turers were Northerners. The produce of the South was agricultural only. There were advocates of both systems in the Slave States and in the Free. Yet for the most part the North became protectionists, while the South were chiefly in favor of free-trade. A high tariff in 1832 caused great discontent in South Carolina, which State proceeded to pass an act of "Nullification," refusing to obey the laws of the united government. Their opposition was yielded to, and a modified tariff hastily adopted, in order to preserve the Union from the threatened danger of dismemberment. But on that occasion, President Jackson, in his annual "message" 'protested that “The right of a single State to absolve themselves from the most solemn obligations cannot be acknowledged."

Another contention arose in connection with Texas, which was a province of Mexico, where slavery had been abolished. A land of freedom in their close neighborhood was a grievance to the Southerners. So, a party of them entered Texas, fomented an insurrection, and raised the standard of revolt. The Mexican army was defeated, and the Southerners demanded that Texas should be recognized and admitted as a new and Slave State. Their cry was Texas or disunion." Long discussions arose, terminating in the admission of Texas, and consequently a war with Mexico.

Slaves were continually escaping from the southern into the northern States. Here, by the constitution, they were not safe, as the southern masters might claim and

take back their "property." But there were many thorough friends of freedom, who, preferring God's laws to any constitutional enactments, were always ready to protect the fugitive, or convey him safely to Canada. The Southerners complained of the inadequacy of the existing laws to secure their property; and on their demand, the odious "Fugitive Slave Law" was passed, by which the local authorities were enjoined to aid in the capture and rendition of run-away slaves. The terror caused by this law swept like a hurricane through the North. It took effect on the best examples of the Negro race. In one colored church, 130 members at once fled to Canada. In another, of 114 members, only two remained. The law had not passed without angry controversy, and vehement protests. From many a pulpit the congregation were exhorted to obey God rather than man. Furious riots were caused by attempts to carry back into slavery negroes who for years had been respected for their industry, virtue, and godliness. This still further increased the alienation between North and South.

In 1856, Mr. Sumner, an eloquent opponent of slavery, was sitting in his place in the House of Representatives, when a pro-slavery member named Brooks, incensed by a recent speech of Mr. Sumner, came behind him, and with a heavy stick, beat him on the neck and back of his head, so that he fell stunned and did not recover for several months. We cannot even conceive of such an outrage in our own House of Commons. Any man acting in such a

way would be scouted by the whole nation, and if he professed our particular opinions, we should regard him as the greatest scandal and foe to our party. But what took place in the Southern States? Brooks was extolled as a hero! While the only penalty awarded by the law was a trumpery fine, the ladies of South Carolina presented him with a richly mounted cane; from several cities he received presentation sticks inscribed—“ Hit him again ;" and after his death, a speaker in Congress publicly compared him to Brutus! Such an outrage, so rewarded, was a still further aggravation of the social feud.

The "Dred Scott decision" added fresh combustibles to the smouldering heap. Dread Scott, a slave, taken by his master into free Illinois, and then beyond the line of 36° 30', and then back into Missouri, sued for and obtained his freedom on the ground that having been taken where by the constitution slavery was illegal, his master had lost all claim. But the Supreme Court on appeal reversed the judgment, and Dred Scott with his wife and children was taken back into slavery. By this decision in the highest court of American law it was affirmed that no free negro could claim to be a citizen of the United States, but was only under the jurisdiction of the separate State in which he resided; that the prohibition of slavery in any territory of the Union was unconstitutional; and that the slave-owner might go where he pleased with his property, throughout the United States, and retain his right. The progress of 1*

the trial was attended with great excitement, and the final decision convulsed society throughout the North.

Kansas was long a cause of disquiet. Was it to be received as a Free State, or was it to be claimed by Slavery? Companies of Free-soilers settled there. But organized bands of ruffians from the South entered it, and by numberless acts of violence endeavored to expel the friends of freedom. In these encounters much blood was shed. You remember that, in 1859, John Brown, who, with his sons, had been very active in these struggles, seized the arsenal at Harper's Ferry for the purpose of facilitating the escape of slaves in the neighborhood. His well-intended and heroic, but ill-advised and illegal enterprise failed. He was tried and sentenced to be hung. No northern statesman nor party was proved to have had any connection with the affair. But the excitement produced was very great. A vast array of soldiery was drawn up to prevent a rescue. The South was determined to secure its victim. woman was among the competitors for the executioner's office, and several States vied with one another for the privilege of providing the hemp for the halter.

A

The crisis was now at hand. In order to understand it we must bear in mind that in the North there are three parties. The Republicans, or Federals, uphold the constitution as it is; and whatever reforms are required, they would accomplish only by the working out of its established principles; they would not interfere with

the affairs of individual States; but they are opposed to the extension of slavery into the Territories. This renders them antagonistic to the Southerners. Moreover, they are protectionists in commerce. The Democrats are the opposition party, and are in favor of Free-trade. This formed the first link of sympathy between them and the Southerners. "Evil communications corrupt good manners;" and so it came to pass that the Northern Liberal, contradicting his own principles of freedom, became an ally of the Southern Slave-owner, not only in commerce but in slavery too. The Republican party is Anti-slavery, but this term in America implies only opposition to the extension of slavery into new soil. The Abolition party advocate its entire overthrow. Some of them would accomplish this gradually: but others have earnestly contended that it is a first duty to get rid of so great a wickedness, even at the cost of national existence, and that it would be better that the Union be at once dissolved than that slavery should any longer defile the land. Owing to the weakening of the North by this opposition between the Abolitionists and Republicans, the South has succeeded, by its alliance with the Democrats, in carrying nearly all elections for the office of President. But when Buchanan was elected, the Anti-slavery Fremont so nearly won the day that the South began to take measures in expectation of a reverse at the election of 1860.

The agreement of Abolitionists and Republicans in