|nJfyrl^Jk^^^ M*^ 77?^. 777 .MSy ^ JuCtiu^ i reasual room COL. GEORGE WASHINGTON FLOWERS MEMORIAL COLLECTION DUKF tlNIVERSI-n' MURARY DURHAM. N. C. MPSENTHD BY W. W. FLOWERS / E E M A R K S ON MR. MOTLEY'S LETTER LONDON TIMES WAR IN AMERICA CHARLESTON : STEAM-POWKR PRBBIIS OP E T A I* S k COOBWtLL, Nofl. 3 Broad and lors Rnat Bay Street*. 1861. -7=,..— if, ''^^^ %Q^ S*-f\d^ REVIEW OF MOTLEY'S LETTER. Mr. Motley, the liistorian, addressed a letter, a few weeks since, to the London Times, " on the causes of the Ameri- can civil war." The letter was a great success. It made the writer an ambassador. He is now minister for the United States at the Court of Vienna. The pay followed closely on the service ; so closely that there must have been a previous understanding, a contract of purchase and sale, between the clever recruit and the despotism in Washing- ton. No venal pen before has ever been so speedily and amply rewarded. Whether the letter adds anything to the author's honors as a writer or a man, is much more doubt- ful. Mr. Motley begins with a gentle appeal ad misericordiam . The people of England, he complains, are in too great haste to believe in the downfall of the "Great Republic." They liave been too willing /o accept the fact. He seeks comfort in the " Tristia" of Ovid, and quotes, in a tone of tender upbraiding, "the plaintive language of the poet :" "Donnec eris fclix, multos numerabis amicos, Tempora cum fuercnt nubila, nullus orit." The lines, freely translated, may mean : The Northern iStates have invaded the South with firo and sword, and England, alas I gives the assailants neither men, nioin y. nor sympathy. Can the people of England do otherwise than accept what everybody has accepted ? Can they fail to observe a fact that is obvious as the sun at noonday, that takes the shape of a confederacy embracing eleven States, iu a coun- P4209; Jf^Z/a. try almost as large as Europi', with President and Congress and court,'* and treasury nnd armii's and victories — a fact that all perceive j)lainly except the men who have brought it about, and who, for that reason alone, refuse to see it ? Mr. Motley says the end is uncertain : "the ordeal of bat- tle is hardly eoninienccd, and the result is unknown." But whatever be the result, the "■Great licpuhlir" exists no longer. It can never be reconstructed. It would be as rational to believe that France and England may return to the union of five hundred years ago, as that the jicople of the Nortli and South can live again under one Govern- ment. Every blow struck increases the mutual hatred. The season even for iricndly commercial treaties is past already, lielations, political or social, with the Northern States, are now odious to Southern men. They will become more so as the war continues. This is what Mr. Motley calls the '*ril, is i)lausib1e no longer. Time has stripped the falsehood of its mask. The Lincoln troops have been marched into Vii-ginia. They have committed every j)ossible outrage against dceency, humanity, and the laws of civilized warl'arc. They have burned lionses, wasted ticMs, jnurdered men, abused women, kept })ris<)ners of war in chains, passed laws to contiseate proj)erty, and prochiimed a war of subjugation against the Southern States. The Confederates have made no attack on any part of the United States. They have eought peace repeatedly, by every effort in their power. They are waging a defensive war only ibr the protection of their homes and their firesides, most wantonly and wick- edh' assailed. Mr. Motley proceeds to discuss the question ot a Confede- racy. " ^V^lethe^ it were an advantageous or a noxious ehani^e, all agreed that the thinu; had been done." There is not a shadow of trutli in any one of his assertions. It is impossible that Mr. Motley should not know the history of his own country . lie has therefore made false statements of pretended facts, deliberately, to accomitlish a political or selfish purpose. Mr. Motley says ihe^ Constitution was not draini up by the States. In May, 1787, the general Convention of States met in I'hiladelphia. It was called a Convention of tlie States. They were engaged until September in drawing up a Constitution. In every stage of their progress, on every article adoi)ted, the vote was by States. The Constitution was signed wlien completed by tlu' members, not individ- ually, but as representatives of States. Mr. Motley says, the Constitution was not ratijicd by States, but was imposed on them by the people of the whole land in their aggregate capacity. The Constitution was re- ferred to the States severally in their State Conventions. These Conventions were conventions "of the people of the State of New York," "of the people of the State of Connecticut," "of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," so styled in their proceedings of ratilica- tion, each acting indei)endently of all others, and uncon- trolled by their decisions. The Constitution became the Government of every State that ratified it, and of no other. It succeeded in Virginia and New York after a desperate struggle only. Two States refused or neglected to adopt it, and were out of the Union for a year after the inau<;uration of the Government. If three more States had rejected the Constitution, it could not have been estab- lished. P]ight States were not enough. The Constitution, JSIr. Motley says, is not a compact. In the Conventions of Massachusetts and New Hamp- shire, it is declared to })e an explicit and solemn compact made for the United States by the delegates of the United States, and it is ratified as such in the name and in behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and of the people of the State of New Hampshire. Mr. Motley asserts that all parties, friends and foes, be- lieved, in 1788, that the Government was a consolidation and not a confederacy. It would be as near the truth to say all parties agreed that the Government was a monarchy. It is only necessary to look into the records of the State Conventions to see the falsehood of Mr. Motley's assertion. In the Virginia Convention, the debate was continued for a month. Among the foes arrayed against the new Con- stitution, Patrick Henry was perhaps the most vehement and able. He made numerous speeches in the Virginia Convention against the proposed Government. He augured from it a hundred dangers of every sort. Among other objections, he charged it with being a consolidated Govern- ment. Mr. Motley quotes from one of Henry's speeches. But not a word is given by Mr. Motley of the replies. Did the friends of the Constitution agree with its foes as to this particular feature of the new Government, as Mr. ISIotley says they did ? Did they admit the consolidation and de- fend it ? Nothing like it! The friends repelled the impu- tation as a false and unfiiir charge of prejudiced enemies. Mr. Lee said: "Sir, he (Mr. Henry) tells us, this is a con- solidated Government, and most feelingly does he dwell on the imaginary dangers of this pretended eonsolidation. If this were a consolidation, ought it not to be ratified by a major- ity of the peoi)le as individuals, and not as States? Sup- pose Virginia, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had ratified the Constitution, these four States, being a majority of the people of America, by their adoption of the Constitution, would have made it binding on all the States. But it is binding on those States only that may adoi)t it. If the honorable gentleman will attend to this, we shall hear no more of consolidation." The charge of consolidation rested on a phrase in the preamble of the Constitution, on the words, "We, the 8 people." of the United States. Mr. Madison, the most prominent advocate of the Constitution, replies to Mr. Henry: "You consider the phrase 'We, the people,' as indicating consolidation. But who are the parties ? The people ; hut not the people as composing one great hody. It is the people as composing thirdrn sovereignties." In the Convention of Pennsylvania, Mr. Wilson, one of the ablest men of his day, says : " The United States may adopt one of four systems. They may become consolidated into one Government. They may reject any plan of Union. They may form two or more Omfedcracies. They may unite in a Federal Republic." He rejects the first, a consolidated Government, as invoicing unqualified and unremitted despot- ism, lie states objections to the second and third, and ho advocates the fourth, the Federal Republic, as the most eligible system for the American States. In Massa- chusetts, Fisher Ames, a distinguished statesman, while insisting on the importimce of the Senate as a part of the federal system, maintains that the Senators will be in the quality of ambassadors of the States. " They irill be a safe- guard" he says, ^'against consolidation, ichivh woidd subvert the Constitution. Too much provision cannot be made against a coiisolidation. The State Governments represad the wishes and feelings of the people. They are the safeguards and ornament of the Constitution. They will protract the period of our liberties. They will be the natural (wengcrs of violated rights." We solicit the reader's special attention to the language of Mr. Ames. It is almost prophetic in reference to the dangers to be aj)prelionded from consolidation and the solemn duties which the State Cjovernments would perform in defending the " violated riglits" of the people. Every one knows the character and position of Alexander Ham- ilton. He was the advocate of a strong Ciovernment. He wished for one stronger than the Government adopted. But he took the Constitution frankly as the best that could be got. In the New York Convention he calls the Govern- ment a confederacy of States. He declares that the State Governments will always command a controlling influence witli the people ; that " The States can never lose their powers till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties. They must go together; the}- must support each other or meet one common fate." Tie controverts, as "a curious sophistry," the opinion that the Federal Govern- ment is supreme, and the States subordinate. " The laws of the United States are supreme as to all their proper con- stitutional objects. The laws of the States are supreme in the same u-ay." Each is supreme in its sphere. We would ask Mr. Motley whether the great statesman and orator of NcAv York considered the Constitution as a consolidated Government, the United States a commonwealth, and the States departments or counties ? Notwithstanding all the assurances and reasonings of such men as Hamilton, Ames, Madison, Wilson and Lee, that the Government was not consolidated, that it was a confederacy of States, the foes of the Constitution were dis- satisfied and suspicious. To remove suspicions and satisfy all doubts, amendments were proposed for additional secu- rity, and every effort was made by the friends of the Con- stitution to allay what they continued to believe groundless and unreasonable alarm. Of these amendments, the most important declares that "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." The foes of the Constitution were appeased. The Government was adopted and inaugurated under these cir- cumstances. And yet, Mr. Motley, in the face of all this evidence, assures his English readers that all parties, friends and foes, agreed, in 1788, in believing the United States to be a commonwealth with supreme power, and the States nothing more, substantially, than counties are in England, Let us see how Mr. Motley's assertions agree with the records to wliich we have referred. Mr, Motley says the Union is not a confederacy, Hamilton declares that the Government is a confederacy of States. Mr. Wilson de- scribes it as a Confederate Republic. Mr. Motley says it is 10 not a compact : tliorc are no parties; who ever lioard of a ccmipact, he asks, made hy a single person with himself? Mr. Madison avers that, not a single person, hut thirteen sovereignties were the i)arties; that the Consfitiidon iroj^ not nuifk or catablislicd b>i the people as one bodi/, but bt/ the people of the States several!)/. Massachusetts and New Ilannishire call the Constitution an crplirit and solemn compact. Mr. Motley insists that the Government is a consolidated com- monwealth. Mr. Ames warns the people to guard against consolidation; it would inevitably subvert the Constitution. Mr. Motley says the States bear the same relation substantially to the United States as a county to England or a depart- ment to France. Mi-. Hamilton says the States are su- ]>reme within their reserved rights, and Mr. Ames calls the State (iovernments the safeguards of the Constitution, the shelters from abused power, and the avengers of violated rights. Instead of asserting, as Mr. ^fotley asserts, that all parties, in 1788, agreed in the opinion he has im- puted to them, it would be vastly nearer the truth to declare that it was admitted by universal con.sent, in 1788, that the Constitution ought not to be, was not, and should not be a consolidated government. .Mr. Motley covers up his sophistry under an ambiguous use of the word "States." AVhen he says the Constitution was not ratified by the States, he means the Slate Gorern- ments — the State Goveinnnenis did not ratify tin' constitution, the Slate Governments (\\i\ not accede to the Union, and there- fore cannot secede from it. All very ti-ue. Hut the State Governments are not the States. Tliey ai-e the creatures of the States. They may act as agents for their creators. They did so act in 1775. The Confederation of that time was a confederacy of State Governments acting for the States. The Constitution of 1787 was a confederacy of States acting directly for themselves. The State Govern- ments did not ratify the Constitution, nor accede to it, but the States did. The State Governments cannot secede Irom the Union, but the States may. The people of the several States are the States. 11 The parties formed during the ratification of the Consti- tution continued after the inauguration of the Government. Its first opponents were watchful over its operations. The Federal party wishing to give strength to the Government as far as was consistent with its nature, desired to mould the action of the Government as nearly as possible in con- formity with their peculiar views. Washington strove to neutrali?:e liis administration. lie made Jefferson, who was the leader of one party, Secretar}^ of State, and placed Hamilton, the chief of the other, at the head of the Treas- ury. The bitter personal disputes of the two Secretaries never ceased. They harassed the President beyond meas- ure. He remonstrated, but in vain. Party hatred was so intense as to suspend all social intercourse between the members of the opposing factions. The Federal party when in power under Adams passed laws which were held by their opponents to be invasions of personal liberty and liberty of the press. Wheii the Jefferson party came into power, in 1801, the obnoxious laws were repealed, and the fines imposed under them returned to the sufferers. In the meanwhile, appeals were threatened to the power of the States for protection against the usurped powers of the Fed- eral Government. Again, during the war of 1812, the Xew England States assembled in Convention to defend their liberties and interests from what they deemed the oppres- sive measures of the general Government. What proceed- ing or i)lan was in preparation is unknown and is unim- portant. It was an appeal of some kind to the State powers from those of the Government at Washington. All parties in turn were read}' to look to the States as the safe- guards of their liberties. And yet, in defiance of these facts of our history so familiar to all readers, Mr. Motley has the audacity to tell the European world that all jtarties acquiesced in his imaginary im[)crial Government until Mr. Calhoun's factious dialectics began to disturb the peace in his op[)()sition to the tarift'rol)beries of the Northern SUitos. The veracity of Mr. Motley seems to be l>orrowed from the Italian school of politicians, with which his historical 12 studies have made liiTii familiar. His roasoniuGf comes from a less ingcniou-s (juartor. lie builds a wliole theory of government on three words of a preamble — tlie words: "We the people." The Indian philosopher's device of setting the world on an elephant's baek is a much more saijaeious project. The preamble is a mere straw for drowning politicians to catch at. It is a captious o])jection answered in the Virginia Convention by Madison and Lee. Their answer is conclusive. The history of the i»reainble is still more conclusive. It proves, in a very jtointed man- ner, the danger, in State aft'airs, of indulging in vague, empty, rhetorical tiourishes, instead of adhering closely to the sober language of trutli. The history of the preamble is this: The general Convention of the States met on the 14th of May, 17«7. On the 6th of August, after three months of deliberation, the conmiittee appointed for the purpose reported a Constitution. The preamble reported was as follows: "We the [leople of Xew Hampshire, Mas- sachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence plantations, Con- necticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and (leorgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the government of ourselves and our pos- terity." On the 7th of August, the (piestion was put in the Convention, on the preamble as reporteil, and it was adopted unanimously. No suggestion of cliangc in its lan- guage was ever made th the Conrcnliov, then or subscMpiently. The Constitution was fully discussed, various alterations were made in its details and some amendments offered. It was referred, on the 8th of September, to a conmiittee of five, appointed to revise the sti/lc and arrange the articles agreed to by the House. The conmiittee on style reported the Constitution as revised, polislied and arranged, on the 12th of Seiitember. On the 17th, the Constitution was engrossed and signed. In the Constitution, as polished by the committee, the preamble was clianged. It was thought that the long, chimsy enumeration of States was not cu- phoneous. The committee, of their own motion, made the 13 preamble what it now is — "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility," etc. They contrived a fine introductory flourish, very ornimiental, as they thought, to the instrument, and very useful certainly to gentlemep, like Mr. Motley, seeking advancement by lite^- rary services and willing to turn a rhetorical phrase into an argument. !Not a word was said on the subject of the alteration. What Mr. Motley regards as a suflieient foundation for a theory of government was received by the Convention as a mere change in the diction of their preamble, too unimportant for particular attention or re- mark. They little imagined that it would be used for the purpose of turning their confederate republic into the con- solidated government which they denounced as "unremit- ted despotism." Mr. Motley admits that, "had the Union established in 1788 been a confederacy of States, it might l)e argued that the States which peaceably acceded might peaceably, at their pleasure, secede from the Union." The admission is fatal to his argument. It is as certain as any fact in history that the Union was meant by all parties to be a confed- eracy, and that each State peaceably acceded to it. It has been shown from the records that every leading advocate of the constitution declared it to be a confederacy of States. Ample amendments, eleven in number, were ad- mitted to allay the fears and remove the doubts of all oppo- nents. There is in the form of Government the strongest internal evidence that it is a confederacy — the structure of the Senate elected by the States as States; the appor- tionment of direct taxes among the States as States ; the election of President by States in Congress when the elec- tion has failed before the people. But, independent of all this, there is one fact so broad, plain and irresistilde as to set all dispute at defiance. Tlie Federal Government was inaugurated in March, 1780. The States of North Caro- lina and Rbode Island were not members of it. They had not acceded to it. They were independent sovereign 14 States, so declared to be by tbe treaty of peace \vitli F^iiij^laiid, not unitedly, but severally. Tliey remained in this indc'iK'ndent position, out of the Union, until IT'JO. "What was the little State of Rhode Island in the interval between March. ITS!), and May, ITHO, an interval of more tjian a year? Tlu- I'nitcd States (iovornmcTit claimed no authority over lu-r. The confederation of the Rcvolinion was dead. It had been ordained and established to be per- petual, and it lasted twelve years. For fifteen months Rhode Island stood alone, an independent State. In May, 1790, she peaceably/ arcalnl to the new F'ederal (tovernment. Can Mr. Motley devise a fact more conclusive to prove that Rhode Island "peaceably acceded" to the Union? And has he not admitted that a State which peaceably accedes to the Union may peaceably, at })lcasnrc, secede from it ? Did he remember anythinfj of Rhode Island and North Carolina when be ventured to assert that no State ac- ceded to the P\'(leral (lovernment; that the Constitution was not ratified by the States ; that it was imposed on them l)y the i)eople of the wliole land in tlu-ir ai:;gregate capacity ? What rejily can be made to such assertions but that they arc boldly and impudently false. There is yet another fact that Mr. Motley must accept. It is the iiromincnt, insuperable fact that the States are existing, organized Governments; each one, as Hamilton says, Bujtreme in the exercise of its legitimate powers. Each State has its executive, judieial. and legislative departments, its unlimited ]tower of direet taxation, its militia armed, equijijted and oliiecred, of whieb the CJov- enioi' of the State is the C(imin:nitlei'-in-('liiej'. This is a stubborn fact that must be accepted. To tell his readers, as Mr. Motley ventures to do. that tin State so constituted is a mere countv, is to mock tlu'ir un(lei-standin<;s. The States ar(; States, people, nations, having supreme power over their civil and domestic i-elations, and as indcjiendent, one of the other, within that limit, as they are of England and France. They are armed powers, and will protect the liberties of the States. To establish a Government such 15 as Mr. Motley assumes the Federal Governiucnt to be, it would become necessary to wipe out from American geog- raphy the boundaries of States, and to arrange the country under a new form. The plan was suggested in 1787, but it had no advocates. It found favor nowhere with any party in the convention. Mr. Motley labors with more than common earnestness to persuade the pe()i)le of England that there is some essen- tial difterence between the present action of the Southern States and that of the American colonies in the Revolu- tionary war. There is a ditiercncc certainly. In 1775, the colonies were British possessions. The people of the colo- nies were subjects of the British crown. Tlie action of America was a rebellion. The American people were rebels. But the Southern States have never been possessions of the North. The Southern people are not subjects of New Eng- land and her partners. The withdrawing of the South from the Union is not a rebellion. The people of the Southern States are not rebels. If Mr. Motley will not accept this distinction, and will insist that we are subjects and rebels, then the only difference between the case of 1775 and that of 1861, is the old difference which ^Esop illustrates in the fable of the lawyer, the countryman and the gored ox — it was John's Bull formerly, and now it is brother Jona- than's. Mr. Motley professes to find a parallel between the United Kingdoms of Scotland and England and the United States of America. Admirable logician ! There is no objection to the comparison, except that the objects com- pared are alike in nothing. To make them similar, each kingdom must be in full possession of its own Government, its king, lords and commons. Each must be indei>endent of the other, except in relation to certain s]»ecified objects. They must be united in a common Government, sitting neither in London nor Edinburgh, and exercising limited, delegated powers only, in some common place. Then, suppose that these delegated powers were exceeded ; that one party to the partnership was seeking to injure the 16 other; that tlio imrty oppressed determined to withdraw from tlie compact, tlion, ami then only, we shall have a con- dition of thinijs in Great Britain resemblinc: that which exists in America. But, again, although the position of the two countries is dissimilar, still the union hetween JIngland and Scotland is ha.sed on certain fundamental articles of a solemn compact. Suppose these articles vio- lated ; suppose that Eni^land should attempt to impose on Scotland a religion diffcront from her form of faith, or that the English Parliament should refuse to admit to their Beats the lords and commoners sent up from Scotland, and so dcpi'ivc the sister kingdom of her whole rej>resentation, would the land of " William the Lion and Kohcrt Bru<'e," submit to the outrage ? Would it not justify an armed re- sistance on the part of the Mglied to independent States? (-an Virginia rebel against Massa- chusetts? The Southern people are rel)els against whom? The term "rebel" is intelligible in the vocabulary of Lord North or bis master, but what meaning has it from the lips of Mr. Seward cr Mr. Lincoln ? Is it the Federal Govern- ment that claims alicLriance and loyalty, and against whom 17 the States are said to rebel ? What is the Federal Govern- ment? It is the creature of the States. It lives by suffer- ance only. If the States merely kept back their Senators from "Washington, the Government would cease to exist. The Federal authorities are the grantees of power, not the grantors: the employed, not the employers; the political agents, not the principals. And this grantee, this agent, claims loyalty from its masters. Abraham Lincoln de- mands allegiance from Georgia and Texas. Allegiance, loyalty, are for kings ; rebellion, rebel, mark the relations of subjects. To apply them as the Northern people are applying must excite the world's laughter only. It is for this reason that a new term, the term secession, has been used so freely. It grew out of the necessity for a new word to designate a new thing. Mr. Motley may in- sist, if he pleases, on calling the secession of a State from the Union rebellion, and the citizens of the seceding State rebels. He may go on to claim their loyalty and allegiance if he will. But it is evident]}- applying terms of one form of society to another form in which they have no significa- tion. There is no resemblance between a State regularly organized declaring its independence against former part- ners, and a disorderly crowd of revolters asserting freedom against their rulers; between the citizens of a State obey- ing the State's decrees, and a band of insurgents acting on their own authority. To insist on confounding things so dissimilar by applying to them the same words and forms of language is simply ridiculous. But if Mr. Motley will confound them, if he will call the action of the Southern States rebellion, we are willing to indulge him. Let it be rebellion. ^^ No man," he says, "o/" Avglo-Saxon blood will dispute (he right of a people or of any por- tion of a people to rise against oppression, and take up arms to vindicate the sacred principles of liberty." Least of all, can any man of America dispute the right of American citizens in its largest possible latitude. The right of rebellion against Government made the Colonies independent States in 1783. It has been proclaimed ever since in every possi- 2 18 ble sliapc as a sacred right never to ho ahandonod. It was clearly ivssertcd in many of the State ConventionH on the ratification of the Constitution. In the New York Con- vention, it waa resolved nnaninirehensions of future loss or disaster as a reason with his retiring partners for not seeking their fortunes in their own way. The rule of each is his own welfare; the guide of each is his own judgment. Mr. Motley becomes lugubrious at the close of his letter. He mourns over the loss by the " rebellion " of "immense territories " to the Union. By the Union, he means the Northern States — by the immense territories, the Southern country. It ought to console him to know that the terri- tory remains in the possession of those to whom it right- fully belongs, lie laments the damage to the North iVom beiu^ deprived ol" the natural bouiulary ot the whole Houtheru maritime frontier. It will be very inconvenient. Btit even the French empire has been unable to keep ,1 ulnral or advantageous bt)undarie8 at the expense of its u^,-, <^hbors. lie grieves at the sliort memory of the South- ern I ■*cople. '* It was only when the eciis of disuuion faded awaij h'i ihc past," he says, " that the allegiance to the Union in certa.'" regions of the country seemed rapidly to dimin- ish." It is \\Q.Y<^ to say where the evils of disunion are to be found in <>ur past history. The evils of the Union are obvious enoiigh. They took the shape of bounties, monop- oliea and systematic detraction. Mr. Motley confesses that the tarifl' systoni was an oppression on the South, lie 21 admits that iu the tariff controversy of 1831, which almost ended in secession, the South were right and the North wrong. Has the wrong ever ceased ? Have the Northern States ever forhorne for a moment to make the Southern people their dependents, by law, for every article of manu- factured goods? We have escaped the burdens of the Mor- rill tariff only by escaping from the Union. Is this system of legal sectional plunder the single wrong or evil inflicted on the South by her Northern brethren, and i)atiently borne for many years from sincere attachment to the Union ? Have not Northern politicians, and divines, and journalists, and authors of every description, reviled the character of the Southern people over all Europe, system- atically, for many years? So successfully had they per- suaded themselves, by their libels, to their great satisfaction and comfort, that the people of the South were in all re- spects utterly contemptible, that they were amazed, in the sharp refutation of their opinion, on the field of Manassas, to find they had men to fight against more than equal to themselves. This was Governor Sprague's confession to the people of Rhode Island. They went to war because they though the conquest of the South would be an easy task. They ventured because they believed their oppo- nents effeminate boasters and cowards. The work would be slight and the profit immense. They are grieved to find that they were mistaken in the calculation. The blood they have shed goes for nothing. It was not the fading away of imaginary evils^ belonging to an apochryphal period of disunion, that has destroyed the unity of the Govern- ment and torn the Republic to pieces. It has been the insolence, arrogance, presumption and impudent intermed- dling of the Northern people with matters in which they had no earthly concern. They had grown prosperous beyond their wildest hopes on the profits produced to them from Southern resources. They had waxed fatter tlian their exhibition pigs or prize oxen, and had been playing those unseemly tricks in the face of Heaven, which always go before a nation's downfall. They are now making war 22 on the Ronthoni j>(''»|>lc iindor jiitiful pulttorfticros and false pretoiiccK. Undor tlic mask of patriotism tliey arc Becking purely selfisli ends, by means of atrocities more infamous than were ever witnessed hefore among civilized nations. They are rapidly arriving at the hitter conviction that they have lost wantonly, wickedly, stupidly, incalcnlahle advan- tages that no <'raft, strength, or wisdom can ever regain. The suft'cring will fall on the laboring masses. Mr. Motley, and others like Mr. Motley — men who will live and fatten on the taxes wrung from the distresses of the people — find no evils to deplore in the war they are waging on the Southern pef>i»le. The chiefs are unprincipled, unscrupu- lous adventurers. Tliey will divide ani(»ng themselves 400,000,000 of dollars, in every jiossihle form c»f plunder, and the jieople will be deprived of their freedom and ground into dust. The whole story will supply an instruc- tive c<»mmentary on written Constitutions and on parch- ment guarantees of personal liberty and the rights of [trojierty. The American people have relied on them ae bands of iron to bind designing and ambitious denuigogues; they have proven to be wisjts of straw and ropes of sand. One word remains to be said of Mr. Motley, the historian who relates the triumphant achievements of the Dutch people in asserting and establishing their liberties. Ilis wli(de' work of three volumes is a panygcric on the vindi- cators of tlii'ir country's freedom, ami a denunciation of hatred and scorn on the ojtpressors of the Xctherlands. hut riiiliji was at least a king by every law and principle of the age. He was doing a great duty according to his narrow Judgment and bigoted conscience. Tie was gov- erned by no mean aims of emolument or office. lie was not false to his principles to secure a petty appointment. There was no base truckling to vulgar demagogue power in his character or proceedings. Tyrant as he was, he was a tyrant in conformity with the received and settled limits of imperial rule. He was a bad and cruel master, but he was master by universal consent. And what is the tyrant of our day — the object of Mr. Motley's praise and support? 23 A coarsg demagogue, thrust into power by party trickery, the patron and representative of office hunters of tlie baser sort, the deliberate viohitor of every principle of the Gov- ernment which he has sworn to administer faithfully, and which Mr. Motley professes to admire ; the man who has carried lire and sword, and arson and murder, and rape into the peaceful homes of Virginia; a man more base, more cruel, more treacherous, more false than Philip or his in- struments; a vulgar despot who is feeling his way to every atrocity that the worst tools of the Spanish tyrant ever per- petrated, and who is surrounded and urged on by advisers and abettors worse than Alva or Parma, or the inquisition at Madrid — by Seward and Blair and Greeley, and the clergy of the North, who preach robbery and assassination as Christian duties. These are the men who are organizing a conspiracy of rape and robbery against the American Netherlands, and whom Mr. Motley has prostituted his pen to support. Assuredly, he will receive his reward. A part he has already secured in a foreign appointment — the re- mainder, the scorn and rebuke of all honorable men, he will as certainly receive. Can any man doubt what course Mr. Motley would have taken had he lived in the days of Egmont and Horn ? Would he have gone to the block with the victims of Spanish cruelty ? would he have taken part with the poverty and suftering of William the Silent, who had nothing of importance to give ? or would his pen have been the purchased slave of those who could give office and wealth, dukedoms and principalities? Who will not understand at once tlic truthfulness of Mr. Motley's pretended enthusiasm for Dutch liberty, and his hatred for Spanish cruelty and tyranny, when he denounces the South for imitating Dutcli example, and sustains and praises a horde of brutal despots worse than Philip or Alva ?