ni 



RECLUS RECONSTRUCTION. 



of the treasury with the proper officials of the gov- 

 ernment uf Canada should make the necessary rules and 

 regulation^ fur tin- purpose of executing the provisions 

 of this act, ami at the same tiun> proteoUnt tin- two gov- 

 ernment* against tin- imiHirtation ut' forciiMi goods 

 through ritln-r into the oilier. This H/hemc uf coni- 

 .1 union proposed that a tariff uniform with that 

 of the United States should be adopted by Canada 

 against the rent of the world ; but that between Can 

 ada and the United States there should ! no tariff 

 at all The result would be that goo. Is from Great 

 Britain and all foreign countries would U- met all 

 over North Aincriea by a protective tariff, while the 

 merchandise and manufactures of the United States 

 would have free passage. The present AfttduOald 

 government ot Canada opposed this Commercial union, 

 and it continues to oppose it although it favors re- 

 ciprocity. But the opposition (or Mackenzie) party 

 favors the plan and it is sustained by such high au- 

 thority as 1'rof. (toldwin Smith and Kdivard Atkinson. 

 In the Dominion Parliament the scheme was thoroughly 

 discussed early in 1S.->S and was defeated in April. It 

 has naturally excited less inteie>t in the United States, 

 but it will undoubtedly be re\ h. >\. (f. a. M.) 



KKCLUS, JEAN JACQUES KI.HKK. a noted- French 

 geographer, was born at Sainle Fovla (.iralidc, (iironde, 

 March 15, 1830, being the second son of a Protestant 

 pastor. He was educated in Rhenish Prussia and at 

 Hontaobtn, and studied nogrudiy under Hitter at 

 Berlin. He became familiar with most of the Kuro- 

 pean languages. Leaving France on the establishment 

 of the empire, in 1H51, he spent five years in travelling 

 through Enmad, the United States, Central America. 

 and resided for some years further in South America. 

 His travels and researches furnished the subject of 

 many articles in periodicals after his return to France. 

 During the siege ot Paris Reclus took part in the bal- 

 loon observations. He had long held extreme demo- 

 cratic views, and he belonged to the \Vorkingmen'> 

 International Association. In March, 1871, he joined 

 the Commune, and on April 5 he was taken prisoner 

 while making a r Although learned men 



interested themselves in his behalf, he was sentenced 

 to deportation to New Caledonia, but in January, 

 1>7'_', the sentence was changed to simple banishment. 

 llj went to Italy, but afterwards settled in Switzer- 

 land, and refused to return to France until complete 

 Hiiinc.-ty wa- granted to the Communists. Beginning 

 in 1860, with simple guide-books to London and the. 

 health resorts of the Mc'liierranean, he worked his 

 way upward to his work on La Terre (~1 vols. . ISdTHjS), 

 then his grand, splendidly illustrated work L<i Terre ct 

 /..< H^iHiiie* (|-J_vols., l's75-Sl!). The last has been 

 translated into English by Ravcnstein and published 

 both in London and New York under the title The 

 Rirlh and Man. Three brothers of Eli.-ee Keelus 

 have been engaged in similar geographical works, and 

 as many sisters have been active in translating works 

 from Herman and English. 



KKC<)N.<TUr<TlON. The surrender of the ar- 

 mies of the Confederate Slate.s to the army of the 

 United States, in lMt>5, terminated the active stage of 

 hostilities between the belligerent*, but did not fix the 

 conditions of peace between tlicm. Hy that act the 

 territories of the Confederate States passed under tlie 

 control of the military power of the United States. 

 A state of war bad existed through recognition by 

 Congress, the only authority that could clothe the re- 

 bellion of the seceding States with that formal char- 

 acter. 'Without such recognition, in every act of hos- 

 tility during the war the people of the Confederate 

 States, so Far as thrv individually took nart in it, 

 would have been liable to the penalties for treason 

 against the government of the I nited States, and as 

 tiiey came undei it* control might have been subjected 

 t;- the consequences of that act of treason. But the 

 fact was presented to Congress that the people of those 

 States were under the contro' of a power that they could 



not resist as individuals, and to which the resistance to 

 the authority ot the United States was chargcab:, 

 humane sentiment demanded that their governments, 

 rather than their persons, should U-ar the con>e.| 

 of accountability. If, however, (he Mate of war was 

 admitted to exist, the necessary implication would be 

 that the seceding States had succeeded in actually sep- 

 aratini; themseKo from |i!itic;il and civil relations in 

 the United States, and were in the actual exercise of 

 independent government over the territories to which 

 that actual power extended, an act of war being neces- 

 sary to reduce them to their fon.u-r practical relation 

 to the United States through conquest. Had Con- 

 gress concluded to continue to treat the resistance of the 

 seceding States as merely an act of rebellion, upon the 

 suppression of that rebellion their status in the Union 

 might have remained unchanged by the fact of that re- 

 sistance. On the other hand, if a state of war should be 

 properly recognized, that recognition would imply that, 

 for the time being, they were a foreign power, for astute 

 cannot make formal war with itself. With these con- 

 siderations fully before it, Congress recognized the stain 

 of war as existing, and that was equivalent to a decla- 

 ration that the law and consequences of war should 

 characterize the relations of the parties until the act of 

 making peace should create new relations between 

 them. The laws of war thus displaced, for the time 

 being, all other sources of right and obligation between 

 the contending parties. 



The title then by which the United States took mili- 

 tary possession of the territories of the Confederated 

 States was that of conquest, under the laws of war, as it 

 had no other proprietary right to such territory. Tin; 

 war as such was directed against the governments of the 

 Confederacy and of the several State.- com posing it, and 

 its proper object was the destruction of that govern- 

 mental authority as inimical to the Constitution of the 

 United States, and consequently it could bo legitimately 

 claimed at the successful termination id' the war by the 

 military authority of the United States ; and until 

 other methods of government were supplied by Con- 

 gress, that the military authority was the only legiti- 

 mate authority within the conquered territories. The 

 action of the government of the United Slates in deal- 

 ing with the territories of the Confederated States after 

 the surrender of its armies was distinctly placed upon 

 the principles just stated. It was deemed competent 

 for the military authority to use the mechanism of the 

 existing governments, and its officials found in place, or 

 to change either, and that course was pursued by that 

 authority. According to the principles of general law, 

 recognised by the laws of war, the civil relations of the. 

 inhabitants remained unchanged, until modified by the 

 military authority, while the political .sy.Mcm that 

 united the people for the purposes of government, was 

 for the time being dissolved. The military government 

 of the territories of tneformcrConfcdcraicd States was 

 developed in accordance with the principles already 

 stated, ami continued to be actually exercised, although 

 with diminishing rigor, until displaced by the State 

 governments erected under the acts of reconstruction 

 enacted by Congress. 



The question of the restoration of civil and political 

 order was one of great complexity and difficulty, and 

 gave rise to grave dissensions that ultimately brought 

 the President and Congress into conflict. Thci 

 two theories of the relative attitude of the Confeder- 

 ated and Constitutional States, one of which t 

 the former as unchanged in their relations to the Con- 

 stitution by the facts of secession, war, and con 

 and tin; other regarded them as having placed them- 

 selves beyond the protection of the Constitution and as 

 in a condition to be dealt with as in the case of other 

 Territories of the United Si 



Pres. _ Andrew Johnson, who had succeeded 

 Pros. Lincoln at his death by assassination at the 

 close of the war, entertained the view firststatcd. He 

 regarded the States that had attempted secession as of 



