perhaps with the hope of success, as to gain time for traitorous preparations. That was to bring the democratic party of the North (with which the South had always been allied) in the last presidential election, wholly to a proslavery platform of political principles. Failing in that and consequently in the election of President in 1860, its political prestige vanished. Territorial acquisition for slavery became impossible. Fillibusterism, its first born and favorite, was smitten with the avenging breath of freedom. Slavery must be shut up to its own territory and institutions, and that was to perish. It must therefore, in accordance with inherent laws developed within itself, secede, overthow the constitution and establish an independent slaveocracy. Anticipating this result from the deeper and firmer tones of freedom borne from the North, it had preceded the rebellion for four years, during the whole administration of President Buchanan, by the most extensive, crafty, silent treachery. It filled all the places of power South and North with traitors: it dispersed the fleet or had it in southern waters: it transfered the material of war to the south; and it believed it had made sure its interests in Europe. The very extent and audacity of the treachery made it incredible to the people at large, and those who gave the alarm were regarded as false prophets, until the cannon at Charleston aroused them from their delusion. The slaveocracy was then jubilant; and trusted soon to have Cuba, and Mexico, and the slave trade reopened and legalized, and to silence Europe by stuffing her mouth with cotton. The winding up of every southern argument has been "Cotton is king"! I am aware that in the journals of Europe other reasons have been assigned for this rebellion, and other issues made for it; and if they are true, all that I have advanced this evening has little significance or value. The more general issue assigned to it is that it is the conflict of free trade and protection. But if any one will consider the following!facts, he will see, not only that this is wholly untenable, but that it has absolutely nothing to do with the question. 1st the seeeders themselves never assigned protection as a reason for secession. It was the refusal of the North to allow a Southern interpretation of the constitution, which should make slavery universal instead of sectional. It was their exclusion from what they called a common right to the territories, by which they meant an ́exclusive right to plant slavery in them, which they alleged, as the cause of secession; and this accords with all I have stated tonight. It was the defeat of slavery in its peaceful contests with freedom that has led to the armed strife, if we may allow men to know and to state their own motives. 2nd This issue has never been raised as a general one between the North and the South. One of the Southern states, Louisiana is as strongly for protection as Pennsylvania herself; and some of the powerful Western free states are as strongly for free trade as any of the southern slave states. No one, who knows any thing of the sectional politics of the union, could either honestly make or believe the assertion, that free trade and protection are principles lying at the bottom of, or having any important influence over this conflict on either side. 3d The third fact, and a very conclusive one, is that the South herself has had a majority in Congress for many years, and whatever protection has existed has had her sanction in some form, either by positive votes or tacit permission. 4th The leading seceders, after the act of secession, stated in the clearest terms, that their object was to found a republic, not with free trade, but with slavery as the chief corner stone. Vice President Stephens, in his celebrated speech after the formation of their government, remarked, "The foundations of our new government are laid, its corner stone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This our new government is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral truth. This stone which was set at nought of the builders, the same has become the head of the corner." He farther characterized the declaration of "equal rights" as the pestilent heresy of fancy politicians, and affirmed that with a government organized upon this new basis "the world would recognize in it the model nation of history." It may be that under the pressure of circumstances, the South will be ready to "compromise" by promise of emancipation at some future day; but before any one is caught in this snare, he would do well to estimate the value of Southern compromises in the light of past history. This expose of the progress and aims of the slave power, shews, I think clearly, how far republican institutions as such cre involved in this rebellion. It is not my object here to defend such institutions, but on to point to the fact that slavery is wholly responsible for the rebellion. There would be equal justice in saying that the Constitutional Monarchy of Great Britain is responsible for the Sepoy rebellion, as to say that republicanism is responsible for this proslavery rebellion. It would have occurred under any other government. Suppose a constitutional monarchy had existed, and that the slave power had monopolized the monarch, the ministry, and for the most part, the navy and army. How would freedom have been in any better circumstances to secure her safely and restore the government to the principles of freedom? Both before and after the danger became apparent the course of the free North was in strict loyalty to the Constitution. The slave power having the majority in Congress, the traitorous President could not be impeached. The only remaining constitutional remedy was the ballot box. The North awaited the appointed time and displaced the traitors by a new election in Nov. 1860. During the previous two mouths, I travelled more than 5,000 miles in the free states, and witnessed the excitement in its highest fever. On the day of election, I visiled Boston and Portland and many of the intermediate places, and saw the entire adult male population gathering at the polls. I saw no soldier, no bayonet, and no symbol of physical force, neither did I see a person intoxicated nor witness one act of vigience. And it was in this spirit generally that the North smote the treason at the ballot box. But President Lincoln, elected on the 5th of Nov. could not enter upon the duties of his office until the 4th of March following. And during this intervening time the traitors in power seized the forts, the arsenals, a large portion of the navy, the subtreasuries, and the material of war; and intended to have the Capital before the inauguration of President Lincoln could take place. The first thing then forced upon the North was not the problem of freedom or slavery, but the nearer and more impetious one of self preservation. It was not, as so many have foolishly and ignorantly described it, a heedless and thoughtless rushing into war; but a rising of the people to defend the life of the state, involving also the life of freedom. It is customary in the journals of Europe to call this "a miserable war, fratricidal war," "a contemplible war "etc. etc. with evident reference, not to the South, but to the North. And yet it does not accord with the judgments of men generally, to call self defence, especially for life and freedom, either contemptible or fratricidal. I submit, that in such case the traitor sunders every bond of relationship, in the moral estimation of mankind, and he who parries and returns the blow is pure and holy. Was the Roman Cicero a fratricide in the death of the Roman Catiline? It is difficult to see whey it should be honorable in Gen. Havelock and Lord Clyde to defend their government when attacked by Sepoy rebels, in India, and dishonorable in Gen. Scott and Mr. Lincoln to defend theirs when assaulted by the proslavery rebels of the United States. I admit then that the first, immediate issue, forced upon the people and government, which they had no power to share or control, was that of self preservation. The free North was without an army or navy, without the material or organization of war, and with traitors in every department of government; and it was a question ol fearful uncertainty whether the President elect could be inducted inte fice at the Capital on the 4th of March last Since then 600,000 men have volunteered and been organized and armed, the vast material of war has mainly issued from northern work shops, and something has been done towards a navy, although Norfolk, the greatest naval arsenal of the Union has been and is still in the hands of the enemy. But the national life is secure; the crisis is past, and freedom has escaped the snare. But the ultimate issue of the bloody strife, is something far beyond the existence of any present form of government. It is the predominance of freedom or slavery on the American continent. It is the reopening or total abolition of the slave trade. For if slavery is to triumph in this rebellion, can any man give me a reason why the African slave trade should not be opened? Is it a greater crime to carry a man from Africa to Louisiana for L. 10, than to carry him from Virginia for L. 100? And if the world. must have slavery and the internal slave trade in order to have cotton, why should it not have slavery and the external slave trade, in order to have cotton, and to have it more abundantly? And now the great issue is, shall this American continent be subdued and cultivated by free labor or slave? If 1 mistake not, the facts we have brought together are a sufficient basis for a conclusion as to the ultimate result. They show on which side, after 70 years, are found the elements of power. They show on which side are wealth, intelligence, industry, enterprise and numbers. These facts are "Gods eternal scripture", written in the constitution of society, against slavery and for freedom. It is "manifest destiny" that the arm of free labor shall cause the whole American continent, under whatever various forms of government, to ring with the voices of peaceful industry and gladness. The contest into which these two great forces have, by strict necessity, culminated, is, on the part of slavery, a satanic, on the part of freedom, a holy war. Leave then the field to the combatants whom God has marshalled there, and under his supreme arbitration let them fight it out. The result cannot be other than a glorious advance in this world's history; and ere long the daughter shall be able to appropriate the language of the mother, "Slaves cannot breathe in England: if their lungs" |