The

feelings of Europe toward the cause on both sides. remark was that, 'It was the foulest chimney that had been on fire for a century, and the best way is to let it burn itself out.'

"They were against Republicanism! They are hostile to the opinion that man is capable of Self-government! They are doubtless in hope that this principle will be extinguished on both sides of the line before the contest ends! They were wise enough to see that the North (from the course commenced there) would soon run into anarchy or despotism, and they are perhaps looking for the same fate to befall us. This has usually been the fate of Republics; and one of the highest duties we have to perform to ourselves and posterity, was to see that their expectations shall fail so far as we are concerned. We have a high mission to perform; and Mr. Stephens trusted the people of the South would prove themselves equal to the task of its performance. We have our Independence to maintain, and Constitutional Liberty to preserve! With us now rest the hopes of the world! The North has already become a Despotism! The people, there, while nominally free, are in no better condition, practically, than serfs. The only plausibility they have for the war is to make freemen of slaves, and those of an Inferior race, while their efforts in this unnatural crusade thus far have resulted in nothing but making slaves of themselves. Presidential Proclamations supersede and set aside both laws and the Constitution. Liberty with them is but a name and a mockery. In separating from them, we quit the Union, but we rescued the Constitution. This was the Ark of the Covenant of our Fathers! It is our high duty to keep it, and hold it, and preserve it forever!"

JUDGE BYNUM. A very rebellious speech it was, I should say!

MR. STEPHENS. Yes, and traitorous too, if treason consists in true loyalty to the fundamental principles upon which the Union was based, and upon which alone it can be perpetuated, with the maintenance of Constitutional Liberty on this Continent! But on these points we have, I believe, agreed to disagree.

PROF. NORTON. I have a question to ask you, Mr. Stephens, but will not put it now, as you propose to suspend for the present.

MR. STEPHENS. Very well, we can hear it in the morning. I shall be at your service, and will cheerfully respond, as before stated, to all questions, as far as I am able, which relate to the general subject of our investigation.

32

COLLOQUY XXII.

DISCUSSION TAKES NEW AND VARIOUS TURNS-DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MR.
DAVIS AND MR. STEPHENS INQUIRED INTO BY PROF. NORTON—FULL EX-
POSITION GIVEN-DIFFERED ON INTERNAL AS WELL AS EXTERNAL POLICY
-BUT NEVER WAS ANY PERSONAL BREACH OR FEUD BETWEEN THEM-
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS DISCUSSED-THE CONFEDERATES NOT RESPON-

SIBLE FOR THE SUFFERINGS AT ANDERSONVILLE OR ELSEWHERE-POSI-
TION OF MR. STEPHENS UPON THIS SUBJECT, AS WELL AS THE POLICY OF
THE GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTHERN STATES-
PROGRESS OF EVENTS IN BOTH A MILITARY AND A POLITICAL POINT OF
VIEW DURING THE SECOND AND EARLY PART OF THE THIRD YEAR OF
66
THE WAR-GLANCE AT THE BATTLES OF ELKHORN, SHILOH, STONE-
WALL" JACKSON'S VALLEY CAMPAIGN-THE SIX DAYS' FIGHTING AROUND
RICHMOND, CEDAR RUN, SECOND MANASSAS, HARPER'S FERRY, FRED-
ERICKSBURG, PERRYVILLE, MURFREESBORO, CHANCELLORSVILLE, AND
THE SIEGE OF VICKSBURG-GLANCE AT POLITICAL EVENTS DURING THE
SAME TIME-THE CONDITION OF NORTHERN SENTIMENT PRODUCED BY
MR. LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATIONS OF EMANCIPATION AND MARTIAL LAW-
THE PROPOSED PEACE MISSION OF MR. STEPHENS IN 1863-FULL HIS-
TORY OF IT-BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG-SURRENDER OF VICKSBURG—
THE GEORGIA PEACE RESOLUTIONS, SO-CALLED, IN 1864-POSITION OF
MR. STEPHENS ON FINANCIAL QUESTIONS- COTTON AS A FINANCIAL
POWER-HIS POSITION ALSO UPON SUSPENSION OF WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, CONSCRIPTION, AND IMPRESSMENT.

MR. STEPHENS. We have a cool, bright morning, gentlemen. The thunder-shower of last night has produced a pleasant change in the atmosphere, and I trust you are quite refreshed by it, and that we all are in better condition for the continuation of the subjects we were discussing yesterday evening. I am now ready, Professor Norton, for the question which you expressed a wish to propound. In Parliamentary language, that is the first thing in order. Let us, if you please, hear what it is?

PROF. NORTON. The question which I wish to ask does

not relate so much to the general subjects which you are discussing as to a particular matter, which your manner of treating them, and some views presented by you upon them, have suggested to my mind. What I wish to inquire about has more of a personal than general bearing. It is not my desire or intention to divert you from the course you are pursuing, but just at this point, as Major Heister said, I wish a little information for my own satisfaction, and the gratification of my individual curiosity, if you have no objection to giving it.

This curiosity was particularly excited by the extract which you read from a speech made by you in 1862, and which our friend the Judge here considered so "rebellious." That speech I never heard of before. It presented your position during the war in a new light to me. I never so understood it before. I had always understood you to have been opposed to the war-to have been in favor of peace, upon the basis of a Reconstruction of the Union. On these points, as well as on the subject of the treatment of prisoners, my understanding, and I believe the understanding generally at the North, which was received through the medium of the Southern press, was, that there existed a direct and decided opposition between you and Mr. Davis; and that on account of these and other matters of disagreement between you and him, you not only withdrew from Richmond, but withdrew your support from the Administration, and headed a Peace Party movement in Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina, with a view to the abandonment of the war, and a restoration of the Union. This speech you read, whether "rebellious" or not, certainly had nothing indicating any such line of policy as that which I supposed you favored.

Now, what I want to know is: what was the difference

between you and Mr. Davis? What was the cause or nature of the feud between you and him, about which so much was said in the papers? As far as you have gone, I see no difference between you and him. The sentiments uttered by you, and those uttered by him, do not seem to me to be dissimilar at all, in respect to the prosecution of the war. This is a matter upon which I wish light, at this point, if you do not consider my question as obtrusive or impertinent.

MR. STEPHENS. Not in the least. I have no objection to give you as full an exposition of the matter you inquire about, as it is in my power to do. This, I the more readily do, because of the general misapprehension growing out of misrepresentations upon the subject.

In the first place, then, I must state most explicitly, that there never was any feud, properly speaking, between Mr. Davis and myself. We differed, it is true, very widely upon several matters of policy,. as well as upon some principles of Constitutional law. We had differed, as before stated, upon the policy of introducing the new feature into the Democratic Platform in 1860, which caused a disruption of that Party, and lead to the election of Mr. Lincoln. He was, as we have seen, the distinguished leader on that line of policy in the Senate.* We differed also upon the policy of Secession, when that course was adopted. After the rejection of the Crittenden proposition, he advised Secession, as we have seen. I did not concur with him in the expediency of that course. But on these and other points of difference there was nothing like a feud between us, nor were our personal relations, or free interchange of views upon public questions, interrupted at all by them. On the same points I differed as widely with Mr. Toombs, and two-thirds, perhaps, of the Montgomery Congress.

* Ante, vol. i, p. 408.