n.

It is evident, therefore, that the people of the South, in the crisis
which confronted them in 1860, had no lack either of precept or of
precedent for their instruction and guidance in the teaching and the
example of our brethren of the North and East. The only practical
difference was, that the North threatened and the South acted.

[Footnote 22: George Cabot, who had been United States Senator from
Massachusetts for several years during the Administration of
Washington.--(See "Life of Cabot," by Lodge, p. 334.)]

[Footnote 23: See "Life of Cabot," p. 491; letter of Pickering to
Higginson.]

[Footnote 24: Pickering to Cabot, "Life of Cabot," pp. 338-340.]

[Footnote 25: Letter to Theodore Lyman, "Life of Cabot," pp. 445, 446.]

[Footnote 26: Maine was not then a State.]

CHAPTER X.

False Statements of the Grounds for Separation.--Slavery not the
Cause, but an Incident.--The Southern People not "Propagandists"
of Slavery.--Early Accord among the States with regard to
African Servitude.--Statement of the Supreme Court.--Guarantees
of the Constitution.--Disregard of Oaths.--Fugitives from
Service and the "Personal Liberty Laws."--Equality in the
Territories the Paramount Question.--The Dred Scott
Case.--Disregard of the Decision of the Supreme
Court.--Culmination of Wrongs.--Despair of their
Redress.--Triumph of Sectionalism.

At the period to which this review of events has advanced, one State had
already withdrawn from the Union. Seven or eight others were preparing
to follow her example, and others yet were anxiously and doubtfully
contemplating the probably impending necessity of taking the same
action. The efforts of Southern men in Congress, aided by the
cooeperation of the Northern friends of the Constitution, had failed, by
the stubborn refusal of a haughty majority, controlled by "radical"
purposes, to yield anything to the spirit of peace and conciliation.
This period, coinciding, as it happens, with the close of a calendar
year, affords a convenient point to pause for a brief recapitulation of
the causes which had led the Southern States into the attitude they then
held, and for a more full exposition of the constitutional questions
involved.

The reader of many of the treatises on these events, which have been put
forth as historical, if dependent upon such alone for information, might
naturally enough be led to the conclusion that the controv