become a money-lender to the South, and Southern citizens made pilgrimages to Northern cities to raise money upon their patrimonial estates. The Southern States attributed this result to the action of the Federal Government-its double action of levying revenue upon the industry of one section of the Union, and expending it in another, and especially to its protective tariffs." In truth, the view common in the Southern States, is, that the South has been used as a tributary, drained for the benefit of the North. To some extent, though by no means to the extent they imagine, this has really been the case. The same belief exists quietly, too, in the North, and possibly may be one element in the intense desire of New York to retain the connection. In a community entirely mercantile, it is probable that, at the root of such a sentiment, there will be found some conception of profit.

Now, it cannot be without some sensibility, that the Southerner of the older States will look upon the seats of its former gentry now mouldering in decay, and grown with weeds. And when laws are imposed upon him, manifestly unjust, which in his judgment are calculated to bring about such results as he beholds, a sense of wrong will be embittered by feelings of humiliated pride, and of regret for the fallen importance of his State. This feeling of attachment to his own State is peculiarly strong in the older portions of the South. The Union is an epithet, an abstraction,

the State is a reality before him. He drew his breath upon its soil, he has played upon its shores, he has rambled in its woods, he has bathed in its streams,-the outline of its mountains is familiar to his mind, as the features of some face engraven in the memories of youth. The Union may be a theme for imagination,—one part of it only can stir his heart. The Scotchman feels pride in the greatness of the British empire, but this is a poor and feeble emotion, to that with which he turns to Scotland. All this may be called local attachment, it may be unconstitutional, it be unwise, but, after all, it is human nature. And those who pretend to govern great dominions, have not to legislate for men as they would have them to be, but as they are. It is for statesmen to take strong feelings into account, when they know them to exist; and when those feelings are embittered by surrounding circumstances, and are morbid, or excited, be it ever so erroneously, on some special topic, it would at any rate have been well,-when face to face with the gaunt spirit of Revolution,—to have left that subject alone.

may

We have now examined the three principal grievances advanced by the South. They hold that, under a Constitution which prescribes perfect equality, and forbids "preference," they ought not to be compelled to pay enormous duties on all they require for their industry from abroad, whilst all that is required for its industry by the North

is obtained by it free of duty. They have protested against this for thirty years in vain. They now see that, under the irresistible growth of population in the North, political power has passed from its original tenure, and is gone without hope of return. They feel the bitterness of the gnawing agitation long carried on by the Abolitionists, in plain violation of the spirit of the Constitution. They ask if it be expedient to remain under a bond which it no longer suits the other parties to fulfil. It has been written-" The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" they feel that this spirit which giveth life has long passed away, whilst the letter remains, and kills them. The objects of the Union, expressed in the preamble to the Constitution, have not been accomplished. It has not formed "a more perfect union" of interests, or opinions, or affections. All these have grown more and more discordant. It has not maintained justice in matters of commerce; and in those of the law, all that could be done, has been done to degrade it. Whether or not it has " provided for the general welfare" is essentially a question of opinion. In the opinion of the people of the South, it has been made to provide for the welfare of the North, at their expense.

Looking to its continuance, they see themselves consigned to a perpetual minority, in hopeless subserviency to a people whom they neither love nor respect to those who differ in habits, in social system, in interests, in tastes. They might resign

themselves to be incorporated, to melt into one; but here the vast extent of the country, and the radical differences of temperament and polity, present insuperable obstacles. Nature has forbidden the union which politicians have ordained. They might resolve to lean on hope in the future, but they see that the action of time, and the growth of numbers, have aggravated every evil; and they foresee that the operation of these causes in the future, will only add to this result. They might accept the provisions of the Constitution for its own amendment. But what amendment of laws can cure an evil really geographical? No code that man can devise will assimilate the citizen of Louisiana, or of Georgia, with the New Englander. This is an evil beyond the powers of legislation to probe, or the decisions of the Supreme Court to remedy, and it is the very root of the disease.

To the Southerner, the Union appears an artificial arrangement, wise at the time of its formation-rendered injurious now by the progress of events. All the separate States have outgrown their original Constitutions, and have altered them. What has happened to each, individually, has happened to the whole, collectively. Is it true, as some have asserted, that there is something "sacred" in the Union, that forbids the approach of human judgment? We have seen, by ample evidence, something of its practical working. There is, indeed, one union that is sacred amongst men-that of marriage. But in most of the

States this bond is readily discarded, and divorce obtained, with a levity surprising to Europeans. And when the most solemn act of union, by which man can be bound, is trifled with thus, what sanctity can there be that forbids the divorce of a political union, were there even no other ground for it than incompatibility of temper?

To all this, it is replied, that the people of the South entered irrevocably into the Federal compact, and must remain fast bound by it. This raises the question whether secession can really be effected, without violating constitutional principles. This is one which cannot be omitted, when we are estimating the value of the Union. If this right do exist, or cannot be disproved, is there any means by which to counterbalance so dangerous a principle, should the Union be restored? Let us endeavour to discover what amount of truth there may be in the assertion that secession does not violate the Constitution.