The next best thing, if they could not make up their minds to separate, would have been to have had a strong centralised government. It might have been a Protectorate, such as Cromwell's was to have been, in which the Protector was to nominate his own successor; or it might have been a Presidency for life, to be filled up in whatever way might be selected. I suppose these would be unobjectionable forms of expressing the odious ideas of hereditary and elective monarchy. The only drawback about it would have been, that the Chief of the State must have had abundance of power, to keep the two sections from quarrelling-power to legislate, so as to promote the interests of one, without doing harm to those of the other-and power to prevent them from taking the law into their own hands to each other's detriment. In other words, he must have been as much of a despot as the present Emperor of the French. And even that would not have been enough. For they would require not only a monarchy, but a monarch, and a succession like Augustus, or Leo the Isaurian,* or Charlemagne, or Peter the Great.

* The name of Leo the Isaurian, Emperor of Constantinople in the early part of the eighth century, is probably less familiar than any of the others, but he was great enough to deserve to be bracketed with them, and, what is more, his is the example most to the point. The others ruled by representing with ability and justice

C

But no if separation was bad, monarchy was worse, at least so it was thought then, though it rather looks as if the North did not think so now. And a Federal democracy it was, and was to remain. The States of the North, and the States of the South, refused to take either the course which might have obviated the necessity of conflict, or the course which, with good luck, might have moderated its vehemence; and they determined to fight it out. History has often seen specimens of a similar conflict. There are two specific characters, which have been opposed to each other in almost every age of the world. This opposition has come so often, that one would think that nature had a particular pleasure in setting them together, in order to see which will prevail. The cases are always distinguished from

the preponderance of one strong race over a multitude of weaker ones. Leo, besides having to resist the attacks of a powerful and encroaching enemy, with only such means as could be supplied him by a society disorganised, enfeebled, and corrupt, had to govern an empire composed of numerous distinctly marked races, all mutually antagonistic, and none strong enough to take the lead over the others. And yet he succeeded in forming a system of government strong enough to bind them all firmly together, without identifying itself with any one of them, and stable enough to maintain itself for five centuries against formidable enemies without, and the yet worse dangers of incapacity and corruption within. This work of binding together nationalities of not very different degrees of power, but differing in almost every other respect, was exactly what was wanted in the United States.

one another by fresh shades of character being introduced to prevent them from being absolutely identical; but a general family resemblance runs through the whole. One character is that of an open, freehanded, manly being, generally fond of pleasure, full of impulses which on the whole are generous ones, not deficient in ability, and ability sometimes of a high order, careless, self-confident, rather arrogant, and sometimes not very scrupulous. The other is of a different type: crafty, cold-blooded, intensely selfish, clear in the perception of what he wants, and determined to get it at any cost, often inferior to his antagonist in talent, but superior to him in the obstinacy with which he pursues his object-an obstinacy which is rarely shaken by any feeling of mercy, or by any shrinking from meanness or crime. It is also a part of their respective characters that, while the first is sometimes a free-thinker, and, if he is religious, does not say much about it, the second makes a great parade of godliness, and that not necessarily out of hypocrisy, but because he has great faith in the externals of religion, and in fact is apt to be extremely superstitious. The earliest instance of this antagonism that we know of was displayed more than seventeen centuries B.C., in the persons of Esau and Jacob; and it was only the opportune death of one of the parties, just as the

struggle was commencing, which has prevented us from seeing it renewed on a very great scale in the century in which we live.

I have described these two characters rather in the abstract than with any particular reference; and so far from holding that these types are reproduced in every instance with perfect exactness, I am not sure if there is a single one to which the words I have used can apply without some sort of alteration. I will not, therefore, be responsible for the precise applicability of everything I have said, or have it considered in the light of an attempt to depict the character of any individual or people. I say people, though this proviso refers rather to the case of individuals; for the antagonism I have mentioned has been seen more than once in the case of nations, as well as in the case of men. If it had not been so, I should not have been excused in saying anything about it here.

Well, Jacob and Esau-Jacob of the North, and Esau of the South-knowing perfectly well that their interests, or supposed interests, are incompatible, and probably not without a suspicion that their tempers are no less so, make up their minds to keep house together. They will not intrust anybody with full power to manage their affairs for them, so as to force them to make mutual concessions for their common

advantage. They insist on sending their representatives to Washington, not to act as statesmen for the general good, but to vote as delegates according to the injunctions of their respective States; and the two sections having irreconcilable interests, Congress cannot legislate so as to suit both. So that, unless its members are fully possessed with a spirit of statesmanlike moderation, and the citizens, whose delegates they are, with the spirit of Christian charity, the chances are that there will be questions to be settled which will test the solidity of the Union.

Alas! there is but little hope that any such spirit will prevail. It is difficult to make individuals, even if they are tolerably sensible and well-educated, feel that it is wise to sacrifice what they imagine to be their own interest for the sake of the general good. It would be still more difficult to induce an ordinary constituency to do so; and to succeed in impressing such an idea on the mass of citizens of a State, with whom selfishness would take the form of patriotism, would be, humanly speaking, impossible. If there were any real reasons for the sacrifice, they would perhaps not be very clear to an educated gentleman. They would seem of no importance to a ten-pound householder. And to the greater part of the voters, under a system of universal suf