same category. It does not follow, however, that a theory is erroneous, although its practical application may be dangerous without sufficient preparation. The part of true wisdom is not to rush too hastily to conclusions, nor to attempt new projects too rapidly. The successful establishment of free government in America seemed to demonstrate the correctness of the theories we have alluded to. The reign of terror in France, and the massacres of Hay ti, were not sufficient to affect established convictions. More than half a century of adverse events were required to weaken our delusions. The failure of repeated French revolutions to give liberty to her people, the total inability of the Spanish republics in America to establish stable institutions, and the sceming incapacity of the African to retain even the civilization of absorption, have at length produced a re-action—which has been greatly accelerated by the grand catastrophe of the model Republic. The danger is that our political thinkers may now rush to the opposite extreme, and attribute acknowledged calamities to wrong causes. Neither free institutions nor popular suffrage had anything to do with the most significant of these calamities. Let me dwell upon this point for a moment. Rebellions or revolutions-for the words are interchangeable dependent upon the final result-are caused: 1. By arbitrary and oppressive conduct by the government. 2. By diversity of interests in the sections of country or peoples governed. 3. By differences of race or nationality. 4. By divergences of opinion on questions of religion or morals. Each or all of these causes may exist or arise under any form of government. The English revolutions of 1640 and 1688, were due principally to the first cause, aided in some measure by the fourth. The American revolution of 1776 may be traced almost entirely to the second cause, notwithstanding the long array of (so-called) arbitrary acts paraded in the Declaration of Independence. All extensive empires even of the same race are subject to this powerful lever of disintegration. The periodical uprisings of Poland and Hungary, the restlessness of the Irish under the rule of Great Britain, and the formidable outbreaks of the Moors in Algeria, and the natives of Hindostan, attest the irresistible influence of the third cause. We say, irresistible, because no real benefits derived from the actual government, and no excess of prudence or concession, or, on the other hand, of rigor and strength of the governing power, can prevent its occurrence. The vast benefit to the whole world and to the subject race, of the

rule of France in Algiers, and of England in the East Indies, is beyond all question, while the material resources and wealth of the ruling nations render a successful rebellion hopeless-nevertheless, outbreaks do occur and will continue to occur from time to time. The fourth cause of revolution has been really the most frequent of all. The civil wars of Germany, to go no further back, the civil wars of France, the civil wars of the Spanish Empire in the Netherlands, and, still more recently, the conflict, on the same theatre, between the Belgians and the Hollanders, are sufficient instances of its operation. Now, it is obvious, that if each of these causes is so powerful in what are called strong governments, all or most of them combined would prove too much for any government under the sun. All of them have been at work, and have been necessary to bring about the American catastrophe. In the debates of the convention which framed the constitution of the United States, the danger to the Union arising out of the different interests of the members, was frequently noticed. Mr. Madison, in discussing the mode of electing the Senate, dwelt upon the point with manifest apprehension: "He contended that the States were divided into different interests, not by their difference in size, but by other circumstances, the most material of which resulted partly from climate, but principally from the effect of their having or not having slaves. These two causes concurred in forming the great division of interests in the United States. It did not lie between the large and small States. It lay between the Northern and Southern; and if any defensive power were necessary, it ought to be mutually given to these two interests. He was so strongly impressed with this important truth, that he had been casting about in his mind for some expedient that would answer the purpose. . He would preserve the States' rights as carefully as the trial by jury." His idea was that the diversity of interests thus referred to would lead to the oppression of the weaker body of States by the stronger, and that it was important, if possible, to give to the weaker some means of defense against such aggression. The majority of the convention seemed to think the danger obviated by withholding from the general government the power of coercion. The fact that the general government might make common cause with the stronger States seems not to have occurred to them. It was reserved for a profound thinker, at a much later period, to point out this danger. In considering the question of the secession of one of the States from

the Union, M. DeTocqueville thus expresses himself: "Moreover, a government, even if strong, can escape with difficulty the consequences of a principle, when it has once admitted that principle itself as the foundation of the public law which ought to guide it. The confederation has been formed by the free will of the States; these, in uniting with each other, have not lost their nationality, and have not blended themselves into one and the self-same people. If, at the present day, one of those same States wishes to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be rather difficult to convince it that it could not do the act. The Federal Government, to resist. it, could not, in a satisfactory manner, rely upon either force or right. In order that the Federal Government might triumph easily over the resistance offered by some of its subjects, it would be essential that the individual interests of one or more of these subjects. should be intimately bound up in the existence of the Union, as has often happened in the history of confederations." How accurately is this suggestion, and the fuller explanation of it which follows, borne out by the facts in the present deplorable contest. The Northern States have an interest in retaining control over the productions and trade of the South, and, therefore, they have thrown the whole weight of their power in support of the general government. The diversity of interests, therefore, between the Northern and Southern States, distinctly foreseen by Mr. Madison from the outset, and which as early as 1832 threatened a disruption of the Union, has been a powerful cause in producing the present revolution. The existence of slavery has, also, as will be shown hereafter, tended to produce a difference of nationality between the North and the South, notwithstanding the unity of race. To these primary causes of division, must be added, though subsidiary to them, the divergences of opinion between the Northern and Southern people on the religious and moral aspects of slavery. The workings of this cause, although not very obvious in the political field, had begun to display themselves in the schisms of our great religious denominations, and its latent power has been brought out since the actual commencement of hostilities. Still, such was the cohesive power of the American Union, that all of these causes combined would have failed in dissolving it, except for the arbitrary and oppressive acts of the government. These have rendered final what might only have been temporary. The same causes would have produced the same result, even more speedily and certainly, under

a despotism, or constitutional monarchy as under a republic. Philip the II. was a despot, and George III. a constitutional monarch. Could either of them prevent a successful revolution of a part of their subjects? Those who hastily attribute our present calamities to the character of our institutions, take a very narrow view of the subject. Human nature is substantially the same in all countries, and the same causes will produce like results under any form of government. WM. F. COOPER.

Nashville, Tenn.

THE REBELLION.

In an article with the above caption, a writer in the last April number of the REVIEW "takes a glance at the late unpleasantness through legal spectacles," and from his view of the nature of the United States' Constitution, concludes that the Southern movement was treason against the United States Government; that the war was a civil one, and the concession to the rebels of belligerent rights was merely in the interest of humanity, having reference to their treatment during the war and not protecting them from the legal consequences of treason when the war was over. The present writer has long since accepted the situation, and with it the view imposed by the Government, upon the principle of self-preservation, or otherwise, as the law of the matters involved in the contest. Both the human and divine law concur in enjoining a respectful obedience to the powers that be, and this every good citizen will render without useless complaint. It certainly will not be attempted to justify the effort of the Southern States to sever their connection with the Federal Union; nor will the moral right or wrong of the movement be passed upon, as it is not involved in the discussion. The object of this article is simply to attempt the refutation of an argumentative view of the nature of the Government, which has been advanced as the foundation for the conclusions above stated. To say: You are traitors, because the United States Government so declares you, is a very different declaration from, you are traitors, and I can prove it logically. Besides, the writer aforesaid deduces from his view a conclusion not yet arrived at by the United States Supreme Court, as it is believed. The Confiscation and Abandoned Property Acts are to be legally maintained. This affects a number of Southern people. The present writer's ancestral home in the Old Dominion was confiscated during the war, and a writ of error taken in 1865 is still pending in that court for its recovery. But to proceed without further preface. That writer concedes the position of Mr. Calhoun, that the Constitution is a compact between the States, to which they became parties as States; and according to Mr. Webster's view this being conceded all would