states by the laws thereof, as free persons, and as no longer held to service anywhere.

This is the first question, and with this question it would have been well to stop till after the war, and not have inopportunely complicated it with the question, What shall be done with the emancipated slaves? But this latter question has been raised, and we cannot now refuse to consider it, for on its solution depends in no small degree the practical answer that will be given to the question of emancipation. We are disposed to agree with Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Blair, and many distinguished members of both houses of congress, that the best mode of dealing with the emancipated slaves is to colonize them outside of the United States, at the earliest reasonable moment. We do not for ourselves, however, make emancipation turn on colonization. We insist on emancipation for its own sake, colonization, or no colonization. We hold that the government, as the necessary and natural guardian of the emancipated slaves, has the right to insist on their emigration, and that emigration, and colonization after emancipation, is best for both blacks and whites; but we are persuaded if government will secure a territory suitable to their tastes, habits, and temperament, and facilitate their migration to it, the emancipated negroes will, in a reasonable time, nearly all migrate to it of their own accord. We know the strong local attachment of the negro, and his little enterprising or adventurous disposition, but it must be borne in mind that the negroes have leaders of their own race, or with some mixture of white blood perhaps, who are men of ability, intelligence, and enterprise. These men can be nobody in a community where the white race predominates, and therefore can easily be induced to emigrate and to lead their people with them. Many of these, wearing their life out in slavery, are not wholly unfitted by their genius and ability to lead forth the millions of their race to a new territory, and to found there and govern a state. Seeing that they and their people, if remaining in the United States, must remain there, in spite of all philanthropy can do, as slaves or as outcasts, pariahs, as we have said, they will feel for themselves, and without much difficulty make their people feel, that the best thing for them is to migrate to a country where they can live in a community of their own race, or where at least their own will be the dominant race. Such migration or exode will be the beginning of the uprising of their race. It will quicken a

new spirit in them, and be the commencement of their return toward the type from which they have departed so far, and their recompense for the long ages of slavery and oppression they have endured from the white race.

Still we do not conceal from ourselves, the opposition of the other class mentioned at the North, not merely to colonization, but to emancipation, under any form or any condition, is the most formidable obstacle to justice to the slave to be encountered. We have been surprised to find how completely wedded to negro slavery have become our old Democratic politicians, and how widely pro-slavery sentiments are cherished in the free states. We had so long been living out of the political world, engrossed with our theolog ical and philosophical studies, that we had taken little note of the changes in public opinion favorable to slavery, which had been effected during the last ten or fifteen years, and we find, very much to our regret, the North, as a whole, less abolition than the South. Our commercial cities had become almost completely southernized in their views of slavery, and opposition to the existence of slavery, or even to its extension into new territory, has had very little influence with the merchants of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, and the interests of trade, far more than patriotism or loyalty, have moved them to support the administration in suppressing the rebellion. The Morrill tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter. The commercial class in no country and in no age is remarkable for patriotism, and finds usually its country where its profits are largest, or best secured. It with us seeks to preserve the integrity of the Union, for if that should be lost, they would lose a large portion of their trade. But for the same reason they are opposed to the abolition of slavery. The abolition of slavery, and the great changes it would effect in southern society, would at least, for a time, seriously lessen the amount of business, and diminish its profits. They want the Union restored as speedily as possible, but at the same time they want slavery retained, so that buying and selling may go on as before, and hence as soon as they thought it likely that slavery might be interfered with, and their old customers at the South crippled in their resources, they became less willing to furnish the government with the means of carrying on the war.

But the politicians, to some extent, of all parties, but more especially of the old Democratic party, are the most invet

erate enemies of the policy of emancipation, and from them we hear it proclaimed, over and over again, that the armies of the Union will throw down their arms, if the war were made, in any sense, a war of liberation. They keep up a continued howl against abolitionists and radicals, and would seem to regard slavery as more than the Union, as the corner stone of the republic, as the the essential condition of its prosperity, and the very palladium of its safety. Remove slavery and we should be obliged to sing, in our grief, Ilium fuit. These politicians had for some time a great advantage over us, in making it appear that they had the administration on their side, and that we, in opposing them, were deserting the very president we had helped to elect. Since the sixth of March last, this pretense has been taken from them, and the president, by his message to congress on that day, shows that the administration is at least on the side of emancipation, and is prepared to initiate it, if, indeed, it be not prepared to go further.

If

But the reason of the advocacy of slavery by those old politicians is no secret. If slavery goes, they lose their stock in trade, and their vocation is gone. The Democratic party was always a southern party. It had its chief strength in the South, and its ablest and most important allies. Let slavery go, and that party is defunct. It can no longer rule the nation, and will be henceforth remembered only as the party that, under pretence of fidelity to the constitution, has done its best to sacrifice the life of the nation. slavery be abolished, it can never have the South with it again. If the Union ceases to be the union of freedom and slavery, it can have no charms for it; for no class of people, than those who composed it, will be more utterly distrusted and despised by the South. They will, therefore, do all in their power to save the "patriarchal institution," and to rear once more their Democracy on the slavery of the negro race, as its basis. But we trust they will fail, and the logic of the movement, represented by the Republican party, will carry the nation on, we had almost said, in spite of itself, to the final emancipation of itself from the political power of slavery, by the complete destruction of slavery as property. We think we have shown how this end can be obtained under the constitution, without violating any constitutional provision or existing law. If we have so done, the way is clear for the final obliteration from our soil of the curse of slavery.

WHAT THE REBELLION TEACHES.*

[From Brownson's Quarterly Review for July, 1862.]

DR. KEOGH, the able and loyal editor of the Pittsburg Catholic, has in his popular lecture before the Catholic Institute of Cincinnati, given a very condensed, clear, explicit and just statement of the Catholic principles of government as taught by the greatest and most approved fathers and doctors of the church. To those familiar with the writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Bellarmine, and Suarez his statement contains indeed little that is new, but it presents their doctrine in a popular form, and applies it to the great struggles now raging between legitimate authority and revolutionism both at home and abroad. lecture, which we should be glad to see widely circulated, is timely, and brings out and enforces certain great principles of which the people, whether orthodox or heterodox, cannot be too frequently reminded, and with which they cannot be too thoroughly imbued,-principles which, if they had been more generally held and more generally understood, would have saved Europe from revolutionary terrorism, and our own country from the fearful evils of the civil war, with which she is now so sorely afflicted.

His

Men who pique themselves on being "practical men," men of "plain common sense," are apt to treat with contempt those of us who deal with principles, and labor to establish sound and just doctrines; but all experience proves that the people collectively as well as individually are logical, and sure, sooner or later, to draw from their premises their logical conclusion. If they start with a false theory of authority, they are certain to fetch up in despotism, and, if with a false theory of liberty, they are just as certain to fetch up in revolutionism, anarchy, or license. A false theory respecting the divine origin of power has led nation after nation to submit to the misrule and oppression of despots, and a false theory as to popular sovereignty subjects all European society to the terror of revolutionism,

*Catholic Principles of Civil Government. A Lecture, by Rev. JAMES KEOGH, D. D. Cincinnati: 1862.

and in this country leads to rebellion, secession, and civil war. The doctrine of popular sovereignty held and proclaimed by our American demagogues, and heretofore generally insisted on by the American press, both North and South, fully justifies secession, and condemns the federal government for its attempt to coerce the rebellious states into submission. If the people are sovereign, and government is nothing but an agency, created by them for carrying out their will, as modern demagogy teaches, by what right do you deny the people of the slaveholding states the right to secede from the Union, and to form a southern confederacy, if such be their pleasure? Either the theory which you have insisted on in the case of all foreign revolutions is untenable, and should be promptly disavowed, or you are wrong in attempting to enforce the laws of the Union over states that do not choose to obey them. If the Emilian provinces had the right to secede from the papal authority, and annex themselves to Piedmont, why has not South Carolina the right to secede from the Union, and enter into the southern confederacy? Yet there are men, that hailed the secession of the Emilian provinces as a glorious assertion of freedom, who are now fighting against South Carolina, and willing to see her annihilated. There are men amongst us, men who applaud to the echo Garibaldi, that prince of freebooters, laud him as a patriot and a hero, who yet demand. the capture and execution of Jefferson Davis as a traitor. It is said that even our government actually invited Garibaldi to accept a commission in our army, and there was at one time a report that he was to be its commander-inchief,-he, a man not worthy to be named in the same breath with even Jefferson Davis, John B. Floyd, or Gideon Pillow!

It is of the last importance that we start with sound and just principles. It is absurd to claim the right to resist government, if it governs by divine right, or to undertake to suppress a rebellion, if the people are above law, and absolutely and persistently sovereign, as our demagogues assert. In either case the inconsistency is too great to be permanently successful. We ourselves support the government, because we believe in government, and do not believe in the demagogical doctrine of popular sovereignty. We love both liberty and authority, and believe in the possibility of neither without the other. We opposed the European revolutions of 1848 and 1849; we opposed the revolution that