RESPECT OF MANKIND FOR THE SOUTH—THE MOST PROSPEROUS PERIOD OF THE WAR—HOW MR. DAVIS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DISTINCTION OF THE SOUTH—FACTION SILENCED—THE EUROPEAN ESTIMATE OF JEFFERSON DAVIS—HOW HE DIGNIFIED THE CAUSE OF THE SOUTH—HIS STATE PAPERS—HIS ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL MATTERS—THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS—MR. DAVIS’ OBSERVANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS—ARBITRARY ADMINISTRATION OF MR. LINCOLN—MR. DAVIS’ MODERATION—HE SEEKS TO CONDUCT THE WAR UPON CIVILIZED IDEAS—AN ENGLISH CHARACTERIZATION OF DAVIS—COLONEL FREEMANTLE’S INTERVIEW WITH HIM—MR. GLADSTONE’S OPINION—THE PURELY PERSONAL AND SENTIMENTAL ADMIRATION OF EUROPE FOR THE SOUTH—INCONSISTENT CONDUCT OF THE EUROPEAN GREAT POWERS—THE LONDON “TIMES” BEFORE M’CLELLAN’S DEFEAT—THE CONFEDERACY ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION BY EUROPE—ENGLAND’S SYMPATHY WITH THE NORTH—DIGNIFIED ATTITUDE OF PRESIDENT DAVIS UPON THE SUBJECT OF RECOGNITION—HIS EARLY PREDICTION UPON THE SUBJECT—FRANCE AND ENGLAND EXPOSED TO INJURIOUS SUSPICIONS—TERGIVERSATIONS OF THE PALMERSTON CABINET—THE BROAD FARCE OF “BRITISH NEUTRALITY”—ENGLAND DECLINES TO UNITE WITH FRANCE IN AN OFFER OF MEDIATION BETWEEN THE AMERICAN BELLIGERENTS—ENGLAND’S “POLICY”—SHE SOUGHT THE RUIN OF BOTH SECTIONS OF AMERICA—CULMINATION OF THE ANTISLAVERY POLICY OF THE NORTH—MR. LINCOLN’S CONVERSATION WITH A KENTUCKY MEMBER OF CONGRESS—THE WAR A “CRIME” BY MR. LINCOLN’S OWN SHOWING—VIOLATION OF PLEDGES AND ARBITRARY ACTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—THE MASK REMOVED AFTER THE BATTLE OF ANTIETAM—THE REAL PURPOSE OF EMANCIPATION—MR. DAVIS’ ALLUSION TO THE SUBJECT—INDIGNATION OF THE SOUTH AT THE MEASURE—MILITARY OPERATIONS IN TEXAS AND MISSISSIPPI—VICKSBURG—PORT HUDSON—LOSS OF ARKANSAS POST—FEDERAL FLEET REPULSED AT CHARLESTON—PREPARATIONS FOR THE CAMPAIGN—UNITY AND CONFIDENCE OF THE SOUTH—MR. DAVIS’ ADDRESS TO THE COUNTRY—IMPORTANT EXTRACTS—GENERAL LEE PREPARES FOR BATTLE—HIS CONFIDENCE—CONDITION OF HIS ARMY—BATTLE OF CHANCELLORSVILLE—JEFFERSON DAVIS’ TRIBUTE TO STONEWALL JACKSON.

There is much justice in the sentiment that declares that there can be magnificence even in failure. Men often turn to the contemplation of rÔles enacted in history, ending in disaster and utter disappointment of the originating and vitalizing aspiration, with far more of interest than has been felt in following records marked by the palpable tokens of complete success.

It may well be doubted, whether the Confederate States of America, even had victory crowned their prolonged struggle of superhuman valor and unstinted sacrifice, could have commanded more of the esteem of mankind, than will be awarded them in the years to come. Retrospect of the most prosperous period of the fortunes of the Confederacy—the interval between the battle of Fredericksburg, December, 1862, and the ensuing midsummer—reveals a period in which there was wanting no element of glory, of pride, or of hope. Many a people, now proudly boasting an honored recognition at the council-board of nations, might envy the fame of the meteor power which flashed across the firmament, with a glorious radiance that made more mournful its final extinguishment.

A notable feature of the distinction which the South, at that time especially, commanded in the eyes of the world, was the enthusiastic and universal tribute of mankind to the leader, whose genius, purity, dignity, and eloquence so adorned the cause of his country. The North sought to console its wounded national pride by accounting for the crushing and humiliating defeats of the recent campaign, by contrasts between the able leadership of its antagonist, and its own imbecile administration. At the South faction was silenced, in the presence of the wondrous results achieved in spite of its own outcries and prophecies of failure. Demagogues, in such a season of good fortune, ceased their charges of narrowness, of rash zealotry, of favoritism, of incompetency, seemingly conscious, for once, of the praise which they bestowed upon the Executive, whom they accused of usurping all the authority of the Government, in ascribing such results to his unaided capacity.

From Europe, in the beginning, so prejudiced against the South and its cause, so misinformed of Southern motives, and unacquainted with Southern history, came the tribute of disinterested eulogy, the more to be valued, because reluctantly accorded, to the Confederacy and its ruler. To Europe the South was now known not only through a series of unparalleled victories; as a people who had successfully asserted their independence for nearly two years, against such odds as had never been seen before; as a land of valiant soldiers, of great generals, and of large material resources. If possible, above these, the statesmen and politicians of Europe admired the administrative capacity, which, they declared, had given a superior model and a new dignity to the science of statesmanship. To the educated circles of Europe the new power was introduced by State papers, which were declared to be models, not less of skilled political narration and exposition, than of literary purity and excellence. Accustomed to hear the South twitted as a people dwarfed and debased by the demoralization of African slavery, the educated classes of England acknowledged the surprise and delight they experienced from the powerful and splendid vindications of the cause of the Confederacy, in the messages of Mr. Davis. It has been truthfully remarked that there could be no better history of the war than that contained in his numerous state papers. They are the exhaustive summary, and unanswerable statement of the imperishable truths which justify the South, and overwhelm her enemies with the proof of their own acts of wrong and violence.Under the new light given to mankind, as to the origin, nature, and purposes of the American Union, which Mr. Davis so lucidly explained, Europe soon recognized his position as something else than that of a ruler of an insurgent district. But not only as the chosen Executive of eleven separate communities, several of which European governments had previously recognized as sovereign; as one who had organized great armies, maintained them in the field, and selected leaders for their command already illustrious in the annals of war; not for these and other features of enduring fame, alone, was Jefferson Davis admired in Europe. The contrast between the civil administrations of the hostile sections was viewed as, perhaps, the chiefly remarkable phase of the struggle.

President Lincoln, beginning the war with usurpation, had committed, in its progress, every possible trespass upon the Federal Constitution, and was now under the influence of a faction whose every aim contemplated the overthrow of that instrument. President Davis, supported by a confiding people, and an overwhelming majority of every Southern community, ruled in strict conformity with the laws of the land and its Constitution. In the midst of a revolution, unexampled in magnitude, in fierceness, and vindictiveness on the part of the enemy, and of difficulties in his own administration, he furnished an example of courage, humanity, and magnanimity, together with the observance of order, civil freedom, and legal and constitutional restraints unexampled in history. In the Confederacy, the Roman maxim, Inter arma silent leges, universally recognized and practiced among nations, had an emphatic repudiation, so far as concerned the exercise of power by the executive department. Whatever may have been the exceptional cases of unauthorized oppression or violence, there was always redress in the judiciary department of the Government, which continued in pure and dignified existence until the end.

The President, obeying the dictates of exalted patriotism—acting always for the public good, if not always with unimpeachable wisdom, at least with incorruptible integrity—made no attempt at improper interference with Congress, nor sought to exercise undue influence over its deliberations. The press, usually the first bulwark of the public liberties to attract the exercise of despotism, so trammeled at the North, was free in the South every-where; in some instances, to the extent of licentiousness, and to the positive injury of the cause.

In marked contrast with these exhibitions were the evidences of coming despotism at the North. The Federal judiciary was rapidly declining from its exalted purity, before the exactions of military power; the Federal Congress was charged by the press with open and notorious corruption, and was aiding Mr. Lincoln in usurpations which startled the despotisms of Europe, and have since led to the annihilation of the republican character of the Government.

Conspicuous, too, was the desire of Mr. Davis to conduct the war upon a civilized and Christian basis. His forbearance, his moderation, and stern refusal to resort to retaliation, under circumstances such as would have justified its exercise in response to the cruelties and outrages of the enemy, amazed the European spectator, and at times dissatisfied his own countrymen. “Retaliation is not justice,” was his habitual reply to urgent demands, and again and again did he decline to “shed one drop of blood except on the field of battle.” Never forgetting the dignity of the contest, he, up to the last moment of his authority, redeemed the pledge which he had made in the first weeks of the war: “to smite the smiter with manly arms, as did our fathers before us.”

There have been few spectacles presented to the admiring gaze of mankind, more worthily depicted than that union of capacities and virtues in Jefferson Davis, which so eminently qualified him, in the opinion of foreigners, for the position he held. An English writer has eloquently sketched him as “one of the world’s foremost men, admired as a statesman, respected as an earnest Christian, the Washington of another generation of the same race. A resolute statesman, calm, dignified, swaying with commanding intellect the able men that surrounded him; eloquent as a speaker, and as a writer giving state papers to the world which are among the finest compositions in our time; of warm domestic affections in his inner life, and strong religious convictions; held up by vigor of the spirit that nerved an exhausted and feeble frame—such was the chosen constitutional ruler of one-fourth of the American people.”

Colonel Freemantle, a distinguished English officer, whose faithful and impartial narrative of his extended observations of the American war, commended him to the esteem of both parties, thus concludes an account of an interview with President Davis, in the spring of 1863:

Mr. Gladstone, a member of the British cabinet, the eminent leader of a party in English politics, and a sympathizer with the objects of the war as waged by the North, avowed his enthusiastic appreciation of the lustre reflected upon the new Government, by its able administration, in the assertion that “Mr. Jefferson Davis had created a nation.”

But the admiration of Europe was to prove a mere sentiment, unaccompanied by any practical demonstration of sympathy. In view of the course so persistently adhered to by the great powers of Europe, it is curious to note the purely sentimental and personal character of their professed sympathy for the South. The earliest expression of foreign opinion indicated a reluctant recognition of the valor and devotion of a people, from whom they had not expected the exhibition of such qualities. When, by the protraction of the struggle, the brilliant feats of arms executed by the Southern armies, the indomitable resolution of the South, and its evident purpose to encounter every possible sacrifice for sake of independence, there was no longer ground for misapprehension, they still disregarded all the precedents and principles which had governed their course respecting new nationalities.

Applauding the valor of the Southern soldiery, the heroism, endurance, and self-denial of a people whom they repeatedly declared to have already established their invincibility; rapturous in their panegyrics upon the genius, zeal, and Christian virtues of the Confederate leaders; they never interposed their boasted potentiality in behalf of justice, right, and humanity. English writers were eloquent in acknowledgment of the additional distinction conferred upon Anglo-Saxon statesmanship and literature by Davis; diligent in tracing the honorable English lineage of Lee, and establishing the consanguinity of Jackson; but English statesmen persistently disregarded those elevated considerations of humanity and philanthropy, which they have so much vaunted as prompting their intercourse with nations. Confessing a new enlightenment from the expositions of Mr. Davis, and from diligent inquiry into the nature of the Federal Government, Europe soon avowed its convictions in favor of the legal and constitutional right of secession asserted by the South. It declared that it but awaited the exhibition of that earnestness of purpose, and that capacity for resistance, which should establish the “force and consistency” which are the requisite conditions of recognized nationality.

The London Times, while the army of McClellan was still investing Richmond, used language which the North and the South accepted as significant and prophetic. Said the Times:

If such a statement of the question was just and truthful, when a numerous and confident army, under a leader of proven skill, was engaged in close siege of the capital of the Confederacy, how much more unanswerable were its conclusions when McClellan was defeated? What were the evidences of “force and consistency” demanded after the combined armies of McClellan and Pope were hurled back upon the Potomac; after Bragg had forced Buell to the Ohio; and when Fredericksburg had crowned six months of success with a victory that inevitably imposed a defensive attitude upon the North during the entire winter?

When Chancellorsville inflicted a defeat, the most decisive and humiliating of the war, upon the North, there was indeed no longer even a pretext, by which could be disguised the evident purpose of England not to interfere in behalf of a cause with which she had no sympathy, whatever her constrained respect for its champions and defenders. The loss of Vicksburg and Gettysburg in the ensuing summer, so productive of distrust in Europe of the Confederate cause, was quickly followed by developments which dispelled nearly all remaining hope of that recognition which it was equally the right of the Confederacy to hope, and the duty of Europe to render.

The attitude of the Confederate Government, in its relations with European governments, was ever one of imposing dignity. President Davis contented himself with calm and statesman-like presentation of the claims of the cause which he represented. His unanswerable exposition of the position of the Confederacy, and lucid discussions of international jurisprudence, never took the semblance of supplication, and were accompanied by dignified remonstrance, even, only when it became evident that the Confederacy was excluded from the benefits of that policy which the laws of nations and every precedent demanded. Hope of foreign assistance unquestionably constituted a large share of that confidence of success which, until the later stages of the war, continued to animate the South. Her people hoped for foreign aid in some shape, because they were confident of their ability to demonstrate their right to it; and they expected it only when they had demonstrated that right. But never was there any abatement or relaxation of effort by the Confederate Government because of this just right and expectation. In the midst of the most cheering events, and when recognition appeared certain, President Davis declared his conviction of the necessity of such effort as should secure independence without aid from any quarter. In his address to the Mississippi Legislature, December, 1862, from which we have already quoted, he said:

It seems, indeed, difficult to explain the course of Europe, especially of England and France, in the American war, upon any hypothesis consistent with either courage, humanity, or the usages of nations. Delay, caution, and attendance upon results were becoming in the beginning; but, after the defeat of McClellan upon the Chickahominy, and, still more, at the close of operations in 1862, they were no longer exacted by moral obligation or international comity. Having all the attributes of an independent power—a power at war with a neighbor, assailed by its armies, blockaded by its fleets, as had been numerous other independent powers—there was nothing whatever anomalous in the situation of the Confederate States forbidding the practice of plain justice towards them. Recognition was not only warranted by the facts of the case, but by immemorial usage in Europe, especially by the apposite precedent of the separation of Belgium from Holland. The existence of slavery in the South, even though sanctioned by law and the religious convictions of her people, is an altogether insufficient explanation of a policy which has exposed the European great powers to the suspicion of having been actuated by the most unworthy motives.

Especially does the course of England seem indefensible towards a people, with whom the war developed so much of common instinct, so many appeals of sympathy and evidences of identity with herself—a people whose ancestors were the uncompromising enemies of regicides, and had maintained their loyalty to the crown of England in spite of the power and threats of Cromwell, whose Puritan dominion New England acknowledged.

The injustice of England did not end with her refusal of recognition. In the beginning she promptly proclaimed “strict neutrality,” and her Premier declared the Confederates “belligerents.” This phrase, apparently a just concession of the declared independence of the South, was gratefully acknowledged by a struggling people, and evoked the fierce indignation of the North. It was, however, designedly ambiguous, and to be interpreted, philologically and practically, as the prospects of the controversy or the wishes of the Palmerston cabinet might dictate. The English cabinet did not necessarily mean a recognition of a divided sovereignty, justifying suspension of relations with both sections, until the question of sovereignty should be settled. The phrase “belligerents” was subsequently declared to mean, merely, that the “two sections were at war”—a fact which the participants felt to have already had ocular demonstration. Meanwhile, relations between London and Washington were not interrupted, and commercial intercourse continued as before. But England not only ignored the South, and denied the Confederate commissioners a formal and official audience—her vessels respected the Federal blockade, while Confederate vessels were warned from her coasts. Such is only a limited statement of features which made “English neutrality” the broadest farce and severest irony of the age.[58]

Early in 1863, or late in 1862, the Emperor Napoleon proposed to England to join France and other powers in a joint mediation, to suggest an armistice and a conference. This humane proposition England refused, declining to take any step which might aid pacification, and thus did both North and South finally comprehend what was meant by the “duty and policy” of that power, which had so industriously propagated American dissensions for her own aggrandizement. An editorial in the Richmond Enquirer, written, probably, by John Mitchel, pithily described the motives of England in the remark: “In short, the North is not yet bankrupt enough, the South not yet desolated enough, to suit the ‘policy’ of England.” France saved her reputation, upon the score of humanity and justice, by evincing at least a right disposition, though it is difficult to reconcile her continued dalliance upon England, respecting the American question, with that bold policy, which usually characterizes the great master of European diplomacy. France had, however, less of interest and of expectation than England, from the dissolution of the Union; less motive for desiring its downfall, and the exhaustion of both combatants.Such, however, was the policy, adhered to by England and France, in defiance of legal and moral obligation, and to the mortal injury of the South, in her brave and defiant struggle with that power, which history may yet declare, the “great powers” of Europe dared not defy.

An interesting phase of the war, in the beginning of 1863, was the culmination of the policy of the Federal Government respecting the subject of slavery. A brief space will suffice to exhibit a record of violated pledges, of constitutional infractions, and abuse of power by the Federal Government, altogether unexampled in a war to be hereafter noted for its arbitrary measures.

In the early stages of the war the North assumed, as the justification of coercive measures, not only the purpose of preserving the Union, but the relief of a “loyal party” in the South, who were oppressed by a violent minority having “command of the situation.” Of this theory of the war, as waged by the North, the conversation of President Lincoln with a Kentucky member of Congress, in the presence of Senator Crittenden, was sufficiently declaratory:

Mr. Lincoln was probably not a very close student of the philosophy of history, or he would hardly have thus emphatically committed himself to a pledge, which, if observed, would have inevitably ended the war in a few weeks. The teachings of history were valueless, without their unvarying testimony to the potency of the sword of the common enemy in healing the divisions of an invaded country. It would be difficult, too, to imagine what he would have deemed that approximation to unity in the South, which would render a further prosecution of the war a crime. A faction of “Union men,” truculent, treacherous, and insidious, in their hostility to the Confederate Government, unquestionably existed in the South during the entire progress of the war, but they were few in numbers, and their recognized leaders were, with hardly a single exception, men of abandoned character, notoriously without influence, save with their ignorant and unpatriotic followers. But this pretense of a Union party in the South, which the North, at first, declared a majority, was conveniently abandoned, when other pretexts were sought. In the face of evidence not to be denied, of the profound and sincere purpose of separation, entertained by more than seven-eighths of the citizens of the seceded States, the Northern conscience easily overcame its scruples as to a war which the Northern President had, by anticipation, pronounced a “Crime.”

Palpable violations of vows were, indeed, marked characteristics of the conduct of the war as justified by the facile and pliant conscience of the North. The paramount purpose of coercion was to maintain the authority and dignity of the Constitution, assailed by “rebels in arms.” No theory was avowed contemplating any other termination of the war, than a simple restoration of the “Union under the Constitution.” The assertions of the Northern press, and the resolutions of mass meetings were re-affirmed by the most solemn enactments of the Federal Congress, and public declarations of Mr. Lincoln, that the North sought merely to save the Union, with the form and spirit of the Constitution unimpaired. In view of subsequent events, it is almost incredible that in Mr. Lincoln’s first inaugural address should be found this passage:

Then, after the defeat at Bull Run, Congress passed the following resolution, which was signed by Mr. Lincoln as President:

As if to give every possible form of assurance of the legitimate and constitutional objects of the war, and leaving no room for doubt in the mind of posterity, of complete and unredeemed perfidy, the Federal authorities were at especial pains to declare their policy to foreign governments.

Mr. Seward, as Mr. Lincoln’s Secretary of State, in his instructions to Mr. Dayton, Minister to France, says:

There was little room to doubt the purpose of the North to emancipate the slaves of the South, if at any period of the war such action could be advantageously taken. Mr. Lincoln always manifested great timidity and reluctance in approaching the subject, and it was observable that, at critical moments of the war, he courted the sympathy of the Democratic party, which was opposed to the policy of emancipation, so importunately urged upon him by the radical wing of the Republican party.

General McClellan had, with noble firmness, refused to countenance the revolutionary designs of the radical faction, and his removal from command after his repulse at Richmond was the palpable and decisive triumph of the emancipation policy in the sympathies of Mr. Lincoln. Restored to command, in order that he might save Washington from capture, no other officer being deemed to have the requisite ability and confidence of the army, he retained his position but a few weeks after that object was accomplished. By successive steps, Mr. Lincoln was finally brought to issue a preliminary proclamation of emancipation, in September, 1862, which went into effect January 1, 1863. After the battle of Antietam, no farther necessity for concealment was deemed necessary, and to the design of subjugation was now added the proclaimed purpose to destroy the organic existence of the States and two thousand millions of Southern capital.

Emancipation was justified by the Federal administration as a “military necessity”—a wretched explanation from those who had boasted their ability to “exterminate the South” in a few months. Since the war, a claim of philanthropy, as the motive of emancipation, has been falsely asserted. Reckless of the fate of the slave, the North sought only vengeance against his master. In the sequel, each step of despotism becoming easier than its predecessor, malice against the master has been still the motive which instigated the enfranchisement of his former slave.

The New-Year’s proclamation of Mr. Lincoln, reaching the Confederacy at the most auspicious period of its fortunes, was received with evidences of just indignation, and of a more stern purpose in the conduct of the war. President Davis thus referred to the subject in his message to Congress:

Mr. Davis urged upon the people the evidence, given by this measure, of the utterly ruthless and unscrupulous character of the war waged upon the South, and counseled the resolution of “absolute and total separation of these States from the United States.” The eloquent appeals of Mr. Davis were sustained by the united press of the Confederacy, and by unmistakable indications of a thoroughly aroused popular indignation.

The results of military operations, in the winter months of 1863, were of a character altogether favorable and re-assuring to the Confederates. Movements on a large scale were prevented by the heavy rains and extreme rigor of the season, though there were many incidents evincing activity and enterprise on both sides. Early in January occurred the recapture of Galveston, Texas, by General Magruder. This exploit, marked by a display of energy, daring, and skill, was a handsome vindication of a most meritorious officer, who, for some months previous, had suffered unmerited censure. General Magruder had commanded a portion of the Army of Northern Virginia, in the assault upon McClellan, at Malvern Hill. The partial failure of the attack secured the Federal retreat, and the public, impatient at the check sustained at a moment of so much promise, visited an unwarranted censure upon Magruder. President Davis acknowledged, in a most flattering letter to his former classmate, the brilliant achievement of his command at Galveston.

After the battle of Murfreesboro’, the more important operations, in the West, were enacted in the State of Mississippi. The successful defense of Vicksburg, in the summer of 1862, effectually closed the Mississippi to the Federal fleets. To reduce this stronghold became an object of prime importance to the Federal Government, the North-western States being especially interested in securing the unobstructed navigation of the great river. The Confederate Government, equally apprized of the value of Vicksburg, concentrated forces for its defense, and made the maintenance of that position one of the leading features of its designs in the West.

A second attempt, under the auspices of General Sherman, was made against Vicksburg, in December, 1862. The signal failure attending this expedition brought upon Sherman a degree of reproach, at the North, in singular contrast with the applause which he received twelve months later. A few weeks later, the third attempt against Vicksburg was undertaken by General Grant, who sought to turn the Confederate defenses, through the smaller rivers connecting the Yazoo and Mississippi. This attempt was doomed to a failure no less decided and humiliating than that of its predecessor. On the 14th of March the Confederate batteries at Port Hudson, the lower defense of the Mississippi, repulsed the fleet of Farragut, who sought, by passing the batteries, to coÖperate with Porter’s fleet above.

These repeated failures of the Federal demonstrations against the Confederate strongholds on the Mississippi, were accepted as auspicious indications of continued successful defense in a vital quarter of the Confederacy. The loss of Arkansas Post, with a garrison of three thousand men, somewhat diminished the ardor of the congratulations experienced by the South from the successes on the Mississippi, and General Beauregard’s signal defeat of the Federal fleet at Charleston.

At the opening of spring, there was wanting no indication of the gigantic struggle which was to make memorable the third year of the war. By common consent it was declared that this, if not the last, would, at least, be the decisive year of the struggle. An imperative necessity impelled the Federal administration to the most powerful efforts. Without brilliant and decided military results, the party in opposition to the war would inevitably gain possession of a sufficient number of States, to enable them to enter the next Presidential contest with fair prospects of success. The approaching expiration of the terms of service of large numbers of his veteran troops, also impelled the enemy to early activity.

On the part of the Confederates, there was apparently nothing left undone which could increase the chances of success. This period is remarkable in the history of the war, not less for its auspicious signs for the Confederacy, than for the union and coÖperation every-where observable. It was equally a period encouraging hope and inviting effort to wring from the reluctant North confession of final defeat, and to inflict a just punishment upon an enemy, who had but lately proclaimed his purpose to use even the slaves of the South for the subjugation of her citizens. Extraordinary activity was displayed, during the winter and spring, in strengthening the army and adding to its efficiency, by the execution of the recent legislation of Congress recommended by President Davis. The utmost exertions of the Government were, of course, insufficient to strengthen the armies to the point of equality with the enormous array presented by the enemy on every theatre of operations. Yet the Government, the people, and the army, with calmness and confidence, awaited the issue, in the conviction that every preparation had been made which the resources of the country admitted.

Early in April, President Davis, in compliance with a request of Congress, addressed an eloquent invocation to the country, in behalf of the duties of patriotism at so critical a moment of the struggle. Stating his concurrence in the views of Congress, he declared his confidence in the patriotic disposition of the people to carry into effect the measures devised for the deliverance of the country.

“Alone, unaided,” said he, “we have met and overthrown the most formidable combinations of naval and military armaments that the lust of conquest ever gathered together for the conquest of a free people. We began this struggle without a single gun afloat, while the resources of our enemy enabled them to gather fleets which, according to their official list, published in August last, consisted of four hundred and thirty-seven vessels, measuring eight hundred and forty thousand and eighty-six tons, and carrying three thousand and twenty-six guns.... To oppose invading forces composed of levies which have already exceeded thirteen hundred thousand men, we had no resources but the unconquerable valor of a people determined to be free.”

Mr. Davis alluded encouragingly to the immediate prospects of the war:

In this address President Davis did not fail to rebuke that tendency to excessive confidence from which relaxed exertion is ever apt to follow. Albeit he has been so freely charged with entertaining excessive confidence himself, and encouraging others to share his over-sanguine and exaggerated hopes, he yet never lost an opportunity of rebuking it as a dangerous error.

The most important feature of the address is the earnest and admonitory appeal, for immediate exertion, to obviate the difficulty of obtaining supplies for the army, already becoming a question of alarming concern. Mr. Davis even then avowed his conviction that, in such a contest as the war had then become, the question of food was the “one danger which the Government of your choice regards with apprehension.” Earnestly appealing to the “never-failing patriotism” of the land, he said: “Your country, therefore, appeals to you to lay aside all thought of gain, and to devote yourselves to securing your liberties, without which these gains would be valueless.”

Reminding the country of embarrassments, already encountered, he indicated the only method of avoiding similar difficulties in future:

“Let your fields be devoted exclusively to the production of corn, oats, beans, peas, potatoes, and other food for man and beast. Let corn be sowed broadcast, for fodder, in immediate proximity to railroads, rivers and canals; and let all your efforts be directed to the prompt supply of these articles in the districts where our armies are operating. You will then add greatly to their efficiency, and furnish the means without which it is impossible to make those prompt and active movements which have hitherto stricken terror into our enemies and secured our most brilliant triumphs.”