We may be told, that the Indians would not have done this! But we answer: They did do something very nearly like this, as between Conrad Weiser's Germans in the Shoharie Valley in New York, and on the Swatara, a branch of the Susquehanna, in Pennsylvania. They did the same thing with the Moravians in Central Ohio. Governor Hunter of New York interrupted the German settlement, in the Shoharie Valley, not the Indians! Thousands of other instances could be produced; but these suffice.

The fact is, that the British-American Indian policy was a repetition, in new forms, but upon the same false pretences, of the policy of Moses, who would send the Hebrews into Canaan with orders for the extirpation of the natives thereof, and predetermined for the Jews a lot of narrow-minded land laws, over areas, which he had not seen, and which were really never fully taken. Poor Judea struggled for centuries to overcome the incubus of these Mosaic rules. And so are the troubles between the white and the red man, for the last 250 years, attributable to false religious presumptions and economic mistakes as to lands. How immeasurably high does Manco Capac and his wife, as well as the princes of the Aztecs, stand above Penn, the Pilgrim Fathers, and all those Europeans, who came here to plant colonies, believing themselves to have in the Bible the best plan of governing man.

Would it not have been best to have placed the new comers under bonds to keep the peace with their new red brothers? Why not have them disciplined to a respect of the rights of others; and, if need be, have a few examples statuated by hanging some of the libertines and thieving miscreants? The Indian seldom broke a promise made by his chief, and then only after the whites broke faith with him. Why were the colonists less loyal than the Indians? Because their public authorities were hypocritical, and had lost due restraint over the people. Had they been as they should have been, and they would never have asked the Indians to vacate their lands entirely, but would have invited them to have individualized possessions of land and commodities with them; and thus have inaugurated society with a joint public authority for the punishment of infractions on the rights of others. Refusing to live together, and preserving the tribe, was the easier way, and that is the reason why it was adopted. It was then, as it is to-day (1878), in the Turkish question. There were then, and are now in Europe, would-be wise men, who shrink from their real duty, because it would have taken more purity of purpose, and more practical good sense, than they had at their command. So they

talked religion and acted irreligion, and in the name of humanity made humanity suffer. The thing most wanted was, an honest government efficiently administered and protecting all.

Could not the same force, that made the Indians emigrate, have compelled them to stay, if it had been directed by real statesmen; or rather let us say, if the statesmen had not been foiled by popular prejudice? The question answers itself, and it is as applicable to-day, as it was to the first hostile proceedings against the Indians nearly 300 years ago. The Cherokees and Creeks accepted the presence among them of Indian agents and traders, as well as of instructors in agriculture. Why should they refuse the co-residence of friendly whites, if they could be assured, that there would be over both a joint authority, chosen by themselves, but backed by the federal arm?

It must be obvious to every observing mind, that the setting apart of Indian territories or reservations, really settles nothing except the removal of Indians from lands, which some white folks coveted. The lands now assigned to the Indians will eventually be as much surrounded, as their original homes were, and then the same questions will arise again. Will we compel them to emigrate again? Or will we rise to the full height of the situation, and stand on the only true ground, to wit: that anomalies shall cease, that all shall be subject to the same law, and to the same general action, interaction, and reaction of society? The denaturalization of the Indians must cease; their moralization must come through socialization and wise politics.

If we would but look north of us, we would see, that in Canada are going on affiliations, whose effects might be a lesson to us. Of one of these-that in Manitoba, in the Dominion of Canada- Our Age" says, 1872, eighth series, p. 773

"The mixture of Indian and European blood in the halfblood has various grades; and as the intermixture is still going on, there has been really formed a 'new nation,' and the people call themselves such. The young folks are active, handsome fellows, but are much inclined to seek pleasure, and are very irritable. They have the reputation, that they combine the faults of both races, but that is not true. When they enjoy education they are not behind the whites in either civilization or moral conduct. They possess sharp intellects, and are apt learners. Many of them have distinguished themselves as clergymen, scientists, teachers, and officers. Often the traces of Indian mixture are invisible. In nearly all cases, even on the first mixture, the half-blood is handsome in face and figure. Prettier faces, than are found among the French half-blood girls, cannot be imagined; and even the less beautiful

faces are attractive for the splendid eye. They become rapidly aged; with thirty years their bloom disappears; and when they are old, the Indian features develop markedly. The lively 'bois brule' is seldom steadily industrious; he is more hunter than farmer, and spends his time much on horseback and in adventures. He loves his Indian relatives, and intermarries with the Indians. The Scotch half-blood is more industrious, desires to learn, reads much, avoids intercourse and marriage with Indians. He loves agriculture more than the chase."

Many of the Indians, now in the United States, know of the superior treatment which Indians receive in Canada, as compared with our Union; and migrations are taking place, towards the region, where this new nation is springing up. From all descriptions it is the healthiest area in North America; and the gradual dying out, which oppresses the Indian's mind in the States, does not depress the full or half blood in Manitoba. There, there are no longer any treaties with Indians as tribes; they absorb and are absorbed, as immigrants are in the United States. This is an immense step in the right direction, and we never read of the councils held by our generals with Indian chiefs, that we are not reminded of Walter Scott's description of Hayraddin Mangrabin as ambassador from W. de la Mark to Charles of Burgundy, in the novel "Quentin Durward." These councils, or "talks," as they are sometimes called, are so many farces, that cover many tragedies. Each side pretends to fairness, both desire some advantage. The Indian sells lands he really does not own, which, in fact, he can hardly be said to occupy; and he pretends to being an authority, that has no foundation in any jurisprudence. Congress legislates for forty millions of whites and blacks; why not, if they were represented, for half a million of Indians? They should become an integral part of our society, or be placed beyond its folds altogether.

Instead of treating with each other in temporary councils, that meet but for an hour or two, and act on mere local ephemeral matters, let us bring Indian affairs within the sphere of the common government, and pass upon them, subject to all the rights and all the duties of the other members of society. No one would propose, or, if proposed by somebody, nobody would agree to let the Catholics, the Mormons, the negroes, the Quakers, the English, the Irish, the Mexican, or the Germans occupy in this country the relation the Indian does. How, then, can that, which is wrong for all the rest, be right for the Indian? Why should that, which is right for all, be wrong for the red man? We have a general government, we have states, and also muni

cipalities; each has its sphere, and within all of them the Indian must find his place, neither weaker nor stronger than the other parts of our people, but their equal. We have compelled the South to reassume her place in the federal government, and have even imposed on them great social changes: shall it be said, that we shrink from letting the red man know, that diplomatic farces shall have an end, and that he shall come into the general play as an integral element of our society and government?

CHAPTER XXIII.

SECESSION.

"The necessity to be obsequious to the many, induces flattery to popular passions, and leads thereby to public demoralization."

-Johannes von Müller.

WE think the time has come (1879) when the causes and events of the late war (1861-65) may be presented in the way which a judge would use, when, after having heard the arguments of both parties, he sums up the law to the jury. Whether a citizen of a northern state, who has been an unwilling, but to neither side hostile witness of the conflict, which he tried in vain to prevent, is capable to be thus impartial? is a question, which the reader must decide after reading this chapter. We believe, that we have closely observed the facts, patiently studied the law, and are disposed to do justice to the subject. And though deeply wounded in our feelings before, during, and since the war, know, that we have no resentment left. And we hope that with others the passions and prejudices of the hour have also died away, so that we may now reason together. At one time it was deemed treason to be unbiassed on this question, and to have an equal fraternal feeling to both contestants; but as we were not then intimidated from avowing our convictions, so are we not now afraid to speak the truth, and to say that the war came, because neither the South nor the North had the high-toned regard for each other, which is necessary to a healthy Union: they had drowned it in their party feelings.

Nevertheless must we not forget, that, while the sections were, as bodies-politic, at war with each other, there were individuals in both, who were mutually at peace, and who sympathized with neither of the belligerents in their hostilities. Let us also remember, that there was not before the war, nor during it, and that there is not even now, a political party in America, that was not oftener wrong, than right. It becomes, therefore, all of us to confess that, in expressing our graduallyripened convictions, we break the staff over many idealities of