PREFACE

TO THE FOURTH EDITION.

THE interest of the subject examined in the following pages, has caused a demand for second and third editions, before the war had thrown any new light upon the arguments. I have also been desirous to defer the task of revision, in order to benefit by those criticisms whose pungent but medicinal virtue might aid me, in endeavouring to render the work less unworthy of the reader.

Several critics have alleged that the evils of the Union, and their baneful effect on the national character, are depicted too darkly. This is by no means surprising. Whoever visits New York or Chicago, and beholds the wonderful progress of the country, the energy of its people, the splendour of its cities, the length of its railways, the profusion of its products-marvellous creations of so brief a history, and pointing to a

future as bright and illimitable - whoever has impressed upon his mind this side of the picture, and this alone, will turn with impatience from the other side of it, contrasting so harshly, yet equally true and of not less grave importance. There are few who have not witnessed the hectic glow and vivid energy, too often the delusive effects of undermining disease. To judge of the Union by its glittering surface, may be just as deceptive as to imagine that fatal beauty to be an evidence of health.

There are those, too, who have formed their opinions by the perusal of American literature. Familiar with the exquisite taste and genial humour of Irving-the graphic power of Cooper -the glowing eloquence of Channing-the touching pathos of Longfellow-the sparkling grace of Motley-impressions derived from these will naturally recoil from representations so discordant. But to judge of the United States by the few choice spirits of a literary circle, would be as unwise as to judge of the wealth of a country by some pearls found upon its shores. The writers of America may indeed be taken as an ensample, not of what its politicians are, but of those from whom they most widely differ.

By what means, indeed, is a correct judgment to be formed? The great majority of English observers who have visited that country agree in their verdict. This might be national prejudice. But the great majority of French authors arrive at the same conclusions. Still European prejudice. But when American writers, such as those who are quoted, confirm the other two, on what ground can such evidence be mistrusted? An American work has appeared in support of the Union since the text was written. In it the author, a Northerner, Mr. H. T. Tuckerman, after deploring the neglect of civic duty under feelings "deadened by material prosperity," observes: "The field being thus deserted, statesmanship has declined, and politics become a trade. The strife of party has been degraded into a vulgar scramble for emoluments; the able and honoured representatives of opinion, whose very names were once watchwords of fidelity and fame, were superseded by men of secondary ability and equivocal character; office was regarded as compensation for partisan service, with an utter disregard to fitness; patent abuses were tolerated; and corruption so invaded the administration of government, from venal legislation and an imbecile exe

cutive, as to afford every facility for treason." This is a late description by the pen of an ardent Unionist. There is no difference from that which follows except in the deductions we arrive at. He deplores its results, but is anxious to maintain the system. I think a change desirable in both.

In addition to this cumulative evidence we have the facts occurring from day to day-the incompetence at the head of affairs-the grotesque unfitness of the appointments made-the corruption exposed by the Committee of Congress now sitting, and this too at a time when national peril should have purified public spirit these are plain to every observer. None could desire a better illustration of the law of convenience than Mr. Seward has himself afforded, in his despatch on the restoration of the Commissioners. And of the views which follow on the general reverence for force, the outrage of Captain Wilkes and the eager applause that welcomed it, are striking verifications.

Admirably as that Trent outrage has been investigated, and as the alleged precedents, one after the other, have been sifted and exposed, there is one view of the event on which a word may yet be said. We are not living now in an age of

violence, at a period stationary in spirit, or shaped to the model of earlier times. This is claimed to be an age of progress, in which man's mind has taken a great onward step-a period to be memorable in future history for accessions to his power over the material world, over winds, and time, and distance-for creating means of communion that interlink nations in brotherhoodfor great advances in political and in social knowledge for infusing into legislation the spirit of a more generous benevolence all tending to elevate our condition, and draw man nearer to his fellow-man.

At such a period, reason should possess unwonted sway, and on the occurrence of some startling event, although our first duty is to test it by the olden law, it also behoves us to judge it by the reason of the existing age. No outrage, indeed, to the feelings can be greater, than such as may be committed without infraction of any known statute. Whatever the dogmas exhumed from graves of buried lawyers, there would still remain the question, whether it was a reasonable thing to arrest a vessel known to bear the Queen's officer, and summon the British flag with shot and shell.