1920 REVIEWS OF BOOKS 147 antinomy ' requiring the reconciliation of * facts indubitably true but mutually contradictory ' ? The simple solution surely was that imperial ascendancy and colonial autonomy had no need to clash ; because they moved on separate lines, in distinct orbits. In thanking Dr. Morison for a very able and stimulating volume one may be allowed to enter a caveat against the attitude of somewhat contemptuous superiority assumed towards past statesmen. It does not follow because the evolution of the Canadian people has necessitated the evolution of the character of responsible government that Durham was, at the time, wrong in the limitations he sought to impose upon it. With regard to Metcalfe we have already expressed our preference for the estimate of him given by Dr. Shortt. Dr. Morison is entitled to believe that Durham did not write his own report ; but whenever this statement, first due to the malignant enmity of Lord Brougham, is repeated, those of the opposite persuasion must again call in aid the evidence of Charles Buller and Lady Durham, the internal evidence of style, and the inherent improbability that a sensitive and ill-treated public man of the tjrpe of Durham would leave to another pen his apologia. Again, with all our admiration for Charles Buller, we cannot admit that he was Gibbon Wakefield's ' master in colonial theory '. H. E. Egerton. History of the Civil War, 1861-5. By James Ford Ehodes, LL.D., D.Litt, (New York : Macmillan Company, 1919.) Fifteen years ago the author published the third and last volume dealing with the American Civil War in his History of the Uniied Stales, 1850-77. In the interval ' much new original material has come to light and valuable treatments of certain periods of the Civil War have appeared '. This work is therefore not a mere abridgement of the previous volumes, but ' a fresh study of the subject ', in which the author has used his earlier work as ' one of many authorities '. Chief among these authorities are the diary of Gideon Welles, federal secretary of the navy, which throws much light upon the inner councils of Lincoln's cabinet ; the life of Rawlins, Grant's chief of the staff, in manuscript, from which the author has derived interesting information as to the rare occasions on which Grant gave way to his old weakness for strong drink ; and J. Bigelow junior's exhaustive treatise on the Chancellorsville campaign. In this volume all the qualities which have given Mr. Rhodes the first place among historians of the civil war are again displayed — accuracy, research, and impartial judgement. But it is still subject to the same limitation which marked the original work : the military side of the war is inadequately represented. For Mr. Rhodes's treatment of the political and diplomatic sides there can be nothing but praise. He points out the reluctance on the part of the large majority of the northerners to provoke a final breach, and Lincoln's efiorts to hold the border slave states to their allegiance. He admits the unanimity of the confederate states in the defence of states' rights, and notes that their zeal outran the desire of President Davis, who was averse to war, and took a far from optimistic view of its possi- bilities. But he insists that slavery was the real cause of the war. ' Lincoln 1.2
