^, '^ ▼'To. A^ IMAGE EVALUATION TE!>T TARGET (MT-3) &^ {./ /, i^,^ 1.0 V^ i I.I 2.5 1^ 1^ III 2.0 MJ.I 1-25 l|U 1.6 4 6" ► » -% -^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 87!l-4503 *5-u iW^ ^ ^ "S. A %o CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductionir historiques Tschnieal and Bibliographic Notaa/Notaa tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa The tot Tha instituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy avaiiabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographically unlqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction. or which may •ignificantly ehanga tha uaual mathod of filming, ara ehackad balow. □ Colourad covara/ Couvartura da eoulaur r~1 Covara damagad/ D D D Couvartura andommagia Covara raatorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raataurte at/ou paiiieulAa |~n Covar titia miaaing/ titra da couvartura manqua □ Colourad mapa/ Cartaa gtegraphiquaa it eoulaur Colourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da eoulaur (i.a. autra qua biaiia ou noira) r~~| Colourad plataa and/or illuatrationa/ D Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa an eoulaur Bound with othar matarial/ RaliA avac d'autraa documants Tight binding may eauac shadowa or diatortion along intarior margin/ La r9 liura sarrAa paut eauaar da I'ombra ou da la diatoraion la tong da la marga Intiriaura Blank laavaa addad during raatoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar poaaibia, thaaa hava baan omittad from filming/ II aa paut qua cartainaa pagaa blanchaa ajoutiaa lora d'una raatauration apparaiaaant dana la taxta. mala, loraqua eala itait poaaibia, eaa pagaa n'ont paa At* filmAaa. Additional eommanta:/ Commantairaa supplAmantairaa; L'Inatitut a microfilmi la maillaur axamplaira qu'll lui a 4t« poaaibia da aa procurer. Laa dAtaiia da cot axamplaira qui sont paut-Atra uniquaa du point da vua bibliographiqua. qui pauvant modifiar una imaga raproduita. ou qui pauvant axigar una modification danr la mithoda normala da fiimaga aont indiqute ci-daaaoua. □ Colourad pagaa/ Pagaa da eoulaur □ Pagaa damagad/ Pagaa andommagiaa Pagaa raatorad and/oi Pagaa raatauriaa at/ou palliculiaa Pagaa diaeolourad, stainad a/ foxai Pagaa dicolortea. tachatiaa ou piquiaa Pagaa datachad/ Pagaa ditachtea Showthroughy Tranaparanca Quality of prin Qualiti inigaia da I'impraaaion Inciudaa auppiamantary matarii Comprand du material supplAmantaira Only adition avaiiabia/ Saula Mition diaponibia r~n Pagaa raatorad and/or laminatad/ r~7 Pagaa diaeolourad, stainad a/ foxad/ bLl Pagaa r~~| Pagaa datachad/ rri Showthrough/ n~| Quality of print variaa/ r~n Inciudaa auppiamantary matarial/ r~| Only adition avaiiabia/ D Thi poi ofl filn Ori bai tha aioi oth fira aioi or I Th« •ha Tl^ wh l\Aa difl ant ba( rigl raq ma Pagaa wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tiasuas, etc., have been refilmed to enaure the beat poaaibia image/ Lee pagaa totalement ou partieilement obacurciaa par un fauillet d'errata, nne peiure, etc., ont iiti filmiea A nouveau da faeon A obtanir la mailleure imaga poaaibia. Thia item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document eat film* au taux da rMuetion indiqui ci-deaaoua. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 1«X aox 24X 28X 32X '*»8»V*ajW^ tails du }difi«r una nags The copy filmad h«(j has baan raproducad thanks to tha ganarosity of: National Library of Canada Tha imagaa appearing hara ara tha bast quality possibia considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Icaeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaira film* fut reproduit grice A la gAnirosit* de: BibliothAque nationaia du Canada Las images suivantas ont M* reproduites avac la plus grand soin. compta tenu de la condition at de la nattet* da rexemplaire fiimi, et en conformity avac las conditions du contrat da filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or iiiuatrated impres- sion, or the bacic cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ► (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimAe sont filmto en commenpant par la premier plat at en terminant soit par la darniire page qui comporta una empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, aalon le caa. Tous las autres exempiaires originaux sont filmAs en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration at en terminant par la darnlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dee symboles suivants apparattra sur la darnlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symboie -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". IMaps. plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmte A des taux de reduction diff fronts. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atra reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film* A psrtir de I'angia supAriour gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut an has, an pranant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iilustrant la m6thode. rata leiure, I i 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 !IIF THE AMERICAN QUESTION. .t ■'*■ THE AMERICAN QUESTION. BY WILLIAM W. STORY. |lfpritttel>, bg permission, from " STIjc Jlailg ITcfes." LONDON: GEORGE MANWARING, 8 KING WILLIAM STREET, STRAND. MDCCCLXII. 1:1 1 1 If' i '.'• The Riijhl of Tmiislnliiin is reserved. 11! LONDON: Stbanoeways and Walden, Printers, 26 Costlo St. Leicester Sq. THE AMERICAN QUESTION. LETTER I. The Americans feci aggrieved at the attitude of England towards their country in the day of her trial. They had ex- pected from her sympathy and encouragement; but for the most part the tone of her criticism has been derisive, super- cilious, and patronising; and, instead of encouragement, she has uttered diatribes against the war as "internecine," "sui- cidal," "revolting," "disgusting," "wanton," "wicked," and " inhuman." Failure has been prophesied from the first. The Americans have been discouraged from endeavouring to heal the wounds inflicted on their country by treason. No general voice of cheer has called out, urging them to " unthi-ead the eye of rude rebellion." They are earnestly adjured to crT>;}iro- mise with it, to conciliate it, to bow down before it; they are told that it is impossible to subdue it. They have homilies on the horrors of war, as if the sword of England had never been unsheathed. They hear that, "bad as the institution (of slavery) is, civil war is worse;"* that emancipation is an absur- dity and an impossibility; that it is vain to hope to subjugate and hold the South by force; that the American "Union is a wreck;" and the "United States of North America have ceased to be."t And all this comes from a people whose whole history has been a struggle for freedom, popular rights, national exist- ence, and extension of empire, through a series of civil and foreign wars — whose sword is yet dripping with the blood of !^'-^ '4 * Saturday Review. t Times. 6 treason and rebellion shed in India: one of whose greatest acts was West-Indian Emancipation; and who conquered, and has held by force, not only a vast empire in the East, but the whole Celtic portion of her own island. Such is the general tone of feeling, and such the general tenor of advice, offered by England to America. The press, with a few honourable exceptions, has steadily maligned and Tnisrejjresented the Federal Government; showing a determined bias in favour of the Southern rebellion; and even at the outset prejudging - whole case, and predetermining the issue of the conflict in favour of slavery. It has given constant comfort to the South; exaggerated its successes; praised its leaders; admired its State papers and proclamations; contrasted the gentlemen of the Confederate States with the sweaty mechanics and " mud- sills" of the North; smoothed over the horrors of slavery; dwelt upon the grievance of the Tariff, and recognised the right to revolt against the Federal Government. On the other hand, it has coldly criticised the successes of the Federal army; ridiculed the State papers and policy of the North; declared that " a tra- veller would find himself more at liberty in Venice than in New York ;" scouted the assertion that slavery is at the root of this revolt as a pretence; assailed the Government for endeavouring to force upon the South an o})prcssive policy of taxation; and declared its sole object to be subjugation for the sake of empire. It has predicted that the " sinews of war" would fail; that the Northern people had only faith in the almighty dollar; and, in the expectation that a foreign loan would be required, exerted all its powers to destroy the credit of the Federal Govei'nment. One paper stigmatises this war as " the most groundless and wanton civil conflict of which histoiy gives us any account."* Another declares it to be a " civil war of unprecedented wicked- ness." f Another characterises the Fedei'al Government as "a blustering despotism," and says that " IMr. Seward has revoked all the liberties of America, and inaugurated a reign of terror;" and adds, " Here is an end of the great experiment." The Chronicle and the Herald threaten warj one because cotton is Times, Oct. 12, 1861. t Saturday Review, Sept. 15, 1861. as "a evoked shut up by the blockade, the other bccauac an English ship, which violated the blockade, was condemned by the Admiralty Court in New York, after a fair and honourable trial.* The Times says that " we, in common w ith every nation of Europe, have regarded this unnatural struggle with horror and loath- ing;" "that an English soldier of note who drew his sword in such a quarrel, would expose himself most justly to the censure and reprobation of his fellow-countrymen." "To whom but the citizens of America," it cries, " and the mere condotiieri, who are attracted like the crow and the kite by the smell of blood and the sight of carnage, can the wara of the Union be otherwise than revolting and disgusting?" "It is one thing for the princes of the royal house of France to bear their part in gallant actions under such men as Turenne, Cond6, Luxem- bourg, and Saxe; it is another thing to study in the ignorant and bloody school of civil war under rude partisans, inex- perienced generals, officers taken from the counter, the desk, the shambles, or worse places." " Should they fall, it will be in an ignoble quarrel, in which they have no concern."t While giving expression to such sentiments and such language as this, these papers declare the press of America to be vulgar, insolent, and mendacious. In the face of these taunts, denun- ciations, and abuse, they profess surprise that the Americans are indignant, and assert that nothing could be more calm, just, and conciliating than their own bearing. We are not ashamed to confess that we feel this conduct deeply. We desired the good opinion of England. We thought we were sure of her sympathy, and we are disappointed and hurt. If such has been the attitude of the press, that of the Government, though cautious and respectful, has not been satisfactory. It rushed with indecent haste to recognise the Southern Confederacy. Before time had been allowed to the Federal Government to send a Minister to England with infor- mation of the real facts, before it was possible that any accurate knowledge of its real views and intentions could be obtained. • ! t '■IS.,- • J'- * Herald, Oct. 21. t Chronicle, Oct. 15. ''\ fill. 8 the English Oovcrnnicnt procliiinicd in the House of Commona, through Lord John llussi-ll, that while prcHorving neutrality, they should give the rcbelliouH Stutea all the rights of belli- gerents. IJut what are the rights of belligerents? They are, all the rights that any people or nation engaged in a juHt war can elaini of a neutral power. To proffer to traitors and rebels those rights was direetly to aid their cause, by giving it the moral eneouragenient of a great power. That the attempt of the Confederate States violently to withdraw from the Federal Union, contrary to its laws and their own oaths of allegiance, taking by force its arsenals and forts, and organising armed attacks against its j)roperty and citizens, without even the form of submitting the question to the people of those States, was pure rebellion and treason, cannot, I suppose, be questioned by any sane nuui for a moment. When the South shall have succeeded in tlieir attemj)t and secured their independence, they will cease to be rebels and traitors. It is only success that excuses treason and makes revolution right. But at the very outset to acknowledge that rebels are entitled to the same rights as the Government against which they are in armed revolt, especially when England was bound to that Government by treaties of commerce and amity, was, to say the least, unusual. Why the exception should be made in favour of the Southern States of America, whose whole grievance against the Federal Government Avas, that the Republican party then coming into power was averse to the extension of slavery, it is difficult to perceive. Such was not the course of England when Hungary raised the banner of revolt in defence of its ancient rights, when the Sonderbund strove in arms for inde- pendence, nor when the Italian States drove out their oppres- sors to the cry of freedom. Whatever were the private sym- pathies of England, they were expressed by no public act of its Government. Yet suppose, upon the outbreak of the rebelUon in India by a conquered i)eople, America had hurried to declare that she considered the Indians entitled to all the rights of belligerents; and that, deplorable as she thought the war of subjugation, her sympathies were equally divided between Nana Sahib and the English Government; — suppose she had made the Hamo deolaiation when Smith O'Brien nndortook, with armed force, to .ntillify her lawn; — or Muppose, in the case of an outbreak in Ireland, witliout waiting for exuet information, Hhc should (h'elare that the Irish were justified in taking up anus against the oppressors; and that, though Ameriea would preserve lu'utrality, she nliould reeognise them as belligerents, and entitled to the same rights as the British Government: — Woidd not Kngland receive such a declaration with surprise and indignation? The question as between a Government and armed revolutionists within its boundaries, is different from that which arises betwticn two different nations engaged in war. In the latter case, both particrs are entitled to equal rights as belli- gerentsj in the former case, at the outset of the rebellion at least, the Government rebelled against has a right to require that no 8ymj)athy or moral aid shall be directly lent to the rebellion, by public acts or declarations of foreign govern- ments; and upon this prinei])lc England is now acting in the case of Poland. It is this moral aid, this actual encourage- ment, lent by the British Government to the South, which con- stitutes the grievance of America. It is not that America asks the assistance or co-oj)eration of England in the work before her. She needs not her money nor her arms; she only desires a real neutrality. She claims that England politically can only know the Federal Government of the United States, with w hom she is connected by treaty; and that the revolt of the Southern States is a domestic concern, with which England has no authority in any way to interfere; and that, at least until there is a proba- bility of the success of those States, they ought not to exist to her as a belligerent power. She asserts that England has given comfort and moral aid to this rebellion. It was well known that the hope of the Southern Confederate States of an alliance with some European power, but especially with France and England, gave vitality to its cause; and to acknowledge them at the beginning as belligerents, and entitled to the same rights as the Federal Government, was at once to give them a status ; and to intimate a willingness, in case they could for a time support themselves, to recognise them as a Government de facto. h) if 10 Besides, there was a vacillation of opinion in England as to the blockade, which was an encouragement to the South, though finally, after much oscillation, the Government came to the sound conclusion not to interfere. This hesitation gave confi- dence to the rebels. Public speakers declared, over and over again, that England would not submit to this blockade. Cotton, they declared, England must and would have, even at the cost of war, and some were unwise enough to threaten the overthrow of the ministry unless they broke the blockade. Let one case stand for all. Captain Jervis, member for Harwich, declared, that " if it is necessary for the Government to inter- fere in the quarrel for the sake of alleviating the distrr , oi the population at home, I ehall certainly give them my best sup- port." All this, combined with the vacillation of the Govern- ment, gave great confidence to the South as to its ultimate recognition, and encouraged them in their rebellion. By giving to Southern rebels the rights of belligerents, the English Government involved itself in a difficulty. Belligerents have ordinarily the right to bring their prizes into neutral ports, and libel them in foi-eigu Admiralty courts. This, however, could not be consistently allowed to a body of persons carrying on war at sea against their legitimate government by means of privateers, especially as the English Government had already, by the treaty of Paris, agreed to refuse all rights to vessels sail- ing under letters of marque and reprisal. In order to avoid this difficulty, England was forced to refuse to both parties the right to bring prizes into her ports, thus placing on the same footing the privateers of revolutionists and the national armed vessels of the United States. Why should the Federal Govern- ment be denied a right which, by the common custom and courtesy of neutrals, is accorded to all belligerent powers ? It was because England, having given the status of belligerents to both parties equally, was forced to deny to the navy of the North what she could not grant to the privateers of the South. While I am writing these lines the news arrives that a Southern vessel, after wantonly destroying an American ship at the mouth of the English Channel, has brought in her crew as prisoners, and is about to refit and more effectually arm. It is to be 11 hoped that the action of the British Government in the case will he prompt and decided. But chips are daily fitted out in Liverpool to carry arms and munitions of war to Southern ports, and thus practically break the blockade, and therefore the Government has declared that persons engaged in such operations " must do so at the risk of capture and condemnation/' and that " her Majesty's Govern- ment will not afford the slightest protection and countenance to vessels sailing to break the blockade." Yet it has taken no sufficient steps to prevent such shipments; and upon informa- tion laid before it, that certain vessels were loading in her ports with goods contraband of war to break the blockade, she has not prevented them from continuing to load and from sailing, since it is only the other day thp'. an English steamer with a large cargo of arms and munitions of war illegally entered a Southern port. There may be great difficulty in preventing such shipments; but, were England earnestly opposed to it, efforts at least would be made to such an end. The purpose and object are undoubtedly illegal, and must finally result, if carried on, in obliging the Federal Government to lay vessels of war along the English coast to capture and destroy such vessels, they being guilty of breach of blockade according to the international law from the moment of their sailing to a blockaded port with contraband goods intending to break the blockade. In such cases, whatever may be the difficulty in proving the object and intention, the law is clear. All this may lead to unpleasant consequences, greatly to be deprecated ; and it is to be hoped that the English Government will take some sufficient steps to prevent it. Again, during the Italian war armed forces were enlisted in England to take part in the revolutionary sti-uggle, and the Government, though it admitted this to be illegal, winked at it and allowed it. Its feelings and hopes were with Italy, and therefore it took no steps to stop this enlistment ; but when an English officer in Canada offers his services to the American Government, he is at once arrested, and prevented from carrying his offer into practice by the English Government. It had an f f ''I III .^1 ^li , :•'■* 1^ 12 undoubted right to do this ; but its conduct in Italy waa dif- ferent, because its sympathies were diflFerent.* And here one fact requires to be noticed, of which there seems to be great misapprehension. Throughout England it has been said by the public prints that the injury done to the Federal commerce by the Southern cruisers was a fit penalty for the refusal of the United States to accede to the terms of the Treaty of Paris as to privateers. " Had the American Govern- ment adopted the declaration of Paris in 1856," says a writer in the Edinburgh Review^ on the " Disunion of America," for October, 1861, " against privateering, which it rejected on the most selfish and discreditable grounds, it would have had a far better claim than it now possesses to protest against the com- missions of the Southern privateers" (p. 585). Can it be pos- sible that the writer of this article is ignorant of the real history of this transaction? The American Government, so far from refusing its consent to this declaration, expressly declared its readiness to agree to it, on the condition that England, France, and the other great European powers would go further, and not only abolish privateering, but also carry out at sea the laws of war on land. " If," said the President of the United States, " the leading powers of Europe should concur in proposing as a rule of national law to exempt private property on the ocean from seizure by public armed cruisers as well as privateers, in like manner as private property on land is respected, as far as possible, by national armies, the United States will readily meet them on that broad ground." This was absolutely refused * Colonel Rankin, a member of the provincial parliament, had been arrested at Toronto for enlisting recruits for the American army. The offence ur^ed against him in the complainant's affidavit is, that he has agreed to accept a military commission to enter into the service of the United States, and that he has induced divers of the Queen's lieges to enlist in the same service. The Colonel claims the right under the British law for himself and his associates " to enrol themselves in the cause of freedom — that of the North against the South ;" and he says, " there will be no lack of Canadian gentlemen not only willing, but eager to avail themselves of the opportunity now presented to them of achieving an honourable distinction." — QalignawCs Messenger, 18 by England. I do not say on " selfish and discreditable grounds," but certainly refused, and thus the whole matter dropped, not through the refusal of America to accede to a request to abandon one chief arm of her service — her sea- militia — in favour of countries possessing a great standing naval power, vastly superior to her own limited marine, but solely through the refusal of England to abandon the right during war of capturing private property at sea. Had the writer of this article studied the history of America on this point, and acquainted himself with the real facts, he would have seen that the constant efforts of America have been to liberalise the principles of war at seaj that for long years she has strenu- ously contended for the principle that " free ships make free goods" as a neutral right; and that England as strenuously, and for her own selfish intei'ests, has opposed that principle, never, until the breaking out of the Crimean war, even ad- mitting it as a temporary rule, and that in this opposition she of the great powers stood alone, Russia, Prussia, France, and other nations having concurred with the United States in affirm- ing it as a sound and salutary principle of international law.* In like manner America has resisted the right of search, which England has never wholly renounced. The proposal, then, of America, rejected by England, to exempt private property not contraband of war from capture at sea, was in advance of the views of England. During the Russian war, her Britannic Majesty's Govern- ment, in a note to the American Government, expressed " a confident hope" that it would, " in the spirit of just reciprocity, give orders that no privateer under Russian colours shall be equipped, or victualled, or admitted with its prizes in the ports of the United States, and that the citizens of the United States shall rigorously abstain from taking any part in armaments of this nature, or in any measure opposed to the duties of a strict neutrality." Mr. Marcy, in answer, assents to this entirely, and declares that the " laws of this country impose severe restrictions, not only upon its own citizens, but upon all persons * See Debate in House of Commons, July 4, 1854. !t I f I ifiil :i >.; 14 who may be residents within any of the territories of the United States, against equipping privateers, receiving commissions, or enlisting men therein for the purpose of taking part in any foreign war." And this was in a war between nations, not between a nation and rebels within its own borders. Has England acted, or is she acting now, within the spirit of the above communication ? Does she prevent her subjects rigor- ously from taking part in any armaments of this nature, or in any measure opposed to the duties of a strict neutrality ? But it is asserted, that while America has resented the atti- tude and criticism of England, she has calmly taken that of France, though the action of both these governments has been the same. True ; but, in the first place, no such series of bitter attacks has been made on us by the French press. Public men in France have not i-ejoiced openly at the " bursting of the republican bubble" — threatened the breaking of the blockade for the sake of cotton — suffered vessels in their ports to lade arms and munitions of war to carry to blockaded ports, and exhausted epithets of abuse on us. In the second place, America has no just title to expect from France the sympathy and moral aid which it claims of England. France is a despotism tempered by popular revolutions against the govern- ment. Its history is a series of such revolutions, and it is natural that, to a certain extent, it should sympathise with them. England, on the contrary, is a constitutional govern- ment, founded on law, and recognising only legal and consti- tutional modes of growth and change. In its character it is distinguished by submission to existing institutions until they can be peaceably reformed. It grows steadily towards freedom. It discountenances mob-law and violent revolution. Therefore it is, that by virtue of its noble history, of the utterances of its great men, of its earnest, untiring struggles towards the largest civilisation, of its grand self-sacrifices, that America looked to it for sympathy and encouragement, for words of cheer in sub- duing the Gerion of slavery, whose hundred hands were violently grasping at her throat, to strangle liberty and consti- tutional government at once. We cannot but be pained at the thought that it may suffer its material interest to warp its judg- 15 ment on so momentous a question as that which now agitates the United States. Amid the noisy clamours of the press some calm voices may still be heard in England. The Daily News has steadily stood by the United States in their struggle for constitutional liberty, and its utterances have been uniformly characterised by candour, kind feeling, knowledge, and ability. The Star and Spectator have also spoken well and wisely; and there are speeches from public men, among which that of the Duke of Argyll may be mentioned, showing an understanding of the question at issue, and a generous feeling towards the people of the United States. But such journals as the Times, the Herald, and the Chronicle, are doing an incalculable injury, by arousing the bitterest feel- ings of animosity between two countries, which should be united in bonds of amity. The articles in the Times are as bad in their spirit as they are incorrect in their statements of fact. They show not only ignorance, but wilful ignorance, and one can scarcely wonder at the feeling of England, if popular opinion is shaped by the writers of these articles. Believing, as I do, that the English only need to know the real facts of the case to give us their earnest co-operation of feeling, I shall proceed to state some of the causes of this war, the motives which animate the North and South, and to endeavour to correct some of the misapprehensions which so widely exist. In a late speech made by Earl Russell at Newcastle, he says : " The two parties are contending together not upon the subject of slaveiy, but contending as so many States in the Old World have contended, on the one side for empire, on the other for power.* Sir John Pakington, at Worcester, says, that he regrets that Earl Russell did not " express more firmly and decisively the views of England in regard to the iniquity and folly of continuing the war ;" and in a recent article in the Edinburgh Review, on " Disunion in America," the writer says, * One cannot help imagining that Earl Russell's after-dinner speech was a sort of dim reminiscence of the fact that New York being called the "Empire State" and Virginia the "Old Dominion," the contes between them was necessarily between empire and dominion. m ,1' k ji Vi V V: fWT 16 " The North does not appear to us to have a better claim to enforce its policy and dominion over the South, than the South had to infect the North with the taint of slavery." He asserts that the contest on both sides is for " territorial dominion ;" and he explains territorial dominion to be the power to enforce the will of the North over the South by supeiior force — to compel the minority, which is a local minority, to submit — in a word, to command the country, and to subdue the people. He then goes on to argue, that the Republican party now having obtained power, will proceed to assert "their dearly-bought ascendancy," and carry out their principles against free trade and slavery, and impose them on a minority, who regard his party with "terror and abhorrence." He also says, that this contest "has not elicited any positive expression (with one exception, in the case of Mr. Bright) of sympathy with either side." " The reason is simple — we regard it as an ill-advised, unnatural, and inhuman contest." Now, if Earl Russell and the writer in the Edinburgh merely mean to say that it is the intention of the Republicans to carry out the principles of their party, after being constitutionally elected under all the forms of law, their opponents voting against them for their own Presidential candidate, these gentlemen are undoubtedly right. But if they mean to intimate that this is not a justifiable and most proper thing, then adieu to constitu- tional government. If the majority are to be disallowed from caiTying out their principles — principles in their opinion vital to the present and future well-being of their country, because there is a minority opposed to them — then the whole theory of the English and American constitutions is nonsense. For as the minority could not, of course, impose their views on the majority, no principles could be carried out except those whereon existed a perfect unanimity of sentiment; and as two parties must always exist on every question of importance, they would always be at a dead-lock, and nothing could go on. When the Reform Bill passed in England, suppose the strong minority opposed to it had broken out into rebellion, refused assent to it, and taken up arms against the Government, would an attempt 1 1 17 to put down that minority have been considered as "ill-advised, unnatural, and inhuman?" I take it to be the fundamental principle of constitutional government that minorities must submit to majorities, and seek by constitutional and peaceable means solely the reversal of any decision by the people against them. But the principle that the minority would be justified in any outbreak of treason or rebellion, simply because they could not rule, would be accepted by no constitutional govern- ment on earth. How stand the facts, then, between the Republicans and Democrats in America ? Is there any peculiar reason why the minority should govern the action of the majority? Is that majority oppressive ? Are the doctrines it professes unconstitu- tional ? Has the minority failed in obtaining its fair share of the Government ? Has it been long out of office ? Has it been prevented from carrying out noble principles of government by a tyrannous majority ? None of these objections can be made. Was, then, the election of Mr. Lincoln fair in every way, and carried on constitutionally and legally, and with due regard to the rights of all ? There is no pretence that it was not. But to answer these questions fully demands a short review of the political history of the country. The subjects of differ- ence, as stated by the English, are two — the Tariff and Slavery. Thei'e is no pretence that there are other questions of difference. We Americans on both sides say there is only one subject of contest — slavery. Let us examine these questions. First, the Tariff. It is constantly assumed in England that the slave-holding States of the South, being agricultural, are opposed to the tariff, and in favour of free trade ; that the tariff has been forced on them by the Northern manufacturing States, and is very injurious to their interests. A little examination will show this to be an illusion. In the very first session of the House of Representatives, after the adoption of the constitution, the very first measure there proposed and debated was the laying of imposts ; and in the vei*y first committee of the whole House the duty of laying » If I h-^ • J' H 18 imposts, so as to encourage and protect manufactures, was as- serted by nearly every speaker, and doubted or denied by none. The three first speakers, proclaiming this as the duty of Con- gress, were Mr. Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania ; Mr. White, of Virginia ; and Mr. Tucker, of South Carolina ; and Mr. Madi- son, the leader of the House, declared himself strongly in favour of protection. In the same debate, Mr. Burke, of South Caro- lina, supported a duty on hemp, for the express purpose of en- couraging its growth in his State ; and Mr. Smith, from the same State, declared "that the manufacturing States wished the encouragement of manufactures, the maritime States the encouragement of ship-building, and the agricultural States the encouragement of agriculture/' Thus, then, the members from South Carolina declared themselves strongly in favour of pro- tection, and proposed duties to protect their own products. That debate ended by the passing of a law — the second of the United States statutes — imposing duties "for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufac- tures." This principle, then, was admitted and practised upon from the beginning of the American Government. In 1816, when it became necessary to readjust the revenue, it was again acted on, and the tariff of 1816 was introduced, defended, and established under the lead of South Carolina. Mr. Calhoun, afterwards the bitterest opponent of protection, proposed this measure, and gave all his strength to its support, and in so doing was ably seconded by his colleagues, Mr. Lowndes, IMr. Mayrant, and Mr. AVoodward. Nor was this tariff merely one for revenue — it laid duties for protection, and in the ease of coarse cottons the duty was from 60 to 80 per cent. Mr. Jefferson, too, at this time was in favour of a protective tariff, as any one may see who will take the trouble to read his writings, and espe- cially his famous letter to Benjamin Austin, of January 9, 1816. But let us continue a little further the history of the tariff. In 1824 the question, as to a tariff on the basis of protection, was debated again with great vehemence in Congi'css. Up to ]9 this time the principle had been conceded by almost every man of distinction ; but now a strong party had grown up in oppo- sition. Let us, then, see if it was the manufacturing, or even the Northern States which forced it on the South. The interests of New England were then purely commercial, their property being mainly invested in shii)ping. There were but two States devoted at all to manufacturing, and these were the small ones of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which sent only eight mem- bers to the House of Representatives. The interests and prin- ciples of New England were, therefore, for free trade. The father of the protective tariff of 1824 was Henry Clay, of Ken- tucky, a slave-holding State. It was introduced by him, and supported by all the force of his great powers ; while Mr. Web- ster, of Massachusetts, the leader of the New England States in the House of Representatives, opposed it with equal vigour and ability. The great leaders, then, of the debate were Mr. Clay, representing a slave state, and advocating a tariff; and Mr. Webster, from a free state, contending against it. In the final vote, by which this measure was carried, and a protective tariff adopted as the policy of the country, Maine, Massachu- setts, and New Hampshire cast 23 votes against it, and only 3 for it, thus throwing the weight of its influence into the scule with Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas; while the whole delegation from Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri voted entirely in its favour. New York threw 26 votes for it to 8 against it ; Tennessee, 2 to 7 against ; and Maryland, 3 to 6 against. These figures clearly show that it was no contest between the North and South, or the slave-holding and free States, or the manufacturing and agricultural States. The fact is, that it was curried mainly by the grain - growing States against the cotton and tobacco - planting States, the latter making common cause with the States devoted to fishing and navigation. The last - mentioned States opposed the bill through apprehension that it would ruin their commerce, then just reviving after its prostration by the embargo and non - intercourse system of Mr. Jefferson and the Virginia School. The grain - growing States advocated it on the d •il 1 M i 20 ground that it would benefit agriculture; and the cotton- phinting States opposed it through a belief that it would be injurious to agriculture. In this manner was carried the protective tariff of Mr. Clay, which, with certain modifications, has continued to be the policy of the United States ever since. The New England States were thus turned from shipping and navigation to manufacturing, and under this system began to build up their great factories and mills. History thus shows that the New England States did not originate a protective tariff, but that it was, on the con- trary, forced upon them by the agricultural States, and that they were thus driven to manufactures, after being nearly ruined by the embargo and non-intercourse systems of the Virginia school. Thus, introduced by no sectional interests, and through no opposition of th6 free States to the slave States, the tariff became the policy of the country. The most protective tariff that ever was passed was voted for by Southern men, and ratified by John Tyler, a Southern President, a renegade to his party, and now a Secessionist. When, in 181G, a bill was introduced to abolish this tariff, among those who voted to sustain the tariff were Robert Toombs, now in the Confederate army, and Alexander H. Stephens, the Vice-president of the Confederate States. And this same fire-eating Mr. Toombs, in his seat in Congress, among others, voted for the Morill tariff of the present year. In the next place, as to the injurious effect of the protective tariff on the South. Under its shield Massachusetts has been enabled to carry the manufactures of coarse cottons to such a point that America can now undersell England in foreign ports. The South, of course, receives the advantage of this ; and as the importations of the South are mainly coarse woollens and cottons, so far from having experienced injury, it has only known benefit. Were there free trade to-raorrow she would come to the same market, because it is the cheapest. Indeed, it is impossible to see why the South should suffer from this system more than the West, both being 21 chiefly agricultural. Yet the West has iKiver complained. It is, in point of fact, the great cities and towns of the North which feci the weight of the tariff most, because there is the great consumption of foreign manufactures. For a long series of years the system, undoubtedly, met with strong opposition in many of the Southern and Noi-thern States, and formed a main question of diffiircnce between the so-called Whig and Democratic parties ; but of late years no issue has been made on this point : it has been struck out from the platform of parties, generally acquiesced in by so large a majority as to cease to be a subject for party discussion, and, finally, re-affirmed by a large majority in the passage of the late jMorill tariff. If there were not a majority in its favour, how happened it to paaa ? Who passed it ? Was it the North, under the auspices of a llcpublican administration ? By no means. It was passed by Congress, six weeks befon; the attack on Fort Suinter and the beginning of the Civil War ; while the Southern representatives and senators, with few exceptions, were still in their seats, under a pro-slavery administration, and was signed and made a law by the merest tool of the South that ever occupied the presidential chair. It was in his power to veto it had he so chosen ; but the pressure of public opinion was too great, and he dared not. One of the last solemn acts of his imbecile administration was to affix his signature to the bill. Winking at treason and robbeiy of the national treasury, feeble, incompetent, and flue tuating as he was in all his opinions and acts, ready at the dictation of party to yield any principle, this timid and insincere functionary signed the bill which a vigorous remonstrance of the South would have shaken from his hands. The bill, then, was passed by a majority in Congress, representing all parts of the countiy under a pro-slavery, treasonable Jackson adminis- tration, and received their sanction. But there is one fact more which settles the question as to the views of the South. One of the first acts of the Convention of the Confederate States was to pass a tariff, and to propose an export duty on cotton. The duties laid by this bill were lighter; but the necessity of a tariff was thus admitted. The South can ,!, II 1^ . * 22 no longer say tlmf, they nrc opposed to a torifF, but only to the feuturcH of a particulur tiiiiH'. As for free trade, they can now make no preteneeH to that. IJut it never eouhl have been the interest of the South to have free tnich-, in its widist Ncnse, introdueed into the United States. Under sueii a |)ohcy the revenue nuist be raised by direet taxation, and this would have been ruinous to the South. No Htronger blow at slavery eould have been struck than this. The constitution of the United States, yielding to the claims of slavery, declares that the apportioinnent of representation among the slave-holding States " shall be dtiternnned by adding to the whole number of free ])er8on8 three-fifths of the slaves." By this j)rovision, if a district containing HOjOOO jjcrsons be en- titled to a representative in Congress, any district in which there were 20,()()() free nusn, and 5(),(){)() slaves, would have this privilege, while to possess the same right in a non-slavc- holding State there must be 50,000 free men; the slaves thus not being reckoned as ])roperty^ but to a certain extent as persons, though they had no vote. Suppose 100 men to own 8300 slaves a-piecc, they wouM send a representative to Con- gress, whose vote would be eijual to that of 50,000 from the Northern States. But iu order to counterbalance this enor- mous disproportion of rights, the constitution also declares that direct taxation shall be apportioned in the same way. Were revenue, therefore, to be raised by direct taxation, slaves, who under the present system arc not taxed at all, must be forced to pay a very large proportion of the s\nn raised ; or, rather, as slaves cannot ])ay, their masters would be subjected to a burden very difficult, if not impossible, to bear. Yet, rtulir the ope- ration of free trade at the Scuth, after its divis^.ion f'l ■'" the. North, slaves must be taxed, and this of itself uc^iui pi,.vent the possibility of introducing it. Indeed, a tax upon slaves v.'?s at first laid by the Confederate States, and not only oc- casioi'od great irritation, but, in consequence of the want of ready jii.'"iey in the hai.uls of the jjlanters, was rendered almost impraniiv.ab]( lU ma ly instances. What, then, would the Couft'den.to States giiu, whether in or out of the Union, by 33 free trade? The plain iMt 'is, thai it «»uJd uut be iiitro- duccd.* But there is another coi iderutiou. T)»c protective tariff docH not, even in a direct Hinsc, ulonf bcm lit the North and the nianufactiMing States. It in vital (■; the iron of Tenuo- ler and to the su^ar of Louisiana and Florida. Cut otF the tariff from the latter, and how will tlusy support theniselvis against fonlga competition ? LETTER II. We now conic to the second question, Slavery, which is the real issue between the North and South. The action ot the North on this subject is claimed to be a grievance so intolerar>lc as to justify a revolution. Wc have already seen the enormous advantage given to * Kino (.'otton. — Thcio are fifteen Slave States, with a white populatioit of about 7,.5()<),000 And persons of all colours lielcl to service 4,000,000 This lust property, or capital, is sold at an average of 7r)0 dels, per head, equal to about Dola. 3,000,000,000 Much of this property is sold on six and twelve months' credit for notes and mortgages, which is hold in part by the banks, and forms part of their capital. The annual product is, say 4,000,000 bales of cotton, valued at l"i dols. per bale, equal to Dols. 180,000,000 Rice, sugar, and other crops produced by same, say ... 60,000,000 Making in all Dols. 230,000,000 Expenses of keeping and clothing 4,000,000 slaves at 60 dola. each Dols. 240,000,000 Now as to the revenues paid by the South, and how paid. The supply of cotton goods from the North is estimated at 10 dols. per head on a population of ll,r)00,no(), any 115,000,000 dols. Sufficient of cotton suppUed to the North and exported to consume, say 2,000,000 ■^; I 3 a 24 slaveiy over freedom by the clause in the constitution relating to representation. This in itself is sufficient to give an almost overwhelming preponderance to the slave-holding States ; but unjust as it is, the North has silently submitted to it, and in consequence the South has had far more than its proportion of government and office. When the constitution was adopted, slavery, in the opinion of all the best minds of the day, was doomed to a rapid ex- tinction. It was considered as a great evil which had been forced upon its colonics by England, but which with its growth the nation would slowly but surely throw off. It is useless here to quote the stern judgments then freely uttered against it. There was in fact no one who dreamed of defending it on principle, or regarded it in any other light than as a curse. It had been abolished in some of the thirteen States, and was supposed to be dying out. But this mistake was enormous. So far from dying out, it has grown with our growth and strengthened with our strength. It has spread like a poisonous contagion into the territory adjacent to the original slave bales of cotton and over, leaving about 2,000,000 bales to pay the North on account of advances, &c. made to the South. The South consumes of dutiable goods for half of the white population 20 dols. per head, say 75,000,000, dols., on which the average duty is about 15 per cent, equal to 11,500,000 dols. The South receives from the general Government, in salaries and mileage of members of Congress, say Dols. 4,800,000 Salaries of ministers, consuls, secretaries, clerks, &c. ... 5,000,000 Postal deficiencies, suppression of the slave-trade, &c. ... 7,000,000 Pay of officers in the army and navy, cadets, &c 5,000,000 Expenses of the War and Navy Departments, besides, say 6,000,000 Total estimate Dols. 27,800,000 By these data it will be seen that the capital of the South in slaves does not pay the expense of their keeping by 10,000,000 dols., and the South receives in various ways from the general government 16,500,000 dols., or perhaps a larger sum than they pay in duties. It shows that the value of persons held to service is actually less than nothing, and that the whole credits are obtained at the North for the purpose of putting the crop in the ground to the amount of 200,000,000 dols., on which the Southern planters have to base all their operations for the coming year. — A'ew York Evening Fost, 25 States; as new territory was populated it polluted them with its foul embraces, until it now numbers as its victims no less than fifteen States. Emboldened by success it now claims to possess all the free territory; it assaults liberty on its own ground; and, after driving us into foreign war with Mexico, threatening Cuba, and pouring its hordes over the borders of Missouri into Kansas, maddened at its defeat it now violently takes up arms against the Federal Government, and deluges the land with blood. Since the day when Jefferson cried, " Slavery is a curse," a change has come over the party he formed, and who still profess to fight under his banner; and finally Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, one of the most moderate of the Seces- sionists, the Vice-president of the Confederate States, announces this monstrous doctrine : — "The foundations of our new Government are laid; its corner-stone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." It is, then, slavery, and nothing but slavery, which is the hissing head of Southern rebellion. Nothing will content the leaders of this movement but the nationalising of slavery. Their great grievance is that enough has not been given to slavery. Let us see what has been given. Though the constitution of the United States impliedly consents to the existence of slavery in the original States where it then was, there is not a word to be found in that instrument which in the remotest way implies a right, or confers a ])Ower on the Federal Government, to create or permit it elsewhere. Slavery, however, can only exist by positive law, never by implication ; and therefore, though the constitution accepts it where it is because it finds it there, it cannot, without express power, carry it where it does not already exist. In the absence of any clause conferring that power expressly, can it be implied from any clause ? Quite the contrary. The whole spirit of the constitution is in favour of freedom — its guarantees in favour of slavery are exceptions i I ■■] ' '■•■\ 7 It } I a I. a *\ r If ' ■ i; ' 'I i 26 to its general character. And in giving these it hides its shame under vague languagCj and cautiously avoids the use of the words slave or slavery, as if it would taint the instrument by its presence. The spirit, object, and intention of the consti- tution, is clearly stated in its preamble ; and this should always be looked to as the key for its interpretation. Is there here any intimation of an intention to give the Federal Government or the States the power to inflict slavery upon the United States' territories, then free? Here it is : — "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.'* " To establish justice," "to secure the blessings of liberty" — can the establishment of slavery in the territories be other than in absolute contradiction to these words ? But there is stronger evidence than this. In an ordinance, passed in 1781 for the government of the territory of the United States north-west of the river Ohio, it is directly de- clared that " there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory ; " and this ordinance is declared to constitute articles of compact between the original people and States in the said territory, and for ever remain unalter- able, unless by common consent. Slavery was thus expressly prohibited in the north-west territories in 1781. Many years had not ela])sed before it began to raise its head and demand new states and territories, and when, in 1820, iMissouri claimed admission as a State, the question arose whether she could come in without a prohibition of slavery. Upon this question the friends of liberty and the friends of slavery fought with determination ; but the North was finally induced to compromise with the South, and abandon all its principles, and all the principles of the constitution, for the sake of conciliation with a ])owcr already grasping and in- satiable. It was a foolish and fatal mistake. It was the mistake which liberty has always made in America. All its 27 compromises have resulted in strengthening the element which has now for a time broken asunder the Union. Yet England again calls out to us — Compromise. Compromise what? Yield what ? The South violently asserts that it w'ill not be satisfied with the constitution, that more guarantees must be given to slavery, that slavery must be nationalised in ail the territories, that slaveholders shall have the right to carry their slaves where they will, even into the free States themselves, and that those States shall turn slave-hunters in behalf of Southern masters. Shall we go down on our knees at this crack of the slave-whip, and yield up our birthright of liberty ? Never ! Honour, justice, duty, forbid that we should at any time yield to such demands ; but now, with the knife at our throat, if we yield, we are not fit for liberty — we are traitors and cowards to God and the right. The Missouri Compromise guaranteed to all territory north of 36° 30' free institutions for ever, while illegally and unconsti- tutionally all territory south of that latitude was given over to slavery. By one blow slavery was legalised in all the new States below 36° 30' ; and here it grew and strengthened, and State after State tainted with it came into the Union, and added to the power of the slave representation in Congress. At last the area was nearly occupied, and Kansas in the free territory was knockins; at the door of the Federal Union for admittance. In Kansas, by the solemn terms of the Missouri Compromise, slavery was prohibited. So long as only slave States had de- manded admission the South had maintained their agreement, for they had received all the advantage, but now they declared that the compromise was unconstitutional ; and, false to all their pledges, repealed it, for the f.ole purpose of carrying slavery into Kansas. I cannot here enter on the painful and savage scenes that followed. The territory was denied ad- mittance at first, and every cfi'ort was made, without regard to law, justice, or decency, to force the accursed institution upon a people who resisted it even to death. Border ruffians from Missouri invaded it, carrying murder and rapine into many a household. Civil fearful outrages were committed. The Ad- ministration, pledged to slavery, faltered and betrayed the ■% ■' !■ 11 I 11: ; \\ 28 people — but the battle at last was won by freedom. Kansas refused to admit slavery, and she came in as a free State. It was at this time that the Republican party was formed. The Missouri Compromise having been repealed, it planted itself on the constitution, and asserted as its fundamental principle that slavery should not be extended into any more territory, such an extension being wrong in itself, and in vio- lation of the whole spirit of the constitution, and of the express terms of the ordinance of 1784. The extreme Southern-rights party declared that the Government had no more power to prohibit any one from carrying his slave into the territories than from carrying his ox or his horse; thus claiming that slavery is legalised by the constitution everywhere, and that they had a right to infect all the new territory with slavery. Between these parties Mr. Douglas formed and represented a third, composed of the more moderate Southern men, on a principle called " squatter sovereignty," by which the question as to slavery or freedom was left to the settlers in each terri- tory to decide for themselves. The difficulty in this last case is evident. If slaves can be carried into the territory and held as of right, the institution of slavery is necessarily affixed to it. Long before the election came on there were symptoms that the Republicans might elect their candidate, and then commenced tlie hatching of the plot against the Federal Go- vernment. The Treasury — which, when Mr. Buchanan came into power, was full to overflowing — was robbed; the arms and munitions of war belonging to the United States were removed from the North, and stored in the Southern arsenals; the navy was despatched to foreign stations, so as to be beyond the im- mediate reach of the Government ; and every preparation was secretly made by the administration and cabinet to take the Government by a coup de main in case of failure in electing the Southern candidate. Violent threats were made in the South of disunion in case of the election of Mr. Lincoln, and eveiy effort was exerted to intimidate the North ; but though these produced a great effect on the timid, and made a "Union party" of compromisers, they were generally considered as 29 .^,„ ' mere bluster to attain a political end. When Mr. Lincoln was elected the game was up. The most furious of the Southern politicians fanned the flames of jealousy between State and State, and generally infected the minds even of the more moderate with a groundless terror. The press was gagged ; all freedom of opinion and expression was suppi'essed ; to declare one's self in favour of Mr. Lincoln was to expose one's life to imminent danger. Violent outrages were committed on innocent men and women, upon mere suspicion of their en- tertaining anti-slavery sentiments ; and many a person, without trial, or with only the mockery of trial before a vigilance com- mittee, often self-constituted, was hanged up to the first tree, or tarred and feathered, and beaten out of the Southern States. The North now began to fear that the South would carry out its threats of disunion, and sought in every way to con- ciliate and compromise. Every politician had a new method of treatment, and the constitution was nearly murdered with patent methods of curing the disease of treason. Had the South really had any grievance, and stated it, it would at once have been remedied. Even had it suffered a sham grievance, I fear that the North would then have been too ready to yield most important principles foi" the sake of conciliation. The States were willing to repeal their " Personal Liberty Laws,'' though they considered them constitutional ; to promise to carry out the Fugitive Slave Law, though they thought it abominable and illegal ; to give new guarantees to slavery in the States; to re-enact a new Missouri compromise — in a word, all kinds of propositions were made to the mad South, which, in the meantime, did nothing but bark and bite, and shake its chain. Committees and conventions constructed every species of compromise for the purposes of conciliation. Virginia offered her mediation. But it was of no use : we did not abase our- selves sufficiently. We would not toss up our hats for slavery and proclaim it as "the corner-stone" of the republic — and so we went to wfir. The war was not begun by the North. The "Venerable Edward lluflfin," of Virginia, fired the first gun at Sumter, and it echoed round the world. While the President and Ml It- J' ^t 30 6 1 u cabinet shuffled, and shifted, and prevaricated, the South stole the arsenals of the Federal Government, took by force its forts, and the "Venerable Edward Ruffin" fired the first gun of a civil war. The u])ris.''ig oi the North, as the report of that gun reached from town to town, was wonderful. The light- ning flew along the tc^legraphie wires to summon the people to arms. Farmers literally left their j)loughs in the furrows, their spades in the ditches, to join the army ; and without pausing at their homes to say good-bye to their wives and children, took the trains to the cities to be ready to rush to the defence of Washington. Patriotism sprang into sudden existence, full grown and full armed, like IMinerva from the brain of Jove. So totally unforeseen was this magnificent movement of the North, that the South hesitated, and that hesitation saved Washington. Every day now deepens the conviction in the North that the day of compromise is over. When the time for settlement with the South comes — if it ever come — slavery must receive its death-blow. Otherwise, any arrangement will be only a temporary postpoTiement of difficulties, and ten years will not pass without a repetition of this fearful tragedy of civil war. It is, then, idle to suppose that hatred to the tariff and desire for free trade is the grievance that has driven the South to rebellion. The history of the country proves that slavery is the very hinge of the controversy. It is avowed unblushingly by the South. iVU their leaders have not even ventured to pretend that the tariff had anything to do with the movement. The " corner-stone" of our new government, says ]\Ir. Ste- phens, and he, as the Vice -president, may be presumed to know, is slavery. It is because the Re])ublican party, after long years of submission to slaveholders, have finally triumphed, and obtained possession of the government. It is against the grand principle of this party — a principle perfectly constitutional, legal, civilised, and humane, that slavery shall not be extended to the territories, though it must be allowed in the States where it now exists, that the South rebels. After having for years possessed the chief places of the government, domineered and ruled over the country, engaged it in war, both foreign and 31 domestic, in furtherance of this accursed institution, driven it beyond the limits of the constitution to serve the purposes of slavery and extend its ])owcr, it cannot see without dismay and rage the tables turned against it, and freedom occupying the place of slavery. The people of the South, then, furiously rage together and imagine a vain thing. If they cannot govern, they will pull down the ])illar of the constitution, and overwhelm all, like a blind Samson, under its ruins. Listen to Mr. Stephens's own account of the causes of this war : — " The new constitution has for ever ended all agitation rela- tive to the peculiar institution — I mean, slavery as it exists among us. This question has been the immediate cause of the rupture and of the present revolution. Jefferson, with his fore- sight, pi'cdicted that this would be the rock on which the Union would split, and he was right." But, even were the views of the South as to slavery and the tariff perfectly proper and admirable, the action of the North on neither of these questions has been such as to justify the South in its violence. Nothing has ever been attempted with- out the sanction of the law and the constitution. Mv. Lin- coln's government had performed no act. The doctrines of the Republicans are merely those which, fifteen years ago, would have been deemed so self-evident as to need no party to enforce them — they were almost identical with those of the old Whig party, and the Free-soil party. There was nothing exaggerated in their opinions, or violent in their intentions. Their object was not to touch the question of slavery in the States, but only to oppose the extension into the territories, by all constitutional means. The question was not a new one. It had been fought for more than thirty years. Mr. Lincoln, instead of being an abolitionist, was quite the contrary, and had been opposed by the New York Tribune on the ground that he was not tho- roughly an anti-slavery man. The course which he had pur- sued in his public life had been eminently moderate and calm. No, there was no real grievance ; but South Carolina, ever since her effort at nullification in 1833, and its sharp suppres- sion by General Jackson, has nourished a bitter feeling against " 1 1 h i I ■ ■* 33 the Federal Union. Fanning her own bad passions, and eaten up with jealousy of the North, which she envies, but cannot compete with, she has finally driven out the angel of Liberty, and taken counsel of the twin demons of Slavery and Disunion. It is she who dragged into this unhappy contest the whole of the Southern States ; inflaming their passions by calunmies, lies, and preaching to them the devil's gospel of treason and rebellion. And she has done it all for her own selfish greed and ambition. She believes that she is the greatest and best of all the States ; and, once free from the North, she expects to become the Empire State of the Southern Confederacy, and to regulate all things by her imperious will. Yet the jealousy between Georgia and South Carolina, is almost as bitter as that of South Carolina against Massachusetts. Their interests arc diff^erent, and their aspirations diff'erent. Georgia is, to a con- siderable extent, a manufacturing State. She has been popu- lated by Yankees, and is the Yankee State of the South. The interests of Louisiana and Florida are also o])poscd to the ideas of South Carolina. North Carolina has always been a Union State, and eminently calm and moderate in her views. In fact, could the Confederacy be permitted, without a complete sacri- fice of all the principles of the Union, it would, undoubtedly, fall to pieces from internal dissensions within two years. What is most extraordinary is, that the ordinances of Seces- sion made in Convention by the various slave States have, with few exceptions, never been referred to the popular vote in those States. The acts are the acts of a domineering, unscrupulous, and menacing party, by no means representing the views of the majority. And with such violence and rapidity did this party carry out their project of secession, that the Union men were never able to gather together and make head against it until too late. Yet, wherever the people could speak, despite the Secession ordinances of the Conventions, the great majority declared in favour of the Union. This was the case in North Carolina, ]\Iaryland, and Kentucky. In Georgia, also, it is un- doubted that there was a very large body, if not a majority, opposed to the action of the State ; but the question was never referred to a popular vote. In Tennessee, despite the intimida- 33 tion there practised, 47,000 votes, constituting one-third of all the votes of the State, were cast against Secession, though the soldiers and thousands of others were prohibited from voting ; and the deficiencies in favour of Secession were made up by gigantic frauds. This fact we know from themselves.* In Louisiana, the Secessionists have never to this day published the result of the popular vote, which was undoubtedly in favour of the Union. In Northern Alabama the vote was nearly tied, even in Convention. Virginia has broken in twain on this question, — the western districts declaring strongly for union. Kentucky, by an overwhelming vote, adhered to the Federal Government. Missouri, too, is steadily fighting the battle for union against traitors. It is, therefore, with good hope that the North fights — not to subjugate States, but to liberate them. It wishes dearly to hear the voice of the people of the South. t * See Mr. H, C. Carey's Letter, Daily News, Deo. 6, 1861. t The following extracts from Southern journals will show what is the feeling in some of the Confederate States : — A writer in the Macon Journal of Georgia says: — "If the State Conventions, which were called for another purpose, can assume that they are the people, that they have the unlimited power of the people, and can do whatsoever they list, and if, under such an assumption of power, they can appoint delegates to a general convention without consulting the people, and can fix upon them a new government without their consent, then a principle which has always been consi- dered fundamental in this country, and ' prized above all price,' is gone. Let the people no longer delude themselves with the notion that they have the right of self-government." A gentleman whoso intelligence and trustworthiness are fUUy indorsed, says the New York Tribune,yiviie^ as follows : — "I have just returned from the north-western portion of Georgia. Having been off the road and among the people, I will give you the facts as I know them to exist. 1. There is general, I may almost say universal, dissa- tisfaction with the Secession movement. The people of this part of Georgia wished to know of mo if the people of Tennessee will help them to fight their way back into the Union. Indeed, they say they are not, and will not stay out of the Union. 2. All with whom I have conversed say, that if you will visit north-western Georgia you will be as safe as you are in Knoxvillc. Indeed they want to sec you, and have you speak to them publicly. 3. There is a great complaint, as I learn, in all parts of their State, that their new President has appointed no f* '•'& ■>« ii If : 1 i!ir 84 But, while the South has hhistercd about its sham griev- ances, and h)U(lly denounced the Tersonal Liberty Bills as un- constitutional, it has in several States been guilty of a clear and gross violation of the constitutional rights of Northern eiti/ens, which it makes no atteini)t to justify on the ground of law, but only of necessity. Contrary to the express provision of the constitution, declaring that " the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the one to office under him but Secessionists, of the old Democratic party, and that Ihcy do not allow the people to pass an opinion upon wliat they do. 4. All the acts of the Congress of their Confedeiucy are passed in secret session, with closed doors, and what is done is kept from the people, regarded by the people as the worst species of luiow- Nothingism, so nnich complained of in former days. 5. The postal curtailments and the discontinuance of the ports of entry in inauy instances, they speak of as among tlicir grievances. I am not mistaken when I tell you, that if the cpiestiou of staying in the Union or going out were submitted to the real people of Ueorgia, they would vote down ►Secession most effectually. Tliero is a powerful reaction, and the people applaud the course of Tennessee, and declare for the TTnion." In Alabania, though the Convention of that Siati' have made haste to usurp the prerogative and ratify the constitutMu, the opposition is scarcely less. The ^fobile Adoertisei', an original advocate of Secession, complains thus : — "The Convention has adopted the permanent consti- tution in behalf of the State of Alabama. Now, in our humble judg- ment, the Convention has, in this act, exceeded its authority, and that without any reasonable excuse. It matters not whether the action in itself is desirable or not. The great fact stands fortii that the delegates were not chosen for any such purpose, and hence have no moral riglit, without consulting the people, and we question if they have a legal right to act for them in the premises." The North Ahibamian took strong and early f;round against the scheme of J. Davis and Co. to foist upon the people a constitution without regard to their wishes, and being advised to leave the State, as the penalty for daring to speak thus freely, the editor renews his pro- test, and, in addition, remarks: — " If all were to leave who are dissa- tisfied, we fear the remainder would soon have to leave or do worse, for they would have few left on whom they could safely rely for self- protection. It is a remarkable fact, and why it is we know not, that the substantial, physical force of the country — the hard-fisted, hard- working men, everywhere, who arc expected to do all the fighting when their country calls — were from the beginning opposed to the ordi- nance of secession, and are becoming daily luore and more dissatisfied with it." 86 P several States," bills have been passed in several Southern States, and particularly in South Carolina and Louisiana, pro- hibiting the free admission into their ports of all coloured per- sons, whether citizens of the North or not ; and in case such persons arc brought there in any vessel, though in the capacity of sailors, th(!y arc subject to be taken out, ])laced in [)rison, and there kejjt until the sailing of the vessel, when on pay- ment of their prison fees they arc released, and otherwise they A gentleman, after an oxtenilocl observation, writes from the interior of Alabama as follows : — " Secession lias broken all down in spirit, and in our purses, and there is no chance to sell out at any price. I hope Tennessee will stand by the good old Stars and Stripes. If you liavo any Secessionists who are sick of * submission,' as they falsely stylo obedience to the laws of the land, send them down hero to swap liroj)crty with mo. 1 will give a bargain, or do anything in reason, to get out of this great Confederacy." In Mississippi the dissatisfaction seems to be great. In proof of this wo might quote from a number of loading journals in that State, but we limit ourselves to two ; the others are in the same spirit. The Jackson Mi8,iiiisii>pian asserts " the right of the people to decide whether or not they will live under the constitution which is being provided for them by the body in session at Moiitgomery." The Vichhmj Whi lidated, homogeneous kingdom, but rather a federation of king- doms. But when you add Australia and Canada with their separate parliaments and laws, and India with its entirely distinet organisation, your kingdom is wanting in all the elements of consolidation; for how will you on principle distin- guish the rights of Canada and Australia relative to England from those of Massachusetts and South Carolina relative to the Federal Government of America ? Therefore shall I say each has the right to secede when the government does not suit it. A strong majority in Ireland, and, a fortiori, a party approaching to unanimity of principle, may take up arms against England and resist its laws to the cry of " Repeal of the Union," and are justified in so doing. But suppose Ireland or Canada even should take this view, and attempt armed resist- ance and secession — is it to be supposed that England would be prevented from employing foi'cc to subjugate it at once, by the sentimental, or if you will, the Christian reason, that it would be a "fratricidal war," an "internecine war," an "inhuman war?" Would she like to be counselled to compromise with rebellion ? Did England ever hesitate in such a case ? Let Ireland and India answer. But in support of this claim of sovereignty among the States what is the argument? Simply this — that though they resigned it formally, it could only have been conditionally — that the Union is merely a sort of co-partnership, where, if the business is badly managed and unprofitable, each partner has the rigut to withdraw at his pleasure. But even in such a case the argument is untenable. Where partners bind themselves absolutely for life, even in a limited co-partnership as to certain affairs, the partnership only can be dissolved by common consent. No one partner can undertake to withdi'aw from the firm his funds and his name in a manner injurious to the others and against their will, and, a fortiori, cannot take back personal goods and property of any kind which he has sold outright to the firm, and for which he has received full payment, without rendering himself legally and morally liable to the firm. Yet South Carolina and her sister Confederate States claim a right u I ! 50 not only to withdraw^ but to take by force of nnns the landM, fortH, und ai'Hctmls sold absolutely by her to the United States Government, and for which they have received full payment. The land on which those forta were built was bought and paid for by the United Stat<'s. The forts ami arsenals were erected at the expense of the Federal Government. Tlu; arms and munitions in them were bought by the United States funds. By what right can the States claim to retake them without the consent of the owners ? Suppose they say they are willing to pay for them; but the Utiited Stages is unwilling to sell them, and certainly the Government ha> a right to keep its own property. Suppose each State to say that she has |)aid her pro- portion of the purchase-money ; but how, even granting that, is she entitled to take tin; whole, and to take it by force of arms and bloodshed? South Carolina, when she thiis took Fort Sumter, committed not only an act of civil war, but of public robbery. Even .^ranting its right to secede, it could have no right, vi et armis, to possess itself of property not belonging to it, however convenient or even necessary to their interests it might be to possess it. This is the sort of right that her Fili- busters set up to take Cuba, or any other place that suited their convenience; but I never heard that the civilised world admitted such rights. Again, even suppose that the original parties to the consti- tution, the thirteen States which actually surrendered their sovereignty to the Federal Government, have this asserted right to resume that sovereignty under certain circumstances, what sovereignty did the States, not original parties to the constitu- tion, ever resign ? Did the States formed out of territories ceded to the Federal Government — did the States purchased of foreign powers — ever have any sovereignty to surrender ? What sovereignty did Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama, Tennessee, or Kentucky ever have to surrender? They were formed out of territory exclusively belonging to the United States Govern- ment ; their lands were surrendered to them provisionally by that Government, not surrendered by them to it. They were populated by emigration from all countries. They have no original rights to take back. If they return to their original 61 condition they bcconu! thv. absolute property of the United States. So, too, what sovereignty ean Louisiana or Florida, to say nothiiif? of Texas, ehiiin to resuiru!? They were purehascd by the Federal fJovernnient of foreifj;n powers, and they belong to it as completely as it is possible to conceive — not by their surrender of themselves, not by conrpiest, but by the simple and unequivocal rifrhts of purchase. What possible right can they have to secede ? Whatever may be the claims of Virginia, the Carolinas, or Georgia, they eertaiidy are not shared by Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Florida, and lY'xas. LETTER III, It was not on the election of Mr. Lincoln that for the first time violent threats of disunion from the South were heard. So long ago as in 1833, when South Carolina attempted to "nullify" the constitution, General Jackson declared that "the tariflf is only a pretext. Disunion and a confederation of the South arc the real objects. The next pretext will be slavery." And so it proves. When Fn mont was candidate for the Presidency, the same violent threats were made by the Scmth to overthrow the constitutiim by ci»il war that were made in the case of Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Butler and Mr. Keitt of South Carolina, Mr. Toombs of Georgia, Mr. Mason of Virginia, then uttered the same language that we still later have heard from Mr. Brooks of South Carolina, Mr. Wise of Virginia, and many others, " If Fremont is elected," cries Mr. Keitt to the people of Lynchburg, in Virginia, " adherence to the L nion is treason to liberty. 1 tell you now, that the Southern man who will submit to his election is a traitor and a coward." Mr. Brooks, in 1856, retu ning to South Carolina after his ruffianly assault on Mr. Sumner in the Senate with a bludgeon, talks a lan- guage of similar ruffianism to an audience which applauds to the echo : — " We have the issue upon us now ; and how are we to meet it? I tell you, fellow-citizens, from the bottom of my heart, 52 that the only mode which I think available for meeting it is just to tear the constitution of the United States, trample it under foot, and form a Southern Confederacy, every State of which will be a slaveholding State. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) " The ignorance exhibited by English writers of the com- monest facts of political history in the United States, and of the clearest provisions of the constitution, is not strange. The subject is but little studied in England, and it is natural for an Englishman to overlook the diflFerences between the unwritten constitution of his own country and the formal instrument called the Constitution in the United States. It is not to be expected that any person in one country will be thoroughly acquainted with the intimate and practical working even of common principles in a diflFerent country ; and it is difficult, even with much and careful study, to avoid falling into errors. The writer in the Edinburgh Revieiv, on " Disunion in America," asserts, however, that this ignorance does not exist ; but, on the contrary, "few subjects," he says, "have been the theme of so much discussion among ourselves for the last half centuiy as the American constitution." And, he adds, " we venture to affirm, that the question being dispassionately viewed in this country from a greater distance, has been on the whole more accurately judged here than by the American people them- selves." And he says with a sneer, in speaking of a paper on the American question by Mr. Jay, "We freely confess our inability to follow Mr. Jay in the dogmatical statements which represent, in his opinion, the fundamental laws of his country." This article, written in a spirit of candour, and, on the whole, of good feeling, is undoubtedly the composition of a man of ability, who arrogates to himself a thorough understanding of the American constitution, and a more accurate judgment of the condition of America than the Americans themselves. Without following him far in his argument, let us examine a little into his knowledge. He speaks very authoritatively. " The American wi'iters on this subject (sovereignty of the States) have, in our opinion," he says, " committed a gross error in the attempt to transfer to their constitution the high doctrines of allegiance." Having ft8 i-iters on a preconceived notion that the United States are merely a Federation, he "observes with astonishment" that Mr. Everett " should have fallen into the mistake of comparing an insur* rection in Ireland or Scotland to the secession of the Southern States." He thinks Mr. Motley has considerably overstated the sovereign powers of the Union ; that no such paramount supremacy as he ascribes to it had ever any real existence — and he quotes, per contra, the opinion of Mr. JeflFerson, apparently without remembering that he and his party were banded to break down the constitution, and were opposed by Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Adams, and the main body of great men, through whose co-operation the con- stitution was created and carried into efficacy. In arguing the question of slavery under the constitution, and in answering the doctrine so ably stated by Mr. Motley, he says: — "Under the existing constitution of the United States, which the freemen of the North are now in arms to defend, slavery must be considered to form part and parcel of the law of the Union, not only from the well-known clause which has been made the basis of the Fugitive Slave Law, not only from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case, but especially from the very last amendment or addition to the constitution passed on the 3rd March of this year, that is, on the eve of President Lincoln's inauguration, which expressly provides: 'That no amendment shall be made to the constitution which will give Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labour or servitude by the laws of the said State.' " Thus, in the very crisis of the present quarrel, and the moment when able writers like Mr. Motley were endeavouring to prove to Europe that the Union formed one great nation, represented by its Congress and its President, to execute the supreme law of the commonwealth. Congress did, in fact, declare itself powerless and incompetent to abolish or interfere with slaveiy, and thereby recognised in more precise terms the full and absolute rights of the several States to deal exclusively with their 'domestic institutions.' But as it is well known 64 that the several States (or, at least, the greater part of them) never will abolish slavery of their own accord, we are entitled to assert, with this clause before us, that slavery is protected and perpetuated by the constitution itself in those States in which it already exists. "This single fact seems to us to afford a more conclusive answer than whole reams of argument to the high prerogative doctrines (as we should call them in Europe) recently put forth by the champions of the Federal constitution. According to them the constitution of the United States is not only sove- reign but supreme, ordained and established over the States by a power superior to the States." * Now, we beg to inform this writer, that notwithstanding the study he has given to the constitution of the United States he has now fallen into the gravest error, an error so grave indeed as to shake our faith in his constitutional knowledge to its very foundation. If this is the kind of knowledge on which his conclusions as to American affairs are based, we should be scarcely inclined to agree with him that the American question " could be more accurately judged here (in England) than by the American people themselves." The fact is, that no such amendment to the constitution was ever made. Had this gentleman simply read the 5th Article of the Constitution of America, he would have seen that Congress cannot make an "amendment or addition to" the constitution. It can merely propose amendments, which, before they can become a part of the constitution, must be " ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by con- ventions in three-fourths thereof;" and this fact any public man in America would be ashamed not to know, though it is a very natural mistake in an Englishman, who does not discrimi- nate between what he calls his constitution and the written and formal instrument known as "the Constitution" in America. It is true that such a proposal to amend was made by Congress, but there the matter has dropped for the present. Had he paused to think, he would undoubtedly have seen at * Edinburgh Review, October 1861, p. 659. 65 once that with a written constitution like that of America, had the power of amendment been given to Congress alone, that instrument would have soon been made the mere football of party, and subjected to all sorts of fluctuations, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Each party, as it obtained predominance, would have endeavoured to stamp its doctrines on to the consti- tution, which would soon have lost all exactness and precision. The framers of the constitution, therefore, intentionally inter- posed obstacles in the way of amendment, so as to allow time for party passions to cool, and required not only twc-thirds of the Congress to unite in a proposal of an amendment, but three-fourths of the people through their legislatures in con- vention, to ratify and approve that proposal. Their wisdom was shown by this very case. It was the pressure of circum- stan-^es, the desire of conciliation, that prompted Congress to , i is proposal of amendment, and had one vote less been cas .1, the proposal would have failed. But there can be little doubt that, had it ever been referred to the people, it would have been rejected. The error of this writer, then, is the same that an American would make who should declare that any bill recommended by a special committee appointed for such purpose in Parliament thereby became an actual law, although in fact no action was ever taken upf^n it by the House of Commons, and upon the basis of such a fact should attack the Government of England as having actually accepted and adopted the provisions of the bill, and insist that it afforded a more conclusive answer "than whole reams of argument" by any distinguished states- man to show the real policy of England. In the construction of the constitution, as creating an authoritative Federal Government, and not a federation of the States, liable to be broken at their will, we prefer to follow the actual provision of the constitution — the adjudicaticms through a long series of years by the Supreme Court of the United States, at the period when it was composed of the most distinguished men that ever sat upon that bench, seeking illus- tration from the opinions of such men as Washington, Madison, Jay, Marshall, Hamilton, Adams, and others — than to accept 56 the opinions of even the ablest men of England on a subject where, as we have seen, a gentleman of accomplishment, ability, and candour, falls into so deplorable an error as the writer in the Ed 'urgh, Bu„ here it may be as well to say, that even the opinions of the most distinguished men of America upon the constitution can only be considered as illustrative, and not conclusive as to its meaning. The constitution stands on its own basis, and is not to be propped up by opinions. It is a clear and formal instrument, not to be warped from the manifest purport of its language by any glosses ot interpretation. From all opinions appeal may be made to the constitution itself; if it does not clearly support them they must fall to the ground. We now come to another pretended grievance of the South against the North, which it will be worth while for a moment to consider — the so-called "Personal Liberty Bills." Massa- chusetts was on the point of entirely modifying hers, so as to remove all shadow of constitutional objection, at the very time when the civil war broke out. There is no space here to enter upon the question of their constitutionality ; but, certainly, to say the leasts a strong argument can be made in favour of it, and, indeed, has been made by Mr. Charlos G. Loring, one of the most distinguished lawyers of the Massachusetts bar. It may, however, be stated that the main object of these bills is to prevent the officers of the State from lending their aid in carry- ing out the Fugitive Slave Law, and the only question is whether the State has not a right to throw upon the United States authorities the duty of carrying out the provisions of this law. The clause under which the Fugitive Slave Law was passed is in the national constitution, and is a national guarantee. It is not in a State constitution ; it does not make requisition upon any State functionary to carry its provisions into efifect. In the case of " Prigg v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," the Supreme; Court of the United States directly says : — "The States cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them. It might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the powers of interpretation to insist that the States are bound 57 to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or entrusted to them by the constitution. On the contrary, the natural if not the necessary conclusion is, that the national government, in the absence of all positive provisions to the contrary, is bound, through its own proper departments, legislative, judicial, or executive, as the case may require, to carry into effect all the rights and duties imposed upon it by the constitution." Under this authoritative adjudication, then, the States are not compelled to carry the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law into effect. And may they not prohibit theii* officers fi"om assisting, if they choose ? But even this would never have been done had it been sup- posed that the Fugitive Slave Law was constitutional in itself. But denying as it does the right of a person accused of bemg a fugitive slave to a trial by jury, it directly violates the provision of the United States constitution, declaring that " no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property " without a trial by jury — a clause which includes questions as to fugitive slaves, whether they be considered as property, or as persons to be deprived of liberty. Without entering into any of the other arguments against the constitutionality of this law, for there is no space here, this alone would seem to be unanswerable j but when one also takes into account the fact that the ad- judication of any claim to a person accused of being a fugitive slave is given, not to a court or even to a judicia' officer, but merely to a commissioner of the U.."'ed States, whose fee is doubled in case he declare the person a slave, and that he is bound so to declare him on mereiy primd facie evidence, the law in a merely legal point of view seems monstrous. If to this be added the fact, that it insults the moral feeling of the North, we shall see, perhaps, good reasons why the States should go to the verge of their constitutional powers in rendering the carrying out of this infamous law as difficult ps possible. None the less, however, so determined was Massachusetts to I ^rform her coi»stitutior^al engagements, that she protected the United States authorities by her armed mihtia in carrying it c 68 out, and accompanied with bayonets the slave Simms to the sh'p which was to transfer him to the chains of his master. Nor is it alone in the North that the Fugitive Slave Law is considered as unconstitutional. It has been adjudicated to be so in a ~ >uthern State. The Charleston {South Carolina) Mercury, le organ of slavery, so decl:ires it, and in this opinion Senator tthett, of the same State, and Mr. Iverson, of Georgia, among others, have given their assent. This defect of trial by jury is deemed by some persons to be obviated by the fact that the remanding of the slave to his master is only preliminary, and that the slave may in his own State bring an action for his freedom, and the question be tried by a jury. But this argument shows a complete confusion of ideas. The o.iginal question is not whether a slave shall be surrendered, but whether the person claimed as a slave is a slave or notj and until this be decided by a jury, he cannot be deprived of liberty. Again, though the person thus remanded may have a right of trial in the State to which he is carried, he must be plaintiff in the action, and bear the burden of proof, which in such a case would be enormous, especially as, in the South, the very fact of his colour constitutes aprimdfacie case against him. Besides, it is plain that, with the laws, prejudices, and opinions of the South on this question, there would be little probability that a black man would ever obtain complete justice. The fact is, that the claimant must prove his case originally, and the burden of proof is legally on him. The belief that the "Abolitionists" (as all Northern men in any way opposed to the ultra doctrines of the South on the sub- ject of slavery are vaguely called) have ever intended to make any other than a moral and argumentative attack on slavery in the States arises, for the most part, from gross ignorance. It is fostered by public men and speakers of the fire-eating school, followers of the visionary doctrines of Mr. Calhoun, and at heart Secessionists and haters of the Union, in order, by exciting the passions and the fears of the Southern people, and by stimulating sectional jealousies, to bring about their favourite scheme of nullification and secession. For years they have 59 used every means to foment discord, by malignant misrepre- sentations of the feelings and objects of the North, by asserting and reasserting as fact the fictions engendered by their imagina- tions upon their ignorance or their evil desires, hoping by these wicked means to goad an excitable people to the ruin of the country. Shaking the red flag of " abolition,^' these matadors of the South have infuriated to madness and blindness the many-headed mob, until at last it rushes furiously on its own death. To inform themselves upon the real state of facts, and the real opinions of the North, did not suit their purposes, and they have skilfully managed to rouse the worst passions. The number of persons in the North really " Abolitionist*;," in the true sense of that word, is exceedingly small ; and strong as the anti-slavery feeling undoubtedly is in Massachusetts, yet even there, in what is called the head-quarters of abolitionism, there has been as yet no political party founded on the abolition of slavery in the States. Th^ w persons whose avov^ed object and aim are " abolition," are non-resistants and peace men by principle. They refuse even to exercise the right of franchise or accept office under the United States, and confine their eflbrts solely to arguments against the institution of slavery j • ile the whole body of the people, instead of endeavouring to jmpass the destruction of the South, has been fatally prone to com- promise and surrender even their constitutional right to act against slavery, for fear of irritating the South. The attempted raid of John Brown into Virginia, so far from receiving sym- pathy from pny part of the North, was denounced in every public meeting. Sympathy was, to some extent, expressed for the man — and in this Governor Wise, of Virginia, could not refrain from joining, wild as he was with rage — but no sym- pathy or justiiication was oflPered for the deed. It was con- sidered as unfortunate, inijustifiably wrong. Yet who taught this lesson to John Brown ? It was the slave State of Missouri. It was the border ruffians who made these murderous raids into Kansas. That was his school, and there he learned his lesson. At the very time that the South was raging against him and his treason, it was justifying and advising the self-same course in behalf of slavery. Chas. J. Faulkner, the late representative of 60 the district of Harper's Ferry, the ehairman of the Congressional Demoeratic Committee of 1856, and the United States minister to France under Mr. Buchanan's administration, at a demo- cratic mectinj; held in Virginia, says: — "When that noble and gallant son of Virginia, Henry A. Wise, declared, as was said he did in October, 1856, that, if Fremont sliouM be elected, he would seize the national arsenal at Harper's Ferry, how few would at that time have justified so bold and decided a measure ! It is the fortune of some great and gifted minds to see in advance of their contemporaries. Should William H. Seward be elected in 1860, where is the man now in our midst who would not call for the impeachment of a governor of Virginia who would silently suffer that armoury to pass under the control of such an executive head?" Is it for self-protection against violent assault against slavery by the North that the South secedes ? When was ever such an assault made except by John Brown ? With an amazing in- consistency we hear from Southern men that slaveiy is not only the humanest of institutions, having the sanction of God's holy writ, but that the slaves are so happy under it that they would not accept freedom, and would shed their last drop of blood in defence of their mastei's. Yet at the same time, and with the same voice, they say to the North, "You shall not discuss slavery. You will create insuiTcction among the slaves. You are putting the knife to the throats of our wives and children. They will rise and swamp the South with blood, and therefore we will not have Abolitionists amongst us : we will hang them on the first tree if they come. And as for the constitution and the rights of Northern citizens, by the law of self-presei'vation, superior to all constitutions, we are entitled to drive them out, and to take their lives." Yet both of these statements cannot be true, and it is useless to argue upon them. Acting, however, on this last argument, even before this outbreak of civil war, they have gone back into barbarism to protect slavery. Law and trial by jury have been scoffed. Vigilance committees have taken the place of courts of justice. Suspicion has been treated as ample proof; and at best a mei'e primd facie case, without opportunities of defence, has cost many 61 a Northem man his life. He happens to have a copy of the New York Tribune. He has spoken in favour of Mr. Lincoln. He has been unwise enough to say he does not object to the republican doctrines. " A la lanterne!" is the fierce cry of the vigilance committee, and his lifeless body swings to the nearest pecan tree. It is not merely against action, but against thought, that this frightful proscription is made. Lest this be contradicted, let one case stand for a thousand. It is the first that my hands fall upon, and is not selected. William 11. Craw- ford, of Maine, was Jiving in Tarrant county, in Texas. He was out one day with his team, carrying a load of sand, when three armed men came up, chargfng him with promising to assist a slave to run away. He absolutely denied it, and these men thereupon carried him off into a wood and hung him. The Fort Worth Chief, a Texan paper, gives tlie following notice of this little incident of "the sunny South:" — "Man Hung. — On the 17th inst. was found the body of a man by the name of Wm. H. Crawford, suspended to a pecan tree, about three quarters of a mile from town. A large number of persous visited the body during the day. At a meeting of the citizens the same evening strong evidence was adduced, proving him to hav^ been an Abolitionist.* The meeting indorsed the action of the party who hung him. Below we give the verdict of the jury of inquest : — ' We, the jury, fin.' that William H. Crawford, the deceased, came to his death by being h.'ng with a grass rope tied around his neck and suspended from a pecan limb, by some person or persons to the jurors unknown. That he was hung on the 17th day of July, 1860, between the hours of 9 o'clock a.m. and 1 o'clock p. m. We could see no other marks of violence on the person of the deceased. — W. A. Sanderson, J. P., acting as coroner ; E. M. Daggett, A.Y. Fowler, S. M. Jameson, A.M. Quayle, jurors.' " The following is the report of the meeting referred to as published in the same pap'jr : — " At a largo and respectable meeting of the citi- zens of Tarrant County, convened at the Town-hall, at Forth Worth, on the 18th day of July, 18G0, pursuant to previous notice, for the pur- pose Oi" devising means for defending the lives and property of citizens of the couaty against the machinations of abolition incendiaries, J. P. Alford was called to the chair, and J. C. Terrell Wi ~ appointed secre- tary. After the objcot of the meeting was explained by Col. C. A. Harper, the following preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted. — * Whereas the recent attempts made to destroy several neigh- * The evidence, be it observed, is given after ho has been hanged. t 6S Douring towns by fire, the nearly total destruction of one of them, coupled with tho conversation and acts of one William 11. Crawford, who wivH hung in this county on the 17th instant, prove conclusively to us the necessity of an organised effort to ferret out and punish abolition incendiaries, some of whom arc believed to bo in our country : Therefore, to discover and punish said Abolitionists, and to secure tho lives and propoity of our citizens, be it resolved, That we indorse the action of those who hung AV. II. Crawford in this county on the 17th instant, convinced as wo are, from tho evidence upon which he was hung, that ho richly deserved his fate. Resolved, that a central county committee be appointed by the President, C(uisisting of seven citizens, whose duty it shall be to appoint such conuuittces in every precinct in tho county, which sub-committees shall confer with and report to the central committee the names of all suspected persons in their precincts, which persons shall be dealt with according to the pleasure of the cen- tral committee. Resolved, — That tho members of this meeting hereby pledge themselves to support said central committee in the discharge of their duty in dealing with abolitionists and incendiaries. ' James P. Alford, Chairman. * J. C. Terrell, Secretary. " 'The central committee hereby notify all persons connected with or holding abolition sentiments to leave the country forthwith, or they may possibly have cause to regret remaining.' " The wife of this murdered man, in an account published in the Minnesota paper, called the Waseca Citizen, adds : — " And this was all that was ever published there to show the justice of the act. On the 18th his body was buried by the roadside. 1 have asked, in vain, for permission to have it buried in the village graveyard. After the body was brought in, three men came and said they had been appointed to examine our letters and private papers. They searched through the writing-desk, book-case, trunks, and everj^wherc that they thought letters or papers might be concealed. When they were leaving I asked them if they had found anything. They answered, 'Nothing but letters of friendship.' " When the North asserts that this is a war between freedom and slaveiy, they do not, or rather they did not, mean that it was a war of emancipation against the Southern States. Slowly and surely it is drifting in that direction, and if it be long continued it will undoubtedly become so at last. But in the origin it was a war engaged in by the South, with the object to extend slavery into the free territories; and the stand of the 68 long United States Government is not only to uphold the consti^ tution, as forming a government not to be broken down at the will of the States, but to carry out the principle that slavery shall remain in its present limits, and not be forced upon free territory, or at least to maintam the riglits of the maj )rity of the people of the United States to effect legitimately and legally such a principle. The Federal Government has been exceedingly cautious, even to timidity, in acting against slavery in the States. It has unwillingly accepted the service of fugitive slaves; and though its scruples on this point arc now overcome, it has never used, or threatened to use, geuLial emancipation as an arm of attack. It has not, therefore, used its greatest power. The moment emancipation is proclaimed there will of necessity be an end of the war. There arc four millions of slaves. It is said that the States of the South cannot be subju- gated — that is what wo shall see j and if they are subjugated they cannot be held — that, also we shall see. It is believed that, if not a majority, at least a very large minority in the South are in favour of the Union, and that the moment the Federal protection is given they will loudly declare their ad- herence to the Government. We have already seen, that as yet no clear expression of tbc popular wish has been given. For all that we know there may be large majorities in favour of the Union. If this be so, these majorities, when the States are subjugated, will rule it. Now they would lift their voice in favour of the Union at the risk of death. Secession has organ- ised itself, holds the power, and Union men can no more speak there than in Venice and Rome — and for the same reason. But it is England who says we cannot hold a subjugated State. Yet is not India a subjugated State? and does she not hold it? Nay, is not Ireland to all intents and purposes a subjugated State? and does she not hold it ? Let us not be alarmed at the words " subjugation and co- ercion." All war is coercion of the sternest kind; all putting down of rebellion and revolution, whether in India or South Carolina, is subjugation. If by subjugation be meant conquest for the sake of oppression, there is no such intention on the 64 part of the North. But if hy nubjugntion be inennt reducing revolted States to obedience for their benefit and the good of the whole country, subjugation is precisely what the North intends, and it thinks that it can effect that subjugation : not that it denies spirit, courage, energy, and abihty of all kinds to the South, but it thinks the sinews of war will there be wanting ; that the States are divided in opinion and desire peace; that they will take better counsel at last, or, at all events, that they will find themselves unable to resist the power of the North. They have thus fur had many advantages — but already there is dissatisfaction, and the beginning of discord. Their cause is bad, and they will suffer more than the North. Thus far they have made no progress at least, and they are slowly coming to u calmer and truer estimate of the power, determination, and resources of the North. They are further off than ever from such a settlement as they now seek by arms, and every day makes such an end more impossible. One great advantage the South has had in the general su- periority of its officers, many of whom were trained in the North, and educated at West Point. The South, having had the lion's share of patronage, has in this as in other branches of preferment got the better of the North. But the North has the raw material to make oflicers and soldiers — and the battle-field is a stern school. The London Times laughs at our volunteers, and defames our officers, as coming " from the shambles and worse places." That with some most eminent exceptions — such as General M'Clellan, who was generally considered as one of the best and ablest officers in the army, and others whose names are too well known to need enumeration — it is time that the greatest part of the Northern officers came from civil walks of life, though I am not aware that any of them came " from the shambles and worse places." Time and training are undoubtedly necessary to make such men into able officers — but I have the best hope of them. They will be taught by failure, perhaps, but they will gradually learn their duties ; and some of them may at last prove equal or superior to men who have had greater advan- tages in military education. It is worth while to remember 65 as lliat tli(J fi(M'y Lamics was hut a dyer ami n volunteer; that IMasscna, Morcau, .hiiiot, Soult, Augcnau, I}i'rna(h)ttt', lloi-hi', Mortiii', and otliers of tlic (jruiiJc nrmee, all rose IVum tlic ranks j all were volunteers, aiul noiut had any military education. IJcHsiiMTs was u haifdresst!!*, and St. Cyr a druwinfjf-nuistci' ; aiul both wen; volunteers and connnon soldiers. Yet it will not he disjjuted that they were at last good ofHetirs. TIk; list could he Considerably enlarged, but it will sufHce. If a dyer and hair- dresser could do such deeds, surely a butcher r ly, after he has had experience. IVIen are born great generals as they are born |)oet3 — training is undoubtedly necessary, but training is nut all. As for our siddicra, they have learned hard lessons, and profited by them. The defeat at Bull's Run was certainly unfortunate in one sense — it exposed us to a fire of f.u' ism not always in the best taste. But let us take those c iticirfins quietly: much of them was deserved; though it is not taken into account that, despite the sad spectacle of that day's panic, there was a great deal of hard fighting on that field, most honourable to untried and undisciplined troops. At L' esburg, at Spi'ingfield, the soldiers fought like veterans; and it will yet be seen that they are ca])able of heroic endurance and terrible ineigy. Hud the battle of Bull's Run been a victory instead of a defeat, it might have ended the war, perhaps; but the great cause of freedom would not have been '^'lined. The North would have compromised; if a peace had o'^- a patched up, it could only have been temporary. The South and the North have more lessons to learn ; and no ])tace which does not tear up the very roots of the rebellion will ever be permanent. I am one of those who believe that God does not mean us to conquer, until dire expia'icnce has brought us sternly to face the real facts. If we do not now settle absolutely the question of slavery, we have much to answer for to the future. A great trust will have been betrayed; and this settlement must be made, not in a spirit of revenge, but of justice. Meanwhile, the action of the South has been such as by no means to recommend its cause. The States have repudiated their just debts; refused to pay to merchants of the North the £ bo money due to them for goods honestly supplied; have driven out well-disposed and quiet persons who refuse the oath of allegiance to their treasonable conspiracy; and have been guilty of acts of ffi'ocity which even passion cannot excuse. On the field of liattlc they have murdered wounded and defenceless men; firod into ambulances; wreaked their barbarism on dead bodies; and shot down, in cold blood, peaceable men who diflfered from them. Of these facts there is but too much proof. I know that much is to be forgiven to passion; but there is a limit; and feel assured that i'aw Southern men would wish to justify such barbarities, but rather would indignantly deny them. Yet listen to the Richmond Examiner, the direct organ of the Confederate Government. The Editor is speaking of the Unionists of a portion of Western Virginia, and says: — " The most of them have packed up, ready to leave for Yankeedom at the shortest possible notice. In Braxton County every Tory has been shot by his neighbour; and in several other counties the citizens devoted to the Confederate cause arc doing good service in the same manner." The following extract from Colonel Geary's official report of the recent skirmish at Bolivar Heights, on the Potoiiuic, has stood for at least ten days uncontradicted, says the Neio York Tribune: — "One of the Union soldiers taken by the enemy was Corporal , Tiiird Wisconsin Regiment, who was wounded in the action. The other corporal, Benaiah Pratt, of Company A, Twenty-eighth Regiment Pennsylvania Vohmteers, was accidentally taken by a few of the enemy, whom he mistook for Massachusetts men; their uniforms corresponding in all respects to that of the latter. The four men who were killed were afterwards charged upon by the cavalry, and stabbed through the body: stripped of all their clothing, not excepting shoes and stockings, and left in perfect nudity. One was laid out in the form of crucifixion, with his hands spread, and cut through the palms with a dull knife. This inhuman treatment incensed our troops exceedingly; and I fear its consequences may be shown in retaliating acts hereafter." In the North and West the absence of violence of tone Inveu 67 against the South is remarkable. Even while sons, and bro- thers, and fathers are shedding their blood to maintain the cause of freedom, justice, and popular rights, against States in revolution against the Federal power, she apologises for the South. She believes that they are misled. She would gladly make up the breach and pardon the revolted States. But she does not intend to flinch from her duty — noi", I hope, to com- promise and betray the future. Every day strengthens her in her resolution, and believing her cause to be just, she will fight the good fight and conquer in the end. Whether or not particular men have been disunionists and preached disunion, is, it seems to me, little to the ])urpose. Far behind this lies the great question, Whether under the constitution disunion is possible ? If not, then these doctrines are simply revolutionary. They do not shake the constitution. Though Ireland defame and assault the constitution of Great Britain, though the Chartists threaten it, and Smith O'Brien organise an armed rebellion, that constitution still stands ; and it would be preposterous to argue that the doctrines thus pro- pounded, even though they were a thousand-fold more widely and fiercely expressed, afforded any just interpretation of the constitution of Great Britain. As for a division into various confederacies, which is re- garded in England as the most proper and satisfactory end of this conflict, I think the country will never submit to that till chaos comes, for it would be chaos to Anujrica. The example of conflicting States in Europe standing in mutual dread of each other, constantly on the brink of war, keeping up an arti- ficial scheme of balance of power, dreading the might, now of France, now of Austria, exhausting the resources of the nations in great armies and navies, merely to giuiid against contin- gencies and sudden outbieaks of war, is not a cheerful one. Europe is a failure. It cannot be offered as an example lo follow, but to avoid. A division of America into confederacies would be fatal. On the borders, so long as slavery exists, there would be constant inflammation and irritation. Standing armies would be necessary to prevent irru})tions. Constant conflicts would occur as to the navigation of great rivers. The 63 South would gain no advantage as to her fugitive slaves, but utter loss. Indeed, it is impossible to imagine any advantage to be gained by any one of the States, though the disad- vantages are large and manifest. Such a consummation is devoutly to be prayed against. The future of America is in the hands of God. I cannot believe that here is to be an end of the great Republic. The Union must be preserved, and, by the blessing of God, it will be. A tremendous strain upon its weak part has for a time broken it asunder ; but the country is in earnest, and it again will be established — not united by the poor solder of compro- mise, but with the stern matter of justice and right. These are the only means by which States ever can be consolidated. The rotten part of the great structure of the American Republic was slaveiy, and slavery cannot be welded together with liberty without slowly disintegrating it. We began as a republic, and we had become an oligarchy, domineered over by the slave power with which our fathers had compromised. Let us not again make the same fatal mistake. Repeated compromises have brought America to the verge of ruin. We must now insist on justice and right in reconstructing our Union — not for the sake of the North alone, but for the sake of all — north, south, east, and west — and for the sake of humanity. The crisis is a great one. America must expect to suffer for a time. She is not worthy of her great trust if she cannot endure the trial, and come out of it stronger than ever. If she must learn her lesson by defeat, let her not be disheart- ened. If she have courage and persistency for right, all will end well. The soft clay which goes into the furnace is made hard and durable only by fire. Republican institutions are on their trial. They must not fail. That would be a loss to civilisation and the world. w. w. s. Home, Dec. 1. London :— SxBANotWAVs & Waldek, Printers, 28 Castle St. Leicester Sq. but age iad- n is mot The will imc ;ain iro- lese ted. blic crty and lave not ises now not rth, The >r a mot If art- will lade ! on 3 to