monopoly will have vanished, and her wealth will have been wasted.

I think that history will agree with me in saying that the Northern
States had no alternative but war. What concession could they make?
Could they promise to hold their peace about slavery? And had they
so promised, would the South have believed them? They might have
conceded secession; that is, they might have given all that would
have been demanded. But what individual chooses to yield to such
demands. And if not an individual, then what people will do so?
But, in truth, they could not have yielded all that was demanded.
Had secession been granted to South Carolina and Georgia, Virginia
would have been coerced to join those States by the nature of her
property, and with Virginia Maryland would have gone, and
Washington, the capital. What may be the future line of division
between the North and the South, I will not pretend to say; but that
line will probably be dictated by the North. It may still be hoped
that Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland will go with the
North, and be rescued from slavery. But had secession been yielded,
had the prestige of success fallen to the lot of the South, those
States must have become Southern.

While on the subject of slavery--for in discussing the cause of the
war, slavery is the subject that must be discussed--I cannot forbear
to say a few words about the negroes of the North American States.
The Republican party of the North is divided into two sections, of
which one may be called abolitionist, and the other non-
abolitionist. Mr. Lincoln's government presumes itself to belong to
the latter, though its tendencies toward abolition are very strong.
The abolition party is growing in strength daily. It is but a short
time since Wendell Phillips could not lecture in Boston without a