western, and some of the border states, and to see then the crowded churches and schools and places of amusement, and the activity and general prosperity in almost every department of business, and the good cheer that seemed everywhere to prevail, a man, unacquainted with the facts, would not have dreamed of war anywhere on the American continent. Up to that time the loyal states had responded promptly to every call of the government for men and means, and as soon as the demand was met, "they turned every one to his farm, and to his merchandise," and except in cases of personal bereavement from the loss of friends in the war, there seemed to be but little humiliation before God, or recognition of his chastening hand. I felt then, and said to many friends, that if the Lord designed a chastisement of the nation that would improve her relations to his moral government, He would have to deal with us much more severely than He had done: that we certainly were not yet ready for a successful—“ Onward to Richmond." More recent developments help to demonstrate the truth of my theory.

II. The second providential end to be accomplished by the war, I believe, will be the final overthrow of the "institution of slavery." To elucidate the theory on which I predicate this assumption, it will be necessary to state a few facts showing the relation of slavery to the war. African slavery in America, it is well known, is older than the nation itself, and although the fundamental principles of the government, as defined in "The Declaration of Independence," and in the Constitution, would guarantee to all her loyal subjects, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," still the government had to adjust its administration to the institution of slavery, as already established too firmly to admit of its immediate removal, Massachusetts being then the only free state in the "Union."

The legal relations and control of the question, except in the district of Columbia, and in the territories not yet organized into states, were left to local state legislation. The national government could not adopt the institution, for it was directly antagonistic to her fundamental principles, and not having power then to grapple with it and remove it, left it, as a necessary evil, to be dealt with and removed by State legislation, and accordingly the work of emancipation went on as far south as "Mason and Dixon's line." Very earnest efforts, too, were made in Virginia and Kentucky in the same direction, which they say were frustrated by the zeal of the "Northern Abolitionists," in trying to hasten the good work. For many years after that, Southern statesmen and the Southern people generally admitted that slavery was wrong, but with the growth of the tobacco and cotton trade, and the immense wealth

involved, they began to feel that it was an evil they could patiently endure; next concluded that it was no evil at all, and finally that it was positively a good thing to all concerned. The development of pro-slaveryism is well illustrated by the history of the "Methodist Episcopal Church South," which seceded in A.D. 1844, from the "Methodist Episcopal Church" on that ground alone—a history with which I am quite familiar, but can only advert to here. When such men as Rev. William A. Smith, D.D., and Rev. Henry Bascom, D.D., afterwards Bishop Bascom, wrote and published pamphlets and books to prove that slavery, so far from being an evil that should be abolished, was in fact an institution of God, to be supported by Bible authority, extended over the nation, and perpetuated for ever, nearly the whole South accepted the new moral platform, and from quiet conservatives, saying as little about slavery as possible, because unable to speak in its favor, they became open defenders, and rabid propagandists of the thing. A fierce ecclesiastical war was waged from that time all along the border of free and slave soil. The "General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South," in 1854, put a new construction on the rule against "buying and selling men, women and children, with an intention to enslave them," which was fundamental in the church from which they seceded, and which was retained in the "Church South" discipline till they got their portion of the book-concern property belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church; but now to get rid of its practical bearings on the institution," the said General Conference decided that the rule did not apply to domestic slavery at all, but to the "African slave trade.' At their next General Conference, in 1858, they struck everything pertaining to slavery out of their discipline altogether. I was in the city of Richmond, Va., at the time, and read carefully the deductions of the political press from their action, which were in effect, that if such a body of learned Christian ministers could see no evil in the re-opening of the slave trade with the coast of Africa, of course politicians and worldly men could see no evil in it, and therefore it must be right. Very soon after that the sentiment was currently received in the South, that the importation of poor heathens from Africa, and their admission to the glorious privileges of Christianity in American slavery was the greatest missionary enterprise of the age in which we live, and the only obstructions to this most charitable work were the "miserable abolitionists of the north," and British men-ofwar which claimed the right of search over their missionary ships. Among the political developments of pro-slaveryism, I may mention

1st. The repeal of the "Missouri Compromise," which com

promise was made in the interest of slavery, to prevent the advance of freedom south of a definite line, and now repealed that slavery might be extended indefinitely through the territories north of that line. 2nd. The "Fugitive Slave Law," practically extending slavery through all the free states. The South reaping all the pecuniary advantages, and the whole North laid under contribution to catch and return all the fugitives who might try to escape. Meantime many leading political newspaper editors, seeing that the anti-slavery party could treat them to nothing better than righteous principles, and that the South had the "loaves and fishes," espoused the Southern cause, and public speakers who dared to assail the "institution "" were gagged and choked down by every available means. The North submitted to this degradation for the sake of peace. 3rd. The practical re-opening of the slave trade, by which hundreds of natives from the coast of Africa were smuggled directly, and vid Cuba, into the Southern states, and an insult to the British flag for presuming to search American slavers a few years ago, which threatened an open rupture between the two nations. 4th. This infatuation of slavery propagandism finally culminated in open rebellion, and the present organized effort to overthrow the Federal Government.

I find many in the United Kingdom who have an idea that the South were suffering terrible oppression under the Federal Government, which goaded them into the war spirit. But it is a fact, patent to every American certainly, that the South have had the balance of power in the Federal Government from its organization till the time of their withdrawal for the purpose of its overthrow. True, the admission of California, in 1850, and the subsequent admission of Minnesota and Oregon, as free states, gave the balance of power in Congress, nominally, against them ; still, by bullying force and political intrigue, they retained in fact the balance of power, and the government was administered specially in their interest. Out of volumes of evidence to prove this fact, I need only advert to the subjugation of the whole of the free states to the odious demands of the "Fugitive Slave Law." The Republican party itself, with an avowed purpose to prevent the extension of slavery into the territories, were nevertheless solemnly pledged not to interfere with it in the states. If the South had a list of grievances that would bear the scrutiny of common sense, they would not fail to publish them to the world; yet who can show a case in which the Federal Government ever oppressed them, or interfered with their rights. Their complaint about the "tariff" is but a mere pretext, for though it afforded protection to home manufactures, the political object of it, as is now in the case of Canada, was a revenue to the government, to

which the North contributed more than the South because of her much more numerous population, but in which the South shared much more largely than the North in the way of governmental patronage, and in public government works. All the immense expenditures in the national capital itself were in the South. If we add to this the greatly superior postal revenues of the North, it will be seen that the North contributed more than the South to support the government, in which Southern politicians held the most lucrative offices, and whose monied resources she mainly controlled. The tariff! What an excuse for forcing upon the nation and upon the world the horrors of war. They have complained, to be sure, of the interference of the "Abolitionists" with their "institutions." And what did they do? It is very clear that they did nothing through the Federal Government to oppress the South, or they would, at least, have repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, which was most odious to them. What dreadful thing did they do, indeed, to provoke the South to drag the nation into such a war? Why, a few men and women in the North ventured, through the press and in public debate, to express views adverse to slavery; and a few persons, on their own personal responsibility, at the hazard of the heaviest penalties of the law, ventured to give aid and comfort to the fugitives whom they found fleeing from their masters. A ship-master was convicted in Petersburg, Va., a few years ago, of having offered passage on his vessel to a few slaves who desired to emigrate North, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for twenty years. I was in the city of Richmond, but a few miles distant, at the time, and the "outrageous conduct of the ship-master," and the "justice of his sentence," was the popular theme of conversation in all circles. He has been now four years in prison, and has sixteen to serve, unless the Federal armies release him and send him home to his family.

The real grievance to the South, I apprehend, was this: The North with free labour and free schools were multiplying their population too fast for the South. To attract emigration to the South-western slave states, six hundred acres of land were offered in Arkansas to every family that would settle there, and in Missouri land was offered for sixpence per acre; while land in Iowa, not any better in quality, and climate not so good, readily commanded twenty-four shillings. The mass of independent, enterprising men, who were seeking new homes refused to settle in a slave state, while multitudes of Southern men, glad enough to get away from slavery, annually emigrated to free soil. What was worse still, the anti-slavery sentiment of the North was developing itself, and extending its influence, so that the South saw that among the probabilities of the future the North would certainly outvote them,

(though every five slaves gave to the master three votes besides his own,) and might then possibly interfere with slavery. Hence to prevent the North from acquiring the balance of power in the government, which they claimed by right of possession from the first, they have for years been acquiring, by political stratagem and war, and Federal Government money, new territory South, as fast as possible. Hence the annexation of Texas, and the purchase of New Mexico and California, and the abortive effort to possess Cuba.

But, shocking to tell, the gold attraction of California drew together such a population of enterprising Northern men, and Englishmen who loved freedom, and men too from the South, who were glad to get away from slavery, that ere the South were aware of the danger, California, with a constitution prohibiting slavery, knocked at the halls of the United States Congress, and was admitted a free state. The South never got over that disappointment, and Californians only know how much trouble the Southern politicians have given them, in trying to break down their free constitution and introduce slavery on the Pacific coast. To offset that, the South determined, through the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, to carry slavery into the North-western territories, but the Northerners poured a tide of emigration into Kansas, and organized a free state, on soil that, but for the said repeal, must have been preserved sacred for slavery. That was an outrage that the South never could forgive, but it would not do to make that an ostensible ground for trying to overthrow the government, for it was accomplished by the activity of free enterprise in accordance with the constitution and laws of the nation, not through any intentional aid of the general government, for that, as I have shown, was administered in the interest of the South, and threw all the weight of its influence against the movement in favor of freedom. Then, to cap the climax, the Democratic party, like St. Paul's prison-ship, "fell into a place where two seas met," ran aground," and was wrecked "by the violence of the waves ;" and the Republican party, by constitutional majorities, elected to the presidency of the nation an honest man, and what was worse, the representative of a party avowedly opposed to slavery. The South could not stand such treatment as that any longer, and hence the rebellion.

I find many on this side of the Atlantic who claim for the South the right of revolution under the precedent of the revolution of the American colonies in 1776. Now, let any sensible man look at the facts. The colonies stated their grievances, and prayed long and loud for legal redress. The seceding states did neither, but clandestinely, and most adroitly and efficiently too, made all