at the north, with money, clothing, and arms; and many of the influential parties, at the north, approved of the John Brown raid. George L. Stearns, Chairman of the Massachusetts State Kansas Committee, said under oath before the senate Committee that he "believed John Brown to be the representative man of this century, as Washington was of the last. The Harper's Ferry affair, and the capacity shown by the Italians for self-government the great events of this age. One will free Europe, and the other America." Brown's execution called forth from the Republicans, a stream of vile abuse on the slave power. Songs were sang to the tune of John Brown's " Soul, marching on" through the ethereal realms of space. Greeley said: Let no one doubt that history will accord an honorable niche to old John Brown." Youth's History of the War, p. 62. In 1860, Lincoln was nominated by the Republicans. He ran on the Chicago platform. The Chicago Republican convention met May 11, 1860. This was purely an anti-slavery convention, for David Wilmot was temporary President-and Giddings of Ohio was a leading spirit. Greeley, vol. 1, pp. 319-321. The Democrats split in fragments and nominated two candidates.—It will now be admitted by the impartial reader that if the people had elected Douglas we would not have been cursed with a civil war. If the principles of popular sovereignty had been adopted we would not have been plunged into the most cruel, stupendous and devastating rebellion known in history!! Lincoln was not elected by the popular vote but by the constitution-for he lacked 930,170 of a popular majority. If Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell men fused they could have elected Douglas and defeated Lincoln. Greeley, Am. Confl. vol. 1, p.328. Had the people of the North followed Washington's Councils and had they not established a sectional party, arraying one section of the country against the other we would not have been plunged into the vortex of revolution; we would not have to pass through a reign of terror; we would not have a mountain of debt on our backs-we would not be ground to powder by eternal taxation-our substance would not be taken to feed a legion of United States tax-gatherers !! And the bread would not be taken from the mouth of labor to feed a few pampered bondholders, and the industry of the country would not be taken to support monopolies. The Republicans can never exculpate themselves from their responsibility in fomenting the rebellion. Greeley, Seward, Phillips, Garrison, Wade, Wilson, Chandler and the other leaders of the Republican party are as responsible for the rebellion and its consequences as the Fire-eaters of the South. Seward, in 1853, formed a sectional party on the principles of hostility to slavery and its ultimate extinction in all the states. He then laid the mine which exploded in rebellion. For the extremists North and South, Republicans and Fire-Eaters had mutually fed and fostered one another. The speeches of the Northern fanatics were published and circulated South to "fire the Southern heart," and the speeches of the Fire-Eaters were published in Northern newspapers to increase Northern hostility to the "slave power." Greeley showed some consistency in "bailing Jeff Davis" for their mutual teachings helped to plunge the country into war. The Republicans said that the fathers of the Constitution were abolitionists-speeches were made to show that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Henry, and Clay, were anti-slavery men.-Globe 1859–60, pp. 1028-1854-5.

Seward said in his Rochester speech, Oct. 25th, 1858:

"So resistance to slavery and devotion to freedom, the popular element now actively working for the Republican party among the people must and will be the resources for its ever renewing strength and constant invigoration."-Globe, 1859-60, p. 154. This manifesto from Seward, who was considered the leading spirit of the Republican party, together with the

speeches of Phillips-the onslaught of the Republican press-the numerous anti-slavery tracts of the Sabbath schools, the Helper book had created a reign of terror at the south-the dread of servile warr-the Republican orators "played on a harp of a thousand strings "-in some places they claimed to be Democrats that the Democracy committed political heresy in 1854.— Globe, 1859-60, p. 1027. They claimed that the Republican party now held the principles of the fathers. During the session of Congress for 185960, a great deal of time was taken up with the slavery question, John Brown speeches-Seward's irrepressible conflict-the Dred Scott case-and slavery in the territories. This session was wasted in making political Capital. Seward said in his place in Congress, in 1858:

Free labor has at last apprehended its rights, its interests, its power, and its destiny, and is organizing itself to assume the government of the Republic. It will henceforth meet you boldly and resolutely here; it will meet you everywhere, in the Territories or out of them, wherever you may go to extend slavery. It has driven you back in California and in Kansas; it will invade your soil." In Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Missouri, and Texas. It will meet you in Arizona, in Central America, and even in Cuba. The invasion will be not merely harmless, but beneficent, if you yield seasonably to its just and moderate demands."-Globe 1859-60. p. 37. Geddings had said:

"I look forward to a day when I shall see a servile insurrection in the South-when the black men, supplied with bayonets, shall wage a war of extermination against the whites-when the master shall see his dwelling in flames and his hearth polluted; and though I may not mock at their calamity, and laugh when their fear cometh, yet I shall hail it as the dawn of political millennium."-Youth's History of the War, p. 60.

This was, indeed, a declaration of war. This shows that the object of the war was the annihilation of slavery.

This struggle finally came to a crisis on the defeat of Douglas and the election of Lincoln. Had not the abolitionists made the abolition of slavery an issue the Fire-Eaters of the south could never have succeeded in their secession plans-for the great masses of the people were religiously attached to the Union-nothing but the alarm of a servile war, fomented by abolition speakers and writers, could induce the people of the south to revolt!! Southern Statesmen, in their speeches, said that they were afraid of the growing strength and power of the abolitionists. The Fire-Eaters quoted the speeches of the abolitionists to show the growing sentiment and hostility of the anti-slavery party.-The Republicans rejoiced in the success of the Fire-Eaters, in the southern elections. The Fire-Eaters threatened to secede on the election of Lincoln; which threat was met with derision and defiance by the Republicans.

The Republicans told the people of the North that the southern threat was mere gasconade-mere idle threats of intimidation. That after election the southern mind would become calm, and the political excitement would subside: that the cry of dissolution, having been used so often, was nothing but a mere electioneering trick. It is certain that the Radical Republicans hoped that the South would plunge the country into rebellion, so that, having the power of the government in their hands-the purse and the sword-they could, in the turmoil of war, abolish slavery in the South, and establish the equality of races. The Federalist wing of the Republican party prayed for war, so that they could abolish the state governments, and establish a consolidated government, and, finally, a military despotism, as a stepping-stone to monarchy, and their darling idol

the British Constitution!

In vain did the Douglas democrats appeal to the people warning them of the imminent danger of the country. In vain did they warn them of the fearful calamity of civil war. The people, led by blind and fanatical zeal were led captive into the abolition camp. They committed themselves to the guidance of blind leaders; they voted against Douglas; they left the old democratic party, and followed. the lead of the Republicans, who were Federalists under false colors; whose ambition was to plunge the country into war; their motto was rule or ruin!! The Republicans said that if the southern people should leave the Union, they would, like the prodigal son, be glad to come back. That the north could whip them back in sixty days.

CHAPTER XIII.

After the election of Lincoln, December 20, 1860, South Carolina passed an ordinance of secession. On the 26th of December Major Anderson evacuated Fort Moultrie, spiking his guns, and occupied Fort Sumter. The withdrawal of South Carolina from the Union was treated by northern Republican papers with derision. They said that at the approach of the first regiment in Charleston harbor secession cockades would be found as scarce as cherries in the snow. But the New York Tribune said encouragingly, "let the prodigal go," for the leading Republican papers and politicians wished for war so that they could wipe out slavery and establish a reign of terror and govern their enemies by military forces!! Yet in a few months afterwards the Tribune said, that the southern cities should be laid in ashes and their soil sown with blood. That the "rebels" returning home would find their wives and children cowering in rags, and famine sitting at their fireside.-Tribune Nov. 26 and December 17, 1860.

The same paper said, May 1, 1861: "The whole coast of the South from the Delaware to the Rio Grande, must be a solitude."-Again, it said: "When a portion of this Union, large enough to form an independent self-sustaining nation shall see fit to say authoritatively to the residue, we want to go away from you, we shall say-and we trust with self-respect, if not regard for principles of self-government, will restrain the residue of the American people to say go!"

In the interim between the secession of South Carolina and the meeting of Congress, in December, 1860, the democratic party hoped that some compromise would be effected which would avert the impending danger and effusion of fraternal blood!

Greeley said that the Chicago platform was worth nine Unions-the Federalists never did love the constitution; they denounced it as a league with hell andcovenant with death. They had often denounced Washington— they poured out the vials of their wrath and intensified indignation on the fathers of the constitution for not establishing the British monarchy with its corruption and vile despotism. They preached from time to time to let the Union slide." They wanted to plunge the country into civil war, so that they could march from military despotism to their favorite goal, a monarchy after the model of the British constitution." During the war the Radicals could write or speak against the Union and constitution without danger or molestation from the authorities at Washington. But woe to the unfortunate democrat who had the temerity to find fault with the blind policy of the administration. The most intense excitement pervaded the public

mind, north and south-various and conflicting opinions were entertained as to the policy which Lincoln would pursue, on assuming the control of the government.

The New York Herald and other papers called on the President elect to quiet the public mind by disclosing, in plain, candid, and manly terms the policy and course he would pursue, in regard to the threatened secession of the southern states, when the reins of government came into his hands. But he (who was under the control of the abolitionists), said that it was time enough when he got into power. That it would do no good to disclose his policy. He adhered to this determination to the hour of his. death-when hard set he could ward off all such inquiries by a timely old joke.

Had he told the people that he would not interfere with slavery, it would have calmed the over-excited minds of the Southern people; and the leaders of secession would be unable to incite a rebellion. For the people of the South loved and cherished the Union and nothing could have induced them to secede but their fears of a servile insurrection. Lincoln did not want to sacrifice the Chicago platform. Had he followed the example of Washingtou, in the Pennsylvania Whiskey rebellion, or of Jackson in the South Carolina nullification difficulty, we would not have been plunged into a fratricidal war, we would not have sacrificed thousands of precious lives to the God of battles-we would not have erected a monument of bonds to perpetuate the reign of Radical tyranny—we would not have to groan under à mountain of taxation—we would not have desecrated the temples of Religion - we would not have suppressed the freedom of speech and of the press, in the name of liberty-we would not have seen the constitution trampled under foot, in the name of law and orderwe would not have seen sovereign states reduced to territories, the ballot-box discarded and loyalty pronounced by the lips of treason. The Halls of Congress would not have been polluted by the most infamous venality, corruption, and bribery unparalleled in the annals of history! Those who wish to contrast the honesty of the democratic party with the Republican party should ponder on the Evidence of Horace Greeley in his charge against Democrats for annexing Texas and for paying that state ten millions of dollars as a consideration for the relinquishing of her claim to certain territories.

"By this article, the public debt of Texas, previously worth in market but twenty to thirty per cent. of its face was suddenly raised nearly or quite to par, to the entire satisfaction of its holders-many of them members of Congress, or their very intimate friends. Corruption, thinly disguised, haunted the purlieus and stalked through the halls of the Capitol; and numbers, hitherto in needy circumstances, suddenly found themselves rich. The great majority, of course, were impervious to such influences; but the controlling and controllable minority were not. This was probably the first instance in which measures of vital consequence to the country were carried or defeated in Congress under the direct spur of pecuniary interest.—Ibid. 208-9. See what Benton says: This charge is wanton and not supported by authority. But even taking it as true, it proves that Congress was free from all pecuniary corruption until the advent of the Republican party into power; for this is the only charge of corruption made by Greeley against the democratic party to this time. Lincoln knew that there would be war even before he got into office, notwithstanding his "nobody hurt." For he knew that Frank Blair had organized, in secret regiments of Wide-Awakes, in St. Louis. That he had organized in St. Louis a Committee of safety. That Blair had intended to hold St. Louis if Missouri left the Union.

Life of Seymour and Blair pp. 328–9, 331-335-6. Blair called on Lincoln at his home in Springfield and told him the above facts.-Ibid.

All of the slave states, except South Carolina, were represented in the session of Congress of 1860-61. The leading Southerns wanted to save the Union by such a compromise, as would exclude the slavery question from the halls of Congress. Those who passed the Missouri compromise and the compromise of 1850, wished to exclude the agitation of slavery from the Halls of Congress. But neither Lincoln nor the Republicans would yield the Chicago platform, as it would virtually be recognizing slavery. They boldly announced that the days of compromise were gone. For they well knew that if they abandoned the Chicago platform it would annihilate their party. This they would not do, for their ultra leaders were imbibed with Federal principles and beheld the long wished for opportunity to lay violent hands on the constitution, which stood in their way on their forward march towards centralization of power, the annihilation of the states, and the establishment of monarchy! Moreover the Republicans, composed of the fag-end of all parties, held together by the cohesive power of corruption and public plunder, who saw glittering before their visions the long coveted booty, the spoils of the victor, feared that if they made terms with the "slave power "their abolition allies would secede from the republican camp, and join the democrats. For many abolitionists frankly told the Republicans that if they should yield to the "slave power, they, (the abolitionists,) would join the democrats and crush the Republicans. Lincoln and his party feared, that if they would compromise with the South and abandon the Chicago platform the democrats would again get into power. So they sacrificed their country to save their party. For rather than compromise they would "let the Union slide." The New York Tribune said on November 26, 1860:

"If the cotton states unitedly and earnestly wished to withdraw peacefully from the Union, we think they should and would be allowed to do so. Any attempt to compel them by force to remain would be contrary to the principles enunciated in the immortal Declaration of Independence-contrary to the fundamental ideas on which human liberty is based." From the Tribune of December 17, 1860:

"If it (the Declaration of Independence) justified the secession from the British Empire of three millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of southerners from the Union in 1861." The same paper again said, February 23, 1861:

"Whenever it shall be clear that the great body of the southern people have become conclusively alienated from the Union, and anxious to escape from it WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO FORWARD THEIR VIEWS. The New York Tribune in an article two days after Lincoln's election was for letting the South go. Greeley's Am. Conf. vol. 1, p. 358. Thus, we find the leading Republican papers of the North encouraging secession!

The southern members in Congress said that if the "Arizona Bill" was not passed that they would leave the Union in sixty days. But the leading Republicans told them, that as the North had more men and money they would whip the South back-yea starve them into submission, by making them eat their own cotton. That they could whip them back in three months! That the country wanted some "blood-letting." Members from Pennsylvania, on the floor of Congress, boasted that Pennsylvania could whip the South. Members from Ohio proposed to take a contract for putting down the Rebellion!

The southern members said that they wanted some guarantee for slavery; as the North had passed personal liberty bills to prevent the rendition of