the short night to feed the fires, the elder one alert, the two younger
drowsy and but half awake; her mind wandered with Humboldt and Bonpland
to South America, with Dr. Kane to the Arctic zone, with Winthrop over
the Rocky Mountains, with Dr. Livingstone to Central Africa, and with
Father Huc to Tartary and Thibet. The busy, confined life of a city
seemed an absurdity, the woods the only rational place for human beings
to dwell in, and spruce boughs the only bed suitable to the dignity of
mankind.

Morning broke, and with the dawn the guides were up preparing
breakfast. Bill of fare: Salt pork, first parboiled to extract the
brine, then drained off and fried crisp, bread and butter, toast,
crackers, and tea, with maple sugar, but without milk. Our little tin
pail served alike to draw water, boil hasty pudding, and make tea. But
although the day had dawned and the sun risen, the light was feeble, and
the elder guide shook his head ominously.

'Indeed,' said he, 'it won't be much use to go on up, for the Haystack
looks so blue that _durn'd_ haze must have come back again, and you'll
have no view from _Mercy_ to-day.'

'Well, it can't be helped, but we'll try it anyhow!' was the unanimous
response.

We were a mile and a half from the top of Tahawus, having already
entered the great belt of spruce encircling the middle regions of the
mountain, and having left behind all deciduous trees except a few
birches. The forest here is especially grand, the original wood still
remaining, tall, wide of girth, dark, and sturdy. The girdled trees
standing near our camp looked at us reproachfully in the morning light;
ten giants doomed to death to furnish a night's covering to six pigmies!
Our fires, too, were they safe, or might they not run along the
inflammable turf and perhaps destroy acres of beautiful, precious
timber?

But time pressed, 'the dishes were washed,' and we must away. All the
heavy articles were left in the camp, and nothing taken up with us
except a light lunch, a canteen of water, and the shawls needed to
protect against the winds on the top. The little stream crossed, the
ascent began quite steeply. A half mile of walking brought us out of the
wood, and to the foot of the great slide, a bare, sloping rock, some
thousand feet in height. Up this slide, either on the rock, or beside
it, through the bushes and the spruce trees, which soon become low and
shrubby, leads the pathway, not difficult, but somewhat fatiguing, from
its steepness. Indeed, the whole way up is so excellent one wonders so
high a mountain can be ascended with so little exertion or actual
climbing. In places, the moss is some, six inches thick, and the feet,
worn with stony ways, sink into it as if there to find lasting repose;
but _Excelsior_ is the cry, and the top of the slide the next goal to be
won.

Meantime the haze had been turning into mist, and great clouds were
gathering on the bare, rocky head of the mountain. The slide passed, the
path winds through dense, low spruce growth, and, the last steep cliffs
gradually overcome, the extreme limit of tree vegetation (four thousand
eight hundred feet) is passed, and the remaining rocky slope offers no
growth except a few hardy plants, such as sandwort, grasses, and several
varieties of moss and lichen.

The summit is broad, and, although in part composed of broken rocks, is
quite compact in structure. Its general form is rounded and dome-like.

But the view?

Here we were among the clouds, the wind blowing freshly, and the mists
sweeping past, obscuring every object below. In this wind lay our hope,
and scarcely less in the mists, for they might be the means of
dispersing the haze. There went a rift, a patch of blue sky--and there a
bit of green mountain! Then again all was leaden, damp, and cold. We
seemed to have reached the Ultima Thule, to be the sole living creatures
in some far-away corner of an earth gone back to chaos and mysterious
twilight. Again a break, and again appeared a stretch of dark
fir-covered mountain tops, an avalanche-riven peak, a bright, green
field, or a corner of some far-away blue water. This hide-and-go-seek
between landscape and mist lasted some half hour, when the clouds all
rolled away, and left us with bright sunlight and the most glorious view
our eyes had ever rested upon. The extreme distance was still hazy, but
the nearer wilderness of forest and mountain was wild and grand enough
to have satisfied the most fastidious. The elder guide, who had stood
some dozen times on the summit, missed the bits of Lake Champlain and
some dim outlines of hills and waters that ought to have been visible,
but we were quite content with the sharp ridge of the Haystack and its
deep chasm, the bold and beautiful lines of the Gothic Mountains, the
stern, scarred face of Moriah, the distant, still cloud-capped Dix's
Peak, the pleasant valley of the Au Sable, the Camel's Hump, the Schroon
Mountains, the Boreas Waters, Mud and Clear Ponds, the hills about Lake
George, Mounts Seward and Sandanona, Lake Sanford, Mounts McIntire,
McMartin, Golden, Whiteface, Bennet's Pond, the plains of North Elba,
the Skylight, with its singular rock whence is derived its name, and an
infinity of peaks of every possible form, all gathered about us as doing
homage to the stately monarch, the comely and benignant giant, Tahawus.

The sun was warm, and, sheltered by a rock to screen us from the west
wind, we found a single shawl all-sufficient covering. Diogenes produced
from his capacious pocket sundry lemons, which, added to some maple
sugar, a block of chocolate, and a few crackers, furnished a delightful
repast. We had reached the top of the mountain about nine o'clock. By
eleven the clouds again began to thicken, and grew so dark upon their
under edges that we feared rain. McIntire had collected a murky company
that threatened with the rumble of heavenly artillery. Wishing to
descend the slide before a coming rain should render it slippery, we
took a last look, and hastened away down the rocky slope, through the
shrubby spruces, to the top of the slide, where great stones, flung down
the bare, sloping rock, bounded and rebounded until they plashed into
the marshy pool, one thousand feet below.

Stopping only long enough at our camp to gather up our 'traps,' and to
inscribe its name, 'Tahawus,' with a tiny sketch from Elsie, and a chess
problem from E. B. C., upon the 'barked' side of a spruce, we hurried
down to the 'Mount Marcy stream,' over the Bartlett Mountain, on to the
Upper Pond. The thunder rumbled all around us, and we had several light
showers. Just as we reached the lake, the storm burst in all its fury.
By the aid of our shawls and umbrellas we managed to keep dry until a
lull came and we could row to the bark shanties, where we purposed
passing the night. It was only half past three, and we might have
returned to the 'Flats' that evening, but we did not care to walk
through the wet woods in the rain, and, besides, desired a still further
acquaintance with the beautiful Upper Pond.

The three bark huts on the shore of the lake had been recently erected
and used by a hunting and fishing party. They proved perfectly water
tight, and a bright fire of green logs soon dried all dampness out of
our garments. Our supper that night was quite elaborate, both pork and
hasty pudding entering into its composition. The rain continued to
descend, and pattered softly as we disposed ourselves to rest.

That repose was sweet and unbroken, save by a characteristic 'Te-he-he,'
and 'Good morning, good morning!' uttered in the high but feeble voice
of the elder guide as he came to mend the decaying fire. A reference to
our watches showed the hour to be but one past midnight. It must have
been a profound yearning for human sympathy that had induced our
courteous and considerate guide thus to awaken us. Sleep, however, soon
again took up her broken threads, and so firmly reknit their ravelled
edges, that the web needed the morning dew and the approaching glories
of a brilliant sunrise once more to break and give freedom to the
prisoned senses.

Our pioneer, who loved every peak and pond in the neighborhood with the
affection of a discoverer, took advantage of the charming morning to row
us all round the lake, to show us the pretty inlet with its beaver dam,
and help us gather the singular leaves of the pitcher plant, and the
beautiful, fragrant white water lilies riding at anchor in the lucent
stream.

We soon after took up our line of march for the Lower Pond, where we
found 'Uncle David,' with his sturdy wife and pretty, chubby children,
awaiting our arrival. Rowing rapidly down the lake, we took our last
Mount Marcy lunch beside the outlet, and, early in the afternoon,
returned to the Flats. The time devoted to the excursion was thus a
little over two and a half days. Going and returning we had driven six
miles, rowed four miles (exclusive of our visits to the Upper Pond), and
walked somewhat over twenty-one. There had been no fatigue and no
difficult climbing. Indeed, it would be no very serious matter to go one
day and return the next. And hence we advise all travellers in that
region with sound lungs, moderate strength, and any love for forest life
and magnificent scenery, to make the ascent. They will assuredly bring
home with them a host of pleasant memories, and many new and enchanting
pictures for that precious gallery already mentioned.

TIDINGS OF VICTORY.

  When David's winning son rebelled,
    They smote the traitor low,
  And thought the monarch would rejoice
    At riddance of his foe.

  But in his chamber all alone
    That kingly head was bowed,
  And for the erring Absalom
    His father wept aloud.

  The ministers astonished stood
    At such a burst of grief!
  The traitor's death alone could bring
    Their sovereign sure relief.

  Back to their tents in sullen gloom
    The faithful warriors flee;
  While still he cried, 'My son! my son!
    Would I had died for thee!'

  My country's wilful erring sons,
    Disloyal men, but brave,
  Such tears of anguish now she sheds
    Above the traitor's grave!

  Amid the pealing notes of joy
    For glorious victory won,
  Is heard Columbia's piercing cry,
    'O Absalom, my son!'

  Ye faithful men whose crimson blood
    In her defence is shed,
  Upbraid her not if thus she weep
    Above the guilty dead!

  Her noble heart is true to you,
    But generous as brave,
  She mourns in royal grief apart
    For those she could not save.

THE ESTHETICS OF THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

It behooves every man, toiling along this dusty roadway of life, to
seize upon something which he may study and elaborate, that at the end
of his journey he may look back and content himself it has not been
utterly in vain to himself and his fellow pilgrims. A man with a mania,
or, as the Greeks have it, a man with a _madness_, is the true
world-advancer. This madness, when cultured, ripens into talent; if
original and inborn, we call it genius, and the subtile anatomists of
the French schools prove it by telling us that the brains of geniuses
are diseased. The healthy oyster ministers only to the palate. It is the
diseased oyster that secretes the pearl for Miss Shoddy's necklace. It
is the diseased brain that shines through the ages, lights men on to new
epochs in knowledge, and advances the race to the millennial perfection.
Immortal Jean Paul, picturing himself in Schoppe, knew this. For what is
all of Schoppe's eloquent and matchless buffoonery, compared with his
wise oracles, in the mad conflicts with his other 'I,' whom he saw in
the mirror of his diseased brain?

Therefore, let every man have his madness, to which he may give his
leisure and his thoughtful hours. Let it grow upon him, until it becomes
a strong, controlling, natural element, as Mozart grew into music and
Haydon into painting, and is ingrained into his very habit and method of
life; for it is only thus and then he becomes a master, fitted to lead
the van in the world's march. Only, let it be a praise-worthy madness,
and one the development of which wilt secure for himself some new fund
of knowledge, and add to the store of his fellow men.

It was somewhat in this vein I looked upon a dingy skilling species,
with its rudely crossed hammers--a rough coin, bold, sturdy, and rigid
as the old Norse character itself which formed the initial of my
cabinet--a cabinet which has given to me new ideas of the low-browed
Roman and elegant Greek; has admitted me to the arcana of their
fascinating mythology; has whispered strange tales of a mummy's perfumed
sleep in the shadow of the awful, eternal Sphynx; has taken me to the
fall of Grenada, and, bridging over the dark lapse of the ages, has
emerged with the resurrection of art into the bloody days of early
English history--the grim Puritanic times, when good old John Hull, the
mintmaster, regulated the finances of the colonies, and filled his own
pockets with pine-tree shillings and sixpences; the horrors of Danton
and Marat; marking faithfully each historic change from orient to
Occident, and culminating in that latest triumph of the engraver's
cunning skill--the Philadelphia Sanitary Fair medal, commemorating for
our children and children's children the magnificent benefactions of the
people and the self-devotion of the Commissions--Christian and
Sanitary--the angels of mercy and charity, scattering blessings in the
furrows of war.

The _utile_ and the _dulce_ of the study of numismatics are shown in
many ways. Caraccio, Aretine, and Raphael studied the figures on the old
oboli and drachmas. So did Le Brun. Rubens was the most conscientious
coin and medal gatherer of his time, and applied them sedulously to the
furtherance of his divine gifts. Petrarch found time between his sonnets
to Laura to make the first classified collection on record, which he
presented to the emperor of Germany, with his well-known and remarkable
letter. Alphonso, king of Naples, visited all parts of Europe gathering
coins in an ivory casket. The splendid Cosmo de' Medici commenced a
cabinet which formed the nucleus of the Florentine collection. Matthias
Corvinus, king of Hungary, made a cabinet, and Francis I. of France laid
the foundation of the Paris collection--the finest in the world. All
artists recognize the value of coins, medals, and medallions. From them
they get the model faces and heads of the Greek and Roman, the copies of
lost statues, the folds of the chlamys and the graceful sweep of the
toga, the eagles and ensigns, rams and trophies, the altars, idols, and
sacrifices, the Olympian games, and the instruments of music,
mathematics, and mechanics. They reveal the secrets of a thousand
antiquated names and ceremonies, which but for the engraver's chronicle
must have been utterly lost.

Coins throw additional light upon history. They illuminate the dark
passages, clear away the obscurities, and bridge over the gaps. Hugo, in
'Les Miserables,' says men solidified their ideas in architecture before
the printed page came from the brain of Faust. He might have added, they
wrote their histories upon these bits of gold, silver, iron, brass, and
bronze. Vaillant wrote the chronicles of the kings of Syria from a jar
of medals, as Cuvier would build up the mastodon and give you the
monster's habits from a tooth or a tibia. The Roman denarii give the
best idea of Cæsar's well in the forum. The Epidaurian coins with the
snake of Æsculapius tell in brief characters how the Roman senate sent
an embassy to the great father of medicine to come and heal them of the
plague. The migration of the Phocian colony to Asia Minor is succinctly
told in the [Greek: phôchê], or seal, which followed the early Mayflower
stamped upon one of the earliest of the Grecian coins. The late coins of
the Grecian series, with the portraits of Alexander, Ptolemy, Seleucus,
Lysimachus, and others, have lent to the historian a fresh and life-like
picture of those stern days, and have been silent but incontrovertible
witnesses of the truth of the records which have come down to us.
Cymbeline, of Shakspeare, dates back to the Cunobelin of an ancient
Saxon coin, struck before Boadicea's time. Who would have known of the
Grecian domination in Bactria, long after Alexander's time, but for a
casual traveller who found the fact, together with a lost language, upon
a series of coins unearthed in that part of Asia? The coins of Alexander
fix the capture of Egypt; those of Vespasian, the capture of Judea; and
those of Trajan, the capture of Parthia. They were the 'brief
chroniclers of the time'--Stantonian bulletins, announcing each fresh
conquest.

The coins of the ancient day--for our modern productions can hardly
claim the credit--blend artistic grace and beauty. Upon them art made
its first and some of its best essays. A cabinet of Grecian and Roman
coins is a compact history of art from its inception to its meridian in
the culmination of Grecian splendor--and since that time, if we may
believe Ruskin, we only approximate, or what is worse, degrade. The
gradual decline of art and the decay of the empire are traceable on the
Roman series. You may follow the downward steps, until it becomes nearly
extinct, to revive, after a period of stagnation, in a new feeling in
the quaint but strong and rugged Gothic, the beautiful development of
which may be seen in the coinage of modern Europe from the fifth to the
fifteenth century. The Farnesian Hercules, the Venus de' Medici, the
Apollo Belvidere, and the famous equestrian Marcus Aurelius make their
appearance upon the ancient medals. Undoubtedly many of the magnificent
designs of Grecian medals in particular are but the types of Protogenes
and Apelles, as Houdin's model cast of Washington has been photographed,
as it were, upon the Wright medal. The grand Byzantine school of art is
nowhere better brought out than on the coins of that period. The
details of Constantine's coins are found in the ivory dyptics and those
splendidly illuminated Gospel vellums which art-despising monks kneeled
upon from the seventh to the tenth century, and which art-loving monks,
even in the middle of the nineteenth century, used in the decoration of
their monastery halls at Mount Athos.

I come to a phase in the study of numismatics which to many will seem
paradoxical--the romance of coins--and pick out here and there a few
incidents, which I shall string together, not heeding closely
chronological sequence.

One of the saddest pictures in all history is the first mention that is
made of money. Sarah was dead, and Abraham was sojourning among
strangers in a strange land. He mourned for his wife, and stood up
before the sons of Heth, and begged of them to intercede with Ephron,
the Hittite, for the cave of Machpelah, as a burial place. Ephron
liberally offered him the cave and the field, but the patriarch insisted
upon payment; whereupon the Hittite answered: 'My lord, hearken unto me;
the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that betwixt
me and thee? Bury, therefore, thy dead.' Abraham weighed the 'four
hundred shekels of silver current (money) with the merchant,' and the
field and the trees and the caves were Abraham's, and Sarah was buried.
The first use of money is the last, and the cave of Machpelah, typical
of the last resting place of all men, is the most important because the
most imperative use of money. He that hoards and he that squanders,
Croesus and Lazarus, at the end of life, provided they have money
enough to purchase their caves of Machpelah, have fortune enough, and
more than enough, for they may not carry gold and silver with them
through the valley of the Shadow. We buy and sell, we loan and
speculate, we hoard our shining wealth as Croesus hoarded the golden
sands of Pactolus in the treasury of Delhi, but when we come to the cave
of Machpelah, we leave it at the entrance, and go into the darkness
unencumbered.

The earliest and standard specimen of Roman coinage was the _as_,
subdivided almost indefinitely, and originally weighing a pound. This
ponderous coin subserved a purpose which our penny does to-day. It had
upon the obverse the double-headed Janus, and upon the reverse the keel
of a ship, rudely done, but answering the requirements of the light,
juvenile gambling known as pitching coppers. _Capita aut navem_, 'Heads
or the ship,' the Roman boys cried, as Young America cries now, 'Heads
or tails.' It is an eminently conservative custom, and Master Freddy, as
he tosses his new bronze cent, may summarily answer paternal reproof by
showing that Master Tullius, two thousand years ago, pitched the _as_
his father coined, and, for aught we know, grew to be a wise emperor and
a great man.

Judea is represented upon several coins of the time of Titus and
Vespasian by the figure of a woman with flowing hair and bared breasts,
seated upon the ground in a posture of sorrow and captivity, above her
the wide-spreading branches of the palm, and behind her a stalwart Roman
soldier in mail, leaning upon his spear. Thus exactly did the Roman
engraver follow out upon these coins the language of the Scriptures. The
Psalmist describes this posture in the lamentations of the Jews over
their captivity. 'By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept.' Still
more remarkable is it that the prophet, in a passage foretelling this
identical captivity, likens Judea to a woman sitting upon the ground
wrapped in sorrow.

It is not often that coins have been used as vehicles of wit or for
plays upon words, but there are examples upon record. Some of the German
coins represent in the legends the years in which they were minted. A
coin of Gustavus Adolphus also is an excellent illustration of this
practice. The legend is: 'ChrIstVs DVX ergo trIVMphVs.' Take the
capitalized letters or numerals from the words, and arrange them in
their proper order, and you have 1627, the year in which the coin was
struck. Upon a coin of Trio Lucretius, a member of the _Lucretia gens_,
who would have remained unknown to this day but for his coin, a case of
punning by means of types occurs. The obverse has the head of Apollo;
the reverse, the crescent moon and seven stars, or rather _triones_--the
constellation of the Ursa Major. The sun and moon refer to the family
name, while the _triones_ are an allusion to the surname. Pope Urban
VIII., with execrable taste and questionable wit, upon repairing certain
roads, struck a medal with the legend: _Beati qui custodiunt meas vias_,
'Blessed are they who keep my ways.' The 'speaking types' of the ancient
Grecian coins are very curious. The coinage of Rhodes has a rose for a
type, which flower bears the same name as the island. The coins of Side
have a pomegranate, in Greek, _side_ ([Greek: sidê]); Melos, the apple,
in Greek, _melon_ ([Greek: mêlon]); Ancona, in Italy, the elbow, in
Greek, _ancon_ ([Greek: agkon]); Cardia, the heart, in Greek, _cardia_
[Greek: kardia].

The coins of Constantine the Great, 306 A.D., will always remain of
peculiar interest, as connected with the early history of Christianity.
Constantine, after forcing his brother-in-law, Licinius, from his
Eastern dominions, built Constantinople, and made Christianity the state
religion. The principal emblem upon his coins is the Labarum, or sacred
banner, bearing the monogram of Christ--the letters [Greek: Ch] and
[Greek: R]--being the initials of [Greek: CHRISTOU], the angles of which
are occupied by the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, Alpha
and Omega, in allusion to Christ's declaration in Revelation. A rarer
type of Constantine's coins has the monogram, and the legend, _In hoc
signo vinces_. The _signum_ was the vision of a beautiful cross in the
heavens, which was presented to the view of Constantine, near Milan,
during his march against Maxentius. To this cross he attributed both his
victory and conversion. These Christian emblems remained upon the coins
of his successors until the reign of Julian the Apostate, who removed
them and substituted pagan emblems. Nor do they again appear until the
accession of Michael Rhangabe (811-813), when the bust and sometimes the
full length of Christ is on the obverse, with the _nimbus_, and the
legend, _Jesus Christus nica(tor) rex regnantium_. Upon the reverse, the
emperor, with a singular degree of boldness, is seated by the side of
the Virgin, the two holding aloft the banner of the cross.

We come to more modern coins. England and Ireland were in continual
trouble about the standard of coinage. On the accession of Mary, she
declared the intention of restoring the old standard of silver coinage,
viz., 11 oz. 2 dwt. fine, to 18 dwt. alloy; but, instead of that, the
new coinage was a pennyweight lower than that of Edward. Nor did it mend
matters that her handsome face and Philip's were on the obverse. The
wits of the day had many a joke over it; and Butler's sarcastic pen
could not omit the opportunity of writing:

  'Still amorous, fond, and billing,
  Like Philip and Mary upon a shilling.'

The first manifestation of displeasure between the mother country and
the colonies was with Massachusetts, of course. The old Bay State was as
impatient toward masters then as later in the Revolution against George,
and still later with the slaveholders. Charles II. was displeased with
the colonists for coining money, which he considered his royal
prerogative, and intimated to Sir Thomas Temple that they must be
punished, and the business stopped. Sir Thomas was considerable of a
wag, and showed the king one of honest John Hull's shillings, on the
reverse of which was the pine tree. The king asked him what sort of a
tree that was. Upon which Sir Thomas replied that, of course, it was the
royal oak, which had saved his majesty's life. The king smiled at the
courtier's wit; but it is not reported that he allowed Hull to continue
the coinage.

The proverbial misfortunes of Ireland have attended even her coinage,
and her troubles in that direction commenced as early as the reign of
Henry VII. He coined sixpences for Ireland worth only fourpence in
England. Mary issued base shillings and groats for Ireland, and
Elizabeth issued still baser ones, while she purified the coinage of
England. James I. struck copper farthings of two sizes, that if they
failed in England, they might be used in Ireland for pence and
halfpence. Charles I. established a mint in Dublin, but, in the
confusion attendant upon his death, the Irish lost it. Cromwell gave
them tokens in place of coins of the realm; and James II. base silver
money, made principally from brass cannon, and even this alloyed stuff
was gradually diminished in size. White metal followed, then lead, and
finally tin. George I. granted a patent to William Wood in 1737 for
coining pence and halfpence for Ireland, but he coined them of smaller
size than was stipulated in the patent. Dean Swift, with his merciless
satire, drove them out of Ireland, and his majesty, having no use for
them in England, sent them to his American colonies. Circulating media
were scarce here at that time, and anything in the shape of coins was
welcome. George II. did better for Ireland, and gave her honest coins.
In 1760 the famous _voce populi_ halfpenny appeared, a company of
gentlemen in Dublin having obtained permission to issue them. There was
a bit of quiet revenge in this halfpenny. The head of the sovereign,
though apparently done in the usual manner of the king's portrait, was
in reality a portrait of the Pretender. The coins attained a
considerable circulation before the trick was discovered, and then they
were suppressed.

Coins have figured in sermons. Bishop Latimer, on the 8th of March,
1549, delivered the following sarcastic sermon. On a previous occasion
he had spoken jestingly of the new currency of Edward VI. For this he
was accused of sedition, which charge he answered thus:

'Thus they burdened me even with sedition. And wot ye what? I chanced in
my last sermon to speak a merry word of a new shilling, to refresh my
auditory, how I was like to put away my new shilling for an old groat. I
was therein noted to speak seditiously. ... I have now gotten one more
fellowe, a companion of sedition; and wot you who is my fellowe? Esay
(Isaiah) the prophet. I spake but of a little prettie shilling; but he
speaketh to Jerusalem after another sort, and was so bold as to meddle
with their coynes. 'Thou proud, thou haughty city of Jerusalem.
_Argentum tuum versum est in scoriam_;' thy silver is turned into what?
into testious _scoriam_, into dross,' Ah! seditious wretch! what had he
to do with the mint? Why should he not have left that matter to some
masters of policy to reprove? Thy silver is dross; it is not fine; it is
counterfeit; thy silver is turned; thou hadst no silver. What pertained
that to Esay? Marry, he replied a piece of diversity in that policy; he
threateneth God's vengeance for it.

'He went to the root of the matter, which was covetousness, which became
him to reprove; or else that it tended to the hurt of poore people; for
the naughtiness of the silver was the occasion of dearth of all things
in the realm. He imputeth it to them as a crime. He may be called a
master of sedition indeed. Was not this a seditious fellowe, to tell
them this even to their faces?'

The three-farthing piece struck in Elizabeth's reign is often mentioned
in the poets. Shakspeare has an allusion to it in King John. He
introduces the bastard Falconbridge, ridiculing the personal appearance
of his legitimate elder brother, having just before compared him to a
half-faced groat:

  'Because he hath an half face, like my father,
  With that half face would he have all my land.'

Farther on, he says he would not have such a person (body):

            'My face so thin,
  That in mine ear I durst not stick a rose,
  Lest men should say, Look where three farthings goes;'

alluding to the rose which was on both the obverse and reverse of the
coin. Beaumont and Fletcher, in the 'Scornful Lady,' show the difference
between the penny and three-farthing piece, and inform us of a knavish
trick then practised, to impose upon ignorant people the lesser as the
greater coin. Lovelass, speaking of Morecraft, the usurer, says: 'He had
a bastard, his own toward issue, whipt and thin cropt, for washing out
the rose in three farthings to make them pence.'

In England, during the reign of George III., an act was passed to amend
an act of the 51st of the king, respecting the gold coin and the notes
of the Bank of England. By this act the provisions of the former statute
were extended to Ireland, and the notes of the bank there were placed
upon the same basis as those of the Bank of England. While this act was
passing the House, the following epigram appeared in the public papers:

BANK NOTES AND GUINEAS.

  Bank notes, it is said, once guineas defied
  To swim to a point in trade's foaming tide;
  But ere they could reach the opposite brink,
  Bank notes cried to gold: 'Help us, cash us, we sink!'

  'That paper should sink, and guineas should swim,
  May appear to some folks a ridiculous whim;
  But before they condemn, let them hear this suggestion:
  In pun making, gravity's out of the question.

There is a romantic incident in the early history of Massachusetts,
which has been often told. Money was scarce, and in 1652 the General
Court passed a law for the coinage of sixpences and shillings. Captain
John Hull was appointed the mintmaster, and was to have one shilling in
every twenty for his labor. All the old silver in the colony, wornout
plate, battered tankards, buckles, and spoons, and especially the
bullion seized by the buccaneers then sailing the Spanish Main (for all
was honest that came to Hull's melting pot), was brought in for coinage,
and the mintmaster rapidly grew to be the millionnaire of the colony,
and suitors came from far and wide for the hand of his daughter. Among
them was Samuel Sewall, who was the favorite of the plump and buxom
miss. Hull, the mintmaster, roughly gave his consent: "Take her," said
he, "and you will find her a heavy burden enough." The wedding day came,
and the captain, tightly buttoned up with shillings and sixpences, sat
in his grandfather's chair, till the ceremony was concluded. Then he
ordered his servants to bring in a huge pair of scales. 'Daughter,' said
the mintmaster, 'go into one side of the scales.' Mrs. Sewall obeyed,
and then the mintmaster had his strongbox brought in, an immense
ironbound oaken chest, which the servants were obliged to drag over the
floor. Then the mintmaster unlocked the chest, and ordered the servants
to fill the other side of the scales with shillings and sixpences. Plump
Mrs. Sewall bore down hard upon her side of the scales, but still the
servants shovelled in the bright, fresh pine-tree shillings, until Mrs.
Sewall began to rise. Then the mintmaster ordered them to forbear.
'There, you Sewall,' said the magnanimous old money maker, 'take these
shillings for my daughter's portion. Use her kindly, and thank Heaven
for her; for it is not every wife that is worth her weight in silver.'
And Master Sewell took Mistress Sewall and thirty thousand pounds (not
avoirdupois, but sterling).

The liberty cap was first used as an emblem by the committee of safety
organized at Philadelphia early in 1775. At a meeting on the 31st of
August of that year, it was resolved by the committee that Owen Biddle
provide a seal for the use of the board, about the size of a dollar,
with a cap of liberty, with this motto: 'This is my right, and I will
defend it.' Upon the first cent issued by the United States Mint for
circulation, in 1793, the cap appears. This cap is the Phrygian cap, and
all nations recognize it as the badge of liberty. When Spartacus rose at
the head of his fellow slaves against their Roman masters to obtain
liberty, his followers were distinguished by this cap. Though their
effort was unsuccessful, the principle of liberty still exists, to be
fought for until the last manacle is struck from the last slave. And
mankind has recognized that early struggle for freedom by adopting the
cap as one of the attributes of the goddess of freedom.

The freaks of currency are singular. The early Greeks bartered with
cattle; hence we derive _pecunia_ (money) from pecus (the flock). Cowry
shells have bought slaves on the African coast, and wampum answered for
money with the Indian, The Carthaginians, Frederick II. at the siege of
Milan, Philip I. and John the Good, kings of France, used stamped
leather, the latter inserting a silver nail in the centre. St. Louis, of
France, issued the black coin made of billon. The Anglo-Saxons used
rings, torques, and bracelets. Homer says the Greeks carried on their
traffic with bars and spikes of brass. Salt is the money of Abyssinia,
and codfish in Iceland. In Adam Smith's day, the Edinburgh workmen
bought bread with nails, and drank from foaming tankards paid for with
spikes. Marco Polo found mulberry-bark money in China, stamped with the
sovereign's seal, which it was death to counterfeit, as was the case
also with the Continental currency of our own country. The first
families of Virginia, now fighting for the ideas of aristocracy and
labor owned by capital, are the lineal and quite recent descendants of
shiploads of women exported from the crowded capitals of Europe, with
little regard to character or condition, and bought at so many pounds of
tobacco per head. The cannon used by James II. in his desperate struggle
for the throne, were melted up and coined into the famous gun money; and
the bells of Paris which tolled over the horrors of the guillotine, in
the bloody days of Robespierre, met a similar useful end. Charles I.,
with a Vandal hand, melted up the plate of the aristocracy and the
almost inestimable relics of Oxford into siege pieces. In 1641,
Massachusetts enacted that wheat should be received in payment of debts;
and during the French Revolution, the convention, upon the motion of
Jean Bon Saint André, discussed the propriety of making wheat the
standard of value.

From coins to wealth is but a step. The ancients surpassed the moderns
in splendid wealth and lavish extravagance. Seneca, writing superb
treatises in favor of poverty, was worth nearly five millions of
dollars. Lentulus, the astrologer, made his black arts yield him over
three millions. The delighted heirs of Tiberius found nearly thirty-six
millions in his coffers, and in less than a year Caligula spent the
whole of it. Milo's debts were Titanic, amounting to six millions. Cæsar
had a list of creditors whose name was legion, before he obtained any
public office; but he was soon enabled to present Curio with six hundred
thousand dollars, Lucius Paulus with four hundred thousand, and
Servilia, the mother of Brutus, with a trifle of a pearl worth over
thirty thousand. Mark Antony's house was sold to Messala for over half
a million, and Scaurus's villa was burned at a loss of over twelve
millions. Otho spent over fourteen millions in finishing the wing of a
palace commenced by Nero. One of Caligula's dinners cost a million
dollars; and one of Heliogabalus's breakfasts, twenty-seven thousand
dollars, Oesopus, the actor, swallowed a pearl worth eleven thousand
dollars, and Apicius, the gourmand, ate over seventy-seven millions
during his worthless life, and then committed suicide, because he was
reduced one day to only a hundred thousand dollars in his purse.

I hold in my hand a huge iron token which Ptolemy struck in
commemoration of his conquest of Egypt, and by its side the new two-cent
piece of the United States, fresh and sparkling from the Mint at
Philadelphia. The one antiquated, rude, corroded, and begrimed in its
long conflict with time, and the other bright and vivid, its field and
exergue unmarred, its emblems and legends clear and sharp. The coin of
Ptolemy has a history. The obverse gives us undoubtedly the head of
Jupiter, the cloud bearer, rugged, massive, stern, iron featured,
taurine neck, hair in great serpentine coils and shocks; the reverse, a
magnificent spread eagle, and the inscription in Greek, _Basileus
Ptolemaion_. Ptolemy, flushed with the victory he had won for Alexander,
issued it over two thousand years ago. After subserving the purposes of
Athenian barter, some swarthy Egyptian obtained it; but our friend the
Egyptian, in time, was gathered to his fathers. He was embalmed, and
slept in the shadow of the Pyramid, where his royal predecessors were
sleeping, and by the side of the eternal Sphynx, whose riddle he could
not read in life. Perhaps death unsealed the mystery of those stony lips
to him. The token was placed in the mummy case upon the Egyptian's lips,
perhaps as Charon's toll. But, in that event, evidently our friend the
Egyptian never crossed over the black river of Death, but is still
wandering--a miserable shade--along its banks, seeking rest, and finding
none. Token and Egyptian remained in their tomb while Thebes flourished
and decayed, Tyre and Sidon crumbled into ruins, Rome, mistress of the
world, cowered beneath the scourge of Goth and Vandal and Hun, and the
earth was eclipsed in the night of the ages. Still the Pyramids towered
toward heaven, the Sphynx gazed on with calm, earnest eyes, Memnon made
music of welcome to the sun, and our token sealed the shrivelled silent
lips of the Egyptian. The world emerged from its night. Dante and
Aquinas, Copernicus and Galileo, Luther and Melanchthon, Gutenberg and
Faust, Kant and Schlegel, Bacon, Leibnitz and Newton, Watt and Morse,
tore away the seals before our token saw the light. It came forth into a
new world by the hand of a missionary, preaching a religion founded
three hundred years after it closed the lips of the Egyptian. The
heathen god was upon its field, but the Christian religion had set aside
the old mythology of which it was a representative. I turn from this
relic of the past to the coin of the present, and upon the latter I find
the acknowledgment of that religion, and of dependence upon its
immutable Author: 'In God we trust;' and from this legend I augur
deliverance from the troubles that beset us, the vindication of outraged
laws, the Union of dissevered fragments, the return of peace to our
distracted land, the integrity of the Republic.

MIRACLES.

People refuse to believe in miracles because they esteem, them
incredible: how, then, do they believe in existence--in the being of
anything? Is it credible--to human reason, I mean--that anything should
be without a cause? Nothing, so far as we can judge, _ever comes to_ be
without an efficient cause--something that goes before, with power to
bring that which comes after.

But existence is an indisputable fact: we must believe it, whether we
can or not.

Oh yes, one may say, but there is an infinite Being from all eternity,
and He has produced all other forms of existence.

Very well; but if that be so, do not let us trouble ourselves about what
are called miracles. They come very easily after the creation of
light--the creation of sun and moon and stars; or even of nebulous
matter, so constituted that by its revolution in space it may generate
these wondrous orbs.

But there is a difficulty, it seems, about laws--natural laws: we are
not to suppose that they will ever he violated. But there is another law
above all these; all at least of the inanimate world, _i.e._, that the
forces of brute matter are subject to the will, or whatever is analogous
to will, in any living creatures. The law of gravitation is one of the
most universally operative; but every bird rising upon its wings, every
dog in its leaps, yea, the grasshopper springing from the earth, sets
this law at defiance. Almost every common law of matter is set aside by
the ingenuity of man, as put forth by that most truly spiritual faculty,
the will.

Are we then to suppose that the Almighty has so tied his power to
agencies purely material that He can never perform an act except under
their regulation? This would leave Him with no discretional power
whatever--with no such liberty even as that which He has bestowed upon
every creature that has will, or anything like it. Is this the idea of a
God infinite in power, as in wisdom and goodness? Are we to think that
the Almighty has just for once set a universe in motion, and forever
withdrawn Himself from all meddling with its affairs? He permits us to
control the electric power: but is never permitted to direct a
thunderbolt upon the guilty, or to turn one aside from any path it might
incline to pursue!

Miracles! Is it then so much more wonderful that water should be turned
into wine, than that a little water and a little earth, under the rays
of the sun, should be turned into the beautiful flowers and luscious
fruits of our gardens and orchards? These same elements are even now
maturing gapes, which, with a little management, under merely natural
forces, directed by a human will, may produce wine fit for the wedding
feast of a king.

Or, in another line of thought, we may ask, Is it much more difficult to
call back a living soul and unite it again to its former body than in
any way to produce that soul at first?

These and the like considerations apply to the subject of prayer, and
the special favors which it is believed to bring. We men are perpetually
turning the forces of nature where we please, and for the most special
purposes: can we for a moment imagine that the Almighty has less of this
power of control than we?

LETTER OF HON. R. J. WALKER, IN FAVOR OF THE REËLECTION OF ABRAHAM
LINCOLN.

_London, September_ 30, 1864.

     [The 'Letter of Hon. R. J. Walker' herewith offered to our readers,
     is no ephemeral production, to perish with the passing hour. The
     views therein offered, the vital principles discussed, the details
     given, the facts handled, have a wide bearing on the future policy
     and destiny of our country. Marked by the practical wisdom of the
     experienced statesman, while glowing with the fervor of the
     patriotic citizen, we have induced him to permit us to include this
     Letter in the loyal pages of the CONTINENTAL, where so many of his
     important financial essays have already appeared. Our readers will
     find it a worthy and logical sequence from the premises heretofore
     sustained therein by his able pen.--ED. CON.]

The succession of days and years and centuries is noted in calendars;
but it is great events, constituting historical epochs, that mark the
progress and destiny of our race. Decisive battles, vast reforms, civil
or religious, great scientific discoveries or mechanical inventions,
dynastic changes, political revolutions, the union or dismemberment of
states, the birth or death of republics, the rise or fall of
empires--these are the deep notches in the groove of time, the mighty
landmarks in the pathway of humanity. It is the fate of the American
Union, involving the liberty of our country and mankind, that is to be
decided in our approaching Presidential election. How paltry are all
party questions in the presence of an issue so transcendent as this! How
dare we mingle old party names or conflicts with such a question, when
the life of the Union is trembling in the balance! The maintenance of
the Union is the one majestic question, and the _Union party_, in name,
and in fact, is the only one that should exist, until this great issue
is decided. Then, when the Union is rescued from present and future
peril, we may exhume the past, use old party names, or discuss old party
issues, but until then to unfold a party banner, and revive old party
prejudices, is treason to our country and mankind. It is not Democrats
alone, or Republicans alone, as separate parties marshalled against each
other, that can save the Union. During this straggle for the Union, we
do not hear of Democratic or Republican admirals or generals, divisions
or regiments; no, we have only one great Union army, discarding all
party names or symbols, and fighting only for and under the banner of
the Union. It is then a grave objection to the Chicago McClellan
Convention, that, in such a crisis as this, it summoned only a
_Democratic_ Convention, and appealed only to the _Democratic_ party to
save the Government. As well might we summon only a Democratic army to
fight the battles of our country, as conduct such an election as this
under any old party name and banner. Thousands of Republicans as well as
Democrats, together, under the banner of the Union, fight now the
battles of their country. Thousands of Republican as well as Democratic
soldiers sleep in their bloody shrouds, or lie wounded on beds of agony;
but who dare ask to what party they belonged? It was an unholy ambition,
stimulated by party leaders, a thirst for office and emoluments, that
rallied under an old party name at Chicago, when the whole people should
have been summoned to the rescue.

And who met in council at Chicago? Was it the friends of the Union? No,
it was Democrats, as they called themselves, whether unionists or
disunionists. Avowed disunionists constituted a large and influential
portion of the Convention (profaning the name of Democrats) that met
together at Chicago. Who were Vallandigham and Harris and Long and many
other of their compeers, who not only met together at Chicago, but some
of whom were received with shouts of applause, and resolutions moved by
some of them unanimously adopted. It was a meeting of loyal men and
disloyal, peace and war men, unionists and disunionists. Every
disunionist is a traitor. He is for the overthrow of the Republic, upon
the demand of rebels in arms against the Government. Every peace man now
on the Chicago McClellan platform is a disunionist and a traitor,
because he knows, in his inmost soul, that no peace can be obtained but
upon the ultimatum of Jefferson Davis, now officially proclaimed by him
through the secretary of state to foreign Governments, namely, the
severance of the Union, and the establishment throughout the South of a
separate slave-holding empire. Most of these peace men openly avow their
disunion doctrines, while others attempt to conceal their treason, under
the transparent mask of an "armistice," a "cessation of hostilities,"
and an _ultimate_ "convention of the States," ignominiously declaring,
at the same time, by their platform resolutions at Chicago, that to
suppress the rebellion by war _has proved a failure_. What truly loyal
man, by voting for their candidates, will indorse at the polls such a
platform as this? It is a surrender of our country's honor--it is a
capitulation, upon the demand of Southern traitors, whose hands are
dripping with the warm life blood of our sons and brothers, and who now
boldly and defiantly _pledge themselves_ to foreign Governments, as they
always had declared to us, that they will have no peace unless based
upon disunion. Did a Democratic Convention ever before receive avowed
Disunionists and traitors among its number? Did it ever before trail in
the dust the glorious flag of our country? Did it ever agree before,
that our banner should be torn down from half the States and territory
of the Union, and replaced by a foreign standard, having upon it but one
emblazonry--the divinity and perpetuity of Slavery? And shall we treat
with the Confederate authorities on this basis? No; while we will gladly
treat with States and people _desiring to return to the Union_, with
Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet brandishing over our heads the two-edged
sword of Slavery and disunion, we will, in the emphatic words of General
Jackson, "_negotiate only from the mouths of our cannon_."

General Jackson was, in truth, the father and founder of the Democratic
party. Prior to his first nomination in 1823, in the election of
Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, the parties were known as Federal and
Republican. In the fall of 1823, I united with a few friends in calling,
at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, the FIRST _Democratic_ meeting, by which
General Jackson was nominated as the Democratic candidate for the
Presidency of the United States. I offered the resolutions in his favor
adopted by that meeting, calling the Democratic State Convention of
Pennsylvania which confirmed that nomination in March, 1824. I attended
that Convention, as a delegate from Pittsburg, and wrote the address of
the Convention to the Democracy of the State and of the Union on that
momentous occasion. I supported General Jackson for the Presidency in
1823 (my first vote), 1824, 1828, and 1832, and uniformly adhered to
the Democratic party until after the rebellion of 1861.

During the great nullification and secession question of South Carolina,
on the first Monday of January, 1833, at Natchez, Mississippi, I made
the opening speech, then published, against nullification and secession,
in favor of "_war_," if necessary to maintain the Union--in favor of
"_coercion_" to put down rebellion in any State. The Legislature of
Mississippi indorsed that speech, and passed resolutions declaring
nullification and _secession_ to be _treason_, and, upon THAT ISSUE, I
was elected by the Legislature to the Senate of the United States. If
Mississippi, under the influence of Jefferson Davis, and other traitor
leaders, has since that period abandoned those principles, she cannot
expect me to follow her, and thereby surrender opinions which I have
uniformly maintained and advocated throughout my life, but more
especially from 1833 until the present period. Mississippi (whose
prosperity I would restore by bringing her back to the Union) indorsed
those opinions when she elected me to the Senate of the United States
over an avowed and distinguished secessionist (George Poindexter), after
a contest of unexampled violence, personal and political, extending from
January, 1833, to January, 1836.

It was on that occasion that General Jackson wrote his celebrated letter
in favor of my election and sustaining my political course. It was after
the adoption of the secession ordinance by Carolina, that General
Jackson sent our war vessels to Charleston to hold and blockade the
harbor, and our troops, under the illustrious Scott, to maintain, by
force, if necessary, the authority of the Federal Government over the
forts commanding the city of Charleston. Let us suppose that the rebels
had then shot down our flag, captured our forts, made war upon the
Union, and proceeded to dissolve it by force--let us suppose that a
committee from any convention had then dared to nominate General Jackson
for the Presidency upon such a platform as that adopted at Chicago,
proposing an armistice and cessation of hostilities until a National
Convention could be assembled, accompanied by the declaration that the
rebellion could not be crushed by war, who doubts what would have been
the course of that devoted patriot? He would have stamped the
disgraceful and treasonable resolutions under his feet, and indignantly
scouted the traitors who offered them. And now this McClellan Convention
at Chicago professes to represent the Democratic party. As Jefferson was
the founder of the old _Republican_ party, Jackson was the father of the
_Democratic_ party. Now, with perhaps one exception, is there a _single
member_ of that Convention (assuming the name of 'Democratic') that
(like myself) supported General Jackson in 1823, 1824, 1828, and 1832,
and uniformly adhered to the Democratic party until after the rebellion
of 1861?

What right had that Convention to assume the name of Democracy, while
trampling upon the advice of the founder of the party, and all its great
and vital principles? How dare they offer an 'armistice' and 'the
cessation of hostilities' to rebels in arms against their country,
especially when the so-called rebel government had again and again
declared that they would negotiate upon no terms, except the
acknowledgment of their independence, and the definitive dissolution of
the Union? But, above all, how dare they record the disgraceful and
treasonable falsehood, that the war to suppress the rebellion had
failed, and ask the freemen of America to indorse at the polls such a
declaration?

And has, indeed, all the blood of patriots shed in defence of the Union
in this war, been poured out in vain? Ye patriot soldiers! now in the
field, say, are you unable or unwilling to suppress the rebellion? Say
it not only in words, but answer the foul accusation by your votes in
the approaching Presidential election.

The Chicago McClellan Convention says that the war is a failure, and
that therefore there must be an armistice and a cessation of
hostilities. Will not your answer at the polls be this: 'It is a foul
and treasonable falsehood?'

And is this war for the Union indeed a failure? Let our many and
well-fought battles upon the ocean and the land answer the question. Let
a country nearly as large as half of Europe, taken from the rebels since
the war commenced, respond. Let Shiloh, and Donelson, and Gettysburg and
Vicksburg, and Port Hudson, and New Orleans, and the Mississippi from
its source to its mouth, answer. Why, this wretched calumny had scarcely
been uttered by the McClellan Convention, when Sherman, the great
commander, and his army had washed out the accusation in the blood of
the vanquished, and unfolded our banner at Atlanta, the grand military
strategic centre of Georgia, never to be recalled. And while the shouts
of the great victory in Georgia were still sounding in our ears,
Oppequan responded to the thunders of Atlanta, and the heroic Sheridan,
after a decided victory, was driving the rebel army from the valley of
Virginia. Was Sherman's campaign from Memphis and Nashville to
Chattanooga, and from Chattanooga to Atlanta, a failure? Why, that
campaign is unsurpassed in history. Was Grant's Potomac advance a
failure? What, the hero of the great campaign of the West, terminating
with the capture of Vicksburg and its garrison, not know, or do his
duty! Was the victory of the Wilderness a failure, or the destruction in
successive battles of one third of Lee's army, together with the seizure
of the great Weldon Railroad, or the repulse there of the Confederate
attack--were these failures? Recollect, Grant was Lieutenant-General,
subordinate only to the President and Secretary of War, in planning the
whole campaign, and, while too much credit cannot be given to the heroic
Sherman and noble Sheridan, and their gallant armies, yet, it must be
remembered, that their great victories and strategic military movements
are but a part of Grant's plan--_concentrating_ the three armies of the
Potomac, the Shenandoah, and the West, so as to seize and hold all the
roads connecting with Richmond, and capture the Confederate army and
government.

And now as to our navy. Were the gallant deeds of Admiral Porter at
Vicksburg, on the Mississippi River, the Arkansas, and the Red River,
failures? Were the destruction of the forts protecting New Orleans and
the capture of that city by the illustrious Farragut failures? Were the
capture or destruction by that gallant man, aided by General Granger, of
the forts commanding the Bay of Mobile, together with the occupation of
its harbor by our fleet--and the destruction there of the Confederate
navy--were these failures? Were the capture of the forts and city of
Pensacola, of all the Florida forts, and the fortifications commanding
Savannah--the defeat of the Merrimac and Tennessee--the destruction of
the Alabama--the capture of Port Royal, and of the forts which commanded
it--were these failures? No; the war is not a failure. It is a glorious
and trancendent success. Already the whole Southern and Southwestern
coast is ours. The whole of the Mississippi is ours, with far more than
a thousand miles of its course from Columbus to its mouth, and even to a
considerable extent up the Mississippi and Missouri, which had been once
in the hands of the enemy. Chesapeake Bay is ours, and all its
tributaries, from the Potomac to the James River. The whole coast of
North and South Carolina, of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
and Texas, with vast portions of the interior, including many
impregnable positions, is ours. Tennessee, one of the seceded States, is
now wholly ours. Kentucky is loyal. Missouri is ours, and has abolished
Slavery. Maryland is ours, and has, I believe, uprooted Slavery also.
Our whole _Territorial_ domain, greater in extent than one half of
Europe (and about Slavery in which this contest began), is now wholly
ours. Not a rebel flag floats within its limits. When before were such
mighty conquests achieved within so short a period? Why, the conquests
of Alexander, of Cæsar and Napoleon covered no such extent of territory.
And, 'we take no steps backward.' Where our flag now is once unfolded in
any part of rebeldom, there it continues to float, and will float
forever. What are we to negotiate about? Is it as to giving up the
Mississippi and its tributaries, together with New Orleans, Vicksburg,
and Tennessee? Is West Virginia, which has been admitted as a new Free
State, to be surrendered? Are Fortress Monroe and the Chesapeake to be
abandoned? Is the rebel flag to float at Alexandria, and on the heights
of Arlington; and are rebel cannon to be planted there, in sight of and
to command the _very capital of the Union_? Are we to insult loyal
Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware, by negotiating about them?
Are we to give back Western to Eastern Virginia? Where is the line of
division to be run, and what armies would be strong enough to maintain
peace upon the border? What portion of the mighty Territories uniting us
with the Pacific are to be surrendered? Are we to turn over to the cruel
despotism of their bloody and relentless masters, the millions of loyal
people of the South, to whom we have given the most sacred pledge of the
protection of the Union? And, last of all, are the two millions of
slaves, as Jefferson Davis complains, who have been emancipated by the
constitutional war proclamation of President Lincoln, are they to be
remanded to Slavery, including the thousands who have so gallantly
fought in our defence? And as to Slavery, or what, if any, may be left
of it, when the war is over, are we to abandon the unquestionable right
to abolish it, as Mr. Lincoln and his friends propose, by a
constitutional amendment? Is Jefferson Davis to come back again as
Senator from Mississippi? Are the traitors Cobb and Thompson to take
their places in the McClellan Cabinet? Is Toombs, of Georgia, (as he
boasted) to call the roll of his slaves on the Boston Common? Slavery,
we know, was the sole cause of the war. It was Slavery that fired the
first gun at Sumter, and demanded to rule or ruin the country. It was in
the name of Slavery that the South seceded; and it was to extend and
perpetuate Slavery, as a blessed and divine institution, that they
avowedly framed the Confederate constitution. In the debates of Congress
of 1860-'61, in the proceedings of the Committee of 1833, in the acts of
the Peace Congress, in the various secession ordinances, by the very
terms of the Confederate constitution, Slavery was the sole cause of
this war upon the Government. Slavery was and is our great enemy, and
shall we not destroy it? Slavery was the sole cause of the war, and
shall it not be eradicated? When the patient calls for a physician, he
seeks for the source of the disease, so as not merely to alleviate
present pain, but to remove the cause, and prevent relapses or
successive attacks. If he deals only with palliatives, to assuage for a
brief period the present suffering, when he can remove the cause, and
restore the patient to permanent and perfect health, he is but a quack
and an impostor.

The party supporting Mr. Lincoln is composed of men of all the old
parties. Its candidate for the Presidency is from the North, and
belonged to the late Republican party. Its candidate for the Vice
Presidency, a brave, loyal, Union-loving man, is from the South, and
belonged (like myself) to the old Democratic party. But the Baltimore
Convention, in the spirit of true nationality and patriotism, discarded
all old party names or issues. It acted only in the name of the Union,
and as one great Union party, and asked all patriots, dismissing for the
present all old party names or issues, to unite with it for the
salvation of the Union.

My first objection, then, to the organization against Mr. Lincoln is,
that it is a mere party organization, arrayed under an old party name,
and marching under an old party banner. In the midst of a great contest
like this, when all old party names and prejudices should be forgotten,
and when Democrats and Republicans should be united as brethren in the
one grand effort to suppress the rebellion, the Chicago McClellan
Convention reopens old party strifes, renews old party issues, and,
denouncing Republicans, assumes the name and professes to represent the
Democratic party. It was the banner of the Union that was raised by the
Convention at Baltimore, and the salvation of the Union, with its rescue
from present and future perils, the suppression of the rebellion, with
the removal of the cause, constituted the only issues presented by that
Convention to the people of the loyal States of all parties.

It was far otherwise at Chicago. It was a mere assemblage of partisans,
some for, and some against the Union, in the search of power and
emoluments. It was the flag of the Union that was given to the breeze at
Baltimore. It was the flag of a party that was unfolded at Chicago.
'_For the Union_' was written on the flag of the one--'For the
Democratic party' was inscribed on the standard of the other. It was
said that the Baltimore Convention has made the abolition of Slavery one
of its issues; but, as well might it be objected that it had made the
prosecution of the war, or the maintenance of the army or navy, part of
its creed. The Emancipation Proclamation of the President had its whole
constitutional force as a _war measure_ TO SAVE THE UNION, and, as such,
it was adopted by Mr. Lincoln as ex-officio 'commander-in-chief of the
army and navy of the United States.' That it was, as a war measure,
perfectly constitutional, I have never doubted, and so declared in an
article published at the time in THE CONTINENTAL MAGAZINE. It is the
duty of all persons, not aliens, to unite with the President in
suppressing a rebellion. Slaves, in the relation which they occupy to
the National Government under the Federal Constitution, are '_persons_.'
As _persons_, they are thrice named in the Constitution, and by no other
name whatever. Especially, under the clause providing for direct
taxation, they are _enumerated_ as _persons_, not _valued_ as
_property_. The term 'person' is used more frequently in the
Constitution than any other, and it is applied expressly to slaves, and
to the whole people of the United States, including the President and
Vice President, who are designated therein as persons. This very
question, whether slaves are persons or property under the Constitution,
arose in the great case of _Groves_ vs. _Slaughter_, when, in 1841 (with
a single dissenting opinion, that of Judge Baldwin), after the fullest
argument on both sides, it was unanimously decided by the Supreme Court
of the United States that slaves, in the relation which they hold to the
National Government under the Federal Constitution, are _persons only_,
and not _property_. Were it otherwise, Massachusetts could not forbid
the introduction of slaves from the South for sale there as merchandise;
for Massachusetts could not prohibit the introduction of the cotton or
any property of the South for sale as merchandise within her limits, for
that would have been a prohibition of the _exports from State to State_,
which is forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My own elaborate
argument before the Court, as one of the counsel in that case, will be
found in the appendix to the first edition of the 15th volume of
Peters's Reports. As _persons_, the President has a right to call for
the aid of all residing in the United States, except aliens, to
suppress the rebellion. He has a right to call for the services of the
loyal or rebel masters for such a purpose, as well as for the service of
their slaves.

It cannot be denied, that the masters, whether rebel or loyal, may be
called and even forced by conscription into the army to suppress the
rebellion. Would it not then be strange if the master could exempt his
slaves from similar services? The only right of the master recognized by
the Constitution, is to the 'service or labor' of his slaves. But he has
a right equally strong to his own service or labor; yet both must yield
to the paramount right of the Government to the services of both or
either to suppress the rebellion. There is not a single word in the
Federal Constitution which, either by inference or express declaration,
exempts slaves, more than any other persons, from the call of the
Federal Government to aid in suppressing a rebellion. Such is the
construction given, by the South to the so-called Confederate
constitution, which is much more stringent than ours in that respect,
for it recognizes slaves as property; yet, the rebel authorities, the
rebel congress and government, force slaves, even by conscription, to
perform military duty--to dig the trenches--to make the earthworks--to
erect the barracks and arsenals--to help to make the cannon, small arms,
and powder, and vessels of war--to construct the fortifications--to
transport the provisions, munitions, and cannon for their armies,
together with the tents and military equipage--to raise the food
indispensable for the support of their military forces--and, of course,
they would, _if they dare_, put arms in their hands to meet us on the
battle field. It is clear, then, not as a confiscation of property
(which is also constitutional under certain circumstances), but as
_persons_, that we have a right to the service of the slaves as well as
of their masters to suppress the rebellion. But it is only by
emancipation (with compensation for loss of their services by loyal men)
that the slaves can be called into our army, and used to suppress the
rebellion. A call by the President for the slaves to serve in our
armies, to risk their lives and shed their blood for the Union,
accompanied by the declaration that they were still slaves, and, upon
the termination of the war, such as survived would be restored to their
masters, with whom their wives and children must still remain in
bondage, would be an atrocious crime, as well as the climax of all
absurdities. No; it is only by emancipation that the services of the
slaves can or ought to be obtained for the suppression of the rebellion.
The Emancipation Proclamation then of the President, with compensation
to loyal masters, is most clearly constitutional during the continuance
of the war, and as a war measure to suppress the rebellion and save the
Union, and such must be the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States, to which tribunal the President has properly submitted the final
arbitrament of the constitutional question. It is true, when the
rebellion is crushed, the President can issue no new emancipation
proclamation. But neither can he then recall or modify the one already
issued; and if he had the power to recall the proclamation, it would be
an act of perfidy unparalleled in the history of the world. The nation
would be so utterly disgraced by such bad faith as would be involved in
the revocation of the Emancipation Proclamation, as to earn the contempt
of all honest and honorable men, and the loss of sympathy of the
industrial classes and working men of Europe, whose rulers would then no
longer fear to recognize or aid the South. It was the magnificent
uprising of the working classes of England in favor of the Union, that
alone saved both countries from a bloody and disastrous war.

The Emancipation Proclamation being, as we have seen, clearly
constitutional, as a war measure, with a view to save the Union, was
it, as such, wise and expedient? We have seen that the rebel South, even
by conscription, when necessary, used slaves for military purposes, and
those not used directly in that way are required to raise breadstuff's
and provisions (instead of cotton), to supply the Confederate army.
Indeed the debates of Congress for many years past, will show that the
South boasted, not vainly, of their great military strength, because
they declared that, while the slaves would be used in raising provisions
to supply their forces, the whole white population capable of bearing
arms could then be called into the field. This constituted, as they
declared, their _great military strength_. And is it not then a most
important war measure, to deprive them of that all-powerful and
efficient weapon: which, we have seen, can only be done by emancipation?
Now, let us suppose that while we refuse the use of the colored race,
whether bond or free, in aid of the war, they are used for that purpose
by the South, what would be the result? By the census of 1860, the whole
population of the United States was 31,445,080, of which there were
white, 26,975,575; free colored, 487,996; slaves, 3,953,760; total, of
colored, 4,441,756, of which there were in the seceded States 3,653,110,
and in the loyal States, 788,446. Add the whites in the seceded States,
5,449,463, would thus make the whole population of those States, by the
census of 1860, 9,102,573. In the loyal States, the whole population was
22,342,507; of which 21,553,861 were white, and 788,646 colored. Now
then, if the colored race, as we have seen, in the seceding States, are
used for war purposes by them and not by us, the relative number of
opposing forces would be as follows: Loyal States, 21,553,861; seceded
States, 9,102,573; difference in favor of the Loyal States, 12,451,288.
Now, to begin the process, add to the whites in the Loyal States the
free colored, and the total number is 22,342,507; seceded States,
9,102,573; difference in favor of the Loyal States, 13,239,934.
Continuing the process, if we deduct by the emancipation policy the
whole colored population of the seceded States, the result would be,
Loyal States, 22,342,507; seceded States, 5,449,463. But if, concluding
the process, by the emancipation policy we not only deduct the colored
race from the aid of the South, but add it in aid of the Loyal States,
the result would be, Loyal States, 25,995,617; seceded States,
5,449,463; difference in favor of Loyal States, 20,456,154. Thus the
policy opposed to emancipation and to the use of the colored race by us
in the war, mates the difference in our favor as against the South only
12,451,288, whereas the difference in our favor by the emancipation
policy of the President is 20,546,154. Deduct from this the above
12,451,288; final difference, 8,094,866. Thus we see that, by the
President's policy, there is, in effect, a gain to the Loyal States
equivalent to more than eight millions of people, more than 200,000 of
whom are already soldiers in the Union army, all of whom must be
disbanded if Mr. Lincoln's policy was erroneous. Will any say that a
policy which makes a difference in the relative forces of the two
contending parties of more than eight millions of people in favor of the
North, and which has already increased our army 200,000, is not a most
important war measure, aiding us to suppress the rebellion and save the
Government? and, therefore, it is a policy eminently calculated to
preserve and perpetuate the Union. Indeed, it is this measure which
renders the maintenance of the Union certain, and, without it, the Union
is subjected to great peril.

As, then, the emancipation policy of the President is not only wise,
beneficent, and constitutional, but renders certain the preservation of
the Union, while that of his opponents subjects it to imminent peril, I
go for the reëlection of Mr. Lincoln. I go for him as a _Union man_,
and because his emancipation policy will certainly save the Union; and I
go against his opponent, because, however loyal he may be, and however
sincere his desire to save the Union, practically he is a disunionist,
because, independent of the Chicago McClellan platform, his
anti-emancipation and anti-negro policy subjects the Union to imminent
peril. Now, with me, in this, as in all preceding elections, the
preservation and perpetuation of the Union constituted the great
transcendent question, involving the liberty of our country and mankind,
and I can give no vote which subjects it to the slightest peril. Save
the Union, and all else will be added in time (including the _ultimate_
downfall of Slavery, which I predicted and advocated in January, 1844),
has been the doctrine of my life. To that doctrine I still adhere, but
support the President's emancipation policy _now_, because it is the
most efficient, if not the only means of saving and perpetuating the
Union. I opposed emancipation when it was unconstitutional as a _peace
measure_, and because I knew it would cause civil war, invite foreign
intervention, and endanger the Union. I support emancipation now,
because it is constitutional as a war measure, greatly diminishes the
danger of foreign intervention, and insures the maintenance and
perpetuity of the Union. I supported Judge Douglas and opposed the
election of Mr. Lincoln in 1860, because I believed it would imperil the
Union. While always denying that his election would justify disunion, I
feared that the rebellion would be the result. In voting against Mr.
Lincoln in 1860, I did so to save the Union from peril. In voting for
him now, it is to suppress the rebellion and maintain the Union. It is
not for Mr. Lincoln as a man (however worthy he may be), that I now
vote--I vote for principles--I vote for the Union--and in supporting
him, I vote for the best, if not the only means to maintain and
perpetuate the Union.

But there is another principle of vital importance involved in this
election. The South, under the banner of Slavery, proceeded to secede
from the Union, immediately after the result of the Presidential
election of 1860 was made known. South Carolina seceded in December,
1860. Mississippi followed early in January, 1861, and the Cotton States
all followed during that and the succeeding month of February. Now, Mr.
Lincoln was not and could not be inaugurated as President until March,
1861. The South did not and would not wait for his inaugural address of
that date to know, under the new condition of affairs, what would be the
policy of his Administration. They did not and would not wait for any
measures of his Administration, much less any act of the Government or
of Congress, but proceeded to secede merely because Mr. Lincoln had been
constitutionally elected to the Presidency by the people of the United
States. Such an act was an overthrow of the great fundamental principle
of all free government, namely, that the majority shall govern under the
forms of the Constitution. It was an attack upon the right of suffrage,
an assault upon the ballot box and the great principle of an elective
President, as provided in our Constitution, and which lies at the very
basis of free institutions. That principle is the vital element of our
existence. It is 'the casing air' of liberty. Take it away, and freedom
instantly expires. The right of suffrage is the great American right of
every citizen, rich or poor, humble or exalted. It is the great
palladium of our liberty. It is a Government, like a mighty pyramid,
reposing on its broad and immovable base, the will and affections of the
people. It is the people's Government, and therefore the people maintain
it, and with us two millions of volunteers have rushed to its support.
Therefore, while it is the best Government in peace, it is the strongest
in war. But secession because of the election of a President, is not
only war upon the Union, but war upon the elective franchise, the great
fundamental principle of free government, and without which it is but a
fleeting shadow. Democrats--people of all parties--my countrymen, while
you are asked now by the Chicago Convention to vote against Mr. Lincoln,
you would nullify by that very vote the right of suffrage, because, what
is that suffrage worth, what is your vote but an empty form, if it may
not elect your President? But if, because the minority who have voted
against you, dissatisfied with your choice, can rebel, make war upon
you, because you thus voted, and set up another President for that
minority by force of arms, what is that but to say that the majority
shall not rule; that the right of suffrage shall be nullified; that the
Constitution, under which that vote was given, shall be overthrown? This
is what the rebellion has done in attempting to destroy the Republic,
merely because of the election of Mr. Lincoln. This arrogant and
insolent slave-holding oligarchy would not even wait to hear what the
President of your choice would say. They treated the President of your
choice, and therefore they treated you and the Constitution under which
you acted, with scorn and defiance. So long as you would act with them,
so long as the Northern parasites would adhere to the Southern upas tree
of Slavery, so long as the 'mudsills' of the North, as they arrogantly
called you, would obey the orders of their Southern masters, so long as
you would be their slaves, they would permit the President to be
inaugurated. But so soon as you elected a President against their
dictation, then your suffrages should be nullified by the rebellion of a
minority against the majority. What is this but to say, that the
majority shall not elect a President, and thus render the right of
suffrage an empty form, striking at the fundamental principle of free
government, and substituting the _bayonets_ of the minority for the
_ballots_ of the majority of the people? Freemen of America, is it
possible that by voting against Mr. Lincoln now because of the Southern
rebellion, you will thus declare that the election of a President by the
people is not to be maintained, but that his reëlection is to be
defeated, and that his authority, as your President and as your
representative, is therefore never to extend over the _whole United
States_, because a rebellious minority oppose it by force of arms? This
is one of the transcendent issues involved in this contest. It is in
fact the great question whether the majority shall rule or the
minority--whether self-government is an unreal mockery, or whether it is
indeed a God-given right of _man_, born in the image of his Maker. You
voted that Mr. Lincoln should be President of the _whole United States_.
That was your decision at the ballot box. Has it been obeyed? No: an
arrogant slave-holding minority has rebelled against it, and, within the
boundaries of the area occupied by that minority, has suppressed your
election by the bayonet, and substituted Jefferson Davis, one of the
rebel leaders, in place of Abraham Lincoln. Within the limits of that
rebellion, the power, under the Constitution, which you devolved upon
Abraham Lincoln, has been nullified by force of arms, and now, if you
abandon the war, or defeat his reëlection, your choice will have been
nullified, and he never will have exercised throughout the United States
the power given to him by your suffrages under the Constitution. Now the
party in the North thus acquiescing in this destruction of the right of
suffrage, dares to assume the sacred name of Democracy, which you know
is but Anglicized Greek, meaning the _power of the people_. Shade of the
immortal Jackson! the father and founder of the Democratic party, burst
the cerements of the Hermitage, and blast with the thunders of New
Orleans the wretched traitors who thus dare to profane the sacred name
under which you were chosen President of the United States.

But there is another grave objection to the McClellan platform adopted
at Chicago. It is its _intentional ambiguity_. The Convention was
composed of unionists and disunionists, of peace and war Democrats, as
they style themselves, and the platform was adapted to suit the views of
both these parties in and out of the Convention. It was a platform upon
which the temple of Janus was to be closed, but with side doors at
either extremity, into one of which the peace men with their olive
branches should enter, and the war men in full military array in the
other, and the lion and the lamb meet together in the centre in cordial
agreement. But, it appears that the war men in this case were only asses
in lions' skins, for in the compromise between antagonistic principles
and candidates, the peace men got far the better of the bargain. While
there were some vague and glittering generalities in favor of the Union,
they were connected with conditions which rendered the destruction of
the Union certain, namely, an armistice and cessation of hostilities,
accompanied by the false and flagitious declaration, calculated to
encourage the enemies of our country at home and abroad, namely, that
the war to suppress the rebellion was a failure. Remember, soldiers,
that the McClellan platform declares that your battles are failures;
that your blood has been shed in vain; that your arms can never crush
the rebellion; that you are inferior in courage to the slave-holding
rebels; that you must admit your defeat, throw down your muskets, return
in disgrace to your homes, disband the army, lay up the navy, recall
Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, and Gilmore, and Admirals
Farragut, Porter, Dupont, Davis, and Winslow, and leave it to the
civilians of Chicago, Vallandigham, Harris, Long, PENDLETON, and others,
to negotiate a peace.

Now what is an armistice? It is defined to be a suspension of the war
for a limited period. There may be conditions added, but none are named
in the McClellan Chicago platform. Of course, then, it means a cessation
of hostilities by land and sea. Indeed, the platform is weaker than
this, for it proposes directly a 'cessation of hostilities,' not by land
only, or by sea only, but, of course, by _both, as the words are
general_. Now then, the blockade of the rebel ports, and the capture or
destruction of blockade runners and their cargoes, is war upon the
ocean. This blockade, then, is to be abandoned during the armistice, for
there is to be a cessation of hostilities upon the ocean and the land.

During this interval of peace, when there is to be no blockade of the
Southern ports, what is to follow? By their own accounts and estimates,
the Confederates have within their limits, in cotton (at present
prices), tobacco, and naval stores, a value exceeding one billion of
dollars in gold. Now then, so soon as the armistice was agreed upon, the
war upon the ocean, including the blockade, having ceased, the whole of
this cotton, tobacco, and naval stores, would be shipped to Europe, or
partly to Nassau, on the way to Europe, and this enormous amount
realized by the Confederate government in gold. We know what tremendous
disasters have been produced by the cotton famine in England, France,
and other countries. Now, the first effect of such shipments would be
the total ruin of all our manufactures of cotton and other textile
fabrics. But another still more serious result would follow. We know
that Louis Napoleon is the bitter enemy of the Union; we know that he
has again and again declared that we could not suppress the rebellion;
that he has earnestly thrice endeavored to persuade the British
Government to unite with him in acknowledging the independence of the
South--twice through efforts made directly upon the British Cabinet, and
once through Roebuck and Lindsay, members of the House of Commons, to
induce it by a parliamentary vote to compel the British Ministry to
unite with the Emperor in acknowledging the independence of the South.
That Louis Napoleon is our bitter enemy, is proved also by the
French-Mexican war, in which England, and even Spain, separated from
him. It is proved also by the diplomatic correspondence of Jefferson
Davis, and by his friendly and approving recognition of the
establishment of the French Imperial Government in Mexico. It is further
proved by Louis Napoleon's own letter, in which he declared, that one of
the objects of the Mexican war was the establishment of the equilibrium
of the Latin race upon the American continent. It is farther
demonstrated by the proceedings of the French in Mexico, and especially
recently at Matamoras, in the mutual aid given and received by the
French and Confederate forces. Now, what is the meaning of establishing
the equilibrium of the Latin race on the '_American continent_'? In the
first place, it means European military intervention; in the second
place, it means to embrace not only Mexico, _but the whole Latin race on
the American continent_. By the Latin race is included all Spanish
America. It means, then, in the future, if our Government is overthrown,
that all Spanish America, from the northern boundary of Mexico to Cape
Horn, is to be consolidated into one great Power under imperial sway. It
means to include in this vast empire the command of the Isthmus of
Tehauntepec, the route by Central America (about which Louis Napoleon
has written so much), by Honduras and Chiriqui, but more especially the
Panama, as also the Atrato routes.

In the great future, whoever commands these routes, especially together
with that of the Isthmus of Suez, which I visited a few months since,
and which Louis Napoleon has nearly completed, will command the commerce
of the world, and, as a consequence, ultimately control the institutions
of the world. Such are the tremendous problems teeming in the brain of
Napoleon the Third, and all, as he believes, depending upon the
destruction of the American Union. I speak of what I know from a
residence now of nearly two years in Europe. Thus it is that Louis
Napoleon intends to bring us within the centrifugal gravitation of the
European balance of power. This wonderful man proposes to extend this
system from the old continents to the new, embracing both, and thus hold
in his grasp the equilibrium--the balance of power of the world. We may
well imagine what that equilibrium will be when Napoleon the Third shall
hold the balance in his hands. Already he has considerable possessions
(insular and continental) in North and South America, and Mexico, under
Maximilian, is substantially a French dependency. He holds Algiers. He
is colonizing Egypt (as I myself saw this year) by his railroads and
canals. He has seized and colonized Cochin China and Annam. He has made
Italy a dependency on the bayonets of Franco. Now then, under these
circumstances, when the blockade shall have terminated, and Jefferson
Davis, who is quite as ambitious and even more talented than Louis
Napoleon, shall hold in his hand more than a billion of dollars' worth
of Southern products ready for immediate shipment, may he not, and will
he not say, through his most able and adroit diplomatic representative
at Paris, 'Recognize the independence of the South, and all these
products shall be shipped for sale in France, and to French
manufacturers,' and thus enable France to crush for the present the
cotton manufacturers of all the rest of the world. It is well known in
Paris that Mr. Slidell is upon terms of the most intimate association
with Louis Napoleon, and has thoroughly convinced him that we cannot
suppress the rebellion. Is it not, then, clear, anxious as Napoleon is
for the success of the South, that he would, in the event of McClellan's
election, at once recognize Southern independence. Indeed, it is the
boast of the Confederate leaders in Europe, since the adoption of the
platform at Chicago, that, upon the election of their candidates,
without waiting four months for the inauguration in March next, Napoleon
will AT ONCE recognize the Confederate government. Indeed, I do not
doubt, from the circumstantial evidence (although I do not know the
fact), that there is already a secret understanding between Jefferson
Davis and Napoleon the Third to recognize the independence of the South
upon the election of the Chicago candidates. Why wait four months, until
the 4th of March next, when the American people, by indorsing the
Chicago platform, shall have declared for peace, with the additional
announcement in that platform, that the war for the suppression of the
rebellion has failed?

If, indeed, that war has failed, and we cannot thus suppress the
rebellion, it would not only be the right, but, upon the principles of
international law, the duty of every foreign power to acknowledge
Southern independence. Thus is it that the Chicago McClellan platform
invites recognition. What is the meaning of the recognition of the
independence of the South by France, under such circumstances? IT MEANS
WAR. It means, in the first place, commercial treaties stipulating great
advantages in favor of France, and perhaps other Powers. It means, of
course, the overthrow of the blockade, so as to carry out those
treaties. It means conditions destructive of our interests, and
favorable to the recognizing POWERS. It means advantages and
discriminations in tariffs and tonnage duties, and navigation
privileges, which would exclude us from Southern ports, including New
Orleans and the mouth of the Mississippi, and deprive us of the markets
of the South. Such a recognition, then, with its attendant consequences,
means war--war not only with France, but probably with England and
Spain, and other Powers. Doubtless, upon the election of the Chicago
candidates, Napoleon would again ask the Ministry of England to unite
with him in recognizing the independence of the South, and to
participate in the benefits of the proposed commercial treaties. Who can
say that England, under the dangers and sacrifices incurred by a
refusal, would again decline the offer?

It is clear, then, that the election of the Chicago candidates involves
the most imminent peril of war with France, if not with England, both
acting then in alliance with the Confederate government. That my country
even then would accept the contest rather than the dishonor and ruin of
disunion, I do believe; but who can predict the result of such a
conflict? My countrymen, we are speedily approaching the very edge of a
dark and perilous abyss, into which we may be soon plunged by the
election of the Chicago candidates; I implore you not to make the dread
experiment. You must know that there will be no recognition of the
independence of the South by France or England, or any other Power, if
Abraham Lincoln should be reëlected in November next. The American
people will then have loudly proclaimed, through the ballot box, that
they can and will subdue the rebellion by force of arms; and that they
will continue to negotiate from the mouths of our cannon, until the
Southern armies shall have been dispersed and vanquished. Upon the news
of the reëlection of Mr. Lincoln reaching Europe, the Confederate stock,
now waiting the success of the Chicago candidates, will fall, like
Lucifer, to rise no more. American securities, including those of the
Federal and loyal State Governments, of railroads, and other companies
with real capital, will all be immensely appreciated. The difference in
favor of our country, including the rise in greenbacks, would be
equivalent in a few months to hundreds of millions of dollars. Nor is it
only our stocks that will rise at home and abroad, but the national
character will be immensely exalted. The friends of our country and
liberty in Europe, including the grand mass of the people, will echo
back the exultant shouts of freedom as they roll on from the Pacific to
the Mississippi, from the Mississippi to the lakes, and, bounding from
the glad Atlantic, are carried by steam and lightning to the shores of
Europe. The fetters of American Slavery will be broken by such a result,
and man--immortal man, of whatever race or color, born in the image of
his Maker, will emerge from chatteldom, and rise to the dignity of our
common humanity.

There is one point still remaining of vast importance. It is the
question of Slavery, so far as it yet lingers within our borders.
Without entering upon other aspects of that case, we call attention to
the proposed amendment for the purpose of abolishing Slavery on the
recommendation of Congress and the ratification of three fourths of the
States, as provided in the Federal Constitution. This is recommended by
Mr. Lincoln, and it is a plank in the Baltimore platform. It passed the
Senate by a more than two-thirds vote, but was defeated, _by the
Democrats_, by a vote of 69 to 94, in the House, thus failing to receive
the two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress as required by the
Constitution. If, as has been heretofore shown, Slavery is the great
enemy of the Union, and was the sole cause of the rebellion, why not
extirpate the _cause_ of the war? Why not remove what may remain of
Slavery after the war is ended, by the proposed amendment, as
recommended by Mr. Lincoln? This is a war and a Union measure,
calculated to crush the rebellion, to maintain the Union, and to prevent
any future effort to effect its overthrow. This measure, which would
settle finally and forever the Slavery question, will succeed at an
early period, if Mr. Lincoln should be reflected. But this measure the
Democrats oppose, and desire to _keep open_ the Slavery question, for no
object that can be perceived, except to renew the old party alliance
between Slavery South and its Northern supporters, with a view to party
triumphs. If General McClellan succeeds, Slavery, so far as it still
exists, will be cherished, maintained, and perpetuated. The viper will
be warmed into life again, and although it might perhaps recoil for the
present, it would only be to strike at some future period with greater
force and venom at the life of the Republic. These men tell us they are
for the _Union as it was_. Are they for the revival of such scenes as
were perpetrated by Brooks in the American Senate? Are they for the
Kansas frauds and murders and forgeries, including the forgery of a
constitution? Are they for the right of secession, or, while they
dispute the right of a State to secede, do they deny with Buchanan and
Pendleton the right of the Government to prevent its secession? Are they
against secession, but against coercion also? Are they against
rebellion, but opposed to its overthrow by force! Throughout the South,
under the Union as it was, there was no freedom of speech or of the
press, on any question connected with Slavery. Are they for the sale,
under the Union as it was, even of free negroes into perpetual bondage?
Are they for the denial of the rights of Northern citizens throughout
the South? Above all, are they for the renewal of the African slave
trade, as notoriously occurred in 1859 (during the Administration of
Buchanan), at Savannah, in Georgia, when the wretched victims, just
stolen from their native homes in Africa, were carried to Savannah, and
there, in defiance of the Federal Constitution, openly distributed by
sale among the boasted chivalry of the South? If the Chicago candidates
and their party are for these things--if they are for the Union as it
was in these respects, I am against them. I am for the Union (as clearly
intended by the fathers and founders of the Government) as it will be
when Slavery (its great, and, in fact, its only domestic foe) shall
have been entirely extinguished. While I am for the extinction of
Slavery as a Union and as a war measure, I am consoled by the reflection
that, while it will secure the perpetuity of the Union, it will vastly
increase our wealth and power, and advance all our industrial and
material interests. For several years past I have examined this
question, and, in various essays, published at home, but more especially
abroad, have proved by official statistics, from the censuses of 1850
and 1860, that, under the system of free labor and free schools which
exist in the North, as compared with the South, the product of the Free
States is $217 _per capita_, and that of the slave-holding States $96
_per capita_. Also, that the lands of the South are worth $10 per acre,
and of the North $25 per acre. It was further proved by me, in those
essays, by the same official data, that, exactly in proportion to the
number of slaves is the decreased production _per capita_ in the Slave
States; that of South Carolina, with 402,406 slaves and 291,388 whites,
being $66 _per capita_, and of Delaware, with 90,589 whites and 1,798
slaves, being $143 _per capita_; while that of Massachusetts, with her
sterile soil and severe climate, and far inferior natural advantages,
was $235 _per capita_; and the same rule was also shown to hold in
counties of the same Slave States, those counties with few slaves always
producing more _per capita_ than those having many. The result was, as
shown by the census, that if the production of the South in 1859 had
been equal _per capita_ during the same year to that of the Free States,
the additional value of the Southern products would have been
$1,531,631,000 in 1859, and in the aggregate of the decade from 1859 to
1869, $17,873,539,511, exclusive of the addition from the annual
reinvestment of capital. The addition, then, to the value of the
products of the South in a single year, caused by the substitution of
free for slave labor, would be nearly equal to our whole present
national debt, while in the aggregate of the ten years succeeding it
would be nearly ten times greater than the whole national debt, thus
leaving us far richer after the next census, as a consequence of
increased production, notwithstanding the national debt, than if the
rebellion had never occurred. Thus is it that the ways of Providence are
justified to man, and that Slavery chastises its own advocates, while
its overthrow brings increased wealth and safety and honor and happiness
and prosperity to the country. While I do not advocate, then, the
abolition of Slavery in defiance of the Constitution, because it would
make us more wealthy and powerful, more honored, happy, and prosperous,
yet I rejoice that in supporting emancipation, as Mr. Lincoln does, as a
Union and as a war measure, the overthrow of this accursed institution
will be attended with countless benefits to my country and mankind.
Suppress the rebellion by the overthrow of the Southern armies, and
re-establish the Government throughout all our wide domain upon the
broad and eternal foundations of freedom, truth, and justice, then
neither domestic traitors nor foreign despots will ever dash against its
adamantine base. There it will stand, and stand forever, the mighty
continental breakwater between the continents of Asia and of Europe,
against which the breakers of internal faction, and the waves of
despotic power would dash in vain. To that home of the oppressed, to
that asylum of genuine and universal freedom, millions from the Old
World would then come, and unite with us in strengthening and
maintaining a Government based upon the rights of humanity, and
sustained by the affections of the people. While our physical force and
accumulating wealth would thus be rapidly and vastly augmented, our
moral power would be increased in a still grander ratio. Then the cry of
tyrants, that self-government is a phantom, and republics a failure,
would cease to oppress the listening ear of humanity. Then the chains
would soon fall everywhere from the limbs of the slave. Then the
reactionary and feudal party of Europe, now so loudly proclaiming
republics a failure, while exulting over the anticipated fall of the
American Union, would retire discomfited from the contest, while the
rights of man would be immensely promoted, and civilization advance, at
a single bound, more than in the lapse of many centuries. The great
liberal party of England, headed by those immortal champions Bright and
Cobden, would rouse like giants refreshed from their slumber, and carry
the flag of the vote by ballot and extended suffrage triumphantly
throughout the British realm, while Ireland, oppressed Ireland, would
then receive the fullest justice. Then, indeed, all past differences
between England and America would be sunk forever in fraternal concord,
and the peace of the world be maintained. Then Napoleon the Third, who
keeps an army of 600,000 men as a standing menace to Europe and the
world, and who has just, for the present, and for the present only,
extinguished in blood the freedom of Mexico, must abandon his ambitious
projects, or shiver his diadem upon the adamantine rock of popular
freedom.

But there are complaints from the so-called Democratic party that the
President, and especially the Secretary of State, have surrendered the
Monroe doctrine, and abandoned Mexico to her fate. There is no truth in
this accusation. The President and the Secretary of State, _as regards
the future_, are wholly uncommitted on this question, unless, indeed, it
be for Mexico, by announcing that the people of the loyal States are
unanimously in her favor. I say they are uncommitted for the future, and
the real objection to their course is this: that they have not gratified
the South and its Northern allies, by engaging, ere this, in a war with
France, so as to bring her vast forces in aid of the Confederate
government. Indeed, Mr. Seward is cursed everywhere by the Confederates
and their allies throughout Europe for preventing a war, _at this time_,
on the Mexican question, between France and the United States, 'There is
a time for all things,' and, as I have said before, our only question
_now_, is the salvation of the Union; and when that is secured, will be
the proper period to consider other subordinate questions, foreign or
domestic. No man can speak with more feeling on this question than
myself, for it is a well-known fact that I earnestly opposed, as a
member of the Cabinet of Mr. Polk, the Mexican treaty of 1848, among
other reasons, upon the suggestion then made by me, that if we abandoned
Mexico, it would subject us to the danger of European interference there
(just as it has occurred) by force of arms. That treaty was carried by a
constitutional majority of only three votes, mainly through the
instrumentality of Mr. Calhoun, who was against the invasion of Mexico,
and for 'masterly inactivity,' resting on the banks of the Rio Grande,
because he knew (as declared in my Texas letter of January, 1844)
'Slavery never could cross the Rio Grande,' and that, as a consequence,
all of Mexico which we would permanently hold, as we ought to have done,
from Texas to Tehuantepec, would, Mexico having abolished Slavery, have
become Free States. I believed also that the permanent occupation and
annexation of Mexico would have forever settled all the dangers of the
Slavery question, because it would have flanked the Slave States of the
Southwest, by many powerful Free States adjacent on the Southwest,
containing already seven millions of people, most of whom were of the
colored race, and who would have fought to the last against the
reëstablishment of Slavery.

Yet, strong and decided as is my opposition to the course of Napoleon on
the Mexican as well as the Confederate question, I believe that the
policy of Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward on this question has been marked by
great courage, devoted patriotism, and the highest statesmanship. I am
not for mingling this or any other question of foreign or domestic
policy with the maintenance of the Union, but have only answered the
assaults of adversaries on the Mexican and other subordinate issues.
This, however, I must say: that the treaty with Mexico, by which we
abandoned that country, having been ratified, I am opposed to any
violation of its provisions. While I adhere to the opinions expressed at
the time by me against that treaty; while I am opposed to forcing Mexico
into our Union, I believe that Napoleon the Third, unwittingly, by his
invasion, has caused Mexico soon to gravitate, by the overwhelming wish
of her people, into the arms of the great Republic. Thus is it that the
French invasion will have settled forever in our favor the question of
the American equilibrium.

I have published the views expressed in these letters on consultation
with no one. They are my own individual opinions, and I only am
responsible for them. It is quite possible that the Administration may
differ from some of them, but I am just as independent of the
Administration as they are of me. I am not, and never was, a Republican
of 1856 or 1860, and while I have been falsely charged in Europe with
abandoning my free-trade principles, in consequence of the constant and
earnest support given by me to Mr. Lincoln, it must be remembered that a
majority of his Cabinet of 1863 had been Democrats, and supported the
Tariff of 1846. But the Tariff is a very subordinate question, compared
with the salvation of the Union. Besides, if the Tariff of 1846 was
changed, it was not until the 2d of March, 1861, and the change was
caused intentionally, by the previous withdrawal of the Senators and
Representatives of the seceded States from both Houses of Congress.

I have another answer to this charge. I was for the _free list_ of the
Tariff of 1842, as distinctly stated in my first annual Treasury report,
so as to increase our exports, especially of dyed cotton goods, thereby
producing a corresponding augmentation of our imports and revenue. That
portion of the act of 1846 was defeated by Mr. Calhoun, much to my
regret, injury, and annoyance.

Besides, the South, by its rebellion, and by thus forcing on us an
enormous Federal debt, has rendered impossible for many years any other
Tariff but that which will bring the largest revenue. Until this debt is
paid, we must have the highest Tariff for revenue, and it can be so
arranged as, while yielding, when the Union is restored, at least
$150,000,000 annually in gold, at the same time to furnish all
incidental aid to American industry that could be desired.

I have thus far discussed the question as confined to the contest
between the respective candidates for the Presidency of the United
States. But let those who think of supporting General McClellan for the
Presidency remember that, in sustaining him, they must necessarily vote
for Mr. Pendleton for the Vice Presidency. McClellan and Pendleton are
the Siamese twins of Chicago, inseparable, and all who vote for the one,
vote at the same time for the other. No voter can cast his suffrage in
this contest, except by voting for an electoral ticket, and the same
electors for General McClellan who may be chosen in any State, are to
vote for Mr. Pendleton for the Vice Presidency. In other words, if
General McClellan is chosen President, Mr. Pendleton is elected at the
same time to the Vice Presidency of the United States. Now, recollect,
that the Vice President not only presides over the Senate of the United
States, and gives the casting vote in that body, but that, in case of
the death of the President, the Vice President becomes President of the
United States. Now, two Presidents of the United States, within the last
twenty-three years, have died during their term of office (Harrison and
Taylor), and one of them within a month after his inauguration. In both
these cases, the Vice Presidents chosen on the same electoral ticket
with the President, reversed the policy of the President elect. Tyler
reversed the policy of Harrison, and Fillmore reversed the policy of
Taylor. Why may not the same thing again occur, if Mr. Pendleton, by the
death of General McClellan, should succeed him as President? This
renders an inquiry into the course and views of Mr. Pendleton a question
of vital importance.

Now, Mr. Pendleton, as his votes and speeches show, is against the war
for the Union, and has declared the coercion of a seceding rebel State
not only '_impracticable_,' but 'unconstitutional.' His words are, in
big speech in Congress of the 18th January, 1861, after most of the
Cotton States had seceded: 'Sir (he then said) the whole scheme of
coercion is impracticable. It is contrary to the genius and spirit of
the Constitution.' In accordance with these anti-coercion and anti-war
views, he continued to vote against the prosecution of the war, and
against all the great measures passed for that purpose. He further then
said, 'If your differences are so great that you cannot or will not
reconcile them, then, gentlemen, let the seceding States depart in
peace; let them establish their government and empire, and work out
their destiny according to the wisdom which God has given them.' This is
exactly the doctrine of Jefferson Davis, and of all the rebel leaders:
'LET US ALONE.' _Let us alone_, while we overthrow the Government and
dissolve the Union; _let us alone_, while we seize the mouth of the
Mississippi, and tear down or shoot down the flag of the Union from
every fort of the South. This is their language, and the Chicago
Convention might just as well have nominated Jefferson Davis as George
H. Pendleton as their candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United
States. Such a nomination of an avowed disunionist shows the true spirit
of the Chicago Convention, and that all their general expressions of
devotion to the Union were mere empty sounds, calculated to secure
votes, but utterly false and hypocritical; for, while indulging in these
pharasaical expressions of love for the Union, they nominate, at the
same time, as their candidate for the Vice President, an avowed
secessionist and disunionist. We have nothing to do with the abstract
opinions or wishes of Mr. Pendleton as regards the Union. Jefferson
Davis repeatedly, and up to the very period of secession, expressed
quite as much devotion to the old flag and to the Union as Mr.
Pendleton. But Mr. Davis soon became the head of the rebellion which Mr.
Pendleton declares we ought not, and have no constitutional power, to
suppress by force. Far all practical purposes, then, Mr. Pendleton is
just as much a secessionist and disunionist as Jefferson Davis. Nor can
it be alleged that Mr. Pendleton has changed these views. On the
contrary, as late as this year he voted in Congress against the test
resolution of Green Clay Smith, of Kentucky, declaring 'that it is the
political, civil, moral, and sacred duty of the people to meet the
rebellion, fight it, crush it, and forever destroy it.' Now then, the
Chicago Convention, with a full knowledge of these votes and speeches,
nominated Mr. Pendleton for the Vice Presidency, and contingently for
the Presidency of the United States. They knew full well that Mr.
Pendleton had declared the effort to crush the rebellion impracticable
and unconstitutional, and that, therefore, if the power they proposed to
give him were ratified by his election, he could, and under his oath of
office to support the Constitution, he must, disband our armies,
terminate the war, and permit the dissolution of the Union to be
consummated; or he might repeat his own words of 1861: Let the seceding
States depart in peace; let them establish their government and empire,
and work out their destiny according to the wisdom which God has given
them.' It is, then, a sufficient objection to the Chicago candidates
that Mr. Pendleton, one of the candidates, inseparably connected with
General McClellan on the same electoral ticket, is, as we have seen,
opposed to the war, and for all practical purposes as much a
secessionist and disunionist as Jefferson Davis. This being clear, if
General McClellan is really for the war to save the Union, by crushing
the rebellion, he must refuse to run on the same electoral ticket with
Mr. Pendleton; and if he does not, the people and history will assign to
him the same position. He cannot lend his name to aid the election of
Mr. Pendleton on the same ticket with himself, and profess devotion to
the Union.

There is yet another point on which I would say a word. It is this: From
the proceedings of the Canada Confederates, and their Northern allies,
and the outgivings of the Richmond press, I conclude that their last
suggestion is this: two or more confederacies, Northern, Southern,
Middle, New England, Northwest, Mississippi, and Pacific. They are to be
united by free trade between them all, and by an alliance offensive and
defensive. That is, whenever any one of these confederacies go to war,
we are to join them in the conflict. Namely, if the Southern Confederacy
wishes to conquer and annex Cuba or Porto Rico, or to conquer and extend
slavery to Central America, and war follows, we are to join them in the
war, and sustain them with our blood and treasure. If so, the temple of
Janus will never be closed on our continent, and war will be our normal
condition--a war not declared by us, or in our own interest, but by the
South, as a foreign government. Such an alliance is visionary, ruinous,
and impracticable. It is simply a scheme to secure Southern
independence.

Then, as to the free trade to be secured by treaty between the several
confederacies. Recollect that each of these nations is to be foreign and
independent, and to have its separate treaties with foreign Powers. How
long would such treaties and such an alliance last? Why, the flag of the
South would scarcely float over the mouth of the Chesapeake and
Mississippi, before the conflict with us of views and measures would
begin, nursed and promoted by foreign Powers, where each of the new
confederacies would have its separate ministers, representing distinct
and discordant interests. When have such alliances or treaties lasted
even for half a century? Where are all the leagues of antiquity or of
modern Europe? Where are all such leagues and treaties even of the last
century? Where is our own alliance with France of 1778? Where all such
alliances and treaties even of the first half of the present century?
They are all extinguished. Experience proves--the voice of history
proclaims--that treaties or alliances between independent Powers are
always of short duration, being soon swept before the gust of contending
passions, or melted in the crucible of conflicting interests. Where is
the celebrated alliance and treaty of 1814 and 1815 of Vienna, between
the great European Powers, establishing FOREVER, by a congress, the
balance of European power? Is there a single clause now in force? Where
is the clause securing France to the Bourbons, and guaranteeing her
forever against the reign of any of the Bonaparte family? Where are the
states whose independence was forever guaranteed by those treaties?
Where are Parma and Modena and Tuscany? Where is Lombardy, where the
Romagna, Naples, and the Two Sicilies? Where are the duchies of
Lauenburg, Schleswig, and Holstein, and where the treaty of 1852 in
regard to them? All, all have passed away, just as would our proposed
treaties or alliances. The first war would sweep them out of existence.
No, my countrymen; as Washington, the father of his country, most truly
told us in his Farewell Address: 'To the efficacy and permanency of your
Union, a Government _for the whole_ is indispensable. _No alliance_,
however strict between the parts, can be an adequate substitute; they
must inevitably experience the _infractions_ and _interruptions_ which
_all alliances_, in _all time_, have experienced.'

Washington thus foresaw and warned us against this most insidious
proposition to divide our country into separate confederacies, no matter
how strict the alliances between them might be; and let us adopt his
counsels.

Is it not strange, while Italy and Germany seek, in Italian and German
unity, relief from the ruin and oppression of so many independent states
and governments, and are each making advances to that great
consummation, that we are asked to adopt the reactionary policy, and
separate glorious Union into distinct confederacies, soon to be followed
by grinding taxation, by immense standing armies, and perpetual wars?

And now then, my countrymen, I bring this letter to a close, imploring
you to give no vote which will subject the Union to the slightest peril.
Come, then, my friends, of all parties, come, Republicans, and Whigs,
and Democrats, and Irish and German and native citizens, trampling under
our feet all past issues, and all old party names and prejudices, and,
standing on the broad basis of principle, let us vote, not for men or
parties, but for the salvation and perpetuity of the Union.

  R. J. WALKER.

GENIUS.

  Far out at sea the wave was high,
    While veered the wind and flapped the sail;
  We saw a snow-white butterfly
    Dancing before the fitful gale,
              Far out at sea!

  The little creature, which had lost
    Its mate, of danger little knew;
  Settled awhile upon the mast,
    Then fluttered o'er the waters blue,
              Far out at sea!

  Away it danced with shimmering glee,
    Now dim, distinct, now seen, now gone:
  Night comes, with wind and rain, but he
    No more shall dance before the morn,
              Far out at sea!

  He dies unlike his mates, I ween,
    Perhaps not sooner or more crossed;
  But he has known, and felt, and seen,
    A wider, larger hope, though lost
              Far out at sea!

LITERARY NOTICES

     THE AMERICAN CONFLICT: A History of the Great Rebellion in the
     United States of America, 1860-'64: Its Causes, Incidents, and
     Results: Intended to Exhibit especially its Moral and Political
     Phases, with the Drift and Progress of American Opinion respecting
     Human Slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. By
     HORACE GREELEY. Illustrated by Portraits on Steel of Generals,
     Statesmen, and other Eminent Men; Views of Places of Historical
     Interest; Maps, Diagrams of Battle Fields, Naval Actions, etc.,
     from official sources. Vol. I. Hartford: Published by O. D. Case &
     Co. Chicago; Geo. & E. W. Sherwood. 1864.

It is not our intention here to enter into any critical analysis of the
volume before us, but rather to give the reader an idea of what he may
find within it, in the words of Mr. Greeley himself. It is inscribed to
Mr. Bright, under the following dedication: 'To John Bright, British
Commoner and Christian Statesman, the Friend of my Country, because the
Friend of Mankind, this Record of a Nation's Struggle up from Darkness
and Bondage to Light and Liberty, is regardfully, gratefully inscribed
by the Author.'

Mr. Greeley says in his preface: 'No one can realize more fully than I
do that the History through whose pages our great-grandchildren will
contemplate the momentous struggle whereof this country has recently
been and still is the arena, will not and cannot _now_ be written; and
that its author must give to the patient, careful, critical study of
innumerable documents and letters, an amount of time and thought which I
could not have commanded, unless I had been able to devote years,
instead of months only, to the preparation of this volume. I know, at
least, what History is, and how it must be made; I know how very far
this work must fall short of the lofty ideal.' ... 'What I have aimed to
do, is so to arrange the material facts, and so to embody the more
essential documents, or parts of documents, illustrating those facts,
that the attentive, intelligent reader may learn from this work, not
only what were the leading incidents of our civil war, but its causes,
incidents, and the inevitable sequence whereby ideas proved the germ of
events.' ... 'My subject naturally divides itself into two parts: I.
_How we got into the war for the Union_; and II. _How we got out of it_.
I have respected this division in my cast of the present work, and
submit this volume as a clear elucidation of the former of these
problems, hoping to be at least equally satisfactory in my treatment of
the latter.' ... 'I shall labor constantly to guard against Mr.
Pollard's chief error--that of supposing that all the heroism,
devotedness, humanity, chivalry, evinced in the contest, were displayed
on one side; all the cowardice, ferocity, cruelty, rapacity, and general
depravity, on the other. I believe it to be the truth, and as such I
shall endeavor to show, that, while this war has been signalized by some
deeds disgraceful to human nature, the general behavior of the
combatants on either side has been calculated to do honor even to the
men who, though fearfully misguided, are still our countrymen, and to
exalt the prestige of the American name.'

The sale of the work before us has been immense. Such has been the
demand for Vol. I. of 'The American Conflict,' that the publishers have
found it impossible to supply the demand, even with regard to agents and
subscribers. The subscription list already numbers 60,000, although but
one fourth of the Free States have been canvassed.

Leading heads of chapters are: I. Our Country in 1782 and in 1860. II.
Slavery in America prior to 1776. III. Slavery in the American
Revolution. IV. Slavery Under the Confederation. V. The Convention of
1787 and the Federal Constitution, VI. Slavery after 1787. VII.
Missouri--The Struggle for Restriction. VIII. State Rights--Resolutions
of '98. IX. Abolition--Its Rise and Progress. X. The Churches on Slavery
and Abolition. XI. The Pro-Slavery Reaction--Riots. XII. Texas and her
Annexation to the United States. XIII. The Mission of Samuel Hoar to
South Carolina. XIV. War with Mexico--Wilmot Proviso. XV. The Struggle
for Compromise in 1850. XVI. The Era of Slave Hunting--1850-'60. XVII.
The Nebraska-Kansas Struggle. XVIII. Case of Dred Scott in the Supreme
Court. XIX. Our Foreign Policy--Monroe--Cuba. XX. John Brown and his
Raid. XXI. The Presidential Canvass of 1860. XXII. Secession Inaugurated
in South Carolina. XXIII. The Press and the People of the North
Deprecate Civil War. XXIV. Attempts at Conciliation in Congress. XXV.
Peace Democracy at the North and Peace Conference at Washington. XXVI.
The Union versus the Confederacy. XXVII. The Pause before the Shock.
XXVIII. Siege and Reduction of Fort Sumter. XXIX. The Nation Called to
Arms--and Responds. XXX. Secession Resumes its March. XXXI. The Opposing
Forces in Conflict. XXXII. West Virginia Clings to the Union. XXXIII.
The War in Old Virginia. XXXIV. First Session of the Thirty-Seventh
Congress. XXXV. The Rebellion and War in Missouri. XXXVI. War on the
Seaboard and the Ocean. XXXVII. Kentucky Adheres to the Union. XXXVIII.
The Potomac--Ball's Bluff. Notes and Analytical Index.

This work demands an extended review, and the readers of THE CONTINENTAL
may again hear of it. Meantime the most varied estimates will be formed
of its merits; as various as the political tenets held by its readers.

It is illustrated, containing Heads of President and Cabinet, Eminent
Opponents of the Slave Power, Confederate Chieftains, Union Generals,
Confederate Generals, Union Naval Officers, Plans of Battles, etc., etc.

     DOWN IN TENNESSEE, AND BACK BY WAY OF RICHMOND. By EDMUND KIRKE,
     Author of 'Among the Pines,' 'My Southern Friends,' etc. New York:
     Carleton, publisher, 413 Broadway. 1864.

The author of this work, having been familiar with the South in days
more tranquil, had 'a desire to study the undercurrents of popular
sentiment, and to renew his acquaintance with former friends and Union
prisoners,' and so visited the Southwest in May last: the present volume
thus originated. We cannot very readily discern how much of this work is
fact, how much fiction. We have the Union scout, the poor white, the
negro, and other elements belonging both to the romance and reality of
Southern life in these days of struggle. Are the exquisitely simple and
heart-touching thoughts and expressions which fall from the lips of the
poor white or scout, actually true, or are they the coinage of Mr.
Kirke's own vivid fancy? Notwithstanding the hideous jargon in which
they occur, if real they evince a high soul, even in the midst of
ignorance, and are the gems of the work. The book ends with a detailed
account of the author's introduction to Colonel Jaques, and their
subsequent visit to Richmond, an episode in our history quite as
curious as the Sanders and Greeley conference at Clifton House, and
one which has excited quite as wide an interest. Mr. Kirke says of
the poor whites: 'I have endeavored to sketch their characters
faithfully--extenuating nothing and setting nothing down in malice--that
the reader may believe what I _know_, that there is not in the whole
North a more worthy, industrious, loving class of people than the great
body of poor Southern Whites. Take the heel of the man-buying and
woman-whipping aristocrat from off their necks, give them free schools,
and a chance to rise, and they will make the South, with its prolific
soil, its immense water power, and its vast mineral wealth, such a
country as the sun never yet looked upon, and this Union such a Union as
will be the light of nations and the glory of the earth!'

     POEMS OF THE WAR. By GEORGE H. BOKER. Boston: Ticknor & Fields.
     1864. New York: for sale by D. Appleton & Co.

Mr. Boker has attained, what his more elaborate efforts sometimes lack,
fire, concentration, and energy, in these 'Poems of the War.' We thank
him heartily that he has taken the glories of our country and the
sufferings and deeds of our dauntless soldiers as his theme. Patriotism
has inspired him, and the ever well-tuned chords of his lyre ring out
with bolder and more soul-stirring melody than of old. 'On Board the
Cumberland,' 'The Sword Bearer,' 'The Ballad of New Orleans,' 'Crossing
at Fredericksburg,' 'The Black Regiment,' 'In the Wilderness,' are truly