wishes of the North itself, and without regard to official engagements, repeatedly made, of the representative and executive departments of the Government, the country was led along into an unnecessary and unnatural war. Especially would this be the case, if, besides other consequences, the country has thus not only lessened materially, but substantially cut off, for a time at least, its chief source of permanent prosperity; and that which made it unrivalled in this respect, and by which it was becoming more and more supereminent among the nations of the earth. And the singularity of this course of action would more strikingly appear, if, in doing this, the policy had wrought an irreparable injury, if not the absolute ruin of the unhappy race which it professed thus to serve; in a word, if it has so crippled itself and made the object of its professed sympathies its victim, for a party end, and in derogation of every interest on every side, and of every dictate of reason and lesson of experience.

Another object of this work has been to place in its true light the intelligent and patriotic conduct of conservative men of both the great parties, which took a leading part in the affairs of the country, until incidental causes deprived them of their due influence. The supposition that Northern gentlemen, who had no connection whatever with slavery, as an institution, no personal relations with it, as a matter of domestic economy, or of individual interest; who were actuated in all the ordinary affairs of life by principles of justice and by sentiments of honor, humanity, and generosity, maintained their public positions simply in order to uphold slavery for its own sake-is on the face of it too preposterous for the belief of any rational and candid mind. Their

motive in reality was not merely to render justice to the South, but to see to the common safety of the whole body politic, as involved in maintaining the Constitution, which, if broken in an essential part, was no longer a safeguard in any of its provisions; in observing fidelity, in respecting law, and in upholding freedom, civil- and religious, according to the spirit of the Great Charter intended to perpetuate both.

It will be observed that much prominence has been allowed to the State of Massachusetts, in the progress of the discussion. The fact is, that the course of national politics, in one of the principal Northern States, affords a sort of clew to its operation in them all. It would have been equally impossible, with any regard to space, and useless, also, to give any thing like a detailed account of local politics in the several States. In addition, it may be remarked that Massachusetts presents, perhaps, the most striking example among them all; since no State has been more conspicuous in pressing the claims of State rights from the earliest period. Whoever may read the history of Massachusetts, since the formation of the Union, as well as before that event, will scarcely fail to be convinced that no State has been at times more exclusive and sectional. Large numbers of its people have looked upon themselves rather as men of Massachusetts than as American citizens; and their boast has been of their State quite as much as of their country. It is easy to see how, from any excessive indulgence of this sentiment (and certainly there has been much in the annals of Massachusetts to foster peculiar pride), consequences might flow tending seriously to the prejudice of the general welfare.

In order to show the relations of the present situation of

affairs to the fundamental principles of the republic, it seemed necessary to devote considerable space to preliminary details. The preparation of this part of the work, especially, required much more research and labor than I had anticipated; rendered oftentimes embarrassing by the absence of dates in not a few of the many authorities consulted, particularly in pamphlets. This defect I have endeavored to supply, and trust I have been able to bring within reasonable compass a great variety of facts otherwise to be sought for in many different sources. The work was not contemplated until after the close of the war, when the occasion seemed to present itself for a review of the national condition. The claim for this service demanded also its speedy accomplishment. So brief a period, therefore, has been allotted to the work, that, though I believe it will not be found liable to the charge of inaccuracy, yet I can only hope that I have performed a task which it seemed to me the duty of some one to undertake, in a manner which may, perhaps, serve in a degree to lighten the pains of the future historian.

GEORGE LUNT.

BOSTON, December 7th, 1865.

ORIGIN OF THE LATE WAR.

CHAPTER I.

Statement of the Question.-General Sentiment of the Country, in regard to Slavery, before the War.-Condition of the Negroes in the North and in the South.-The Slaves of Jonathan Edwards.-The Declaration of Independence, and Mr. Jefferson's Comment.-A Provision of the Constitution, and Votes of Northern Members of the Convention.-Alexander Hamilton in "The Federalist" upon the Mixed Character of Slaves.-Washington, in regard to a Fugitive Slave.-The Ordinance of 1787.-The Resolution of Congress in 1790.-Views of Southern Members at that Time.-Article X. of the Constitution.-Memorials to Congress for Abolition in the District of Columbia.-J. Q. Adams on the Subject.—Virginia and other States early for Emancipation by Gradual Process, but set back by Abolition Movements in the North.

IT has often been remarked that slavery was merely the occasion, not the cause, of the late civil war. This is true in the sense that slavery was but the incident, out of which grew questions of State rights, and the rights of Territories seeking to become States, in their various relations and modifications. If it can be shown, however, that the war could not have taken place except for the passions excited by opposition to negro slavery in the country, and in its defence, the proposition in question amounts to a distinction without a difference. Slavery, in the popular sense, was the cause, just as property is the cause of robbery. Right

'In a stricter sense the Constitution, which provides for representation and taxation, partly based on slave labor, and for the restoration of fugitive slaves, was the cause. Without those provisions, there could have been no civil war on this account. The point is stated by the Apostle: "For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. What

shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid.' Rom. vii., 7, 11.

fully or wrongfully in the country at first, it was here under the protection of the law, and not subject to be taken away by violence, or by any insidious device of abstraction. The motive for the allegation springs from a desire to throw the blame for the tremendous conflict upon one section alone, and to excuse the other. The object is, to make it appear that the country would have remained at peace, had it not been for the ambitious instigators of rebellion at the South. Upon this ground, although the Southern chiefs are made directly responsible for whatever mischief has befallen their domestic institution, the North deprives itself, at the same time, of the benefit of any argument derived from moral obligation in respect to slavery. It thus seems that the latter would have consented to allow slavery to remain undisturbed in the South, but for the agitation of the question in that part of the country where it existed. According to this theory, therefore, those whose manifest interest and supposed personal security depended upon keeping the matter quiet, voluntarily and causelessly made it a subject of dispute, which gathered additional vehemence until it terminated in open war. Reason, it is certain, does not always control the action of men, either in their public or private relations; but it must be admitted that conduct like that imputed to the South is without example in the history of nations.

Beyond question, popular information on this whole subject is indistinct and incomplete, both in the United States and in Europe. Its important bearings upon the future may render an effort to afford the public mind some light in regard to it both justifiable and valuable. Ordinarily, it is thought, the story of recent events cannot be written with entire regard to impartiality, nor a just estimate be formed of their results by contemporary judgments. On the other hand, not a little of the uncertainty of history is due to the want of contemporary narration. Much of the present volume, however, will relate to a period some time past, and we have not yet reached absolute results. These, whether for good or ill, will depend very much upon the deductions