1.  Bancroft, II, 10; Letters, 172.

2.  Bancroft, II, 9-10.

3.  Herndon, 484.

4.  McClure, 140-145; Lincoln, VI, 91, 97.

5.  Recollections, 111.

6.  Recollections, 121.

7.  Recollections, 112-113; Tarbell, I, 404-415.

8.  Tarbell, 1, 406.

9.  Tarbell, I, 406.

10.  Lincoln, VI, 91.

11.  Tarbell, 1, 406.

12.  Herndon, 483-484

13.  Lamon, 505; see also, Herndon, 485.

14.  Lincoln, VI, 110.

XIV.  The strange new man.

1.  Lincoln, VI, 130.

2.  Merriam, I, 318.

3.  Public Man, 140.

4.  Van Santvoord.

5.  N. and H., I, 36; McClure, 179.

6.  Herndon, 492.

7.  Recollections, 39-41.

8.  Lincoln, VI, 162-164.

9.  Bancroft, II, 38-45.

10.  Public Man, 383.

11.  Chittenden, 89-90.

12.  Public Man, 387.

XV.  President and Premier.

1.  Hay Ms, I, 64.

2.  Tyler, II, 565-566.

3.  Bradford, 208; Seward, IV, 416.

4.  Nicolay, 213.

5.  Chase offered to procure a commission for Henry Villard, “by way of compliment to the Cincinnati Commercial” Villard, 1,177.

6.  N. and H., III, 333, note 12.

7.  Outbreak, 52.

8.  Hay Ms, I, 91; Tyler, II, 633; Coleman, 1, 338.

9.  Hay Ms, I, 91; Riddle, 5; Public Man, 487.

10.  Correspondence, 548-549.

11.  See Miss Schrugham’s monograph for much important data with regard to this moment.  Valuable as her contribution is, I can not feel that the conclusions invalidate the assumption of the text.

12.  Lincoln, VI, 192-220.

13.  Sherman, I, 195-1%.

14.  Lincoln, VI, 175-176.

15. 127 0.  R., 161.

16.  Munford, 274; Journal of the Virginia Convention, 1861.

17.  Lincoln, VI, 227-230.

18.  N. R., first series, IV, 227.

19.  Hay Ms, I, 143.

20.  The great authority of Mr. Frederick Bancroft is still on the side of the older interpretation of Seward’s Thoughts, Bancroft, II, Chap.  XXIX.  It must be remembered that following the war there was a reaction against Seward.  When Nicolay and Hay published the Thoughts they appeared to give him the coup de grace.  Of late years it has almost been the fashion to treat him contemptuously.  Even Mr. Bancroft has been very cautious in his defense.  This is not the place to discuss his genius or his political morals.  But on one thing I insist, Whatever else he was-unscrupulous or what you will-he was not a fool.  However reckless, at times, his spread-eagleism there was shrewdness behind it.  The idea that he proposed a ridiculous foreign policy at a moment when all his other actions reveal coolness and calculation; the idea that he proposed it merely as a spectacular stroke in party management; this is too much to believe.  A motive must be found better than mere chicanery.