N.lA/.U/fli-KEH - ^PK-/O0 ADDRESS OF Hon. J. L M. CURRY, LL D., DELIVERED BEFORE THE Association of Confederate Veterans, Richmond, Va., July i, 1896. B. F. Johnson Publishing Company. Richmond, Va. The Association at Houston, Texas, in 1895, recommended that J. L. M. Curry be invited to deliver an address at its next annual reunion, on the subject of Slavery, Nullification and Secession, with special reference to the attitude of the people, North and South, to these three leading questions of American history. Immediately after the address was delivered, on motion of Judge George L. Christian, it was Resolved, That the hearty thanks of these Confederate Veterans be ten- dered Comrade Curry for his able, eloquent and valuable historic ad- dress ; that it be printed in our minutes, and that the Adjutant be re- quested to circulate at least 10,000 copies of it. This resolution received the heartiest approval from the convention, and was adopted amid much enthusiasm. ADDRESS. Comrades : We meet under auspicious circumstances. As time rolls on our record becomes brighter, and there is a readier and more general acknowledgment of our deeds, mo- tives, principles. The erection of a Confederate monument in Chicago, and the spirit and utterances of the meeting in Chickamauga, give us hope that the resentments and animosi- ties and prejudices of the war are being effaced by healthier opinions and actions, and that reconstruction is not confined to south of Mason and Dixon's line. The visits of northern governors and troops to the Atlanta Exposition, the display of products in friendly rivalry, the profuse and cordial hospitality to visitors, indicate subsidence of antagonisms and prevalence of reconciliation and brotherhood. France and Germany keep alive animosities, pile up armaments, prepare for conflict, covet excuse or occasion for letting loose the dogs of war, usque ad internecionem. We advocate peace and friendship, would change alienations to feelings of kindness, and would regard renewal of strife as an irreparable calamity to both sections. This assembly of war-scarred veterans has no such purpose as recital of wrongs endured, or indulgence in vain pride, or ego- tistic laudations. We are not here in malice or in mischief, in disaffection or in rebellion, nor to keep alive sectional hates, nor awaken revenge for defeat, nor kindle disloyalty to the Union. We are not hyphened Americans — Irish-Americans, German-Americans — but Americans, pure and simple, without prefix or condition. If anything more distinctive be required, we are Constitutional Americans, favoring representative, repub- lic N 0) lican, constitutional governments. We come together for no such vain purpose as to revive the " Lost Cause," but in com- mon love for those who bore the conquered banner. "Time cannot teach forgetfulness When grief's full heart is fed by fame." This recognition of the glorious deeds of our comrades is perfectly consistent with loyalty to the flag and devotion to the Constitution and the resulting Union. One who does not love his family, his home, cannot love his country. The most pre- cious recollections attach to those who bequeathed to their sur- vivors the noblest examples of devotion to liberty and truth ; who gave attestations of their convictions by grand battles, numerous victories; by unexampled patience, fortitude, cour- age; by daring to die for wife, children, home, inherited rights. If ashamed of the cause for which Hampden died on the field of honor, or Russell perished on the scaffold, we may blush for our degeneracy. The world is richer; humanity has been ennobled by Stuart, the Johnstons, Jackson, Hill, Lee, by our private soldiers, our more heroic women ; and, if too cowardly to honor them, we may well call on the rocks to fall on us, and hide us from universal scorn. While the late Confederate States abide with knightly fealty the award of the bloody arbitrament to which they were forced, none more cheerfulfy than these veterans recognize the courage and prowess of antagonists, and that the prolonged and dubious strife was a war of ideas, in which each army signalized its con- secration to principles, as each understood them. We claim it, nevertheless, as a right and a duty to vindicate our comrades. An effort is sometimes made to paint the " Lost Cause " in black- est colors, to sully it with crimes more horrible than matricide; to overwhelm its supporters with the odium and infamy of traitors. Constitutional and organized resistance has been con- founded with rebellion. Lee and Jackson are no better than Catiline, and Davis and Stephens and Hunter and Lamar and Yancey and Baldwin and Cobb are pilloried with Robespierre and Arnold. On our part we propose to keep the agreement entered into at Appomattox and Durham's Station, and to pre- serve the constitutional Union of States, leagued for purposes of good government. We wish, nevertheless, to see to it that our children do not grow up with false notions of their fathers, and with disgraceful apologies for their conduct.* This association, at its last meeting, invited me to deliver an address on the subject of " Slaver} T , Nullification, and Secession, with special reference to the attitude of the people, North and South, to these three leading questions of American history." The subject has been prescribed, and my embarrassment is a wealth of material. Inopem me copia fecit. I. Slavery. — Property in man lias existed from time imme- morial. The most ancient records recognize compulsory human labor. Slavery existed in England, at common law, under the name of villenage. The power of States, the position of nobles, the fortunes of families, have been accumulations from forced servitude. After the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, the Crown in council submitted to the twelve judges of England the ques- tion, What was the legal status of the negro slaves in the hands of British subjects? The response, signed by Lord Chief Jus- tice Holt and nine other judges, was: "In pursuance of His Majesty's order in council, we do humbly certify our opinion to be that negroes are merchandise." In many ages and countries, under patriarchal, Jewish, Christian and other forms of religion, personal servitude has been the lot of multi- tudes of mankind. Treaties, international law, statutes, de- crees of councils and synods, show that kings and people, the Roman Catholics, and ministers and members of other religious * For the speaker's book, " The Southern States in Relation to the Constitution and the Resulting Union," mothers of Confederate boys not unfrequently have written, '' May God bless and reward you for your defense of the South!" 4 denominations, regarded the possession of slave property as fully compatible .with civilization and the doctrines of the gospel. (See Letter XVI. of Bishop England to Hon. John Forsyth.) The Christian Educator, published by the Northern Methodist Freedmen's Aid Society, March, 1895, says: "There were no antagonisms which Garrison's course did not stir up. His little office in the third story of the building then known as Merchants Hall in Boston, Harrison Gray Otis described as 'an obscure hole.' Edward Everett declared on the floor of Congress about that time, thus expressing the dominant opin- ion of the public sentiment, that ' the great relation of servi- tude in some form or other, with greater or less departure from the theoretic equality of men, is inseparable from our nature. Domestic slavery is not, in my judgment, to be set down as an immoral and irreligious relation. It is a condition of life, as well as any other, to be justified by morality, religion, and in- ternational law.' The Rev. Ralph Randolph Gurley, secretary of the American Colonization Society, f expressed the senti- ments of a vast majority of Northern Christians ' when he said, The African in this country belongs by birth to the very lowest station in society, and from that station he can never rise, be his talents, his enterprise, his virtues what they may. Here, therefore, they must be forever debased ; more than this, they must be forever useless; more even than this, they must be forever a nuisance, from which it were a blessing for society to be rid.' Dr. Wilbur Fisk declared that 'the general rule of Christianity not only permits, but in supposable circumstances enjoins, a continuance of the master's authority.' ' There is,' said the editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal, 'no ex- press prohibition to Christians to hold slaves.' A New Eng- land bishop declared that the right to hold a slave is founded on this rule: 'Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye unto them. '" The nations of Europe engaged in the slave trade and Great Britain took a share in it as early as Elizabeth's reign. By the Asiento Compact granted by Spain, she made a breach in the Spanish monopoly and was allowed to furnish America with slaves, engaging to furnish annually, for thirty years, as many as 4,800. (Seeley's Expansion of England, 133.) No fewer than 600,000 negroes were imported into Jamaica during the eighteenth century. Bancroft estimates that England kidnapped upwards of 3,000,000 from Africa for deportation to the various American colonies. George III. regarded slavery as one of the good old customs consecrated by long usage and by the wisdom of his ancestors. (3 Aubrey's Rise and Growth of the English Nation, 187, 241.) England encouraged the importation of slaves into her American colonies ; prosecuted the trade two hundred and seventy-four years, continuing it for nearly thirty years after its abolition in this country, in the course of which time 5,000,000 were caught and put to labor. (KettelFs Southern Wealth and Northern Profits, 12.) In the last century, New England earned a large portion of her pro- perty by the slave trade and continued it until 1807. As Fuller says, " Few are such infidels as not to believe doctrines which make for their own profit." The towns of Newport, Bristol, and Providence in Rhode Island ; Stonington, New London, and New Haven, in Connecticut ; Fall River, Boston, and Salem in Massachusetts, were engaged for many years in carrying rum and other products to Africa and bringing back negroes as return cargoes. The largest Guineamen swarmed at their wharves, and these towns were largely built up by the "accursed traffic." (Kettell, 18.) In 1760 South Carolina passed an act to prohibit further importation of slaves, but Great Britain rejected with indignation and declared that the slave trade was beneficial and necessary. (See Dew on Slavery.) Virginia passed as many as twenty-three acts prohibiting it. (1 Henry's Henry, 54, 150 ; Tyler's Taney, Appendix.) The last prayer Virginia ever made to mortal man was in 1772 to 6 George III. to abolish the slave trade at least so far as Virginia was concerned. In 1770, the King of Eugland wrote to Gover- nor Botetourt, commanding him, on pain of his highest dis- pleasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves would be in any respect obstructed. (3 Aubre} T , 241.) Slavery was imposed against the earnest and oft-repeated protest of the General Assembly, by the negations of the King of Eng- land or of the governors on the laws enacted to prohibit the importation of or traffic in slaves. Within two years after the Declaration of Independence, almost thirty years before New- England would consent to forego entirely her profits by allow- ing the United States to prohibit, Virginia set the seal of her reprobation upon this opprobrium of modern civilization, and was the first country in the world to take this bold step. The preamble of her Constitution of 1776 complains of one of the acts of " detestable and unsupportable tyranny " of the King of Great Britain, that he had prompted the negroes to rise in arms, "those very negroes, whom, by an inhuman use of his negation he had refused us permission to exclude by law." (1 Minor's Institutes, 161-164.) In the very first session held under the Republican government, the Assembly passed a law for the per- petual prohibition of the importation of slaves and to remove " all restraints which inhibited governors assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce." (1 Tucker's Blackstone, App. 51 Note.) Several other colonies sent up petitions similar to those of Virginia, but Great Britain refused to abolish the traffic. (Southern Quarterly Review, April, 1 842.) No Southern colony nor State ever had a vessel engaged in the slave trade. In the convention which framed the Constitution, a committee reported in favor of limiting the slave trade to 1800. An amendment was moved, which prevailed, to extend it to 1808, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire voting for the amendment, and Virginia against it. (3d Madison pa- pers, 126.) The United States (2d of March, 1807,) took the initiative in abolishing the trade. Slavery, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, existed in all the States. Afri- can slavery has shared in the evolution of public opinion and social institutions, and the Christian world has slowly, but irrevocably, arrived at the great truth that a human being with will, conscience, intellect, immortality, is entitled to per- sonal freedom, to the products of his labor, to unrestraint upon his fullest moral and mental development. The Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1787, recognized slavery in three of its articles, and, for many years up to the fierce abolition agitation of later times, there was no formidable effort for its removal. II. Nullification. — A clear mandate of the Constitution required slaves to be delivered up to their owners when escap- ing into another State. Congress discharged its duty by passing laws to carry out this constitutional obligation, and every President complied with his oath to see the law duly executed. A sense of justice and of mutual interest insured the observance of the fundamental law of the land. Such Northern expounders of the Constitution as Story, Webster, Pierce, Woodbury, Fillmore and Buchanan affirmed in un- equivocal phrase the duty of the government to carry out this solemn engagement. It is worthy of note that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Oregon and Minnesota enacted laws excluding negroes from their territory, and their right to do so was not disputed. (Kettell, 125-158.) In 1853 Illinois, under the leadership of John A. Logan, punished a negro coming into and remain- ing in the State by fine and sale, and this law was not repealed until 1865. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (16 Peters), Justice Story, in rendering the decision of the Supreme Court, said : "From 1793, the date of the passage of the fugitive slave law, down to the present hour, not a doubt has been breathed upon the constitutionality of the act, and every executive in the Union has constantly acted upon and admitted its validity This very acquiescence, under such circumstances, of the high- est State functionaries, is a most decisive proof of the univer- sality of the opinion that the act is founded in a just con- struction of the Constitution, independent of the vast influ- ence which it ought to have- as a contemporaneous exposition of the provisions by those who were its immediate framers or intimately connected with its adoption." In later years, under the new mode of interpreting our constitutional compact by the "moral sense" of the individual and his internal convictions of a "higher law," sweeping away legal and constitutional barriers, resistance was made by men and families and secret organizations. This hostility was developed in party platforms, ecclesiastical deliverances, congressional speeches, judicial dicta and legislative enact- ments. Impediments were thrown in the way of the return of fugitives from labor by lawless mobs. The Federal gov- ernment and the owners were subjected to heavy expense. Ten sovereign- States interposed to punish the owners, protect the thieves and confiscate the property of citizens of sister States. This was the second instance of flagrant nullification of the plain provision of the Constitution and of laws made in pursuance thereof. Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jer- sey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minne- sota, and beyond all the rest, Wisconsin, filled their statute books with laws adopted ingeniously and effectively for the purpose of rendering nugatory the express covenants of the Constitution. A Northern lawyer says the decisions of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin were without a shadow of sup- port in law, and can only be defended on revolutionary grounds. (Mich. Lect. 282.) These nullifications were sum- mary, decisive, revolutionary, and dissolved the Union so far as the clear constitutional mandate was concerned. " Without 9 this mandate," said Story and others, "the Union would never have been formed." This nullification made the Federal Union dissoluble pro tanto at the pleasure of any State, or any depart- ment of State. (Id. 152, 207.) These precedents were never followed in the South. No Southern State ever nullified a clause of the Constitution or an act of Congress. A writer in a Washington (city) newspaper says that "When Calhoun found that he could not be President he re- solved to be a traitor. He invented nullification." The nul- lification proposed by Mr. Calhoun, so misrepresented, so de- liberately perverted by Northern historians, was never carried into effect, for the very Congress which passed the force bill to coerce South Carolina into submission to the tariffs of 1828 and 1832, at the same session repealed these two laws, and Andrew Jackson signed the repeal, and thus swept from the statute book what South Carolina had declared to be uncon- stitutional and void. South Carolina succeeded in accom- plishing her object by the "Compromise Act" of March, 1833, which Mr. Calhoun supported. She accepted tiie concession and repealed the ordinance of nullification. The conven- tion of the State had proposed terms of compromise, after which, should Congress comply, the State would repeal the nullification ordinance. The "Force Bill," rendered wholly unnecessary by the " Compromise Act," was approved by the President on the same day and expired by' its own limitation at the end of the next session of Congress. (Con- gressional Debates, Vol. IX., part 2d, Appendix 168, Buchan- an's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion, pp. 92-93). The nullification, at most, was intended as an arrest of judg- ment, a suspension of authority, until a convention of the States, the creators of the Union, could be legally summoned to decide whether they had delegated a denied power to their governmental agent. The contention was as to the right of a State, in its most solemn form of action, to prevent the Constitu- 10 Hon from being violated by the general government, and in no sense to abrogate the Constitution or suspend its authority. The State, in a convention of the sovereign people duly and legally assembled — the Constitution-making power as contra- distinguished from the law-making power — declared the pro- tective tariff laws of '28 and '32 to be unconstitutional, and, therefore, null anil void within her limits. This was an ap- peal to the paramount power in our system — the convention of the States — to declare authoritatively what is the Constitu- tion, or to amend its defects. The utmost extent of South Carolina nullification was, that a State, " acting in its sover- eign capacity as one of the parties to the constitutional com- pact, may compel the government created by that compact to submit a question touching its infraction to the parties who created it." Ours being a political system composed of the separate governments of the several States, and of one common govern- ment of all the States, called the Government of the United States, each created by written Constitutions, those of the par- ticular States by the people of each acting separately, and that of the United States by the people of each in their sovereign capacity? but acting jointly (Lamar's Calhoun, 86; 1 Calhoun, 111, 112, 167), it follows from the relations which subsist be- tween co-ordinate governments, that a mutual negative on the part of each is necessary to protect each from the other, and that in a case of conflict as to the limits of their respective authority, neither has the right to impose by force its decision on the other, but must appeal to a power paramount to either, whose decision is final and binding on both. (1 Calhoun's Works, 236-244, 277.) This doctrine is not revolutionary nor anarchical, and if the Constitution be the basis of the Federal Union, it is preserva- tive, and the sure foundation of the Union itself. There never was in the councils of the country a purer patriot, or one more 11 disinterestedly attached to our political institutions and the union of the States, than Mr. Calhoun. The nullification of the Northern States was the arbitrary assumption of town meetings, State courts, separate legislatures, to determine finally the grants of the Constitution, and to exempt their people from obligation to the Federal compact and to make null and inoperative the laws of the Union. The nullification by communities, courts, legislatures of Northern States, was in hot haste a flagrant violation of a clear provision of the articles of agreement between the States, and there was not a pretence of resort to a prescribed arbiter. The nullification of South Carolina was a demand for stay of judgment against robbery of her people through bounties or protective tariffs un- constitutionally levied for favored interests of the North until there could be an appeal to the tribunal provided by our sagacious fathers for the settlement of such disputes. The contrast between the two kinds of nullification is the contrast between order and anarchy, between law and misrule, between calm judgment and respect for the rights of other contracting parties, and passion, prejudice, arrogant assumption of absolute authority. The Virginia resolutions of '98, declare that in case of a dangerous exercise of powers not enumerated in the Constitu- tion, the States, who are parties to the compact, " have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the pro- gress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." The Kentucky resolutions of '99 affirm that each State reserved to its own self-government the residuary mass of undelegated powers, and that "each party (State) has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." Madison in his report, as adopted by the Virginia Legislature, said: "The States, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign 12 capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide in the last resort whether the compact made by them be violated, and, consequently, that, as parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude as require their interposition." As said our great statesman, "Language cannot be more explicit, nor can higher authority be adduced." (1 Calhoun, 353, 359.) The principle that the General Government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it stops nothing short of despotism — since the discretion of those who adminis- ter the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their power. The Kentucky and the Virginia reso- lutions and Madison's report were promulgated at a time when the encroachments of the Federal Government on the rights re- served to the States and people threatened to break down all barriers of the Constitution, in establishing by successive precedents such a mode of construing the instrument as to re- move every restraint upon Federal power. The principles, in the language of Jefferson, "saved the Constitution even at its last gasp," and brought back the Government to the purity and simplicity from which it had so widely departed. Each State is as sovereign in the exercise of rights reserved in the compact as the General Government is sovereign within the powers granted to it. Chief Justice Marshall said: "In America the powers of sovereignty are divided between the Government of the Union and those of the States. They are each sovereign with respect to the objects committed to it ; but neither sovereign with respect to the objects committed to the other. If it be' true that the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land, it is equally true that laws of the United States, made not in pursuance thereof, cannot be the supreme laws of the land. In 1820-1 the Legislature of Ohio reaffirmed the Virginia 13 and Kentucky resolutions, as the principles of the majority of the American people, and adopted a report, rendering the Bank Act inoperative, and thus nullified an act of Congress and ignored the authority of the Federal judiciary. The same spirit, which rendered nugatory the covenant for restoring fugitives from labor, marked the course of New Eng- land in the war of 1812, when States and Governors nullified the laws of Congress, gave aid and comfort to the enemy while burning the Capitol, and acted as if they had -no common duty in protecting the flag, in resisting invasion, in defending our soil and country. It may not be unworthy of note that the first threat of disunion by Massachusetts was while her people were engaged in the slave trade. The first instance of rebellion by a State against the Federal Government was that of Mas- sachusetts, and on the ground that she was justified by the doctrine of State rights and State sovereignty. In her decla- rations and deeds of hostility she interposed her sovereignty to resist the authority of the Federal Government. Governor Strong said to the Legislature, "I was under the same obliga- tion to maintain the rights of the State as to support the Con- stitution of the United States." The Legislature in 1814 called the State '"free and sovereign," declared the Constitution to be a "national compact," and said that it was " as much the duty of the State authorities to watch over the rights reserved as of the United States to exercise the powers which are delegated, and that States which have no common umpire must be their own judges and execute their own decisions." III. Secession. — In the election of 1860, in direct antago- nism to the opinions and covenants of the men who achieved our independence and framed the Constitution that made the Union, it was deliberately decided that the States could not exist together as slave-holding and non-slave-holding, and that the "irrepressible conflict" between them must go on until the "relic of barbarism" should be effaced from the Constitution h and the laws. Governor Chase, in Febuary, 1861, said : "The people of the free States (who believe that slave-holding is wrong) cannot and will not aid in the reclamation of fugitives from labor, and the stipulation in the Constitution becomes therefore a dead letter." The Southern States believed that the transfer of the government of a common' country to an execu- tive and to a Congress, elected upon the platform of pronounced hostility to their institutions, involved a repudiation of the cov- enanted faith of their sister States, and released them from all obligation to bear the burden of their own covenants, when they were denied the benefits of the corresponding covenants of the other contracting States. (1 Calhoun, 323.) The seceding States then openly, with the most public de- claration of purpose, determined to withdraw from the com- pact and establish a separate government for themselves. They made no encroachment on their neighbors, denied and de- prived them of no constitutional rights, made no assault on property or institutions, but sought only to keep their way- ward sisters, as the rest of mankind, " enemies in war, in peace friends." No provision had been made by them for resistance to their withdrawal from the partnership ; not a gun nor a dol- lar had been prepared for such a contingency. The govern- ment at Washington and the Northern States were not taken by surprise. Nothing was ever more deliberate, more calmly considered, more frankly pre-announced. What was done was not furtively done, but in open day, and in the exercise of rights claimed in the convention which made the constitution, by the States in the ratification of the instrument, and continuously from that day, to the final action. The secession of a sovereign State was regarded as valid as the act by which the same State entered the Union. Virginia and New York, on whose acts the fate of the instrument depended, in ratifying the Constitution, declared that the powers granted by them could be resumed when perverted to their injury or 15 oppression ; that every power not granted remained with them, and at their will, thus most carefully guarding the reserved powers against impairment and placing them beyond the pos- sible interference and control of the government of the United States. These ratifications being accepted by the other States with this construction of the Constitution, made the construc- tion as binding morally as if it had been inserted in the Constitu- tion itself. Rhode Island lingered until after the inauguration of Washington and gave her ratification, without objection, with the same explicit avowals. (5 Bureau of Rolls, 140, 145, 191-2, 311.) Besides the clear assertion on the part of ratifying States of the right to re-assume delegated powers, a larger number were so apprehensive and distrustful of Federal encroachment, so jealous in the maintenance of their respective rights, that they attached bills of rights to their assent, or proposed amend- ments to restrict the General Government, the incorporation of which into the Constitution was earnestly insisted upon. Massachusetts proposed nine; New Hampshire, twelve; Rhode Island, twenty-one; New York, thirty-three; Virginia, twenty; North Carolina, twenty-six; South Carolina, five. Every sug- gested amendment was a restraint of power, and to guard the liberties of the people; not one intimation of a desire conferred additional power on the common Government. Such a thing as the "omnipotence of Parliament," the absorption of the functions of government by the central head, seems not to have had a suggestion. The eleven amendments, which were soon adopted, were all along the line of guarding against cen- tralized power. In Marbury v. Madison, (1 Cranch, 137-176), Chief Justice Marshall said: "The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited, and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limi- ted, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to 16 writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by by those intended to be restrained ? The distinction between limited and unlimited powers is abolished if these limits do not con- fine the person on whom they are imposed." " To endow the Federal Government," says Madison " with whatever it should judge instrumental towards the general welfare would make frivolous an enumeration of powers." Notwithstanding the limited character of the Government, early in the administration of President Lincoln, the Govern- ment put forth various expedients for coercing the States into submission to the central power. The distinct proposition, delegating the power to the Federal Government to coerce the States, "authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against the delinquent states," was formally submitted to the convention and rejected. On May 31, 1787, Mr. Madison said "an union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against the State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment; and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." (2 Madison Papers, 761.) The theory of Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln was, that while there was no power to coerce a State to remain in the Union, it was within the constitutional function of the Govern- ment to compel individual inhabitants of any State to obey the laws of the United States; and this coercion could be accomplished by all the force necessary to remove all obstruc- tion through the exercise of the claimed power. (Message, 3 Dec, 1860.) In this there were two gross assumptions which have not a resting place in the history of the formation of the Government, or in the grants of the Constitution. First. That Congress, or all, or either, of the departments of the Government can decide ultimately and authoritatively upon the powers of the Government; upon the character and 17 extent of the grants and limitations of the Constitution. This assumption on the part of the creature to determine and de- cide upon the action of the creators — States — in the formation and endowment of the Federal Government is a claim of abso- lute sovereignty. The right to prescribe the Constitution, coerce submission to it — this supreme authority in the last re- sort — is sovereignty. Reduced to its real meaning, stripped of illusory verbiage, this claim of the Government at Washington was identical with the absolutist pretensions of the Holy Alli- ance. Our Constitution is not a mere temporary expedient. It exists in full force until changed by an explicit and authen- tic act, as prescribed by the instrument, and in its essential features, is for all time, for it contains the fundamental prin- ciples of all good government of all free representative insti- tutions. Secondly. That the General Government is not only superior to the States, but has an existence, an autonomy, outside, irre- spective of, contrary to, the States. The Union could not exist a day if all of the States were to withdraw their co-operation. The President, the Senate, and Representatives, with all their powers, are conditioned upon the action of the States. The Federal Government, the Union, as a corporate body politic, does not' claim its life, nor a single power, from the people apart from State organizations. In truth, and in fact, there is not, nor ever has been, such a political entity as the people of the United States in the aggregate, separated from, independent of, the voluntary or covenanted action of the States. That anything is constitutional or admissible, simply because the judiciary, or the Executive, or the Congress, or the moral con- victions of citizens approve, or the country will be benefited by it, is a modern invention and has no basis in our constitu- tional Federal republic. To put it in the least objectionable form, the States, in their undelegated powers, are as important, as supreme, as the General Government ; and the theory of 2 18 State subjugation is a pure afterthought to justify arbitrary and ungranted authority. It is indisputable that by far the greater part of the topics of legislation, the whole vast range of rights of person and property — where the administration of law and justice come closest home to the daily life of the peo- ple — are exclusively or chiefly within the power of the States. The number of topics of legislation which lie outside the pale of national legislation greatly exceeds the number to which the power of State legislation does not extend. Madison said : " The powers delegated to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which remain to the State governments are numerous and indefinite, and extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." (Federalist, §§ 251, 252 ; Mich. Lect., 244; 1 Calhoun, 197, 204, 214, 215.) If the Union be indis- soluble, with equal or greater propriety we may affirm that the States are equal and indestructible. Permit me to refer here to an opinion oft uttered by dis- nutants that the right of a State to secede was not found in the Constitution and was, therefore, illegal and indefensible. No intelligent student of our political system ever based seces- sion directly upon the Constitution. The claim was that prior to the Constitution and after the Declaration of Independence, the States were separately independent and sovereign, possess- ing all the powers of government which were possessed by any other nation. The Federal Government, or the Union, has no inherent powers as a government. All are derivative, pro- ceeded from, were granted by the States, and what the States did not surrender and are not found specified in the Constitu- tion, or necessarily implied from the grants belong to the States without diminution or impairment. The right to with- draw from the Union did not depend on any concession in the Constitution. If it ever existed, it is because it was not 'pro- hibited in the Constitution and remained among reserved 19 powers. It is absurd to make the rights of a State depend upon an instrument of gift made by that State. The tenth amendment provides that powers not delegated nor prohibited remain in fullest measure in the hands of the grantor, and this was adopted, at the recommendation of several of the con- ventions of the ratifying States, in order to guard against mis- conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. (1 Calhoun, 251.) Pawle, of Philadelphia, in a work declared by Judge Story to be high authority on many questions of constitutional law, and once used, as some graduates say, as a text-book at West Point, maintained the right of a State to secede from the Union. In 1859, at a convention in Cleveland, 0., in which Giddings, Senator Wade, Governor Chase, ex-Governor Denni- son, participated, resolutions were adopted, using the langu- age and reaffirming the strongest declaration of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. In 1861 Wendell Phillips said at New Bedford : " Here are a series of States girdling the Gulf who think their peculiar institutions require that they should have a separate government. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you or to me." Horace Greeley, in the Tribune, three days after Mr. Lincoln's elec- tion, wrote: "If the cotton States shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may still be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless. We must ever resist the right of any State to remain in the Union, and nullify or defy the laws thereof. To withdraw from the Union is quite another matter, and whenever a considerable section of the Union shall deliberately resolve to go out we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to another by bayonets." Such declarations were persisted in after the secession of several States, and until after Mr. Lincoln's inauguration. Elsewhere in the "Southern States and the 20 American Union," pages 119-128, it has been shown by un- questioned authority, that from 1795 to 1815, and in 1845, there was an influential party in New England who favored the formation of a Northern Confederacy. Having followed me in the treatment of the assigned topic, may I not crave equally patient attention, while I submit some thoughts on our present condition, and suggest some duties as American citizens, especially obligatory on us as the amnestied survivors of the "Lost Cause?" Let me, however, in advance, vindicate history from two or three persistent misrepresentations. The Southern States deprecated war; desired peace; offered negotiations; had nothing to gain, everything to lose by armed hostilities, and accepted the ultima ratio regum, when forts in harbors were occupied with bristling cannon, and troops were called for to coerce into submission. In this presence it would be superflous to say that to carry on a war, offensive or defensive, for a series of years, is far more than fighting a battle, winning victories, sustaining defeats. Quartermaster, subsistence, ordnance, pay and med- cal departments, are necessan^ to meet the wants of men brought together in large numbers, for the effective fighting power of an army, "and the talent to satisfy these with order, economy, intelligence, forms the science of administration." Troops must be procured, supplied with shelter, food and clothing, armed, transported, paid, cared for when sick or wounded, and everything possible is to be provided for their strength, health, spirit, effectiveness. To make the best possi- ble use of forces in the field, after they are raised, it is neces- sary to provide with efficient means of transport and a well arranged system of supply, and these the North had super- abundantly, in addition to her active business, open ports plenty of money, greater population, and an inexhaustible and available European supply of men. Equipment and supplies were rarely hindered by lack of transportation. Probably 21 among the most marked features connected with the supply of the Federal armies, were the use of the ocean, of railroads and navigable rivers, and the facility with which depots could be and were changed so as to be always in touch with the armies in all their various movements. The extent of the base of opera- tions, or the portion of country from which reinforcements and supplies could be obtained, gave the armies great advantage, in selecting lines of invasion exempt from interception when defeated. Jackson in 1862 flanked Pope and cut him of from O^Jr the upper Potomac, but could not prevent him from reaching Alexandria. In 1863 when Grant was baffled on the Rapidan, he changed his base as he moved around successively to the Pamunkey and the James. The country commanding a sea is is only limited as to the amount of stores it can transport by the capacity of the vessels it has at command. The Quarter- master Department had in charge during the war, on ocean and lakes, 399 vessels, having a gross tonnage 13,706 tons, and there were 238 vessels employed in the lake and ocean service, having a tonnage of 165,248 tons, which were owned by the government. There were 119 steamers, 305 barges, and 109 coal dray age boats and floats belonging to the United States on the Mississippi river and its tributaries and at Mobile. Besides these, the Quartermaster Department had chartered for the same waters 1750 steamers and other vessels. The theatre of war was largely bounded by the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and the supremacy on the water made possible the capture of de- sirable points and the Peninsular campaign. The supply of armies operating against Richmond was feasible only because of the monopoly of the sea. Wellington is reported to have said in the Spanish campaign, that an army moved upon its belly. Food and transportation enter largely into every military campaign. One depot at Giesboro, D. G, had a capacity of sup- plying 30,000 animals. During the first nine months of 1864 the supply of horses by the Cavalry Bureau averaged about 22 500 per diem, and the supply to Sheridan during his Shenan- doah Campaign was 150 per day. In 1862, 125,000 men, 14,592 animals, 44 batteries of artillery, the wagons and am- bulances, pontoon trains, and the enormous equipage required for the Army of the Potomac, were transported in about 900 steamers and sailing craft. During Grant's campaign against Richmond a large fleet was constantly employed in supplying troops at various stations along the coast from Chesapeake to New Orleans. From May 1st to August 12, 1864, the daily average number of rations forwarded from Chattanooga to Sherman's army, which numbered about 105,000 men, was 412,000, more than three rations for every man that left Chat- tanooga on that campaign. In 1864 Grant's wagon train would have extended from the Rapidan to Richmond if marched in single file upon one road. (Journal of the Mili- tary Service Institution. Jan., 1896, pp. 45-95.) What a contrast to the Southern army, half clad, half fed, half armed, without any adequate supply of the needed trans- port, of the needed medical staff, of the needed engineers for bridging, for telegraph work and other engineer duties, with few depots of supply, and a gradually contracting area of ter- ritory shut off from the sea by a rigorous blockade. It is a notorious fact that our army at various stages of the war re- lied largely on the captures from the enemy for clothing, food, wagons, ammunition, guns and other necessary supplies. General Banks was habitually spoken of in the Valley as "General Jackson's Commissary-General." For two or more years the government levied a tax in kind, and corn, wheat, oats, bacon, mules, &c, were supplied by this method. In the last years of the war, a long railway between Meridian and Richmond, over 800 miles, with dilapidated equipments, fur- nished the single line of transportation for arnry and supplies- For repairs of waste and loss in rails, locomotives, and other needful means, there was hardly the pretence of establishments, 23 and one such line as the Pennsylvania, or the Baltimore and Ohio, has to-day more ample and readier facilities and more abundant resources than the whole Confederacy then possessed. General Gordon, on April 22, 1896, writes to me : "You are quite right. Every expedient was resorted to. Officers were detailed, and men, when necessary, to catch fish, when the season permitted. Summoned all the commissaries of my command, from corps commissaries to regimental com- missaries, before me and told each that he must send out wag- ons into the country, into North Carolina, to get in small quantities of supplies to keep the men from starving. We had to take the risk of getting wagons captured, because we could not stand still. You can describe the wagons of regi- ment, brigade, division and corps, roaming over the country in the byways, &c, hunting for anything that would fill the craving stomachs of the soldiers. But we depended, also, on living off the enemy by capturing supplies." As a result of the military necessities of the war, the ina- bility otherwise to conquer the seceding States, even with the purchased " Hessians " of overcrowded trans- Atlantic cities, slavery was abolished by a stroke of the pen, a decree of the Commander-in-Chief. Of the manner and haste of the eman- cipation, I say nothing. But I am sure that I voice the senti- ment of every Confederate soldier, when I say, thank God, Af- rican slavery no longer exists in the South. With emanci- pation and our surrender came the enfranchisement of the negroes and the horrors of reconstruction. The recital of this history is not germane to this occasion. There is no wish or purpose now, or at any future time, to reverse the decision of the arbitrament of war in reference to slavery or secession. Both, by Federal and by State action, have been forever settled. We are as jealous of the reputation of the flag — our flag — as the citizens of any other section, and should war come, which may God avert ! a war not for freebooting acquisition of our neighbor's territory, not for the selfish greed of men who have sheltered themselves under naturalization to 24 prosecute schemes of rebellion or monopolies in trade, not for the pouring of a black tide of unassimilative and undesirable material into the mass of our citizenship, but for the protection of the rights and property of any .true American, for the vin- dication of National honor, then under the leadership of our Gordon, our Lees, Pettus, Shelley, Hoke, Hampton, Wheeler, and such like, our bo} 7 s will hew their way as far to the fore- front, into the serried ranks of the country's foes, as heroes ever did or dared. Since the surrender of our armies there has not been a single instance, within the limits of the Southern States, against the authority of the Government, although a part of the time the people have been without civil magistrates and writhing under the cruelest injustice and violence. There has been no mani- festation of a tendency to conflict with the national authority, no purpose to disturb the terms of the surrender and no aspi- rations outside the limits of the Union. The new amend- ments to the Constitution, coercively adopted, are not less in- violable and authoritative than the original compact as ratified by the States. (Lamar's Calhoun, 170-171.) In reaffirming our loyalty, candor demands that we should not use ambiguous phrase. We are far from making a half- hearted apology, or interposing sincerity, or honesty of belief,' as a palliation for the Confederacy. We rest our cause and conduct on no such humiliation. Our property was a guar- anteed right, with the privileges of all other property and some additional securities. In 1861 secession was a reserved right of the States, and no proposition is logically and historically more demonstrable. It was not an afterthought, a suddenly improvised remedy, invented for the occasion. The right was a faith received from the fathers, an irresistible inference from colonial independence, from Articles of Confederation, the sepa- rate action of the States in framing and ratifying the Consti- tution, from the limitations in that instrument, from its silence, 25 from the reserved and undelegated powers, from repeated re- affirmation in most solemn and authoritative form. Amid all the perversions of history, scandalous attacks upon motives and actions of men and parties and States, no one has been found bold enough, ignorant enough, unscrupulous enough, to assert that the seceding States took the Government by sur- prise, or adopted a course of action which was furtive and un- expected. I was in the House of Representatives, December* 1860, when the wires announced that South Carolina had re- voked her ratification of the Constitution and resumed her delegated powers and the control of the paramount allegiance of her citizens. While some weak ones treated the grave mat- ter with ridicule, there was not a Representative; or Senator, or an intelligent person in the United States, who did not know that the creed of State Rights and State Remedies had been as openly and freely and fully proclaimed as any other political doctrine. Now this has been entirely changed. The claim of the right of secession is abandoned, having been eliminated from the American Governments. The fourteenth amendment has revo- lutionized the character of our political system. That declares that all persons born within the limits of the United States are citizens. In consequence of this constitutional provision, one is now a citizen of the United States, and as such must render obedience to national law. Prior to that amendment, one was a citizen of the United States only by virtue of his citizenship in a particular State, and primary and paramount allegiance was due to that State. When she spake, her voice was sove- reign, and to disobey was rebellion or treason. So thought and said General Lee. When before the Reconstruction Com- mittee at Washington, he was asked whether he felt that he had been guilty of treason, promptly, firmly, and rightly he answered, "No," because he owed his allegiance to the State of Virginia of which he was a citizen. So thought Albert Sidney 26 Johnston when he came from California to place sword and honor and life at the will of Texas. So thought Joseph E. Johnston, Commodore Maury, Bishop Polk, and all our soldiers and civilians. Hence the men who fought and the men who fell, fought and fell in a just cause. They, fell in defence of the Constitution as it came from the hands of the fathers, in de- fence of home rule and State rights. They were not traitors nor rebels, but right in adhering to the old landmarks, in re- sisting coercion, conquest, and subjugation, as we are right now in standing by the amended Constitution and against the doc trine of secession. When the Constitution declares that I am a citizen of the United States, and that the laws apply to me in- dividually, and that the Federal Government may determine the measure of its power over the States and the people, my allegiance is due to the Government of the United States and not to Virginia. The changed or amended Constitution, ac- cepted by the States, has consigned the doctrine of secession to the tomb of the Capulets, and we have one Flag, one Constitu- tion, one Union, one National Government, one Destiny. The survivors of the Lost Cause can make good their assev- erations of loyalty to the Republic by observing in strictest fidelity the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It is safe to affirm, for no one will gainsay, that a dissatisfaction on the part of the South with the Constitution as a whole, or in any one ' of its parts, or with any of the powers conferred on the Fede- ral Government, did not influence in the remotest degree the secession of the States. Individually, as a Southern man and a Confederate soldier, I have felt that my highest duty to my section since the struggle ended, was to restore fraternit} 7 ' of spirit as well as political association. This duty to the South, and to the Union, was best discharged by laboring for free, universal education (for the free school is the corner-stone of any New South), by devotion to the best interests of the whole country, by demonstrating that the interests of every State, 27 and the honor of the flag, are as safe in the hands of a Con- federate as of a Union soldier, and by a steady advocacy of national issues, great and broad enough to efface sectionalism. The struggle against a war tariff, and the Chinese policy of shutting off foreign markets for our surplus products, and thus preventing reciprocal amity between nations, was not only a fight for a wise and true national policy, but the use of that question served to obliterate geographical lines and to nationalize politi- cal parties. Nothing can be greater folly than for the South- ern people to take up false destructive issues, assaulting the foundations of private and public credit, weakening financial integrity and rectitude, and condemning us to an inferiority and to less influence than we have ever before reached. The New South is to reclaim and adopt the scheme of Jef- ferson. Jefferson and Calhoun were the most profound and philosophical statesmen of our country, and Jefferson outlined a most comprehensive scheme for Virginia, including the Uni- versity, colleges and public schools under public control, sus- tained by taxation; and he said that "A system of general instruction, which shall reach every description of our citizens from the richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest, so it will be the latest of all the public concerns in which I shall permit myself to take an interest." (Letters to J. C. Cabell, Jan. 14, 1818; Jan. 13, 1823.) Whatever of prosperity, of power, of glory, the New South may aspire to is inseparably connected with the free school. All other means are vain if this be wanting. If in the future, judicial interpretation and con- gressional usurpation make as many encroachments upon the Constitution as in the last hundred years, then written guar- antees will be impotent for protection, and our chief reliance must be on the intelligence and virtue of the people. The South has made an imperishable record of patriotism by what she has done for the education of white and of black children. President Angell, of the University Michigan, frankly says: 28 " Out of the very depths of a misery and a poverty, which we in the North cannot begin to understand, they have taken up these great ideas of public education, and have taxed them- selves with a generosity which we cannot but admire, for the education both of the white and of the black." We can be fair and do justice, and more than justice to the negroes, accepting the conditions as to citizenship and suf- frage which were imposed as punishment upon us, and to trans- fer civil and political power from us to them. We cannot live as enemies, or we will end in ruin. We should encourage trust and confidence between the races. The attempt to reverse all the teachings of history and ethnology has reacted on the per- petrators of the wrong and their allies and their can be now no question as to who will rule in these Southern States. Hap- pily for the negro, his best friends are in control of the ma- chinery of the State governments, and history has no parallel to the magnanimity and sacrifices of the impoverished and imperiled South in furnishing him "without money and with- out price" the facilities of a common school education. The brutal lynching, the torture and the burning of negroes charged with an unmentionable crime, is a stigma upon the white race, upon Southern civilization. Such swift and unnecessary punishment is wholly unnecessary, as the fiends could not go unwhipped of justice, and it reacts with terrible rebound upon those who participate and approve, in brutalizing conscience and engendering contempt for the authority of law and of government. Let us be — " Swift-footed to uphold the right And to uproot the wrong " Distinguished by a homogeneous population, by consistent observance of laws, constitution, and treaties, by strict non- intervention in foreign affairs, and by a most careful absti- nence from interference with others' rights and property, let 29 us give no counsel nor support to anarchy, or those theories which result in unrestrained democracy, which is tyranny in its worst shape, showing no respect for rights of property, or personal liberty, or the guarantees of law. Freedom consists in keeping willingly within the limits traced by law and order and justice — the only securities for innocence, good govern- ment, and personal liberty — and anything outside is not free- dom, but license and, in the end, abject servitude. We must resist that sophism which identifies liberty with the unchecked domination of majorities as if " count of heads was the Divine Court of Appeals on every question and interest of mankind." John Stuart Mill said wisely, " Experience proves that deposi- taries of power, who are mere delegates of the people, that is of a majority, are quite as ready when they think they can count on popular support as any organ of oligarchy to assume arbitrary power, and encroach unduly on the liberty of private life." Moreover, we need no encouragement of trend to con- solidation by endowing national universities, by annexation of territory with increase of African or Hawaian citizenship, by an influx of heterogeneous and immiscible population, by establishing remote provinces which would be utterty alien to our institutions and to representative government. Comrades, you and your associates were noble in war ; never in human history more patient endurance, more heroic deeds, greater personal valor. Let us be nobler in peace. What occurred in the field and the camp is not the highest glory. You were distinguished for religion in camp, for re- spect for civil authority, for temperance, for intelligence, for the most brillant military achievements ever wrought against such odds and with such scant and unequal means. When the flag was furled, and paroles were accepted, you resumed agri- cultural, mechanical, mining, professional pursuits. Your -country was laid waste, houseless chimneys marked the devas- tated track of the ruthless invader. These were material losses, :J0 but what were they compared with the decimation of families by disease and battle, with the privation of what constitutes the very warp and woof of being. The real treasure is not in the coffers, but in the soul. It is that which we are that enters into the sub?tance of character. The country was a desola- tion, every home was a Bochim with sad-eyed widows and mothers, with hearts no more to be illumined with joy Everywhere were the shades of theunreturtied ones, keeping sol- emn march to "Away down South in Dixie," and holding in fieshless hands the tattered, bullet-riddled banners. There were the silver-haired,' with cheeks furrowed by salt tears, kneeling crushed at the graves or before the pictures of the manly and the brave who went out with blessing and came no more home again. "All who died were not struck by shot and shell, Some hearts grew still because they loved so well." There were hopes blasted and horizons blackened by reme- diless despair. These were bitterer experiences than ever came from loss of earthly possessions. It was under such cir- cumstances that life was begun anew, and there was never such marvelous adaptedness to the revolutionized and unpre- cedented conditions. All had been lost. After the war with Germany France paid an indemnity of $1,000,000,000. Our loss in life and in property was greater than hers. Hope and confidence are returning. Our land begins again to blossom. Churches and schools are open. The complexities and diffi- culties of the severest problem ever encountered by civilization and Christianity are beginning to yield to patient solution. With all that is regretable in our present condition, we still have our own local governments, what remains of a glorious constitution, the inspiration of free institutions, the wealth of incalculable possibilities, the stimulating memories of an immortal past, the beckoning impulses of an opening 31 future. We need no discord, no nursing of the injustice and the wounds of the past, no prospering sectional- ism, no separate, political existence. We need those es- sential conditions upon which alone we can hope for a full share in the councils and advantages of the Union. " Let us strive for a grand, mighty, indivisible Republic, throw- ing its loving arms around all sections, omnipotent for pro- tection, powerless for oppression, cursing none, blessing all." Our history is not wound up. The means of greatness are still within our grasp. Let not our heroes have died in vain. They bequeathed an example of lofty patriotism, they gave us a place on a never-dying battle roll, and the historian's pen, when not dipped in the gall of hate, gives due credit to super- human virtues of privates and officers. Nationality is com- pounded of many elements, and, with true Americans, we have a sense of community of race, of religion, of interest, of lan- guage, of literature, of history, a single, political whole — an indissoluble Union of indestructible States — strong ties which bind in fellowship and brotherhood. As men and citizens let us so live, in private and in public station, that our descen- dants may be as proud of us as we are of the noble men and nobler women of our perished Confederacy. Noblesse oblige. t Works by the same Author. i * 1. The Southern States of the Ameri= t can Union, Considered in their Re- ? lations to the Constitution of the J United States, and to the Resulting a Union. B. F. Johnson & Co. (Stu- ^ dent's Edition.) $1.00. # 2. Constitutional Government in Spain P — Harper & Bro. $1.00. \ 3. William Ewart Gladstone — A Study ? ^ — B. F. Johnson & Co. $1.00. # * 5 BOOKS IDEAS. A Great Opportunity for Live Teachers . . A large proportion of the educational books now before the public were prepared many years ago. While possessing good features, they do not meet fully the needs of the hour. Live, progressive educators, who are anxious to procure the newest and best books, would act wisely in sending for our educational cat- alogue. Our books are new, both aggressive and progressive. Their use in schools and col- leges has proved satisfactory. They are pre- pared by experienced and successful teachers. a. careful examination will convince you that they are the best on the market, and far in ad- vance of anything heretofore offered. If you are willing to be stirred up yourself and want to stir up your pupils, use books that will proveprofitable and interesting alike to teacher and pupil. Our books are prepared on a plan that brings out the latent energies of the stu- dent, and lifts both teacher and pupil above the ordinary routine of school work. New and attractive books in course of pre- paration. Send for catalogue and cultivate an acquaintance with the newest and best books if you are determined to reach the highest standard of excellence in your profession. B. F. JOHNSON PUBLISHING CO., 3 & 5 So. 11th St., RICHMOND, VA. IMPOET ANT ! WK nee ^ » good man to represent i n.ii.1 us in the School Book line. Alive teaeher who can devote all or part of his time to our work will find this a splendid opening. •-