not been increased by immigration to the extent that it has been in the North.

At one time or another substantially 1,200,000 men from the Confederate States were under arms during the Civil War,- practically the entire population available for military service, so that it is fair to say

assuming, as I have for the North, that three of the population of the South were vitally interested in the fortunes of each soldier that between four and five millions of the population of the South had a direct personal contact with the operations of the war. The white population was 5,469,462. We may go even further and say that the entire white population of the South was brought in direct personal contact with the experience of the battlefield. Almost all the battles were fought in the South, sections of the country were stripped bare by both armies, the fortunes of many great families were entirely destroyed, and very naturally, when the war was over, a feeling of great bitterness remained, a feeling that has been transmitted from one generation to another. For this reason we have had in the South what we would naturally expect to find under these conditions, a solid

support for the Democratic party, representing not so much allegiance to that party as an undying hostility to the Republican party, which the Southern people held responsible for the war, for the equally cruel experiences of the reconstruction period, and for the negro problem.

It may be added that in the South the descendants of those who lived through the Civil War feel, at least some of them, even more bitterly than their elders, because, as a result of the losses incident upon the war, they have been denied opportunities for education and a position which by inheritance is theirs, and have been compelled to turn for a bare livelihood to occupations which in the earlier days would have been considered ill suited to them.

That feeling of bitterness is, of course, growing weaker as new generations enter upon the duties of citizenship, but it has remained a very potent influence much longer than the corresponding influence in the North.

I was a delegate to the Convention that nominated Roosevelt for President in 1904. A portrait, of heroic size, of Mark Hanna, hung over the platform. I said to a man who sat next to me, "What would happen if Hanna were

living?" He said in reply, "He would be nominated here to-day." Of course he would not have been nominated; I merely mention this as indicating that the "old order" which was incarnated in Hanna had not then passed away; but it was passing. I felt it in the atmosphere of the Convention. An entirely new type of man was President, who had no knowledge of the Civil War excepting that gained from books and from his family associations both with the North and with the South. When McKinley and Hanna died, the old dynasty fell. Roosevelt became President in his own right March 4, 1905. He was not hampered by either a business or professional experience. I mean by this that he had not acquired that over-caution which is inseparable from either calling; the former leading to a dread of anything that will "disturb business," and the latter forbidding any action based upon anything short of legal evidence. Roosevelt, as I have tried to demonstrate, was intense in his devotion to the job in hand, whatever it might be, intent upon achieving results, and a man who never took counsel of his fears. I do not mean by that to say that he acted purely from impulse, though his acts

may sometimes have given that impression. John Hay, after he had been in his cabinet for three years, said of him:

Roosevelt is prompt and energetic, but he takes infinite pains to get at the facts before he acts. In all the crises in which he has been accused of undue haste, his action has been the result of long meditation and well-reasoned conviction. If he thinks rapidly, that is no fault; he thinks thoroughly, and that is the essential.

The people were ready to follow a new leadership. The former generation had successfully fought for the preservation of the nation, had stimulated the building of railroads by lavish government grants, had tempted settlers to take up lands in the West upon their own terms. The new generation, under the leadership of Roosevelt, was to fight for conservation of our resources, for the quickening of the public conscience which, once enlightened, would demand the proper regulation of corporations, would curb the tendency to private monopoly in public land and natural resources, and would recognize that labor has its rights as well as capital, and that neither should prey upon the other. It must in truth be said that the people were far in advance of Congress when Roosevelt became

President and Congress continued to lag behind for some time thereafter. Both branches were still largely in control of men bred in the "war school" of which I have spoken. They led well and wisely for the most part, but looked with suspicion upon the new school of thought, and while they granted much, it was with a somewhat niggardly hand and protesting spirit. Do not imagine that I am over-critical of these men. I belonged myself to that wing of the party. In safe progress there must always be those who press forward, the pioneers, and others of just as patriotic purpose who perform the perhaps more ignoble but no less necessary task of seeing that the wheels of progress do not revolve in the wrong direction. The conservative of to-day was the progressive of yesterday, the progressive of to-day is the conservative of to-morrow, so rapidly do our views change in response to public opinion.

I must not omit to say a few words about changed industrial conditions between 1865 and 1900 which created an entirely new set of problems to be dealt with. Our great industrial progress has been made since the Civil War, and it was not until 1894 that we became first