traordinary state of things is brought about by the crime of the Government. (Woolsey's International Law, p. 91.) History is full of illustrations of these doctrines, running from ancient Greece to modern Italy. There never can be any application of them to this Government which is not in violation of our sovereign rights upon this continent, and which, if we had the power, we would not resist by our arms. Intervention comes armed. It takes sides. It has ambitious designs. It is against our interest, tradition, history, and feeling. But mediation is ostensibly friendly and inoffensive. We should guard against the most silken inveiglement by France or any European power; but there is nothing apparent in the note of Drouyn de L'Huys tendering a mediation, which indicates any ambitious or unkind intermeddling. In the note of the Minister of October 30, there is nothing which looks like a mediation for peace at the expense of the Union. Any "pressure " upon us is expressly repudiated; and the mediation is only tendered to smooth obstacles, in case of a wish, on our part, for such mediation. In the text of Drouyn de L'Huys' note, the Emperor bases his overtures on the painful interest with which Europe has regarded our great calamity and prodigious effusion of blood. This interest may be quickened by the idle looms of Lyons and the lessened market for French wines. The mission proposed is one which, as France feels and states, international law assigns to neutrals. It is only intended to "encourage public opinion to views of conciliation." In this tender, a scrupulous delicacy is observed against offending our national susceptibility against intervention. The constant tradition of French policy toward this country is appealed to with apparent sincerity.

We cannot be insensible to such advances. But a spectre stands in the way to scare us from its consideration-France in Mexico! Sixty thousand Chasseurs de Vincennes, Voltigeurs de la Garde, and Chasseurs d'Afrique! What are they doing there? Has a Bonaparte-the author of the coup d'état-the Emperor of that nation which fought in the Crimea and Italy, become scrupulous of shedding blood? If so, why do his legions throng toward the capital of Mexico to "regulate" a hostile people? Can humanity inspire this project of mediation in our affairs?

I prefer to think, knowing the difference between Mexico and this country, that his policy in Mexico is not intended to be hostile to us, as against the South; for nothing can be more unfavorable to the dreams of Davis and his confederates than the establishment of a European dynasty on their border. Besides, France has ever been our ally. For great reasons of State, and as an essential element of the equilibrium of the world, she helped us to establish Independence. Her blood mingled with ours to acquire it. Louisiana came from her hand to enlarge our domain. No interest in silk, wines, and cotton, no design in Mexico, ought to enter into her plans of mediation. Besides, if she meditates, by mediation, the Union of these States, she may quadruple her Chasseurs in Mexico, and her ensign may float from every castle in that ill-starred land; but our Union, if restored, would exert its first energy in reëstablishing the continental policy of Monroe, and all her plans in Mexico would fail. Therefore, from the text of the French note, and its explanation since by the secretary of the French Minister, and being confirmed in the belief that

under the "armistice France would have lent her aid to a restoration of the Union," I do not augur any present armed intervention or sinister motives in her tender of mediation. Still, the best foresight may fail in sounding the designs of the wonderful man who now occupies St. Cloud. Our safety from all intervention lies, not merely in our iron-clad navy, not in our voluminous diplomacy, but in the determination of the people to throw off this load of rebellion. If the capacity of our rulers, in the conduct of our affairs, was shown to be equal to the task of regaining the Federal supremacy at home, we should not be menaced by European patronage and meddling. If we are divided by radical counsels, and if we incite the servile race to atrocious insurrections, our revenues will be wasted, our Government broken, and England will laugh at our calamities, and Europe will intervene for our everlasting degradation. I do not believe that France means hostility to us in her tender of mediation. From my observation I believe that she is now, as she was in the days of Rochambeau and Lafayette, desirous of seeing our Union perfected. She loves England little. Waterloo is not a myth, nor has Time bleached out its red memories. Our growing naval power is not pleasing to England; but it is not obnoxious to France, which has ever been jealous and fearful of English supremacy on the sea. England refuses to join in the tender of mediation for the very reason that she winked at the "Alabama" when she cleared the Mersey, and now permits a thousand hammers to rivet the iron mail upon a score of Confederate steamers. England, whose philanthropy is in a cotton pod, refused the tender of France because she does not care to see this Democratic Republic as a standing menace to aristocracy, and ever rivalling her upon the ocean. England does not wish to mediate, for she fears that if united we might be less tolerant of her bravado. She now smiles with satisfaction over the transfer of commerce from American to English bottoms, owing to the increase of marine insurance, created by her own breaches of neutrality. France may with England have some selfish reason for wishing us at peace. But France prefers that we should have peace and the Union; England prefers peace and a separation. The one is a friend, the other an enemy.

The friendly offices of France may, after our arms shall have had more decisive success and our elections have permeated the Southern mind with a kindlier feeling, be of great use in forwarding the only true object of the war, which is peace and Union.

It is an insult to History to expect that war alone will unite us. Force may subdue the rebellion; but other means must reconcile the people North and South. Interchange of commodities and mutual courtesies will not do it; for separate nations, like France and England, have these and yet would forever remain distinct and hostile. Consanguinity alone will not do it. Many races, as the Gauls, Romans, Franks, and Burgundians, constitute France, and have become nationalized into one, without the ties of kindred. Language alone will not do it; for Great Britain is one, though the people sing with Llewellyn in Welsh, and Burns in Scotch, and Shakespeare in English. The unity of a State by the principle of nationality, results from the unforced and spontaneous union of inclinations among a people. "And Hamor, and Shechem his son, communed with the men of the city, saying: These men are peaceable with us, therefore

let them dwell in the land and trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters; only herein will the men consent unto us to dwell with us, to be ONE PEOPLE." A movement looking to this consenting of the affections will restore the Union. The sword must be garlanded with the olive. The bayonet alone, said Mirabeau, will only establish the peace of Terror-the silence of Despotism. In one way, and in one way only, could mediation be effective, by bringing together commissioners North and South, not to arrange a treaty of peace, not to agree upon a compromise, but to inaugurate IN THE STATES-in the States which are constituent elements of our Confederation, the original fountain of power from which the Constitution derived its vitality-a movement looking to a national convention where, in conformity with the requirements of our Constitution, there could be found our common judge on earth, the sovereign people of the again United States! I do not now undertake to say in detail what such a Convention ought to do. It ought to compose all our troubles in the spirit of amity; and, unless we have degenerated beyond all former generations, it ought to evoke the spirit of 1787, and weave and plait anew that bond of Union, strong as the mighty interests of this nation, which are to be imbound by it forever. In such a convention of States, rigid justice might not be meted out to either party. Neither party would be condemned to humiliating sacrifices, inconsistent with the future dignity and equality of the States. All losses could not be reimbursed; for who could call again to life the thousands slain in the unhappy strife? But in the spirit of Christian brotherhood all might be arranged, the Union be started again upon. a career of progress under the old flag and with a new hope, amidst the shouts of a free and peaceful people, and all the States side by side, like the majesties of Olympus, commune kindly through all the ages of history

"Self-reverent each, and reverencing each,

Distinct in individuality,

But like each other, even as those who love."

PURITANISM IN POLITICS.

NEW ENGLAND ISMS-INTOLERANCE AND PROSCRIPTION-HER COLONIAL CUSTOMS AND LAWSVIRTUES OF NEW ENGLAND-EARLY PURITANISM AGAINST DEMOCRACY—A POLITICAL CHURCH WITHOUT A RELIGIOUS STATE-TRANSCENDENTALISM AND BRAHMINISM-POLITICAL HISTORY OF NEW ENGLAND-INVOCATION TO UNION.

THE speech which follows was not delivered in Congress, but at New York city, on the 13th of January, 1863, before the Democratic Union Association. It was reported by many of the New York papers with gross garbling. Its sentiments were misrepresented, and subjected to much acrimonious criticism in Congress. I insert it here that it may be judged properly. It touched the amour propre of New England. The "Atlantic

Review" exercised its malignant spirit by vituperating its author. Rev. Mr. Beecher replied to portions of it, at Boston; but in his speech he admitted what is the gist of the speech, the meanness and intolerance of a portion of the New England people. The New York "Tribune," within the past few months, has said as much, if not more, than the writer, in stigmatizing a certain class in New England who have been foremost in obtaining the pecuniary results from the war, without contributing to its success.

It should be understood that the facts presented in this speech are authentic. If the veil is withdrawn from the character and history of early New England, it is because that character and history are so frequently thrust into the faces of other people as the only type of what is liberal, humanitarian, and pious. I have endeavored to discriminate between the genuine devotee of Democratic and soul liberty in New England, and the mere pretender. In doing this I may give offence to many. But there will be no offence to those who have, since the war has ended, seen the crusade of agitation in relation to reconstruction and negro suffrage. That crusade has begun in Boston. Its threats of new revolution have been made to overawe President Johnson into the adoption of "Boston notions." Whether it shall succeed or fail, depends upon the firmness of the conservative men of other sections.

The speech being addressed to a popular audience is perhaps overloaded with such demonstrations as are incident to such occasions. I give the report, however, as it was published:

Gentlemen of the Young Men's Democratic Association of New York: -If this hearty enthusiasm were before an election I could more readily understand it. It seems, however, that you have begun the campaign of 1864. Let us be patient and persevering; and if the great central States will stand by the West till then, as they did last fall, we may rescue the Government from the hands of the spoilers, and reinvigorate the national life from that fountain of all power, the people. [Cheers.] Gentlemen, a New England orator, Tristam Burges, once said, that "we were surrounded, protected, and secured by our Constitution, from the power and violence of the world, as some wealthy regions are, by their own barriers, sheltered from the ravages of the ocean. But a small, insidious, persevering reptile may unseen, bore through the loftiest and broadest mound. The water follows its path, silently and imperceptibly at first, until at length a breach is made; and the ocean rushing in, flocks, and herds, and men are swept away by the deluge." Puritanism is the reptile which has been boring into the mound, which is the Constitution, and this civil war comes in like the devouring sea! Its rushing tide of devastation will not be stayed until the reptile is crushed and the mound rebuilt. This will never be accomplished until an administration obtains control, which, in the language of Governor Seymour, can grasp the dimensions and con

trol the sweep of this sanguinary flood. [Cheers.] To obtain such an administration, the people will, unhappily, have to wait for some two years. Meanwhile, what new schemes of division may further distract us! My apprehension is, that before the people can thoroughly reform the conduct of their government, another civil strife may be raging; not the South against the North; not slave against free States; but the North against itself. I pray God in his mercy to avert such dangers. The hatred, not of New England, but of its arrogant, selfish, narrow, and Puritan policy, now dominant in the Federal Government, will, I fear, never be allayed until blood is shed in our northern States. There is but one policy which could have stopped it; the maintenance by the Administration of the policy marked out in the summer of 1861, which declared no war for conquest-no anti-slavery crusade. This alone united the North. This might have preserved that unity. But I see no hopes of a return to such a policy. The bigots of New England have their copyists outside, and the anti-slavery pressure continues. Indeed, it is questioned whether any policy can now restore the Union. Abolition has made the Union, for the present, impossible. An aroused people may strike blindly and madly, and the result may be the formation of new alliances among the States and fresh conflicts among the people. As a western man, representing the capital of the leading State of the northwest during these past six years, I have not been unobservant of the signs in that quarter. I have persistently opposed all schemes of secession and division. I yet oppose them. But I am far behind the impulse and sentiment of the West. The erection of the States watered by the Mississippi and its tributaries into an independent Republic, standing on its own resources, mineral and agricultural, with a soil so fat that if "tickle it with a hoe it will laugh with a harvest" [cheers]-a connection with which would be sought by the South and the East, yet choosing for itself its cheapest and best outlet to the sea; banded together by river and homogeneity of interest-is becoming something more than a dream. It is the talk of every other western man. Men fall into it with a facility which is shocking to the olden sense of nationality. I speak of these schemes only to disapprove and to warn. Just as in 1861, in my seat in Congress, I warned of similar southern schemes, but in vain. All warning fell on sodden hearts. In vain the lamented Douglas urged; in vain the noble Crittenden pleaded. [Cheers for Crittenden!] New England fanaticism made compromise impossible. Let us now be warned in time! As patriotic men, loving our whole country, we must understand the source of this new discontent. The West protest now, as New York and Pennsylvania and New Jersey protested in the last elections, that they desire to stand in the Union, protected by all the muniments the Constitution. Governor Seymour means much and well, when he says that these central and western States will at last assure us of our old Union. [Cheers.] They are willing to perform the voyage-desert the ship who may. They will keep all the shipping articles-break them who may. They do not intend to be ruled, however, by the Constitution-breaking, law-defying, negro-loving Phariseeism of New England! [A voice, "Let her slide" -cheers.] No. We will keep her in on her good behavior, and cast forth the seven devils of clerical meddling and monopolizing aggrandizement

you