at Chicago. The Southern editor, Rev. A. A. Porter, says:

We do not intend to report the particulars of this correspondence, which would be profitless. We allude to it for a different purpose. We have called it a sign of the times! We regard it as such for several reasons: Because Dr. Rice, who has heretofore been DIS- . TINGUISHED as a defender of slavery and the South, and as an antagonist of the antislavery party, now has wheeled about with Dr. Hodge, and, like him, appears on the other side, against the South and Slavery. We have heard much of late about a reaction in the North in favor of the South, and have been assured that our cause was gaining ground there. Does this look like it?

To appreciate fully the point here made, it is only necessary to bear in mind that this comes from one who well knows the course of opinion and discussion in the Church and the country, and that it comes from the capital of South Carolina. If the course of Dr. Rice for twenty years past has such an estimation in such a quarter,-where, to be "a defender of slavery and the South," and to be "distinguished" as such, has a meaning whose significance cannot be mistaken,-it is better testimony than any we could give to show how great has been his influence, and on which side it has been exerted, during the gestation period of that gigantic iniquity which at length gathered sufficient strength from such nutriment to come forth armed and equipped to make war upon good government and popular liberty. This same article pronounces Dr. Rice "probably the adroitest debater now living," another indication of the high esteem in which his defences of "Slavery and the South" were held,-and thousands at the North well know, that had not the class of which he is so prominent a representative taken the course they did, there would have been formed such a public sentiment in the Church at least as would have

SOUTHSIDE VIEW OF NORTHERN CLERGYMEN. 91

checked the growing proslaveryism and spirit of domination in the South, and which would have gone far towards preventing secession, treason, rebellion, and war.

The name of Dr. Hodge occurs in the foregoing paragraph, associated with that of Dr. Rice. It appears, however, and we should in justice state, that he is not claimed as having given his influence to the South in the same manner. Southern men differ upon the point, it is true. Dr. Armstrong, in his "Christian Doctrine of Slavery," frequently quotes Dr. Hodge as sustaining his own views; and Dr. Armstrong, it is well known, as seen in that book and in his discussions with Dr. Van Rensselaer, though mild in his terms and eminently Christian in his spirit, maintained and vindicated the extreme view, substantially, of the system taken at the South. It is well known, too, that Dr. Hodge's writings on slavery have been extensively circulated and approved at the South, and have undoubtedly exerted a large influence to make the Southern people quite contented with the status of the institution, and quite willing it should be perpetuated. It is possible, also, that in the above paragraph the editor designs to put Drs. Rice and Hodge in the same category, and yet it is not probable; for in a subsequent paper he speaks very differently of the latter.

In reply to a correspondent, who refers to "the course of Dr. Hodge, Dr. Rice, Dr. Lord, Dr. Breckinridge, and Dr. Engles," in regard to the state of the country, as "unexpected," and who, notwithstanding that "course," says of them, They are every one with us, and against abolitionists, on the slavery question,"-deeming the fact so important as to array the sentence in italics,-the editor, the Rev. A. A. Porter, in The Southern Presbyterian of March 30, 1861, thus excepts by name two of the persons concerned:

We cannot agree with our correspondent that the views of the eminent men whom he names, on the slavery question, are acceptable to Southern Presbyterians. Our readers, who noticed the communication of "Georgia," in our last number, must be convinced that there is a wide and radical difference between us and Dr. Hodge on that subject. Dr. Breckinridge, it is well known, is, and always has been, an emancipationist-that is, in favor of the gradual abolition of slavery. So is Dr. Hodge. So, we doubt not, are almost the entire body of Northern Presbyterians.

It thus appears, that while Dr. Hodge is quoted favorably by Dr. Armstrong at Norfolk, Virginia, he is not deemed sound in South Carolina and Georgia. Latitude sometimes affects men's views of moral questions. He is by no means put in the category with Dr. Rice, at the South; for, although Dr. Rice has said some hard things of slavery, and has been regarded as an "emancipationist" also, at least at the North, he has, nevertheless, always taken such a course, and illustrated so highly the peculiar skill of " the adroitest debater now living," that the South, -even "the extremists" among them, as we see,—claimed him as THEIR MAN par excellence, to do their work at the North, and thus give them substantial "aid and comfort." Hence they have always spoken of him kindly, and valued his services at a very high figure. This is shown as truly in their incidental references as it would be in a more elaborate commendation, and at the same time the thing is done with a better grace. Here is another specimen, in The Southern Presbyterian of April 27, 1861, where the South Carolina editor again laments that he can count no longer on the services of his quondam friend :

No less authority than Dr. N. L. Rice, who has been regarded in the South as OUR BEST FRIEND at the North, and who, if we mistake not, drew up the act of 1845, which was supposed by the South to be a decision in our favor, tells us that we must not interpret that as reversing former acts.

RESPONSIBILITY OF NORTHERN MEN.

93

Et TU, Brute! The "decision" here referred to, is that made by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church upon slavery, and this is one of the incidental evidences to show how that famous paper, of which Dr. Rice is the author, was regarded by the South Carolina type of proslaveryism.

RESPONSIBILITY OF NORTHERN MEN THUS DETERMINED.

We need not go further in our citations. The fact is undeniable, that a large and influential class among clergymen and editors in the Church of all branches at the North, exerted such an influence for a long course of years, whether so intended or not, as to foster that spirit, and countenance those claims put forth by the South, which led Southern demagogues to believe that they could rule the country according to their own peculiar notions, and could count upon their Northern friends to sustain them; or, failing to rule it, could divide the country, and still look with confidence to their support. Hence their pitiful cries when, in the hour of need, they found they were forsaken.

In regard to certain religious men at the North,-and perhaps the same may be said of politicians, who, Mr. Jefferson said, were "allies" of the South,-we accord to them a sincere, though, we think, a mistaken course of speech and action. Some of them have since frankly acknowledged that their course was wrong. It tended to deceive the Southern Church. Since the rebellion began, Southern divines have denounced this class of men most unsparingly, and so have Southern journals, both of the weekly and periodical press. They have even pronounced them hypocrites. All this is very natural, even though we admit it to be unjust. But of those who have always opposed their extravagant claims, they have spoken with

more respect, though, for them, they have manifested no warmer love.

It is likewise well known, that those Northern politicians who were Southern "allies," have been treated in no mild manner at the South, while the Republican party, and even the Abolitionists, have been spoken of with that higher consideration, comparatively regarded, which one esteemed an open foe always inspires. It is, for example, quite probable, that the reason why they so bitterly denounce General Butler, is as much owing to the fact that he was always so prominent and able in their political councils, and instead of taking a stand with them when the breach occurred, as they had hoped he would, was found in command of a Union army, as it was owing to the stringent rule he exercised in New Orleans. We do not hold this class of public men entirely responsible for the rebellion, though it is unquestionable, from the speeches of some of them, during the winter and spring of 1860–61, before the attack upon Fort Sumter, made in Congress and out of it, that the Southern leaders still counted them as upon 66 allies," believed they would stand by them in an open clash of arms, that the North would thus be divided, and that the rebellion would have an easy triumph. The fact cannot be denied, that there was good reason for believing that this reliance had a better foundation than many things that are taken for granted. It is undoubtedly true that the Southern leaders were so far forth deceived, and were thus emboldened to do what otherwise they might have been restrained from doing, and to this extent these Northern politicians were responsible; while, on the other hand, some of these "allies" were themselves deceived, believing that Southern men would not dare to strike the blow.*

We do not put General Butler in this category. He did not, at this period, take