that condition is now within her reach. And is the calamity that brings it really to be deplored when it comes-it may be rudely in its form-yet if we may use the words-when it comes "with healing on its wings?"

Here is this vast Northern territory, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific-with noble harbours on either coast, linked by a chain of inland oceans-with a climate that sustains the energy of man-a soil fruitful in grain-beneath it, mineral store of future riches beyond our calculation. Yet over this there was a danger ever impending—a dark sullen cloud hung lowering always. Slavery was there, to clash with emotions of honest pride -millions of slaves in the nation, to baffle the thirst for nationality-the very name of Union had something hollow in its sound; slavery was disunion, discordance at its core.

And what is the calamity that has befallen this people? All these elements remain-they wait to be developed. All those mines of coal, of iron, of copper, of gold-mills, and looms, and forgesships cleaving the waters of remotest seas-men vigorous, inventive, indomitable, alert to mould or master every change of fortune-all these remain. And slavery is gone. That old dark cloud has passed away. Now, through this wide dominion -a seventh of the globe's circumference all may assert with truth their claim to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At last, it is possible to be a nation-and rising out of this

convulsion with manly resolve to achieve that true greatness of worth and deeds till now so poorly represented by the empty boast of magnitude.

We conclude that the Federal compact has ceased to benefit the people of the United States, and is wholly incapable of being restored. We have seen that those Southern States which were parties to it, entered it of their free will as sovereign, independent powers, and possess now the right to withdraw from it by passing an ordinance of convention. Upon the States since admitted, and void of this inherent right, all the powers of the rest have been conferred. In this view the Southern States have merely exercised a just constitutional right. Nor can we fail to consider that their course in its nature is one prompted and sanctioned by every tradition reverenced, or political principle hitherto professed, in America. Hence the attempt to subdue them, we hold to be not only hopeless of accomplishment-incapable, were it effected, of attaining the objects professed -but also based on a denial of just political rights. It appears to us simply the attempt of a majority, in virtue of its power, to exercise its despotic will.

And further it appears, from the authorities and evidence examined, that the present form of government in the United States is essentially wanting in the elements of durability-that although powerful when expressing the passions of the people, it is powerless when attempting to

control them. We see that with the restoration of the Union, were it a possibility, would be restored, and with aggravated force, those elements which have caused the degeneracy apparent to all observers. In Washington's farewell address are these words: "Observe good faith and justice to all nations, cultivate peace and harmony with all. It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation, to give to mankind the too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence." This advice has not been followed. The example the United States have really given to mankind is so directly opposed to it, that any well-wisher of the American people may welcome for their sakes an event that may change the direction of their course, and lead them to remember the words of their patriot hero, as those of a guide to follownot to spurn.

Whoever desires to flatter, may chime in with the humour of the hour-but sincerely desiring their true greatness we express earnestly the clear conviction that nothing is so essential to the well-being of the American people as a termination of the American Union.

NOTES.

NOTE 1, p. 14.

MANY other authorities might be added, as, for instance, Sydney Smith, who observes: "The Americans are very sensible, reflecting people, and have conducted their affairs extremely well; but it is scarcely possible to conceive that such an empire should very long remain undivided, or that the dwellers on the Columbia should have common interest with the navigators of the Hudson and the Delaware." Sir Archibald Alison also remarks: " It does not require the gift of prophecy to foretell that a vast confederacy of separate States, each with its own legislature and armed force, and actuated, from difference of climate and situation, by opposite and conflicting interests, held together by so slender a tie, is not destined to hang long together." In Coleridge's 'Table Talk' the following passage occurs: 66 Can there be any thorough national fusion of the Northern and Southern States? I think not. In fact, the Union will be shaken almost to dislocation whenever a very serious question between the States arises. The American Union has no centre, and it is impossible now to make one. The more they extend their borders into the Indian's land, the weaker will the national cohesion be. But I look upon the States as splendid masses, to be used by-and-by in the composition of two or three great governments." The reader will not fail to observe how strikingly the accuracy of these far-seeing views is verified by the events of the present day.

NOTE 2, p. 15.

A reviewer has complained of some difficulty in distinguishing whether we object to Federalism or to republicanism. Whatever our opinion on the subject may be, in no part of the

work will an expression be found adverse to republicanism, except, indeed, one of De Tocqueville's, given as a quotation from him. The strictures referred to are confined to the Federal principle, the compound system, the partnership in government, and at page 10 the reasons are assigned at length why this principle fails. Even a contrast is offered between a Federal republic and a simple one, that of Chili. The critic obviously confounds democracy with republicanism, and the confusion of mind thus produced is further entangled with Federalism. On reperusal, or rather on perusing for the first time correctly, he will find objections to Federalism and to ultra-democracy, but that none are applied in any instance, and on the contrary that friendly expressions are invariably used in speaking of pure republicanism.

NOTE 3, p. 15.

Exception has been taken to our terming Hamilton and Adams "two of the most eminent of the fathers of the Republic." John Adams was the associate of Washington and his successor the father of another president, and the most learned of all of them—he was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Bancroft speaks of him as "the ablest advocate and defender of independence." Hamilton was the intimate friend and adviser of Washington, both during the war and subsequently as a member of his cabinet. Of him Washington Irving observes: "It was mainly through his efforts as a speaker and writer that the constitution was ultimately accepted." Professor Bernard, in his recent lectures on the American war, observes: "No one can now read the collection of papers published under the title of The Federalist,' for the purpose of winning over the reluctant State of New York, without conceiving the highest admiration for the two chief writers in it, who were likewise the chief authors of the Constitution-especially for Hamilton. I know no finer model of political writing than some of these papers." It were needless to produce further evidence to warrant the moderate terms of the text-terms to which no person could indeed object who had not lost for the moment all his recollections of American history.