Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016







November, 1886 April, 1887.


Copyright, 1886.

By Magazine of Western History Co.



Some Features of the Old South B. A. Hinsdale.

Some Observations U pon the Histoiy and Laws of Political Parties in the

United States . A. G. Riddle.

The Black Hawk War Reuben G. Thwaites.

History of Ohio— III Consul Willshire Butterfield.

Detroit During Cadillac’s Administration T. St. Pierre.

Pioneer Medicine on the Western Reserve IX Dudley P. Allen.

Modern Mexico E. P. Allen.

Sketches of Western Congressmen III. General Charles H. Grosvenor Henry K. James.

Fifty Years of Wisconsin History II C. W. Butterfield.

The Municipal Growth of Cleveland V.— J. Milton Curtiss J. H. Kennedy.

The Bench and the Bar of Toronto, and the Act of 1791 D. B. Read, Q. C.

The Michigan Lumber Interest as Told by Sketches of its Leading Men

II. — Ammi Willard Wright Rev. T. C. Gardner and Hon. John Moore.

III. Newell Avery Walter Buell.

Michigan Jurists III. Augustus C. Baldwin Hon. Henry M. Look.

Edgar Cowan C. W. Butterfield.


Editorial Notes


History of Ohio IV Consul Willshire Butterfield.

The Black Hawk War II Reuben G. Thwaites.

The Beginnings of Constitutional Construction in the United

States Ethelbert D. Warfield.

General Washington and a Westminster Abbey in America Frank G. Carpenter.

The History of Boycotting Arthur Dudley Vinton.

University of Michigan, with Sketches of James Burrill Angeil, Corydon L.

Ford, M. D., LL. D., Henry Simmons Frieze, George Edward Froth-

ingham C. W. Butterfield and A. B. Palmer.

The Father of Waters v Ray Haddock.

Alaska F. C. Sessions.

The Refugee Lands in Ohio A. A. Graham.




















167 181






270 283



Western Congressmen IV. —Colonel William C. Cooper Seelye A. Willson.

William J. Gordon J- H. Kennedy.

Horace Gillette Cleveland Wilson M. Day,

Colonel William P. Thompson W. M. Day.

H. J. Webb J. H. K.

The Bench and the Bar of Toronto II. Chief-Justice Osgoode D. B. Read, Q. C.

Original Documents

Editorial Notes


Lyman C. Draper— The Western Plutarch Reuben G. Thwaites.

Pioneers Once and Now in the United States Rev. W. Barrows, D. D.

General William Campbell, the Hero of King’s Mountain Ethelbert D. Warfield.

The Bench and the Bar of Toronto III. The Hon. William Dummer

Powell, Chief-Justice of Upper Canada .D. B. Read, Q. C.

Alaska— II F. C. Sessions.

James Tillinghast D. W. Manchester.

General Charles M. Read James Sill.

John Teagle J. H. Kennedy.

H. H. Hofmann. M. D

Benjamin Rouse lw. M. Day.

Edwin Coolidge Rouse J

Mortimer Melville Jackson Consul Willshire Butterfield.


Editorial Notes


The Mound Builders E. B. Finley.

The Original Notes of Mason and Dixon's Survey. . George A. Robertson.

Fourierism in Wisconsin Frank A. Flower.

Celoron’s Voyage Down the Allegheny T. J. Chapman.

Milwaukee I Consul Willshire Bmtterfield.

General Lucius Fairchild Consul Willshire Butterfield.

A Mythical Ohio Metropolis Wilson M. Day.

History of Ohio— V Consul Willshire Butterfield.

Pioneers of Homoeopathy in Southern Ohio D. H. Beckwith.

The Bench and the Bar of Toronto IV. The Hon. John Elmsley, Chief-

Justice of Upper Canada D. B. Read, Q. C.

Colonel Charles Whittlesey C. C. Baldwin.

General David Atwood Reuben G. Thwaites.

Pittsburgh— II.— J. H. McClelland, M. D J. H. Kennedy.

Patrick Smith J. H. K.

Original Documents

Editorial Notes


Legislation on Compensation of Members of Congress B. A. Hinsdale.

Captain Glazier’s Claim to the Discovery of the Source of the Mississippi

River .Alfred J. Hill.

Opening of the Upper Mississippi and the Siege of Vicksburg S. Chamberlain.

Voyages and Explorations Leading to the Discovery of California J

Milwaukee II >- C. W. Butterfield.

Jeremiah McLain Rusk J

The Underground Railroad, with Biography of Hon. Leicester King John Hutchins.











335 35x 362




























572 579 583









Robert Mitchell, Esq , of Cincinnati, and the Robert Mitchell Furniture

Company Henry Dudley Teetor.

The Bench and Bar of Ohio I. General Manning Ferguson Force ;

Timothy Danielson Lincoln, Esq Henry Dudley Teetor.

The Bench and Bar of Milwaukee C. W. Butterfield.

Buffalo Rufus L. Howard D. W. Manchester.


Editorial Notes


Burr's Western Expedition Harvey Rice.

The Bench and the Bar of Toronto— V. The Hon. Henry Alcock, Chief-

Justice of Upper Canada D. B. Read, Q. C.

The Bench and Bar of Buffalo I. James Murdock Smith George Gorham.

Milwaukee— III Consul Willshire Butterfield.

Right Reverend Louis Amadeus Rappe, First Bishop of the Diocese of

Cleveland D. W. Manchester.

Judge James M'Clintick, Pioneer Merchant of the Scioto Valley. . . .Henry Dudley Teetor. The Bench and Bar of Ohio II. Hon. William Trimble M‘Clintick ;

Judge Jackson A. Jordan of the Cincinnati Bar Henry Dudley Teetor.

Buffalo II. Andrew Langdon Francis F. Fargo.

Banks and Bankers of Buffalo

Hon. Elbridge Gerry Spaulding \ D. w. Manchester.

Stephen M. Clement J

Gibson T. Williams George Gorham.

Pascal Paoli Pratt James Sheldon.

The Bench and Bar of Milwaukee II Consul Willshire Butterfield.

Edward George Ryan \ C . W. Butterfield.

William Penn Lyon J

The Discovery of Henry Ward Beecher Hon. A. G. Riddle.




68 7 695 707 712 716 721 727









795 802 808 811 817 830 846 854 859



Edgar Cowan facing i

General Charles H. Grosvenor facing 94

J. Milton Curtiss facing 113

Ammi Willard Wright facing 126

Newell Avery facing 133

Augustus C. Baldwin facing 139

James B. Angell facing 167

Law Department University of Michigan 244

Corydon L. Ford facing 248

Chemical Laboratory University of Michigan 249

Henry S. Frieze 255

University Hall University of Michigan 257

G. E. Frothingham facing 261

University Building University of Michigan 262

W. C. Cooper ....facing 289

W. J. Gordon facing 292

H. G. Cleveland facing 302

W. P. Thompson facing 305

H. J. Webb facing 313

Lyman C. Draper facing 335

James Tillinghast facing 391

Charles M. Reed facing 400

John Teagle facing 410

H. H. Hofmann, M. D .facing 414

Benjamin Rouse facing 4x5

Edwin Coolidge Rouse facing 418

Mortimer Melville Jackson facing 421

Lucius Fairchild facing 439

Colonel Charles Whittlesey 536

General David Atwood facing 549

J. H. McClelland, M. D facing 565

Patrick Smith facing 568

J. M. Rusk facing 583

Leicester King facing 680

Robert Mitchell facing 683



General Manning F. Force facing 687

T. D. Lincoln facing 690

R. L. Howard facing 707

James Murdock Smith facing 753

Right Reverend Louis Amadeus Rappe . facing 771

Judge James M'Clintick facing 777

Hon. William Trimble M'Clintick facing 780

J udge J ackson A . J ordan facing 782

Andrew Langdon facing 785

Hon. Elbridge Gerry Spaulding facing 795

Stephen M. Clement facing 802

Gibson T. Williams facing 808

Pascal Paoli Pratt facing 81 1

Edward George Ryan facing 830

William Penn Lyon facing 846


CD&J&zi ne of western ®Hi$topy.

Vol. V. NOVEMBER, 1 886. No. i.


The South” is an old political des- ignation. Formerly it was the name of all those facts and forces that charac- terized the geographical south, particu- larly as moulded by the institution of slavery. It is a political designation to-day with much of the old meaning, and will no doubt continue such for years to come ; but even the most in- veterate conservatives and strongest partisans, north and south, are com- pelled to recognize a change, and to acknowledge that the south of 1886 is not the south of 1850, 1863, or even of 1870. In the old sense the south is passing into history, following the north” that has become almost wholly historical. Even men little observant of such changes have seen that, for some years past, careful writers and speakers, especially when viewing things from a sociological standpoint, are using the phrases old south and new south ;” phrases the appearance of which in cur-

rent speech, the future historian will say marks the beginning and progress of the greatest sociological change of our history, at least to the Close of the nine- teenth century. The rapidity with which the old south” is receding is the reason for this attempt to delineate some of its features. If successful, the attempt will have an interest and value in itself, and, moreover, will throw a strong light on the causes of the south- ern rebellion, and on some of the elements involved in the problems of reconstruction.

At the opening of the civil war, the nation was divided into two great and plainly marked societies. Minor divis- ions were easily recognizable, as New England, the Middle States, and the West, the Seacoast, Gulf, and Missis- sippi states ; but these were all lost, as well as the sections shading into each other along Mason and Dixon’s line,



in those bolder reature.j that made up the north and th : south. Tha ther were two such c-ocieties, ad Americans acknowledged, and all foreigners dis- covered as soon as their feet touched our shores.

What was the cause of their character- istic differences is a matter of disputeo Some have said it is race ; the Puri- tan made the north and the Cavalier the south. Even admitting that the north was Puritan and the south Cava- lier, this theory is inadequate. I am not, indeed, prepared to say that, had Cap- tain John Smith landed at Plymouth and Governor Carver at Jamestown, Amer- ican history would have been just what it is. Race and character stand for something in history. Perhaps the Pur- itan and the Cavalier was each well adapted to his new home ; but if we believe with J. S. Mill, that, “of all the vulgar modes of escaping from the consideration of the effects of social and moral influences on the human mind, the most vulgar is that of attributing the di- versities of- conduct and character to inherent natural differences,” we shall see in the final antagonism of the south and north something very different from a prolongation of the struggle between the Stuarts and their parliaments. Others say that race itself is a product ; that the southern man and the northern man, and the south and north them- selves are the results ultimately of phys- ical causes. How far this view may answer the ends of philosophy, I do not here inquire, but dismiss it with the re- mark that it is too remote and too refined for the present purpose. Let

it be said, then, once for all, that the pr ximate and efficient cause of the social and historical differentiation of the American nation into two great socie- ties was SLAVERYc

Negroes were first landed at James- town in 1620. Ten years later they appeared in New England. Whether they were more warmly welcomed in Virginia than in Massachusetts, is not here a pertinent question. Certainly slavery found a foothold stronger or weaker in all the colonies. However, for some cause, slaves were always more numerous toward the south and less numerous toward the north. This every- body noticed. By and by, too, it was seen this was not an isolated fact. In the perspicuous language of De Toc- queville :

A century had scarcely elapsed since the founda- tion of the colonies, when the attention of the plan- ters was struck by the extraordinary fact, that the provinces which were comparatively destitute of slaves, increased in population, in wealth and in prosperity, more rapidly than those which contained the greatest number of negroes. In the former, however, the inhabitants were obliged to cultivate the soil themselves, or hire laborers ; in the latter, they were furnished with hands for which they paid no wages ; yet, although labor and ex- pense were on the one side, and ease with economy on the other, the former were in possession of the most advantageous system. This consequence seemed to be the moi-e difficult to explain, since the settlers, who all belonged to the same European race, had the same habits, the same civilization, the same laws, and their shades of difference were ex- tremely slight.*

The march of American civilization has been mainly westward. By the time that the head of the column had reached the Ohio river, it was clear that

* ‘Democracy in America.’ Part I. Chapter xviii.



slavery would wholly disappear from the north, and it was an open question whether it would last at the south. Moving forward a half century, we find that it has disappeared from the one section, while it has taken firmer root than ever in the other. Again we seek for a cause and again we are met by a troop of answers. The Puritan-Cavalier theory again confronts us. What the Puritan would have done at the south, and the Cavalier at the north we can only conjecture. Perhaps the Calvinistic theology and the middle-class habits of the first fitted him for a home at the north, and predisposed him to free labor. Perhaps, too, the easy-going ways and manners of the other fitted him for a home at the south, and predisposed him to slave labor. But it cannot be doubted, that had Captain Smith gone to Massa- chusetts Bay and Governor Carver to James river, we should have had a north and south all the same. The Cavalier would have given us a different north, perhaps, but if would have been free; the Puritan have given us a different south, but it would have been slave. The race theory does not account for the death of slavery in the one society and its growth in the other, nor need we seek out those remote and refined influences of nature on man of which the philosophers of environment make so much. The answer lies on the very surface of the subject, and yet it seems never to have been clearly discerned, at all events it was never clearly and fully stated, until in 1862 the late Professor J. E. Cairnes published his work en- titled ‘ The Slave Power.'

The true causes of the phenome- non,” he says, will appear if we reflect on the advantages and disadvantages which attach respectively to slavery and free labor, as productive instruments, in connection with the external conditions under which these forms of industry came into competition in North Amer- ica.” The great economic advantages of slavery are these : The employer

of slaves has absolute power over his workmen and enjoys the disposal of the whole fruit of their labors. Slave labor, therefore, admits of the most complete organization ; that is to say, it may be combined on an extensive scale, and di- rected by a controlling mind to a single end, and its cost can never rise above that which is necessary to maintain the slave in health and strength.” The serious economical defects of slave labor are these : “It is given reluctantly ; it

is unskillful ; it is lacking in versa- tility.” Since the slave works reluct- antly, he must be constantly watched ; since he is unskillful, he must be put at the coarsest employment ; and since he is wanting in versatility, he must be con- fined within a narrow range of pro- duction. Freedom, on the other hand, tends to develop willingness, skill, and versatility. By necessity, therefore, commerce and manufactures are ex- cluded from the list of slave occupa- tions. Nor is the field of agriculture all open to slavery. The line divid- ing the slave from the free states,” says Professor Cairnes, “marks also an im- portant division in the agricultural capabilities of North America. North of this line the products for which the



soil and climate are best adapted are cereal crops, while south of it the pre- vailing crops are tobacco, rice, cotton, and sugar ; and these two classes of crops are broadly distinguished in the methods of culture suitable to each. The cultivation of the one class, of which cotton may be taken as the type, requires for its efficient conduct that labor should be combined and organized on an extensive scale. On the other hand, for the raising of cereal crops this condition is not so essential.” He then proceeds to show that the south met the great economical conditions of slave industry, while the north failed to meet them. Thus between north and south it was not a matter of race at all, or of morals, as some have said, but a plain question of economic conditions.*

And it so turned out that the north was freedom, the south slavery. That everybody knows : but few realize what the words mean. They mean far more than that the south raised cotton while the north raised corn, far more than that the south bought her laborers, while the north hired hers; for there were certain powerful tendencies in freedom and in slavery that wrought out the car- dinal features of the two great societies. Some of the features of the south will well repay our study.

Slavery divided the south socially into three plainly marked classes. First, there were the slaveholders and their families, clients, and retainers. These made up the slave power, and were in a sense the south.” Secondly, the non-

slaveholding whites. These may be di- vided into two groups the small farmers and “the poor whites” ; the first shading up to the slaveholding class, and the second shading down to the sand hillers” and corn crackers found in the mountains of Carolina and Georgia. Sometimes the poor whites were worse off than the slaves themselves. The southern states made no adequate pro- vision for schools ; education, for the most part, was a class privilege, and the poor whites were as ignorant as they were poor. Ignorant, coarsely fed, roughly clothed, inferiority often stamped on their very faces and bear- ing, living often in bye-places, they hung upon the skirts of southern civiliza- tion in ever-increasing numbers. They devotedly followed the slaveholders. Practically, they were unknown in southern opinion ; they wielded no influence in politics, but on election days came forth to ratify by their votes the work already done by the ruling caste, and then retired for a year to their wonted obscurity.* Thirdly, the

* Formerly it was the fashion at the north to divide the southern whites into two classes, the slaveholders and their clients , and ' the poor white trash. This is too broad. Sir George Campbell thus recorded what he found at the south a few years ago. (‘White and Black, ’pp. 162-164) :

I think the idea prevalent in Europe was that the southern whites were composed of an aristocracy of slave-owning gentlemen, refined and polished, with their dependent slave-drivers, and a large number of very inferior whites, known as ‘mean whites,’ ‘white trash,’ and so on. . . . It seems to me this view

is not justified. The population was very much di-= vided geographically ; there was the great black belt on the lower lands, where a few whites ruled over a large slave population ; and there was a broad upper belt in the hilly country, where the great bulk of the

* The Slave Power,’ Chap. ii.



slaves. Remembering the condition of the negro in Africa, we need not hesi- tate to say that slavery in America car- ried him a certain distance on the road of progress. Nor should we fail to re- mark that to the purposes of the mod- ern slave masters no race was ever better adapted than the African race. Physically strong, confiding, obedient, and tractable, the negro was the very man the southerner wanted. His trust- fulness and tractability were more than an economical element in the southern economy ; a race that was full of spirit and self-assertion would have given their masters far more trouble while slavery lasted, and they would have submitted much less easily to later out- rages.

The economical results of the two systems of labor were most marked and most important. The north evolved a highly differentiated industry and grew rich in consequence ; but the industrial

population was white, mostly small farmers owning their land. . . . There is no doubt in all

these southern states a large intermediate zone in which white and black are much intermixed ; but even there they are a good deal aggregated in patch- work fashion, the general rule apparently being that the rich slaveowners have occupied the best lands, and the poorer independent whites the poorer lands, especially what are called pine barrens, though they are not so barren after all. . . In truth, then, I

gather, that the population of very inferior whites without property never was very large. There were very many without slave property, but most had more or less land. The chief justification for attrib- uting lowness and meanness to the poorer whites seems to be, that some of the inferior central tracts are occupied by a set of people said to be descended from the convicts sent out in former days, and to this day very unthrifty. They are called sand-hillers in South Carolina, and really do seem to be an inferior people."

development of the south was prema- turely arrested, and she remained poor. Naturally the contrast caught the quick eye of De Tocqueville, who visited us fifty years ago.

Thus the traveler who floats down the current the Ohio, to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi, may be said to sail between liberty and servitude, and a transient inspection of the sur- rounding objects will convince him which of the two is most favorable to mankind.

Upon the left bank of the stream population is rare ; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields ; the primeval forest recurs at every turn ; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and of life.

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims the presence of in- dustry ; the fields are covered with abundant har- vests ; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the labourer, and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and content- ment which are the reward of labour.*

But more was involved in the matter than thrift and unthrift. Freedom and slavery begot different states of mind with regard both to labor and property. This the French philosopher also saw.

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labour is con- founded with the idea of slavery, uf5bn the right bank it is identified with that of prosperity and im- provement ; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honoured ; on the former territory no white labourers can be found, for they would be afraid cf assimilating themselves to the negroes ; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population ex- tends its activity and its intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and lukewarm, while those who are active and en- lightened either do nothing or pass over into the state of Ohio, where they may work without dis- honour.

The influence of slavery extends still farther ; it affects the character of the master and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and his tastes. Upon

* ‘Democracy in America,’ Part I., Chap, xviii.



both banks of the Ohio the character of the inhabit- ants is enterprising and energetic ; but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two states. The white inhabitant of Ohio, who is obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the principal aim of his existence ; and, as the coun- try which he occupies presents inexhaustible re- sources to his industry, and ever-varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardour surpasses the ordin- ary limits of human cupidity ; he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly, enters upon every path which fortune opens to him ; he becomes a sailor, pioneer, an artisan or a labourer, with the same indifference, and he supports, with equal con- stancy, the fatigue and the dangers incidental to these various professions ; the resources of his intel- ligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.

But the Kentuckian scorns not only labour but all undertakings which labour promotes ; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idle man ; money loses a portion of its value in his eyes ; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excite- ment, and the energy which his neighbour devotes to gain, turns him to a passionate love for field sports and military exercises ; he delights in violent bodily exertion ; he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life to single combat. Thus slavery not only prevents the whites from becoming opulent, but even from desir- ing to become so.

As the same causes have been continually produc- ing opposite effects for the last two centuries in the British colonies of North America, they have estab- lished a very striking difference between the com- mercial capacity of the inhabitants of the south and those of the north. At the present day it is only the northern states which are in possession of shipping, manufactures, railroads and canals. This difference is perceptible not only in comparing the north w’ith the south but in comparing the several southern states. Almost all the individuals who carry on commercial operations, or who endeavor to turn slave labour to account in the most southern districts of the Union, have emigrated from the north. The natives of the northern states are con- stantly spreading over that portion of the American territory, where they have less to fear from competi- tion ; they discover resources there which escaped the notice of the inhabitants ; and, as they comply with a system which they do not approve, they suc-

ceed in turning it to better advantage than those who first founded and who still maintain it.*

All this is well said, but what is it, after all, but an expansion of the two propositions: The north was industrial

and commercial, in fact modern ; the south feudal and mediaeval. De Tocque- ville dismissed his parallel with the remark, I could easily prove that al- most all the differences which may be remarked between the character of the Americans in the southern and in the northern states have originated in slav- ery.” Freedom begot the amazing push and thrift of the north, and gave her that wonderous material development which is one of the most striking facts of recent history. Slavery begot the languor and unthrift of the south, and gave her mental and material bour- bonism.” Three zones extend from the Atlantic ocean to and beyond the Mis- sissippi river; a northern, a southern and an intermediate zone, in which last the two former shade into each other. The southern parts of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were largely settled from the south, and slavery cast a shadow on the southern parts of the old free states that abutted upon the slave states. In turn northern influences reached a cer- tain distance beyond Mason and Dixon’s line. Hence southern” communities are found north, and northern com- munities south of the old slave line.

The south had a plainly marked mili- tary aspect. Partly this was necessity, for the presence of slaves in large num-

* Democracy in America, Part I., Chap, xviii.



bers perpetually suggests servile insur- rection with all its horrors, and com- monly leads to some precautionary measures. But more than this, the southerner needed a channel of dis- charge for that energy which slavery prevented his devoting to production and to trade. We are not surprised, therefore, when De Tocqueville speaks of the southerner’s passionate love of field sports and military exercises, his delight in violent bodily exertion, his familiarity with the use of arms, and his habit of exposing his life in rough com- bats. The southern states, as a rule, kept their militia in a much better state of organization and training than the northern. What is more, they took much more interest in the national army. From 1836 to 1874, inclusive, there reported at the National Military Academy, 2,180 candidates for ad- mission, including the candidates “at large.” Of the 2,180, 1,254 came

from the slave states, and 954 from the free states. The free states were en- titled to send up from twenty per cent, to fifty per cent, more students than the slave states ; as a matter of- fact, they sent nearly twenty-five per cent, fewer. But still farther, of the 954 free state candidates, 291 were rejected ; of the 1,254 slave state, only 251. That is, one southern candidate in five was re- jected, and one northern candidate in three and a quarter. How are we to explain the discrepancy of these ratios ? No doubt a part of the explanation is this : The army stood much higher in

public estimation south than north, and as a result it drew within its circle a

larger relative number of the ablest and most enterprising boys. At the north such boys were drawn into business and the professions. The south was feudal and military, the north industrial and commercial. It is well known that the secession leaders took all these things into consideration as factors in the se- cession problem. They knew that there was less military preparation and mili- tary spirit at the north than at the south. They believed that the north was too much absorbed in making money to fight. In fact, they looked upon north- ern men much as the Spaniards looked upon the Dutch at the beginning of the eighty years’ war, as “men of butter” who would either offer no resistance to their plans or would fall an easy prey to their superior military virtues. It may be said that the south cultivated military habits that she might be ready for nullification or secession. Towards the last this was probably the case, but a much larger share of the explanation is found in the nature and tendencies of a slaveholding society.

The dominant southern class evinced a superior capacity and taste for poli- tics. It must indeed be admitted that at the last their leading ideas were false, and their great aims destructive ; but it must be admitted, also, that they knew what they wanted, and that they worked for its attainment with singular persistence and ability. The following facts will explain this political capacity and taste.

Southern men did not find an opening for their ability and energy in the pur- suits of a commercial society, hence they



naturally looked to politics for employ- ment and activity. Slavery gave them leisure for studying and practicing the art of governing, and its related arts law and oratory. Then the slave- holding habit begets a love of power and a zest for ruling. Further, the political interests of the slave power called for sleepless attention. In 1790, the popu- lations of the free and of the slave states were nearly equal; in political power the north and the south did not greatly differ. But soon the slave line began to stand out with new prominence in politics. In population and resources the north shot far ahead of the south. Hence, the slave power had two points to watch : first, to maintain its ascend- ancy in its own states, which was not difficult; secondly, so to arrange and combine political elements as to neu- tralize the superior weight of the north. Accordingly, they looked carefully after their party affiliations at the north. As the contest of force drew near the whole south, Democrats and Whigs alike, became blended in one party. From the very beginning they had striven to preserve the balance of states in the na- tional senate. Slavery was a consoli- dated pecuniary interest amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. No other pecuniary interest in the nation began to exert such a political influ- ence. This was partly because no other interest depended so directly on politics; partly because no other inter- est gave the same opportunity and zest for political activity.

The above considerations, taken in connection with the habits and the tem-

per of the northern people, substan- tially account for the superior weight of the south in national politics from 1789 to i860. It was not an accident that Virginia filled the presidential chair thirty-two out of thirty-six years, closing with 1825. It was not an acci- dent that of the eighteen presidential terms closing in 1861, twelve terms were filled by southern men. However, the explanation does not lie wholly in the conscious purpose of the south to have it so, but very largely in the fact that the south was more “political” than the north. This difference has out- lasted the war

But slavery did much more than make the south political : it gave her a peculiar kind of politics. Early in Washington’s first administration two political parties appeared in embryo ; before he left the chair, in 1797, they had become fully developed. They divided on many questions, but these generally rooted in a larger question : How much power does the constitu- tion confer on the central government ?” or, How shall the constitution be con- strued ?” In the days of Washington “loose-construction” was Federalism and strict-construction Republican- ism. These two methods of interpret- ing the constitution have lived on to this day. The student of our political history will find that the so-called strict-construction party has often done loose-construction things, and the loose- construction party strict-construction things, as when the Republican-Demo- crats of 1803 favored, and the Federal-



ists opposed the Louisiana purchase ; but he will always find two such parties in existence, though never bearing those names, each holding to its chosen views with more or less of consistency. In fact, this is the proper standpoint from which to study the history of our politi- cal parties. This question of a strict or a loose construction of the constitu- tion,” says Mr. Alexander Johnston, has always been at the root of legiti- mate national party differences in the United States.”*

It is interesting to note where the strength of the two parties originally lay ; also to observe certain of their marked tendencies. No one, to my knowledge, has told this so well as Hildreth.

From the first moment that party lines had been distinctly drawn, the opposition had possessed a numerical majority against which nothing but the superior energy, intelligence, and practical skill of the Federalists, backed by the great and venerable name and towering influence of Washington, had enabled them to maintain for eight years past an arduous and doubtful struggle. The Federal party, with Washington and Hamilton at its head, repre- sented the experience, the prudence, the practical wisdom, the discipline, the conservative reason and instincts of the country. The opposition, headed by Jefferson, expressed its hopes, wishes, theories, many of them enthusiastic and impracticable, more especi- ally its passions, its sympathies and antipathies, its impatience of restraint. The Federalists had their strength in those narrow districts where a concen- trated population had produced and contributed to maintain that complexity of institutions, and that reverence for social order, which, in proportion as men are brought into contiguity, become more abso- lutely necessaries of existence. The ultra-democrat- ical ideas of the opposition prevailed in all that more extensive region in which the dispersion of popula- tion, and the despotic authority vested in individuals over families of slaves, kept society in a state of im-

* ‘History of American Politics.’ Introduction.

maturity, and made legal restraints the more irksome in proportion as their necessity was the less felt. Massachusetts and Connecticut stood at the head of the one party, supported, though not always without some wavering, by the rest of New England. The other party was led by Virginia, by whose finger all the states south and west of the Potomac might be considered to be guided. The only exception was South Carolina, in the tidewater district of which state a certain number of the wealthier and more in- telligent planters, led by a few men of talents and probity who had received their education in Eng- land, were inclined to support the Federal policy so ably upheld in congress by Smith, Harper, Pinck- ney and Rutledge. But even in South Carolina the mass of the voting population felt and thought other- wise ; nor could the influence of a few indiv