motive in reality was not merely to render justice to the South, but to see to the common safety of the whole body politic, as involved in maintaining the Constitution, which, if broken in an essential part, was no longer a safeguard in any of its provisions; in observing fidelity, in respecting law, and in upholding freedom, civil and religious, according to the spirit of the Great Charter intended to perpetuate both.

It will be observed that much prominence has been allowed to the State of Massachusetts, in the progress of the discussion. The fact is, that the course of national politics, in one of the principal Northern States, affords a sort of clew to its operation in them all. It would have been equally impossible, with any regard to space, and useless, also, to give any thing like a detailed account of local politics in the several States. In addition, it may be remarked that Massachusetts presents, perhaps, the most striking example among them all; since no State has been more conspicuous in pressing the claims of State rights from the earliest period. Whoever may read the history of Massachusetts, since the formation of the Union, as well as before that event, will scarcely fail to be convinced that no State has been at times more exclusive and sectional. Large numbers of its people have looked upon themselves rather as men of Massachusetts than as American citizens; and their boast has been of their State quite as much as of their country. It is easy to see how, from any excessive indulgence of this sentiment (and certainly there has been much in the annals of Massachusetts to foster peculiar pride), consequences might flow tending seriously to the prejudice of the general welfare.

In order to show the relations of the present situation of

affairs to the fundamental principles of the republic, it seemed necessary to devote considerable space to preliminary details. The preparation of this part of the work, especially, required much more research and labor than I had anticipated; rendered oftentimes embarrassing by the absence of dates in not a few of the many authorities consulted, particularly in pamphlets. This defect I have endeavored to supply, and trust I have been able to bring within reasonable compass a great variety of facts otherwise to be sought for in many different sources. The work was not contemplated until after the close of the war, when the occasion seemed to present itself for a review of the national condition. The claim for this service demanded also its speedy accomplishment. So brief a period, therefore, has been allotted to the work, that, though I believe it will not be found liable to the charge of inaccuracy, yet I can only hope that I have performed a task which it seemed to me the duty of some one to undertake, in a manner which may, perhaps, serve in a degree to lighten the pains of the future historian.

GEORGE LUNT.

BOSTON, December 7th, 1865.

ORIGIN OF THE LATE WAR.

CHAPTER I.

Statement of the Question.-General Sentiment of the Country, in regard to Slavery, before the War.-Condition of the Negroes in the North and in the South.-The Slaves of Jonathan Edwards.-The Declaration of Independence, and Mr. Jefferson's Comment.-A Provision of the Constitution, and Votes of Northern Members of the Convention.-Alexander Hamilton in "The Federalist" upon the Mixed Character of Slaves.-Washington, in regard to a Fugitive Slave.-The Ordinance of 1787.-The Resolution of Congress in 1790.-Views of Southern Members at that Time.-Article X. of the Constitution-Memorials to Congress for Abolition in the District of Columbia.-J. Q. Adams on the Subject.-Virginia and other States early for Emancipation by Gradual Process, but set back by Abolition Movements in the North.

Ir has often been remarked that slavery was merely the occasion, not the cause, of the late civil war. This is true in the sense that slavery was but the incident, out of which grew questions of State rights, and the rights of Territories seeking to become States, in their various relations and modifications. If it can be shown, however, that the war could not have taken place except for the passions excited by opposition to negro slavery in the country, and in its defence, the proposition in question amounts to a distinction without a difference. Slavery, in the popular sense, was the cause, just as property is the cause of robbery.' Right

In a stricter sense the Constitution, which provides for representation and taxation, partly based on slave labor, and for the restoration of fugitive slaves, was the cause. Without those provisions, there could have been no civil war on this account. The point is stated by the Apostle: "For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Rom. vii., 7, 11.

....

fully or wrongfully in the country at first, it was here under the protection of the law, and not subject to be taken away by violence, or by any insidious device of abstraction. The motive for the allegation springs from a desire to throw the blame for the tremendous conflict upon one section alone, and to excuse the other. The object is, to make it appear that the country would have remained at peace, had it not been for the ambitious instigators of rebellion at the South. Upon this ground, although the Southern chiefs are made directly responsible for whatever mischief has befallen their domestic institution, the North deprives itself, at the same time, of the benefit of any argument derived from moral obligation in respect to slavery. It thus seems that the latter would have consented to allow slavery to remain undisturbed in the South, but for the agitation of the question in that part of the country where it existed. According to this theory, therefore, those whose manifest interest and supposed personal security depended upon keeping the matter quiet, voluntarily and causelessly made it a subject of dispute, which gathered additional vehemence until it terminated in open war. Reason, it is certain, does not always control the action of men, either in their public or private relations; but it must be admitted that conduct like that imputed to the South is without example in the history of nations.

Beyond question, popular information on this whole subject is indistinct and incomplete, both in the United States and in Europe. Its important bearings upon the future may render an effort to afford the public mind some light in regard to it both justifiable and valuable. Ordinarily, it is thought, the story of recent events cannot be written with entire regard to impartiality, nor a just estimate be formed of their results by contemporary judgments. On the other hand, not a little of the uncertainty of history is due to the want of contemporary narration. Much of the present volume, however, will relate to a period some time past, and we have not yet reached absolute results. These, whether for good or ill, will depend very much upon the deductions

SENTIMENT ABOUT SLAVERY BEFORE THE WAR.

3

we make from the character of events already transacted; and to be of any real service, now is the time for the history of those events to be written.

It was the sentiment of a large majority at the North, before the war began, that slavery, in itself considered, was neither right nor wrong. It was a question of policy and of law, not of morals. Probably, most would neither have desired to hold, nor to see any human being held in bondage, if freedom were consistent with his welfare. As it respected the negroes in this country, the whole question at the North turned upon that point; but practically, it was one with which the people of the free States conceived they had nothing whatever to do. In parts of the country not peculiarly fitted for the beneficial use of negroes in that relation, their gradual liberation and removal to their native land was thought desirable. In other sections, better adapted to the laborious employment of black men than of white, and from which the North and the South alike derived advantage, it was held that the well-being of the colored race, equally with the common good, required the subjection of that race and its enforced labor. In no case, except where their numbers were so comparatively insignificant as to make it a matter of no real consequence, was it thought advisable that negroes should be admitted to any of the civil privileges of the white man. A different policy would seem useless, if not mischievous, to them as well as to their superiors, and degrading to the latter without being of any moral advantage to the former. The instance cannot be shown in the country of equal social station accorded to the blacks with the whites. It is a condition against which Nature itself rebels, and, being the strongest, conquers. In those States which have manifested the most earnest enthusiasm for liberating the slaves of their fellow-citizens, no disposition has been heretofore shown to place the black man upon any terms of actual equality with the white.

This anomaly is especially marked in Massachusetts, at last the most forward of all the States in promoting the