of American Government. The aristocracy of the South act in conjunction, not with the conservatism, but with the democracy of the North. From the first, the Southern States anticipated danger at the hands of a strong Government, which might pass into other hands than their own. Slavery was originally on the defensive, and, under the shield of their own State Governments, they were in safety; all beyond was insecure. They were the supporters of State rights as opposed to the powers of the Central Government; Conservatives themselves, they became the opponents of Conservative principles in the politics of the Federal body.

By means of this alliance the South maintained its original political supremacy, not only long after the change in relative population had removed its solid foundation, but down to the present day. In this lies the real force of the recent election of Mr. Lincoln. It is idle to suppose that the South would have encountered the dangers and horrors of civil war simply because another candidate was preferred to its own. The result of an election may cause a riot, but to produce a revolution—a general movement of a people-there must have been causes long enough in action, and powerful enough to have penetrated the whole public mind. At the last election there were four candidatesBreckenridge, Douglas, Bell, and Lincoln. Breckenridge was the candidate of the cotton States, and he would have been rejected by the election of either Bell or Douglas. But no one will assert

that those States would have seceded had their candidate been defeated by either of those competitors. Again, the South had previously suffered defeat at presidential elections without the sound of secession being heard. Why, then, the effect on the present occasion ? Because, for the first time in the history of the United States, the election of the President was purely geographical; it was not a defeat at the hands of a party, but at those of the Northern power. Every Northern State had voted for Mr. Lincoln; every Southern State had voted against him. It was an act which severed North from South as with the clean cut of a knife. Upon such a division Jefferson remarked long ago: "A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated, and every irritation will make it deeper and deeper." There is a truth in these words which gave the force to this event; it could neither be obliterated nor revoked. The Northern States had 183 votes; the Southern, if unanimous, 120. Hence it was plain that if the North chose to act in a mass, its power was irresistible. At last it did act in a mass. Upon that event political power departed from the South, and departed for ever; the substance had long been gone-now the shadow followed it.

It is the incurable nature of the fact that gives so crushing a weight to it. What amendment of a Constitution can alter the laws of growth in

population? What political contrivance can control the effects of climate and of latitude? It is indisputable that the superiority of the North in population will not only continue, but constantly augment. The transfer of supremacy to it, when once made, must be irrevocable. And it is necessary to consider that to the mind, and in the sincere (though it may be erroneous) convictions of the Southerner, this transfer is far more than the loss of prestige, of influence, or the emoluments of power. The election of Mr. Lincoln represents to him the determination of the North, as a body, to act upon the question of Slavery, in opposition to, and disregard of, the Constitution that protects it. It is true that such action would be at first indirect by excluding him from the territories which belong as much to the South as to the North-by surrounding him with a cordon of Free States-by compressing him--by suffocating him. Such a process of strangulation is perhaps as painful to look forward to as any more speedy manner of extinction, and to the mind of the Southerner it is extinction, in a political sense, that he foresees. He anticipates injury to his material interests at the hands of the Northern monopolists, but in the action of the Abolitionists now impelling those in power, he forebodes the destruction of his property, the ruin of his State, and the danger of his life. He sees in their success the prostration of his country into the barbarism of Hayti, with all the horrors that accompanied that terrible event. There exists,

therefore, in his view of the case, every incentive to the strongest feelings and to resolute action. Looking at the election of Mr. Lincoln from a European point of view, it was an ordinary, an insignificant event; looking at it as seen by the Southerner, it was the knell of the departing independence and welfare of his portion of the Continent.

As it was the "cry" of that election, let us briefly consider this question of the admission of Slavery into the territories. We shall find in it an illustration of the argument, that the action of the South, on this subject, though in appearance aggressive, has really been in self-defence, as a means of maintaining its political status, against the growth of the North. Between two rival powers, the result is obvious, if the one be rapidly growing, and the other remain stationary. But there are those who have confounded the idea of a means with that of an object. Politically, as in competition with the North, it is of great importance whether New Mexico, or Arizona, be admitted as a Slave or as a Free State. At once, thereupon, its vote would be as effective in the Senate, as that of the Empire State, New York. But apart from this consideration, what possible advantage can the Southern planter derive from this extension into new regions? He is a grower of cotton. Will it increase his profits to have more cotton produced, to compete with him? He owns a large estate. It cannot benefit him that

more fertile lands should be found, and the value of his own reduced. He is surrounded by friends, local associations, and some of the comforts of life. Is it desirable to abandon all these, in order to plunge into a wilderness of hardship and barbarism? Can he be supposed to do this, except reluctantly, and from some overruling necessity? Obviously, his interest, and that of his State, lie in the avoidance of competition with themselves, and in the preservation of the value of their soil; in other words, in restricting, instead of expanding the growth of cotton. As an end, an object of desire, nothing could be further from their wishes than this expansion. It is an unfortunate result of the complex politics of the Union, that the political instinct of the South is driven to oppose its material interest. It must expand whilst the North expands, or succumb. It cannot seek expansion from choice or interest, but is driven to it by the impulse of political self-preservation.

The attempt to invest with a moral sentiment this question of Slavery in the territories, will become little less than ridiculous, if we look into the facts. New Mexico, the most important of all the territories, has been organized more than ten years. It is open to Slavery-the Supreme Court protects it, the Government has fostered it there. Its climate is suitable, it lies at the extreme South, and adjoins a Slave State-Texas. With all these advantages, it is clear that Slavery will have made rapid progress, if the spread of it be really an