perhaps, than that existing in any other nation of ancient or modern times, the disregard of this element in the discussion of the causes of Secession appears to be one of the most remarkable facts in the history of political philosophy. The attempt will be made in this paper to show that climatic influences have not only affected the mental and moral character of the people of the South in a manner hostile to the Union, but have also generated those secondary causes commonly assigned as explanatory of Secession. The bearings of these truths upon the future stability of the Union, and consequently upon the question of reconstruction, will then be considered.

In the discussion of this question, we desire in the first place to show the secondary nature and consequent incompleteness of the causes commonly assigned as accounting for the dissimilarity between the North and South which resulted in Secession.

Chief among these is slavery. This "sum of all villanies," as Wesley aptly called it, breeds or aggravates so many social evils, that it is by no means wonderful that it should be considered the cause of all the phenomena which preceded and brought on Secession; and yet, in assigning it as the cause of Secession, for the purposes of history or statesmanship, the double defect of which we have spoken is strikingly manifest.

First, since it fails to account for its own presence. All the original Northern States held slaves, but one by one abolished "the institution," while the Southern States retained it. Here is a dissimilarity back of slavery which itself needs explanation. No one will suppose, for an instant, that the superior piety or humanity of the North accounts for this. There must have been some influences at work here which may powerfully affect the future, as they have affected the past. The influences so potent in retaining slavery, against the opinions of the civilized world, may be such as will tend to revive it, though under another name and form.

And secondly, slavery alone cannot account for the devotion of the South to free trade, for the prominence and power of the doctrine of State rights, or for the growth of a virtual aristocracy, all of which facts exerted a great influence upon Secession.

If any of these facts is assigned as the cause of Secession, its own origin still remains unaccounted for, while, moreover, any one of them is an insufficient explanation of that which we seek to account for. As regards free trade, the strength of this principle in the South arose from her almost exclusive devotion to agriculture, the North encouraging a diversity of pursuits. Here is a dissimilarity which needs explanation, and one which has always existed, as well while the Northern States held slaves, as since the passage of their emancipation laws. During the seventeenth century repeated attempts were made to establish manufactures in Virginia, but they signally failed, while proving successful in Massachusetts. The question, Why were manufactures never established in the South, as in the North? requires solution. That the devotion of the South to free trade was not alone sufficient to produce Secession has been so often and ably shown, that nothing need be added.

Again, taking the doctrine of State rights, the question arises, Why was this more powerful at the South than at the North? Or, taking the aristocracy of the South as the cause of Secession, a theory which perhaps would number more adherents than any other, the question remains, Why was there an aristocratic power at the South, and not at the North? For some years it has been the fashion in certain Southern circles to attribute this diversity to "inherent natural differences," the South claiming a superior aristocratic origin. This "vulgar mode of accounting for the diversities of conduct and character," as John Stuart Mill calls it, is rapidly falling into disuse, even when based upon correct data. But in this case all the

early history of the country confirms Hildreth when he says: "Both in Virginia and New England, the difference between 'gentlemen' and 'those of the common sort' was very palpable." Colonial annals show that the aristocracy was as marked in Massachusetts as in the "Old Dominion"; while in New York was seen in the patroons, the proprietors of the manors, the wealthiest and most powerful aristocracy in the Colonies. So the question arises here, as in the other cases, Why has the aristocracy died out in the North, and strengthened in

* History of the United States, Vol. I. p. 509.

the South? It can hardly be because of slavery; for the decline in the North and the growth in the South of aristocratic feelings were as marked and rapid while the Northern Colonies held slaves, as at any time since the abolition of slavery.

We apprehend that the only answer to these questions, and consequently the only complete explanation of the diversities between the North and South which resulted in Secession, is to be found in the diversity of the soil and climate of the Northern and Southern States.

And first as to slavery. In the North is a barren, sterile soil, compared with the rich, exuberant lands of the South. In the North it is a work of some difficulty to obtain the necessaries of life; hence no drones can be allowed, every man's labor must be of a valuable kind. Slave labor was not profitable here; it did not return the expense of feeding, clothing, and warming; while in the South less food, less clothing, and scarcely any fuel are required, and food is obtained at comparatively little cost. Where expenses are so slight, even the poor labor of the slave is profitable, or at least certainly was so in early times, when slaves were cheap. To the superior fertility of the soil, in itself partially the result of warmth of temperature, the more direct effect of a kindly climate must also be added. This in the South permits the cultivation of staples forbidden by Nature to the colder North, - tobacco in early Colonial times, afterwards rice, sugar, and cotton. These latter require large tracts of ground, and can be produced by unskilled labor, but need it in large quantities. Hence a double reason explains the firm establishment and retention of slavery in the South; and the same reasons account for the marked preponderance of indented white servants during Colonial times.

In addition to this influence, the effect of the climate upon intellectual and religious education, to be noticed hereafter, would render the South less susceptible to the moral arguments which undoubtedly had some share in the abolition of slavery at the North.

Secondly, as to the diverse pursuits of the sections. Why were not manufactures established in the South, as well as in the North? Not, as some persons would have us believe, because, needing skilled labor, the white mechanic would not

work by the side of the slave. As we have remarked before, this error is exposed by the fact that manufactures were established in the North nearly two centuries before the abolition of slavery.

But in New England, where manufactures succeeded, while they failed in Virginia, the soil gave but a bare subsistence, leaving nothing for luxury, and affording little for exportation as payment for foreign manufactured goods. The natural resort was to a home production of those articles which they could. not afford to purchase abroad; and consequently we see from the earliest days the manufacture of linen, cotton, and woollen clothes, iron, &c. But in the South just the reverse was seen. During the early Colonial times the great staple was tobacco, which the planters were obliged to send to England for sale. And the proceeds of this tobacco purchased the articles of dress which the New England Colonist was compelled to manufacture. For this reason manufactures were not established in the Southern Colonies. No class of society needed them to supply the necessaries or comforts of life; and in such a state of affairs, they never have been, and probably never will be, successful. The causes which prevented their establishment at a later day, when the population had increased, and the lands become exhausted, will be spoken of hereafter.

The same influences which made New England manufacturing also made her commercial, and nurtured her fisheries; while the want of incentives to these branches of industry in the South were, of course, the same which prevented manufactures. We have said nothing of England's colonial policy as an element in these questions; for, as it was about the same in each case, it does not affect the argument.

We have thus shown that the retention of slavery, and the exclusive devotion of the South to agriculture, were the results of her geographical situation. We now desire to show how this exclusive devotion to agriculture, together with the direct effect of the warm climate upon individuals, fostered the aristocracy of the South. Regarding the influence of slavery, we need add little to the immense amount already written and

* See this commented on in Jefferson's Notes, Query 19.

spoken upon this subject. We only design to show that some of the phenomena usually attributed to slavery have no connection with it; while other phenomena which it has affected would probably have reached the same result without its influence, although after a longer period of time. An example of the first has already been given in the failure of the Southern Colonies to establish manufactures; and an example of the latter is the aristocracy of the South.

It has been often remarked by writers upon political philosophy, that the country wholly devoted to agriculture necessarily tends to aristocracy, despotism, or some form of enslavement of the masses. Mr. H. E. Carey devotes nearly the whole of his work on "Social Science" to supporting and illustrating this proposition. Montesquieu, in "The Spirit of Laws," no tices this tendency, supporting himself by a quotation from Cicero. Buckle devotes some sixty pages of his "History of Civilization" to showing the truth of this statement, as applied to countries lying in warm latitudes, like the Southern States.† Other authorities will be cited farther on.

But, viewing the subject in the light of reason rather than of authority, and employing as convenient tests the conditions which Webster, in his speech at Plymouth, and after him De Tocqueville, assign as the causes of the maintenance of democratic institutions in this country,- namely, universal education, religious training, and the general division of landed property, the manner in which the exclusive devotion of the South to agriculture, and the more direct effects of the warmth of her climate, cause her tendency to aristocracy, will be sufficiently obvious.

From the large plantations required by her great staples arose a necessary dispersion of population, that scattered settlement, and absence of small towns, which strike a Northerner so forcibly in travelling through any Southern State. And, in fact, in a purely agricultural country, whatever the staple may be, there can be but few towns, since these are in modern times generally the result of manufacturing or commercial activity. Most of the large and many small towns of the North are Book XVIII. Chap. 1. † Vol. I. Chap. 2. Democracy in America, Vol. I. Chap. 17.