what bloody struggle of months, winter closes on the Union people of Western Virginia, leaving them masters of their own country.

An insurgent force of about fifteen hundred, for months dominating the narrow peninsular region, constituting the counties of Accomac and Northampton, and known as the eastern shore of Virginia, together with some contiguous parts of Maryland, have laid down their arms; and the people there have renewed their allegiance to, and accepted the protection of, the old flag. This leaves no armed insurrectionist north of the Potomac or east of the Chesapeake.

Also we have obtained a footing at each of the isolated points, on the southern coast, of Hatteras, Port Royal, Tybee Island, near Savannah, and Ship Island; and we likewise have some general accounts of popular movements, in behalf of the Union, in North Carolina and Tennessee.

These things demonstrate that the cause of the Union is advancing steadily and certainly southward.

Since your last adjournment, Lieut. Gen. Scott has retired from the head of the army. During his long life, the nation has not been unmindful of his merit; yet, on calling to mind how faithfully, ably and brilliantly he has served the country, from a time far back in our history, when few of the now living had been born, and thenceforward continually, I can not but think we are still his debtors. I submit, therefore, for your consideration, what further mark of recognition is due to him, and to ourselves, as a grateful people.

With the retirement of Gen. Scott came the Executive duty of appointing, in his stead, a General-in-chief of the army. It is a fortunate circumstance that neither in council nor country was there, so far as I know, any difference of opinion as to the proper person to be selected. The retiring chief repeatedly expressed his judgment in favor of Gen. McClellan for the position, and in this the nation seemed to give a unanimous concurrence. The designation of Gen. McClellan is, therefore, in considerable degree, the selection of the country as well as of the Executive; and hence there is better reason to hope there will be given him the confidence and cordial support thus, by fair implication, promised, and without which he can not, with so full efficiency, serve the country.

It has been said that one bad General is better than two good ones; and the saying is true, if taken to mean no more than that an army is better directed by a single mind, though inferior, than by two superior ones at variance and cross-purposes with each other.

And the same is true in all joint operations wherein those

and can

engaged can have none but a common end in view, differ only as to the choice of means. In a storm at sea, no one on board can wish the ship to sink, and yet, not unfrequently, all go down together because too many will direct and no single mind can be allowed to control.

It continues to develop that the insurrection is largely, if not exclusively, a war upon the first principle of popular government the rights of the people. Conclusive evidence of this is found in the most grave and maturely-considered public documents, as well as in the general tone of the insurgents. In those documents we find the abridgment of the existing right of suffrage and the denial to the people of all right to participate in the selection of public officers, except the legislative, boldly advocated, with labored arguments to prove that large control of the people in government is the source of all political evil. Monarchy itself is sometimes hinted at as a possible refuge from the power of the people.

In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism.

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital-that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers, or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed; nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation

between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class-neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people, of all colors, are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families-wives, sons, and daughterswork for themselves, on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital, on the one hand, nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital-that is, they labor with their own hands, and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed, and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again, as has already been said, there is not, of necessity, any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men every-where in these States, a few years back in their lives, were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to allgives hope to all, and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost.

From the first taking of our National Census to the last are seventy years; and we find our population at the end of the period eight times as great as it was at the beginning. The increase of those other things which men deem desirable has been even greater. We thus have at one view what the popular principle, applied to Government through the machinery of the States and the Union, has produced in a given time, and also what it firmly maintained, it promises for the future. There are already among us those who, if the Union be pre

served, will liye to see it contain two hundred and fifty millions. The struggle of to-day is not altogether for to-day; it is for a vast future also. With a reliance on Providence all the more firm and earnest, let us proceed in the great task which events have devolved upon us.

WASHINGTON, December 3, 1861.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

The organization of an opposition party, taking the Democratic name, had been effected under the auspices of a few antiwar men in Congress, who had occasionally ventured to speak out their dissent at the previous session. This faction, represented in Ohio by Vallandigham, and in Illinois by Richardson, having apparently very little support among the people, began at this session to work in earnest, boldly aspiring to assume control of the House of Representatives to be elected during the coming season. Already, too, plans were formed for carrying the next Presidential election, and there were not wanting sagacious observers, who believed that schemes of this sort had the sympathy of at least one Major General in the army.

At this session of Congress it was early apparent that a great advance had taken place in the public mind on the question of Slavery. Neither Secretary Seward's diplomatic assurances to Governments abroad that no change in Southern institutions was contemplated in any event, nor McClellan's manifesto on this subject to the people of Virginia, nor Halleck's order excluding fugitive slaves from the lines of the Army of the West, nor the 22d of July resolution of Mr. Crittenden, were now satisfactory to the people, who began already to demand that the Rebellion should be attacked in its vital and vulnerable point. On the third day of the session, the Crittenden Resolution was laid on the table, in the popular branch of Congress, by a vote of 71 to 65. The demand of the people for the destruction of Slavery was daily becoming more manifest and more earnest. The President, in his inaugural address, had clearly foreseen a time when, if war should come, the destruction of Slavery must follow. He made no pledge, under such circumstances, not to hasten its destruction by all the means in his power. So soon as the people, whose will he

intended faithfully to execute, should sustain him in such a war measure now beginning to be deemed necessary-he had no dread to strike. A joint committee of both Houses to inquire into the conduct of the war was appointed in the Senate, on the 18th, and in the House on the 19th of December. It is needless to say that this proceeding arose from the general dissatisfaction felt at the inaction of the Army of the Potomac, in the face of a greatly inferior enemy, as well as from the disastrous issue of the only positive movement yet attempted that at Ball's Bluff. The members of that committee were: Messrs. Wade, Chandler, and Andrew Johnson (whose place was subsequently supplied by Mr. Wright, of Indiana), of the Senate; and Messrs. Gooch, Covode, Julian, and Odell, of the House. The evidence collected by this committee from the best sources of information, including the testimony of the highest Generals, was, from time to time, laid before the President for his consideration, and subsequently given to the public.

The exciting subject of the arrest of Mason and Slidell was early seized upon by the leaders of the Opposition in the House, as one suited to their purpose. An adroitly worded resolution with an elaborate preamble, reciting the complimentary order of the Secretary of the Navy on this arrest, and the unanimous thanks of the House to Com. Wilkes already passed, was offered in the House, calling upon the President not to yield "to any menace or demand of the British Government." This was referred, against the wishes of the mover, to the Committee on Foreign Affairs-ayes 109, nays 16. At a later period, December 30, the President transmitted to Congress the correspondence between Mr. Seward and the authorities of Great Britain on this subject, conceding the illegality of the arrest, though strictly according to English precedent, and offering the proper satisfaction. Mason and Slidell were placed on board a British vessel lying off Boston, to be transported to their original destination. If this decision caused a momentary disappointment, its profound wisdom and prudence were at once. apparent. It was to the supporters of Davis, and to the sympathizers with him, the defeat of an ardently cherished hope that so unimportant a matter as the detention or surrender