g books.

The Republican representatives from the South were in part natives of
the States which sent them to Congress. Of this class Oliver H.
Dockery of North Carolina was the leading man. Of those who had gone
to the South after the war the most conspicuous were Lionel A. Sheldon
of Louisiana, George C. McKee of Mississippi, Alfred E. Buck and
Charles W. Buckley of Alabama. Horace Maynard fairly represented both
classes, for although a native of Massachusetts he had lived in
Tennessee for nearly a quarter of a century before the war, and was in
all respects identified with the interests of the South, and to a large
extent shared its prejudices. But he would not join in secession and
turned from a supporter of slavery to be a radical Republican. He was
a man of considerable ability and great moral worth. He was a valuable
representative of his State after the war.

--The Worcester District of Massachusetts sent George Frisbie Hoar as
its representative. He is the son of Samuel Hoar, who was honorably
conspicuous in the early days of the anti-slavery struggle. His mother
was a daughter of the illustrious Roger Sherman, a signer of the
Declaration of Independence. Mr. Hoar is a graduate of Harvard College
and of the Dane Law School. For twenty years after admission to the
bar he gave his time and his energy to professional pursuits,
uninterrupted by any political engagements, except a single term in
each branch of the Massachusetts Legislature. He began service in the
House of Representatives in the full vigor of manhood in the forty-third
year of his age, keenly alive to the great interests at stake in the
Nation, admirably equipped and disciplined for his duties.

Eminent in his profession, successful in his political career, Mr. Hoar
superadds accomplishments which neither the practice of law nor
participation in public affairs can give. He has been a student of
history, has cultivated a taste for literature, and has acquired a mass
of information which proves that his superb private library has not
been gathered in vain. In certain fields of learning Mr. Hoar has
few peers. It may, indeed, be questioned whether his knowledge of our
Colonial and Revolutionary history does not surpass that of any
contemporary. Nor has he been content with the mere mastery of
details, with the collection of facts and incidents. He has studied
their relations and their interdependence, has analyzed their causes
and co