The Sectional Feature in American Politics. 
9 
2. Sectionalism of a sort we must always have. We cannot escape it. 
'Sectionalism which arrays the nation into two hostile camps and main¬ 
tains an equilibrium of political power at the price of propagating slavery 
ds deplorable; but that kind of sectionalism is fortunately destroyed; its 
causes blotted out; its chance of recurrence satisfactorily removed by the 
growth of the west, and the story of emigration. Sectionalism, which 
does not divide the nation into two geographical camps or into hostile 
civilization; but which may split it up into three or more congeries of 
states at issue on matters which do not go so deep as the long standing feud 
between Cavalier and Puritan is tolerable. And it is inevitable. 
The sectionalism which makes the South solid to-day, or which may 
make its solidity a condition in the future, is to be looked upon as of this 
milder character. The west may furnish us, in the years to come, the 
most conspicuous phase of such sectionalism. 
In fact, the issue of the late Presidential contest was said to aim at cre¬ 
ating “a new sectionalism” — one that might cleave the country from 
north to south, and array the states into manufacturing and agricultural 
belts. A brief epoch of that kind of sectionalism might be wholesome in 
getting the nation away from its old partisan moorings, and casting over¬ 
board the effigies of a conflict that was well ended, if it had been ended 
quickly. 
The questicn of Canadian annexation is a matter somewhat related to 
our sectional question. Following our system of government, an independ¬ 
ent Canada would be a lesser United States speaking the same language, 
cherishing similar institutions and one with us in race and religion. Such 
a neighbor would be a powerful magnet of disintegration should the New 
England and Middle States, for instance, disagree with the South and West 
on any important issue, and be hopelessly out-voted in Congress. The 
commercial interests of these sections might draw them into an alliance 
with the Canadian Republic, ending in the setting up of a new confederacy. 
This, of course, is rather problematical, but it is often the unexpected that 
happens. Either we must annex Canada, or Canada will disintegrate us. 
And it may be a serious question whether it is not better to take her while 
she is young and tractable, rather than wait until antipathies in political 
feelings are too far generated to make union easy and agreeable. 
It remains to be said that if, for the sake of a perfect Union, we would 
wish to have as little sectional feud in the future, as possible, we must be 
observant of the strict letter of the constitution and learn to admire it as 
warmly for the restraints it imposes on Federal power as for the functions 
it grants. 1 
1 Prof. Bryce (Am. Commonwealths, II., 693) believes that “the United States are no 
more likely to dissolve than if they were a unified republic like France or a unified mon¬ 
archy like Italy.'” He notes “the growing strength of the centripetal and unifying 
orces ” — in which there is no little danger. 
