when those regions belonged to a foreign Power? How did it exist when North Carolina and Rhode Island were outside of the Union? If anything represents the nation as a whole, it is the Constitution, without which we have no other than separate States. Now the Constitution, this sacred source of what is called national life, itself provides for a state of things which left onethird of the existing States outside of its pale. It provides that it should come into full force whenever nine out of thirteen States should accept it. Hence a division of the Union, the separate existence of part of the States, was not only a possibility foreseen by the framers of the Constitution, but was calmly provided for in it. It is well known that the people of the North, having annexed the greater part of the territory of Mexico, look forward to the absorption of the rest. Will it, then, be essential to the national life that seven or eight millions of races and creed totally discordant, should form part of it? Is a nation made or preserved by inviting the subjects of other powers, the natives of other countries, Germans and Irishmen, to cross over and inhabit its territory? The policy pursued by those who clamour for nationality is directly opposed to the existence of a nation. For a nation cannot be made artificially, by law or by importations from across the seas; it must be nata, born on the soil. Austria is a great political power, but there is no Austrian nation; it is an aggregate of many nations. So the United States form a great political power, embracing millions of Irishmen, Germans, negroes; comprising, indeed, the native races of three continents. Hence the phrase, 'preserving the national life,' really means preserving Northern power. The Northern States, without the admixture of millions of negroes, and a still larger number of men of temperament opposed to their own, would surely have formed a more perfect nationality than that attained by all this bloodshed. Their territory, three thousand miles across, and their population, larger than that of the whole Union was a few years ago, might surely have satisfied a power of which living men saw the birth. It is true we are told by Mr. Ward Beecher that we on this mere speck of ground have no idea of proper dimensions. Mr. Beecher appears to have forgotten that, so far as mere size goes, a space equal to the whole surface of the United States, North and South, might be removed from the British empire without being seriously missed. The area of the entire Union and its territories is almost exactly 3,000,000 of square miles; that of the British empire is above 8,000,000 of square miles. Of this there is a section larger than the Southern States, which we shall permit peacefully to separate whenever its people, with reasonable unanimity, express a desire to do so. Hence, we think

K 2

think it quite possible in this country to form other than petty ideas even on the subject of magnitude; and we do not hesitate to express the opinion, that if the population of Great Britain were transferred to America and scattered over 3,000,000 of square miles, it would be but a question of time and growth when a division into separate powers would occur. It hardly seems in the nature of things that New York, on the Atlantic, should be permanently the metropolis of great regions on the Pacific Ocean, 3500 miles away from it. And however different may be the popular feeling of the day, we regard the extent of the Union as a cause that must be fatal in the end to the Federation. We have been told hitherto that this danger was counteracted by the division into States, each really governing itself; and that this machinery could be adapted to and worked with forty or fifty States as well as thirty. But those State rights, which really had much of this efficacy, are now to be obliterated. With them will vanish the best argument for the permanence of the Union. We cannot, however, expect that the Northern people should have regulated their policy by views of the future. They seem to have apprehended, indeed, an immediate danger, beyond the separation of the South. It appears to have been admitted that if the South obtained its independence, the division of the North itself would surely follow. At one time we are told the South and its slavery caused the danger of disruption; at another, the South appears as the cementing principle, bereft of which the Union of the free men of the North must fall to pieces. Strange, that the people of the South should be prepared to face the hazards of a separate nationality, whilst those of the North, twice their number, should consider themselves unable to stand alone. It is difficult to see how a Union that was not expected to hold good over a homogeneous part, is more likely to endure over a combination of discordant elements.

.

As to the pretence, so industriously urged here, that the real object of the North was to abolish slavery, it would be idle to argue with anything so obviously insincere. Mr. Lincoln was surely most likely to know why he called out the 75,000 men, and made a declaration of war; and he told us, not that it was to free the negro, but to save the Union. The true object on either side is fairly stated in the New York Times,' the organ of the Federal Government. It speaks thus: What is the South fighting for? There is a prevalent opinion here in the North that it is fighting for slavery. This is erroneous. Though a passion for slavery was the immediate occasion of the war, it does not now sustain the war. The South would buy triumph to-morrow, if it could, by a complete sacrifice of slavery. It would not yield, though it could

could take a bond of fate that by yielding it could save slavery. What Jefferson Davis told Colonel Jacques is perfectly true, that slavery had now nothing to do with the war, and that the only question was that of Southern independence. It is precisely this for which the South is fighting-exactly the converse of the National principle for which the North is fighting. We can tell the South, in all sincerity, that the Northern people will carry this war to any extremity rather than let the nationality be broken.' Here very competent authority confirms the assertion of Earl Russell, that the North was fighting for empire, the South for independence. It is true that as the war went on, the antislavery feeling of the North widely extended. This has been described as the growth of virtue; we should call it the growth of passion. Was it love for the negro that grew, or hate for his master? We are told the war had exercised a purifying, elevating effect on the people of the North. It is new Christian doctrine to claim this as the result of shedding the blood of brothers. So far as we can discern the effect, it is precisely the reverse. As the war went on, the Northern people grew more and more indifferent to their own Constitution, till they looked with apathy on breaches of it which at one time would have roused the fiercest indignation. They became more and more callous to the destruction of human life and the infliction of human suffering. ceased to give uneasiness, and the volunteer was exchanged for the conscript. Luxury, extravagance, speculation, grew with rapid strides. We should hardly call this the purifying of a people. We cannot see that the life of a nation is fostered by the death of its sons. We distrust the creation of wealth that goes hand in hand with the increase of debt. We doubt the moral growth that produces such men as Butler and Blenker, Turchin and M'Neil, that is illustrated by the preachings of Brownlow, or the ravings of Anna Dickenson. Nor do we see that the cause of freedom has gained by the liberation of four millions of negroes and the reduction of five millions of our own race to bondage.

Debt

Nothing more deplorable than the fate of the South can well be imagined; impoverished, desolate, derided, a land of anxiety for the living and lamentation for the dead, assailed at the same time by all the sufferings of defeat and all the dangers of a social revolution. Its lot is far worse than that of a conquered country, which would be protected in some measure by the laws of war. In one direction it is visited with the penalties of war; in another with the punishment for treason; in a third with consequences that neither war nor insurrection produce. Its position is that of a man to whom three different instruments of torture are applied

at

at once. It would be difficult to find that either war or insurrection warrants the seizure of a fourth of all the cotton in the country, its only available resource. Loyal or disloyal, innocent or guilty, all suffer alike. And another measure proposed is still more remarkable. Perhaps at first view no idea more supremely ridiculous could well present itself to the mind than that of giving the suffrage at once to all the negroes. Can there be a dozen field negroes in all the South who could even pronounce the word suffrage, or who can be supposed to have the faintest idea what such a word means? The other day slavery was said to have brutalised the race until nothing was left but the mere shape of humanity. Now they suddenly appear as the most loyal, intelligent, praiseworthy, loveable of mankind-devoted to Constitutional principles, admirers of Northern character, worthy of the fullest privileges of citizenship. The countrymen of Washington, Madison, Stonewall Jackson, and Lee, are quite a lower type of beings; so we are told are the Irish and the Germans. It is curious that when the Southern man was to be maligned, he had reduced the negro to a brute; but when there is an object to be gained by the discovery, that same negro is found to be an angel. The meaning of all this can easily be discerned. The Republican party have an idea that when the South recovers from its present prostration, it may send members to Congress who may not vote as they wish. Now in several of the States the negroes equal the white population in number, and it is assumed they will be entirely controlled by the Northerners who go down to settle in the country. The latter, with the negro vote in their hands, of course would carry every election, and produce the same result as if the Southerners were deprived in the future of all representation. This cunning scheme of course is made to wear a virtuous and lofty form; it is another proof of 'moral growth.' But ingenious as it is, we rather think it assumes what should not be taken for granted. The negro race possesses in a high degree a feeling, well known and ever strong where it exists, of reverential clinging to the old, traditional, rightful owner, and aversion to the stranger who dispossesses him. Every one in the South knows the feeling of the negro towards the old family, even in its decay. Hence we think this very ingenious contrivance, if adopted, will break down in practice. Meantime it does not appear to have been thought worthy of notice, even by Mr. Chase, that, according to the Constitution of the United States, neither the Federal Congress nor its President has a particle of right to control, direct, or extend the suffrage in any one of the States.

The amnesty, or what is called amnesty, proclaimed by Mr. Johnson, is far beyond anything yet attempted in Poland. It is a deliberate

a deliberate scheme for reducing to destitution, for destroying in fact, all the upper classes of a nation. By what right is every man of substance to hold his property only if Mr. Johnson so will it? No conqueror in modern times ever claimed such a right as this, no laws of war grant any such spoliation. But then treason, that 'blackest of crimes!' True, but if there be such a crime it can only be in breach of a Federal law; and what says the Federal Constitution? Amendment No. 5: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' No. 8 enjoins: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.' Hence the Confiscation Act passed by the Federal Congress is wholly unconstitutional; there is no particle of lawful power in the Government to take any man's property until he has been first tried and convicted. Even then, by the express clause already quoted, it can only be taken for his lifetime. Hence, the whole policy now adopted towards the South is not only an outrage on humanity but the most flagrant breach of law ever committed by a Government affecting to rule under the restraints of law. The property held in the South in slaves, under the laws of the United States, exceeded, when the war broke out, 500,000,000l. sterling in amount. This vast sum is swept away by a mere despotic stroke of the pen, without compensation, without a thought of consequences, without attempt at provision for the future of either race. Surely this is a somewhat excessive fine' to inflict. But, even after this is swept away, whoever has property exceeding 40007. in value is excluded from this amnesty. It is true he may hope to make his peace by petition, by going on his knees to Mr. Johnson, of course well bribing his way through all the officials. Poor Virginia-the spirit of Washington might have looked without a blush on the deeds of her sons in defence of their soil; blush it may for those to whom he, that great Southerner, gave the power they thus use against his family and his State.

All this the unhappy people of the South have to suffer. There is no choice but with the fortitude in which they have so well schooled themselves, to live through the present into the future. It remains, with mutual aid, to resume, as best they may, the pursuits of industry, and perform, as best they may, their duties as citizens. None here had any part in producing the convulsion. The right of secession, ill understood, was generally regarded as chimerical, and the action of the South as void of sufficient cause and ill advised. As the subject came to be studied, the sympathy of large numbers was given to the Southin some cases from conviction that they had right on their side,