THE

Ir is the high profession of the Republican party that they are seeking "to bring the Government back to the principles and policy that governed our fathers at the formation of the Union, and for a long time afterwards." Mr. Sumner, Mr. Seward, and all the lights of that party, dwelt at length upon this idea in nearly all their speeches, during the Lincoln campaign. The leading organ of that party in Massa. chusetts, just after the election of Mr. Lincoln, said:

The great issue in the election has been settled by a popular verdict, and settled against the claims of the South. That decision cannot be reversed. It is entered up for judgment; and having been settled precisely upon the principles that ruled with all parties when the Union was formed, and for & long time afterwards, the South has no just ground of complaint with the decision. It will not be wisdom in the South to attempt to contravene that decision."

Now, it is a remarkable fact, that the South also, through its statesmen, its press, its conventions and resolutions, claims that all it ever asked was that the Constitution should be interpreted, and the Government conducted "precisely upon the principles that ruled with all parties when the Union was formed, and for a long time afterwards."

In 1849, the Senators and Representatives in Congress put forth an address fully declarative of the position of the South. Mr. Calhoun was the author of this address, and appended to it were the names of Hunter, Mason, R. B. Rhett, H. V. Johnson, Fitzpatrick, Butler, Jefferson Davis, and others, who, it will be confessed, represented the most extreme demands of the slave-holding States.

This paper was addressed to the South, and it must be taken as an honest avowal of the utmost claims of that section of the Republic. In the opening paragraph it proposes "to give a clear, correct, but brief account of the whole series of aggressions upon their rights."

It proceeds to say that "with few exceptions of no great importance, the South had no cause to complain prior to the year 1819." So here we have the South officially on record that it was satisfied with the Union, and with the principles and policy of Federal legislation from the beginning down.

to 1819.

And the Republican leaders tell the people now that all they are after is,

"to bring the Government back to the principles and policy that governed our fathers, at the formation of the Union." If the people credit what these men profess, they must, of course, believe that the South is entirely in the wrong. If it be true that Mr. Lincoln and his party have sought to administer the Government on the principles and policy of our fathers, and that such has all along been the position of the North, then the South is utterly without excuse, and her leading statesmen have been impostors and demagogues. If, on the other hand, the South was really satisfied with the Constitution, and with the early administration of the Government, the leaders of the Republican party are impostors and demagogues, and falsifiers of a most infamous character. There is a monstrous degree of fraud and lying somewhere. The South says she was perfectly satisfied with the Union and with the Constitution, as long as its principles were respected by the North, as they were interpreted and administered by its founders. The Republicans tell the people that all they are trying to do is to bring the Government back to those very principles, which the South professes that she was so much satisfied with. Why, then, are we cutting cach others' throats? Why is the South suffering all the horrors of an unchristian and an uncivilized war, if Mr. Lincoln and his party is simply trying to follow the principles and policy of the fathers, which she always so much admired?

Now, it is a great question, which has departed, the North or the South? A question which bad men and partizan impostors will seck to have an

swered only by prejudice and passion; but which good and just men will try to solve by reason and truth.

What, then, were the principles and policy of our fathers on this question of slavery? Whatever they were, the South had a right to hold the North to the faithful administration of them, or to declare the compact broken. No intelligent, fair-minded man will deny this. Webster well declared that "a compact broken on one side is broken on all." We have no right to hold the South to her share of the Constitutional compact which made the Union, a single hour after we have violated it ourselves. If one party submits to an infraction on the part of the other, it is an entirely voluntary thing with her, not demanded by justice, nor by the laws of nations. The way to find out who is the aggressor against the principles and policy of our fathers is to go at once to the Constitution. In what way is 'slavery' recognized and guaranteed in that immortal instrument? In not less than six points it recognizes the legality of 'slavery,' and establishes the claims of the master.

1. It prohibited the abolition of the 'slave' trade until 1808. Thus, the very act of establishing the Union, by the adoption of the Constitution, legalized the importation of 'slaves' for twentyone years.

2. The Constitution allowed a tax of not over ten dollars for every 'slave' imported, thus deriving a revenue from 'slavery.'

3. It especially provides that 'slaves' escaping into the northwest territory, ceded by Virginia, should be returned to their masters.

4. It provides for the taxing of 'slaves' as property.