spot. Mr. Brooks only desisted just before murder was accomplished. Such is the mode in which the chivalrous South avenges its grievances. But the most important point in reference to the attack on Mr. Sumner was the manner in which it was received by the Southern people. Not one Press, south of the Potomac condemned the act-not one man, not one public body. Not one word of rebuke came from any quarter of the South. On the contrary, it was adopted and approved by all-recognized as a policy and a system; and not only the men, but the women of the South combined to heap commendations, honors, and rewards upon the perpetrator. So far as to the character, object, and aims of the Southern Confederacy.

POLITICAL MOVEMENT OF THE SOUTH.

Let me now endeavor to explain the political movement which has brought the Free States and the South into collision. And here you will, of course, understand that I cannot pretend to do more than give the barest outline of the case. At every step I must leave difficulties unsolved and objections unanswered. I only ask you to believe that, if I do so, it is not because I feel them to be either insoluble or unanswerable, but simply because the limits of time during which I can occupy your attention require that I should confine myself to those points which are indispensable towards comprehending the drift and meaning of the whole. To understand the influences which now agitate the North, and assist you to appreciate the consequence of the part the North has acted in this great drama, and the results towards which it is tending, the first fact to be considered is, that the movement of which we now contemplate the results, the movement which carried Lincoln to power,was a reaction against the influences which had been previously predominant in the Union, which had controlled almost the whole of its past policy. From 1820 to 1860 the Government of the United States has, with the exception of a few short intervals, been in the hands of the party composed of Southern politicians, and of that section of the North which for political purposes may be regarded as Southern -the Northern Democrats. Of this political combination I do not overstate the case when I say that the leading idea, the comparative aim, almost the single purpose, was to extend slavery, and to achieve political power by extending it. Under the influence of this party public morality in America has deteriorated as public morality never before deteriorated in any country in the same space of time (hear). The race of political men has declined, political honesty is scarcely to be found. Politics has become a by-word. In spite of a material prosperity which astonished the world, America, in all moral qualities, in all the qualities which adorn a nation, has rapidly retrograded. Down to 1855 this tendency to retrograde met with no serious obstruction, but in that year the evil began to work its own cure. The excesses of the dominant party awoke some of the best minds in the United States to a sense of the fearful career along which it was hurrying, and the certain ruin which was ahead. A reaction took place, and a new party was formed. It was this party which carried Lincoln to power. It is the same which is now rapidly transforming the whole policy of the Republic. The principles of the Republican party are such as the opponents of the policy of the South necessarily ought to have.

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.

The question at issue in the vast contest respecting slavery in this rebellion has not been as frequently supposed in this country, whether slavery should be abolished or perpetuated, but whether it should be restricted to its present limits or extended over the entire of the Union. Down to the present hour, or, more correctly, down to the recent proclamation of Mr. Lincoln, no considerable politician proposed to interfere with slavery in the States where it was already established, and the efforts of the party opposed to slavery on the one hand, and of the slavery party on the other, have been directed exclusively to the "Territories." I must explain the peculiar signification which the word "Territory" bears in the United States, and the political nomenclature of the United States. A Territory does not signify, as with us, whole acres of country, but only that portion which has not yet been brought under the control of state Governments. Accordingly, "Territory," in the political discussions of the United States, is opposed to "State," the State being, for all local purposes, under its own Government, while a "Territory," having no local Government, comes directly under the cognizance and control of the Federal authority. The Territories are, in short, the unsettled portions, and include those vast regions which stretch away to the Pacific. These it is which form the question between slavery and freedom.

When the Union was founded the slave interest was content with a small local toleration - it made no claim to extension beyond its existing limits. In proof of this I need only point to a region which then corresponded to the word Territories, but is now comprised in the Free States, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan. These had been ceded to the Central Government by Virginia, the most powerful of the slave States, and the ordinance providing for its government was drawn up by Jefferson, a Southern slave-owner. If the slave party at that time considered that it had any claims, this was a case in which it could be advanced, the territory in question having been originally the property of a slave State, and the statesman to whom the preparation of a Charter for its government was intrusted had been a native of that State. No such claim was advanced. On the contrary a clause was introduced into the ordinance which forever prohibited the introduction of slavery into the Territory. I say, therefore, at the outset of the history of the United States, the slavery party were content to remain within the existing limits, and advanced no pretensions on the unsettled Territory of the nation. At an early period of the present century, however, we find that, with the extension of the cotton cultivation, slavery interests grew in proportion, and, in 1818, the pretension was openly advanced to carry slavery into the Territories. The first attempt was the demand to admit Missouri as a slave State. A violent opposition was given, and the result was the "Missouri Compromise," by which the slavery party gained their object-the admission of Missouri, but with the provision that in future slavery should not be introduced beyond a certain parallel of latitude. This was the first triumph of the Southern party -the division of the Republic into free and slave Territories (hear, hear). Such was the position of the question till 1820, at which time the entire Territory, which, under the Missouri Compromise, fell to the South, having been appropriated. The next step was to endeavor to break the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise was therefore denounced by the South as unjust. It was urged that the proper parties to determine the question of slavery or no slavery in the Territories were not the Federal Government but the settlers. A bill recognizing this principle, which was justly called the "Squatter sovereignty," was passed in the year 1854, a bill by which the unsettled lands were virtually thrown open, to be scrambled for by the contending parties. This was the second triumph in the career of aggression. The Territories were now all thrown open to slavery throughout their whole extent. The results expected, however, were not realized. The measure of 1854, though it threw open the Territories to slavery, did not actually establish it, but left it to be decided by the settlers, and it turned out that in the absence of business of colonization the slave States were no match for the free (hear, hear). Thus, in Kansas, in spite of every intrigue on the part of the slave party, their defeat was ignominious and complete (hear). The theory of the squatter sovereignty was, therefore, laid aside, and in its place a new doctrine propounded; it was said that slave property had a right to be recognized as such by the Constitution, - that, if property at all, it was as much so in one part of the Union as in another,--that the first duty of Government was to protect property wherever its jurisdiction extended; and the conclusion drawn from those premises was that it was the duty of the Federal Government to protect slavery in all parts of the Union-in the Territories as well as in the States, and in the Free States as well as in the Slave (hear).

This was the last culminating pretension of the slave power: it amounted to nothing less than a demand to convert the whole Union into one grand slave-holding domain. Not only was the pretension advanced, but important steps were taken to make it good. By dint of packing in the courts of justice, with Southern partisans, à decision was obtained called the Dred Scott Decision, which fully bore out the views of the slavery party. So far as the law was concerned, the triumph of the South was accomplished. It was laid down by the highest authority that in the eye of the law there was no difference between a slave and a horse, and, as a man may take his horse where he pleases through the Union, and as the Government was bound to protect him, so he might take his slave where he pleased, and had the same right to be maintained in possession. Something more was wanted to make good the slave party. They had need of a Government to act upon the principle thus vindicated. This power they were resolved to obtain at the next Presidential election; and it was because they failed in this object that Secession was proclaimed (great applause). So that you have now before you the source of aggression against which the Free States now league. As the ground of the South was the extension of slavery, so the ground taken by the North was its non-extension. I say non-extension, not the abolition of slavery, for the Constitution had guaranteed slavery in the States in which it existed, and it was not part of the policy of the Republican party to violate the Constitution. Slavery, therefore, in the States was not directly threatened, but it was declared that, for the future, slavery should be excluded from all the Territories of the Republic. It was upon this position that Mr. Lincoln was raised to power, and it was because it triumphed that the South seceded. We have now traced the history of this movement up to the point when the South was breaking out. I will ask you now to follow me while I indicate the course of the Northern policy, under the aid of the Republican party, since that time. When the news of the outbreak first reached this country, as you will remember, the feeling of the public, though not of an energetic character on the whole -went for the North, it being understood that a contest was about to break ont between the free and slave States, and that the object of the North was to put down slavery. One of President Lincoln's first acts on entering on the Government was to declare that he had no intention to interfere with slavery where it was established. Upon hearing this, public opinion at once veered about. It was then assumed that the war was unconnected with slavery, and our sympathies, under the skilful guidance of secessionists in England, were carried round to the Southern side. In view, now, of the facts of the case, I ask you if our early expectation was not unreasonable, and I will not shrink to also ask you if our moderate calculations were not unjust. We expected the North to throw itself into the struggle against slavery, but upon what grounds? The abolition of slavery in the States where it was established had never been any part of the Northern programme. The Repub

lican party had always disavowed this, and declared its determination to abide by the Constitution. I think I might go further and ask you whether it would have been wise to have resorted at once to revolutionary measures while the civil war was pending, and while a chance remained of accomplishing an object by peaceful means. But, secondly, I will ask you if our moderate calculation was not unjust. It is true the North only took up arms to defend the Constitution-the Constitution under which, in despite of its furtherance of the purposes of a pro-slavery party, it enjoyed a career of at least material prosperity. It took up arms to maintain a Union which gave to the American people the status of a great Power in the world. These were undoubtedly the reasons which inspired the Northern rising. Nevertheless, I have always contended, and recent experience has certainly not induced me to change my mind, that the war, whatever might be the issue which might be joined, was in essence an anti-slavery war (applause).

If I knew that the Union which the North resolved to defend was only endangered by the exigencies of slavery, I knew that the South demanded secession for no other purpsse than to spread slavery over the length and breadth of tropical America; and therefore I felt confident that, this being the chief object of the struggle, it was to this issue that the war must ultimately come. What light has experience thrown on the question? I ask you to look to the effects of the present combat. In March last President Lincoln issued a proclamation inviting the State Governors to advise a plan of emancipation, and passed an act abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia; later again a still more important act-the exclusion forever of slavery from the Territories; and, lastly, we can point to the recent treaty with Great Britain conceding the right of search of Federal ships, and this at once effected what had hitherto been an idle protest-the blockade of the African coast. These have been the achievements of the North, -achievements any one of which is sufficient to give a distinct anti-slavery character to the policy of the Federal Government, achievements which will bear fruit, and cause happiness and prosperity to future generations of American people, when all this slave-trade has passed away and been forgotten (applause). Such, up to the present time, has been the course of the American revolution, but within the last month the policy of the North has undergone a radical change. The anti-slavery measures and all the other measures possess this character, that they are strictly constitutional. But to give them effect there was need of something more than the Act of Congress. The South has taken up arms for a slave Congress, and nothing short of a military defeat of the South would bring it to terms. That was the essential conditional to the success of the new policy on which the North had entered. I confess I am one of those who conceive that the fulfilment of this condition - the defeat, not the permanent subjugation of the South - might have been accomplished without having recourse to any other measures than those already put in force; but highly as I was disposed to view the military prowess of the Confederates--formidable as I thought it, I confess their advantages have exceeded my expectations; and, after the experience of the present year, I see no chance of their being effectually humbled except by an appeal, on the Northern side, to principles more powerful than any yet invoked (applause); for it has been well said that while the South has enjoyed the full advantage of the awful principles of slavery, the North has only availed itself partially and with hesitation. The cause of slavery, decidedly asserted and logically carried out, has rallied the whole Southern population to the centre of secession; while the North, substantially fighting the cause of freedom, but fettered by the Constitution, has hitherto shrunk from making appeals to those sentiments which freedom inspires. To give a practical illustration of the difficulties which the North experiences: while the South does not hesitate to avail itself of the services of the negroes, either in the camp or on the plantation, the North has not taken advantage of them. What then? Is freedom to succumb? Is the North to lay down its arms? Is it to accept of the peace dictated by a triumphant slave power? and are the fairest portions of the New World to be made the field for the propagation of the greatest curse which mankind has yet known? I say, for my part, most emphatically, No, (applause.) Before freedom is pronounced defeated, let it at least have a fair chance. Let it use both its hands. Let it put forth all its power. Let it oppose to the admirers of slavery the whole force of its fair intentions, and this is the resolution which slavery has forced upon the North. I may say slavery has encountered freedom clogged with the provisions of the Constitution.

These have been flung aside, and freedom and slavery find themselves face to face in the deadly combat. But we are told the negroes will rise and perpetrate wholesale and indiscriminate massacres, and a series of Cawnpores will be the result. So says the Times. For my own part I have no faith in such predictions. I distrust the source from whence they proceed (hear, hear). I cannot forget that the same authority which now tells us that the negroes are ready to rise in rapine and murder their masters but the other day assured us that they are completely contented, happy, and loyal (applause). I cannot forget that the same censor who now denounces the Northern Government for proclaiming emancipation only a few years ago denounced it with scarcely less force for not proclaiming emancipation. I cannot forget that the same seer who now indulges his imagination in picturing the horrors which freedom will produce has, from the commencement of the war down to the present time, been uttering prophecy after prophecy until we find prophecy after prophecy falsified by the events. I cannot forget that these denunciations proceed from the same generous critic who levelled insults at free America in order to divest her of her prospects. I see, therefore, and I distrust the sources from which these proceed (applause). For my part, I neither believe that the negroes are the contented, loyal beings they are described in one column of the Times, nor the ruthless savages they are depicted in the next. I think it will be nearer the truth to say they resemble the harmless cattle in our fields, with an intelligence somewhat more developed, and an instinct of self-interest somewhat stronger; and unless driven to desperation by acts of atrocity, such as that mentioned in the telegrams to-day, which stated that 17 negroes had been hung for having in their possession copies of President Lincoln's proclamation, the probability is that they will act much as cattle, could they but understand the import of the message which is sent to them. When the opportunity offers they will probably fly to the Federal lines. This is what instinct only will teach them. It is what they did when the war commenced, but then the war was conducted on constitutional principles, and the fugitives were sent back to serve the masters against whom those who sent them back were fighting. This can happen no more. The attempt to carry on the war on constitutional principles has been abandoned. The proclamation has superceded this. The Federal lines will henceforth become for the negro a sure harbor of refuge, and, judging from what has already occurred, and what we know of the system, probably the result will be a grand stampede of the negro population. That is the practical result which I expect from the proclamation, and it is a result of vast importance. It will derange the whole internal system of the South, and, by striking at its foundation, undermine the whole edifice. That is what it appears to me the proclamation is calculated to effect. That isolated instances of murder will