beration, and a time for quick, energetic working, when the whole energies of the soul must be put forth to meet an emergency ;-such was the case with Mr. Lincoln. There was no time to waste. The click of Secessia's rifles was on his ear. Honest men worked, and brave men flew to arms, while far and wide spread the cry, "Arm, countrymen, arm, for home and freedom!" and forth marched the countless legions of patriots, to maintain the honour of the starspangled banner, and to echo the cry, "Hurrah for the black man's rights! humanity for ever!" against the cry from the South of, "Hurrah for the white man's rights! slavery for ever!"

Again, others have said, If it be a war of slavery, why does not Lord Brougham and other English abolitionists side with the North? We know not. We thought at least the rugged form of Brougham would ever be seen in the van of freedom; we expected to hear his voice swell with indignation to rebuke the South. But it is not so. The once noble champion of anti-slavery can now stickle on the wording of a document, or would resist a good measure if its fountain was not unbiased truth. The once noble Harry Brougham of thirty years ago is not the Lord Brougham of to-day. The gentleman who spoke at Edinburgh some weeks ago is not he who with a flashing eye and a voice of thunder said, "Tell me not of rights-talk not of the property of the planter in his slave; I deny the right-I acknowledge not the property." How are the mighty fallen! But though Brougham has forsaken antislavery principles, the Northern side ranks among its numbers the nerve and sinew of England,-me men who through the press and from the platform mould the mind of the British mass- -Cobden, Bright, Thompson, Foster, Noel, Stuart Mill, Hughes, &c.

In conclusion, perhaps we could not do better than quote the words of Wendell Phillips on this subject. He says, "The noise and dust of the conflict may hide the real question at issue. Europe may think-some of us may-that we are fighting for forms and parchments, for sovereignty and a flag. But really the war is one of opinions: it is civilization against barbarism; it is freedom against slavery. The cannon-shot against Fort Sumter was the yell of pirates against the Declaration of Independence; the warcry of the North is the echo of that sublime pledge. The South, defying Christianity, clutches its victim. The North offers its wealth and blood in glad atonement for the selfishness of seventy years. The result is as sure as the throne of God. I believe in the possibility of justice, in the certainty of union." NAM DER.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

THE heat of the conflict is certainly not the best time to discover its origin and purposes. In all conflicts and revolutions the origin may be traced, when they are past, either to some very insignificant act, or to an act which, though insignificant in itself, was as the spark to a fire which had long been smouldering, or as the last straw which breaks the horse's back. But in the heat of the fray the

querist would have had many reasons, and those very powerful if true, adduced to defend the origin and continuance of the conflict. When once the ball of war or revolution has been set in motion, few can stop its course; the leaders find themselves involved by surrounding circumstances, and know not how, if they would, to retreat. The original cause and the first aim of the movement are lost sight of, or entirely ignored, and the participators in it are led they know not whither. Thus it was with the Crusades, which strayed from the first purpose of freeing the Holy Sepulchre, to that of a general crusade against the infidel wherever he might dwell. Thus it was, in part, with the revolt of the American colonies; with the late Mexican expedition; and thus is it with the present disruption in America. It is not probable, therefore, that a person deeply interested in the issue of the fray, and closely identified with one of the contending parties, should be able, had he the intention of so doing, to give us a full and authentic account of the origin and objects of the American struggle. He is so identified with his party, that he fails to see or to notice the other side of the question. We, writing while the combat is raging, are perhaps hardly fitted for a full and impartial examination of the subject; and there is no doubt that succeeding generations will be enabled to dispense justice to both parties more rigorously than we can at the present time. But what time will not accomplish, distance may in part perform. We are thousands of miles from the combatants, have no violent party interests in the struggle, and are in possession of the various documentary evidences issued by both sides in support of their past and present conduct. As we are not called upon to prove a negative, it will be sufficient if we produce the Southern reasons for secession; examine how far they are valid; and, in conclusion, show that the North did not at first hold slavery to be the cause of the present struggle. Now that they have entered on the conflict, the first cause and aim have been lost in the heat of the fray; and we are called upon to sympathize with a people who, first making war to preserve their union, are now, they tell us, continuing it to exterminate slavery.

The immediate cause of the war was the secession of the Southern states. The North considered itself bound by the Constitution to preserve the Union, and the war was undertaken for that purpose. We now inquire, What induced the South to secede? The South assert that their interests are, and have been, diametrically opposed to those of the North. Thus the idea of secession did not spring up in a day; it is the matured growth of years. The seeds of dissolution were sown in the framing of the Constitution. All sagacious American statesmen saw that a rupture must and would come, Washington designated his plan as an experiment. John Adams, in 1775, wrote, "I dread the consequences of this dissimilitude of character; and without the utmost caution on both sides, and the most considerate forbearance with one another, and prudent condescension on both sides, they will certainly be fatal."

Slavery, as a political element, has no doubt played a part in bringing about the present state of things; but it is not the real cause of the war. This is to be traced to the opposite commercial interests of the two parties. To the South the tariff laws were ruinous; for in raising the revenue by heavy duties on foreign goods which came back in return for Southern produce, the North were making the South pay a greater share of the expense of government than was just; and by prohibiting trade in foreign ships, the South were compelled to come to the North, who, by monopolizing the European trade, obtained greater profits in brokerage and freights on Southern produce, as well as on European goods brought back in return for that produce, from all which the South reaped little benefit. Such is a brief summary of the Southern cause of complaint. It will be necessary to substantiate it before we can receive it as sufficient ground for secession. This it is by no means difficult to do. At the Declaration of Independence all the states were agricultural. When the Union was formed, a duty of about 6 per cent. was laid on imported manufactured goods. In 1812 the North became slightly manufacturing. In 1816 a tariff of high protective duties was imposed, by means of which Northern manufacturers flourished at the expense of Southern agriculturists. In 1823 this tariff was raised, though not without strenuous opposition on the part of the South. In 1832, on a reduction of this tariff, the North determined to be the sole partaker of the benefit. South Carolina determined to secede. This alarmed the North, and the tariff was modified. In 1842 the famous Morrill Tariff was passed, which again raised the duties. In 1846 the tariff was made still heavier; and from that time till the secession "the fiscal system of the United States has been continuously protective, to the profit of Northern manufacturers at the cost of the Southern agriculturist." The Southern States are the great exporters of the Union. Our imports from them have reached thirty millions a year. They are willing to receive in exchange our earthenwares, woollens, and calico; but the North endeavours to prevent them as far as possible, by a high and very complicated tariff, in order to protect its own manufactures: it increased the price of that which they had to buy; and diminished the exchangeable value of that which they had to sell. Were there not here opposite interests and sufficient grounds for a dissolution of the Union? The whole of the South were of course opposed to these duties, but their influence in the Senate and House of Representatives had become counterbalanced by the rapid increase of the Northern states, that they were powerless to protect their own interests. Hence they allied with the democrats of the North, as most favourable to their cause. The South had the lead at first, but this, in consequence of the increase in the population of the Northern states, according to which the number of representatives is fixed, she soon lost, and her influence began to decline. Ac cording to Mr. Spence, "Virginia originally returned 10 members to 6 from New York; the proportions now are, Virginia 11, New

York 30. But this is not all; Virginia had at one time 23 members, now reduced to 11; although her population has increased-slowly indeed, but steadily-during the period. And South Carolina, which in the scheme of the Constitution stands for 5 in 65, or one-thirteenth of the representation, will return under the last census 4 out of 233, or one-sixtieth part. Hence that state has lost no less than a quarter of the representative power it had when the Federal compact was framed, a compact entered into with the expectation of advantage from it."

With the election of President Lincoln all hope of relief for the South was at an end; therefore South Carolina, as the most injured state, intimated her desire to withdraw, accompanying it with a memorial of her grievances. No notice was taken of this, and a deputation was appointed to wait upon President Buchanan. They were not received; and the same fate befell the AttorneyGeneral of the state. Three representatives were then sent, intimating the wish of the state to secede quietly if her grievances could not be taken into account. These were kept waiting under arrest for a month, during which time an attempt was made by the North to throw reinforcements into Fort Sumter. Here was insult added to oppression; and this was the final immediate cause of secession. South Carolina seceded, and was joined by five other states,—Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana, Florida, and Texas, of which Jefferson Davis was elected President. The reasons above given formed, we believe, the ground of secession. We now proceed to show that slavery was not, and could not have been, the real cause of the war. For,

First. At no period within the last half-century has the "domestic institution" of slavery been placed under such safeguard, or reorganized so unmistakably by Congress and the political party generally opposed to it, as at the period of Mr. Lincoln's election. The Republicans, among whom are all the Abolitionists, are usually hostile to the South, yet their manifesto for 1860 runs,—

"The maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends."

But further, two days before Mr. Lincoln entered office, March 2, 1861, an Act of Congress declared—

"That no amendinent shall be made to the Constitution which shall authorize or give Congress power to abolish or interfere within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labour or servitude by the laws of the said state."

Previous legislation had, so far as slavery was concerned, been entirely in favour of the South. The Fugitive Slave Law was passed, by which the runaway slave might be seized in any part of the Union and delivered over to his owner, just the same as a strayed or stolen horse or bullock. In the Dred Scott case the

Supreme Court at Washington declared that "the constitution recognizes the right of property in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen.' That, therefore, Congress had no power to prohibit the existence of slavery beyond a certain degree of latitude, as it had done in the Missouri compromise; and when a negro claimed his freedom on the ground of residing north of that line, the claim was invalid; as he still remained the property of his master who had brought him from the South.

President Lincoln fully pledged himself to respect the domestic institutions, and therefore the South were in no fear that he would interfere with their state rights. The following extract from his inaugural speech is convincing on this point:---

Apprehensions seem to exist among the people of the Southern states that, by the accession of a republican administration, their property, peace, and personal security are endangered. There has never been any reasonable ground for such an apprehension. I quote one of my former speeches, in which I declared that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in states where it exists.' I believe I have no lawful right, as I have no inclination, to do so. Those who nominated and elected me, placed on the platform for my acceptance, and as a law for themselves and me, the following resolutions:"(the first we have already given, the other is, "Lawless invasion by armed force of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, is denounced as the gravest of crimes.") "I now reiterate those sentiments, and press it upon public attention, that the property, peace, and security of no section are endangered by the incoming administration. To the proposition that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause [that of the Fugitive Slave Act, and similar to the decree of the Supreme Court above given] shall be delivered up, all members of Congress are bound by oath. I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservation, and with no purpose of construing the Constitution or laws by any exceptional rules. . . I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution-which amendment, however, I have not seen-has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of states, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say, that holding such a provision as now implied to be constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

When the secession was an accomplished fact, the Northern press and people alleged that slavery could not be the cause. The following is from the New York Times in 1861:

"In no solitary instance have their rights been infringed, their liberty abridged, or their interests invaded by the Government of the United States; on the contrary, they have known that Government only by the blessings it has conferred upon them. It has fought their battles, enlarged their area, paid for the postal service, augmented their power and consideration abroad, and shielded their peculiar institution, the hatred and pity of the civilized world. But for the Union and the protection it has afforded them, they would long since have sunk under the weight of their own evils, or been crushed by the enmity of hostile powers. During the whole period of their connection with the Union they cannot point to a single instance of hostile or unfriendly action on the part of the United States; not a single law has ever been passed interfering with slavery in the slightest degree,