in unchallenged equality of greatness. Washington, indeed, is so far removed that we have lost our conception of the fact that he was bitterly criticised, that he struggled with many difficulties, and that his words, which to us have an almost sacred significance, were, when they were uttered, treated by some persons then extant with contempt. Let me give you an idea of what certain people, now quite forgotten, thought of Washington when he went out of office. On the sixth of March, 1797, the leading newspaper of the opposition spoke as follows:

"Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace,' was the pious ejaculation of a pious man who beheld a flood of happiness rushing in upon mankind. If ever there was a time that would license the reiteration of the ejaculation, that time has now arrived, for the man who is the source of all the misfortunes of our country is this day reduced to a level with his fellow citizens, and is no longer possessed of power to multiply evils upon the United States. If ever there was a period for rejoicing, this is the moment. Every heart in unison with the freedom and happiness of the people, ought to beat high with exultation that the name of Washington ceases from this day to give currency to political insults and to legalized corruption. A new era is now opening upon us—an era which promises much to the people, for public measures must now stand upon their own merits, and nefarious projects can no longer be supported by a name. When a retrospect has been taken of the Washington administration for eight years, it is a subject of the greatest astonishment that a single individual should have cankered the principles of Republicanism in an enlightened people just emerging from the gulf of despotism, and should have carried his designs against the public liberty so far as to have put in jeopardy its very existence. Such, however, are the facts, and with these staring us in the face, the day ought to be a jubilee in the United States."

How strange and unreal this sounds to us who know not merely that George Washington led the army of the United States to victory, but that his administration established our Union and our government, which Lincoln, leading the American people, was destined to preserve. The myth has grown so powerful that it is hard to comprehend that actual living men were uttering words like these about George Washington. The same feeling in regard to Lincoln began to take form

even earlier than in the case of Washington. The manner of his death made men see, as by a flash of lightning, what he was and what he has done, even before the grave closed over him. Nothing illustrates the violent revulsion of sentiment which then occurred better than the verses which appeared in "Punch" when the news of his death reached England. He had been jeered at, abused, vilified, and caricatured in England to a degree which can be understood only by those who lived through that time, or who have turned over the newspapers and magazines, or read the memoirs and diaries of that epoch. In this chorus of abuse "Punch" had not lagged behind. Then came the assassination, and then these verses by Tom Taylor, written to accompany Tenniel's cartoon representing England laying a wreath on Lincoln's bier:

"Beside this corpse, that bears for winding sheet
The Stars and Stripes he lived to rear anew,
Between the mourners at his head and feet,
Say, scurril jester, is there room for you?

"Yes, he had lived to shame me from my sneer,
To lame my pencil and confute my pen;
To make me own this hind of princes peer,

This rail-splitter a true born king of men.”

How, at a glance, we see not only the greatness and nobility of the man, forcing themselves upon the minds of men, abroad as at home, but how keenly these remorseful verses make us realize the storm of abuse, of criticism and defamation through which he had passed to victory!

From that day to this the tide of feeling has swept on, until, with Lincoln, as with Washington, we have become unable, without a serious effort, to realize the attacks which he met, the assaults which were made upon him or the sore trials which he had to endure. I would fain show you how the actual man, living in those terrible years, met one or two of the attacks.

Lincoln believed that the first step toward the salvation of the Union was to limit the area of secession. He wished above all things, therefore, to hold in the Union the border

States, as they were then called. If those States were added to the Confederacy, the chances of saving the Union would have been seriously diminished. In those same States there was a strong Union feeling, and a very weak anti-slavery feeling. If they could be convinced that the controlling purpose of the War was to preserve the Union, the chances were that they could be held, but if they were made to believe that the real object of the War was the abolition of slavery, they would probably have been lost. Lincoln, therefore, had checked Fremont in issuing orders for the liberation of the slaves, and in the first year of the War had done nothing in that direction, for reasons which seemed to him good, and which, to all men to-day, appear profoundly wise. Abolitionists, and extreme anti-slavery men everywhere, were bitterly disappointed, and a flood of criticism was let loose upon him for his attitude in this matter, while at the same time he was also denounced by reactionaries, and by the opposition as a "Radical" and "Black Republican." Horace Greeley, an able editor and an honest man, devoted to the cause of the Union, but a lifelong and ardent opponent of slavery, assailed the President in The New York Tribune. Here is Lincoln's reply:

"As to the policy I 'seem to be pursuing,' as you say, I have not meant to leave anyone in doubt.

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be 'the Union as it was.' If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe that what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will

help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

What a reply that is! Using his unrivalled power of statement he sets forth his policy with a force which drives opposition helpless before it and renders retort impossible. He strips the issue bare of every irrelevant consideration and makes it so plain that no one can mistake it.

This was a case of specific criticism. There were others of a more general nature. A few months after Greeley wrote, Lincoln received a letter from Mr. Carl Schurz. Mr. Schurz, who has been a familiar figure to the present generation, was an able man and a very eloquent and effective speaker, especially upon economic subjects. He was also fond of criticising other people who were doing work for which they were responsible and not he. His system of criticism was a simple one. He would depict an ideal President, or Cabinet officer, or Senator; put him in an ideal situation, surrounded by conditions as they ought to be, and with this imaginary person, he would then contrast, most unfavorably, the actual man who was trying to get results out of conditions which were not at all as they ought to be, but which, as a matter of fact, actually existed. This method of discussion, of course, presented Mr. Schurz in a very admirable light, and gave him a great reputation, especially with people who had never been called upon to bear any public responsibility at all. When Mr. Schurz was in the Cabinet himself he fell easily into the class which he criticised, and, naturally, bore no relation to the ideal by which he tried other people, but that fact never altered the opinion of his greatness entertained by his admirers. They liked to hear him find fault pointedly and eloquently with their contemporaries, but they forgot or overlooked the fact that in the past he had applied his system to Lincoln, and in that connection the process seems less convincing.

States, as they were then called. If those States were added to the Confederacy, the chances of saving the Union would have been seriously diminished. In those same States there was a strong Union feeling, and a very weak anti-slavery feeling. If they could be convinced that the controlling purpose of the War was to preserve the Union, the chances were that they could be held, but if they were made to believe that the real object of the War was the abolition of slavery, they would probably have been lost. Lincoln, therefore, had checked Fremont in issuing orders for the liberation of the slaves, and in the first year of the War had done nothing in that direction, for reasons which seemed to him good, and which, to all men to-day, appear profoundly wise. Abolitionists, and extreme anti-slavery men everywhere, were bitterly disappointed, and a flood of criticism was let loose upon him for his attitude in this matter, while at the same time he was also denounced by reactionaries, and by the opposition as a "Radical" and "Black Republican." Horace Greeley, an able editor and an honest man, devoted to the cause of the Union, but a lifelong and ardent opponent of slavery, assailed the President in The New York Tribune. Here is Lincoln's reply:

"As to the policy I 'seem to be pursuing,' as you say, I have not meant to leave anyone in doubt.

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be 'the Union as it was.' If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe that what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will