of its artificial delusion on the other.  He may now go to the bottom of Southern society, and find in its conflicting elements the antagonistic motives that render the plans of treason abortive.  These will be sure to continue, and sure to strengthen on the side of fidelity to the National Government.  When the South is made a solid, compact unit in political motive, it will become so, disarmed of all purposes of treason.

It has been repeatedly asserted that the South was a political unit on the question of the attempted revolution.  This declaration has been reiterated by the Southern press, by travelers, and by all the influences connected with the rebellion.  It is not now necessary to delineate the quasi military organization of the Knights of the Golden Circle, or their operations in cajoling and terrorizing the Southern population into acquiescence.  Much unanimity through this process was made to appear on the surface; but it is more palpable to the analytic mind acquainted with Southern society, that the very means employed to enforce acquiescence afforded also the evidence that there was a strong under-current of aversion.  Willing apostasy from allegiance to the Union needed no terrorizing from mobs or murders.  The ruffianism of the South had been fully armed in advance of the full disclosure of the plot to secede.  Loyalty had been as carefully disarmed by the same active influences.  It had nothing to oppose to arms but its unprotected sentiments.  As soon as the law of force was invoked by the conspirators, the day of reasoning was wholly past.  Flight or conformity became the condition precedent of safety, even for life.  The bulk of the Southern population was as much conspired against as the Government at Washington; and force against the same population was rigorously called into requisition to consummate what fraud and political crime had concocted.  This was the boasted unity of the South.

The inquiry is often made:  ’How was it possible to have inaugurated the rebellion, without the bulk of the slaveholders, at least, acting in concert?’ This inquiry is not easily answered, unless its solution is found in the fact that slaveholders, through jealousy, had parted with their active loyalty to the National Government.  This was generally the case.  Whilst the bulk of them hesitated for a little to take the fearful step of revolt, their hesitation was more connected with apprehension of its consequences than with any attachment to the Government.  The deceptive idea of peaceable secession first drew them within the lines of the open traitor.  The supposed probability of success made them allies in rebellion.  As a general sentiment, they made their imaginary adieux to the Government of their fathers without apparent regret.