Paxson's narrative does not account for Canning's so suddenly dropping his communications on South American matters with Rush, or for his final diplomatic advance to Polignac. Commerce or the pressure of merchants' petitions would have permitted recognition at any time after the entrance of the French armies into Spain. It was for another cause that Canning took the step that was to lead to recognition. Through Rush he had assured himself that the United States had no intention or interest in acquiring territory lately under the dominion of Spain, By Polignac he learned that France had no land-thirst to be assuaged in America. Having ascertained the position of the two powers most directly concerned, he could then prepare the instructions for his agents sent to South America, and deny that Great Britain had any idea of bringing any part of the late Spanish possessions under her dominion, or would tolerate their being brought under the dominion of any other power.
The proof-reading might have been better.
Worthingthon C. Ford
.
A Political History of Slavery. Being an Account of the Slavery Controversy from the Earliest Agitations in the Eighteenth Century to the close of the Reconstruction Period. By William Henry Smith, with an introduction by Whitelaw Reid. (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1903. Pp. xvi, 350; iv, 456.)
The author of this work was one of the prominent editors and political leaders of Ohio during the period preceding and following our Civil War. He was an active party agent and a leader of party opinion in the course of the events which he narrates. A follower and youthful admirer of Clay and Corwin in Whig days, an ardent Republican and faithful follower arid co-worker of Lincoln, Chase, Brough, Morton, and Sherman on the issues of slavery and Civil War, a constant editorial contributor to the party controversies of his day, himself heading his party ticket for the office of secretary of state in Ohio in 1864, Mr. Smith witnessed and helped to make a considerable part of the history of which he writes. His volumes reflect the issues and controversies, the men and measures, as they appeared to him in the midst of the struggle. It cannot be claimed, therefore, that he constructs his political history like an impartial and judicial historian. The party attitude is apparent. The author is fully convinced in his own mind, to begin with, that the cause of civilization and progress is with his side, and this leads him, naturally, to judgments and condemnations, to awarding praise and blame, to the language of censure and denunciation for the opponents of his cause. While the writer is large-minded and at times philosophical, the measure of argument for the other view, the reasons and circumstances influencing the adversary—such as may be necessary to the full presentation of the case in the court of history, are not fully meted out. The pleas of the contestants are not allowed as fully as should be to speak for themselves. But while this is true, as it is true of other con-
