cy." This admirable and
discriminating support of the President finds another capital
illustration in weighty words of his in answer to animadversions of
Prof. Francis W. Newman, of England, directed against Mr. Lincoln. Says
Garrison: "In no instance, however, have I censured him (Lincoln) for
not acting upon the highest abstract principles of justice and humanity,
and disregarding his Constitutional obligations. His freedom to follow
his convictions of duty as an individual is one thing--as the President
of the United States, it is limited by the functions of his office, for
the people do not elect a President to play the part of reformer or
philanthropist, nor to enforce upon the nation his own peculiar ethical
or humanitary ideas without regard to his oath or their will."

Great indeed was the joy of the pioneer when President Lincoln on
January 1, 1863, issued his Emancipation Proclamation. The same
sagacious and statesmanlike handling of men and things distinguished his
conduct after the edict of freedom was made as before. When the question
of Reconstruction was broached in an administrative initiative in
Louisiana, the President gave great offence to the more radical members
of his party, and to many Abolitionists by his proposal to readmit
Louisiana to Statehood in the Union with no provision for the extension
of the suffrage to the negro. This exhibition of the habitual caution
and conservatism of Mr. Lincoln brought upon him a storm of criticism
and remonstrances, but not from Garrison. There was that in him which
appreciated and approved the evident disposition of the President to
make haste slowly in departing from the American principle of local
self-government even in the interest of liberty. Then, too, he had his
misgivings in relation to the virtue of the fiat method of transforming
chattels into citizens. "Chattels personal may be instantly translated
from the auction-block into freemen," he remarked in defence of the
administrative policy in the reconstruction of Louisiana, "but when were
they ever taken at the same time to the ballot-box, and invested with
all political rights and immunities? According to the laws of
development and progress it is not practicable.... Besides, I doubt
whether he has the Constitutional right to decide this matter. Ever
since the Government was organized, the right of suffrage has been
determined by each State in the Union for itself, so that there is no
uniformity in r