his eagle eye, just as he once rode around looking for positions for his guns.

Such were our host and hostess, and such the place where we were visiting. Oh! how it pained me to hear, a year or two ago, that the colonel had closed the Pampatike establishment! The girls and boys had married, all but one; and he, the youngest, was in business in a neighboring city. The colonel's duties called him to another State; and the lady of the house, after all her long years of rule at Pampatike, left alone, followed the others, and closed its doors.

Farewell, old place! Another of the few remaining lights of the olden times has gone out. May your mistress be happy wherever she goes. I know she will be beloved. But never flourished country-seat under sovereign's rule better than did Pampatike under the gentle sway of its charming mistress.

THE MEMORY OF DAVIS

From 'Recollections of Thirteen Presidents.' Copyright, Doubleday, Page and Company, and used here by permission of the publishers.

THE political leaders of the South must have been intensely inflamed and in deadly earnest against the North. I do not remember that in all the discussions I heard preceding the war I ever heard any Southern man concede to the Republican party or its leaders any broad or patriotic purpose or any conciliatory feeling towards the South. Lincoln, Seward, Chase, Wade, Greeley-in fact, all the Republican leaderswere denounced as South-haters who at heart rejoiced even at the lunatic blood-thirstiness of John Brown, and as men who would, if they dared to do so, incite and encourage servile insurrection, murder and rapine to accomplish the destruction of slavery, regardless of the terror or suffering which might be inflicted thereby upon their white brethren in the Southern States.

The Southern masses had unquestionably been wrought up to this belief when they voted in favor of their respective States seceding from the Union. So believing, they were

fully justified in making the effort.

It is easy to say that the South was in the wrong, and,

admitting it, it does not wipe out the fact that the Northern people themselves were far from blameless in that they countenanced and even encouraged the doing and the saying of many things in public and in private which gave color to the popular apprehensions in the South.

For this reason I have never felt called upon to defend my section for attempting to secede. The South may have been as arrogant and domineering as Northern writers represent her, but there was enough of arrogance and bad blood in the North to make Southern men desire to dissolve political partnership with her. The right to secede was always a debatable one, with the preponderance of logic favouring the abstract right, and sentiment, rhetoric, eloquence and the hope of National greatness all opposed.

It is all easy enough to see that the Nation is greater and more prosperous than either could possibly have been if two nations had been formed from it. But much of its greatness is the result of the great war, and it would not have achieved it if the war had not happened. It is easy, too, to moralise now about the way in which the conflict might have been avoided but for the ambitious designs of this man or that, or this set of men or that. Undoubtedly it might have been avoided if men had been angels. But the quarreling over the things that led to the war had gone on so long and had been so acrimonious that a good blood-letting was the only way to put an end to it. When at last the fight did come, and the North proceeded to coerce the South, the attitude of the Northern man who sided with the South was not a whit more peculiar or unnatural than that of the Southerner who sided with the North. It required a great deal more of explanation to justify the action of such than to justify those who maintained their natural affiliations.

Unquestionably there were good men from both sections. who adhered to the opposite section. But there were not many of that kind on either side. As a class those who took sides against their own section were a sorry lot, both North and South, and both sides know it, whether they confess the fact or not.

For myself I am glad I sided with the South. I do not mean to imply by this that, after all, things did not turn out

for the best. But the Southern side was mine, naturally, and I would rather have been whipped fighting for and with my friends than have aided in such a bitter and blood-thirsty struggle against them. In after years I became identified with a political party which is opposed by the great mass of my old Confederate comrades. But that is quite a different matter. It is not like fighting them and shedding their blood.

It only means that concerning political policies and current events I believe that I have more common sense than they have. They do not think so now, but the time will come when they will find out that I was in the right and they were in the wrong. But quarrel as we may about the things of the present, they cannot deny my Confederate brotherhood with them, nor can they rob me, if in their warmth they would attempt it, of the pride I have in the fact that I am a Confederate soldier. Whatever else we may have lost in that struggle, we gave the world Robert E. Lee, and he led an army with a record of valour that will preserve its memory as long as the world counts courage and self-sacrifice among the noblest traits of men.

So let not my reader expect to hear from me any explanations or regrets about my having been a so-called Rebel. That is just what I was, and while I do not want to flaunt the fact offensively in the face of anybody who felt differently, I must admit to this day I am proud of my record as a follower of Lee.

All that was a long time ago, and those who felt most bitterly about it are now reconciled, but there is one exception to the general amnesty of the Northern mind which I cannot for the life of me understand, and that is why, when the Northern people seem to have forgiven all other Confederates, they still in some indefinable way and for some inexplicable reason cherish a grudge against Mr. Davis, as if he were called upon to make vicarious atonement for the sins of all the rest of us. What did he do that keeps him without the pale of Northern charity? He certainly was not so preeminently great that he led his people against their will. He was not so popular that he might mislead them. He was neither so good that he did the North unusual damage, nor so bad that he excited their special vengeance. Their attitude

toward him only excites sympathy among his old comrades, with whom he was never a favourite, and makes a soft place for him in the heart of every ex-Confederate.

Mr. Davis was never a particular friend to me or mine. I never believed he was a great man, or even the best President the Confederate States might have had. But he was our President. Whatever shortcomings he may have had, he was a brave, conscientious and loyal son of the South. He did his best, to the utmost of his ability, for the Southern cause. He, without being a whit worse than the rest of us, was made to suffer for us as no other man in the Confederacy. And through it all he never, to the day of his death, failed to maintain the honour and dignity confided to his keeping.

Yet the North seems not to have forgiven him. For that very reason I cherish his memory with peculiar tenderness. After forty years of renewed loyalty to our re-united country, in which I have battled for the acceptance in good faith by the Southern people of the results of war; after seeing, with loyal pride, my sons bearing to victory the flag against which I fought, I feel that I have a right to stand up anywhere and demand for the memory of Jefferson Davis just as much kindness, just as much charity and just as much forgiveness as is accorded to the memories of Lee or Johnston or any of the great Confederate heroes. I believe that his courageous and constant soul is at rest in a heaven somewhere provided for brave and loyal spirits whose reward does not depend upon success, or even upon whether they were in fact right or wrong, but upon their having striven in this world for what they believed was right according to the power God gave them to see the right. And that is what I believe Mr. Davis did.

JAMES WOODROW

[1828-1907]

A. M. FRASER

AMES WOODROW, educator; born in Carlisle, England, May 30, 1828; son of Rev. Dr. Thomas and Marion Williamson Woodrow; graduated at Jefferson College, Pennsylvania, 1849; studied in Lawrence Scientific School, Harvard, in summer of 1853; University of Heidelberg, A.M., Ph.D., summa cum laude, 1856; (Hon. M.D., Georgia Medical College; D.D., Hampden-Sidney College; LL.D., Davidson College; J.U.D., Washington and Jefferson College); married, August 4, 1857, Felie S., daughter of Rev. J. W. Baker of Georgia. Presbyterian clergyman; principal of academies in Alabama, 1850-1853; professor of Natural Science, Oglethorpe University, Georgia, 1853 to 1861; in medical department (chief of laboratory at Columbia, South Carolina), Confederate States Army, 1863 to 1865; professor, 1869 to 1872, 1880 to 1897, president, 1891 to 1897, South Carolina College; professor Columbia Theological Seminary, 1861 to 1886, deposed on account of views concerning evolution, in pamphlet: 'Evolution,' 1884. Treasurer Southern General Assembly's Foreign Missions and Sustentation, 1861 to 1872. Corresponding delegate to the Churches in Great Britain and on the Continent of Europe, 1874. Commissioner to Southern General Assembly, 1866, '77, '79, '80, '86, '89, '96, '99. Moderator Synod of Georgia, 1879, Synod of South Carolina, 1901. President Central National Bank, 1888 to 1891, 1897 to 1901. Editor and proprietor Southern Presbyterian Review (quarterly), 1861 to 1885, Southern Presbyterian (weekly), 1865 to 1893. Associate of Victoria Institute, London; Isis, Dresden, Saxony; Scientific Association of Germany; Scientific Association of Switzerland; Fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science; of the International Congress of Geologists." This meagre outline of Dr. Woodrow's full life, taken from 'Who's Who in America' for 19061907, may be appropriately supplemented here by a fuller sketch. For several centuries the Woodrow family has been distinguished for learning, piety and able public service. Patrick Wodrow, a Roman Catholic priest, was one of the first men of preminence in Scotland to embrace the doctrines of Protestantism. From that day to the present, every generation of the family has produced one or more ministers of the Gospel, conspicuous among them being Professor