MR. N. J. ROCKWELL

Dear Sir:

LINCOLN TO N. J. ROCKWELL.

SPRINGFIELD, Jany. 21, 1846.

You, perhaps, know that Gen! Hardin and I have a contest for the Whig nomination for Congress in this District. He has had a turn; and my argument is that "Turn about is fair play." I shall be pleased if this strikes you as a sufficient argument.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.

4. Letter of John C. Calhoun, 1847.

To the Editor of the American Historical Review:

The enclosed letter from Mr. Calhoun to Hon. Waddy Thompson of South Carolina may be of interest to some of your readers. While the letter contains perhaps little that is new, it emphasizes in a striking manner the fearless independence of thought and action that renders the character of this eminent man so unique in our history. LYON G. TYLER.

Dear Sir,

JOHN C. CALHOUN TO WADDY THOMPSON.1

FORT HILL, 29th Octr 1847.

I have read your letter with attention, and will answer it in the same sperit of candour and freedom, with which it is written.

We do not disagree, as to the cause of the war, nor as to its certain disasterous consequences in the end, let it terminate as it will. We al[s]o agree in the opinion, that the war ought to terminate, and that my position requires me to use my best efforts to bring it to an end. But the great practical question is; How can that be done?

In deciding that question, it must not be overlooked, that both parties by large majorities stand committed by their recorded votes, not only to the war, but that the war is a war of aggression on the part of the Republick of Mexico, aggression by invation and spilling American blood on American soil, and thus committed also to the Rio Grande being the Western boundary of the state of Texas. It is true, that very few of either party believed, that there was any just cause of war, or that the Rio Grande was the Western boundary of Texas, or that the Republick of Mexico had made war on us by the invasion of our territory, or any other way; but it is equally true, that by an act of unexampled weakness, to use the mildest terms, both stand by admission on record to the very opposite of their belief. And what is

1 MS. in private possession.

worse, they have by this act of unpar[all]elled weakness, committed large portions of both parties out of Congress to the war, as just and unavoidable on our part.

The effect of all this, with brilliant atchievements of our arms, have been greatly to weaken the opposition and to strengthen the party in power, and to make it impossible, in my opinion, to terminate the war in the manner you propose. I go further, to attempt it, would only tend, under circumstances, to weaken those, who make it, and give a new impulse to what is called the vigorous prosecution of the war, instead of bringing it to a termination. I thought so at the last session, and so informed Mr. Berrien and the other Whig members, when he presented his amendment, and such in my opinion has been the effect, and will continue to be its effect, if it should be renewed at the next session. The course I adopted then, or rather suggested, was the only one that had the least prospect of bring[ing] the war to an end. I stood prepared to carry it out, if I had been supported; and, if I had been, the carnage and expenses of this campaign, would have been avoided. I shall take my seat prepared to do all in my power to bring it to an end, consistently with the state of things, in which I may find the country; but I fear with as little support, as I had in opposition to the war, or in my attempt to terminate it, at the last session. The fatal error of the Whigs, in voting for the war, has rendered them impotent, as a party, in opposition to it; and let me add, that while I agree with them in the policy of preserving the peace of the country, as long as it can be consistently with honor, I fear their timidity, as a party, on all questions, including peace and war, is so great, as to render their policy of preserving peace of little avail. It is not only in this instance, that it has disclosed itself. Even on the Oregon question, they gave away, before my arrival at Washington, on Cass's resolution, and rendered it very difficult to re[co]ver what was then lost. To go farther back; they made but feeble efforts to preserve peace during Jackson and Van Buren's time on the Maine boundary question, and permitted. me to stand alone in open opposition to Genl1 Jackson's course, in reference to the French indemnity, backed by the report of the Committee of Foreign relations in the Senate, which, had it not been for the mediation of England, would have ended in War. I rose in my place in the Senate, after the report was read, and exposed and denounced the whole affair, without a voice raised in my support. It is this timidity, when they are right, in questions connected with our foreign relations, and their errors, in reference to those appertaining to our domestick relations, which keeps them out of power, notwithstanding their individual respectability, and prevents them from performing, with effect, the important duties of an opposition. I am sure you will excuse this free expression of my opinion, in relation to a party, with which you rank yourself.

With great respect

HON. W. THOMPSON.

I am &c.

J. C. CALHOUN.

REVIEWS OF BOOKS

La Enseñanza de la Historia. Por RAFAEL ALTAMIRA, Secretario del Museo Pedagógico Nacional, etc. (Madrid: Libreria de Victoriano Suárez. 1895. Pp. xii, 457.)

ALTHOUGH nominally a second edition, this is really a new work; for the first edition, printed in 1891, was not put on sale generally, but was privately circulated. In its preparation Mr. Altamira has evidently had two objects in view, the improvement of historical teaching in Spain, and the advancement of intelligent historical study. After a brief declaration of his pedagogical principles, he takes a rapid survey of the present condition of historical teaching in Europe and the United States. This sketch is interesting and seems to be based on both personal experience and a careful examination of a mass of recent literature.

The proper scope of history is the subject of the third chapter, and it is discussed, first historically, and then in the light of contemporary opinion. Starting from the classical idea of history as the narrative of the political life of states, Altamira traces the gradual broadening of this conception under the influence of the continual increase of knowledge and the expansion of human interests. Only glimpses of the truth that history is more than past politics can be found before the eighteenth century. In that century the first great representative of the newer conception was Voltaire, but it was also advanced with great distinctness in Spain. Sarmiento in 1775 declared that history should give an account not only of military events but of the physical, geographical, political, moral, theological, and literary phenomena of the national life. Jovellanos (1778) asserted that history should unfold the origin and development of the national constitution, of the civil and political hierarchy, of legislation and customs, of the national glory and the national poverty. Masdeu and Capmany a little later produced brilliant examples of the new history. Yet among all the writers of the eighteenth century Altamira selects Volney as representing the fullest development of these ideas. In 1794, as professor of history in the newly founded École Normale, Volney drew up a programme of history. In it he discussed the certainty of history, its importance, its utility as a study, and other pedagogical questions. This was followed by a proposal of a summary of general history to comprise the progress of the arts, the sciences, public and private morals, and the ideas in regard to them, legislation, emigration, mixture

of races, influence of physical environment, etc.1 How many of the greatest names in the succeeding century were to be identified with the carrying out of this programme! Volney, however, still attached primary importance to political history. The following has a very familiar and modern sound. "I confess that, in my view, the political utility of history is its sole and proper end: private morals, the advance of the sciences and arts appear to me to be only episodes and accidents; the chief object, the fundamental art, is the application of history to government, to legislation, to the whole economy of societies. So that I should be ready to style history the physiology of states." This is substantially the doctrine of Seeley. In the second part of this chapter Altamira insists that history should embrace the whole life of humanity. The fifth chapter is taken up with a survey of modern views as to the influence of Nature on history, and as to the proper subject of history, whether the state or the people. The classification of the material to be studied, its proper use and the criticism of it, and a list of printed sources, occupy three chapters of more than ordinary interest and helpfulness. The student will find in them not a few suggestions and bibliographical references in addition to those contained in Bernheim's Lehrbuch. The rest of the volume is purely pedagogical and treats of the use of text-books, secondary instruction, and the teaching of history in Spain.

The essence of Altamira's views on the proper method of teaching can be expressed in a few sentences. Such a summary, however, does little justice to the vigor and success with which he expounds them. Lectures and recitations alone are quite inadequate for imparting the mental discipline and practical training to be derived from the study of history. In all but the most elementary instruction there should be some work on the sources of history. The use of text-books and lectures alone burdens the memory and spares the reasoning faculties, implants a wrong. idea of the nature of historical study and an excessive reverence for second- and third-hand authorities. "Students are left to receive and assimilate dogmatic results like a mysterious drug without examination." Consequently they come to believe that the larger part of history is incontestably authenticated or settled, and that there is little or no further need of investigation. The true text-books should be a collection of documents and works of reference to be used not instead of the sources, but as a guide to the study of them. "The true aim of historical study is the formation of the personality of the pupil, the awakening of his native faculties, especially the critical spirit, and of absolute respect for the truth and the real, caution in judgment and in generalization, and the renunciation of every supposition not authorized by the facts." To

1 From Séances des Écoles Normales, recueillies par des sténographes et revues par les professeurs; edition of 1800, Vol. I., pp. 78, 79; Vol. III., pp. 411-415.

2 Séances, Vol. II., p. 441. I give these references from Altamira and this space to Volney, because Flint, in his elaborate History of the Philosophy of History in France, gives only a very inadequate account of Volney, based on his well-known Ruins.

develop these characteristics the pupil must study primarily the objects themselves, and not descriptions of them or opinions about them.

EDWARD GAYLORD BOURNE.

Julian, Philosopher and Emperor, and the Last Struggle of Paganism against Christianity. By ALICE GARDNER, Lecturer and Associate of Newnham College, Cambridge.

ness.

(London and

New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1895. Pp. xx, 364.)

Of blind partisans and bitter detractors the Emperor Julian has had enough and to spare, both in ancient and modern days; of sober and impartial biographers he has had few. Among the latter Miss Gardner must be accorded high rank, for her book is a model of fairness and frankIts most conspicuous merit, in fact, is its complete freedom from partisan bias and the just discrimination with which it portrays the character and the conduct not of Julian alone but of his contemporaries as well, whether friends or foes. Even Constantius is generously handled and his attitude toward Julian and his relations with him are set in a true light. It is difficult to write about a character and a career like Julian's- SO widely misunderstood, so persistently misinterpreted—without heat and passion, but Miss Gardner has succeeded admirably in maintaining her poise and in preserving that judicial frame of mind which distinguishes the historian from the special pleader. Indeed, if her book errs at all it is in the direction of excessive coolness. The enthusiasm for the subject of her sketch, to which she confesses in her preface, we might almost wish had been allowed a little fuller play and had been a little less rigorously held in check.

The story of Julian's life is told with admirable clearness and simplicity and with an excellent sense of proportion. A brief sketch of the condition of the Roman world under Constantine introduces the reader to the environment in which Julian was born and bred, and serves to elucidate much in his career that must otherwise remain inexplicable. The account of the experiences of his boyhood, and the very interesting description of his early education and of his university life which follow, shed still clearer light upon the subject; for of few great men has it been truer than of Julian that "the boy is father of the man." The chapters upon his religion and philosophy, upon his work as a religious reformer, and upon his policy against the Christians are particularly good and display keen insight and sharp discrimination. The account of Julian's Cæsarship in Gaul is less satisfactory. Not enough of his achievements is told to justify the high encomium pronounced upon him and no attempt is made to analyze his military genius and to explain his remarkable successes. This is the more to be regretted because, though his natural tastes and his early training were anything but military, his imperial ideals and his plans for their realization can be understood only in the light of the fact that he was a successful and popular commander before he became