sonal　democracy；　but　under　its　antislavery　aspect；　to　　soften　the　hostility　of　foreign　powers；　and　ward　off　foreign　　intervention；　which　was　seriously　threatened。　　The　populations　of　　Europe；　especially　of　France　and　England；　were　decidedly　　anti…slavery；　and　if　the　war　here　appeared　to　them　a　war；　not　　solely　for　the　unity　of　the　nation　and　the　integrity　of　its　　domain；　as　it　really　was；　in　which　they　took　and　could　take　no　　interest；　but　a　war　for　the　abolition　of　slavery；　their　　governments　would　not　venture　to　intervene。　　This　was　the　only　　consideration　that　weighed　with　Mr。　Lincoln；　as　he　himself　　assured　the　author；　and　induced　him　to　issue　his　Emancipation　　Proclamation；　and　Europe　rejoices　in　our　victory　over　the　　rebellion　only　so　far　as　it　has　liberated　the　slaves；　and　honors　　the　late　President　only　as　their　supposed　liberator；　not　as　the　　preserver　of　the　unity　and　integrity　of　the　nation。　　This　is　　natural　enough　abroad；　and　proves　the　wisdom　of　the　anti…slavery　　policy　of　the　government；　which　had　become　absolutely　necessary　　to　save　the　Republic　long　before　it　was　adopted；　yet　it　is　not　as　　the　emancipator　of　some　two　or　three　360　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　millions　of　slaves　that　the　　American　patriot　cherishes　the　memory　of　Abraham　Lincoln；　but；　　aided　by　the　loyal　people；　generals　of　rare　merit；　and　troops　of　　unsurpassed　bravery　and　endurance；　as　the　saviour　of　the　American　　state；　and　the　protector　of　modern　civilization。　　His　　anti…slavery　policy　served　this　end；　and　therefore　was　wise；　but　　he　adopted　it　with　the　greatest　possible　reluctance。
  There　were　greater　issues　in　the　late　war　than　negro　slavery　or　　negro　freedom。　　That　was　only　an　incidental　issue；　as　the　really　　great　men　of　the　Confederacy　felt；　who　to　save　their　cause　were　　willing　themselves　at　last　to　free　and　arm　their　own　negroes；　and　　perhaps　were　willing　to　do　it　even　at　first。　　This　fact　alone　　proves　that　they　had；　or　believed　they　had；　a　far　more　important　　cause　than　the　preservation　of　negro　slavery。　　They　fought　for　　personal　democracy；　under　the　form　of　State　sovereignty；　against　　social　democracy；　for　personal　freedom　and　independence　against　　social　or　humanitarian　despotism；　and　so　far　their　cause　was　as　　good　as　that　against　which　they　took　up　arms；　and　if　they　had　or　　could　have　fought　against　that；　without　fighting　at　the　same　time　　against　the　territorial；　the　real　American；　the　only　civilized　　democracy；　they　361　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　would　have　succeeded。　　It　is　not　socialism　nor　　abolitionism　that　has　won；　nor　is　it　the　North　that　has　　conquered。　　The　Union　itself　has　won　no　victories　over　the　South；　　and　it　is　both　historically　and　legally　false　to　say　that　the　　South　has　been　subjugated。　　The　Union　has　preserved　itself　and　　American　civilization；　alike　for　North　and　South；　East　and　West。　　　The　armies　that　so　often　met　in　the　shock　of　battle　were　not　　drawn　up　respectively　by　the　North　and　the　South；　but　by　two　　rival　democracies；　to　decide　which　of　the　two　should　rule　the　　future。　　They　were　the　armies　of　two　mutually　antagonistic　　systems；　and　neither　army　was　clearly　and　distinctly　conscious　of　　the　cause　for　which　it　was　shedding　its　blood；　each　obeyed　　instinctively　a　power　stronger　than　itself；　and　which　at　best　it　　but　dimly　discerned。　　On　both　sides　the　cause　was　broader　and　　deeper　than　negro　slavery；　and　neither　the　proslavery　men　nor　the　　abolitionists　have　won。　　The　territorial　democracy　alone　has　won；　　and　won　what　will　prove　to　be　a　final　victory　over　the　purely　　personal　democracy；　which　had　its　chief　seat　in　the　Southern　　States；　though　by　no　means　confined　to　them。　　The　danger　to　　American　democracy　from　that　quarter　is　forever　removed；　and　　democracy　a'　la　Rousseau　has　362　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　received　a　terrible　defeat　　throughout　the　world；　though　as　yet　it　is　far　from　being　aware　of　　it。
  But　in　this　world　victories　are　never　complete。　　The　socialistic　　democracy　claims　the　victory　which　has　been　really　won　by　the　　territorial　democracy；　as　if　it　had　been　socialism；　not　　patriotism；　that　fired　the　hearts　and　nerved　the　arms　of　the　　brave　men　led　by　McClellan；　Grant；　and　Sherman。　　The　　humanitarians　are　more　dangerous　in　principle　than　the　egoists；　　for　they　have　the　appearance　of　building　on　a　broader　and　deeper　　foundation；　of　being　more　Christian；　more　philosophic；　more　　generous　and　philanthropic；　but　Satan　is　never　more　successful　　than　under　the　guise　of　an　angel　of　light。　　His　favorite　guise　in　　modern　times　is　that　of　philanthropy。　　He　is　a　genuine　　humanitarian；　and　aims　to　persuade　the　world　that　humanitarianism　　is　Christianity；　and　that　man　is　God；　that　the　soft　and　charming　　sentiment　of　philanthropy　is　real　Christian　charity；　and　he　dupes　　both　individuals　and　nations；　and　makes　them　do　his　work；　when　　they　believe　they　are　earnestly　and　most　successfully　doing　the　　work　of　God。　　Your　leading　abolitionists　are　as　much　affected　by　　satanophany　as　your　leading　confederates；　nor　are　they　one　whit　　more　philosophical　or　less　sophistical。　　The　one　363　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　loses　the　race；　　the　other　the　individual；　and　neither　has　learned　to　apply　　practically　that　fundamental　truth　that　there　is　never　the　　general　without　the　particular；　nor　the　particular　without　the　　general；　the　race　without　individuals；　nor　individuals　without　　the　race。　　The　whole　race　was　in　Adam；　and　fell　in　him；　as　we　are　　taught　by　the　doctrine　of　original　sin；　or　the　sin　of　the　race；　　and　Adam　was　an　individual；　as　we　are　taught　in　the　fact　that　　original　sin　was　in　him　actual　or　personal　sin。
  The　humanitarian　is　carried　away　by　a　vague　generality；　and　loses　　men　in　humanity；　sacrifices　the　rights　of　men　in　a　vain　endeavor　　to　secure　the　rights　of　man；　as　your　Calvinist　or　his　brother　　Jansenist　sacrifices　the　rights　of　nature　in　order　to　secure　the　　freedom　of　grace。　　Yesterday　he　agitated　for　the　abolition　of　　slavery；　to…day　he　agitates　for　negro　suffrage；　negro　equality；　　and　announces　that　when　be　has　secured　that　be　will　agitate　for　　female　suffrage　and　the　equality　of　the　sexes；　forgetting　or　　ignorant　that　the　relation　of　equality　subsists　only　between　　individuals　of　the　same　sex；　that　God　made　the　man　the　head　of　　the　woman；　and　the　woman　for　the　man；　not　the　man　for　the　woman。　　　Having　obliterated　all　distinction　of　sex　in　politics；　in　social；　　in…　364　　　dustrial；　and　domestic　arrangements；　he　must　go　farther；　and　　agitate　for　equality　of　property。　　But　since　property；　if　　recognized　at　all；　will　be　unequally　acquired　and　distributed；　he　　must　go　farther　still；　and　agitate　for　the　total　abolition　of　　property；　as　an　injustice；　a　grievous　wrong；　a　theft；　with　　M。　Proudhon；　or　the　Englishman　Godwin。　　It　is　unjust　that　one　　should　have　what　another　wants；　or　even　more　than　another。　　What　　right　have　you　to　ride　in　your　coach　or　astride　your　spirited　　barb　while　I　am　forced　to　trudge　on　foot？　　Nor　can　our　　humanitarian　stop　there。　　Individuals　are；　and　as　long　as　there　　are　individuals　will　be；　unequal：　some　are　handsomer　and　some　are　　uglier；　some　wiser　or　sillier；　more　or　less　gifted；　stronger　or　　weaker；　taller　or　shorter；　stouter　or　thinner　than　others；　and　　therefore　some　have　natural　advantages　which　others　have　not。　　　There　is　inequality；　therefore　injustice；　which　can　be　remedied　　only　by　the　abolition　of　all　individualities；　and　the　reduction　　of　all　individuals　to　the　race；　or　humanity；　man　in　general。　　He　　can　find　no　limit　to　his　agitation　this　side　of　vague　generality；　　which　is　no　reality；　but　a　pure　nullity；　for　he　respects　no　　territorial　or　individual　circumscriptions；　and　must　regard　　creation　itself　as　a　blunder。　　This　is　not　fancy；　for　he　has　365　gone　very　nearly　as　far　as　it　is　here　shown；　if　logical；　be　must　　go。
  The　danger　now　is　that　the　Union　victory　will；　at　home　and　　abroad；　be　interpreted　as　a　victory　won　in　the　interest　of　social　　or　humanitarian　democracy。　　It　was　because　they　regarded　the　war　　waged　on　the　side　of　the　Union　as　waged　in　the　interest　of　this　　terrible　democracy；　that　our　bishops　and　clergy　sympathized　so　　little　with　the　Government　in　prosecuting　it；　not；　as　some　　imagined；　because　they　were　disloyal；　hostile　to　American　or　　territorial　democracy；　or　not　heartily　in　favor　of　freedom　for　　all　men；　whatever　their　race　or　complexion。　　They　had　no　wish　to　　see　slavery　prolonged；　the　evils　of　which　they；　better　than　any　　other　class　of　men；　knew；　and　more　deeply　deplored；　none　would　　have　regretted　more　than　they　to　have　seen　the　Union　broken　up；　　but　they　held　the　socialistic　or　humanitarian　democracy　　represented　by　Northern　abolitionists　as　hostile　alike　to　the　　Church　and　to　civilization。　　For　the　same　reason　that　they　were　　backward　or　reserved　in　their　sympathy；　all　the　humanitarian　　sects　at　home　and　abroad　were　forward　and　even　ostentatious　in　　theirs。　　The　Catholics　feared　the　war　might　result　in　encouraging　　La　Republiques　democratique　et　sociale；　the　humanitarian　sects　　366　trusted　that　it　would。　　If　the　victory　of　the　Union　should　turn　　out　to　be　a　victory　for　the　humanitarian　democracy；　the　civilized　　world　will　have　no　reason　to　applaud　it。
  That　there　is　some　danger　that　for　a　time　the　victory　will　be　　taken　as　a