:cannot be tolerated by.them; and hence
the:o'fficial mandate, that the doctrines therein set forth " must
be'suppessed!/":'Potent words these, and of most ominous
significance,' corniig from the quarter they do! They express'the-unmiistakable'language of tyrannical men in power in all
ages and- countries, when they feel the. force of truths which are
ind'eed dangerous-.and most,"perniceious" to their own guilty
acts. of usurpation upon the rights of States, as well as the
liberties of outraged peoples! This language from the present
Attorney-.Gehiaiel smacks strongly of like Cabinet anathemas
of the Nationalists, Centralists, and Consolidationists of this
13




194           THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
country in 1798-'99 which ended in the ever-memorable Alien
and Sedition "laws, so called,". of that period.
The doctrine of the advocates of Constitutional Liberty under
our Federative Systemn at that day, as promulgated, not by Mr.
Calhoun, as Mr. Attorney-General most adroitly attempts to
make the people believe, but by Mr. Jefferson and his associates,
was, that these acts of ~usulpatiom -were not laws but nudlities.
The doctrines inculated in the two volumes referred to, Mr.
Attorney-General well knows, are the doctrines of Mr. Jefferson
- the great apostle of the American Fe'derative system, for the
maintenance and preservation -of free institutions by neighboring States. They are the doctrines which in 1798-'99 were, as
now, considered exceedingly "pernzicious" to their schemes by
all the enemies of these institutions. By the earnest promulgation of these doctrines, and,a firm maintenance of them, atthe polls, by the peoples of the several States of this Union, the
rights of the States, as well as their own, were rescued from the
hands of usurpers ht that time; and on a lilke promulgation and
maintenance of the same doctrines at this time, rests the only
sure hope of the future rescue and preservation of the same
rights and liberties from the hands of the usurpers who now
bear sway. One of the most important as well as saving of the
principles of these doctrines is that no danger need ever be
feared in a free country from any error of, opinion or doctrine
however great, " where reason is left free to combat it.'."
This Cabinet ukase of Mr. Attorney-General shows nothing
more clearly than the power of the iruths promulgated in the
two volumes' thus denounced. He and his associates know and
feel, that, by nothing short of a suppression of these truths directly or indirectly, and the obliteration, if possible, of all the
great facts'of our history, can they bring thle public mind to
receive the doctrine attempted to be instilled by him  in his
Atlanta speech; which amounts to this: that the States of this
Union have no higher position in the scale of existence than
mere legal corporations.
Shades of Ames, Samuel Adams, Parsons, Ellsworth, Hancock, Madison, Hamilton, Marshall, Jackson,> Jefferson, and
Washington!




MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 195
I will not say that such a doctrine ought to be suppressed;
but with all the respect for high official position which I can
command, I will say, that the Attorney-General of the United
States, in putting forth such sentiments ought to have blushed;
if not for his own reputation, at least, from a proper sense of
reverence for the memories of the illustrious dead!
The Union of these States, nothing but a Union of a sort
of corporations to be fashioned, moulded, controlled, and shorn
of their rights by and at the will of the Central Government!
This "Confederacy " of States, as MIarshall styled it on the
Bench of the Supreme Court — this "Confederated Republic,"
as Washington styled it in his message to the Senate-this
"l-Union of Sovereign 5Members," as Jackson spoke of it in his
Inaugural Address, according to the teachings of the present
Attorney-General, is nothing but an aggregation of corporations! Bare creatures of municipal law  This, in substance,
is my understanding of his most insidiously-inculcated Imperializing doctrine.
If by the suppression of truth, this doctrine can be established,
then, indeed, will be consummated that most lamentable result
which Hamilton thought need never be feared, even by the
most vigilant and zealous guardians of popular rights, when he
declared in the Convention of New York, which ratified the
Constitution, that " TALe ltates can never 16se their Powers till
the whole people of America are robbed of their igberties."
Yours, most respectfully,
ALEXANDER H. STEPrENS.




ARTICLE X.
I.;-R4EPLY OF MR. STEPHENS TO CRITICISM  OF THE ATLANTA
(GA.) "NEw ERA."
LIBERTY HALL, 
CRAWFORDVILLE, GA.,.Nov..9 19,870. 7.
To the Editor of the New: Era, Atlanta, GGa.:
DEAR SiR:-In the weekly issue, of your paper.'of the 16th
inst. is an editorial article (the same having' aso appeared in'the daily issue of the 1-ith inst.) headed " Hon.' Alexander H.
Stephens and the Constitutional Right of Secession," which
contains matter deserving notice from me.
" This article, as it stands, is well calculated to cause those of
your readers;,who are. not conversant with the-whole subject,
to form very erroneous conclusions both. in'reference to myself,
and. inreference to what you are pleased to consider the "pernicious." doctrines I have maintained in the work referred to
by you in the same article, in relation to the true nature and
character of. tie Government of the United States.
You will, therefore, I trust, allow me the use of'your c6lumns to set the issues yo.. make rightly before that portion of.the public to whom  your article was addressed.'Be assured,
my.whole object in this communication, as well as whatever
else I may have written on the subject, is the establishment of
truth; and truth, in my judgment, is pernicious to nothing but
error, in the science of government, as well as in all other matters of human investigation, whether political, ethical, or mathematical.. In the article referred to you say:
M'.r.. Stephens has written two large octavo volumes, entitled'The
War Between the States,' in vindication of the doctrine of ultimate Local
Allegiance or State Sovereighty, and consequently in justification of the
act of Secession, as exercised by the Georgia Democracy in 1861. That




REPLY TO "NEW  ERA," ))9
Mr. Stephens should, have written such a book, under the circumstances
which he did, having for its object the advocacy of a theory-which
experience has demonstrated to be not only impracticable, but likewise
destructive of the peace of society, surprised none more than it didmany
of his earliest and best friends in Georgia.
"The book can do no possible good. Its direct tendency is, and will
be, to stimulate a reorganization of a party hostile to the Government."
To this, allow'me, in the outset, to say that it was not the
object of the work alluded to, to set up, advance,.:or advocate
any mere theory as to the nature or character of the Federal
government under the Union of the States as established'by
the Constitution.  This is not a proper subject;for theory or
speculation of'any sort.  It is eminently a question'of facts,'My object was simply to set forth truthfully the indisputable
facts of history upon which it rests; with the irresistible- conclusions logically flowing from  them.  This was the object of
the'work, and has this been done, should be the only inquiry
of a mind wedded to truth.  If it has, why should any one ofmy early and best friends in Georgia, or elsewhere, be. surprised
at my.course?  Is there.any thing in my:whole life which could
have caused them  to expect any other? a  If it has not, then I
grant my course in this particular ought to be a cause of surprise to all.who know me,'and what I have adduced asfacts
ought to be -exposed as grave errors and mischievous imposi-.
tions.'. This.no one- in the United States has yet attempted or
ventured.to do, so far as I am aware.  The real question,-there-:
fore, is not whether experience has demonstrated any" theory "
of mine to be " mpracticable," but whether experience has demonstrated that the Government, as it was made and instituted
by the Fathers, was "not only impracticable but likewise destructiv.e of the peace of society."  Is it true, then, that the
matchless system  of. government instituted by our ancestors
was.' not only imracticable but destructive of the peace of society a   This is, certainly, your position if the facts and truths
of our history be as they are set forth in the book refbrred to,
which you virtually. admit by not: venturing to gainsay or deny
them.  Far be it from  me to entertain any such idea of the
majestic and renowned workmanship of the statesmen of 1787,
who framed the present Constitution for the government of the




198                REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
several sovereign States, which might enter into a union under
it, with a view to the establishment of justice, the preservation
of domestic tranquility, and the promotion of their joint general welfare, as well as for the security of the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.
Of this novel and wonderful frame-work Lord Brougham,
in his Political Philosophy, has well said: (Italics mine.)
"It is not at all a refinement that a Federal Union should be formed;
that is the natural result of men's joint operations in a very rude state of
society. But the regulation of such a Union upon preestablished principles, the formation of a system of government and legislation in which
the different subjects shall be not individuals, but States, the application of
legislative principles to such a body of States, and devising means for
keeping its integrity as a Federacy while the rights and powers of the individual States are maintained entire, is the very greatest refinement in
social policy to which any state of circumstances has ever given rise, or to
which any age has ever given birth!"
-May not the disturbance "of the peace of society" to
which you refer-(the late most lamentable war) —have arisen
rather from an error, on the part.of those who inaugurated it,
as to the true nature and extent of the powers confided to
them than from  any defect in the frame-work of the Government itself. Nay, is not this demonstrated in the book a  The
great question discussed in the." two large octavo volumes' is,
who was in the right and who was in the wrong in this recent
terrible conflict.  If it is clearly shown therein, that the responsibility of this disturbance "of the peace of society " rests
with all its weight upon those who wrongfully claimed and exercised unauthorized power, then experience in this instance
has demonstrated nothing but that even written Constitutions
are not always proof against the usurpations of rulers.  This
experience has by no means demonstrated that the institutions
of our Fathers were not altogether practicable, wise, just, right,
and embodying " the very greatest refinement in social policy"'
to which any age has ever given birth; looking to the best interest, peace, safety, security, liberty, and happiness of mankind.
But you say that the facts and truths established in the book
(for as before stated, you must be considered as admitting them




REPLY TO ":NEW  ERA."                199
to be correct, as you do not assail them) will have a "direct
tendency" "to stimulate a reorganization of a party hostile to
the Government."
In this you will allow me to say, that either you or I greatly err in judgment. The direct tendency of these truths, as
was and is one of the objects of their promulgation, will be the
reorganization of a party in perfect harmony with the Government, animated with a thorough devotion to those principles
upon which it was founded and by the maintenance of which
alone its incalculable blessings can be perpetuated. The tendency will be the organization of a party hostile to.nothing but
those principles of maladlministration of government-those
gross and palpable usurpations, from which all our late troubles
With their ruinous results arose, and from which, if not abandoned, like trQubles, with even wdrse results, may be looked
for in the future. The Government is one thing and the administration of it quite another. No system of Free IRepresentative Government can be long continued where the people do
not understand its principles and cherish a patriotic devotion to
them, with a"i inflexible virtue enlisted in their maintenance.
The direct tendency of the truths presented in the" two volumes" to which you refer, will be to impart the requisite
knowledge of our wonderful confederate system, and at the
same time inspire a patriotic admiration of the beauty and
grandeur of its structure, as well as zeal' and integrity in its
support and perpetuation. Individually, I have ever regarded
it the wisest.,and best system of government for neighboring
States. ever instituted by man. No one ever was or could be
more devoted to its principles than I have been and am. With
me in all things political, this devotion controls every other
consideration. Now, as heretofore, I can say on this point:
"All thoughts, all passions, all delights,
Whatever stirs this mortal frame;
All are but nministers of love
To feed this sacred flame."
So far, therefore, from the tendency of the truths promulgated by me, as to the nature and character of the Governmen't,
being to stimulate the organization of a party hostile to it, the




200                REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
tendency will, in my judgment, be directly to the.,contraryi;
that is, the tendency will be, through'an enilightened and pa;triotic public sentiment, to bring the adrhiiiii'strationr of the Government back from its present usurpations, and...restore it to its
true pristine principles under which it'was so prosperously and
so happily conducted for nearly three-quarters of a. century.
So much by. way of reply to your.:iitrodctory:remiark.S'.'.:I
now wish to call the' attention of your readers to that part of'
your article in which'you attempt (it seems: to. me) to break the
force of the great truths of'our history'aS. set f6rth in the work,
not by any'direct attack upon them,;or the'facts upon which
they rest, but by giving out that they are inconsistent with
what I had maintained on a former occasion.  On this line you
say:
"That Mr. Stephens should have thus Vbecomne'the champion of the
party of Destruction is most remarkable.  It' clearly. implie's either a radical change in his political views since 1860, or. it raisesg a, presumption
against his sincerity. The latter is hardly admi'ssible. We.have too high
an opinion of Mr. Stephens as a man, to charge him with insincerity.
And yet the alternative of fickleness, while it'is inevitable, is very little
less.complimentary. His calm and statesmanlike'speeci of November
14th, 1860, delivered before the Georgia Legislature at'Miled'geville,. and
which was generally copied by the press all over the United States,' is in
strange contrast with the pernicious and revolutionary teachings in his
book."
You go on further to say:
"In that speech Mr. Stephens discusses the merits of Secession in th.e
following calm and powerful language:
"' The first question that presents itself is, Shall tli'e people df the South
secede from the Union in consequence of the- election, of. Mr. Lincoln to
the Presidency of the United States? My countryn.en, I tell you'firankly,y
candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think they ought.  In my judg-,
ment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that,:high dffice,
is sufficient cause for any State to separate from the:Union.. It ought to
stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To
make a point of resistance to the Government,. to:witlidraw from it be'
cause a man has been constitutionally elected,: putst;s in the wron.'g.' We'
are pledged to maintain the Constitution. Many of u's have sworn'to support it. Can we, therefore, for the mere election of a mhan. to the Presidency-and that, too,'in accordance with the prescribed form of the Constitution-make a point of resistance to the Governmeint owithout becoming
the breakers of that sacred instrument ourselves by wisthdr awing ourselves from
it?  Would we not be inthe wrong? Whatever fate is to befall this




REPLY  TO "NEW. ERA.'                     201
country, let it.never be laid',to'the' carge. of the people of the South, and
especially to the people of Geodrgia,.that we. were fintrue to our national-engagements;.h.. We went' into the election: with. t'ths people. The result
was different from what,'we wished; but the' election has been constitutionally held. Were we to make a point of resistance to the Government,
and go out. of the. Union on' that account, the record would be made up
hereafter against us.',
"We have italicized the words in the -above to: which attention is especially'directed.;:   t.will Ab& observed-that..:Stephens here assumes
that, because, the people of -Georgia - stood'pledged'to maintain the Cons'titution,' therefore they ought not to- secede;:'.and that they could not do
so without.'becoming the breakers of that- sacre'd instrument.' Where,
then, is'the Constitutional.'right'. of [Secessionlso insidiously taught in'The Waet Between the States.?'' Where, then is the infallible truth of the
proposition that, since the ultimate allegiance of the citizen is due the
State, as against the F'ederal Government, the citizen may make resistance
to the General Government, under the sanction'of State. authority, without
violating or'breaking. the Federal Constitut'i.on? The truth is, Mr. Stephens of 1868 and.18Z7.0' everses.tMr. Stephens of 1860 and 1861."
In response to this'part of your article, for the information
of your readers, it is. proper to remind you that you have only
quoted, not exactly, but substantially  correct — (see Constitutional View, 2d vol.,.page 280), a part of the- speech to which
yo.u refer, and that part in which I did'maintain that secession,'in my judgment, would not be justified even in the exercise of
a sovereign not " constitutiohal." right, as you seem to suppose,
upon the bare election to Ithe o'fice of President of any man,
however inimical he'might be ito the principles of the government of the Uhnted!States.  But'while in that'part of tihe
speech I did mainta'in- that no:'State, in my judgment, would be
ju'stified.in the ex-ecise of her sovereign  right in withdrawing
ifrom  the Union, because of.the: election of Mr. Lincoln to the
Presidency, yet I did not. thereby assume, or. maintain that no,State. could rightfully.eercise her, sovereign powers in withdriawingfrom the Untioi.`forf any cause whatever.  F&r indeed
was any such position from any thing said in that speech.
This is not a matter of disptutatidn about words.'. The speech
itself,from which:you quoted, settles all. doubts. that might arise
from' isolated sentences or parts..After'stating most earnestly
and distinctly, that I did not consider the election of Mr. Lin-'coln a sufficient cause to justify. secession, I  went into the con



202                REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
sideration of other causes, which were of a different character,
and, though I did not think it either expedient, or wise, or politic, to secede for any of them under the circumstances existing
at the time, yet I did most fully declare my opinion to be, that
secession for these causes would be justified if Georgia in her
sovereign capacity should determine to exercise her sovereign
right to withdraw.  The justification of the act, however, did
not render the exercise of the power, at the time and under the
circumstances, either judicious-or expedient in my judgment.
iHence my earnest appeal in that speech after the full consideration of all the causes of complaint, as well those which would
justify as those which would not, against the exercise, at that
time, of the great sovereign right of secession for any of them.
My opposition to secession for those other causes was not as to
the right, but the policy, of the measure. In this appeal, among
other things, I said what follows:
"But it is said Mr. Lincoln's policy and principles are against the
Constitution, and that if he carries them out it will be destructive of our
rights. Let us not anticipate the threatened evil. If he violates the Constitution, then'will come our time to act.... I do not anticipate that Mr.
Lincoln will' do any thing to jeopard our safety or security, whatever may
be his spirit to do it; for he is bound by the Constitutional checks which
are thrown around him, which at this time render him powerless to do
any great mischief. This'shows the wisdom of our system. The President of the United States is no Emperor-no Dictator. He is clothed
with no absolute power.
" Now upon another point, and that the most difficult, and deserving
your most serious consideration, I will speak. What is the course which
this State should pursue toward those Northern States, which, by their
legislative acts, have attempted to nullify the fugitive slave law?
"Northern States, on entering into the Flederal Compact, pledged to
surrender such fugitives; and* it is in disregard of their Constitutional
obligations that they have passed' laws which even tend to hinder or inhibit the fulfilment of that obligation. They have violated their plighted
faith. What ought we to do in view of this? That is the question.
What is to be done? By the law of nations, you would- have a right to demand the carrying out of this article of agreement, anid I do not see that it
should be otherwise  with respect to the States of this UJnion..... The States
of this Union, stand upon the same footing with foreign nations in this respect.
" Now, then, my recommendation to you wonuld be this: In view of all




REPLY TO "NEW  ERA."                     203.
these questions of difficulty, let a Convention of the people of Georgia be
called, to which they all may be referred. Let the sovereignty of the people speak. Some think the election of Mr. Lincoln is cause sufficient to
dissolve the Union. Some think those other grievances are sufficient to
justify the same, and that the Legislature has power thus to act, and
ought thus to act. I have no hesitancy in saying that the Legislature is
not the proper body to sever our PFederal relations, if that necessity should
arise.... I do think, therefore, that it would be best, before going to
extreme measures with our Confederate States, to make the presentation of
our demands, to appeal to their reason and judgment to give us our
rights.... At least, let these offending and derelict States know what your
grievances are, and if they refuse, as I said, to give us our rights under
the Constitution, I should be willing, as a last resort, to-sever our ties- with
them.
" My opinion is, that if this course be pursued, and they are informed
of the consequences of refusal, these States will recede, will repeal their
nullifying acts; but if they should not, then let the consequences be with them,
and the responsibility of the consequences rest with them."
From  these extracts (parts of which I have italicized) it
most clearly appears that at the very time I urged that the bare
election. of any man to the Presidency, however inimical his
principles might be to the Constitution, was not, in my judgment, a sufficient cause to justify the withdrawal of a State from
the Union; I also fully'admitted that for other causes, and
other causes then existing, if not removed, the Southern States
would be fully justified in withdrawing, if they should so deterinine to do in their sovereign capacity.  These causes, as is
well known, were not removed.  It was for these causes the
Southern States did secede or attempt to secede.
When I maintained in that part of the speech, which you
quoted, that because the State of Georgia " was pledged to support the Constitution," she, therefore, in my judgment, ought
not to secede on account of Mr. Lincoln's election, or in anticipation merely of an act of aggression on his part, I did not
thereby assume or assert that she could not, in my judgmient,
rightfully secede for the other causes. On the contrary, it is
clearly stated, that it would be her sovereign right to do so if
she saw fit.  It is true my judgment against the policy of exercising the right for any of the then existing causes, without
further efforts for their removal, was most earnestly urged; but




204              REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
the right to withdraw:for these other causes was not questioned:
by me in any part of that speech.
Nay, more, I expressly declared that my allegiance would
be yielded to the sovereignly-expressed will-of Georgia, whatever course she might take.
There is certainly no inconsistency between the principles
maintained on this whole subject in the speech alluded to, and
those maintained in the " two volumes" to which you refer.
Nor.is there any inconsistency between the principles of this
speech in whole or in part; and the great truths set forth in
those volumes touching the nature and character of the government of the United States, which you deem so pernicious, destructive, and revolutionary.
Intelligent readers will, I think, require something more effective to break the force of these truths than any inconsistency
to be found between them and the principles advocated by me
in 1860; and they will, moreover, require, I think, something
of a very different character from any thing to be found in the
speech made by me to which you have alluded-taken altogether as it should be-to show that "Mr. Stephens of 1868 and
1870 reverses Mr. Stephens of 1860 and 1861."
In this connection you will allow me to say, that whatever
other demerits may properly be laid to my charge during a
rather long political course, that of "fickleness " on these questions or inconsistency with myself on the subject of State sovereignty, and the proper relations between the States and the
Federal Government under our Union, is not one of: them. I
have now before me a printed copy of the first political address
ever made by me. It was delivered in this village on the 4th day
of July, 1834, while I was a student of law, and before my admission to the bar. For your own information, as well as that
of your readers, on the point of my inconsistency and "fickleness" I submit for your and their consideration the following
extracts, which are not less pertinent now than then:
"The mind, therefore, at our annual festivals similar to the present,
should not, as is often the case, be permitted to be filled so much with rejoicings over the past, as engaged in earnest contemplations of the future.
The warfare of Liberty -is continual, and there is no time for the:patriot




REPLY"TO''"NEW  ERA."                      20:5
to luxuriate on the past, or feast — on the spoils of victory. The field is
never to be quit-the post never deserted-but battle succeeds battle' in a
chain as various and as endless~ as the diversity of character and the succession of generations.
*:"With these remarks I submit to your attention, briefly, the consideration:of a subject which I deem not as inappropriate to the object of our
assembling:; one in which: we all, as the friends of Liberty in general, and
particularly las: citizens: of the United States, are deeply. interested, and
one which, in my opinion, involves principles:pregnant with as momentous consequences as any which: have. ever agitated the public: mind of the
American people. I allude: to the extent of the, powers of the Federal
Government, or the true relation between the Federal and'State Governments. There-are  those among us who contend for the ultimate supremacy of the former, while others ifor that of the latter. The struggle is one
for- power on one side, and right on the other.  ".. Most essential, then,
to its preservation -in its: primitive purityi should the principles:of the
Federal compact be. thoroughly examined, and clearly understood by
every one.' That I may be plain in establishing these important assumptions, I lay
it down as an undeniable truth, this power was not vested in Congress at
the first union of these States which resulted'- in the Declaration of Independence, nor during the time which intervened between that period and
the adoption of the articles of the Confederation. I -lay it down also as
a truth, that it was not conferred by the.articles of the Confederation.
Thus far my premises must be admitted by all, for the first article of the
Confederation expressly declares the sovereignty or supremacy of the
States severally. I proceed, then, likewise to assert that this Supreme
Power is not conferred by the present Constitution. Were this also admitted, there would be an end to the discussion. But here the issue is
joined. Then to the proof. And in the first place, if the Constitution
contains such grant of power, it must be implied, for it is not expressed.
"But, say the advocates of a strong Government, there is no necessity
for its being expressed; that it is implied, and that it is implied from the
nature and character of the Constitution, and the circumstances which
gave rise to its formation. For, say they, the mainsobject of the Constitution was to obviate and- remedy evils which arose'under the'weak administration of:the former Confederation from'the.want of this very
power. They admit that anterior to the Constitution, Congress had not
this power-that the States were separate and' distinct sovereignties; and
they tell us that at that time -our nation was in debt; that our trade'was
languishing;. that our credit:was lost; that our character was dishonored;
that there was no remedy; Congress enacted but'the States disregarded;
there was no force binding.the people, and finally, they tell us that it was




206                 REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
to check all these evils,:and remedy this whole state of deranged affairs
by binding the States to the decision of Congress, and, in a word, by depriving them of their sovereign veto, that the present Constitution'was
formed, and therefore, though this be not all expressed, yet it must be implied from the very nature of things, etc. Now, that these evils did exist
under the Confederation to a great extent, is admitted, and that many of
them were remedied by the present Constitution is also admitted; but the
inference as to the origin or cause of these evils, and the nature of their
remedy, is erroneous. They did not originate (according to the inference)
from a want of superior force or power in Congress to bind the States, but
from  the limited number of subjects and objects of national policy
upon which the States had permitted Congress to act, and their attempting to exercise powers not granted. It is true our nation was in debt;
that our trade was languishing; that Qur credit was lost, and that Congress enacted upon these subjects, and that the States disregarded those
enactments. And why? For the plainest reason in the world: Because
Congress, the agent of the States, was meddling with matters and enacting upon subjects with which it never had been entrusted with sufficient
and proper powers to do the business as it ought to be done, and not as
the inference would imply, because there was a want of power to compel
the States to comply with their solemn engagements. This want of power
did exist, but the evils did not arise from that; and so far from its being
the main object of the new Constitution, this was not its object at all. It
is true its object was to remedy the evils of the Confederation. But it
was to have remedied them as they should have been remedied-by entrusting more business to the care of the agent, or in other words, by permitting Congress to act upon more subjects which experience had shown the
public convenience required.... This was the object of the Constitution.
This was what the Constitution effected. While the obligation on the
part of the States as States to observe and obey an edict of Congress is
the same now as before the adoption of the present Constitution. The
Government has not changed its name even. Its powers were enlarged,
but its character is the same; and the relation between the States and this
Government have been multiplied, but the nature of those relations is unaltered. The new Constitution is a compact between the sovereign States
separately, as the old Confederation was; and if this be so, and if the first
article of the Confederation expressly declares that sovereignty or supremacy is retained to the States-denying the right or power of Congress
to coerce or compel the States, the parties to it, to obey its edicts-where
is this right or power derived under this present Constitution? Indeed,
fellow-citizens, I am constrained to think that it is derived n'owhere, and
that it has its existence only in the breasts of the parasites of power who
wish to overthrow the liberties of the people."
These extracts, whatever may be thought of the style or




REJOINDER OF "NEW  ERA."                207
logic of the juvenile argument, will suffice to show you and
your readers, I think, at least, that " Mr. Stephens," as early as
1834, as well as in 1860 and 1861,  maintained substantially the
same principles touching the nature and character of our Confederate system of government, and the relation of the States
to the Union under it, which he did in 1860, and does in 1870.
If he ever performed an act, or uttered a sentiment, inconsistant with the doctrines announced in 1834 on this subject, he is
not aware of it. Throughout his public life, he has maintained
that the underlying principle of the whole structure of American free institutions is the ultimate absolute sovereign right of
local-self-government on the part of each State, constituting the
sever'al members of the system. This the indisputablle facts
of our history show to be true! He believes, moreover, with
the utmost sincerity, that if the promulgation of these facts
and truths be "pernicious, destructive, and revolutionary," that
they are so pernicious, desthrctive, and revolutionary only to
that party organization whose aims and objects are by usurpations of power, and the suppression of truth, to overthrow the
whole fabric of free government instituted by our ancestors, and
to erect in its stead a consolidated, centralized Empire.
Yours, very respectfully,
ALEXANvDER H. STEPHENS.
II.-REJOINDER OF THE "NEW ERA."
The Secession Revival.-Efforts to Resurrect and Revive Dead Issues.
-lir. Stephens' Letter.
-Mr. Stephens, in the introduction to his work entitled "The
War Between the States," declares the object of that book to
be, "an inquiry, into the nature of the Government of the
United States, or the nature of the Union which exists between
the States under the Constitution, with the causes, or conflict
of principles, which led to'a resort to arms."  In his communication, which we cheerfully publish elsewhere, he disclaims any
purpose "to set up, advance, or advocate any mere theory as to




208                REVIEWERS'. REVIEWEDI.
the nature or character of the Federal Government under the
Union of the' States, as' established. by the Constitution'..Now, a theory, as everybody knows, is"' an' exposition of.the
general principles of.any science," as the theory of government,
for instance. It is a philosophical.explanation of a phenomenon;
and: this pheoenomenn may be;physical, as for: instahee, the
congelation of water- into a -hard, brittle. sustiance called ice;
or it may be.moral, as for instance, the great. moral phenomenon of:the reformatbli of the sixteenh. cetury.; o.i'.te physical conflict'witnessed: in the United States in 1861..It is for
the purpose of exp laining this' last-named' pjienomcnon, that
~Mr. Stephens:tiakes uip:his pen; and he succeeds in this. explanation, to his own: satisfaction, at least,: upon the hypothesis
that the Government.of the.:United'States, as' formed by, the
Constitution of 1.87,' is.not' a Nation,'.:not.:' "colsolidated
Union," as Presid.enit Washington said it wass, but-. merely a
League or "'Compact. between.:several sovereign a"nd independent States or nations.  Conse..quen'tly, he assumes that, beccwse the national Government':took  m.easures'to enforce it's
authority as a Nation, it transcended its. authoirity. as a.'fdera'
tive Agent of.a. plurality of n'atio.alitie',. and was, itherefore,. in
the.wrong.  IHence., according to'Mr.' Stepheiisl' theory or exposition of'tlie principles: f~ our Governme.nt, the right' of
Secession still inheres with the people of any one of the States;
and they may exercise' this' right?' at' ahy. tifite without, in'
any manner," violating'the Cionstitution.-.''This' c6nclusion is'
legitimate, because Mir.. Stephens' theory inyestis eQach.Statewith
"an equal,ight to ju'dge for itself, as'vell'of iinfractiofis,'asof-:the'mode and-measure of: redress.!.'
Such, in brief is Mr. Stephens' "theory.; ":a'!d: upon such a
theory, or, rather, shall we not..ay'hypothesis,'n'othing is easier:
than to arrive at the coriclusion that the. present" Govern'mefnt
of the United States; is:"' usurpational, vunconAstitutioinal, revolutionary, null,: and void,'? because mihai.ntalned.:by authority. not.
granted in. the original' Congtitution, or written agreement of
the "Compacto.!" "That i's certainly the logical sequence, of Mlr.:
Stephens' theory, the legitim ate conclusion fr.om his premises,
whether he so interidedit or not.' It is, therefore,' not his con



REJOINDER OF "NEW  ERA."                 209
clusions per se, but rather the false and mischievous p'enises
the pernicious theory-from which his conclusions legitimately
follow, that are objectionable in the argument of his b'ook.
This theory of a federative Agency of independent Sovereign States, as established by- the Constitution, was never heard
of until some years after the adoption of that instrunmret by
the people of the: different States... It is a notorious fact that
so long as the people  of any State withheld their assent from
the Federal Constitution, it- was universally iepresented and
reprobated by its adversaries as a scheme of " absolute and, undisguised consolidation!"   It expressly withdrew  from  the
States, and invested in one sovereign head all power with regard to war, to treaties, and to diplomatic or commercial intercourse; and its opponents pointed to this fact as proof irresistible of the correctness of their position:that it provided for an
absolute and undisguised consolidation:of the States into one
General Government, a: government having supreme authority,
and therefore demanding the Ultimate Allegiance of the citizen.
Its express inhibition of -any alliance, compact, or treaty be-.tween two or more of the States,, was to: the minds of the antiFederalists even more conclusive on this head; the very pTearmble to the instrument proclaimed it, as they said, the work
of the PEOPLE of the-United States, and not a mere Alliance or
Compact between independent States, in their capacity of separate and distinct sovereignties.
Speaking of this very point, in opposition to the Government provided in the Constitution, Patrick Henry said: s' That
this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear; aund
the danger of sucha government is to my mind very striking..... If':the States be not the agents of this compact, it must
be one great, Consolidated, National Government of the people
of the States....I need not t.ake much pains to show that
the principles of this -system, i. e., the system proposed by the
Constitution, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. 
The Constitution was, in the opinion -of lr.:'Henry, fpevnicious, impolitic, and dangerous," because it provided, not for
a league, a compact between the sovereign States; but because
14




210             REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
it provided for a consolidated, Central Government of the People of the United States, a Government demanding the ultimate allegiance of the citizen even as against the State organization.
Nor did the advocates of the proposed system controvert
the conclusions of its opponents on this point. On the contrary, they frankly admitted that the Constitution was the work
of the people of the United States, as distinguished from the
States in their primary and sovereign capacity.' They did not
hesitate to assert that the Government provided by this Con-.stitution claimed the- highest allegiance of the citizen. They
even went beyond the objections urged by its opponents, and
plainly told them that the Constitution left' the States no reserved or undivided sovereignty whatever; and this was manifest in the fact that, by the Constitution, the States had expressly ceded the right to punish treason-not treason against
their -separate power, but treason against the United States;
and treason being an offense against sovereignty, sovereignty
must necessarily reside exclusively with the power competent
to punish it. Even General Washington did not hesitate to
assert that the end proposed by this Constitution was the "coNSOLIDATION Of our Union;" and he never ceased to regard as
of the highest importance and the greatest benefit, the fact that
the Constitution which he lived to see adapted by the people of
all the States, did provide for a " consolidated Union " or Government demanding the ultimate allegiance of the citizen, even
as against the individual State. And history teaches no one
thing more-clearly than thatqit was the purpose of the:framers
of the Constitution, to render the inhabitants of all the States
essentially and pernanently: ONE PEOPLE, living under a common Government, and recognized by a common National designation. This fact is fully-demonstrated in the published debates and the writings between and by the advocates and opponents of the Constitution. Both parties wereagreed as to the
general scope, purport, and design of the instrument. There
was no'dispute then as to the -trutlh of the proposition that it
provided for a consolidated National: Government of the PEoPLE of the United States, and not merely for a Confederation,




REJOINDER OF "NEW  ERA."                 21i
Alliance, or League between sovereign, independent, and separate States. One party advocated its adoption because it thus
provided for a consolidated Government of the People,.and it
was for this identical reason that the other opposed it. This is,a matter of history which we do not remember ever to have
seen controverted; and when controverted, then will be time
to quote authorities.
It was not until after the Constitution had been ratified,
and therefore not until after this great Central Power or Nationality which they so much dreaded had been formed, that
the. opponents of the Constitution became-at least in profession.
-its most ardent admirers and vigilant guardians! They fell
so much in love with what they termed a scheme of absolute
Consolidation, that they actually became the champions of the
Constitution as against those who had framed it and with difficulty achieved its ratification! In a few years thereafter, these
same parties'began to talk about " strict construction," the "reserved rights" to the States. of all powers not expressly delegated to the General Government, and consequently of Federal
usurpation!  For, in 1'T98 we find -the celebrated "Virginia
and Kentucky Resolutions," the authorship of which was not
openly avowed by Mr. Jefferson until nearly twenty years
thereafter, and which constituted the corner-stone upon which
Mr. Calhoun erected his Nullification heresies, as' they are -also
the basis upon which Mr. Stephens erects his present defence
of Secession!  Three years after the date of these somewhat
celebrated political theses, Mr. Jefferson became.President of
the United States; and the proposed purchase of Louisiana put
his fidelity to the "strict construction"' theory to the severest
possible test. In the Constitution there was clearly no authority for the purchase unless found in that clause which'provides
for the "general welfare:;" and this Mr. Jefferson had previously declared, in the set of Resolutions above referred to,
was meant " to be subsidiary only. to the'execution of limited
powers."  There could be no power not "expressly" granted,
said Mr. Jefferson; nevertheless -he did recommend the pur-,chase, thereby giving'us to  infer either tlat he' knowinigly.-violated the instrument whose provisions he had sworn to sup



212               REVIEWERS.  REVIEWED.
port; or else that he held his partisan thesis of "strict construction,", and. its concomitant crochets about the-" reserved sovereignty of the States," in subordination to -his higher sense.of
duty as head of'the Nation!:
In 1832,- South Carolina. threatened the exercise of this "re-,
served right," in the nullification of a law of Congress. -Being,
according to Mr. Stephens' theory, an independent:power, inevery-thing    -texcept the prerogatives "expressly'" delegated to
the Federal "agency" or-" compact," she'undertook to fall
bacs nupon her - sovereignty" as an independent;power, -ad
declare a'law -of.'Congress a ".usurpation, unconstitutional,
revolutionary, null, and void"-just- as Mr. Stephens.and; his
echoes now say of the a Constitutional- amendments and the Reconstruction laws of the'Government!   Mr. rlayne, of- South'Carolina, as the representative of. that theory, held that it was:constitutional to- interrupt the administration of tiie Constitution itself, in the hands' of those who: had been'.chosen to ad-'.minister it, by the- direct interference in the form of law, of the'States, in virtue of their: sovereign capacity.  This threatened
purpose -to carry-the theory of strict construction and State
sovereignty to its legitimate sequence in the. form of Nullification, was.promptly met and put down by President Jackson,
who declared that "It would be solecism  to contend that-any
part of a nation may dissolve its connection with- the other
parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offence,"
to lthe constitution of its government.  And yet; according to
Mr. Stephens; South Carolina had the Constitutional right to
do this very thing; because, according to his understanding'of
the Constitution, it made the State.the sole judge as well of the
infraction as of the mode'and measure of redress!
- -When the next effort was made to reduce this pernicious
theory to practice; Mr. Stephens opposed it, as he tells us, from
considerations of policy; but -he maintained, at the same time,
as he intimates, that:Georgia had the constitutional, right.to
"break the sacred. instrument" in- order the better to preserve
the "principles" upon which it was founded!
He, made -one of the-, most manly and truly eloquent appeals
on, record, against;the proposition to secede;. and' he even went




REJOINDER OF ",NEW  ERA."                213
so- far as to say that to secede-for such a cause, or upon such an.
occasion —the electioni of Mr.' Lincoln- to the Presidency-would
be to break the ConStitution, violate our plighted faith to the
other States, anud put ourselves clearly in the-wrong. -He
claims, however, in the communication, which we publish this
morning, that-. because' he denied the rightful authority to
secede for such a-cause or upon' such an. occasion, he; did not
thereby- assume that no.State could rightfully exercise her sovereign power in withdrawing for any cause whatever. Now,.
since Mr. -Stephens; tells -us that the' object of his book is to
show who was right and who was wrong in the recent physical
conflict, it mfust follow, according-to Mr. Stephens' own premises,
that the secession leaders in. the "Democratic party were.the
culpable parties, since they did exercise  a "right" - which he
himself.had, only a few months previous, pronounced unjustifiablel! It is true, Mr. Stephens, in: the communication under'notice, makesan ingenious special plea: on -this -point —   plea
that gives him'more -character.as a sharp attorney than -credit
for philosophical statesmanship; but the query very naturally
arises in the minds of plain men, Why did Mr. Stephens -fail
thernto say:that for other:- then' existing causes - than the mere
electi6n of Mr.'Lincoln, the State might exercise the. "riht-"
of secession without' violating -the Constitution, and consequently without being in the wrong?  If he ever said any
thing of this kind until it became his task to justify the act of
Secession, and harmonize his Union speech'of November 14,
1860, with his course afterward, it has escaped our notice.There is another point in Mr. Stephens' book, hinted at in
his communication of this morning, which cannot escape the
attention of the critical reader. Paramount authority or Sovereignty, according to the legitimate inferences from that- book,
rests with the: People. This, we presume, no one questions;
but, then, who are the People?2 Evidently they are the citizens
of the United States, and not a majority in some individual
State of the.Union, comprising less than one-twentieth of the
citizens'of the United States.-' According to the genius of our
Government, the People may, on the ground of the inalienable
righti of man, resist oppression; that is to say, they may right



214              REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
fully resist the government, or rather the adminstration of it,
upon the ground of revolution. This right of revolution nobody denies; but the constitutional right of Secession, clearly
implies that we have no Constitution of General Government,
and, therefore, no Nation, but rather a diplomatic Agency of
thirty-six independent States or nationalities, which. may be
broken up and destroyed any morning before breakfast, and
for any cause or causes that a majority of the people one thirtysixth of the Union may deem justifiable. And all this, according to Mr. Stephens' understanding of the nature of our Government, would be constitutional!'Now, Mr. Stephens may honestly believe all this, and it
may have been his honest belief, as he says it has been, for
-more than thirty years; and yet that fact does not make his
theory any the less destructive of the peace and order of society.
And, in view of the dreadful experiences of the past, -the
people of Georgia cannot look with much favor upon any
scheme, whether in the field of literature or upon the forum,
looking to the resurrection and rehabilitation of a political
party denyingthe nationality and sovereignty of the Government, and which holds Secession and nullification to be constitutional prerogatives, to be held in abeyance until such opportunities may arise as will unite policy with principle in the destruction of the Union!
III. -MR. STEPHENS' SUR-REJOINDER TO THE "NEW ERA."
LIBERTY HALL,
CRAWFORDVILLE, GEORGIA, December 2, 1870. 
To the Editor of the New Era, Atlanta, Ga.:
DEAR Sm IR:-I thank you for the publication of my letter of
the 19th ultimo. In that, your readers, I feel quite assured,
found proof sufficient to satisfy them that " Mr. Stephens of 1868
and 1870 does not reverse Mr. Stephens of 1860 and 1861."
This point, therefore, may be considered settled, but one remark made by you editorially on this subject in the same issue,
justifies, if it does not call for, a brief comment by me which I




SUR-REJOINDER TO "NEW ERA."                  215
trust you will allow me to make.  The remark to which I allude
is in these words:
"It is true, Mr. Stephens, in the communication under notice, makes
an ingenious special plea on this point-a plea that' gives him -more
character as a sharp attorney than credit for philosophical statesmanship;
but the query very naturally rises in the minds of plain men, Why did
Mr. Stephens fail then to say that for other then existing causes than the
mere'election of Mr. Lincoln, the State. might exercise the'right' of
secession without violating the Constitution, and consequently without
being in the wrong? " If he ever said any thing of this kind until it became his task to justify the act of Secession, and harmonize his Union
speech of November -14, 1860, with his course afterward, it has escaped
our notice."
To this I wish merely to say that the extracts furnished in
the communication, to which you refer, were taken from  the
same speech from which'you quoted in your issues of the 11th
and 16th ultimo. If they escaped your notice, either when the
speech was made, or when you were quoting from  it, it shows
much more clearly, you will allow me most respectfully to say,
that you are a careless reader, than that I, in their reproduction,
exhibited, in any way, the character of a bare " sharp attorney."
These very extracts were part and parcel of the same speech,
which you are pleased to characterize as very "statesmanlike;"'and went with it broadcast over the United States.
As to what else you say in your two columns' comments on
my communication of the 19th ultimo, I have also some remarks
to submit to your consideration and that of your readers, for
which I shall solicit your indulgence.
In no part of these comments do you directly assail any of
the facts touching the history of the Federal Government set
forth in the "two volumes" referred to, which you seem  to
think have been arrayed with a view.to establish a theory quite
destructive, in your opinion, of the "peace of society;" but
you do indulge at considerable length in round statements,
which are entirely inconsistent with these facts.
Among other things you say:
"This theory of a federative Agency of independent Sovereign States,
as established by.the Constitution, was never heard of.until some years
after the adoption of that instrument by the people of the different States.




~16                  REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
It is a notorious fact that so long as the people of any State withheld
their-assent from the Federal Constitution, it was universally represented
and reprobated by its adversaries as a scheme of'absolute and undisguised
consolidation!' It expressly withdrew from the: States, and invested in
one sovereign head, all power with' regard to- war, to treaties, and'to
diplomatic or commercial intercourse; and its opponents pointed to this
fact as proof irresistible of the Correctness of their position that it provided
for an absolute'and undisguised consolidation of the States into one Gen-'eral Government, a government having'unlimited authority, and therefore
demanding'the Ultimate Allegiance of the citizen. Its express inhibition
of any alliance, compact, or treaty between two or more of the'States was
to'the minds of the. anti-Federalists even more conclusive on this head:
the very preamble to the instrument proclaimed it, as they said, the work
of the PEOPLE of the United States, and not a mere Alliance or Compact
between independent States, in their capacity.of separate and distinct
sovereignties.
"Speaking of this very point, in opposition to the Government provided
in the Constitution, Patrick Henry said:'That this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such'a government is
to my,mind very striking...  If the States be not the Agents of this
compact, it must be one great Consolidated, National Government of the
people of the States.:... I need not take'much pains to. show that the
principles of this system, i. e., the system proposed: by the Constitution,
are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous.'
"'The Constitution was, in.the opinion of Mr. Henry, pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous,' becausee it provided, not for a league,' a compact
between the sovereign States; but because it provided for a consolidated,
Central- Government of the People of the United States, a — Government
demanding the ultimate allegiance of the citizen even as against the State
organization; -.
"Nor did the advocates of the proposed system controvert the. conclusioIis of its opponents. on this point. On the contrary, they frankly
admitted that the.Constitution was the work of thepeople of the United
States, as distinguished from  the States in their primary and sovereign
capacity.1 They did not hesitate to assert'that the Government provided
by. this Constitution claimed the highest allegiance"' of the citizen.  Tlfey'eveun went'beyond the objections urged:by' its opponents,.and.painly: told
them that the Constitution left the States no reserved -or- undivided sovereignty whatever; and that this -was manifest in the:fact that, by the
Constitution, the States had expressly ceded the right to puniish treasonnot treason against their separate power, but treason'against the United:States.; pnd treason being an offence against: sove.reignty, sovereignty must'
necessarily reside exclusively with the power competent.to punish it.
Even General: Washington did not hesitate to.assertsthat the end -proposed




SUR-REJOINDER TO "NEW  ERA."                  2
by this Constitution,was. the' COSOL.IDATION: of our.Union;'. and he
never ceased to regard as of the highest importance and-the greatest benefit, the fact that the Constitution which he lived to see.adopted by the
people of all the States, did provide for a' consolidated Union' Government demanding the ultimate allegiance of the' citizen even as against the
individual State. And history teaches no one. thing more clearly than
that it was the purpose of the framers of the Constitution to render the
inhabitants of all the States essentially and permanently ONE PEOPLE, living
under a common Government, and recognized- -by:a common' National
designation.: This fact is- fully demonstrated in-theE published debates and
the writings between and by the advocates and-opponents.of the- Constitution,.. Both parties were- agreed as to the general scope, purport, and
design of the instrument. There was no dispute then as to the truth of
the'proposition that it provided for a consolidated, National Government
of the PEOPLE  of'the United States,;and not merely for:: a Conhfederation,
Alliance, or League between sovereign independent and. separate States.
One party advocated its adoption because it thus -provided for a consolidated Government of the People, and it was for:this identical reason that
the. other opposed it. This is a matter of history which we do not remember ever to have seen controverted; and when controverted, then
will'be time to quote authorities."
Kow, allow me to say that truth is seldom arrived' at in. any
department of knowledge, either by rambling, discourse or
wrangling disputation.  I have no taste for either.  In order,
therefore, that we may come to a definite understanding. upon
points and issues offact on which.the truth of our history rests,
as to the real nature and character of the Government of the
United States, let me ask:
1st. Have you examined or "noticed" the documentary evidence adduced on page 48, et seg$qens, 1st vol. of the " War Between the States,". to prove the, fact that the words, "consolidaion of the Union," used in the. letter of the Convention that
framed'the Constitution, addressed to the Congress of States
then in session (which you attribute to General Washington, as
thousands of others have erroneously done, but which was barely
signed by him  officially as President of.the Convention), were'not intended, by those who'prepared that letter, to convey the
idea that the "Federal system' of the then existing Union of
the States was to be done away with by the  adoption of the
new  Constitution proposed; but that the meaning of these
words in their connection was only to strengthen thle' thenexist




218              REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
ing Federal Union of the States? If so, do you assail its
authenticity or deny its sufficiency?
2d. HIave you examined or "noticed" the record adduced
on page 238, vol. 1st, from which it appears, that when M[r.
Shurtliff in the Massachusetts' ratifying Convention, called attention especially to this point, and remarked. referring to the
Convention- which framed the Constitution, and the very words
quo..teby you), "The Convention says they aimed at a consolidaiti:on of the Union," he was told by distinguished leaders in
tliat body, who favored the ratification, "The distinction is between the consolidation of the States and a consolidation of the
Union."  The word consolidation has different ideas as different metals melted into one mass —two twigs tied into one
bundle."  "The Senators will represent the sovereignty of the
States, the Representatives are to represent the people."
If so, do you assail the authenticity of the record, or deny
its sufficiency to prove that the advocates of the Constitution
in the Massachusetts Convention did not claim for it that consolidation of the whole people of the United States into one
body politic, and a surrender of the sovereignty of the several
States which you maintain they did?
3d. Have you examined or "noticed" the record adduced
on page 214, 1st vol., which shows that Mr. Wilson, in the Ratifying Convention of Pennsylvania, who had been one of the
most active members in the convention which framed the Constitution, and one of its most ardent advocates and supporters,
said, that the plan proposed for the government of the United
States was a." Confederate Republic," and that (page 222)'so
far from its being "a consolidated Government " (in the sense
you speak of), "it was not treated with decency when such insinuations are offered against it?"  If so, do you assail either the
competency or sufficiency of the proof there adduced, to utterly
demolish your assertions as to the position of the friends and
advocates of the Constitution everywhere, when it was before
the State Convention for adoption?
4th. Have you examined or "noticed" the evidence adduced, page 277, et sequens, Ist vol., which shows that every
supporter of the Constitution in the Ratifying Convention of




SUR-REJOINDER TO " NEW ERA."            219
the State of New York, held and maintained, that the plan of
Government proposed by the Constitution was a ".Confederated'Republic," and that even Alexander Hamilton, in that Convention, on the point of " consolidation," said (page 283, 1st vol.),
" The States can never lose their powers till the whole people
of America are robbed of their liberties. These must go together; they must support each other, or meet one common
fate?", If so, do you assail the authenticity of the proof, or
deny,.its sufficiency. to establish the fact, that no advocate or
friend of. the Constitution in the New York Convention claimed
for it a surrender of the sovereignty of the several States as
you maintain they did?
5th. Have you examined or "noticed" the proofs adduced
on page 156, et sequens, 1st vol., to show the. fact that Washington himself, who had officially signed the letter prepared by
the Convention that framed the Constitution, in which occur
the words quoted by you about a " consolidation of the Union"
after that letter had been published and discussed, and while the
Constitution was under consideration for adoption or rejection,
by a sufficient number of States to make it "binding between"
those which should ratify it, in speaking of the nature of the Government which would be established by it, styled it I"a new
Confederacy," "new Federal system," and a "Confederated
Government;" and that, in a message to the Senate after ten
States had ratified it, and the Government had gone into operation: under it, he styled it a " Confederated Republic? "
If so, do you assail the validity of the proofs, or maintain
that the views of Washington, as expressed in these proofs, are
at all consistent with yours, touching a "consolidation of the
Union," and a general merger of the sovereignty of the several
States into one absolute, supreme, central head?
6th. Have you examined or "noticed" the evidence adduced on page 163, et sequens, 1st vol., which shows conclusively, if true, that every advocate of the ratification of the
Constitution in all the States, from Georgia to New Hampshire,
supported it avowedly, upon the universal understanding, that,
the Government to be established by it was not a consolidation
of all the people of all the States into one central Government




220              REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
-claiming their allegiance- but -that it was to be a "Federal,"
or " Confederated," union of the- States?.:
If so, do you assail its validity, or denyits conclusiveness 
7th. Have you examined- or" noticed " the proofs on page
167, et sequens, Ist vol., of the-well-lnown-meaning of the words
"Federal,"'Federate," and " Confederate,", in -that day; as
given by Dr. Samuel Johnson,in his standard Dictionary of the
English Language- showing  that each and all of'these words
are derived' from:the Latin word Foedts, which means covenant
or compact; and:thliat "Federal" meant "' relatng to a Leagzue
or Contract,"- and that: " Federate "'-meant'" leagued, joiled'n
a C(onfederacy?"'If so, do you gainsay the proof or deny -the'use and force of
its application?...
8th. Have you examined or," noticed" the proofs adduced
on the same page, which shows that Dr. Noah Webster, the
great American lexicographer,: who.took an active part in the
formation of the' present Constitution, says, in his -Dictionary,
of this word "Federal," -that.-it'-is derived from the Latin word
"',foedus," which means. "a: lague,"-that the word; "league "
he defines to be "an- Alliance or Confederacy between: Princes
or States -foftheir mutual:aid or defense," and-that, in defing
the meaning of the word- "ederal,' he'used this -language:
" Consisting in n: acomya-t. between' States; founded on:alliance
by contract or.mutual agreement, as a Federal G;overnment,
such as' that- of the United States "  -
If so, do you gainsay the proof or deny the proper use and
* force of its application.
It is true that after the late war was begun and the "peace
of society" was disturbed by it-in -1864-certain editors, in
publishing a new edition: of this great IDictionary,.' after: the
death- of the distinguished' author, did most unjustifiably,: if not
sacrilegiously, expunge from:it this definition, asthey did the
author's definition of several: other Words ielating to the nature'
and'~haracter of the Government of the United; States, such
as "compact,"" "Congress," " Confederation,"'9 " Constitution,"
etc.' But do you assail either the authenticity of the proofs adduced, or their conclusiveness in establishing the fact, that'the




SUR-REJOINDER TO "NEW  ERA."             221
universally received. sense and: meaning of the words ait the
time, were as. defined by Dr. Johnson and Dr. Webster?  If
you cannot assail or deny either, is not the conclusion irresistible, that the -universal.opinion of the friends' of the Constitution when it was adopted, was, that the Union of the States
under it was "a Federal Union-"'-a Union founded upon compact between separate' States for their mutual aid and defence;
and that. -the Government established. by it' was, indeed, as
Washington styled it, a " Confederated Republic 2". 
-..9th. Have you examined or ".noticed" the authorities of'
Montesquieu and Vattel, adduced on. pages 169 and 170, ist
vol., as to the nature and character of a " Confederate Republie," or "Federal Union;'i nd from which it clearly: appears,
that, in-all such cases, the sovereignty of.:each member of the
Union or Confederacy is. necessarily retained by' the States
severally-that "voluntary restraints " may be put upon its ex~ercise, as in all other cases of compact between States; but. that
in no such case is ultimate sovereignty parted with by any
State, upon entering into a IUnion: of this character? - If so, do
you -gainsay the genuineness -of the authority cited, or deny the
extent of the use or application made of them a? -
10th. Have you examined or " noticed" the.evidence adduced
on pages 162, et. seue.ns, and' 257, et sequens, Ist.:vol., showing
how Patrick Henry- (who did oppose the adoption of the Constitution in the Virginia Convention, from fears that the character which you and other Centralists now claim for the Government under it, would: be imparted to it by construction, and
that Public Liberty' would thereby be ultimately lost) was answered by: Pendleton, the'President of the Convention, by Lee,
Nicholas, Marshall, and Madison, to say nothing of others?
If so, do you: deny that it does conclusively show that no
one of.them agreed: with Patrick Henry in the sentiments express'ed.by him, and quoted by you-?  Does not the evidence
show beyond the possibility of a doubt that every one ofthese
friends and advocates of the Constitution in the Virginia IRatifying Convention maintained: that Pa'trick.enry's position was
wrong-that his views were entirely erroneous-.that his apprehensions were.utterly groundless;' and, that'the Government-to




222             REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
be established would be Federal in its character-founded upon
a compact between the States-delegating certain specially
enumerated powers which could be resumed if abused; and
not such a "consolidated Government " as he apprehended it
would be construed to be?
11th. Does not the proof show that every advocate of the Consti~tution in the Convention of Virginia as in that of Massachusetts,
of Pennsylvania, of New York, and of every other State, supported it as a Federal Constitution.? Did not Madison, in reply to these very remarks quoted by you of Patrick Henry, say:
"Who are the parties to it? - The People; but not the People
as composing one great body; but the People as composing
thirteen sovereignties?"
If so, how do you say that " this theory (if you please, or
thisfact, as I should rather say), of a Federative Agency of independent sovereign States, as established by the Constitution,
was never heard of until some years after the adoption of that
Instrument by the people of the different States? "
12th. Have you examined or " noticed " the proof adduced
on page 475, 1st vol., showing the views of General Jackson.
upon this identical question? Upon the authority of this distinguished hero and statesman you rely concerning -another
matter alluded to in your article. But have you examined or
noticed what he said of the nature of the General Government,
and the sovereignty of the several States, in his farewell address,
wherein, among many other of the same sort, these most pertinent and potent words occur: (Italics mine.)
"From the extent of our -country, its diversified interests,
different pursuits, and different habits, it is too obvious for
argument, that a single consolidated Government would be
wholly inadequate to watch over and protect its interests, and
every friend of our Free Institutions should be always prepared
to maintain, unimvpaired and infull vigor, the rights and sovereignty of the States, and to confine the action of the General
Government strictly to the sphere of its appropriate duties? "
If so, do you deny the authenticity of the proof adduced?
And if not, must you not admit that even General Jackson,
though -opposed as he was to the doctrine of nullification, yet




SUR-REJOINDER TO "'NEW ERA."            223
maintained the great truth in our history of the sovereignty of
the States?
Without extending the number of these points or issues- of
fact on which rests the truth of history, allow me now barely
to add that if you have examined and noticed these proofs, to
say nothing of others, then I do not understand how you came
to say in your comments referred to, in speaking of the Constitution and the nature of the Government established by it,
that " one party advocated its adoption because it thus provided
for a consolidated Government of the People, and it was for
this identical reason that the other opposed it. This is matter
of history which we do not remember ever to have seen controverted, and when controverted, then will be time to.quote
authorities."
Now, do not these few proofs here referred to, taken from
many adduced in'the two volumes, plainly show that the Constitution was adopted because it was not the "consolidated
Government" which you claim it to be, but wzas just the
" Federal " or "Confederated Republic" which it is shown to.
be in the "two volumes," and that an overwhelming majority
of all parties, at the time, if they had regarded' it as the thing
you now represent it to be, would have united in its utter repudiation?
Then, again, -if you have not examined or noticed these
proofs, it seems to me most of your intelligent readers will
come to the very proper conclusion that you would do well to
study more closely the contents of a book before undertaking
to pronounce its teachings either pernicious, dangerous, or revolutionary!
Was it, however, allow me also to ask you,'"a pernicious,
dangerous, and revolutionary  " truth to utter, when Washington proclaimed that the Government of'the United States was
a "Confederacy," or "Confederated Republic?"
If not, is it more pernicious, dangerous, or revolutionary to
promulgate the same truth now than it was then?
Was it either pernicious,' dangerous,  or revolutionary for
General Jackson to assert the fact of the sovereignty of the
States under the Constitution; and urge its maintenance in the




224              REVIEWERS REVIEWED.'most earnest manner? If not, is it more pernicious, dangerous,
or revolutionary to promulgate the same truth, and for the same
reasons, now than it was then.?  Are not the perils of -"a single
Consolidated Government" -a, Central Despotism —as great
now as they were then?  Is there any thing in the "two
volumes" more pernicious, dangerous, or revolutionary, on
this subject,, than General Jackson's own solemn warning,
that "every friend of our Free Institutions should be always
prepared. to maitrain unimpaired and in full vigor the rights
andc sovereignty of the States; and to confine the action of the
G..eneral cGoverrnment -strictly to the sphere of its appropriate
duties?"
Away, my dear sir, with the chimera of "Secession Revived!"  Give yourself no uneasiness from any teachings of:
mine on that score. The right of a mode of redressing grievances or wrongs of any sort, and the policy of it, are very different questions, and present very different: considerations.Secession, as a mode of redress of grievances or breaches of the
Compact between the States, has been abandoned, in good
faith,: and I doubt not forever?  That is, indeed, a dead issue!
But the indestructible right upon which it rested can and will
never die. It was abandoned, not because of the want of right,
but because of its impolicy in attaining the object aimed at, by
its advocates as the surest and safest mode of escape from the
usurpations of Power. In the 2d of the "'two volumes " you
refer to, on pages 530-31, you will see, if you- read closely, that
in my judgment, one of its greatest errors in policy, at the
time it was resorted to, consisted in "'the separation which
it necessarily produced between the real friends of the principles of the Constitution, North and South, in a common
contest between them and the Centralists. It was, in truth, a
great battle-the Political Armageddon of America-in which
there should have been a concentration of forces, instead of
that dispersion which of necessity resulted from secession."?
This Political Armageddon: of America is yet to be decided
— not on battle-fields, but in the Forum, on the -Hustings, by
the Press, and at the Polls! The contest is now waging, and
in it is involved the greatest living issue at present before the




SUR-REJOINDER TO " NEW ERA."             225
people of every State and Section, and the greatest that will
be before them for years to come. It is the issue, on one side,
of Consolidation-Centralism-Empire; and, on the other the
Sovereign Right of Local Self-government by the Peoples of
the several States of this Continent.
To achieve the victory of this contest the friends of our Free
Institutions in every State of our Federal Union, from Maine
to California, from the Gulfs to the Lakes, must make common
cause. Joint efforts are necessary for separate success. As
their common ancestors united'in 17'76 under lead of Washington to establish this great right, and then again in 1800, under
Jefferson to save it, when imperiled; so now they must unite
in patriotic action for its rescue and perpetuation. For success
in the struggle they will need nco weapons but the truths of history:-the teachings of the Fathers-and the-parting:admonitions of Jackson.
Yours, most respectfully,
ALEXANIDER HI. STEPHENS.
15




A PPENDIX.
[Tim following articles, in Review of the "Reconstruction Measures"
of Congress, being entirely germain to the subjects discussed in this volume, and covering important points not therein embraced, are deemed by
the author as very fit material for a very appropriate Appendix to the
foregoing Supplement to the " Constitutional View of the War between
the States; its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Results."
In reference to these appended articles, it need only be stated that the
two speeches were by Hon. Linton Stephens under the following circumstances:
The first was delivered in the city of Macon, Georgia, on the 23d of
January, 1871, in his own defence, before a Federal Commissioner, against
a criminal charge founded upon an alleged violation of the "Enforcement Act" of 1870. The final result of the case was an abandonment of
the prosecution by the Government.
The second was addressed to a public audience in the city of Augusta,
Georgia, on the 18th of February, 1871.
The letter of Ex-Governor Jenkins to Governor Smith (who now occupies the Gubernatorial Chair of Georgia) requires no explanation. This
restoration of the Seal of the Executive Department of the State, which
has been heroically saved from the hands of usurpers, has its historical
parallel in the restoration of their " old charter " to the people of Connecticut, in 1688, after its safe preservation for some time in the " old oak"
during the repression of their rightful Government by the infamous Andros and his military bands.]




LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION.          227
I.
SPEECH OF HoN. LINTON STEPHENS, IN MACON, GEORGIA, ON THE
"RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES,')  AND THE "'ENFORCEMENT
ACT"  OF 1870, DELIVERED 23D OF JANUARY, 1871..iay it please tfhe Court: I know full well that, if your
Honor is not superior to the average of poor human nature,
you will find it'difficult, if not impossible, to give my defence
in this case an impartial consideration; and an honest decision.
The prosecution against me is foundedlon the course which I
took in the recent political election, which resulted in a victory
for my party, and a defeat for yours. It is also directly in the
line of an assault which was lately made against me in the
newspapers, by the official head of your party in this State. I,
therefore, recognize in this case a political prosecution, just as
distinctly as I recognize in my judge a most zealous and'determined political opponent. Yet, sir, there are other considera* tions which encourage me to hope that I may obtain, even from
you, that decision which is demanded by' justice and by the
laws.' From: the personal knowledge' f you, which I have acquired Since the beginning of this trial, I have discovered that
you are a man of decided intelligence; and I am told that you
are a man of courage. I am also told that you, yourself, have
been, in some instances, a victim of political persecution, and
an object of unjust obloquy. Surely, such a man, with such" an
experience, ought to give a fair hearing to one whose only fault
is not any wrong which he has committed against the laws, but
the damage which he has inflicted upon a political party.' My
greatest encouragement, however, is derived from  my confidence in the lawfulness of my conduct, and the power of truth.
To truth, bravely upheld, belongs a triumph which cannot be
defeated, nor long delayed, not even by the intensest prejudices
of partisan strife. I am strengthened, too, in the advocacy of
truth on this occasion by the consciousness that, in defending
myself, I shall be but defending principles which are dear to
every American, because they lie at the foundation of the




228                      APPENDIX.
whole fabric of American constitutional liberty.  Nor, sir, unless I am much mistaken in the estimate which'I have formed
of your character, will you listen to my defence any the less
favorably.because of the frankness and, boldness with which I
shall present it.
I am accused.underthe Enforcement Act ofCongress.
My first position is, that this whole act is not a law, but a
mere legal nullity.
It was passed with the professed object of carrying into
effect- what are called the. Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution- of the Unlited States, and depends on
their validity for its own;
T:These so-called Amendments are, as Ihall nowproceed to
show, not tre AmendmenAts:of the Constitution, and do not
-form any part of that sacred instrument. They are nothing but
usurpations and nullities, having no validity themselves, and
therefore.incapable of imparting any to the. Enforcement Act,
or to any other- act.whatsoever.
I take occasion to say, that I regardthe Thirteenth Amendment,  ablishing.slaver, as. clearly  distiguishable. from  the
-Fourteenth and-.Fifteenth socalled Amendments, in the manner:both offits proposal nd of its r.atification. The contrast between it and:-them:will contributeo t  make their invalidity all
the-.more. app             is true, that. when the: Thirteenth
Amendment was:proposed, ten States of the-Union were absent
from.Congress;. but their absence was voluntay,, and therefore
did-not affect the: validity of the proposal.  It is;true, also, that
the Legislatures which ratified it:f or:these ten States had their
initiation in a palpable usurpation. of. power on the part of the
President: of the.,United S.States;, yet:it is. also unquestionably
true,::that, they: were /elected and sustained, by odve'rwhelming
majorities ofthe -trueconstitutionalononsituencies ofthe, States
for which they: acted-;.they-:rested:onthe consent. of the people,
or constitufional )c.onstituenies of th~e:Statesj and: werc:therefore truly " Le.gislatures of the States,::This Amendment was
ratifiedby these:egislatures —:of th  S tates.in' good-: faith, and
in conformity with the almost u animouswish of: the constitu



LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION.               229
How  different is the case of the' Fourteenth and.Fifteenth
so-called Amemendents! If these are parts of the: Cnstitution,
I ask how did they become so   -Were they  roposed: by Congress in a. constitutional manner.?.- --
In framing and proposing':them — every State:'in the  nion
was entitled, by the express tConstitution, tobe
represented -in- speecl and voteo by -" two  aSentators' and " at
least one Representative."':.[But::ten:States of the Union. were
absent.  This time- their- absence was not voluntary.bnt compelled.:-When theywere;claiming a hearing:tough-theirconnstitutional -representatives::they were drive n away and denied
all participation in  framingi  and -proposing - these so called
Amendments!:  as this a constitutional::mode: of -proposal?
I say, it:wa  an:unconstitution  -mode,: and- that the -proposa
was, ab intio, null and void   -...
But how  stands- the  atfieation of -these.so-ealledAmendments2: To say' nothing about:the-duress of bayohets and Congressional -dictation., -under which -.the ratification was- forced
through the-ratifying bodies-: in the ten Southern States, the
great: questioni is, -who -were th'ese ratifying bodies - Were they
Legislature-s.of the:States?- - They were not. -They were  he
creatures of -notorious - and:avowed Congressional usurpation.
They were- -elected,;not by the constitutiona:.constitueniies- bof
the States, but by -constituencies. created by Congress, not only
outside. of the: Conituton st but- in: palpable violation of one of
its express provisions'.:The sutffrage or, political power of the
States is not delegated- to the General Government by the:Constitution; but on -the cotntrary, its reservation - by the States is
rendered exceedingly emphatic by- that provision of the Constitution which, instead- of creating: aconstituency to elect its Own
offcers-President, Vice-President, and members of'Congressadopts- the constituencies of the States,- as regulated;by the
States'themselves, for the election.: of the most numerous branch
of their own Legislatures..
Ten of the ratifications,: whlich'were falsely counted in favor
of these miscalled Amendments as:ratifications:. by  egislatures
of States, were only ratifications- by bodies tWhich had their origin in:Congressional'usurpation,'- were -elected -by illegal con



230                     APPENDIX.
stituencies unknown to the Constitution of the United States
or the Constitutions of the States, and were organized and
manipulated under the control of military commanders who
claimed and exercised the jurisdiction of passing upon the election and'qualification of their members.  Can these joint products of usurpation, fraud, and force be palmed off as Legislatures
of States? Can ratifications by them be accepted as ratifications
by Legislatures of States?  Can falsehood thus be converted
into truth by the thimble-rigging of Presidential proclama-.tions? - These bodies were, indeed, set up by their -usurping
creators, as Legislatures for and over States; but until the
known truth of recent history can be blotted out by the mere
power of shameless assertion, they cannot be recognized as
Legislatures of States. The Parliament of Great Britain is a
Legislaturefor and over poor, down-trodden Ireland; but what
Irishman will ever recognize it as the Legislature of Ireland!
The false; spurious, and revolutionary character of these
ratifying bodies is rendered still more glaring by the fact that,
supported by the bayonet, they subverted, or rather repressed,
the true, legitimate Legislatures of all the States where reconstruction was applied. That such Legislatures existed in these
States, and are' indeed still existing, is demonstrable from the
facts viewed in the light of either of the two theories of secession-that of its validity or invalidity. On either theory the
seceding States remained States.' On the one theory they were
States out of the Union; on the other, they have remained all
the while'States in the Union. The Supreme Court of the
United States, in the recent case of White vs. Texas, speaking
through MIr. Chief Justice Chase, held that secession was. invalid, and that the States which had attempted it remained and
still are States in the ZUnion.
A State is not a disorganized mass of people. It is an organized political body. It must have a Constitution of some
sort, written or traditional. Being an organized body, it must
have a law of organization or composition or Constitution, defining the depositary of its political power. Where there is no
such constitutional or constituting or "organizing or fundamen-tal law, there can be no organization —no State. These ten




LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION.              231
States, then, which seceded or attempted to secede (as the one
theory or the other may be held), have all the while had Consttutionrs. In point of fact, each of these has ever been a written
Constitution, giving the ballot to defined classes of citizens who
are known as the constitutional constituency of the State. This
constitutional constituency is entrusted by each of these Constitutions with power over the Constitution itself, in modifying or
changing it,'and of course in modifying or changing the organization or composition of the constitutional constituency.  This
constitutional constituency is the depositary of the highest political power of the State. Any change made in the Constitution or organization of the State, or in the composition of the
constitutional constituency, as it may exist at any time, without
the concurrent action of the constitutional constituency itself, is
revolution. It is disorganization. It is the subversion or suppression (as it may prove permanent or temporary) of one organization, and the substitution of another.' It is the abolition
(ermanent or temporary) of the old State, and the introduction
of a new one.
Each of these ten States, in 1865, at the close of the war,
being then a State, had a Constitution and a constitutional constituency linked back by unbroken succession to the Constitution and constitutional constituency asi they existed before
secession.  Secession made no break in the chain.  The provision which was put in the Constitution at the time of secession, connecting the State with the'Confederate States instead
of with the United States as its Federal head, is wholly immaterial to the present purpose.  On the one theory it was
simply void, and left the organization of the State, the Constitution, and the constitutional constituency intat,' On the other
theory, being valid, it modified but did not impair the integrity
of the State organization. All this follows from, or rather is
comprehended in; the one proposition that these ten States
have never lost their character asiStates.
Each of these ten States being a State at the close of the war
in 1865, stands now de jure just as it stood then; unless it has
since that time been changed by the action of its constitutional
constituency. I think each of' them was so changed in the lat



232                      APPENDIX.
ter part of that same year..In each of them a C:onvention was
elected by a large and unquestionable majority of the constitutional constituency (although a portion-of them were — excluded
from: voting) for the purpose of modifying: the Constitution.
These Conventions repealed the ordinance of secession, abolished -slavery, and made' some: otler changes in the several
Constitutions,- but (in most of -the States):left the-constitutional
constituencies just'as:they stood before -  In confornity with
the Constitutions, as last modified by those Conventions, each
of the States was speedily provided with a complete: government, -consisting of a legislative, executives and judicial department.- It was by the Legislatures thus formed that the Thirteenth-Amendment to: -the: Constitution.of': th.e Unitedh. States,
abolishing slavery, was ratifi ed.
Since- that- time' no change has been: made:in-the organization of any of these States, with the cooperation' or, concurrence
of the constitutional constituencies'.. Only very sm.all minorities
of the constitutional. constituencies have cooperated in the work
of reconstruction.'It is a notorious and unquestionable fact,
that an overwhelming majority of- them: in each of. the States
have -been steadily' and unswervingly opposed to it, and have
votedagainst it, whenever they have voted at all. -.
The clear: result, in my judgment, is that each:-of these
States:now stands -de jure: just as she —was left by the action of
her Convention in 1865, with a complete:government, formed
under -the Constitution -of that -year,ineluding a,Legislature
which still constitutionally — exists, and is:capable of-assenmbling
any day, if it were only allowed to do so by. the withdrawal of
the bayonet. But she stands cde.facto suz2pressed, by a gover
ment originated and imposed;on her by an ~external:power, -and
supported alone by the: bayonet.:Such: a government is: the
embodiment of anti-republicanism and despotism., -Under just
such a government Ireland: is writhingand Poland is- crushed.
Is it not now demonstrated.that the b-odies which' ratified:the
so-called Fourteenth and:Fifteenth Amendments, -in  the name
of these ten States, were:the revolutionary products of external
force and' fraud, displacing the true  iegsilatures wich:a-lone
could have given a- consti.tutional ratification -2.




LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION.              233
These so-called amendmets, then,-: have" been" neither nconstitutionally proposed;. nor constiutionally- ratified..  ow can. they form parts-' o-f the Constitution?2,-;. —:.:
A successful answerto' this question would long ago have
brought that peace' and harmony   hich can never come from
might-: overbearig- righ-t.' Isted of -giving  uch- an anser
the nuthors of these- measures ha've: souight todrown reason a-nd
argument: in elamorous.  c  rges   of':violenee an.d:revolution
against the- victims, no. -the perpetr:tos, f those crimes.
But an answer:has at-last been:attempted from anunexpected:quarter.  Strangely enough, it: comes:from'one ho  has
greatly distinguished himself by the vigor and ability-  with
which he has denounced the whole sch em-e of:reconstruction as
a revolutionary usurpationand nuility.; And, still: more strangely, he- adheres' to;: that:: -denunciation, while: no:arguing that
these so-called amendments,: -the  reaturesand:culminating
points of that reconstruction sch'eme, -are vlid: parts: of the Constitution.: Such a:conclusion from suo a beginning! And yet
he is-hailed: by:his:new aies as a very;Daniel come. uto judgment.  They- were in-a:. sorea  rait -fo.t an.:arg et. -: - -
lIfe says these: so-called amendments hve:'become parts of:
the Constitution, beause:they -have;'been proclaimed as such,
by the powerher wich,   der- theConstiution, has the:' "jurisdiction"' to proclaim amendments.,There has been'muci:'sad, —Sir,,about issues: —that:are
" dead; " surely. here is one that is not only alive but: very ively/. Let Americans;hear and mark it!- The Constitution of the
United States: can' be- changed, can be subverted by Presidential proclamationl'H!:.-:I once knew' a man:whose motto was; that
a lie, well -told, was better' than the truth, because,-he said,
truth was'a:stubborn,, unmanateablee:thing,- but a lie in.the
hands of a -geniaus: could be: fitted: exactly.to the exigencies:of
the case.-:- But ev enhe admitted that the lie must:be well told,
or it would, not serve.'.-If' -i should appear to::be' a; lie,:it
would be turned from a thing of power into a thing for con.tempt.' -There has -beenia- progress, sir, siace that man taught.
It is now discovered:that a -known. proven lie is as:good as the
truth, provided-' it::can only get- "proclaimed"'? by a power hay



234:                    APPENDIX.
ing "jurisdiction"  to proclaim it!  I, sir, know of no power
-either on the earth, or above it, or under it-that has "jurisdiction" to "proclaim" LIES!!   ay, sir, I know of no power.
which has jurisdiction to proclaim amendments to the Constitution. According to my reading of that instrument, amendments constitutionally proposed "shall bb valid to all intents
and purposes as part of the Constitution, when ratified by- the
Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-four-ths thereof, as the one or the other mode
of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."  The ratification by three-fourths of the States, acting through their Legislatures or their Conventions, sets the seal of validity on the
amendment and makes it a part of the Constitution. Nothing
else can do it. It must be a true ratification, by a true Legislature, or a true Convention of the State. A false ratification
by a true Legislature of the State will not do. A true ratification by a spurious Legislature will not do. The validity of the
amendment, and its authority as a part of the Constitution, age
made to depend upon the historic truth of its ratification as required by the Constitution. Proclamations of falsehoods from
Presidents, or from anybody else, have nothing to do with the
subject. This is plain doctrine, drawn from the Constitution
itself. The validity of the Constitution in all its parts depends
upon the facts of their history.
But, according to this new discovery, the President of the
United States can subvert the whole Constitution, and make
himself a legal and valid autocrat, by simply "proclaiming"
that an amendment to the Constitution to that effect has been
proposed by two-thirds of each house of Congress, and ratified
by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States; although it
may be known of all men that there is not one word of truth in
the proclamation.  The President of the United States can
legally convert himself into an autocrat by his own proclamation. Theories are quickly put into practice in these days. Let
the country beware!!
We are also told by this new Daniel, not only that the usurpation has become obligatory by its success, but there is no
hope of getting rid of it: for he says it cannot be changed with



LINTON STEPtENS ON' RECONSTRUCTION.    235
out another amendment, ratified by three-fourths of the States,
and that there is no prospect of getting these three-fourths.
Wonderful! Why, he himself has taught us that the whole
thing may be accomplished by a Presidential proclamation.
We have only to elect a Democratic President, and let him
proclaim" that a new amendment, abolishing the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth, has been duly proposed and duly ratified; and
the thing is done. That, sir, would be the way taught by this
new light; but it would never be my way. I do not propose
to walk in the ways of falsehood. I prefer truth; because it is
nobler, grander. I believe also that, when it is supported by
true and bold men, it is always more powerful. My way would
be to elect a Democratic President; and let him treat the
usurpation as a usurpation and a nullity; and let him:with.draw the bayonet, and "proclaim" that the revolutionary
governments in these ten States would not be supported by
him, but that the constitutional Republican Gover'nments which
now exist here would be left free to rise from their state of
forcible repression, and do their natural and legitimate work
of true restoration, real peace, sincere and cordial fraternity.
The whole problem is solved by the simple withdrawal of the
bayonet.
JI have now shown that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments do not form any part of the Constitution; and
thus have made good my first position, that the whole Enforcement Act, which depends solely upon them for its validity, is
not a law, but a mere legal nullity.
My second position is that, even if the so-called Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Amendments were valid, yet all those parts of
i the Enforcement Act claimed as applicable to my case are utterly "outside" of them, and (being confessedly outside of the
Constitution, apart from them) are unconstitutional, and not
binding as law.
The Fourteenth Amendment, and the small part of the
Enforcement Act relating to it, have no relevancy to this prosecution, and.I shall say nothing further about them.
Those parts of the Act claimed as applicable to my case, rest
solely upon the Fifteenth for their validity; and, in order to




236                       APPENDIX.
see whether they are outside of it' or not, it-becomes necessary
to know what are the terms and -extent of that Amendment.
The effect of its terms is strangely misapprehehded:  It
seems to be regarded as a thing which by its terms, secures the
right of suffrage to the negro, and:empowers Congress to enforce that right.;:::This is a total and most dangerous mistake.
Here- is the Amendment. -It is not longer than:the first joint
of my little finger:." SECTIOx 1. The right of citizens of:the: United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridgeid by, the United States,'or by any State, on account:of race, color, or; previous -condition of -servitude, - -:
"SEC. 2.'The Congress shall have powe:to enforce- thiS:arfticle by appropriate legislation." -,This is the whole' of it.;  Now, sir, It defy: refutation, when
I affirm'that,by these terms, the right of suffrage is. -not conferred, upon,.nor "secured to, any: person or class of -persons
whomsoever. - The whole is simply a prohibition on the United
States, and the several States. -The  United' States, in legislating for the'District of( Columbia or; a Territory, and the several
States in regulating their suffrage, each for herself, are prohibited from "denying it to anybody, or -abridging its exercise
on either one of the three grounds-race, color, or previous
condition of servitude-but are left perfectly free to abridge it
or deny it on any other ground  wliatsoever-sex, female or
male, ignorance or' intelligence, poverty or: wealth,' crime- or
virtue, or any other of an: innumerable multitude of other
grounds.  In point of fact, the right'is denied;  both by the
IUnited States and by each;one of the several States, on-many
of these other-grounds, and the denialis enforced under-: heavy
penalties, not Only by the laws:of the States, but:by this very
Enforcement Act itself.  To say that the right is conferred on
or secured to anybody, because it cannot be denied for any one
or all of three reasons out of an indefinite number of possible
and usual reasons,: is simply absurd. — As well say that a plat
of ground is fenced or securedbfrom intrusion by pltting a wall
on one of its many sides,  leaving all the other'sides perfectly
open.  A right is not conferred or' secured by a- law, when it
can be denied without a violation of that law.




LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION.              237...This brings rue to the. crucial test,:of my:second position.
Whether-. I have violated any provisions of the Enforcement
Act or not, it is:at least.certain that I have not violated the:Fifteenth,Amendment.:It is. affirmatively. proven, by the testimony; of the t~wo prosecutors in- this case —the two negro
managers of election-that I did not  object to, or.in any manner interfere with, any vote on the ground of either race, color,
or previous condition of servitude.  It is manifest, then, that
if I have violated any part.or parts of the Enforcement Act,
such part or parts are: "outside" of the Amendment, and unauthorized by.it, since I have not violated the Amendment
itself.,.I have not violated the Amendmant, even if its prohibition reached:. private citizens, instead- of being confined,
as it plainly is,,to the.United States and the: States severally.
-The truth is, that far the greater part. of the, Enforcement
Act is'~ outside  of the Amendments which it professes to enforce.-  This -act presents another live and very lively issue to
the people:of this- country-; and already are the- thunders of
opposition heardfrom. Republican as well as from. Democratic
quarters.: Under the pretence of.restraining the United States
and the: several States from denying or abridging:the right of
suffrage -on:account-:of: race, col or orprevious condition of
servitude, this act tales control:of the general and.local elections in all-the.States-seizing the: whole political power of the
country, and wielding it by the bayonet; and fills up pages of
tlhe statute.book with new offences and heavy penalties levelled,
not against the United States or the several States, or their officers, by -whom  alone the Fifteenth Amendment can possibly be
violated, butagai.nst private citizens. The, Alien and Sedition
Acts, which, by the:: power of, their- recoil, exterminated- their
authors,, were. not.equal to this act either in the nakedness or
the. danger of, their -usurpation. If this act shall prevail and
abide: as law, then ou.rheritage of-local self-government, lost to
us, will pass intohistory, and:there stand out. forever a glory to
the noble sires: who.wrung. it from one tyranny, and a shame to
the degenerate sons who surrendered it to another.
My- third and last, position-is, that even if:the- Enforcment




238                    APPENDIX.
Act were valid in all its parts, yet I have not violated any one
of them. I am accused under its 5th and 19th sections.
The 5th provides a penalty against "preventing, hindering,
controlling, or intimidating, or attempting to prevent, hinder,
control, or intimidate," any person from voting "to whom the
right of suffrage is secured or guaranteed by the Fifteenth
Amendment."  I have already demonstrated that the Fifteenth
Amendment secures or guarantees the right of suffra'ge'to nobody whomsoever. It is impossible, therefore, that I am, or
that anybody ever can be, guilty under that section.
But again: the testimony utterly fails to show that I interfered in any way with the'voting of any person legally entitled
to vote, or, indeed, with the voting of any person whomsoever.
It was incumbent upon the prosecution to show what persons,
if any; and that they were persons entitled to vote. The Enforcement Act itself inflicts a penalty on all persons who vote
illegally; and, of course, cannot intend to punish the prevention or hindrance of illegal voting. The attempted proof as to
my interference with voters, relates to four persons only. It
fails to show that either one of the four was a person entitled to
vote. It fails to show that three of them did not actually vote.
It fails to show that any one of them  offered to vote or even
desired to do so. It fails to show that any one of them heard
me make a single remark, saw me do a single act, or was even
in my presence from  the beginning to the end of the three
days' election.
As to the remark which I made to a small crowd about
prosecuting all who should vote without having paid their
taxes, I have this to say: In the first place, it is not shown who
composed that crowd, nor that a single one of them was a person entitled to vote. In the next place, the' remark was a lawful one; for it'was simply the declaration of an intention, not
to interfere with: legal voters, but to prosecute criminals; and
therefore cannot be tortured into a threat in any legal or criminal sense of that word. A threat, to be criminal,- must be the
declaration of an intention to do some unlawful act; and it
never can be unlawful to appeal to the laws.
I pass to the' charge, under the 19th section, that I inter



LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION.    239
fered with the managers of election in the discharge of their
duties, by causing their arrest under judicial warrant. That
part of the 19th section which is invoked against me is in these
words: "Or interfere in any manner with any officer of said
elections in the discharge of his duties."
-My first answer to this charge is, that the managers were
arrested, not in the discharge of their duties, but in the violation of one of the most important of them-one prescribed not
only by the Constitution of the State, but by this very Enforcement Act itself; for the act made it their duty to reject all
illegal votes, and provided a penalty for receiving them. These
managers had received and were still receiving the votes of
persons who had not paid their taxes of the year next preceding
the election, as required by theConstitution of this State. The
testimony shows that this fact was fully proven, and not denied
by them, on the commitment trial before the magistrate. The
reply to it then was, and now is, not a denial, but a justification on two grounds. One of these grounds was, that the oath
which they had taken, under the Akerman Election Act, required them to let every person vote; who was of apparent full
age, was a resident of the county, and had not previously voted
in that election. They said then, and it is now said again here,
that they could not inquire into the non-payment of taxes or
any other Constitutional disqualification for voting, except only
non-age, non-residence, and previous voting in that election.
And yet, a man who was of full age, and a resident of the
county, and who had not previously voted, was excluded by
these same managers on the ground that. he was a convicted
felon. Their own action in excluding the felon is utterly inconsistent with their construction of the obligation of their oath.
The oath, as construed by them, and now construed here
by the prosecuting attorney, is in plain conflict with the Constitution, and is, therefore, void, and could not relieve them
from their Constitutional duty to exclude all who had not paid
their taxes. The first ground of the managers' justification
therefore fails.
Their other ground was, that the unpaid tax of those whom
they had allowed to vote without payment of taxes, was only




9240:PPEINDIIX.
pol tax, and that the poll tax had been declared by an act of:the- Legislature to be illegal and unwarranted:. ~by the Constitution, and its further collection suspended.
The fact that it was only poll tax does not appear from the
evidence before your Honor, bu  I:admit it.to be true.  I did
not come here to: quibble..;I am  here to;. justify my conduct
nunder the law, on tjhe;truth- as it exists, whether: proven here or
not... y answeris, that this declaratory.act of the Legislature
is false, unconstitutional, null and  void.: The:act- is but the
opinion of the Legislature, concerning the constitutionality of a
previous.act of 1869, imposing:the poll tax for that year., That
act is before mej imposing a poll ax:of one dollar per head "for
educational purposes," using the verY words which are used by:the Constitution itself in defining the pu.rposefor which poll
taxes may be imposed.- Now, ir, the question which: I ask is,:what it is that makes this:act "illegal ". or unwarranted by the
Constitution a  Surely, it is not..made so by the subsequent. declaration of the Legislature, pu  forth: just before the election,
to serve a palpable, fraudulent,. party. purpose.
-TheLegislature is not a:Court;but on -the contrary.it -is
expressy: prohibited by the Constitution: from -exercising judi-'ciail -functions; a nd. its:declarations. concerning the; constitutionality o   Legislative, acts, have: nomoe    auh or ity than those of
private  itizens.   The single qestion,: then, is whether the
4eclaration.in this case: is true.   The: Legislature assigned its
reason for the opinion it -gave..What is, that.reason  It is
that the Constitution -limits.the: imposition of poll taxes to
educational purposes. and that when -the poll tax in question
-was imposed, there was no..system of common schools: or educational purpose-:to.whihit: could.be.aplied.:. Therefore, they
said. its imposition. was ".illegal and unwarranted. by the Constitution.    Theysaid: it was  nwarranted - by the:Constit ution
to provide t-he.money3:Before organizing: the schools to which
thie money was.to be:applied; that isto say, the: only Constitutional way'..to organize the schools was to:-go in debt for
them! I lack words, sir, to properly characteriz.e,the:silliness.of this reason.
But, curious.ly enough,:theConstitution: ritself took the very




LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION.            241
course, which these sapient legislators declared to be illegal and
unwarranted by the Constitution.  It provided money  and
devoted- it to these very Common Schools, which were still in
the womb of the future at the time of its adoption. It dedicated
to that purpose the whole educational fund which was then on
hand. Therefore, I say, this declaratory act is not only false,
but is in the very teeth of the Constitution itself. Mlark yol,
sir, it did not repeal nor attempt to repeal the poll tax; it only
suspended its collection. But, I say, if it had been a repeal in
terms, instead of a mere suspension, it could not change the
case, as to the right of a person: to vote without having paid the
tax. The Constitutional requirement is, that " he shall have
paid all taxes which may have been required of him, and which
he may have had an opportunity of paying agreeably to law for
the-year next preceding the election.?' The poll tax was required in April,  1869, and continued: to be required, up to the
passage of the aforesaid false declaratory act, in October, 1870
-a; year and a-half. During all that period tax-payers had
" opportunity" to pay it. On the day of the election, then,
any man who had not paid his poll tax for 1869, stood in the
position of not having paid a tax which had been required of
him, and which he had had very many opportunities of paying
agreeably to law.. IHe stood clearly within the letter of the
Constitutional disqualification for voting. IHe stood also within
its reason and spirit, for its true intention was to discriminate
against the citizen who should not have discharged a public
duty for the year next preceding the election. Nothing but
payment could remove from him the character of a public delinquent. Legislative remission of the tax cannot serve the purpose, for he still stands after that as a man who hasfailed ic  a??ublic duty. The most that can be said for him is, that after
the repeal, the tax ceased to be required of him; but the only
material facts-that it had been required, and could have been
paid, but had not been paid-remain unaltered.
The managers, then, in. receiving tle votes of persons who
had not paid their poll tax, were not in "' the discharge of their
duties."  Whether they thought so, is not'the question. Ifthey
were really' wrong, then I was right, and surely I am not to be
16




242                    APPENDIX.
punished for being rigit. There was no interference with them
in the discharge of their duties.
But again: even if I were wrong in the opinion which I
entertained of their duty, yet I did not interfere with them
unlawfully.. The whole context of that clause, in the 19th
section, under which I am accused, shows that the interference
contemplated is an unla/wful interference; especially. the words
which come immediately after it-" or by any of such means or
other. unlawful means," etc. This word c" other" shows conclusively, that all the means contemplated were only such as were
of an unlawful character. This'would be impliedclin. construing
any penal statute, even if it were not expressed; for the universal rule of construction for penal statutes is, to construe strictly
against the prosecution, and liberally in favor of the accused.
Is it possible that any Judge can have the hardihood to hold
that it was the, intention of this Enforcement Act to. impart to
managers of election the — sacred character of Eastern Brahmins,
making them too holy to be touched even for their crimes?.
Surely it was not intended to give them greater sanctity than
belongs t.o Peers of the British Parliament, or to legislators in
our own country while engaged in legislation.:Notwithstanding all the high privileges accorded to them, all of these are
subject to arrest in any place, at any moment, under a warrant
charging breach of the peace or felony. Was it intended to
protect these managers from  immediate accountability for all
felonies, which they might commit during three whole days?
Until this shall. be held as the intention of the Enforcement Act,
it is impossible' to maintain that I have violated it in any particular whatever.
The Constitution declares that " the right of the citizen to
appeal to the courts shall never be impaired."  My whole
offence, sir, is this: that I appealed to a court of competent jurisdiction. I devoutly believed I was right in my opinion of the
law. I believe so now. But, whether I was right: or wrong in
my opinion,i who will dare to say that I was wrong in testing
that opinion, not by the strong -hand, but by appealing to a
court appointed: by the Constitution for the very purpose of
deciding, the question?  That court decided'that I was right:




LINTON STEPHENS ON- RECONSTRUCTION.           243
and the "interference" which followed, sir, was the interference,
not of myself, but of the law, as expounded and: administered
by- ajudicial tribunal. Moreover, sir, the decision of that tribunal stands as the law of'the case, until it shall be reversed
according to law. These managers were charged with felony
under the laws of this State. Was it a crime for me to seek a
judicial inquiry into the truth or: probability of such a charge-?
I suspect, sir, that my real crime, in the estimation of my prosecutors, is, that the judicial interposition invoked by me had
the effect of preventing numerous repetitions of a crime which
would -ave done signal service to their politiccalparty.
If. angry power demands a sacrifice from those who have
thwarted its fraudulent purposes, I feel honored, sir, in being
selected as the victim. If mny suffering could arouse my countrymen to a just and lofty indignation against the: despotism
which, in attacking me, is but assailing law, order, and'constitutional government, I would not shrink from.the sacrifice,
though my blood should be required instead of my liberty.
II.
SPEECH OF HoN. LINTON STEPHENS, AT THE CITY HALL IN AuGUSTA, GA., ON THE NIGHT OF THE 18TH OF FEBRUARY, 1871.
FELLOW-CITIZENs: It was one of the wisest sayings of a
-very wise man, that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
This maxim of wisdom is peculiarly: applicable to the piesent
time. Ten States of this Union are to-night under rievolutionary governments, originated: nd imposed upon them by an external power and supported only by the bayonet.  These revolutionary governments -displace, repress,:and, for the time,
suppress the regular, republican, constitutional governments
which have existed -here all the while with an unbroken succession. These revolutionary governments are in the:hands of
carpet-baggers and scalawags, who treat the laws-of their own
origination with disregardful contempt; and, underi- the forms




244                   APPENDIX.
of official authority, heap upon our people injuries and insults
which never before were borne by men born and bred. and educated in the principles of Liberty.' Shameless plunder, malignant slander, corrupt favoritism, impunity for crimes when
committed by partisans of the Government, gigantic extension
of the credit- of the States to penniless adventurers who come
among us under the false, and fraudulent plea of " developing
our resources," robbery of the very negroes who are sought to
be used as the chief instrument of upholding this gigantic system of revolutionary fraud and force-these are the fruits of
these revolutionary governments. These are the products of
reconstruction. TLhis is the " Situation!" - And yet there are
those who say: "Let us accept the situation."  In the last
presidential campaign we heard the potent words: "Let us
have Peace."  They had their effect. They carried the presidential election. Yet wise men then knew, as all men now
know, that they were a delusion and a snare. " Let us have
peace! "  It meant that freemen, with their necks under the
heel of despotism, should remain submissive and quiet. Such
a peace Turkey has!  Suckb a peace Poland has! Such a
peace, thank God, Ireland refuses to have! No people trained
in the principles of liberty will ever accept of any peace that
is not founded on liberty. Tyrants and despots may reconstruct, and re-reconstruct, and re-re-reconstruct ad infjnitum;
but they will never have peace from American-born freemen
until they give them their rights.
What is really expected by these people who cry " Peace,"
and " Accept the Situation? " Are they silly enough to suppose that there can be any pause or limit to the career of usurpation? Does anybody need to be told that usurpation is insatiable?,When did it ever cry-enough?  Concede it an
inch, and it will always take an ell.-The only way for earnest
men to deal with usurpation is to make it disgorge all its illgotten acquisitions. These peace men call themselves Conservatives. To conserve means, to preserve what we have.
If what we have now is to be preserved, it will prove the sure
instrument of destroying every thing that is worth preservation. The present status, if it is to be "accepted," is enough




LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION.         245
to overthrow, and will certainly overthrow, the whole system
of constitutional government.. It is just the fulcrum which
Archimedes wanted to move the world. Let the usurpationists
retain what they have already usurped, and their whole design will inevitably be accomplished.-The wrongs of usurpations have been borne by us with a patience which has only
encouraged, not checked its career. How can men expect it
to pause, when it is now daily going on with new and Titanic
strides? The same revolutionary violence which brought forth
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth so-called Amendments of the
Constitution is daily hatching and spawning new usurpations
and despotisms.-One of -these is the late Enforcement Act of
Congress, which professes to be based on these revolutionary
amendments for its authority. It, has but little relation to the
Fourteenth, being chiefly -occupied with its professed intention
to carry out the Fifteenth.
If this Fifteenth Amendment were granted to be valid, as
it is not and never should be, yet a consideration of its terms
will show how immense is the usurpation of the Enforcement
Act in the professed object of carrying it out.
The Fifteenth Amendment is simply a prohibition on the
United States and the several States. It relates to nobody
else, touches nobody else. It prohibits the United States and
the several States (in regulating suffrage in cases where they
respectively have the right to regulate it) from denying it or
abridging it on account of any one of three reasons: race,
color, previous condition of servitude; leaving them perfectly
free to abridge it or deny it on account of an indefinite number
of other reasons. It is simply a prohibition upon the characacter of laws which may be passed by the United States or
the several States. If acts are passed against the prohibition
(granting the prohibition itself to be valid) they would be
void; and the remney-the only appropriate or admissible
remedy —would be to appeal to the courts and have them pronounced void. It is exactly analogous to the prohibitions on
the States in the original Constitution —that "no State shall
coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything btt gold and
silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of at



246                    APPENDIX.
tainder, or e  post facto law, or law impairing the obligation
of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."   Who ever
dreamed that these prohibitions- on the States gave Congress
the power to control the whole subject of:money, and seize all
*the money of the country into its own hands; to take control
of the whole subject of credit, and regulate it in all its ramifications; to take charge of the whole subject of debts, and the
whole subject of bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws; and
the whole subject of contracts; and the whole subject of titles
of nobility?  Who ever dreamed that Congress could -enforce
these prohibitions Ion States by heavy penal statutes against
private citizens?   Who ever dreamed. that Congress could enforce the prohibition against State laws impairing the obligation of contracts, by making it a felony for any citizen to seek
the benefit of relief acts passed by the States?. Nay, more.
Is this prohibition against denying.or abridging the right of
suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude, any more obligatory, or does it confer upon Congress
any more power than the provision in the original Constitution defining who shall be entitled to vote for President, VicePresident, and members of Congress, making them the same
in each State asrelectors for the most numerous branch of the
Legislature in that State? And yet who ever dreamed that
this positive provision of the Constitution gave Congress. power over the whole subject of electors and elections in the
States, lest, peradventure, some State might pass a law violating that provision?. The attempt on the part of Congress to
exercise any such'powers as these under the prohibitions on
the States would have been regarded at any time before the
late war as a usurpation and an utter nullity; and any party
that might have supported the criminal and traitorous attempt
would have been swept into swift annihilation. - And yet, under: this mere negative provision of the Fifteenth (so-called)
Amendment, Congress, by this Enforcement Act, has taken into its own charge the elections in all the States, and prescribes
who shall and who shall not vote. I see by the papers of today that they are not content with. this act, enormous as it is
in its usurpation, but that one House of Congress has passed




LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION.          247
an act greatly enlarging the usurpation, providing for a United States officer to szupervise the elections in each State, with
large judicial powers, and with power to use the bayonet at
his own discretion. T/his is pausing in the career of usurpation!
As a very appropriate accompaniment of this enlarged Enforcement Act, Mr. Attorney-General Akerman recommends
the establishment of United States penitentiaries and jails in
all the States. All our Presidents, from Washington down
to the time of the recent war, found ample accommodation for
all their prisoners in the prisons of the States under. State visitation, inspection, and control. This dynasty needs bastiles of
its own, to be filled with the political prisoners, who may be
expected to come in large numbers as the prodtuct of the new
and ever-increasing despotic usurpations; and to be subject to
no visitation or interference but that of the imperial guard,
Political prosecutions are not confined to me, nor to this State.
A cry comes up against them from Tennessee also, and from
other States. They are intended to become an institution;
and the bastiles form an indispensable part of the institution.
And yet all this is done while the right of suffrage is neither
denied nor abridged, on account either of color, race, or previous condition of servitude, by the United- States, or by any
State, or anywhere in the Union.
Let us look at a little more of the pausinzg! I see a bill
has been introduced into Congress to appoint a Ku Klux Commissioner for every county in the Southern States, he also to
be armed with large judicial powers and with the bayonet-to
administer the laws over the people of the States in relation to
assaults and batteries, murders, trespasses, and all crimes, real
and pretended, which can be, gathered under the hundredheaded hydra of " Outrages." This, I suppose, is a part of the
new "outrage'.programme ": which has been so brilliantly inaugurated under the auspices of an Outrage Message and a
Congressional Outrage' Committee. Outrages they are, indeed!
A  Congressional committee to investigate the condition of
States, and. determine, forsooth, whether their constituencies
are'worthy" to be represented in Congress!  This is the




248'APPENDIX.
question which General Butler has sprung as to the constituency of this very Congressional District-whether they are
"worthy" to be represented. True, our  epresenteative was
received, under the prima facie case made by his certificate of
election; but the great fundamental question, as to the worthiness of our constituency, was reserved for future decision.
What that decision may be, who can tell    This question,
together with divers other important matters, is to be investigated, in the mean time, by the Congressional Outrage Committee.  Such a committee, for such a purpose, before the
war, would have raised a howl of derision and indignation
throughout'the land., They would raise it now if this investigation were to be applied to any Northern State of this Union.
Yet, when they shall come to us (if they shall see fit to make
us a visitation), bearing the badges of our degradation, we shall
be accounted as very disloyal, rebellious, and outrageous, if we
do not bow and smile, and beg them to do us the honor of entering into the bosoms of our families.
I have something further to say about these outrages which
form the chief capital of those who habitually seek to inflame
the minds of the North against their Southern brethren, to support them in re-re-reconstruction, which are to be used as the
instrument of overthrowing the Constitution, abolishing the
States ahd the ballot, and consolidating a grand central military despotism.
The situation of these Southern States under reconstruction
has been so extraordinary that it would be wonderful indeed if
disorders and violations of law had not been unusually multiplied. They are the necessary product of the system., The
citizens generally have striven to keep them down, while the
revolutionary governments, not only upturning the political
status, but also, almost inverting the social, have been the most
potent influence in producing these disorders. Under these
governments, administered by carpet-baggers, scalawags, and
negroes, the pardoning power has been made the shameless
instrument of recruiting their party, and of making the people
despair of an impartial administration of the laws. I will mention a striking instance out of a multitude which are notorious.




LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION.         249
Fourteen negroes in Hancock County were convicted of an
assault with intent to murder. The proof was a confession in
every case, corroborated by other most satisfactory evidence.
This proof showed that the crowd went to a man's house between midnight and day, yelling like savages, and swearing
they would kill him. They broke down his door and shot into
his house, wounding himself, and lodging a load of shot in the
bedstead just over the head of his wife. IHe saved his life only
by making his escape through the floor. This was all done
without provocation. They suspected that this man, MIarchman, was concerned in the killing of a negro, who had been
killed some time before, by some person or persons unknown.
The proof on the trial showed that their suspicion was utterly
groundless, and that when the.negro was killed, Marchman was
at home, and could not possibly have known any thing about it.
They acted on the mere wild suspicion of excited ignorance.
They had affair trial and were defended by very able counsel.
The verdict of conviction was publicly approved by Judge Andrews, whom you know to be an appointee of Governor Bullock,
and a member of the Republican party. Yet all of these fourteen were speedily pardoned out of the penitentiary by Governor Bullock, and turned loose upon an outraged people. One
of them was very soon put back into the penitentiary for a
new offence in an adjoining county. This is a specimen, and
but a specimen, of the outrages which we suffer.
The carpet-baggers and scalawags, who do most to engender strife between the races and produce outrages, speak only
of those which are committed on one side. They are as silent
as the grave about those incited by themselves, and perpetrated
by their ignorant and brutal tools.
I have yet one other remark to' make about these outrages.
I know of none where a jury has failed to convict when the
guilty party, white or black, was shown by satisfactory proof;
and I know of no place, North or South, where convictions are
had, or would be desirable, without proof. There have been
foul murders committed in Boston, and nobody hurt for them.
One notorious case of the same kind has lately occurred in:New
York city. Suppose I should say murder is done in Boston and




250                    APPENDIX.
New York " with impunity."  Suppose Congress should send
an Outrage Committee to investigate Boston and New York!
The. truth is, the general rule there is, that criminals are punished when they are found out. The general rule here is, that
they are punished when they are found out, and not'pardoned.
This is a truthful sketch of the situation-usurpation accelerating instead of pausing in _its career; revolution giving us
wrongs, outrages, injuries, and insults instead of the protection,
peace, prosperity, and fraternity which we have a right to expect from any government, and should certainly receive from
our rightful constitutional governments.
This is the situation which we are exhorted to accept. This
is the prospect on which we are invited to repose, with assurance that usurpation will henceforth cease, and a " new departure " will be taken in politics under the auspices of sound principle. The appeal is made to us on the supposition that we are
not men, but geese. The' appeal is made to the country, North
and South, upon the supposition that the country, North, and
South, is composed of geese, not men.
Why should we accept the situation? Are not reconstruction and all its products revolutionary, unconstitutional, and
void?  Are they not demonstrated to be so? Where is. the
harm in calling them so? - Where is theharm in treating them
so a It is said that the remedy proposed would itself be revolutionary. What is that remedy? It is but the ballot. The ballot,,used how, and for what? Peacefully, for the election of
men, who, when elected, will treat the Constitution as the Constitution; spurious interpolations upon it as spurious interpolations; -laws as laws;.nullities as nullities; truths as truths;
lies as lies. The remedy is, not to perpetrate.new revolution,
but to REcEDE from the revolutionary measures of the usurpers,
to withdraw the bayonet, and leave the constitutional govern-.
ments, which are now displaced by the revolutionary ones, to
peacefully rise from their state of repression, and, by the resumption of their legitimate functions, solve the whole problem
of restoration in a manner worthy of freemen, and distasteful
only to usurpers and despots. 
The revolutionary usurpers have an impudent habit of call



LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION.          251
ing themselves "legitimists," and Democrats "revolutionists."
This is but the old trick of the thief crying, "Stop thief! "
Demonstrate to them that their measures are revolutionary and
void, and the reply is renewed assertion of their legality and
validity. Argument is met only by iteration and reiteration of
the original falsehood.
It is the case of the robber who has entered your house by
violence, and has no plea for remaining there, except that he
has got in. No man of spirit would tolerate the plea for a
single instant, even though the robber should give the best indications of future good behavior, instead of proceeding as
rapidly as possible to plunder your whole house, just as he is
now actually doing.
Centralism, like the once veiled prophet of IKhorassan, is
now unveiled. It stands revealed in all its hideousness. Who
so depraved as to worship its deformity? Who so dastardly as
not to plant a dagger in its vitals?  The weapons to be used
are those of Truth and Reason.
The Temple of Liberty is in possession of the money-changers and the dove-sellers. They are desecrating its altars, and
laying their unholy hands upon the very ark of the covenant.
Nay, more; they are undermining the very foundations of the
temple itself; and if they are not driven out by. an indignant
people, not one stone will be left standing upon another of the
once magnificent structure.
Our error heretofore has been the error of silence under
wrong. I have never-counselled violence. I do not counsel it
now. I deplore it. But I do counsel an unremitting appeal
to argument, truth, and justice. Using these as her sword,
and a sublime patience as her shield,' the South should never
cease to agitate, and agitate, and AGITATE, until she obtains the
righting of her wrongs, and the re-establishment of the Constitution in its purity and its beauty.
Indications are now most promising that her people will be
united in the resolve to recognize no alliance with any party
that will not give us our rights. If parties wish to go:into
scrambles for offices and spoils, we will have no part nor lot with
them. This is the seed-time of ideas for the next Presidential




252                    APPENDIX.
election. You may rest assured that that election will turn
upon ideas. No party can maintain itself in this country if it
cannot defend itself by argument. Never, since the close of
the war, has the time been so auspicious as now for a candid
hearing and ready reception of the truth in the North. Reconstruction was never approved there. It was merely tolerated
and accepted as the only feasible solution of what was regarded
as the pressing and distressing problem of restoration. It is
now demonstrated that reconstruction is a failure and a crime;
and that its authors are using it, not as a means of restoration, but as a means of alienation; and that they intend to
use it as an instrument for overthrowing the Constitution, and
converting this Union of States into a consolidated, despotic
centralism. Its wrongs have heretofore been chiefly confined
to the South. It: is now laying its audacious hands upon the
North also. There is no longer any decent concealment of its
purpose to control the elections everywhere by the bayonet,
and to convert our government from one of the ballot into one
of force. This purpose can be arrested and defeated only by
the intelligence and energy of public opinion. Public opinion
will be equal to the occasion. When the Boston Port Bill was
passed, Virginia raised the cry: "The cause of Boston is the
cause of us all;" and the cry was caught- up by all the States,
and kindled them all with a flame of enthusiasm. The cry now
is: " The cause of the Constitution is the cause of us all;"
and Boston herself will not fail to respond to it. The spirit of
liberty is not dead in the land where the battles of the Revolution are commemorated by monuments and by literature. Its
echoes yet linger in Faneuil Hall; and some Otis, or Adams,
or Webster will wake them with new power and new glory.
It is also now demonstrated that the supposed difficult
problem of restoration finds its natural and happy solution
in receding from revolution and returning to the Constitution.
The party that gives this platform to the country in the
next Presidential campaign, and puts candidates upon it earnestly devoted to its success, will be irresistible in position and
in argument; and, therefore, will carry the country.
It will, at all events, have the undying gratitude of the




EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION.         253
South. She, at least, can stand nowhere else. Any other
position for her is forbidden alike by self-respect and self-preservation. And what is now her position must very soon inevitably be the position of all the States.
III.
LETTER OF Ex-GOVERNOR CHARLES J. JENKINS TO HIs EXCELLENCY JAMES M. SMITH, PRESENT GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA.
AUGUSTA, GA., March 15, 1872.
_Hi Excellency, James Z.W Smith#:
Sm:-Since my removal from the office which you now hold,
in January, 1868, by Major-General Meade, of the United
States Army, commanding Department of Georgia, I have refrained from communication with the de facto government of
the State.
Had there been no interference of the Federal Governrnent,- my term of office wQuld have expired in November,
1867, and there would then have been assembled a Legislature
to. whom I would have rendered an account of my stewardship, accompanied by the usual reports of the Treasurer and
Comptroller-General for that year.  Such a communication,
with like accompaniments for the preceding year, had been
submitted to the General Assembly at their second session in
November, 1866. There having been neither Governor nor
Legislature elected in 1867, I, under a provision of the Constitution, held over; but there was no Legislative Assembly.
From the time of my removal until the installation of the
present Governor and Legislature, those departments have not,
in my judgment, been filled by persons rightfully representing
the people of Georgia or faithfully guarding their interests.
I am informed that a committee appointed for that purpose
by the Legislature convened in 1868, examined the books and
accounts of Mr. Treasurer Jones. for the last year of my administration, and reported them correct.




254                    APPENDIX.
I desire, however, to-make a formal representation of certain transactions during my official term, of which no account
has been given, and some of which have been grossly misrepresented to the public.
Such a communication to a State Executive, from a predecessor, is, I know, unusual, if not unprecedented; but I trust
you will find in the circumstances, heretofore and now surrounding me, a justification of it, and that you will kindly
place it on file, with the archives of the State, where it may
hereafter be accessible for reference if desirable.
I need scarcely remark that, owing to the suspension of
the State government at the close of the war-serious complications with the Federal government resulting from that conflict-the utter exhaustion of our treasury, the impoverished
condition of our people, and the interference by Congressional
legislation with the State' government first inaugurated after
the war, my administration was fraught with difficulty, responsibility, and anxiety. When I entered upon the duties of
the office there was no money in the treasury-there were out3tanding liabilities of Governor Brown's last term (owing to
his removal by the United States, Government several months
before its constitutional end)-debts contracted by Provisional
Governor Johnson, to carry on the government and the expenses of the Convention of 1865; provided for by temporary
loans. There were also ante-war bonds, and interest coupons
of considerable'amount which matured during and after the
war-the expenses of the Legislature which came in with me,
and the accruing demands of the civil list. Tlie bed and
track of the Western & Atlantic Railroad were in a dilapidated
condition, its depots and bridges in a great measure destroyed,
and its rolling stock partly lost or destroyed, and partly worn
out and valueless. Its Superintendent under-Provisional Governor Johnson, with his approval, had. contracted a debt with
the United States Government of about four hundred and
seventy thousand dollars ($470,000) in the purchase of rolling
stock and other railroad property, and still in these items there
was a large deficiency.
The Capitol, its grounds and furniture, and the Executive




EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION.         255
Mansion and its furniture, required extensive repairs and renewals. The Penitentiary had been partially burned and rendered insecure, requiring a large outlay in rebuilding and
strengthening it.
Besides all this, there were no taxes collected in 1865. In
view of this condition of our financial affairs, it must, I think,
surprise the reflecting mind that the Legislature, to meet these
liabilities, and put the machinery of government again in motion, resorted to the credit of the State by the issue of its
bonds only to the amount of three millions and thirty thousand dollars ($3,030,000).The Convention of 1865 did, indeed, authorize the issue of
bonds, amounting to five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)
to-meet the emergencies of the hour. But these, owing to restrictions put upon them, were found' available only:for very
short loans, and were so used, and redeemed with proceeds of
bonds afterward authorized by the: Legislature, except about
twenty-six thousand dollars ($26,000) which had not been presented at the Treasury, although called. in.
There were also bonds authorized by:th: section of the act
of 12th March, 1866, amounting to six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000), to pay the land tax assessed by the United
States Government: against the people of Georgia.
These bonds were engraved with others, but as the United
States authorities refused *to receive payment of the tax from
the Executive of the State, were -not signed or sealed until
after the next session of the Legislature (Nov., 1866).
On their assembling, I reported to them the failure to use
those bonds for the purpose intended, and advised that the Executive be authorized to issue them in redemption of, or exchange for, bonds of the State, which would mature within a
short time. Authority to that effect was given by the Legislature, and then these bonds, in all respects similar to other
bonds issued under the act of March 12, 1866, were executed.
As these bonds bore a higher rate of interest than those to be
redeemed by them, and were secured by a mortgage on the
Western & Atlantic Railroad, it was believed that no difficulty would be encountered in exchanging them for the latter




256                   APPENDIX.
on terms advantageous to the State, and thus our suffering
people- be released from taxation, to meet a heavy demand
upon the treasury at no distant day. They were accordingly
placed in the National Bank of the Republic (New York) for
that purpose, and notice of the terms on which the State would
make the exchange extensively published. This exchange had
been commenced, but no great progress had been made in it at
the time of my removal. Knowing no safer place of deposit
for them, and desiring not to suspend the process of exchange,
I suffered them to remain there, giving written instructions to
the agent to continue it, but beyond that, to deliver them to
no person except upon the order of John Jones, Treasurer, or
of myself.
The Legislature assembled in 1868, passed a resolution authorizing the Governor inaugurated by them to take possession
of all bonds of the State executed but not negotiated, wherever to be found. Under this authority, as I have been informed, the acting Governor, R. B. Bullock, demanded of the
bank the unexchanged bonds then in their possession, and the
agent, under legal advice, surrendered them to him, but required of him an indorsement on each bond, of the manner in
which he became possessed of it. The precise amount so delivered I know not, but suppose it could have varied little from
six hundred thousand dollars. I am, of course, ignorant what
disposition has been made of them. If they Ihave been faithfully applied to the object intended, they have not increased
the indebtedness of the State, but have only postponed, to a
more'convenient time, its payment, pro tanto, and the relief
has accrued, or will accrue, to administrations succeeding
mine.
If otherwise, the misapplication is chargeable to the Executive, who, rathier —thaw_ come to an account with the fairly elected
and honest representatives of the people he was charged with
having plundered, ingloriously fled the State. In no event can
those bonds be fairly set down as an original indebtedness incurred by the State during my official term, and by my advice.
Other bonds were issued by me, in conformity with the act
of February, 1856, authorizing a subscription to the stock of the




EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION.                257
Atlantic &  Gulf Railroad Company, and the issue of bonds
of the State, in payment of installments on that stock, as the
corporation might show itself entitled to them.  Evidence that
they were so entitled, was in each instance adduced before the
bonds were issued; amounts, dates, etc., will appear by reference to the records of the Treasurer's and Comptroller-General's
offices.
But this liability was incurred ten years before my time.
The amounts of the two classes of bonds last mentioned have,
in an indiscriminating, unscrupulous partisan spirit, been added
to the three millions and thirty thousand mentioned before, and
the grand aggregate presented as an increase of the public debt
under my administration and by my advice.
I think I have disposed of those two classes, and will not
again refer to them.  I now propose to show that the public
debt was increased by less than one-half of the three millions
and thirty thousand dollars ($3,030,000).
The authority for issuing these bonds, and the purposes to
which they were to be applied, will be found in the act of the
12th of ]March, 1866, and the 11th -section of the General Appropriation Act of the same year.  The following items embraced in the act first mentioned were obviously provisions for
funding existing indebtedness, and therefore did not increase
the public debt:
Section 8-To pay the matured bond debt and interest thereon. $830,000
Section 1-To pay debt to United States Government for railroad property purchased during Provisional Governor Johnson's term, and interest............................   500,000
Loans contracted by Provisional Governor Johnson............  30,000
Making an aggregate of....:                           $1,360,000
Which deducted from the new bond debt of $3,030,000 leaves as
inrease of pu bli debt............................$1670,000
increase of public debt                              $1,670,000
Among the appropriations made and paid from proceeds of these
bonds were two extraordinary items of pure charity,- having
all the moral obligation of debts, viz.: to purchase corn for
the destitute, and artificial limbs for disabled soldiers......... 220,000
Leaving a balance of......................................... $,450,000
This balance was relied upon to repair and complete the
17




2058                   APPENDIX.
equipment of the Western & Atlantic. Railroad; to repair and
refit the State IHouse, and its grounds; the Executive Mansion
and furniture; the Penitentiary; to pay. the unfunded debts of
the State (by no means inconsiderable), and to defray the entire
expenses of the government for one year, including the support
of its great public charities, and the adcruing annual interest on
the public debt.
This sum of one million four hundred and fifty thousand dollars was subjected, before it came into the Treasury for general
use, to a diminution by the'expenses incident to the preparation and engraving.of the bonds, the execution of the mortgage,
commissions to agents employed'in the sale of them, and the
rate of discount upon them, for no bonds of any Southern State
could then be negotiated at par value. The bonds first soldabout nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) in amount —
yielded ninety per cent. A:few were afterward sold for ninety-.five, and they would undoubtedly have reached par value in the
market, but for the depressing effect of Congressional legislation
upon the credit of the Southern States. Under this withering
influence, these bonds afterward fell below ninety in the New
York market. For more minute details respecting the disposition of these bonds, reference is made to the records of the
Treasury and of the Comptroller-General's office, to which, as
I write,'I have not access.'I have mentioned a debt'contracted by the Provisional
Superintendent of the Western & Atlantic Railroad under
Provisional Governor Johnson; and which debt occasioned my
first unpleasant complication with the United States Government. The Superintendent insisted that he was, by the terms
of the contract, entitled to a clear credit of two years upon the
amount of the purchase. The Sale-Agent of the United States,
on the contrary, affirmed that by the terms of sale, the purchaser,
could only be.entitled to such credit, on giving bond with approved. personal security, for the- payment of the *debt at the
expiration of two years; in default of which, monthly payments
of the twenty-fourth part of the debt:.with interest, at 7-30 per
cent. must be made, until the debt was extinguished. The-contest between these officials was an unequal one. Thd monthly




EX-GOV. JENKINS.ON RECONSTRUCTION.        259
payments were peremptorily demanded. I suggested to the
Legislature the expediency of authorizing the Superintendent
of the Western & Atlantic Railroad to give a bond for the
payment of the debt within two years, and of pledging the faith
of the State for its payment. Accordingly the act of the 13th
March, 1866, was passed, and a bond executed in conformity
with it, and delivered. Still, for lack of personal security, the
monthly payments were demanded. In an interview with Mr.
Stanton, Secretary of War, I protested against this, and insisted
on the payment of the whole sum at the expiration of the two
years-urging that the pledge of the State's credit was more
than an equivalent for personal security.
IHe heard me patiently, but when I concluded, remarked
curtly," I can give you no relief. You seem to think because
this railroad is the property of the State, and the debt incurred,
her debt, and because she had given her bond for it, she should
be admitted to the privilege of purchasers giving bond and
security. I cannot make that distinction. The terms must be
complied with."
I asked permission to take issue with him on that point.- I
pressed upon him the universal recognized comity between nations and States, between organized governments, and stated
as a corollary from it, that one Government would accord to
another a credit never given to an individual. I concluded
thus: "I' have not supposed, Mr. Stanton, I should live to see
the day when the United States Government would send the
Governor of a State out to hunt after personal security for a
money contract. I cannot lower the dignity of my:State by
doing such an act."
The stern Secretary relented, considered, and finally took
the matter before the Cabinet, who referred it. to the Secretary
of War and tle Attorney-General9 with power to act. I then
went before the latter to discuss the question with him. So
soon as I broached the proposition requiring a State to give
personal security for a debt, Mr. Stanberry, that upright man,
courteous gentleman, and able jurist, interrupted me with the
remark, "'Governor, I confess that proposition revolts' me."
"As it has done me, Mr. Attorney-General," I replied. He




260                    APPENDIX.
rejoined, "Oh, that will not do. Mr. Stanton must give that
up."  And he did give it up, and cheerfully, at last.
I refer to this matter partly to show that, among those distinguished men, members of the administration (and, we may
infer, by the. Cabinet), Georgia was, at that time, recognized
as having the status of a State of the IUnion.
Early in the, year 1866 the Collector of Internal Revenue
for the Fourth District of Georgia required the Superintendent
of the Western & Atlantic Railroad to make monthly returns
to him of the gross receipts from the road, and to pay a tax of
two and one-half per cent. upon them.
Believing the tax to be illegal, because assessed upon the
revenue of the State, I appealed against it to the Secretary of
the United States Treasury, who, after a reference of the question to the Solicitor of the Treasury and a report by him, overruled my appeal and ordered the collection to proceed. Not
satisfied with the decision, I filed a bill in equity in the District Court of the United States, in the name of the State of
Georgia, against the Collector, seeking to enjoin the collection
of the tax. After argument upon -a rule against the Collector,
to show cause in Chambers why an injunction should not issue,
the Judge reserved his decision until the next term of the
Court in Atlanta; but assured the Solicitors of the State, in
the presence of the District Attorney and the Collector, that
meantime no further action in collection of the tax would be
taken..
During his temporary absence from the State, however, and
before his decision, the Collector peremptorily demanded payment of the tax then accrued (amounting to-more than twentyfour thousand dollars) within ten days, in default of which a
levy would be made upon the property of the road. Informed
of this, I directed the Superintendent to pay under protest,/
which was done.
As soon as practicable afterward, in a personal interview
with the Secretary of the Treasury, I brought all those matters
to his consideration, and found him profoundly ignorant of the
filing of the bill,: the proceedings in Chambers, the assurance
of the Judge respecting suspension of action, and the sub



EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION.        261
sequent enforcement of payment.  I do him the justice to
say, that he manifested genuine surprise and indignation at
the last stage of the proceeding. He pronounced it "all
wrong," and immediately summoned before him the Deputy
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Chief being absent at
the time), who, after hearing the recital, concurred in the Secretary's opinion, and declared himself equally ignorant and innocent of the wrong.
The result was that the Secretary ordered the suspension of
the collection, until rendition of the Judge's decision (saying
he thought I had adopted the best course for the settlement of
the question), but declined to refund the sum paid under'duress,
which had been pronounced" all wrong" until the decision
was made.
At the next term of the Court, Judge Erskine delivered an
elaborate opinion, concluding with an order of injunction pendente lite. A copy of this decision was forwarded to the Department with a second demand for repayment, which was
declined on the ground that the Secretary was considering the
propriety of carrying up the question.
The Collector, I was informed, never answered the bill, nor
put in an appearance; and at the September term, 1867, the
Judge granted a perpetual injunction, and decreed that the
sum paid under duress be refunded.
A third demand was then made for repayment, but I was
answered that the legality of the tax had been referred to the
Attorney-General of the United States, and that the Department would await his opinion. That was soon after given,
sustaining the decree of the Court, which declared the tax
illegal. Then, upon a fourth demand, the money was refunded,
but interest on it was refused, although the Treasury of the
United States had held it about eighteen months, and although
during the same time interest was accruing at the rate of 7.30
per cent. against the Western & Atlantic Railroad to the
United States, on the debt before. mentioned, and soon after
paid in full.
But for this appeal to the Judiciary, in lrnine, it cannot be
doubted that this onerous and illegal tax would, year'after




262                   APPENDIX.
year, have been extorted from our impoverished State by the
spoiled and spoiling minions of power. It is but one of many
exhibitions of the tyrannous. and rapacious spirit in which the
ruling party have requited the unconditional and sincere submission of the Southern people to the authority of the Federal
Government.. These wrongs I impute to the ruling partytheirs is the sin; and theirs, in the time of recompense, will be
the shame and the suffering. We can only possess ourselves in
patience, looking for the outstretching of His right arm who
has said, " Vegeance is mike, and I will repay.'"
But these things should not be allowed to pass unheeded or
unchronicled.
Great as were the embarrassments encompassing the office
during the first year of my term, they were vastly increased by
the passage of the Reconstruction Acts, and the entrance- into
the State of a military chieftain, transferred from "h eadcquarters in the saddle" to headquarters in Atlanta. This man came
invested with despotic power over the people of Georgia, and
with authority, at his sovereign pleasure, to remove from office
any one of their chosen public servants. And these thingsshades  of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison!-were done,
notwithstanding the distinct recognition of Georgia (either before they were commenced, or during their progress) as a State
within the Union, by every department of the Federal Government. I pause not to produce proofs of the assertion; but I
challenge an issue upon. it.
These Reconstruction Acts, it will be remembered, had
been passed by the Congress of the United States over the
veto of the President, based upon their unconstitutionality.
So soon as action was taken under them-so soon as the foot
of the military Despot was.impressed upon the soil of Georgia
-I repaired to Washington and filed a bill,.in the name of the
State of Georgia, against the intruders in the Supreme Court,
seeking to enjoin and set aside these proceedings as infringements upon the reserved sovereignty of the State, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States..
The right of the State to file that bill, and the jurisdiction
of the Court in the case, depended upon the fact alleged, that




EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION.          2&3
she was one of the States of the Union. As a foreign power,
or a conquered province, she would have had no right to do so
-the Court, no jurisdiction in the premises. Still, as the records of the Court show, upon  full presentation of the Complaint, formal permission was granted to file the bill; nor was
she afterward dismissed the Court'unredressed,. on the ground
that she lacked that status.,
After argument, the bill was dismissed because in it there
was alleged neither interference, nor the threat of interference,
with her property, which the Couirt held was necessary to make
a case for their sublime consideratibn. Nothing so far had
been disturbed or threatened, save the modest, though priceless,
diadem of her reserved sovereignty (in Radical estimation a
paltry bauble), of which that elevated Tribunal could not condescend to take cognizance.
The deep humiliation which then pervaded the entire mass
of a proud people-proud in their historical reminiscences, and
their consciousness of thorough rectitude of intention and of
conduct —will be long remembered.  Their final submission
was as truthful and unqualified as their resistance Ilad been
honest, open, and heroic.
But that humiliation was intensified in' the person of their
Executive, forced, as he was, by circumstances into daily contact with the insolence of an intruded Ruler, trained to arbitrary military comand; unfamiliar with civil government, and
rendered giddy by his unwonted eminence. Had I yielded to
the promptings of personal feeling, I would at once have escaped the pain of this unprecedented subordination by resigning the office. But knowing that the position would enable
me to keep open to our people a channel' of communication
with the Chief Magistrate of the Union (who was a reluctant
agent in this crusade. against liberty), and might thus, in some
degree, alleviate their sufferings, I resolved to remain in it,
yielding all questions of mere policy, but maintaining principle
to the extent of my power; and falling (if fall I must) in its
defence. I was powerless' to prevent the removal of faithful
officers of the judicial d6partment, or the appointment of others
to fill their places, or to arrest the latter.in the unauthorized




264                   APPENDIX.
exercise of their ill-gotten offices; but I declined to pay them
the salaries appropriated to officers constitutionally appointed
and commissioned. This alone would probably have induced
my removal; but an occasion of greater moment soon after
occurred.
The Congress of the United States, by their nefarious Reconstruction Acts, had provided for the assemblage of a Convention,
at Atlanta, to frame a Constitution for the State in lieu of that
adopted in 1865, after the close of the war. The latter was
confessedly Republican in character-acknowledged as the Supreme law of the State, the Constitution of the United States
and all acts of Congress in conformity therewith-had received
the President's approval, and under it tlhe existing State: Government had been organized.
The Congressional act which called the Convention of 1867
and 1868 together, provided for defraying their expenses, only
by authorizing them to levy a tax for that purpose. The body,
finding themselves unplrovided with subsistence, and incapable
of feeding upon their patriotism until relieved by the slow process of taxation, experimented upon the credit of the State,
which, though always previously a reliable resource in emergencies, failed to attract capital, when'tampered with by them.
In this extremity, they turned their longing eyes upon the
Treasury of the State. Whether originally prompted, or only
encouraged by the military Dictator, they passed a resolution
requiring the Treasurer of the State to pay to their financial
agent the sum of forty thousand dollars, for the present use of
the Convention.  This resolution (being only an entering
wedge) was approved by General Pope, under whose broad
shadow they held their daily sittings; and armed with this high
authority, the agent designated repaired to Milledgeville, and
made formal demand of the money upon Colonel John Jones,
State Treasurer.
That worthy gentleman and faithful officer refused payment in the absence of an Executive warrant.  About this
time General Pope (proofs of whose numerous abuses of - power
had been multiplied to the President by myself and others) was
removed from his command in Georgia, and General Meade ap



EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION.         265
pointed to succeed him.' One of the successor's first acts was a
requisition upon me for a warrant upon the Treasurer to satisfy
the demand of the Convention. With this I refused to comply,
on the ground that the Constitution, under which I was elected
and inaugurated, and which I had sworn to obey, expressly
provided that no money should be taken from the Treasury, except by Executive warrant, upon appropriation made by law;
and that no appropriation had been made by law to defray the
expenses of that Convention. I insisted that the requisition
was unwarranted, even by the lReconstruction Acts. The Congress had not ventured upon an act so flagrant as the direct appropriation of money from the Treasury of Georgia.  But they
had bestowed a largess of power upon a miitary chieftain,
whose lack of training in the principles of civil government
rendered him little scrupulous in overstepping constitutional
barriers. I felt, and feel, that the argument was with me, but
the power was with the General, and beneath its pressure I
and the argument went down together. I was removed by a
military fiat,- and Brevet Brigadier-General Ruger, of the U. S.
Army, a subordinate of General Meade, appointed to succeed me.
On presenting himself to assume the Government, the appointee, in answer to a question by me, read me an extract from
his instructions, directing him, in case of resistance, to'employ
such force as might be necessary to overcome it. Having at
my command no force whatever, I contented myself with a protest against the proceeding, as a flagrant usurpation, violative
of the Constitution of the United States, and a declaration that
I forbore resistance only because I was powerless to make itand so retired.
I believe it is pretty generally understood that, as far as
was practicable, in the brief interval allowed me, I placed the
movable values of the State, and certainly the money then in
the Treasury, beyond the reach of the spoilers, and in the exercise of a legal discretion suspended the collection of taxes then
in progress. At all events, the immediate object of this extreme
measure, the placing of the funds actually in the Treasury at
the disposal of the Constitution-makers, then unconstitutionally
assembled at Atlanta, was defeated. Contemporaneously with




266                    APPENDIX.
this entire, undisguised usurpation of.the Executive Office, those
military men took actual possession of the State Capitol, and
its grounds-of the. Executive Mansion and its furniture and
grounds, and of the archives of the State.,
Furthermore, they revoked my order suspending the collec-.tion of taxes, which they required the'Collector to pay to their
own appointed treasurer, seized upon the income of the Western &  Atlantic Railroad (then in good order and successful
operation), and, in short, took within their grasp every dollar
of the subsequently incoming revenue of the State.
No insinuation is intended that they appropriated to their
own use any portion of the State'si money, unless in the way
of salaries to which they were not entitled, and about which I
know nothing.
It is doubtless true that they went out with cleaner hands
than did' their immediate successors, the so-called Representatives of the People.
The charge is, that by the strong hand of power they
wrested this property from' the rightful possession of the constituted authorities of the State, and applied it, in their discretion,
to public uses unauthorized by her fundamental and statutory
law, and subversive of her sovereignty.
Seeing that they had then made themselves amenable to the
jurisdiction of the U. S. Supreme Court, as that Court had
been understood to define it, it their decision of the previous
case, and believing myself still de jure, though not de facto,
Governor of the' State, I again went before that tribunal, alleging these acts of progressive- usurpation, and seeking redress
against the wrong-doers.
The hearing of this case would have brought distinctly
under the review of the Court the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts, which I especially desired. Not so the Court.
They-or a majority of them-felt a loyal repugnance to that
delicate issue. Leave to file the bill, on application made in
open Court, and upon a statement of the allegations contained
in it, was unhesitatingly given, the Attorney-General of the
United States being present, and making no objection; and the
bill was delivered to the Clerk.




EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION.        267
But this permission was revoked within twenty-four hours,
as having been improvidently granted, although it neither in-;
fringed any existing rule of practice, nor committed the Court
to any thing touching the merits of the case. Then why revoked? For no conceivable reason other than to open that
case to the operation of a new rule, of practice, adopted after the
permission to file the bill; and which produced unnecessary
and vexatious delay. Yet more, in subsequent stages; additional delays were occasioned by exceptional rulings of the Court;
and at last we were gravely told that there did not remain, of
the term, time enough to hear and determine a motion for in-'junction.
Before the commencement of the next term (as the Court
had probably anticipated) the Atlanta Convention had done its
work-MIeade and Ruger had disappeared from the scenes, and
Bullock and his hungry horde, by force of the bayonet,' though
under the flimsy veil of constitutional reform, had become
"' lords of the ascendant."  The suit before the Court -was not
of a vindictive character-damages were not sought against the
defendants; but only a riddance from their usurpations. Of
course, it would have been folly to. pursue them after their abdication.. The cause could not have been pressed against them.
Let it not be said that -the object aimed at. by this litigation
was accomplished without the action of the Court. Fai' from
it. Had the Court pronounced the Reconstruction Acts unconstitutional, we would not only have been delivered from gMeade
and Ruger, but from the. whole Atlanta Convention. The existing State Government would have been sustained, Bullock
would have remained in the Express Office, and the present
derangement of our finances, as well as many other evil's,.would
have been. avoided.
When it is considered that the'enforcement of'the Reconstruction Acts; then in progress,would inevitably overthrow existing State constitutions, and with them existing State governments; that the Executive and Legislative Departments of the
Federal Government were distinctly at issue, upon the question
of the constitutionality of those acts, and that there was in the
Supreme Court'a case pending, and a motion in that case, ready




268                    APPENDIX.
for a hearing, which called for a judicial settlement of that
question, what can excuse a refusal to hear it? No more momentous question was ever submitted to that Court. If the
allegations in the bill failed to give the Court jurisdiction, why
not say so?
If the Executive bepartment were wrong, and the Legislative Department right, on that great issue, why not, by a solemn
judgment, terminate the controversy, and give quiet to the
country?
They said there did not remain, of the term, time enough
for the hearing-but why not?
The term was not closed by legal limitation, but by judicial
discretion. Were their Honors weary- exhausted by their
judicial labors? Ah! let them  contemplate the weariness of
spirit, the exhaustion of resources, since inflicted upon the people of Georgia by the misrule they were called upon to arrest,
but would not even inquire into, and then justify, if they can,
their delinquency.
I entered that Court with all the veneration for it inspired.
by a Marshall, a Taney, and their compeers. I left it with the
painful impression, which time has not mitigated, that the then
incumbents (or a majority of them) had, by procrastination, deliberately evaded a judgment they could not have refused, without dishonor to themselves; yet could not have rendered, without offence to the despotic and menacing faction then and still
wielding the power of the Government.
It was probably under the prompting of a similar feeling
that the venerable Justice Grier, the senior in years of them
all, about the same time, from his seat on the Bench, in open
session, declared himself-ashamed of the attitude assumed by
the Court (in another case resulting from post-war tyranny),
and, like an old Roman, shook the reproach from Aids skirts.
Here I turn aside to notice a rumor, invented and circulated
to my prejudice, by certain mendacious Radicals of Georgiathat in these suits I had, without authority of law, expended
thirty thousand dollars of the people's money. The expense
of the first suit, instituted and ended while I was still undisputed Governor of Georgia, amounted in all (including lawyers'




EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION.         269fees, Court costs, and printing expenses, rendered necessary by
their rule of practice, and excluding my personal expenses), to
two thousand seven hundred dollars ($2,700).
This sum I paid.out of the contingent fund, placed at my
disposal; a balance 0of'which remained unexpended on my retirement. That the passage of the Reconstruction Acts, and the
consequent rape of the sovereignty of Georgia, presented a
contingency unanticipated by any, save its unprincipled authors,
and that it cried aloud for all possible resistance, no right-minded man will deny.
Having been sustained by the opinion of eminent jurists,
as to the practicability of judicial relief in the premises, I am
content to stand or fall by the judgment of my Fellow-citizens,
regarding the propriety of this expenditure.
The second suit cost the State not one cent.
The smallness of the expenditure in the first is attributable
to the public spirit and disinterested patriotism of the Solicitors
employed for the State. I take pleasure in testifying in regard
to both cases, that the people of Georgia owe a debt of gratitude they can never cancel, to Messrs. Charles O'Conor, Jeremiah S. Black, Robert J. Brent, David Dudley Field, and Edgar Cowan.
When I left the Executive office, I took with me the record
of warrants drawn upon the treasury, the book of receipts for
them, and other papers therewith connected, and the seal of
the Executive Department. It was my purpose to retain these
things in my own custody until I should see in the Executive
office a rightful incumbent, and then to restore them.
The removal of the books and papers was simply a cautionary measure for my own protection. Not so with the seal.
That was a symbol of the Executive authority; and although
devoid of intrinsic, material value, was hallowed by a sentiment
which forbade its surrender to unauthorized hands. Afterward,
while I was in Washington, vainly seeking the interposition of
the Supreme Court, a formal written demand was made upon
me by Gen. Ruger for a return of these articles, with which I
declined to comply.. The books and papers I herewith transmit
to your Excellency, that they may resume their place among




270                    APPENDIX.
the archives of the State.'With them, I also deliver to you
the seal of the Executive Department. I derive high satisfaction from the reflection that it has never been desecrated by the
grasp of a military Usurper's hand-never been prostituted to
authenticate, official misdeeds of an upstart Pretender. Unpolluted as it came to me, I gladly place it in the hands of a
worthy son of Georgia-her freely chosen Executive-my first
legitimate successor. Anticipating as the fruits of your Administration, distinguished honor to yourself, and lasting benefits to your confiding constituents, I am,
Your Excellency's ob't servant,
C. J. JENmms.




GENERAL ANALYTICAL INDEX.
A.                   CLAYTON, HON. ALEXANDER M., on election
ABSOLUTISM, 5'7, 58, 185, 193, 195.      of Mr. Davis to thePresidency, 147.
ADAMS, SAMUEL, 194.                    COBB, HOWELL,,147. 154.
AKERMAN, AMOS T., Attorney-General U. COLQUITT, GENERAL ALFREDil., 178.
S., reply to, by Stephens, 188.     CONFEDERATE STATES-Did not desire the
ALEXANDER, ADAM L., Dedication to, 4.    war nor did they inaugurate it, 44.
AMERICAN CONFLICT, 138.                COMPACT, Constitution of United States
L~AM~ES, F~ISHER, 135, 194..            on, between States, 67, 118, 126.
APPEIAL, I~MEMPHIS, 14'7, 1s'7.        CONSOLIDATION, 49, 50, 57, 58, 185.
CONSTITUTION OF THE U. S.i the position
ARISTOTLE, holds sovereignty to- be in-  ONSTITUTION OF THE U. S., the position
divisible, 111..        C       of Mr. Webster that it is not a ComARMAGEDDON, 224-25.                      pact between Sovereign States, 68;
First Articles of Confederation -first
B.:              Constitution, 104; Letter of Madison
in 1833, showing.that the Constitution
AILLOT-BOX, surest remedy, 1i, by, 136.    was made by the. States in their authorBANK OF AUGUSTA VS. EARLE, 73, 74.. itative capacity, 118; Is a compact
BARKSDALE, HON. E., 155, 157; Letter    between Sovereign States, 126.
between Sovereign States, 126.
from, to Mr. Stephens, 159; Sur-rejoin-  CONSTITUTIONALIST, Augusta, Ga., 13'7,der, 1'71.     G. T., Memorandum     Editorial from, 155, 167, 188.
BEAUREARD, GEN G. T., Memorandum    o        -Jo,    ouisville,,  14
COURIER-JOURNAL, Louisville, Ky., 147.
Of Council oftsar, signed by, and 1CRAWFORD, HON. MARTIN J., 148; L etter
others, 162.                          from, on election of Mr. Davis, 151.
BLEDSOE, ALBERT TAYLOR, LL. D., 10.    CRoWN-OrFIcER-would-be, Mr. AttorneyBlENJAMIN, JUDAH P., 23.                 General Akerman, 188, 193.
BOSTON, the "cause of the cause ofall          GEORGE T., his revie  of the
CURTIS, GEORGE T., his review  of the
"132  Constitutional View of the Late War
BROUGHIAM, LORD, 48, 198.                Between the States," etc., 61; His four
grounds of criticism on the "ConstituC.                     tional View," 73; The extent to which
CALHOUN, JOHN C., referred to, and de-   he holds the States to be-sovereign, 77;
fended against the charge* of having    Rejoinder by, 114.
denied the right of secession, 32; Referred to, 62, 68, 70; Held nullification
to be a Constitutional remedy, not
secession, 113.                     DAvIS, JEFFERSON, 29; Election to the
CAUSA CAUSANS or THE WAR, 39, 49.        Presidency of the Confederate States,
CENTRALISM, 49, 50, 57, 58, 185, 223-24.    147; Letter from, to Gen. Joseph E.
CHASE, SALMON P., 190 et sequens.        Johnston on Confederate inactivity in
CLARION, The,. 155.                     the Fall of 1861, i55.
CLAY, HENRY, 68, 106; Vote on Calhoun's  DEBATES, ELLIOT'S, referred to, 24.
resolution of 1837, declaring that the  DECLARATION. OF INDEPENDENCE, referred
Constitution was made by sovereign    to, 23.
States, 109.                        DE TOCQUEVILLE, MI., referred to, 34, 48.




272               GrENERAL ANALYTICAL INDEX.
DRAPER, DR. WILLIAM, History by, con- LoSSING, BENSON J., History by, contains
tains forged speech, 184,             forged speech, 184.
LUMPKIN, JOSEPH  HENRY, referred to,
E.                     105.
ELLIOT'S DEBATES, referred to, 24.                      M.
ELLIS, CHARLES, 11~7.
ELLIS, CHARLES,    13 51 194.]MACKENZIE, SIR GEORGE, referred to, 106.
ELLSWORTE, OLIVER, 135, 194.           MADISON, JAMES, referred to, 34, 57,194;
EMIPIRE, 50, 185, 193, 195.    Letter from, to Webster, on his speech
in 1833, 118, 129.
MAHON, LORD, referred to, 25.
FEDERALIST, referred to, 27, 28.       MANASSAS, Confederate inactivity after
FILMER,. SIR ROBERT, referred to, 106.   the battle of, in 1861, 155.
FINEGAN, GEN. JOSEPH, 178.             MARSHALL, JOHN, 192, 194, 195.
FORCE BILL, 68.                        MEMORANDUM OF COUNCIL OF WAR, signed
FORNEY, COL. JOHN W., Stephens' reply    by Gens. Smith, Beauregard, and Johnto, on Forged Speech, 180.             ston, 162.
METAXiPYSICS, not applicable to the facts
G.                     connectdd with the history of the FedGREELEY, HON. HORACE, 137.               eral Government, 56.
GROTIUS, holds sovereignty to be indivis-  MONARCHY, 57.
ible, 111.                          MONROE, JAMES, 5/7.
H.                   MORNING CHRONICLE, Washington, D. C.,
forged speech, 180.
HABEAS CORPUS, writ of, 145.           MfDDLE 117, 128.
HALLAm —on the "aggressor in a war,            117 128.
44.
HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, 135, 194, 195.
HANCOCK, JOHN, 194.                    NAPOLEON III., his " Life of Julius Caesar,"
HAYNE, HON. ROBERT Y., 63, 65.          referred to, 25.
-HENRY, PATRICK, 135, 209.             NATION, what kind of a Nation the FedHOLCOMBE, JAMES P., 23.                  eral Union constitutes, 46, 47.
HUME, DAVID, referred to, 106.         NATIONAL  INTELLIGENCER, Washington,
D. C., 39.
NEW ERA, Reply to, by Stephens, 196; Rejoinder by, 207 7; Sur-rejoinder to, 214.
IMPERIALISM, 0, 18, 193, 195.  NICHOLS, HON. S. S., 39; Reply to his
INAUGURATION OF THE WAR, 42, 43.         article by Mr. Stephens, 40, et sequens;
J                      His rejoinder'to Mr. Stephens, 50; Mr.
Stephens' sur-rejoinder to him, 53,137.
JACKSON, ANDREW, Farewell Address, 58; NILES' REGISTER, referred to, 23.
Proclamation of 1832, 63; Did not  NULLIFICATION, 63, 68, 106, 113, 118.
approve Webster's speech made in
1833, did approve Virginia Resolutions                0.
of'98, Ky., 107, 128, 194, 195.
f'98, Ky., 107, 128, 194, 19.  OLUSTEE, OR OCEAN POND, battle of, 177.
JEFFERSON, THOMAS, referred to, 34, 46, ORIGIN OF THE WAR, 42, 43.
4/7, 48, 57, 13/7, 194.
JENKINS, CHARLES J., Appendix No. III.  OTHODOX STATE RIGHT PRINCIPLE, 45.
JOHNSTON, GEN. JOSEPH E., Letter from,                  P
to Mr. Davis on Confederate Inactivity
in Fall of 1861, 156; Memorandum of  PARDON, 58.
Council of War, signed by, and others, PARSONS, THEOPHILUS, 194.
162.                                PAUL, ST., 59.
L.                   PEACE CONGRESS, 190.
LEADER, THE BALTIMORE, 9.              PUFFENDORFF, holds sovereignty to be in.
LEE, BENJAMIN WATKINS, 106.              divisible, 111.
LIEBER, DR. FRANCIS, referred to, 24;
Holds sovereignty to be indivisible, 112.             R.
LINCOLN, ABRAHAM, 137, 201, 213.       RALLE'S TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTION,
LIVINGSTON, EDWARD, 63, 130.             referred to, 33.




GENERAL ANALYTIC0AL INDEX.                           273
RANDALL, JAMES R., 155, 162, 167.        Reply to the New Era, 196; Rejoinder
REPUBLICAN, SAVANNAH, Ga., editorial.  to, by same, 207; Sur-rejoinder to, 214;
from, 177.                            Union speech before the Georgia LegRESOLUTIONS, Kentucky, of'98, 48, 58,   islature, 202, 203; Speech by, in 1834,
135, 194; First, of Mr. Calhoun in the    204-206.
Senate in 1837i 108; Sustained by  STEPHENS, LINTON, 226; Speeches on Reeighteen States against six, 109.     construction, Appendix, Nos. I. and
REVIEW, THE SOUTHERN, 10.                II.
STORY, JOSEPH, 132.
SECESSION, justification of, 55; Abandon-               T.
ment of, 55, 226; Not a living issue, TARIFF, Compromise Bill of, in 1833,106.
56; The right of, not Constitutional or  THEORY, Government of U. S. not subjectRevolutionary, but Sovereign, 18 et se-   matter of, 215-21'7.
quens, 31, 44, 51.                  THUCYDIDES, referred to, 21, 22, 25.
SHERMAN, ROGER, 135.                  TooMBs, ROBERT, 23, 147, 152, 153.
SMITH, GEN. GUSTAVUS W.-Memorandum  TRIBUNE, NEW YORK, 137.
of Council. of War signed by, and  TUCKER's COMiMENIARIES, referred to, 33.
others, 162.
SMITH, JAMES M., Appendix No. III.                      U.
SNEED, JAMES R., 178.                 UNION, The, of the States, Federal and
SOUTH CAROLINA, Act on Nullification Or-    Conventional, 31.
dinance, 137.
SOUTHERN REVIEW, THE, 10.                               V. I
SOVEREIGNTY —Whe re it resides in the
mSOVEREIGNTY-Where it resides in the  VATTEL, quoted by Mr. Webster, t6, 221;
American system, 45; Daniel Webster    Holds Sovereignty to be indivisible,
upon,'5; Indivisible in itself, just as
the mind is in the individual organism,
111; May put restraints upon its ex-                 W.
ercise without parting with any portion  WADE, BENJAIN F., 13'7.
of its essence, 113; Popular Sov- WASHINGTON, GEORGE, 57; Styled the
ereignty, 137, 144.                   Union a "Confederated Republic,"
STATESMAN, THE BALTIMORE, 9.             131, 194.
STEPHENS, ALEXANDER H., review by, of  WEBSTER, DANIEL, referred to, 28, 61, 63;
Dr. Bledsoe's Review, 10; Reply of, to    His four propositions on which rests
Judge Nicholas, 39; Sur-rejoinder to    his assumption that the Constitution
same,.53; Reply by, to Mr. Curtis' Re-   of the United States is "not a comrn
view, 92; Comments by,.on Webster's   pact between Sovereign States," 69;
speech in the case of the Bank of Au-    His reply to Mr. Calhoun, in 1833,'70;
gusta vs. Earle, and at Capon Springs,    His position in the case of the Bank
96, 99; On Force Bill, 102; His con-    of Augusta vs. Earle, 73, 74,'75; His
sistency on the Right of Secession, 13,   letter to the Barings, 79;;His speech
14 et sequens; On Mr. Lincoln's elec-   at Capon Springs, in which he held
tion as a just cause of Secession, 14;   that the Constitution. was " a compact
Secession maintained by him, not as a    between States," and that a bargain
Constitutional or Revolutionary, but a    cannot be broken on one side and still
Sovereign Right, 18 et sequens, 31, 44;    bind the other side, his position that,
Sur-rejoinder by, to Mr. Curtis, 123;    81; State Secession a Revolutionary
Reply by, to Horace Greeley's criticism,    right, 90; Letter to, from Madison on
137; Reply by, to Alexander M. Clay-   his speech in 1833, 118.
ton, 149; Reply and rejoinder to  WEBSTER, DR. NOAH, referred to, 34;
Barksdale, 169; Rebuttal to same; 163;   Mutilation of his Dictionary, 220, 221.
On battle of Olustee or Ocean Pond, WORLD, THE NEW YORK, Letters to, in
1'7'7; On forged speech, 180; Speech    the Curtis Controversy, 61, 91, 114,
by him in Secession Convention, 186;    123.
THE END.
18








Recont Scientific Publicatiols by  D. Appleton  &  Co.
LYELLT.-PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY (Vol. I.); or, the Modern Changes of the Earth
and its Inhabitants considered, as illustrative of Geology.  By Sir CHARLES LYELL,
Bart., M. A., F. R. S. In two volumes.  8vo.
This is a new edition (the eleventh) of this, great work. It has been entirely and carefully revised, and is illustrated with numerous Maps, Plates, and Woodcuts. Vol. II. will be issued during
the present year.
SCHELLEN.-SPECTRUM  ANALYSIS, in its Application to Terrestrial Substances,
and the Physical Constitution of the Heavenly Bodies. Familiarly explained by Dr.
H. SCHELLEN, Director der Realschule I. O. Cologne, Ritter des Rothen Adlerordens IV.
KL., Associate of several Learned Societies. Translated from the second enlarged
and revised German edition, by Jane and Caroline Lassell.  Edited, with:  Notes, by
Win. Huggins, LL. D., D. C. L., F. R. S. With numerous Woodcuts, Colored Plates,
and Portraits; also, Angstr6m's and Kirchhoff's Maps. 455 pp. 8vo. Cloth. Price, $6.
The colored plates illustrating this edition of the work, requiring -great care in printing, were
executed in London.
"This admirable work does credit to, or should we say is worthy of, the author, the translators, and the editor. The first part treats on the artificial  sources of high degrees of heat and
light; the second on Spectrum Analysis in its application to the heavenly bodies. We must approve the method followed in the translation, and by the editor. In many translations the.views
of the author are-suppressed, in order that the views of the translator or editor may be expounded;
but here Dr. Huggins, however leniently such a fault might -have been looked upon with him, has
permitted the author's views to remain intact, clearly stating his own, and wherein lies the difference."'-Chemical News,
LUBBOCK.-PRE-HISTORIC  TIMES, as, illustrated by An'ient Remains, and the
Manners and Customs of Modern Savages.  By Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart., M. P., VicePresident of the Royal Society; of the British Association, etc.  1 vol., 8vo, 640 pp.
Plates and Illustrations.  Cloth.  Price, $5.00.
" Fully satisfied that religion and science cannot in reality be at variance, I have striven, in
the present publication, to follow out the rule laid down by the Bishop of. London.in his excel.
lent lecture, delivered last year at Edinburgh.'The man of science,' says Dr. Tait,' ought to go
on honestly, patiently,' diffidently, observing and stirring up his observations; and carrying his
reasonings unflinchingly to their.legitimate conclusions, convinced that it would be treason to
the majesty a~ once of science and of religion, if he sought to help either by swerving ever so little from the straight rule of truth.' "-Extract.from Preace.
HUXLEY.-ANATOMY OF VERTEBRATED ANIMALS. By THOMAS HENRY HUxLEY, LL. D., F. R. S., author of " Man's Place in Nature," "On the Origin of Species,"
"Lay Sermons and Addresses," etc.  I vol., 12mo.  Cloth. Price, $2.50.
The former works of Professor Huxley leave no room for doubt as to the importance And value
of his new volume. It is one which will be very acceptable to all who are interested in the subject
of which it treats.
"This long-expected work will be cordially welcomed by all students and teachers of Comparative Anatomy as a compendious, reliable, and, notwithstanding its small dimensions, most comprehensive guide on the subject of which it treats. To.praise or to criticise the work of so accomplished a master of his favorite science would be equally out of place. It is enough to say
that it realizes, in a remarkable degree, the anticipations which have been formed of it; and that
it presents an extraordinary combination of wide, general views, with the clear, accurate, and
succinct statement of a prodigious number of individual facts."-.Nature.
NICHOLSON. —A MANUAL OF ZOOLOGY, for the Use of Students.  With a General Introduction on the Principles of Zoology.  By HENRY ALLEYNE NICHOLSON, M. D.,
D. Sc., M.'A.,- Ph. D. (Gitt.), F. R. S. E., F. G. S., Professor of Natural -History and
Botany in University College, Toronto; formerly Lecturer on Natural History in the
Medical School of Edinburgh; Vice-President of the Geological Society of Edinburgh.
Second edition, revised and considerably enlarged. 1'vol., 8vo, 673 pages.
DESCHANEL.-ELEMENTARY TREATISE ON NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. By
A. PRIVAT DESCHANEL, formerly Professor of Physics in the Lycee Louis-le-Grand,
Inspector of the Academy of Paris. Translated and edited, with extensive additions,
by J. D. EVERETT, Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Queen's College, Belfast. To
be, completed in Four Parts. Part I. Mechanics, Hydrostatics, and'Pneumatics;
Part II. Heat, and Part III. Physics, are now ready in separate volumes. Copiously
illustrated.  8vo. Flexible cloth. Price, $2.00 each.
HINTON.-MAN AND HIS DWELLING-PLACE. By JAMES HINTON, author of the
"Mystery of Pain." 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, $1.S5.
The'author of this work holds a unique position among the thinkers of the age. He brings to
the discussion of man and Nature, and the higher problems of human life, the latest and most
throrough scientific preparation, and constantly employs the later dynamic philosophy in dealing
with them. But he is broader than the scientific school which he recognizes, but with him the
moral and religious elements of man are supreme. He conjoins strict science with high spirituality of view.  "Man and his Dwelling-Place " is here rewritten and compressed, and presents,
in a pointed and attractive style, original aspects of the most engaging questions of the time.




Scientific Publications  of  D. Appleton  &  Co.
DARWIN.-THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES  PROCTOR  (R. A.) —LIGHT SCIENCE
by Means; of.Natural: Selection, or the  FOR LEISURE'HOURS. A Series of
Preservation-of Favored Races in the: -  Familiar Essays on Scientific Subjects,
Struggle for Life. New and.revised       Natural Phenomena, etc. 1 vol., 12mo.
edition, with Additions. With Copious.   Cloth. Price, $1.75.
Index.  1 vol., 12mo.  Cloth. Price,
$2;00. -        -'    An- instructive and entertaining volume to
the student of science, and of astronomy.: THE::'~DESCENT,.OF. M., -Mand      -:Selection in Relation to Se xo With  SPENCER  (HERBERT). —ED U C Amany  -Illustrations. -.2:voIs;, l12mo..,b TION,i Intellectual,- Moral, and Physi.
Cloth. Price, $4.00.:                 cal. i2m0o..Clotht  Price, $1.25.
T~ his work, in which the:author expresses his  FIRST PRINCIPLES. 12mo. Cloth.
peculiar views boldly and forcibly, has been
widely read and-, criticised, and; whatever may:   Prce,$2.50.   -... 
be the opinion arrived-at in regard to-his theories, the reader cannot: fail to,, obtain:pleasure.__.CLASSIFICATION:  OF TESCIand profit in its:perusal. - -......::.!                          SC....... —:...:;:..'. ~ --; -'.'':: — ENCES.._ 8vo. Paper..-Price, 25:cts.:JOURNAL OF RESE&ARCHES into... 
the Natural History and Geology of the       ESSAYS: Moral, Political, andlstCountries visited during the Voyage-of: -theflic: i  vol.,: 12mo.  Cloth.: Price,
H. M,. S. Beagle round the World. *A:$2.50.;: 
new edition, uniform'with ".Origin of          -::
Species "and "Descent of Man. 1 voL, ~:    ILTRUSTRATIONSl.OF UNIVER12mo.  Cloth. Price, $2.00Q   SAL PIROGRESS.:   A Selection of his
-    best Papers.:- 1 vol.,- 12mo.. Cloth.
An interesting account of a voyage of scien-  bet Papers                  Cth'tiac research and discovery..                Price, $2.50.
HUXLE Y.-MAN'S  -PLACE; IN  ~NA-:.           SOCIAL STATICS; or, the Con- TURE. 1-vol., 121no. Cloth.  Price, -    ditiOns Essential to Human Hiappiness
$1.25.              *-.  -       l ot.: Pi, - Specified, andthe First of tliem Developed.  1 vol.,. 2mo.  Cloth. Price,
ON  THE  ORIGIN  OF SPECIES.:$2.50..
1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, $1.00.: —  LAY  SERMONS, Addresses, and 5             THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY,.:. Reviews.; 1'vol., 12mo..Cloth.: Price,    - 2vols., 12mo.;' Cloth. Price, $.00.
_::: ELEMENTS  OF' PHYSIOILOGY,  _   THIE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLand.Hygiene. By T. HI. Huxley a-nd     -OGY: Part I.:Data- of -Psychology.
and Hygiene..  By T.. H uxley'and
ORE CR ITICISSi ON:DARWIN,. ivols. vl8v.. Paper. Price, 75 cents;
and Adinistrtive   Nihilism.: 1 5vol,  Part III. General Synthesis; Part IV.
12mo.  Price, 5P0 cents...mo.         cents.:. Special. Synthesis.   Paper.  -Price,.- Valuable to all who are interested in scientific:   $1.00;:  Part V. Physical: Smthesis.
study or reaing.                              Paper. Price, 75 cents.          n
PROCTOR (R. A.)-OTHIER:WORLDS:: TEHE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLTHAN: OURS: the Plurality of Worlds,    - OGY. Vol. I., 8vo.:Cloth. Price, $2.50.
1Studied under the Lig'nt of-Recent Sci- -..
entific Researches.  By Richard A.    - WORKES.'7 vols., 8vo. Half Calf.
Proctor, B. A.,.F. R.: A. S., authior of  Price, $28.00.
"Saturn and its System," " Sun Views    The works of Herbert Spencer have atained
of the Earth,"" Half Hours with the  a prominence and a reputation, in America
Telescope,"- etc.  W ith Illustrations, -  -even greater thanin:England, and herstands the
some colored. -1-2mo. Cloth.  Pice  acknowledged leader of a- school ofphilosophy
SdOie                -    -';which  counts many- students and thinkers'2"Su.50d its.:          among his followers.




S  ientic fi   Pubilicatiois  of. D A Appleton-   &   Co,
TYNDA LL.-HEAT  AS A  MODE  OF'YOUMANS (E. L.)-CLASS-BOOK  OF
MOTION. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price,         CHEMISTRY.  New.edition.  12mo.
$2.0bo.                                     Price, $1.75..-. ON  SOUND: A  Course of Eight              ATLAS OF CHEMISTRY.  1 vol.,
Lectures delivered at the Royal Institu-    4to.  Cloth. Price, $3.00.
tion of Great Britain. By John Tyn-            CHART OF CHEMISTRY, On Rolldall, LL. D., F. R. S. Illustrated.  1      er. Price, $8.00.
ol12mo.'loth:  Price, $2.00..               HAND-BOOK' OF  HOUSEHOLD
SCIENCE.  12mino.  Price, 81.75.
FRAGMENTS OF. SCIENCE. FOR                        THE CULTURE:DEMANDED BY
UNSCIENTIFIc   PEOPLE. A Series  MODERN LIFE::- A Series   of Addressqf Detached Essays, Lectures, and Re-       es and Arguments on the Claims  of
views..121mno..Clothla.  Price, $2.00.: Scientific Educatioin.- Edited, with an
- LICGHT —' iAND"- -EILECTRICITY:        Introduction on Mental Discipline in
Notes of -Two, Courses of Lectures be-:  Education,':by Edw'ard — L' Y:oumans,
fore the Royal- Institution of Great  M:-:.  D..:.1 vol.,:12no..:':Cloth.  PPice,
Britain.. 12mo.  Cloth. Price, $1.25.V   $2.00.
-  CORRELATION AND CONSERHOURS OF EXERCISE IN    VATION.OF: FORCES: A -Series of
ALPS.  Witll Illustrations.  12mno.
Clotl -Prie82.00.1 --  ~ -   -. Ekpositions b prof.'Grove,.Pr  f. Helm-.  holtz, -Dr. Mayer, Dr. Faraday; Prof.
ON  RADIATION.  The i Rede'"             Liebig, and  Dr. Carpent.er. Edited,
Lecture delivered in the Sepate House       with an..Introduction and Brief Biobefore the University of Cambridge,         graphical Notices of the Chief PromotEnglahd,; on: Tuesday,'May 16; 1865.      c  ers: of.the New Views, -byEdward r.
Authoitr of H.' Heat consid'ered as a Mode  Youmans, M. D:..ivol., limo.. Cloth.
of' Motion."   1 vol., 12mo.' Cloth.        Price, $2.00.
Price,"50 cenuats.'.                     Tile Atlantic i  onttldy says of Professor Youman.  -  s::'- His time seems to'be wholly devoted to
Important works by. one of England's great-  the disinterested service of -science and of his
est scientists.    -—. -'  fellow-men."
D. Appleton, & Co. have.just published:
i,...... c'A? TREATISE ON. ETHNOLOGY.
By' the 1ev.,' E DWARD' FONTAINE,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND NATURAL SCIENCE.;. A MEMBER OF THE, NEW YORK, HISTORICAL
S SOCIETY, AND OF THE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES OF NEW ORLEANS, BALTIMORE, ET.
This learned; but simple and intelligible, book. is the result of more than thirtyyears'cagreful
study of ancient and modern history, and the archeology of all nations. By his independent researches' in unexplored fields, aided by a thorought knowledge of geology, physical geography, and
natural.history,' as far as those:-sciences have been matured by others, he has succeeded, he thinks,
in so arranging incontrovertible facts as to settle., satisfactorily the disputed question of the origin
and antiquity. of mankind. His researches have brought him to the: conclusion of Alexander von:Humboldt, and his brother William, that we are all the descendants of one originally created pair,
as theBible teaches. This places him in'oppositioni to Sir Roderick Murchison, Professor Agassiz,
MIr. Darwin, and many other'eminent naturalists.  Mr. Fontaine's book will commend itself
especially to students of theology, clergymen of-all-ihurches, and the professors of colleges.
Every argument heretofore advanced against the biblical account of the origin of man is fairly
stated, and:even more strongly propounded than- by its advocates.'-It is:then replied to candidly
and clearly, and, as the author' thinks,;:conclusively. He seems to believe'.that no comprehensive'
and honest reasoner can read the book carefully without coming to the conclusion that the Mosaic
cosmnogonysis correct, and that the account given in Genesis of the origin of mankind is true.




ScienifiO   Pllicatific  P liations  of D. Appleto    &   Co.
Allen's Philosophy of the Mechanics of Nature. 1 vol., 8vo..$ 3.50
Antisell's Mlanufacture of Hydro-Carbon Oils. 1 vol., 8vo..  2.00
Appletons'9" Cyclopaedia of Drawing.  1 vol., 8vo............. 10.00
" ~ Dictionary of Mlechanics.  2 vols., 8vo............  18.00
Architecture of Victorian  Age., I vol., 4to, half calf............ 12.00
aBain's M]ental Science.  1 vol., 12o..........................  1.75
"  Mloral Science. 1 vol., 12mo................'..... 1.75
"     Senses and  Intellect.   1 vol., 8vo...5................... 5.00
Bourne's Catechism   Steam-Engine.  1 vol., 12mo.............  1.75
EHand-Book   " C1 vol., 12mo.............  1.75
" Treatise on   "                        1"  vol., 4to............  15.00
CC" " Screw  Propellers, etc.  1 vol., 4to... 24.00
Clark's M1ind in Nature.  1 vol., 8vo.............................  3.50
Cleveland &  3Backus's Architecture   1 vol., 8vo............. 4.00
Correlation and Conservation of ]Forces.  A Series of Expositions by Professor GROVE, Professor HELMHOLTZ, Dr. MAYER, Dr. FARADAY,
Professor LIEBIG, antd Dr. CARPENTER. Edited, with Introduction, by E. L.
YOUMANS, M. D. 1 vol., 12m'o..........................   2.00
Downing's Architecture.  1 vol., 8vo............................ 6.00
Ede on  Steel.  1 vol.,  12mo...................0.....................   1.0
Egloffsteia's Geology and Physical Geography of Mllex.
ico.  1 vol., 8vo.............................................  3.00
Ennis's Origin of the Stars.  1 vol., 12mo......................  2.00
Enthoffer's Manual of Topography.  1 vol. Text and Atlas... 15.00
Gillespie's Surveying.- 1 vol., 8vo.............................  3.00
L" onr ILevelling, TopographyX etc.  1 vol., 8vo.....  2.00
Gosse on the ]Microscope.  1 vol., 12mo.......................... 1.50
Haupt on  Bridge Construction.  1 vol., 8vo..................  3.50
Hlenck's Field-Booli for Railway  Engineers.  I vol., 12mo.  2.50
Holly's Country Seats.  1 vol., 8vo...............     5.00
Knapen's MIPechanic's Assistant.   1 vol., 12mo................  1.50
iebig's Natural Laws of Husbandry. 1 vol., 12mo.... 1.50
]Lubbock's Origin  of Civilization.  1 vol., 12mo...............  2.00
MiB~asury orn House Painting.  I vol., 12mo.....................  1.50
Miivart's Genesis of Species.  1 vol., 12mo.....................  1.75
Overman's MIetallurgy.   1 vol., 8vo..............................  5.00
Ritter's Comparative Geography of Palestine. 4 vols., 8vo.. 14.00
Ioscoe's Spectrum  Analysis.  1 vol., 8vo............  9.00
Russell's (J.1. Scott) Naval Architecture.   1 vol., folio........ 50.00
Simonin's Underground  Life.  1 vol., imp..8vo, half morocco..... 16.00
Templeton's Mechanics Pocket Conmpanion. 1 vol., 16mo..   2.00
Truran on Iron.  1 vol., 8vo..................................... 10.00
Ure's Dictionary of Arts, lManufactures, and lMines. 3
vols., 8vo......................                                       15.00
~Wilson's Mechanic's  and  Builder's  Price-Book.  1 vol.,
12mo..'1.75
*** Descriptive Catalogues furnished on application. Any of the above works mailed free on
receipt of price. Remittances by postal money-order to the Publishers,
D. APPLETON & CO., 549 & 551 Broadway, N. Y.




Books  recently  plublishod by D. Appleton  &  Co., New  York.
Any book pubgished by D. Appleton & Co., mailed, post-paid, to any address within the United
States, on receipt of price.
COOPER'S LEATHER-STOCKING  TALES.  A new, handsomely-illustrated
edition of the more popular novels of JAMES FENIMORE COOPER, is now in course
of publication.  The series begins with " The Last of the Mohicans," and will be
followed rapidly by "The Deerslayer," "The Pathfinder," "The Pioneers," and
"The Prairie," which completes what is known as' The Leather-Stocking Tales."
Each novel is printed from new stereotype plates, with numerous entirely new Illustrations, and published in octavo volumes, paper covers. - Price, 75 cents each.
In February, 1872, D. Appleton & Co. became the publishers of all the editions of CooPER's
NOvELS. Particulars of new styles, prices, etc., will be hereafter announced.
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND MODERN SKEPTICISM. By the DKE
OF SOMERSET, K. G. 1 vol., 12mo, cloth  Price, $1.00.
RECOLLECTIONS  OF  PAST  LIFE.  By.Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Bart.,,M.D.,
F. R. S., D. C. L., etc., President of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Physicianin-Ordinary to the Queen. 12mo, cloth, 350 pages. Price, $2.00.
Sir Henry Holland's "Recollections" extend over a period of sixty years. He was a great
traveller, and had met distinguished people in every land, from Ali Pl'cha the Great of Albania,
whom he visited sixty years ago, to President Lincoln and Secretary Seward, whom he met in
his last visit to this country. Hlis "Recollections" are agreeably told, and.the volume is an exceedingly entertaining one.
THE " HANDY VOLUME " EDITION OF CHAS. DICKENS'S WORKS.
Published in cloth, extra, handsomely stamped. 12mo. With Illustrations. To be
completed in fourteen volumes. Now ready: "Pickwick Papers," 1 vol.; "Oliver
TWist" and "Christmas Stories," 1 vol.; "Dombey and Son," 1 vol.; "Martin
Chuzzlewit," 1 vol.; "Our Mutual Friend," 1 vol.;;"Old Curiosity Shop" and
"American Notes," 1 vol.; "Nicholas Nickleby," 1 vol.; "David Copperfield," 1
vol.; " Barnaby Rudge" and "Edwin Drood," 1 vol.; and "Little Dorrit," 1 vol.
Price,'75 cents per vol.
VOLTAIRE,.  By JOHN MORLEY.  1 vol., SVo, cloth. Price, $3.50.
MOHAMMED  ALI AND  HIS HOUSE.  An Historical Romance. By LouIsA
MUHLBACH. With Illustrations by Alfred Fredericks.  1 vol., 8vo, paper covers,
230 pages. Price, $1.00; cloth, $1.50.
NOVELS OF JULIA  KAVANAGH.  New uniform Library Edition. In cloth,
12mo, price $1.25.  Now ready: "Nathalie,"  1 vol.; "Daisy Burns," I vol.;
"Queen Mab," 1 vol.
THE  K XEDGE-ANCHOR; or, YOUNG SAILORS' ASSISTANT.  Appertaining to the
Practical Evolutions of Modern Seamanship, Rigging, Knotting, Splicing, Blocks,
Purchases, Running-Rigging, and other Miscellaneous Matters applicable to Shipsof-War and others.  Illustrated with Seventy Engravings.  Also, Tables of Rigging,
Spars, Sails, Blocks, Canvas, Cordage, Chain and Hemp Cables, Hawsers, etc., relative to every Class of Vessels.  By WM: N. BRADY, Sailing-Master U. S. N. Eighteenth edition, improved and enlarged, with additional matter, Plates, and Tables.
1 vol., 8vo. Cloth. Price, $3.50.
ELEMENTARY TREATISE ON NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. By A.
PRIVAT DESCHANEL, formerly Professor of Physics in the Lycde Louis-le-Grand,
Inspector of the Academy of Paris. - Translated andedited, with extensive additions, by J. D. EVERETT, Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Queen's College,
Belfast. To be completed in Four Parts. Part I. Mechanics, Hydrostatics, and
Pneumatics; Part II. Heat, and Part III. Physics, are now ready, in separate volumes.  Copiously illustrated.  8vo. Flexible cloth.  Price, $2.00 each.
PRE-HISTORIC  TIMES, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the Manners and
Customs of Modern Savages. By Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart., author of "Origin of
Civilization."  1 vol., 8vo.  With numerous Illustrations and Lithographic Plates.
640 pages.
THE LEADERS OF PUBLIC OPINION in IRELAND —SWIFT, FLOOD,
GRATTAN, O'CONNELL.  By Wma. EDWARD HARTIPLE LECKY, M. A.  1 vol.,
12mo, cloth.- Price, $1.75.




Sir HrNiTR:;HOLLAND'S RECOLVECTIONS.
RECOLLECTIONS OF PAST LIE.By Sir HENRY- HOLLAND, Bart,.  1 vol., 12mo   ClotH, 50 pages.- Price, $2. - 
From  the London Lancet.
"'The'Life of Sir'Henry Holland is one to be recollected, and he h has not erred 
giving an outline of it to:the publicJ In the very nature of things it is such a life as
cannot often be repeated.  Even if there were many men in the profession: capable of
living to the age of eightyfour, and'then writing their life.with fair hope -of:further
travels, it is not reasonable to expect that there could ever be more than a very few
lives so full of incidents worthy of being recorded autographically as-the marvllous life
which we are fresh from perusing..- The combination of personal qualities and favorable
opportunities in'Sir Henry Holland's case.is as rare as it is happy. But that is one reason for recording the history of it.: - Sir Henry's life: cannot be'very closely imitated, but
it may be closely. studied..':We:have found the study of it, as recorded in thebookl just
published, one of the- most, delightful pieces.'of recretion  which we-have enjoyed for.many days....  Among his patients -were pachas:, princes, and premiers. Prince'Abert, Napoleon'III., Talleyrand, P~ozzo di B:orgo, Guizot,'Palmlla:, Bulow, and Drouyn de
Lhuys, Jefferson Day is, Lord Sidmouth, Lord Stowell, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston;
Lord Aberdeen, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Lyndhurst, to say nothing of men of other-note,
*were: among. his patients. -":    -..
From'he London:Spectator.::  
"We constantly find ourselves recalling the Poet Laureate's moderinized Ulysse, the
great wanderer, insatiate of.ney- experiences, as we read the story of'the'octogenarian
traveller and his many: friends:in many lands::..-....'.I am become anam —e; 
For always roaming with a hungry heart,
Much hate I seen and known. -Cities ofmen
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
-Myself not least and honored of them all.
You see in this book all this and more than this-knowledge of the world,:and- insatiable
thirst for more-knowledge.of.-it,. great clearness of aim and exact appreciation of the;
mind's own wants, precise knowledge of the self-sacrifices needed to' gratify those Wa nts'
and a- readiness for those sacrifices, a distinct-adoption of'an economy of life,. aId steady
adherence to it from beginning to end-all of them characteristics which are but rare in
this somewhat:c:onfused''.and handa-to-mouth world, and which'certainly when.ombined.
*make a unique study of'character, however indirectly' it:may be presented'to'us' and
however little attention may be Ddrawn.to the interior -of the picture."    -' 
~From  the New Yor k Times. 
"His memory was —is, we may say, for he iis-still alive and   e in posseossionfall his
faculties-stored-with recollections of the:most eminent men and women of:this: century.
He has known the intimate friends of Dr. Jolhnson.. He travelled in Albania. when All
Pacha ruled, -and has since then explored almost every part of the world, except ithe far
East. He has made eightvisits to this couqntry, and at:the age of eighty-two (in 1:869)'
he was here'again —the guest.of- Mr. Evarts, and,'while in this city, of:Mr. Thurlow
Weed.: Since then hehas made' a.voyage to Jmaica and the Wes: IndiaIslands and a
second visit to Iceland. He was a friend ofSir'WalterScott, Loekhat,'Dugald Steiwart,
me. de.Stai1, Byr, n,. Moore,   Campbell Rogers,  Crabbe, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Talleyrand,' Sydney Smith, Macaulay, Haliam, Macklintosh;  Malthus',.:Erskine,  HumSboldt,
Schlegel, Canova,.Sir Humphry':Davy, JoannaBaillie,n Lord and Lady:.Holland, and many.
other:distinguished" person se names would:'occu'py a column. I. " Ih ethis -countr'y'he';
has known, -among'other celebrateda-men, Edward Everett, Daniel WebsCter! sry; Clay,
Abrahanm' Lincoln, Seward, etc. He was born the same year-in:which he'United Sates
Constitution was ratified. A life extending over such a period, and passed inthe most
active- iianner,:in' the' tmidst:of thie, best: society which the world: hts i offer,'must neces
sarily be full' of singular: interest;*- and Sir. Henry -Holland has fortunately not'waited
uutil his memory lost its freshness before recalling some of the incidents in/'it."