states that from early youth it was his habit to write out careful abstracts of the books which he read, a valuable aid to a systematic memory, and he cites the aim of his second period of foreign study as an attempt to "soak in" all the knowledge of the great philosophers of his day.

These facts give us a clue to the rare ordering of his mind, an excellent illustration of which is recorded in the proceedings of the meeting of this Society in January, 1915, at which he made remarks on the paper read by Dr. DeNormandie upon Nietzsche and the Doctrine of Force.

Fortunately he was endowed with excellent physical health, the secret of his long and active life, and this he attributed in part to inheritance but largely to the life of farm and country which was his during the fifteen years of his youth. At the age of 78 he was still young; still eager to watch and direct the development of a well-rounded education for the young people of this land. The secret of his life was well expressed by Dr. Edmund C. Sanford, his pupil, his colleague and his friend, who said: "The forward look, the optimism and the belief that the best things in the world's history were yet to come, these were Dr. Hall's."

And we cannot but feel that a great mind has passed beyond our horizon.

Dr. BURRAGE then read the following paper on

WHAT LED UP TO THE CIVIL WAR AND WHAT WAS
SETTLED BY ABRAHAM LINCOLN IN THAT WAR.

The most noteworthy of the churches of Charleston, S. C., is St. Michael's Episcopal church on the corner of Meeting and Broad streets. Its cornerstone was laid February 17, 1752, but the building was not completed until nine years later. Its well-proportioned steeple, one hundred and sixtyeight feet in height, is rightly regarded as one of the most attractive of the church steeples of that early period in this country. Historic memories are connected with it as well as with the edifice which it adorns. In the Revolutionary War, and again in the Civil War, the steeple was used as a lookout. A British cannonball, fired from James Island in

the first of these wars, striking the steeple, was deflected into the street below, and carried off the right arm on a statue of William Pitt, which the colonists erected in honor of the British statesman. When, in November, 1863, Union batteries on Morris Island beyond Fort Sumter fired shell into Charleston, one exploded within the entrance to the church, and the building was closed until the Union troops obtained possession of the city. St. Michael's church was so severely shaken by an earthquake August 31, 1886, that the tower on which the spire rests was left eight inches below the street level. By the generosity of American churchmen and other friends these injuries were repaired, and on June 19, 1887, the building was again opened for public worship. In accordance with a custom of the colonial period a churchyard adjoins St. Michael's, and an open gate on Meeting Street, near the entrance to the church, invites the passer-by to enter. While spending the winter of 1920-1921 in Charleston I noticed this open gate one day, and leaving the busy street I found myself at once amid the silences of this old churchyard. Making my way from one memorial to another, I discovered at length that I was standing by the grave of Robert Young Hayne, Daniel Webster's opponent in the memorable debate in the Senate of the United States in January, 1830. Memories of my school-days at once were awakened, and selections from Webster's reply to Hayne in the school-readers of that period were so vividly recalled that I seemed to be listening again in the declamation hour to some youthful orator, who was making the walls of the schoolroom ring with such words as "Massachusetts ... there she is! Behold her, and judge for yourselves!" On the large marble memorial over the grave was a lengthy inscription recording a widow's undying affection, and also the mention of Mr. Hayne's many public offices of honor and trust, and his vindication, " in the Senate of the Union," of the principles of South Carolina "in her moment of extreme peril." Such lengthy elegies in these days are rare if not unknown. This one, however, served to awaken at once my interest in Mr. Hayne. But while I was lingering there my attention was attracted to another monument not so imposing and not more than twenty or thirty feet beyond.

The name on it, James L. Petigru, meant nothing to me; but in reading the inscription I came to these significant words:

IN THE GREAT CIVIL WAR

HE WITHSTOOD HIS PEOPLE FOR HIS COUNTRY,

BUT THE PEOPLE DID HOMAGE TO THE MAN

WHO HELD HIS CONSCIENCE HIGHER THAN THEIR PRAISE,
AND HIS COUNTRY

HEAPED HER HONOR ON THE GRAVE OF THE PATRIOT
TO WHOM LIVING

HIS OWN RIGHTEOUS SELF-RESPECT SUFFICED
ALIKE FOR MOTIVE AND REWARD.

On the Hayne monument I had found what I expected; but here, on the near-by memorial of another citizen of Charleston with its record of unswerving loyalty to the Union in the Civil War, was the unexpected. As to Hayne I did not lack general biographical knowledge. Of Petigru, however, I knew only what I had read on his memorial, and I wanted to know more.

The library of the South Carolina Historical Society is located in the lower part of the building of the Public Library in Charleston, or was at the time to which I refer. It needed ampler accommodations, and I hope it has already secured them for its own sake and for the sake of its visitors, especially those who are attracted by its valuable collections, printed and in manuscript. With the assistance of the very efficient librarian, the information I sought was soon in my possession. Mr. Petigru, born in Abbeville, S. C., May 10, 1789, was a prominent lawyer in Charleston, and one of a group of strong Union men which included D. E. Huger, J. R. Poinsett, J. R. Pringle, B. F. Hunt, B. F. Dunkin, William Aiken, Hugh S. Legaré and C. C. Meminger. In fact at the time of the Hayne-Webster debate, so far as I could learn, there were only two men of prominence in Charleston, James Hamilton, Jr., and H. L. Pinckney, who approved of nullification and secession. In the state Mr. Hayne was strongly supported; yet in December, 1830, an attempt to have the legislature of South Carolina call convention for the purpose of taking into consideration "the violation of the constitutional compact, and devise the mode and measures of redress," was defeated.

In connection with this inquiry concerning Mr. Petigru I also learned that Charleston at the period mentioned had, as it still has, a flourishing New England Society. The official date of its organization is January 6, 1819, although its beginnings were several years earlier. Its legislative act of incorporation occurred at a meeting of the General Assembly of the State, December 20, 1820. The name that heads the list of its incorporators is that of Joseph Winthrop, a native of New London, Conn., and a lineal descendant of Governor John Winthrop of Massachusetts. He came to Charleston in 1783. The first president of the Society was Nathaniel Russell. His name heads a list of about forty leading merchants of Charleston in 1793, the list including only one native of South Carolina. Mr. Russell was born in Bristol, R. I., came to Charleston in 1738 when a young man, and by his rare business qualifications and sterling integrity became one of the merchant princes of Charleston. His large and attractive residence on Meeting Street, completed by him in 1811, is still one of the fine residences of the city. The date of the incorporation of the New England Society of Charleston, only two days before the bicentenary of the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, is evidence that the society was organized to honor that memorable event, as does the added fact that the date of the landing has been the date of the annual meetings of the society down to the present time. Not a single member of the society resigned in the eventful days of the Civil War. Because of the residence of so many prominent men of New England birth in Charleston one hundred years and more ago, it certainly is not difficult to account for the existence of a strong Union sentiment there in 1830.

Yet what was true of Charleston at that time was also true in no inconsiderable degree of the South generally. The Whig party in the southern states, until its collapse in the decade preceding the Civil War, owed much to the southward movement of men of northern birth, who established permanent homes for themselves south of Mason and Dixon's line. The census returns for 1850, the first to furnish us with such information, show that the proportion of persons born north of that line, and then living in the South, was not incon

siderable in comparison with the whole population. Not only men living in the eastern part of the country sought homes in the South, but men in states north of the Ohio River, floating on flat-boats down its waters and the waters of the Mississippi for trading purposes, were attracted by favorable opportunities for investment, bought large tracts of land and became prosperous planters, or engaged in business or professional occupations in new and growing southern communities.

But while the existence of a strong Union sentiment in the South in 1830, and long after, may be accounted for in part by the presence and influence of men of northern birth, we should not overlook the fact that men of southern birth like those already mentioned, men of the Whig party or largely so, were even more numerous and influential in their opposition to the States Rights and secession views advocated by Hayne and others.

Immediately after the Hayne-Webster debate there were in Washington, in and out of Congress, those who wished to ascertain where President Jackson stood with reference to some matters discussed in that debate. Arrangements accordingly were made for a public dinner at the capital in the expectation that such an occasion would furnish the opportunity sought. The time selected for the dinner was Jefferson's birthday, April 13th. President Jackson was one of the invited guests. After the regular toasts following the dinner, the President was asked by the toastmaster for a sentiment. His response was in the historic words, "Our Federal Union; it must be preserved." Mr. Calhoun, then Vice President of the United States, received a like request, and replied in these words: "The Union, next to our liberties the most dear. May we all remember that it can only be preserved by respecting the rights of the States, distributing equally the benefits and the burdens of the Union." The place of the Vice President of the United States is a place of honor, but it is not a place of power, as we long ago learned. But here was an occasion which Mr. Calhoun seized and made helpful to himself and serviceable to the people of the South, who were in agreement with him politically. If he had known before the dinner what the President's