In collecting and arranging the materials for the volumes I published under the title of “A History of the American Civil War,” a work of very great labor, I had become accustomed to the comparison of conflicting statements, the adjustment of conflicting claims.  The approval with which that book has been received by the American public, a critical judge of the events considered, has inspired me with additional confidence.  I had also devoted much attention to the experimental investigation of natural phenomena, and had published many well-known memoirs on such subjects.  And perhaps no one can give himself to these pursuits, and spend a large part of his life in the public teaching of science, without partaking of that love of impartiality and truth which Philosophy incites.  She inspires us with a desire to dedicate our days to the good of our race, so that in the fading light of life’s evening we may not, on looking back, be forced to acknowledge how unsubstantial and useless are the objects that we have pursued.

Though I have spared no pains in the composition of this book, I am very sensible how unequal it is to the subject, to do justice to which a knowledge of science, history, theology, politics, is required; every page should be alive with intelligence and glistening with facts.  But then I have remembered that this is only as it were the preface, or forerunner, of a body of literature, which the events and wants of our times will call forth.  We have come to the brink of a great intellectual change.  Much of the frivolous reading of the present will be supplanted by a thoughtful and austere literature, vivified by endangered interests, and made fervid by ecclesiastical passion.

What I have sought to do is, to present a clear and impartial statement of the views and acts of the two contending parties.  In one sense I have tried to identify myself with each, so as to comprehend thoroughly their motives; but in another and higher sense I have endeavored to stand aloof, and relate with impartiality their actions.

I therefore trust that those, who may be disposed to criticise this book, will bear in mind that its object is not to advocate the views and pretensions of either party, but to explain clearly, and without shrinking those of both.  In the management of each chapter I have usually set forth the orthodox view first, and then followed it with that of its opponents.

In thus treating the subject it has not been necessary to pay much regard to more moderate or intermediate opinions, for, though they may be intrinsically of great value, in conflicts of this kind it is not with the moderates but with the extremists that the impartial reader is mainly concerned.  Their movements determine the issue.