66

of the West." "The South," he says, 66 is now in "the formation of a Slave Republic This, perhaps, "is not admitted generally. There are many "contented to believe that the South as a geographical section is in mere assertion of its "independence.... This, I fear, is an "inadequate conception of the controversy.

66

66

The contest is not between the North "and South as geographical sections. The real con"test is between the two forms of society which have "become established, the one at the North and the "other at the South." And he alludes as follows to the prospects of an independent Slave Republic: "Three years ago, in my report to the Commer❝cial Convention at Montgomery, I said that Euro

66

pean States are hostile to the Union. Perhaps "they see in it a threatening rival in every "branch of art, and they see that rival armed "with one of the most potent productive institu"tions the world has ever seen; they would "crush India and Algeria to make an equal

686

supply of cotton with the North; and, failing "in this, they would crush slavery to bring the "North to a footing with them, but to slavery "without the North they have no repugnance: "on the contrary, if it were to stand out for "itself, free from the control of any other power, and were to offer to European States,

66 6

66 6

upon fair terms, a full supply of its commodi"ties, it would not only not be warred upon, "but the South would be singularly favored

""crowns would bend before her; kingdoms and "empires would break a lance to win the smile "of her approval; and, quitting her free estate, "it would be in her option to become the bride "of the world, rather than as now, the miser"able mistress of the North.'"

Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, Vice-President of the Southern Confederacy, leaves the world in no doubt about the origin of the war, and the purpose of the South in waging it. "African Slavery, as it exists among us," he says in his celebrated speech after the adoption of the new Southern Constitution, "was the immediate cause "of the late rupture and present revolution. The prevailing ideas entertained by "most of the leading statesmen at the time of "the formation of the old Constitution were, that "the enslavement of the African was in violation "of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in

66

66

principle, socially, morally, and politically. It "was an evil they knew not well how to deal "with, but the general opinion of the men of "that day was that, somehow or other, in the "order of Providence, the institution would be "evanescent, and pass away. This idea, though "not incorporated in the Constitution, was the "prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, "it is true, secured every essential guarantee to "their institution while it should last; and hence "no argument can be justly used against the con"stitutional guarantees thus secured, because of

"the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, "however, were fundamentally wrong.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly "the opposite ideas. Its foundations are laid, its "corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that Slavery, "subordination to the superior race, is the natural "and moral condition of the negro. This our new government is the first in the history of the world "based upon this great physical, philosophical, and "moral truth." Yes, Mr. Stephens, it is the first, indeed, and I think it will be the last!

66

So thoroughly was it understood throughout the South by the leaders in the war movement, that the preservation and extension of slavery was the purpose of the war, that we find suspicions cast upon the fidelity of those parts of the South which had not a vital interest in slavery. Thus a writer in the Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle says, "Disguise it as we may, the great"est danger to our new Confederacy arises, not "from without, not from the North, but from our "own people. The indications are, that "organised, if not avowed opposition, to the new "order of things, may arise in States or parts of "Southern States not vitally interested in the slavery "question."

Suspension of Constitutional Rights.

It has been said, too, that Mr. Lincoln's rule was despotic-that constitutional liberty was restricted by suspension of habeas corpus in some

cases, and strict dealing with the press. But a state of civil war puts constitutional rights in abeyance if this be found necessary to the public safety. Can any one doubt that, if the British Government found itself seriously confronted with armed, insurrectionary opposition anywhere within the limits of the United Kingdom, it would hesitate to suspend constitutional rights and interfere with personal liberty to any extent demanded by considerations of public safety and by the exigency of the occasion. Of course such suspension should only be had in the last resort, but of the last resort the government itself must be the judge. I shall not refer here to the notions of liberty held at the South. In the Slave States during their most peaceful times, there never was freedom of speech or of the press.

The War Tedious.

It has been further said that the war is an atrocious one in its methods, and that, moreover, it is tedious in its operations, and long in coming to a conclusion. Now, I say that all war is atrocious. The deliberate killing of men is atrocious work. John Wesley made a famous aphorism concerning slavery, affirming it the "sum of all villainies,”—and it was Robert Hall, I think, who made the aphorism concerning war, that it was "hell let loose." Yes, all war is atrocious. And the nearer we are to it in time and space, the more atrocious it appears. Then, as to the war

being tedious, certainly it is so, but all wars, where the opposing forces bear any due proportion to each other, are likely to be tedious. It is much easier to begin a war than to close one. If the South had duly considered this before firing her first round shot, it would have spared the world a great deal of anxiety and sorrow. Look at the history of the more recent wars of the world. Take the war for the occupation of the Crimea, a territory about the size of one of the smaller States of the Union. It took four nations of Europe combined, including Great Britain and Franceit required the combined power of these four European nations steadily exercised for about two years before they dislodged the Russians. Take the European peninsular war in the earlier part of this century. Was it not in 1808 that the French took Madrid, and was it not 1814 before even the genius of Wellington, supported by the allied armies, was able to drive them out of Spain? Thus it took the allies under Wellington some six years to expel the French from a Kingdom not much larger than the single State of Virginia. War, indeed, is a tedious business, and specially does it appear so when it presses immediately on any of our own interests.

Is Popular Government a Failure?

Then, again, it is said by some that this civil war decides the question as to the permanency of the popular form of government adopted in the