employed, to impose upon the masses of white labor South, and to make them contented with their disparaged condition.  It is needless to say, the work of imposition was too effectually accomplished.  It must be confessed that too much of the non-slaveholding population had been induced to follow the political Iagos of the South, and thus to assist the first act in the plan for its own subversion—­separation from the North.  The next step in the plan of subversion, the ’abrogation of a government of majorities,’ was carefully kept from the public view.

The inquiry naturally arises, as to how or why this design for the arrangement of political power in the Southern Confederacy has been confined within such narrow degrees of disclosure.  The answer is plain.  A bold proposition to change the principles of their government would have alarmed the people of the South into an intensified opposition.  The politicians of South-Carolina, more open and frank in the exposition of their views than other leaders in the South, have been obliged to submit the control of their discretion to the more crafty and subtle influences of other States.  Policy required that the contemplated new form of government should be confined to the knowledge of the leading spirits only.  It would not bear the hazards of submission to the people as a basis of revolution.  Its success depended upon secresy and coupling the adoption of the plan with a sudden denouement after revolution.  Any one conversant with the pages of De Bow’s Review for the last ten years, and who has watched the drift of argument in reviling the masses, and contemning their connection with government; and accustomed also to the ‘accidental droppings’ from secessionists in their cups, has had little difficulty in determining the ultimatum in the designs of treason.  He will have become convinced that it is nothing less than a warfare against the continuation of Democratic government in the South—­that this warfare is stimulated by the fixed belief that a government of majorities must be superseded, in order to perpetuate the institution of slavery.

Were argument wanting to force this conclusion on the mind, it would be supplied in the established affinity between the emissaries of secession in Europe and the virulent haters of Democratic government there found.  The liberalists of England and elsewhere have been sedulously avoided; not so those who would connive to bring Democratic government into disrepute.  With these last-mentioned classes, the secessionists have met with a ready sympathy and encouragement, almost as much so, as if treason in America involved directly the stability of privileged power on that continent.  The Tories of England, the Legitimists of France, the nauseous ingredients of the House of Hapsburg, the degenerate nobility of Spain, and from that down to the ’German Prince of a five-acre patch,’ have been the congenial allies of secession emissaries in Europe.  It mattered not to these