him, lived to this day, the argument against the unprofitable character of slave labor would have been met, and the idea that slave labor degraded and demoralized the freemen who resided in the same community, would have been exploded. The policy of emancipation having been thus based upon the peculiar advantages of the white, and in no sin or injury committed towards the black, would have produced the same change upon his mind that it has done upon others; and he would have maintained an institution which he had once deemed it politic to abandon.

But we will contend that the change of policy to which we have adverted has arisen from causes in which the North is deeply implicated. When the introduction of machine spindles, and the invention of the cotton gin gave employment to the laborers of Old and New England, it rendered the opening of new fields of staple production in Bombay and Georgia as necessary as the use of spermaceti, whalebone, and seal skin rendered the exploration of the Arctic Ocean. This world-demand for a particular staple sent human enterprise into the cotton region as the sacra fames auri sends them to California or Australia. This order for cotton produced a demand for slave labor, which at once raised its value, and enhanced its consideration, because it provided employment for cotton spinners, and opened a market for their manufactures. Great Britain invaded the distant and peaceful Indies. She overthrew thrones. She plundered empires. She slew thousands. She subjugated millions of tribute slaves to her dominion. She did this to acquire the monopoly of that great fabric that clothes the world.

The same interest in the United States stimulated a policy more peaceful in its measures, but strictly analogous in its results. In the anxiety for industrial independence which succeeded the war of 1812, a tariff was adopted, which afforded adequate protection to American manufactures. This measure was an indirect encouragement to slave labor.

This rendered necessary the extension of the culture of cotton over the Territory which we then possessed, and ren

dered the nation tolerant of any new acquisitions suited to the same purpose. It extended the great home market within which the embryo manufactures of the Union might grow and strengthen for a conflict with the world. It promised the abundance and cheapness of competition. It promised the extended demand of growing and prosperous communities. It combined home production of the staple with home consumption of the perfected fabric. Annexation of staple territory was thus as much a protection to the manufacturer as if it had been equated to dollars and cents, and assessed specifically or ad valorem upon the competing manufacturers of a foreign country. These were the causes of annexation. Territorial acquisition and the Tariff were twins, born of Northern sagacity and Northern enterprise.

So far from the South having founded this system, she resisted that Tariff whose undoubted effects were to enhance the demand for her own staple. Nor is it wonderful that she should have done so. As a measure of sectional policy, the Southern Atlantic States might well have looked upon the acquisition of new Territory as injurious to them. The immediate and inevitable result of this policy was to draw off the population and property of these States, and thus reduce their lands to a nominal value. Can any one, who reasons from the principles of social nature, suppose that Virginia or South Carolina would, for the sake of adding to their political influence, have consented to open almost in free gift, lands fresh and productive of a staple manifold more valuable than their own? Was it of advantage to either, that their lands should have been abandoned, as they literally were, under the influence of the cotton mania of 1834-6-that their most enterprising and valued children should have thronged the thoroughfares to the Southwest, in one long and sorrowful exodus of wealth and energy? Were they strengthened by that competition? On the contrary, it brought them not even political power. The slaves and whites who emigrated would have had identically the same numerical representation in the Federal Government before their de

parture, as afterward. We have as high an opinion of the wisdom and patriotism of these States as any one can have. It is in proof that they did not introduce the policy of territorial acquisition, and that the first effect of that policy was almost destructive to them. It was for a long time the chief cause of our exhaustion and decline, but attributed to other causes. They had as yet no other employment except agriculture for their labor, and that labor was worth more elsewhere.*

The acquisition of Federal territory has not been made for the benefit of the South.

We will here examine historically the true causes of territorial acquisition. We presume it will not be contended that the honest purchase of land is a crime. Nor will it be denied that the free institutions, and rapid growth of the republic rendered indispensable a policy, common to every form of government from the annexation of Canaan to that of Canada, inclusive. The morality of annexation admitted, it is natural that the United States would have expanded on the West and South, when there was no territory to be acquired on the North. To Canada we have three times of fered the boon of freedom, and she has rejected the boon with arms in her hands. Settled by royalists and refugees from the independent colonies, and by employees and dependants of the British crown, with every motive of attachment to monarchy, and hatred to republicanism-with established distinctions of rank and religion. It must be an exalted fanaticism, or a depraved regard for free institutions

As a proof at once of the injury to the oldest slaves States, and a comment upon the propriety of establishing a moral proposition by a census return, we note that the difference between the slaves of Virginia in 1830 and 1840, should, according to his ratio of measure, have gained about 150,000. These the author of North and South considers as exports, and indulges in an ironical insinuation of the cause of sale. The decline in the white population of Virginia in the same decade, corresponded proportionally with that of the slaves. This decline was caused by emigration. The slave owner abandoned his lands, and carried his own family and slaves to the irresistible attractions of the new cotton States. The loss, which nearly depopulated and destroyed Virginia, is converted by this casuist into a positive gain of nearly $12,000,000 per annum.

which would cause an American to prefer the society of those who fought against his ancestors, to that of those who fought with them. But fanatics are, however, as little troubled with ancestors as with principles.

The first territorial acquisition of the confederacy was the great North-western territory. It was wrested from the power of the savages by the unaided prowess of a Southern State. Its title was confirmed by the result of a successful struggle with England. This territory was accepted as common property by the States of the confederacy, and a voluntary condition imposed by the donor which for ever excluded it from the category of Southern States, and classed it with those of the North. It was erected into the great States of Ohio, IHinois, Indiana, and Michigan. The first great acquisition of territory by the Federal Government was thus for the benefit of the free States of the North.

Very soon after this magnificent concession had been confirmed, the people who inhabited it, with the whole population of the Ohio valley, endeavored to obtain control of the Mississippi river, because this was the natural outlet to the ocean. The revocation of the right of deposit at New Orleans produced a state of excitement throughout the West and Northwest that threatened the conquest of Louisiana. Such was the solicitude upon this subject that Mr. Jefferson says in his annual message:

"Congress witnessed, at their last session, the extraordinary agitation produced in the public mind by the suspension of our right of deposit at the port of New Orleans, no assignment of another place having been made according to treaty. They were sensible that the continuance of that privation would be more injurious to our nation than any consequences which could flow from any mode of redress, but reposing just confidence in the good faith of the government whose officer had committed the wrong, friendly and reasonable representations were resorted to, and the right of deposit was restored.

Previous, however, to this period, we had not been unaware of the danger to which our peace would be perpetually exposed while so important a key to the commerce of the

Western country remained under foreign power. Difficul ties, too, were presenting themselves as to the navigation oother streams, which, arising within our territories, pass through those adjacent. Propositions had, therefore, been authorized for obtaining, on fair conditions, the sovereignty of New Orleans, and of other possessions in that quarter interesting to our quiet, to such extent as was deemed practicable. * * * * * * While the property and sovereignty of the Mississippi and its waters secure an independent outlet for the produce of the Western States, and an uncontrolled navigation through their whole course, free from collision with other powers, and the dangers to our peace from that source, the fertility of the country, its climate and extent, promise in due season important aids to our treasury, an ample provision for our posterity, and a widespread field for the blessings of freedom and equal laws.

With the wisdom of Congress it will rest to take those ulterior measures which may be necessary for the immediate occupation and temporary government of the country, for its incorporation into the Union; for rendering the change of government a blessing to our newly adopted brethren; for securing to them the rights of conscience and of property; for confirming to the Indian inhabitants their occupancy and self-government, establishing friendly and commercial relations with them, and for ascertaining the geography of the country acquired."

It is obvious from these extracts that the acquisition of Louisiana was no Southern movement. When it shall be also remembered that it was acquired by a Southern president, the author of the resolutions of 1787, whose opinions in favor of emancipation have been commended by the work under review, no one can charge a sectional purpose.

The acquisition of Louisiana was followed by the first unlawful movement for the acquisition of coterminous foreign territory. According to the same great authority, "Designs were in agitation in the Western [our italics] country," and "the prime mover there was Aaron Burr, heretofore distinguished by the favor of his country." Here was a fillibustering expedition got up in the Western country, headed by a Northern leader. The first object of this enterprise was "the severance of the Union of these States by the Al