If this be the true state of the case, what are the Southern chiefs fighting about?  Their apologists in England say that it is about tariffs, and similar trumpery. They say nothing of the kind.  They tell the world, and they told their own citizens when they wanted their votes, that the object of the fight was slavery.  Many years ago, when General Jackson was President, South Carolina did nearly rebel (she never was near separating) about a tariff; but no other State abetted her, and a strong adverse demonstration from Virginia brought the matter to a close.  Yet the tariff of that day was rigidly protective.  Compared with that, the one in force at the time of the secession was a free-trade tariff:  This latter was the result of several successive modifications in the direction of freedom; and its principle was not protection for protection, but as much of it only as might incidentally result from duties imposed for revenue.  Even the Morrill tariff (which never could have been passed but for the Southern secession) is stated by the high authority of Mr. H. C. Carey to be considerably more liberal than the reformed French tariff under Mr. Cobden’s treaty; insomuch that he, a Protectionist, would be glad to exchange his own protective tariff for Louis Napoleon’s free-trade one.  But why discuss, on probable evidence, notorious facts?  The world knows what the question between the North and South has been for many years, and still is.  Slavery alone was thought of, alone talked of.  Slavery was battled for and against, on the floor of Congress and in the plains of Kansas; on the slavery question exclusively was the party constituted which now rules the United States:  on slavery Fremont was rejected, on slavery Lincoln was elected; the South separated on slavery, and proclaimed slavery as the one cause of separation.

It is true enough that the North are not carrying on war to abolish slavery in the States where it legally exists.  Could it have been expected, or even perhaps desired, that they should?  A great party does not change suddenly, and at once, all its principles and professions.  The Republican party have taken their stand on law, and the existing constitution of the Union.  They have disclaimed all right to attempt anything which that constitution forbids.  It does forbid interference by the Federal Congress with slavery in the Slave States; but it does not forbid their abolishing it in the District of Columbia; and this they are now doing, having voted, I perceive, in their present pecuniary straits, a million of dollars to indemnify the slave-owners of the District.  Neither did the Constitution, in their own opinion, require them to permit the introduction of slavery into the territories which were not yet States.  To prevent this, the Republican party was formed, and to prevent it, they are now fighting, as the slave-owners are fighting to enforce it.