The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-10 00:00:00

THE SUN.

LONDON, MONDAY, NOV. 10, 1862.

Again we hear from America of the preparations
for the great battle, which has been fought by this
titcw, at New York. The Potomac seems half
forgotten in the goTernorship of New York, the
clash. of arms in the clash of party speeches. Ame-
rica. is a land of excitement, but we do not remem-

ber any one greater than that which now seems to
have animated both sides in the struggle between
the Democrats and Republicans in the " Empire
State and city." Which side has won we cannot
pretend to conjecture. In the city of New York the
Democratic party, comprising the Irish and all the
rowdyism of the city, are understood to be in a
majority, but the respectable and substantial yeo-
manry of the State are known also to be as earnestly
Republican. Our contemporary the limes has 1
for once espoused the cause of American Democracy ;
it seems to think Democracy Conservative just now.
And so it is if rabid antipathy to negroes and
equally fervid attachment to slavery be Conserva-
tism. Our Conservatives, here, would hardly, we
should think, relish the associates thus given them
in the New World. There can be little doubt that
the Democratic party, although containing nume-
rous respectable men—General M'CLELLAN for in-

stance—does yet comprise all the blackguardism of
the North; indeed owes its strength to that part
of its forces. As liberals we feel but too glad to be
rid of any connection with the Democratic party,
for though we well know, ourselves, that all our
sympathies, so far as they belong to any party,
must go with the Republicans, we might have na-
turally expected that our opponents here, relying
on words merely, would have taunted us with the
n ame of Democrats. We own, however, "no connec-
tion with that party over the way"—or the water ;
and are perfectly willing to see them adopted by
the Times and Toryism.

The real importance of the struggle in New York
lies in this—if the Democrats succeed it will be a
vote of rebuke to Mr. LINCOLN and the Cabinet,
for their mode of carrying on the war. The Demo-
crats dare not, though they are suspected of a
different feeling, avow themselves hostile to the
-war; but they insist that it shall be on behalf of a
Union precisely what the old one was. The Union

men, desire a Union " as it ought to be," by which

they doubtless mean one which shuald afford no
reason for a second secession—one therefore from

which the slavery question was in some way got
rid of—one which should either abolish slavery
entirely, or definitely pronounce that the terri-
tories should not be open to emigrants with
their slaves from the slave States. This pc'
_.cer
all is the real point of difference 'between
the two sections of the country. The North
and the South could work well together so long as
the South carried two points, which indeed resolve
themselves into one—the election of a President,
by the aid of the Democratic (Tory) party in the
North, and the consequent working of the constitu-
tion In favour of the, extension of slavery. 'While,
as in the last case, they could have a BUCIIANAN
who would do all that a President could do to make
Kansas,
perforce, a slave State, and a supreme
Court to
States auParTutwe decisions' in fa, your of the slave
tt.,iveholders, and a Secretary of Stat e
who coulo,
om
for rev the Southern arsenals to be ready
, olt,—Nchl•le things went on this, and all the
po,cver of the union
was in the service of
the slave States,the .as
latter and the Democrats were
content. No sooner does
pri-side n tial election than
ttlies:ther party carry a
in
Union.
It
surely
eau
neveutr l refuses to remain
be effaced from the
recollection of impartial
not a singleEnglish
illegeacittators—that
_,,,wl33cyci:obtegonane
no actual grievance,
stretch of power on the part of mr,
this bloody secession. It began Under
and the only pretext for it was, the opinion of
the
President elect that the unoccupied territoriesO
Union ought not to be colonised by slavery. Every
legal means of opposing this opinion of his remained
fully open to them, but no, nothing would do but
they would sever themselves in perpetuity from a
President who held that Free soil ought to remain

free !
Hence, also, has arisen the reasonable charge,
which the .Times represents as contradicting the
alleged grounds of secession, that it was the work
of a few unprincipled politicians. The charge quite
squares with that of secession for slavery extension.
" The unprincipled" junta cf. Southern politicians
used the krebident's opposition to extension of