There is, however, a more distant view of the case which has to be considered. It may be said, that although the present state of facts may be as we have described, yet that the accession of the Republican party to power produced an apprehension that the strength of the North might be eventually exerted to abolish slavery, and that the South have acted in this anticipation. But this theory can only be entertained by those who are unacquainted with American politics. There exists in the North a small sect of Abolitionists, zealous to fanaticism, but resolute, untiring men. In numbers they were a handful. In politics they were tabooed by both great parties. By the mass of the people of the North they were avoided, and ridiculed. At the present moment they stand apart in their action from that of the Washington government, and are one of its most perplexing difficulties; and whilst the representative men of the North take up the Constitution as their banner, the views of the genuine Abolitionists cannot be more plainly expressed than in their own words.

One of their leaders, at a meeting held in New York, May 13, 1857, laid down the principle that "They demanded justice for the slave at any priceof Constitution, of Union, of country. He believed that this Union effectually prevented them from advancing, in the least degree, the work of the slave's redemption." And at the same meeting, William Lloyd Garrison, one of the foremost of

the body, made use of these expressions: "So long as this blood-stained Union existed, there was but little hope for the slave." There are on record far stronger sentiments from the same leading authority, such as the following: "This Union is a lie; the American Union is a sham, an imposture, a covenant with death, an agreement with hell." "Let the slave-holding Union go, and slavery will go with the Union down into the dust." From this small specimen it will be seen that the genuine Abolitionists regard slavery, not as an evil, but as a crime; that they hold it matter of religious principle, not to be sacrificed to profit, or ambition, and desire it should be ejected at whatever cost; whilst the government, and the great majority of the people of the North, are fighting to retain it within the Union.

There are indeed in the North considerable numbers of rational men who object to slavery, and deplore it, but are not disposed to break the laws, or plunge the South into a whirlpool of ruin. They hope the day will come to end it, but decline acting till they see clearly how to act. The number of this class is steadily on the increase, and it now forms an important section of the republican party; but even in this class it is difficult to say to what extent the feeling is not one of party, rather than principle. The Democrat supports slavery-the object of the republican is to defeat the Democrat; therefore he must needs object to slavery as a party matter. But after allowing for

this, there is still in the North a large amount of sincere and rational objection to it, entirely apart from those who turn the principle into a trade, or the politicians who use it as a tool of party.

But the Southerners are well aware of all this. The agitation of the question has no shock of novelty, it has existed for half a century, and has frequently been more violent than at any period of the past year. They are well aware of the considerable proportion of make-believe in American professions. They had ample evidence of the intended policy of the republican party, and of the government now under its control. It is the practice in the United States for each party, before the presidential elections, to issue a manifesto declaring its principles, popularly known as its "platform.” The republican platform was adopted at Chicago in 1860. Its fourth article runs thus: "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." The "domestic institution" referred to in this clause, of course, is slavery. Here is the manifesto of the Northern power, now supreme, which plainly declares that slavery, under the control and according to the judgment of each State containing it, shall be "maintained inviolate."

On the accession of Mr. Lincoln, his inaugural address affords an exposition of the policy of the new government. It contains these words: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists; I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with a full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read." This is followed by the clause from the Chicago declaration already quoted, and he continues: "I now reiterate those sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in anywise endangered by the now incoming administration." Mr. Lincoln then proceeds to recite the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and remarks: "It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution, to this provision as much as any other." other." In a further passage he proceeds: "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 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."

It

This addition has since been made to the Constitution. It was passed by Congress on the 3rd March last, and runs thus: "That no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will 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 said State." is therefore now part of the Constitution and bond of Union of the United States, that its government has no power, and never shall take power, to interfere with slavery in any of the States. It was indeed entered on the journals of Congress soon after the formation of the present Union : "That Congress have no authority to interfere with the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them in any of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require." This entry might have been rescinded, but now a clause of the Constitution, supreme above the powers of Congress, ordains