alone in the world. Time removes all this, whilst, on the other hand, it strengthens all the influences that tend to disruption; for with the growth of riches come the means of political corruption,— with the accumulation of masses of indigent population arise the elements of discontent,-with the development of special branches of industry conflicting interests come into play,-with the increase of grandeur there will grow too the spirit of ambition. There is but one thing that can counteract all this. When the original union of States has, in the progress of its development, become homogeneous, so that time has obliterated the first lines of distinction, and the whole has fused into a united people,—in that case the Federal principle has disappeared, and given place to a consolidated State. In the United States, although this has occurred in some respects, in others, and those of far the greatest force, time has wrought the opposite effect. The original elements continue, and permit the action of the laws under which time and growth, are fatal to this form of government. In truth, no Federal Union has ever been formed, on a large scale, of States which had approached a mature condition; it has always been the resource of communities still young and feeble. It arises, indeed, out of their youth; but in time they cease to be young, they become mature and powerful, and when this point is reached, it becomes as natural for those which may now differ from the rest to desire independence and free action, as for grown

men to desire a termination of the conditions which were necessary and fitting in their early days.

All the writers who have commented on the subject appear to have entertained these opinions. To Lord Macaulay's letter no one has attempted a reply, for it was unanswerable. Confining himself to one element, he pointed out, with a force carrying irresistible conviction, how that single element of dense urban population would eventually overthrow the Union. The framers of the Constitution entertained misgivings upon the subject. Curtis, in his History of the Constitution, observes: "Many of the wisest of the statesmen of that period, as we now know, entertained doubts whether the country embraced by the thirteen original States would not be too large for the suc cessful operation of a republican government." Washington expressed his fears more than once. It was a serious question in his mind whether that extent-insignificant as it was when compared with the present dominion-was not too large to abide permanently under one rule. He foresaw the effects of time, but wisely avoided unsettling discussions on the subject. In one of his letters he observes: "Let experience solve the question; to listen to speculation in such a case were criminal." Jefferson wrote thus forty years ago : "I have been amongst the most sanguine in believing that our Union would be of long duration. I now doubt it much, and see the event at no great distance. My only comfort and confidence

is, that I shall not live to see it."

in

De Tocqueville,

many passages, expresses his opinion that the Union could not endure : indeed, he says: "The history of the world affords no instance of a great nation retaining the form of republican government for a long series of years.

Writers of the present day, whenever they consider the subject, express their doubts of the durability of the Union. Grattan observes: "The day must no doubt come when clashing objects will break the ties of a common interest which now preserve the Union. The districts of South, North, and West are joined like some wall of incongruous material, with a cement insufficient to secure perpetual cohesion. They will inevitably crumble into confusion, though no man may foretell the period of dissolution." Even the period has been predicted with remarkable accuracy. A Russian writer, Ivan Golovin, made the remark, six years ago: "A visit to the United States has the strange property of cooling democrats. Again I tell you that the manifest destiny of the States is disunion. I do not give the Union eight years to last." Sterling, in his able letters from the Slave States, writes thus: "It appears to me that amid so many elements of uncertainty in the future, both from the excited state of men's minds in the States themselves, and the complication of surrounding circumstances, no wise man would venture to foretell the probable issue of American affairs during the next four years." This was

written in 1857, and just within the four years the disruption has occurred.1

Indeed, let any one take the map of America, and consider that the valley of the Mississippi, alone, is capable of containing and supporting a population equal to that of the whole of Europe, and let him ask himself if it be in the nature of things that a continent, embracing so wide a range of latitude and climate, should permanently remain under a single rule. From the earliest ages the other continents have been the abode, each of them, of many distinct communities; and whenever the attempt has been made to aggregate many of these under one government, it has, however successful for the time, invariably ended in division. There are clearly principles, inherent in our nature, which throughout all periods of history, and in all quarters of the world, have worked out this same result. If the American be one of ourselves, the same law will apply to him, the same influences will affect him. They may not come into action for a time, during a period of rapid growth, when men's minds are absorbed in their own pursuits, the backwoodsman in clearing the forest, or the farmer in ploughing up the prairie, but all this has an end. The question is simply one of time, unless we assume that American nature is different from what human nature has elsewhere proved to be. In this view of the subject, when estimating the value of the Union,

1 See Notes in Appendix.

we cannot but regard it as a political condition, essentially temporary in its nature and this costly and terrible effort to preserve it, if successful, can have no other result than to defer for a time that which, sooner or later, is inevitable.2

The object of the present inquiry is to form a judgment of the real value of the Union, not as an abstract question, but in connection with the existing struggle for its maintenance. We propose, in the first place, to consider what its effects have been politically and socially,-what are the actual results of its institutions, and what influence they have exercised on the character of the people in public life. After this examination, it will naturally follow to consider the causes that have led to its disruption at the present time. Assuming that these causes have proved sufficient, in the judgment of the people of the South, to create on their part a strong desire for self-government, the question will arise, whether they have really a constitutional right to secede from the Union. After examining that subject, to whatever conclusion we may come, as the right of revolution is admitted, we may proceed to inquire whether the Southern States possess those resources, and that military power, without which any attempt at either secession or revolution might prove abortive. This subject being investigated, we may pass to a consideration of our own interest, first weighing whether or not we are bound by any 2 See Notes in Appendix.