wearied with twenty years of war, during which she had borne the brunt of the battle, was threatened with internal dissension which might have eclipsed the ills of the contest she had just successfully ended; while Europe generally had collapsed into utter weakness, bankrupt in men and money. And now, in 1815, was perpetrated that gigantic fraud, the Treaty of Vienna,-fit result of Napoleon's example. The part which England played, however unwillingly, in adjusting this treaty, must ever be a matter of deep regret. By this infamous arrangement the dismemberment of Hungary was confirmed, the denationalization of Poland was legalized, and Austria's title to Italy acknowledged. These are the unoffending countries which fell victims to appease the wrath of Russia and Germany, who had suffered most from the inroads of Napoleonism. At the time when we assented to this unjust retaliation on the part of our allies, it was felt in England that the question of right involved in this act of spoliation must one day be tried before a fairer tribunal; and so it has proved, for after forty years the rights of the suppressed nationalities have become the theme of serious discussion, and threaten to be the cause of new convulsions in Europe. If England had not meekly compromised the matter by accepting (to her) the lesser evil, all these threatened complications might have been prevented; but exhausted by the efforts she had put forth to crush Napoleon's power, and craving for rest and peace, she reluctantly acquiesced in the measures proposed by her former allies, as the basis for the settlement of European affairs. And thus, to Napoleonism, as the first cause, Poland and Hungary owe their loss of nationality.

The example of Napoleonism has been most pernicious on the despotic governments of Europe, and has had a proportionate, if less injurious effect upon the more wise and liberal rulers. During more than forty years of peace those unfortunate countries have scarcely advanced in civil and religious liberty. The same blind reliance is now felt, as during the last century, by the governing powers in barbaric brute force and coercion, instead of trusting to the intelligent attachment of the peoples. And the reason is obvious. Those autocrats whose 'sole power is force, seeing in Napoleon, who was the elect of the people, the bitter fruits of the Gallic doctrines of universal liberty and equality in the subject, resolved that the granting of too much liberty to this subject should not be the rock on which they would split. Hence it followed that every movement on the part of the people to obtain an accession of individual and social liberty was considered by the jealous Government to manifest symptoms of incipient revolution, and was accordingly suppressed with military rigour and promptitude. For half a century, therefore, through fear of the extension of the Napoleonic theories, the advance of civilization in Europe has been arrested.

The diminution in number, and the deterioration in stamina, of the population of Europe, form the grounds of another indictment

against Napoleonism. In France herself, the physical decrepitude and sparseness of population produced by the havoc of war is especially conspicuous. It has required forty years of cessation from war to raise the population of France to the number it formerly included, while the disparity of ratio between the sexes will require ages to correct. In the meantime, a weak, puny, and diseased race is the penalty which France must continue to pay past glory. And the injury in this respect which Napoleonism has inflicted upon Europe generally is scarcely less serious, and forms one of the greatest calamities of the war.

for

But the amount of injury, moral and material, which Napoleonism imposed upon Europe can be correctly measured only by comparing the actual with the possible, i. e., by contrasting the amount of harm actually wrought by Napoleon with the amount of good which might reasonably be expected to follow from the administration of a temperate and responsible government. Napoleonism was not only an evil in itself, but it also stood in the way of a possible good. During the despotic sway of this ambitious potentate Europe was fast driven back to barbarism; the arts of peace were forgotten, industry flagged, literature and learning languished, civilization halted in its march, liberty was banished; and now, although an age has passed since these acts were perpetrated, Europe is only lifting her face out of the dust. Will the policy of the present Napoleon prove well or ill for the interests of Europe?

E. S. J.

Politics.

WAS SLAVERY THE REAL CAUSE OF THE
AMERICAN WAR?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

FEW questions have excited the people of England of late years so much as those arising out of the gigantic struggle carried on by our neighbours on the other side of the Atlantic. Not only have the brains of that portion of the community termed thoughtful people been set in motion, but the whole country has been stirred up from its very depths; and about a year ago nothing was in such demand as lectures on, and expositions of, the constitution of the States and the rights of secession. Everywhere the most unbounded enthusiasm and wildest spirit of partisanship developed itself. So great, in fact, was the excitement, that some have laughingly inquired if there was as much stir about it in America as there was in England. That we should have held such uproarious meetings

was foolish, but that we should think upon it is both natural and right; for even the most thoughtless, who gives the question only a moment's consideration, cannot but be struck with the thought that some of the dearest ties of humanity are involved in it. That Englishmen above all others should reflect upon the question is natural, nay, imperative; for, of one tongue, origin, and religion, the two nations ever have and ever must stand side by side in the march of progress and civilization. And we on this side of the Atlantic have greater facilities for the consideration of the subject. Just as a man standing on the brow of a hill takes in the whole sweep of country before him, whilst one in the valley sees but those objects nearest to him; so do we in Britain obtain a view of the wide outstretch of events, while the natives of the States see only the near and the stirring.

Let us, then, from our far-viewing standpoint, sweep our eye over the subject. And what was its origin? Was it slavery? To this we should emphatically say, Yes; for this hydra-headed monster has protruded his horrid form from every measure passed in the Southern or seceding states. He ratified their constitution; he rules in their senate-house, and vetoes or approves every measure introduced to their legislative bodies. If it was not slavery, what then? Was it tariffs? This plea seems ridiculous when we find that "one small brain” originated the whole, and that Mr. Maury invented it as a special conscience-calmer for Englishmen. Was it for independence? Independence is a sweet term. It brings to our mind glowing pictures of national prosperity and happiness; but when we find that independence is a large bag containing worse compositions than even Pandora's box, a large cloak to cover and legalize the exercise of the worst passions of human nature, and tighten the chains of the oppressed, then we reject with scorn the plea of independence. What, was then, the cause? Again we would repeat that it was slavery; that the Southern states rebelled to resist the growing abolitionism of the North, and to protect their dear" domestic institution."

We shall attempt to prove our position from (1) a short glance at the abolition party; (2) natural facts and precedents; (3) the Southern constitution and ordinances of secession; (4) the oratory and the press of the South; and (5) from the men who have joined the ranks of secession.

(1) A glance at the history of the abolition party. At the revolt of the colonies from England, nearly all the states (Massachusetts being, indeed, the only exception) were slaveholding. The New Englanders, however, saw the absurdity of revolting from oppressive taxation, while they held under them men to whom they denied even the right to be taxed; and they washed their robes from the taint. But abolitionism was not a power in those days; it was only a little cloud, less than a man's hand, but big with the fate of a mighty nation. It had no majority; the slaveholders occupied all the avenues of power the bench, the forum, and the ministerial and ambassadorial

offices-in their own hands. With the advancement of civilization and the progress of knowledge the abolitionist feeling spread, and with their growing power came a growing desire to stem the progress of slavery. The abolitionists began to contest what they would have previously yielded with merely a grumble. They opposed the admission of Missouri, Texas, and California as slave states; nay, they even went so far as to bring forward a candidate for the presi dential chair. As might have been expected, their first attempt was a failure; but nil desperandum was their motto, and we find them in 1860 putting forward as a candidate for that chair Abraham Lincoln, a man of sworn hatred to slavery, yet not in the most thorough sense an abolitionist. He was not, in fact, an out-and-out abolitionist, that is, he does not belong to the same "school" as Wendell Phillips, Garrison, &c., but is a strenuous advocate of its non-extension.

Slavery, it must be known, is aggressive. It needs new land on which to spread itself. A few years serves to exhaust unaided nature, and the slaveholder needs fresh land; for to aid Nature in her efforts of production requires thought, but this unfetters the negro's mind; and his mind, once free from the trammels of ignorance, will speedily shake off the fetters which bind his body. Therefore the slaveholders must have fresh land. But their own dominions are comparatively very insignificant, and so they demand admission with their slaves into other territories. The great difference, and the way in which the North has opposed the South ever since the having or not having slaves divided them into two political parties, has been by resisting the extension of slavery into new states or territories. In 1818 the contest about Missouri began, both parties (North and South) claiming it. It was at length terminated in favour of the slaveholders, and by the Missouri compromise, that is, the striking of a certain line beyond which slavery should not extend. Then followed a most unjustifiable aggression, on the part of the South, upon Mexico, in the filibustering expedition which robbed her of Texas,-also added as a slave state-thus giving more weight to Southern influence in Congress. In 1852, Kansas was contended for with the bowie-knife and revolver. Kansas is far beyond the line prescribed by the Missouri compromise, which the Southerners attempted to set aside by saying that every territory ought to have its own choice whether it would be admitted as a free or a slave state. Again, they contested for California, which was, however, admitted as a free state. As each successive territory, having attained its quota of inhabitants, applied to be admitted into the union, the wildest and most tremendous struggles ensued as to whether they should be admitted as slave or free states, and the battle of freedom was fought over and over again, in the press and on the platform, and sometimes with the sword and blood. Fiercer and fiercer grew the struggle, as the North-their energies and determination quickened by the passing of the fugitive slave law, which made every man a jailer for the South; the Dred Scott

decision, which denied to the black man a single inch of ground within the whole Union on which he could shake off his shackles and say, "I'm free;" and the repeal of the Missouri compromise,-felt their strength gradually increasing, and the South as gradually felt the preponderance of power slipping from their grasp; and when in 1860 the South put forth Mr. Breckenbridge, and the North Mr. Lincoln, all minor questions were thrown aside for a grand rally on the vital point of slavery.

Mr. Lincoln, we have said, was a non-extensionist. Mr. Breckenbridge, however, contended that the territories belonged alike to each state, and that every man ought to be allowed to emigrate there with his slaves; and he brought against the party of Mr. Lincoln nine charges showing why he was more worthy of the suffrages of the people than Mr. Lincoln, all of which directly attacked that gentleman's anti-slavery principles. Silently the abolition movement had been doing its work in the hearts of men; but, like the broad and mighty waters of the Niagara, sweeping in their majestic grandeur to the falls, it was irresistible in its force, surprising for a moment even those who thought they had gauged its strength. On November 6th, Mr. Lincoln was elected; and on December 29th, South Carolina was in rebellion, declaring in its ordinance of secession, as one of the causes for the step it had taken, that a party of the United States had elected to the high office of President a man opposed in principle and purpose to the institution of slavery." If it was not Mr. Lincoln's election, why did they not previously speak of rebellion? and why did they stay to contest the election with him, and thus give him as lawful a right to be their chief magistrate as Queen Victoria has to be Queen of England? And if they objected to Mr. Lincoln, was it to him or to his anti-slavery opinions? or if anything else, why was it not stated in their charges against him? With these questions pressing on our mind, we cannot but decide that it was the election of Mr. Lincoln, who in their eyes represented ultimate abolition, that induced them to fly to arms, to rebellion, and to the terrible slaughter of this war.

66

2. Natural facts and precedents.-" When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume amongst the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent regard to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation."* And having done so, we generally find them forming a constitution and making laws which will entitle them especially to that freedom which they were denied under their old government. We find that the colonies of America rebelled because of unjust taxation and unequal representation; and in their new government they deputed to the national government, in which each state was fairly repre* "Declaration of In lependence of the United States."