The fact was also ignored that, in contrast to Grant's large losses with comparatively little damage to Lee, McClellan had inflicted much greater losses upon his enemy than his own army had received. The Peninsula Campaign had cost the Confederates about 30,000, in battle losses alone, and Lee was never again able to gather an army approaching the size of his force in the Seven Days. In results, Grant proved McClellan's case by doing exactly what McClellan had done, Grant's superiority in numbers emphasizing McClellan's vindication.

Another aspect of the two situations, of 1862 and 1864, should be considered. In 1864 this superiority in numbers, possessed by Grant, prohibited any danger of an offensive on the part of Lee. The Southern General was thus restricted to the defensive in 1864. But in 1862 the Administration had allowed Lee to gather superior numbers against McClellan for the Seven Days fighting. In fact this was the only time in the whole war when the Army of Northern Virginia was superior in effectives to the Army of the Potomac. Consequently the opportunity for a destructive offensive was offered to Lee, not to McClellan.

Lee's own admission in his Report stated the real situation: "Under ordinary circumstances the Federal Army should have been destroyed." Lee had made his brilliant plan, and felt sure of success. McClellan's unexpected manoeuvre balked Lee's plan, put Lee out of manoeuvre, and prevented his obtaining any results with this Confederate superiority. The result of the Seven Days was to place the Army of the Potomac securely on the James, with a base supplied by the waterways, after fighting that had caused much greater losses to the Confederates.

In 1862 the missed opportunity was Lee's, not McClellan's. This conclusion is now forced upon us. At the crisis of the Peninsula Campaign it was possible for Lee to overwhelm his enemy, but it was not possible for McClellan to overwhelm Lee. Yet, in the actual event, Lee was more damaged than McClellan. We cannot any longer ignore this result of the test of battle between McClellan and Lee.

Mr. CHARLES WARREN read a paper on

WHY JEFFERSON ABANDONED THE PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH
TO CONGRESS.

On April 8, 1913, a Presidential practice of 112 years' standing was demolished, when President Wilson, accompanied by no private secretary or aide or Cabinet official, appeared before Congress and delivered, in person, his Message at the opening of the first and special Session of the Sixty-Third Congress. It had been the practice of all previous Presidents, with the exception of Washington and Adams, to send a Message in writing.

President Wilson, on the day before making his innovation, stated his reasons as follows: "The reasons are very simple. I think that is the only dignified way for the President to address the Congress at the opening of the session. Instead of sending the address to be read perfunctorily in the Clerk's familiar tone of voice, I thought that the dignified and natural thing was to read it. It is a precedent which, it is true, has been discontinued a long time, but which is a very respectable precedent." The next day, he prefaced his Address to Congress with the following comments: "Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Congress: I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity to address the two Houses directly and to verify for myself the impression that the President of the United States is a person, not a mere Department of the Government, hailing Congress from some isolated island of jealous power, sending messages, not speaking naturally with his own voice; that he is a human being, trying to coöperate with other human beings in a common service. After this pleasant experience, I shall feel quite normal in all our dealings with one another."

On the day when the President's plan became known, it was the subject of an active debate in the Senate. A Dem

1 The New York Times, April 8, 1913, stated in its Washington despatch: Contrary to the usual rule at the White House, President Wilson today permitted himself to be quoted as to the reasons for his return to the custom of personal addresses."

2 Cong. Record, 63rd Cong., 1st Sess., April 7, 1913.

ocratic Senator, John Sharp Williams, of Mississippi, opposed it, saying:

The old Federalist custom in imitation of the English custom of making speeches from the throne, when it was once disused, fell by unanimous consent into subsequent constant disuse and ridicule; because the common sense underlying the method of sending a written communication to Congress was obvious and plain to everybody, and because of the fact that it was so much more in accord with American republican institutions. . . . I shall not oppose the resolution, . . . but I do express my regret that the old Federalistic procedure should be revamped. . . . Even the change to Democratic-Republican legislation and measures, perhaps, did not do as much toward democratizing this Republic at that time, as did doing away with the levees, the receptions by the President's standing on a raised dais, with cocked hat and sword and other frumperies, and the "speeches from the throne," and the cavalcadings of Congress down to the President's House and all the balance of the little cheap and tawdry and tinsel imitations of British monarchical customs.

Senator Lodge, on the other hand, said that it was “an interesting reversion to an earlier system," but that "The President in coming to Congress and personally delivering his Address is only half carrying out the old practice, in behalf of which I think much can be said. I have no objection, whatever, of course, to the resolution and I shall be very glad to have it adopted."

The innovation was not received, with particular favor, by the newspaper press at the time. The New York Times said that it doubted the value of the new method:1

Mr. Wilson acquitted himself admirably in his first attempt, but we do not believe that, however favorably his personality impressed Congress, his Address will impress the Nation more deeply than it would if it had been sent by messenger and read by a Clerk. . . . If he prefers to speak to Congress hereafter, instead of writing to it, Congress will probably submit with good grace. The wonder is that in seven years Theodore Roosevelt never thought of this way of stamping his personality upon his age.

1 New York Times, April 7, 1913.

Since President Wilson continued to deliver most of his important Messages, in person;1 and since President Harding adopted the practice, and the newspapers announce that President Coolidge will do the same, it is probable that the method adopted by Washington and Adams, and now resumed, may become permanent.

It becomes a matter, therefore, of historical interest to investigate the reasons which induced Jefferson to abandon the practice of his predecessors - an action for which he was violently and venomously assailed at the time. It will be found that his objection to Presidential messages delivered in person, arose out of his opposition, not to the speech but to its sequel to the practice adopted by the Congress in making Addresses in reply (as Senator Lodge pointed out, in 1913). The history of these reply Addresses forms an extraordinary Chapter in American politics, which, so far as I know, has never been described in detail.

President Washington's Inaugural Address, in New York, on April 30, 1789, was delivered in the building known as Federal Hall, then recently constructed under designs of Major L'Enfant, located on the northeast corner of Wall and Nassau Streets. After the Address, Congress attended services in St. Paul's Church, and then, as William Maclay, Senator from Pennsylvania, recorded in his Diary: "The Senate returned to their chamber, after service, formed and took up the address. Our President [the Vice-President, John Adams] called it 'his most gracious speech.' I cannot approve of this." A Committee was then appointed "to prepare an answer to the President's Speech"- William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut, Charles Carroll of Maryland, and William Paterson of New Jersey. On May 1, Maclay moved to strike out from the minutes of the Senate, the words "most gracious speech"; for, he said: "We have lately had a hard struggle for our liberty, against kingly authority. The minds of men are still heated. Everything relating to that species of government is odious to the people. The words prefixed to the President's speech are the same

1 After his Tariff Message of April 8, 1913, his next appearance, in person, was on the occasions of his Mexican Affairs Message of August 27, 1913, and at the opening of the Session, December 2, 1913.

that are usually placed before the Speech of his Britannic Majesty. I know they will give offense. I consider them as improper." The Vice-President expressed the "greatest surprise at the motion. He thought the people were for a dignified and respectable government." Maclay retorted that the enemies of the Constitution had objected to the new Government because of "the facility there would be of transition from it to kingly government, and all the trappings and splendor of royalty. If such a thing as this appeared on the minutes, they would not fail to represent it as the first step of the ladder in the ascent to royalty."

Richard Henry Lee supported Maclay's motion and the words "most gracious speech" were struck out.

The Senate Committee did not report a draft of an Address in reply to the President's Speech until May 7, when a long debate ensued. Senator Maclay recorded in the diary that as to the phrase in the Address referring to the President's having "rescued us from evils impending over us," which was adopted "more than half the Senate made sour faces over it." Maclay and Paine Wingate asked for reconsideration, and the Address was recommitted.

The Vice-President then drew the attention of the Senate to the manner of returning the answer to the President, saying there were three methods by which the President might communicate with the Senate; personally, or by a Minister of State, or by one of his aids. On a second report of the Committee, the answer after some debate was adopted. A Committee was appointed to confer with a House Committee on this subject.

Meanwhile, the House had been more prompt in its action. On May 1, it resolved as follows: "That an Address to the President ought to be prepared, expressing the congratulations of the House of Representatives, on the distinguished proof given him of the affection and confidence of his fellow citizens, by the unanimous suffrage which has appointed him to the high station which he fills; the approbation felt by the House of the patriotic sentiments and enlightened policy recommended by his speech; and assuring him of their disposition to concur in giving effect to every measure which may tend to secure the liberties, promote the har