Litchfield enquirer., 1868-10-08
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS NEW
 WORK.

-l | Nollh.
 A Constitutional View of tho late War between the States; it's Causes, Character, Conduct and Results Presented in Sc. ries of Colloquios at Liberty Hall, by AL ExANDER II. SrFpHENs,Vol I. Published by the National Publishing O., Philadelphia, 1868.
 Any work fr"'~ pon of Alexander H. Stephens must be a noteworthy book. The ab!est civilian of tho South. a frank, honest, and representative man, he is always worthy an attentive hear ing even from those who deem his reasoning most nn- sound, his guidance most unsafe. Tho first volumo of Mir. Stephens long promis- { cd work on the war, is not, VIC regret to find, ono of much literary merit It con tains nc new facts, only 8 dry recapituia- tion of the old arguments in favor of the right of Secession, that stale topic upon which, before the war, the whole literary ability of the South seemed to center. But as an indication of the state of mind ill which four years of War and threo years of reconstruction has loft the representa- tive Democrat of the South, tho book is not without it's value.
 MT. Stephens has @, .dently made no pro- gross since the end of the war. On the contrary, he has retrograded. In 1866, he testified as follows before the Congresson- al Committee on Reconstruction:-
 bc';eyed tllo.ougly in tho reserved sovereignty of tho several States of the Union under tho pact or Constitution of 17S7. opposed secession therefore, as question of policy, and not ono of right, on the part of Georgia. When the State se- l ceded against my judgment and vote, l thought my ultimate alleS ience was duo to her, and 1 pre- | ferred to cast my fortunes and dostlnv H.th hers and her people rather than take any other coulse, even trough it might lead to my sacrifice and her ruin
 My cony ic ions on the original abstract question have undergone no change, but acc: h t.e tSsues 0t hte acdr aud Gte reSu ds pidc,tcdt se.teHte Ct
 that question. Tue saroya NGS dDoecied to % decjde
 tc question: aud dy 0e decislon cf h,c s'oo'd on' l sciuing to ubide.
 So far from ''accepting the issues of the war and abiding by the decision of thesword Mir. Stephens, in tho book before us, under takes to re- open the wholo question. The form of the work is that of a long winded talk between representative Radical, Judge Bynum; Professor Norton, Conservative Republican (nota fattering likeness); and Major Heister, |; War Democrat Ia libel on the class MT. s. attempts to depict); and MT. Stephens, himself, who takes the lion 8 molishes the mon he sets up. This clnm- sy and old fashioned literary design is not relieved by any artistic excellence of execu- tion and the result is book that, ,aside from the personal prominence of it's author, no human product of the nineteenth century could be induced to read.
 Uninteresting as MT. Stephens political opinions are, in form, they are nevertheless maintained by him with such tenacity as to color highly e'' his statements of fact He seems to hold not only that Calhoun established the right of nulifcation against Webster, but that South Carolina establish cd its practice against Jackson! Among the supporters of the Calhoun theory of States Rights, he rockons Jefferson and Madison, in spite of the strongest evidence! Regarding the great debate in the Senate in 1883, Mir, Stephens says:-
 l Never was . man moro completely crushed than Mr. Webster was. The argument Iof Calhouul is | crusher, an e-,tlngulshor, annhator He Webster never came back at his opponent at all on the real questions at issue. Mr. Calhoun stood master of the arena. This speech Of his ! ' as not answered then, it has not boen answered | luIOmoOt will he Do answered while truth has it's legitimate inflrl- cnce, and reason controls tho judgment of men
 Mir. Stephens argues that even Mir. Web ster modified his views on this great con- stitutional question. He considers the last years of Mr. Webster-the years of his sub- mission to a power that controlled the pres idency-as the most glorious of his life. . and cites his ''union saving' talk as Q further proof of Mir. Webster's change of views as to the Constitution being a com, pact between tho States!
 Mir. Stephens, of course, arrives at the |conclusion that tho United States of Amer lea arc league of |" several small republics so united into larger one for foreign and AA'oA-OoisIe puflOScS, 2S to present them selves in joint combination to tho world, as one Nation, while as between themselves each one retained unimpaired its own in- herent innate sovereignty and nationality ; As. necessary inference, Mir. Stephens maintains that the allegiance of the citizen Is due not to tho United States but to the individual Sovereignty" that each of these States beings mere party to league, may secedo at pleasure, without any con- stitutional right on the part of the remain ing States, to enforce it's obedience. ) MT. Stephens undertakes, among other things, to prove that Confederacy is fat f better than true Union As an historical argument, he brings mp the league of the nations of Greece against Persia, forget
 ting that no sooner was the Persian attack s repulsed than those nations commenced { most ruinous, internecine war. He furtha, instances the United Netherlands, who's. history is fraught with warning against confederated leagues of insignificant mu
 nicipalities; whose constitution was so vi