thinkers of this country,—­the cry that “There is no King but Cotton, and the African is its High-Priest.”  According to the creed of philosophy, philanthropy, and economy in vogue among the sect whose views take utterance in this formula, King Cotton has now reigned supreme over the temporal affairs of the princes, potentates, and people of this earth for some thirty years.  Consequently, it is fair to presume that its reign has fully developed its policy and tendencies and is producing its fruit for good or evil, especially in the land of its disciples.  It is well, therefore, sometimes to withdraw a little from the dust and smoke of the battle, which, with us at least, announces the spread of this potentate’s power, and to try to disentangle the real questions at issue in the struggle from the eternal complications produced by short-sighted politicians and popular issues.  Looking at the policy and tendency of the reign of King Cotton, as hitherto developed and indicated by its most confidential advisers and apostles and by the lapse of time in the so-called Slave States, to what end does it necessarily tend? to what results must it logically lead?

What is coarsely, but expressively, described in the political slang of this country as “The Everlasting Nigger Question” might perhaps fairly be considered exhausted as a topic of discussion, if ever a topic was.  Is it exhausted, however?  Have not rather the smoke and sweat and dust of the political battle in which we have been so long and so fiercely engaged exercised a dimming influence on our eyes as to the true difficulty and its remedy, as they have on the vision of other angry combatants since the world began?  It is easy to say, in days like these, that men seem at once to lose their judgment and reason when they approach this question,—­to look hardly an arm’s length before them,—­to become mere tools of their own passions; and all this is true, and, in conceding it all, no more is conceded than that the men of the present day are also mortal.  How many voters in the last election, before they went to the polls, had seriously thought out for themselves the real issue of the contest, apart from party names and platforms and popular cries and passionate appeals to the conscience and the purse?  In all parties, some doubtless were impelled by fanaticism,—­many were guided by instinct,—­more by the voice of their leaders,—­most by party catchwords and material interests,—­but how many by real reflection and the exercise of reason?  Was it every fifth man, or every tenth?  Was it every fiftieth?  Let every one judge for himself.  The history of the reigning dynasty, its policy and tendency, are still open questions, the discussion of which, though perhaps become tedious, is not exhausted, and, if conducted in a fair spirit, will at least do no harm.  What, then, is all this thirty years’ turmoil, of which the world is growing sick, about?  Are we indeed only fighting, as the party-leaders at