should enjoy "impartial freedom." Such, in substance, was his reply to the Virginia delegation, and though he would not directly interfere in any State, or injure "slave" property any where, his mission, and that of his party, was to institute a policy that some day, or in some way, was to "abolish slavery," and secure "impartial freedom" for all men. Or, in other words, he was pledged to wield the common Government for the political and social destruction of the people south of the Potomac-a destruction so awful and irremediable, that in comparison it were better the earth. opened and swallowed them at once. A trap contrived by Mr. Seward drew the fire of the Confederates in Charleston Harbor, and enabled Mr. Lincoln to charge that they had fired on the flag, and brought on the conflict. Mr. Lincoln called for troops to force South Carolina to submit to his agents, sent from Massachusetts to rule over her, and this attempt to coerce sovereign States, forced Virginia to make common cause with her sister States. At first Mr. Lincoln affected a certain moderation, and while, as in the instance of the Virginia delegation, he utterly refused to abandon his "principles" of "impartial freedom" within Federal jurisdiction, he pretended to respect "slavery" within the States, and disowned the acts of some of his subordinates who had declared it abolished. Finally he threw off the mask altogether, declared society overthrown in the "rebel" States, and his armies, civil service, and the tout ensemble of his

"Government," rest on the principle of "impartial freedom" and everywhere within his jurisdiction, the (white) Federal Union of Washington is overthrown, revolutionized, suspended, and instead we have a "nation" on the mongrel basis.

What a wonder for all coming generations to contemplate, to be sure, a great people fighting for three years, sacrificing half a million of lives, and consenting to the overthrow of the Federal Union, to secure the immeasurable good of "impartial freedom," or amalgamation with negroes!

Summing up the foregoing, it is certain, 1st. That the anti-" slavery" party, led by Mr. Lincoln, was formed for the sole purpose of reversing the Dred Scott decision, and revolutionizing our political system, to transform the (white) Republic of Washington into a mongrel concern of whites, negroes, mulattoes, and sambos !

2d. It is certain that, when the States south of the Potomac refused to submit to the revolution, Mr. Lincoln made war on them, and if he can "crush the rebels," that is, can exterminate the fighting population of the South, the revolution will be complete, and instead of a Federal Union of white men, we shall become a "nation" of mongrels, the most degrading and contemptible the world ever saw.

3d. Finally it is certain that we are fighting not to free the negro, but to degrade and destroy ourselves by amalgamation with the lowest of all the human races.

DURING the reign of terror in France, one night, Danton, the terrible Danton, occupied the tribunal. He was boasting of the services he had rendered the state, and was eulogising

reason, justice, and humanity," when from an obscure part of the dimly lighted hall a strong, hollow voice slowly pronounced the word, September!

That terrible word September caused every one in the hall to shudder, and even for a moment staggered and silenced the imperturbable, the lying ty rant, Danton. For while he was trampling upon liberty, and murdering France, he perpetually harped about "liberty, justice, and equality."

Even the death-warrants of the thousands of eminent men and women who were arrested and condemned without law, were dated-" At the Abbey, year 4th of Liberty, and 1st of Equality."

This was in 1792. It was the September of that year which was alluded to by the strong slow voice in the Tribunal Hall. On the 2d and 3d days of that September, upwards of twelve thousand innocent men and women were inhumanly butchered by these friends of liberty, justice and equality!

No wonder that Danton turned pale and trembled at the word 'September.' That was just seventy years ago, the 2d and 3d days of last September.

Is it possible that those horrid events were no further off than that? Is it possible that so near our time human delusion went so far, and the liberties

of a nation fell so suddenly and so low?

Who will credit it? But history attests it, that such leaders of these bar barities as Marratt, Danton and Robespierre gained all their power with the people to do these lawless deeds of blood by calling themselves the friends of liberty, justice, and equality.

Good God! could such things be done in an enlightened nation like France only 70 years ago?

And why is it that the memories of these events start a thrill of horror through us now?

Why are we forced to recall those deeds of blood and crime against liberty? Why does that horrible word September ring perpetually in our me morics, like a fire-bell in the night?

One year before that dreadful September, there was not a man in all France who imagined the horrors that were coming.

The usurpation began small; was humble, talked charmingly of liberty, justice, and equality.

Sweet words! And the people lis tened to them, and mobbed those who would not listen to them, all the time throwing down their liberties faster than the tyrants could pick them up, until suddenly, at last, in those two days of September, the throat of France was cut!

"Oh, liberty !" exclaimed Mad. Roland, as she bared her beautiful neck to the axe, "what crimes are done in thy name !"

Now who can help drawing paral

lels between the days of the reign of terror in France, and these sad days of our own country?

If our deeds are less startling, they are not less violative of the sacred principles of liberty regulated by law. In the reign of terror the horror was greater, but the principle here violated is the same.

1st. In the French reign of terror citizens were arrested and plunged into the Bastile without the forms of law, at the will or caprice of any member of the Cabinet of the miscalled "Constitutional Government."

The just and pure-minded Abbe Ricard, testified that after his arrest he was taken before the committee, and he overheard a member ask in a low tone of voice, "What motive shall we assign for his arrest ?" "It is only ne cessary to state," replied the president, "that there were meetings of priests at his house." None will now say that we do not now fully match the reign of terror in illegal arrests. But there are two points in which the French usurpation was less culpable than ours. One is that although they arrested citizens illegally, they had the self-respect to give the public immediately thereafter a list of charges, real or fabricated, which were the grounds of their action. And again, the victims of the French reign of terror had at least the form of a trial, and were brought into the presence of the usurpers, and allowed the privil ege of defending themselves. Where as we, not only arrest without law, but we refuse to let even our victims know why they are arrested, and their case is decided, and they let out or detained in prison, without being confronted with their inquisitors, or al

lowed the form of a trial. Hundreds of peaceable, law-abiding citizens have been dragged from their families into military prisons, put in and let out again without ever being allowed to know of what they are accused.

O, when these unlawful decds be come matters of history, such a popu lar execration will fall upon us as never descended upon the leaders of the French reign of terror! For, if we have not shed blood, our assaults upon the sacred principles of liberty have covered a larger field. The space occupied by the French terrorists was bloody but narrow. Ours is wide, covering and crushing every principle of freedom that has rendered our institutions objects of wonder and admiration.

2d. We are repeating the lessons of the French Revolution, in the infatuation and fanaticism with which the crowd has seemingly welcomed the downfall of their own liberty.

So drunk were the people of Paris with the draughts of blood, that when any of the victims had the good luck to be acquitted by the judges, they were fallen upon and inhumanly murdered by the populace in the streets, as they came out from their dungeons. These things are horrible to think upon as we look back upon them over the distance of 70 years.

But we witness the same distortion of humanity in the insane malice with which thousands in our midst have sought to get their neighbors and friends arrested, and dragged off to bastiles without law or justice.

What madness! What crime ! Whenever the people permit the invasion of the rights of even one man, though he were only a beggar, the sa

of all is stricken down.

See that mad river of blood that swept over France! It was all started by the people themselves, who allowed the usurpers to take the first step in illegal arrests! Even in the very midst of the French terrors the usurpers tried to make a show of justice, which would be some relief if practiced by us at the present time.

When M. De St. Meard stood before the bloody committee of inspection, he boldly declared; “I am a downright royalist." There arose a general murmur, which was checked by the judge, who said: "It is not to judge opinions that we are here; it is to judge and decide upon their results.”

3d. Another parallel we are making to the astonishing delusions of the French Revolution, is the tameness and indifference with which we seem to regard violations of popular rights and the public laws. The generations of future times will not believe that all the execrable crimes of the French Revolution could take place among a civilized people, under their eyes, and by the consent of the depositories of the laws, in a city peopled by 800,000 inhabitants, who remained motionless and frozen with horror at the sight of a band of wretches hired for the commission of crime.

The number of assassins did not exceed five hundred, in a population of eight hundred thousand. The people of Paris could at any moment have put a stop to the lawless arrests which were dragging thousands of innocent citizens to dungeons and to death, if they had not been stupefied at the audacity of the crimes they witnessed.

Have we seen nothing like it lately?

out law, and against the fundamental principles of liberty, on which our very nation's existence depends; and stood paralyzed and silent at what has passed before our eyes?

But we shall not always stand paralyzed. We shall awake at last and demand a strict account for every right that has been invaded, and for every law that has been broken.

There is a "September" for us to rcfer to hereafter !

But it will be answered by those who are not ashamed to apologise for crimes against the laws, that we are dealing with rebellion. If that be so, there is the greater need that we scrupulously adhere to every part of the Constitution ourselves, and set the example of the eternal inviolability and sacredness of the laws.

With what face do we deal with rebellion against our Constitution and laws if we disregard them ourselves?

We say silence! to that brawler who proclaims that necessity requires us to break our own laws and Constitution.

If we confess that our Constitution and laws are not equal to any emer gency which justice and freedom demand, then we more than half admit the wisdom of the rebellion, and set ourselves adrift upon an unfathomable ocean of storms and whirlpools, out of which the Ship of State can never come in safety.

What lying madness to say that our Constitution and laws are not suffi cient for our day !-to admit that they are not great and glorious, and equal to any and every demand.

Necessity," said Mr. Trumbull, in the Senate last year, "is the tyrant's plea."