Confederate forces South of Virginia.-Surrender of Johnston's army.-Gen. Johnston's line of retreat from Raleigh.-Sherman's pursuit.—The conference at Durham Station.-Sherman's "memorandum or basis of agreement."-He attempts an extraordinary game of hypocrisy.-His astounding eonfessions at Washington. -Curious speech at a soldiers' festival.-Sherman's convention with Johnston repudiated at Washington.-Johnston compelled to surrender on the terms given Lee.-Review of the sections of Confederate defence.-Operations in the Southwest. -Capture of Mobile.-Wilson's expedition.-The expedition of Gen. Canby against Mobile and Central Alabama.-Statements of his force.-The works and garrison of Mobile.-Siege of Spanish Fort.-Gen. Maury orders its evacuation.-Capture of Fort Blakely.-Evacuation of Mobile.-How Wilson's cavalry was to co-operate with Canby.-Disposition of the forces of Gens. Forrest and Roddy.-Capture of Selma, Montgomery and Columbus.-The Heroic episode of West Point.-Wilson advances upon Macon.-News of Sherman's truce.-Surrender of all the confed- erate forces in Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana.-The Trans-Mississippi.— Surrender of Gen. Smith.-Hope of prolonging the war west of the Mississippi River. The last calculation of "European recognition."-Surrender of the Trans- Mississippi army to Gen. Canby.-The downfall of the Confederacy complete.-Some reflections on the termination of the war.-Its flat conclusion.-No grand catas- trophe. Explanation of this.-Theories, to account for the failure of the Confederacy. -The vulgar argument of the numerical superiority of the North.-How this argument is defective. The true basis of comparison between the military forces of North and South.-The numerical inequality not sufficient to determine the war against the South.-Inconsistency of this argument on the part of Southern leaders. -The relation of numbers to other elements of armed contest.-What advantages the South had in the extent and features of her territory.-General conclusion and Proper limit of the narrative of the war.-A glance at its political consequences.- General condition of the South after the war.-Alternative of policies at Washing- ton.-Hideous programme of the radicals.-The policy of reconciliation.—En- lightened lesson of history.-The problem of "reconstruction."-Coincidence of moderate Republicans with the Conservative plan.-Position of President Johnson. -Estimate of the views and character of the new President.-His school of politics, midway between those of Calhoun and Hamilton.-A happy position.— The great historical issue.-Series of Radical measures in Congress.--The blindness of despotism.-Plain consequences of the Radical policy.-The residuum of State Rights claimed by the South.-President Johnson's declaration of another war.- Have the Americans a government ?-Differences of opinion in the South, corres- pondent to the division of parties in the North.-A small and detestable faction of time-servers.-Noble declaration of Ex-President Davis.-Eloquent appeal of Henry A. Wise.-Basis for a new Southern party.-The South to surrender only what the war conquered.-What the war determined, and what it did not deter- mine. The new arena of contest and "the War of Ideas."-Coarse and superficial advice to the South about material prosperity.-An aspiration of Gov. Orr of South Carolina.-The South should not lose its moral and intellectual distinct- iveness as a people.-Questions outside the pale of the war.-Rights, duties and hopes of the South.-What would be the extremity of her humiliation.........743 CHAPTER I. THE TRUE VALUE OF THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.-HISTORICAL EXAMPLES.-COLERIDGE'S PROPHECY. THE EARLY MISSION OF THE AMERICAN UNION.-HOW TERMINATED.-THR AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT A MIXED ONE. THE COLONIAL PERIOD.-FIRST PROPOSITION OF A GENERAL CONGRESS.-DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.-ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.-THEIR OCCASION AND ORIGIN.-NATURE OF THE COMPACT.PEACE-TREATY OF 1783.-ANALYSIS OF THE NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CONFEDERATION. HOW IT WAS TERMINATED. THE CONVENTION OF 1787.-CHARACTER OF THE MEN WHO COMPOSED IT.-POLITICAL IDOLATRY IN AMERICA.-PARTIES IN THE CONVENTION. THE QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION.-THE NOVELTY OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT.-STATE RIGHTS.-AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.-NATURE OF THE AMERICAN UNION.-NOT A CONSOLIDATED NATIONALITY. THE RIGHT OF SECESSION.-THE UNION NOT THE PROCLAMATION OF A NEW CIVIL POLITY. NOT A POLITICAL REVOLUTION.-A CONVENIENCE OF THE STATES, WITH NO MISSION APART FROM THE STATES.-THE TWO POLITICAL SCHOOLS OF AMERICA. CONSOLIDATION AND STATE RIGHTS.-HOW THE SLAVERY QUESTION WAS INVOLVED.-A SHARP ANTITHESIS.-THE KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS.-WEBSTER AND CALHOUN, THE ANTITYPES OF NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN STATESMANSHIP.MR. CALHOUN'S DOCTRINES. NULLIFICATION A UNION-SAVING MEASURE. ITS INGENUITY AND CONSERVATISM.-CALHOUN'S PROFOUND STATESMANSHIP-INJUSTICE TO HIS MEMORY.-HOW THE SOUTH HAS BEEN INJURED BY FALSE PARTY NAMES. 66 THERE is nothing of political philosophy more plainly taught in history than the limited value of the Federal principle. It had been experimented upon in various ages of the world-in the Amphictyonic Council, in the Achæan league, in the United Provinces of Holland, in Mexico, in Central America, in Columbia, and in the Argentine republic; in all these instances the form of government established upon it had become extinct, or had passed into the alternative of consolidation or anarchy and disintegration. Indeed, it is plain enough that such a form of government is the resource only of small and weak communities; that it is essentially temporary in its nature; and that it has never been adopted by States which had approached a mature condition, and had passed the period of pupillage. It is not to be denied that the Federal principle is valuable in peculiar circumstances and for temporary ends. But it is essentially not permanent; and all attempts to make it so, though marked for certain periods by fictitious prosperity and sudden evidences of material activity and progress, have ultimately resulted in intestine commotions and the extinction of the form of government. What, indeed, can be more natural than that the members of a confederation, after they have advanced in political life and become mature and powerful, should desire for themselves independence and free action, and be impatient of a system founded on their early and past necessities! Coleridge, the acute English scholar and philosopher, once said that he looked upon the American States as "splendid masses to be used by and by in the composition of two or three great governments." For more than a generation past it was considered by a party in America, as well as by intelligent men in other parts of the world, that the American Union, as a confederation of States, had performed its mission, and that the country was called to the fulfilment of another political destiny. And here it is especially to be remarked that those statesmen of the South, who for more than thirty years before the war of 1861 despaired of the continuation of the Union, were yet prompt to acknowledge its benefits in the past. There could be no dispute about the success of its early mission; and no intelligent man in America dared to refer to the Union without acknowledging the country's indebtedness to it in the past. It had peopled and fertilized a continent; it had enriched the world's commerce with a new trade; it had developed population, and it was steadily training to manhood the States which composed it, and fitting them for the responsibility of a new political life. The party that insisted at a certain period that the interests of the Southern States demanded a separate and independent government, simply held the doctrine that the country had outlived the necessities of the Union, and had become involved in the abuses of a system, admirable enough in its early conception, but diverted from its original objects and now existing only as the parent of intolerable rivalries, and the source of constant intestine commotions. With reference to these abuses, it must be remarked here that although the Federal principle was the governing one of the American Union, yet such Union was not purely a confederation of States; it was mixed with parts of another system of government; and that the subordination of the Federal principle to these produced many additional causes of disruption, which plainly hurried the catastrophe of separation and war. But before coming to the subject of these abuses, it will be necessary to determine the true nature and value of the Union. We must go back to an early period of American history; we must explore the sources of the great political parties in the country; and we must enumerate among the causes of disunion not only the inherent weakness of the Federal principle, but those many controversies which aided and expedited the result, |