Of all the men I ever knew, he was about the last who might have been expected to take back anything he had said. I knew him well for sixteen years. We went into Congress together, in December, 1843, and a more unyielding and inflexible man in his positions and matured opinions I never met with. His death, at the time, I regarded as one of the greatest calamities, under the dispenpensations of Providence, which befell this country in the beginning of these troubles. So much for Mr. Douglas's position.

Now a word or two in reply to that portion of your remarks which relates to the telegram from Montgomery. Whether Mr. Walker really did make such a speech, as reported by that telegram, or not, I do not know; for I was not there but I do know that many things were reported by telegraph to have been said by parties, which were never said by them, and I cannot believe it possible that Mr. Walker could have made a speech justly admitting the construction which you and others put upon the words of the telegram referred to. For, if there is anything I do know, it is that such were not the views of the Cabinet, or of the people generally of the Confederate States, nor do the words of the telegram require that construction which you and others put upon them. Another and a very different construction is perfectly consistent with them.

With this view, I will add that it is not at all improbable that Mr. Walker, in speaking on that occasion of the war, inaugurated as this was, and of the acts of Mr. Lincoln in bringing it on in such open and palpable violation of the fundamental principles of the Government, may have indulged in the expression of the hope that the people of all the States would be so aroused by its alarming tendency to Centralism and Despotic Power,

that the cry might go forth, the "cause of Charleston is the cause of us all"-and that Maryland, as well as Virginia and the other Border States, would now certainly join her sisters of the South, as Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas actually did subsequently.

With these views, and animated with such sentiments as these, it is not improbable that he may have indulged in the belief, and expressed the opinion, that "before the 1st of May," the flag under which he then spoke might wave "over the dome of the old Capitol at Washington," planted there, not by a conquering army, but by the willling hands of a free people, holding the great truth that "all Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," just as the same flag had been planted where he was then speaking. In the same vein and in the indulgence of the same sentiments, it is not improbable that he may have expressed the opinion and hope, that "eventually" the final result of that conflict of principles which we have been tracing, and of that physical conflict growing out of them, that day begun, would be the planting of the same flag-the symbol of the Sovereign Right of local Self-government — the emblem of Federation against Centralism-over Faneuil Hall itself -the Cradle of American Liberty; but planted there in the same way by the voluntary hands of a free people!

That a speech, embodying these sentiments, may have been made by him, is not at all improbable, nor would it have been inconsistent with the words of the telegram itself. But I do not think that he could have made a speech declaring a design or purpose, on the part of the Authorities at Montgomery, to wage a war, as you suppose, with a view to overthrow the Government of the United States, or by conquest to plant their flag anywhere; for war, if it could possibly be avoided, was not

the object, wish, desire, or intention of the Confederate States much less conquest. Peace was their object. This their every act shows. This, Mr. Walker's telegram to General Beauregard, before the fire upon Fort Sumter was opened, clearly shows.

These remarks bring me to the point I was coming to in the course of what I proposed for this occasion. After the very rapid glance which we have taken at the movements elsewhere, the very next subject, on the line I was pursuing, was a notice of the progress of events in the meantime at Montgomery. To this, therefore, we will now turn our attention.

The Confederate Congress, as stated before, had been summoned by Mr. Davis, immediately after the occurrences at Fort Sumter, to re-assemble on the 29th of April. On their re-assembling, in giving them his views upon the situation, after recounting all his efforts at peace, and the duplicity which had been practised upon the Commissioners sent to Washington, and urging upon them the most energetic measures to repel the invasion, and to defend themselves and their Institutions against the most formidable array of military power which was threatened to be brought against them, Mr. Davis used the following language in conclusion-to which I wish to call your special attention. It is doubly apropos from the matters introduced by your interruption. Here is what he said:

"We feel that our cause is just and holy, and protest solemnly, in the face of mankind, that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of Honor and Independence. We seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concessions from the Free States. All we ask is to be let alone that

none shall attempt our subjugation by arms. This we will, and must resist, to the direst extremity. The mo

ment this pretension is abandoned, the sword will drop from our hands, and we shall be ready to enter into treaties of amity and commerce mutually beneficial. So long as this pretension is maintained, with firm reliance on that Divine Power which covers with its protection the just cause, we will continue to struggle for our inhe rent right to freedom, independence, and self-government."

This is the official announcement of the purpose and policy of the Authorities at Montgomery in regard to the war. In it Mr. Davis expressed the unanimous views and sentiments of his Cabinet, Mr. Walker included; and in it he announced the feelings, views, and sentiments of an overwhelming majority of the people of the Confederate States. It was, on their part, a war entirely in defence of what they considered the inherent, sov ereign, and inalienable Right of Self-government.

Having thus presented, by the survey we have taken of the effect of the Proclamation of Mr. Lincoln of the 15th of April, and of his other acts, the position of the Parties, politically, towards the war, up to the close of April, 1861, and the principles on which they were arrayed in arms against each other, we will now postpone, for another occasion, a further view of its general conduct in reference to these principles on both sides.

COLLOQUY XXI.

CHARACTER OF THE WAR-NEITHER REBELLION NOR CIVIL WAR, BUT WAR BETWEEN STATES-CONDUCT OF THE WAR ON BOTH SIDES AS IT PROGRESSED-ACTION OF CONFEDERATE CONGRESS-ACTION OF FEDERAL CONGRESS SUBJECT OF PRISONERS-PRIVATEERS--MR. STEPHENS'S OPINION OF MR. LINCOLN DRAWN OUT BY PROF. NORTON-DISCUSSION BETWEEN JUDGE BYNUM AND MR. STEPHENS IN RELATION TO MR. LINCOLN AND HIS ACTS-DANTON-ROBESPIERRE-CESAR-HAZAEL-MR. ANDREW JOHN SON'S RESOLUTION AND SPEECH IN U. S. SENATE-MEETING OF CONFED ERATE CONGRESS AT RICHMOND-MR. DAVIS'S MESSAGE-GENERAL JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON-EVENTS TO THE CLOSE OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND ORGANIZATION UNDER PERMANENT CONSTITUTION-COMMISSION TO EUROPE -TRENT AFFAIR-EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS-CONVENTIONS WITH MISSOURI AND KENTUCKY.

MR. STEPHENS. The war now, on both sides, began to assume gigantic proportions. It was no Insurrection or Rebellion, or even Civil War in any proper sense of these terms. A Rebellion or Insurrection is resistance to the Sovereign Power of any Society, Commonwealth, or State by those owing it allegiance, and may be justified or not, according to the facts of the case. A Civil War is but another name for the same sort of resistance, where it assumes so formidable a magnitude as to divide the members of the same Society or Commonwealth into two great Parties, between which ultimate supremacy becomes a matter of uncertainty and doubt. Vattel has well and truly said, that "custom appropriates the term of 'civil war' to every war between the members of one and the same Political Society."* Further on he says, where such a "war breaks the bands of society and

* Vattel's Law of Nations, B. 3, C. xviii, Sec. 292.