Indians. The missionaries were, however, prone to neglect the Indians for the more attractive work among the colonists. In their work the agents of the society often came into contact, sometimes into conflict, with the Puritans and the Quakers, both of whom they regarded as in need of religious teaching because of their neglect of the sacraments of the church. But the work of the church in the colonies was greatly hampered by the lack of a bishop in America, and the failure of the movement to establish an American episcopate was of vital political importance as depriving the colonies of a powerful conservative force.

The paper by Prof. John S. Bassett, of Smith College, on the "Popular churches after the Revolution" related to the whole period from 1783 to 1811 and chiefly to the South. The Protestant Episcopal Church, though prosperous in the North, was, at the end of the Revolution, in a state of suspended animation in the South; meanwhile the popular churches gained a strong footing with the middleclass farmers. Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists were the leaders in the movement. The minor churches played the same rôle, yet acted locally. The Scotch-Irish and the Highlanders who settled in the South were stanch Presbyterians, and the Presbyterians of New Jersey and Philadelphia also sent missionaries to many southern communities. A few congregations of Baptists appeared on the coast very early. Somewhat later the Philadelphia Baptist Association sent missionaries to Virginia, and in 1756 a third Baptist movement appeared, inspired by leaders from New England. The Methodists had been growing rapidly throughout the South since 1764. The fervent character of the popular preaching in the South probably made an enduring impression on the thinking of the southern middle class.

Taken all together, the efforts made to interest a lay audience in American religious history, even though many things necessarily dwelt upon in such a presence are things already familiar to specialists, seems to have been distinctly successful.

The afternoon of the first day at Charleston was, like the morning, marked by three conferences one on the relations of the United States and Mexico, the conference of those interested in the work of historical societies, and a third devoted to modern English history.

The conference upon the relations of the United States and Mexico was presided over by Dr. Justin H. Smith, who read a paper upon "Mexican feeling toward the United States at the beginning of 1846." To understand the matter, Mr. Smith said, it is essential, first of all, to realize the characteristics of the Mexicans, which he described, and the effects of experience, education, environment, and habits-for instance, of Spain's isolating policy. Our diplomatic intercourse with Mexico, which seemed likely for a number of

reasons to be cordial, began disastrously, and a series of diplomatic difficulties followed. We were believed to covet her territory, and the secession of Texas was attributed to atrocious greed on our part. Our claims, growing out of outrages against American citizens, increased the tension. For personal reasons Mexican politicians added to it. We were despised as dull-witted, spiritless, and in a military sense impotent; and it was believed that European interests would be a protection to Mexico. Almost all influences, therefore, at the beginning of 1846, tended toward hostility against the United States. Prof. Eugene C. Barker read next a paper upon the "Relations between the United States and Mexico in the period from 1835 to 1837." Anglo-Americans, he said, who emigrated to Texas between 1821 and 1835 broke no real ties with the United States and formed none with Mexico; accordingly they turned naturally to the United States for aid. The relations between those two countries centered around four considerations-the nonenforcement by the United States of its neutrality law, the claim of the United States to the Neches instead of the Sabine boundary, the occupation of Nacogdoches (Texas) by United States troops commanded by Gen. E. P. Gaines in the summer and fall of 1836, and the recognition of Texan independence. Mr. Barker pointed out that there were palpable violations of neutrality on the part of the United States and that the administration manifested only a lukewarm desire to enforce it and the local officials none at all; that the claim to the Neches boundary was absolutely groundless; that Gaines's occupation was not necessary on any account, although he was apparently honest in thinking so, and the administration seems to have wished him to go no further than the maintenance of absolute neutrality and the fulfillment of treaty obligations to Mexico. In recognizing Texan independence, however, the United States was reasonably deliberate, and acted in conformity with established precedent, although in all its correspondence with Mexico the State Department was unnecessarily curt and unsympathetic, which tended further to convince that Government of the insincerity of the United States.

The third paper in this conference was presented by Prof. R. M. McElroy, of Princeton University, and dealt with the relations of Jackson, Houston, and Tyler to the annexation of Texas. The central idea of the paper was that Andrew Jackson was the dominant force in the movement to "regain Texas." His motive was described, not as a desire to serve the interests of the slave-holding States, but as a determination to regain a territory which he believed to have been "wantonly and corruptly ceded from us." He firmly believed that George W. Erving, our minister to Spain, had, just

1 Printed in the Mississippi Valley Historical Review for June, 1914.

before Jackson became President, negotiated with Spain a treaty recognizing the Rio Grande as the ancient limit of Louisiana, and that President Adams had interfered, closed the negotiations, and set our western boundary at the Sabine. So believing, Jackson held that the secret rejection of Erving's supposed treaty nullified the treaty which took its place. The latter half of the paper traced the history of Jackson's efforts to bring Texas back to the American Union. His view clearly was that Mexico never had any real claim to Texas, but that Texas was merely a bit of stolen property which the United States was at liberty to regain in any manner she might choose, a view which makes it easy to conceive of his sending Houston thither to create revolution, and doing so without conscious sacrifice of honesty. The paper also touched upon Jackson's influence with President Tyler.

It was followed by a paper by Mr. Edward H. Thompson, of Merida, Yucatan, dealing with the present relations between the United States and Mexico.

The tenth annual conference of historical societies and organizations of similar purpose was presided over by Dr. Thomas M. Owen, director of the department of archives and history in Alabama. The secretary of the conference, Dr. Solon J. Buck, made the usual report upon the progress of the historical societies of the country, as evidenced by the data which he had received in response to the annual circulars. The large increase in the provision of buildings for historical agencies in the United States, the organization of the Michigan Historical Commission and of State historical surveys in connection with the States of Illinois and Indiana were commented upon.

Dr. Dunbar Rowland, of Mississippi, read the report of the committee of seven on "Cooperation of historical societies and departments in the Mississippi Valley," conveying the report of Mr. W. G. Leland upon the catalogue of documents in the archives of Paris relating to the history of the Mississippi Valley, a compilation which is approaching completion, and may be expected to reach its conclusion in a few months.

The history of organized historical work in the lower South was made the first theme of the conference. Prof. Yates Snowden, of the University of South Carolina, gave a general survey of the history of the historical societies of that region, and Dr. Dunbar Rowland an account of the organization and work of the historical commissions and departments supported by the States. These papers were supplemented by remarks on the part of Mr. R. D. W. Connor, of Raleigh, on the work, acquisitions, and new installation of the North Carolina Historical Commission; by Prof. M. L. Bonham, jr., of Baton Rouge, on the history of the Louisiana Historical Society,

of the Louisiana Historical Association, and of the archives and historical commissions of that State; by Dr. Owen on the need of better supervision in the South of county and other local archives, to secure better making and keeping and installation of records, with further remarks on the historical museum and the collecting of portraits; by Mr. George S. Godard, State librarian of Connecticut; and others.

Finally, a paper on "Planning the publication work of historical agencies" was read by Prof. Clarence W. Alvord, of the University of Illinois. He urged that the published work of historical societies and institutions should be so organized that successive volumes of documentary material edited in a scholarly manner should be brought forth for a number of years on a plan carefully matured and covering all the discoverable sources. He discussed the various categories embraced in such a comprehensive plan, disapproved strongly of all fortuitous volumes and miscellaneous collections and, indeed, of all forms of partial publication. Mr. Alvord's doctrine, applicable to Illinois and other States which stand at the beginning of documentary publication, was criticized by Mr. Worthington C. Ford as one that would not work well in the older States, where much has already been published, much comes to light from time to time, much can never be completed, so that publications can not always be made systematic, and there is a distinct field for miscellaneous volumes and those of fortuitous construction.

Mr. Victor H. Paltsits, while commending the high standards advocated by Dr. Alvord, pointed out that good work depended on ideals, money, and the man, and not all three can always be commanded. He adverted to the inconveniences produced to librarians, readers, and students by miscellaneous collections which defy treatment in accordance with subject matter, and advocated a certain measure of courage in breaking away from the stereotyped traditions of "collections."

The sixth of this busy day's conferences, devoted to modern English history, had as its pièce de résistance a single paper by Prof. A. L. Cross, of Michigan, on "Legal materials as sources for the study of modern English history." His general thesis was that, while some good work has been done on certain phases of English legal history, the materials on the subject offer much opportunity for the study of the development of political thinking and of social and industrial conditions, furnishing sources of information which have been only inadequately exploited. These materials fall into three general groups. The first includes the reports of the commonlaw courts and of chancery, which incidentally throw much light on contemporary life and, particularly in the case of the charges

1 Printed in the present volume.

2 Printed in the American Historical Review for July, 1914.

and opinions of the judges, reflect current political views and enable the student to trace the evolution of judge-made law. Secondly, since the activities of the justices of the peace touch on almost every conceivable subject of local administration, an investigation of the records of quarter sessions promises a rich harvest, which thus far has been only incompletely gathered. Although a few of these records have been printed, the bulk of them still remain in manuscript. Finally, the manorial rolls and other kindred documents admirably supplement the records of the public local courts. Furthermore, they show that the judicial and administrative business of the private jurisdictions was more extensive and survived longer than was commonly supposed before Sidney and Beatrice Webb published their English Local Government, a work which not only is a vast storehouse of information but suggests many fertile fields for further inquiry.

In the discussion which followed the reading of this paper Prof. Carlton H. Hayes, of Columbia University, dwelt upon the fact that the great bulk of such material as this made a sense of relativity one of the most necessary qualifications for the student, who must also exercise care in dealing with these sources because of the class prejudices by which they are affected. Prof. Charles H. McIlwain, of Harvard, was not disposed to think that the judges always favored the gentry, pointing out the fact that in the Tudor period they frequently supported the lower classes. He, too, commented on the vast amount of material, both printed and unprinted, and spoke of the necessity of studying it as a whole, not for detached illustrations. Prof. James T. Baldwin, of Vassar, drew upon his experiences to point out the difficulties in using legal material-its discouraging volume, and the archaic form and technical character of the documents. While a collaboration in the work of publication was greatly to be desired, there was still, he believed, an opportunity for individual students dealing with subjects of limited scope to achieve excellent results. Prof. Cross closed the discussion with a few remarks, in which he agreed with Prof. McIlwain that the judges were frequently in sympathy with the lower classes.

At the general public session of the whole society, held in the evening in Hibernian Hall, a felicitous address of welcome was made by Hon. Joseph W. Barnwell, as president of the South Carolina Historical Society. He touched upon the leading points in the history of Charleston with an eloquence which made all who heard him sensible of the dramatic quality of the events, and of the economic and social meaning of the conditions which he described. The presidential address of Prof. Dunning,' which then followed, was heard with manifest appreciation and delight by a large audience of

1" Truth in History," printed in the American Historical Review for January, 1914.