port be blockaded, and victory crown the Federals in every fight, they can never hold the South by force of arms, and that if they could, such enforced union would be worthless. We may think that it would have been wise to have accepted the fact of Secession at the first, even as we may deem it inevitable in the end; and that thus the lavish expenditure of treasure and of blood might have been spared. We may regard that expenditure as wasted, because unlikely to lead to any result; and that even should the end be the restoration of the former Union, that end would not repay the cost. Implicated as the North have so long been in the crime of Southern slavery we may think it would have been better if they had said at once-"You are rebels-you deserve the severest chastisement-but if you choose to go, go!—it will be your loss and our own inestimable gain-for henceforth and for ever we are innocent of any participation in slavery-our land is now cleansed from the stain that has so long polluted it—no more recognition of property in man-no more Fugitive Slave Law-henceforth Canada is virtually brought to the banks of the Potomac, and every slave crossing the border, shall feel as safe under our star bespangled banner, as if the blended crosses of Great Britain waved above his head."

Perhaps the majority of Englishmen entertain such views as these respecting the expediency of the war. But there can be no doubt respecting its lawfulness, that is, granting the general right of governments to wage war

for national existence. And we cannot be surprised that the right should be exercised in this case when we consider the grandeur of the empire to be maintained, the special reasons why Americans must desire its preservation, the importance of checking, by this example of firmness, any similar attempts in future, and the sanguine hope of ultimate success which a consciousness of Right imparts, and which is always felt by those who see much more of their own power than that of the foe.

III.

HOW FAR IS THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY INVOLVED IN THE STRUGGLE?

The South seceded and took up arms in order to preserve and extend slavery. The immediate object of the North is the suppression of the rebellion and the preservation of the Union. But that resistance to slavery is the real cause of the war, and the promotion of freedom its ultimate tendency, seems to me most evident.

Bear in mind that during many years the North and South have been struggling for supremacy, and that almost all those struggles have had reference to slavery. The South ever sought to extend the slave territory and increase the pro-slavery influence in Congress. The North ever strove to confine slavery to its original limits. The South maintained that every citizen had a right to go with his property to every part both of the States and

the Territories. The North maintained that Congress had the right to legislate for the Territories; that in the exercise of that right it had decreed that slavery should not pass beyond a certain limit; that human beings could not there be held as "property ;" and that while by the constitution, slavery could not be interfered with in the States where it existed, it should not spread further. On this question the North and the South practically joined issue.

The great Republican party are pledged to this AntiSlavery policy. To carry it out, Abraham Lincoln was elected President. The North were resolved that the long controversy should at length end, and the question be set at rest for ever. Henceforth all the world must know that the North would concede no more, and that slavery should make no further advance. But the South were equally resolved to extend it. For this and this alone they took up arms. They did not allege as their plea hostile tariffs or illegal oppression, but, as we shall see, the opposition of the North to their favorite institution. Had the North been fighting only for empire, they could have secured the object without the cost of war, simply by yielding this point to the South. fused to do so. While then their immediate object in the war was to suppress the rebellion, it is evident that their purpose also was to prevent the extension of slavery.

But they re

But in preventing the extension of slavery, the North believed they were promoting the gradual but ultimate

extinction of slavery itself. It is admitted that slavery needs scope for development, and that if restrained within narrow limits it destroys itself. To be remunerative, many laborers must be concentrated and kept to one kind of work, thus exhausting the soil and needing new fields. The South urge this as a plea for secession. "There is not a slaveholder," said Judge Warner, of Georgia, "in this house or out of it, but who knows perfectly well that whenever slavery is confined within certain specified limits its future existence is doomed; it is only a question of time as to its final destruction. You may take any single slaveholding county in the southern States, in which the great staples of cotton and sugar are cultivated to any extent, and confine the present slave population within the limits of that county. Such is the rapid natural increase of the slaves, and the rapid exhaustion of the soil in the cultivation of those crops (which add so much to the commercial wealth of the country), that in a few years it would be impossible to support them within the limits of such county. Both master and slave would be starved out; and what would be the practical effect in any one county, the same result would happen to all the slaveholding States. Slavery cannot be confined within certain limits without producing the destruction of both master and slave; it requires fresh lands, plenty of wood and water, not only for the comfort and happiness of the slave, but for the benefit of the owner." The North tell us they are fight

2

26

26

THE AMERICAN WAR.

ing for the ultimate suppression of slavery by constitutional means. Some people do not give them credit for this. Let us then receive the testimony of their enemies. Surely we should believe the North when they tell us they intend to do what the South complain of as the inevitable effect of their policy.

It is often asked, Why did not the North at the first proclaim a war of freedom? There have always been a band of witnesses in America who have declared that it would be better for the Constitution to perish and the Union to be dissolved, than that such monstrous wickedness as slavery should be tolerated. But the abolitionists have been in a minority, and were always outvoted by the Republican party, who, while opposed to slavery, were determined to abide by the Constitution. The union of a majority of the Abolitionists with Republicans in the election of Mr. Lincoln, has turned the scale against the South. But this has been done on the express understanding that the Constitution is to be adhered to. War is waged with the South for violating it; the North, in quelling the rebellion, is bound to observe the laws for which they fight.

At the risk of repetition I must draw your attention once more to the fundamental principle of the Constitution, which forbids Congress to interfere with the domestic institutions of the several States. Mr. Lincoln took a solemn oath on entering his office, to observe this Constitution. He pledged himself again and again that he