very; and nowhere did that sentiment prevail more extensively than in the South. With that devotion to abstract principle which has ever characterized her, Virginia, in donating an empire to the Confederacy, exacted a covenant for the perpetual exclusion of her own institutions. An impression almost universally existed that slavery was to be but temporary in its duration. The slave States cheerfully assented to the antislavery provisions of the ordinance of 1787. Their policy was the immediate prohibition of the foreign trade, and the number of slaves among them was not more than sufficient to supply their own pressing demands. Had importation from abroad then ceased, abolition might have been practicable and easy. But that twenty years of respite did its work effectually. Day by day and hour by hour the anti-slavery statesmen of the South saw their hopes decay. The destiny of the South was fixed against her will. Sister States, who had repudiated slavery as an incubus upon them, and professed to regard slave-holding as a violation of the "perennial principles of right," ignored their professions, and for filthy lucre's sake, imposed slavery upon her, perpetuating among her people the "sin" of the slaveholder and the "misfortune" of the slave.

Abolitionism claims to be the party of progress. So did Jacobinism, and with equal propriety. The one as little as the other conceals the features of the ass under the skin of the lion. Robespierro and Saint Just were as loud in their protestations of loyalty to the principles of '76 as Garrison and Sumner; and, if not as honest, were quite as rational. The American Jacobins are not unlike their French prototypes. Blood and carnage, fraternal discord, and civil war are as rashly courted now as in 1793. They differ in this respect, however: the madmen of France evoked a storm to spend its fury in their own midst. The fanatics of America sow the seed of strife abroad, and gloat in coward malignity over the anticipated triumph of a servile insurrection, from the hazards of which distance protects them. The one no less than the other ridicules the teachings of experience and revelation. The God of the Bible is not the God of equality, and Abolitionism rejects him as disdainfully, if not as openly, as Jacobinism. The infidel spirit of this anti-slavery crusade is at once its damning crime and the unerring index

of its failure. The printing-press. with which Voltaire designed to overthrow the Bible, is now publishing its words of life and truth to a world of sin and death. Man may not with impunity thrust himself against the bosses of Jehovah's buckler. Anti-slavery directly impugns either the wisdom or benevolence of our Saviour, for its interpolations into the inspired code of morals presume the inefficiency of his morality to accomplish the end for which it was designed. Abolition preachers of our day profess to believe themselves recreant to duty, if they fail to denounce slavery at a distance. The Son of God lived and moved in a slaveholding country and a slaveholding age, and from his sacred lips slavery never received a single rebuke. If they be right, could he have been the God-man? Some short time since, a friend was discussing the Maine liquor law with an ultra temperance man, and in the course of conversation he adverted to the miracle at the marriage in Cana of Galilee. The prompt reply was, "6 I have always regarded that the greatest indiscretion Jesus ever committed." The shocking blasphemy of the expression is a key to the radical principle of more than one ism of the day. It is the vain effort of human pride to amend the work of divine wisdom. The spectacle of foolish man thus passing judgment upon his God, and pronouncing him incompetent for the accomplishment of his holy purposes, and assuming them for himself, will, when properly considered, yet awaken in all sections of our country a public sentiment that will sweep the God-defying empiricism from among us with the besom of destruction. We do not pretend to impute infidelity to all abolitionists. Many of the best of our northern brethren, we know, have been misled into their ranks by names and abstractions. Slavery, as it exists in the South, is not known to a fraction of the people of the North. Misrepresented and distorted as it has been, we have, perhaps, reason for congratulation in the existence of any class among them willing to do us justice. We speak now of the creed, and not of its professors. It is a legitimate offshoot from that school of sentimental piety that assumes to try the mysteries of the Godhead by the standard of human comprehension, consistently denying the divinity of the Saviour and the inspiration of the Bible. In the pulpits of that faith it finds an appropriate place. The heresiarchs of

Socinianism do their master's work as effectually, if not as openly, in preaching abolitionism, as they do in preaching Unitarianism. But its intrusion into the Christian pulpit is a very different affair. Abolition has nothing in consonance with its high and holy mission. The unwary watcher on the walls of Zion who tampers with the monster is recreant to his trust, and false to his Master. If, as a Christian, his heart recoil not from the serpent; if, as a citizen, the possible calamities of disunion and civil war have no terrors for him, let him, in his individual capacity, speed on the hellish work; but, in the name of a common Christianity and a common manhood, we have a right to demand that he profane not the Christian pulpit. In the uncompromising consecration of the sacred desk to its heaven-ordained work is the hope of a lost and ruined world. When the passions of earth intrude there, society trembles to its centre, and devils revel at the prospect. Hell will hold a carnival when the genius of abolition furls her wings in triumph over the "broken and dissevered fragments of a once glorious Union;" but if, amid her dark abodes, some messenger from this world could proclaim the universal prostitution of the pulpit, the walls of Tophet would ring with even a wilder joy.

Had the States never formed a Confederacy, this abolition war could never have assumed a threatening aspect. The North would not have ventured to encourage an agitation, the inevitable effect of which would have been continual war with her neighbors. But protected, as she has been, by the existence of a bond of apparently permanent union, a fanatical crusade against us has been in open and shameless contempt of the covenant fostered and encouraged. It originated in no morbid affection for the slave. In its beginning, as it is now in its meridian, it was purely and exclusively a question of political power. The war of 1812 had been initiated under the auspices of a Southern President, and with the cordial co-operation of the Southern members of Congress. New England bitterly opposed the war; and upon that question the leaders of the old Federal party, then in a state of decadence, hoped to rally once more a successful party. Many of the then prominent expectants of the Presidency were Southern men. The Democratic party were in power, and its policy and affiliations were mainly Southern;

hence the Federal policy of arousing a sectional feeling-a policy which first found open expression in the treasonable resolves of the Hartford Convention. The suggestion there was to amend the Federal Constitution, so as to deprive the South of the representation of threefifths of her slaves. But the managers of the Hartford cabal mistook their strength and over-shot the mark. The stench of treason attached itself to their deliberations, and sank every participant in them to "a political damnation so deep that the hand of resurrection never did reach them." Their suggestion was obviously impracticable, inasmuch as it could only be accomplished by the aid of several of the slave States. It was enough, however, to indicate the gathering of the storm, which in a few years burst with all its fury upon a peaceful and happy people. Missouri was about completing her territorial pupilage, and asked permission to form a State constitution preparatory to her admission into the Union. As a component part of the territory of Louisiana, it was slave territory when we acquired it, and so it had continued. Her application was objected to, unless she would assent to repudiate her Southern institutions and abolish slavery, as a preliminary to her admission. The passions and prejudices of the people of the North were roused by the most inflammatory and insidious appeals, until the whole body of the Northern representation in Congress ranged themselves in solid phalanx. The principle asserted was most odious to the South, and at war with the whole spirit of the Constitution. In vain did she demand the warrant for prescribing terms to the incipient State, and especially for stigmatizing her and hers by exacting as the condition of admission the repudiation of an institution interwoven into her social polity. The Federal Government is the creature of the States. All her powers are derived by express grant, and are limited in their character. The Constitution confers upon Congress the right to admit new States; but, when admitted, they stand upon a footing of perfect equality with the original thirteen. Theoretically, Ohio and Kentucky, California and Florida are as much the creators of the General Government as Virginia or New York. The essential principle of the Constitution is, entire and absolute equality among all the States. If Congress can impose terms,

then every new State may come in upon a different footing. From one she may exact an obligation to admit negro suffrage -another she may require solemnly to repudiate this or that construction of controverted clauses of the Constitution. To-day she may impose slavery upon one, and to-morrow she may demand its abolition in another. There is no limit outside of the express provisions of the Constitution to the discretion of Congress. The Constitution does not profess to define the powers of the State; in express terms it provides that, "the powers not delegated to the United States by itself, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." The anti-Missouri heresy, however, proceeds upon the principle that all powers and rights not expressly granted or reserved to the State such as the equality of representation in the Senate may be prohibited by Congress to the new State. The United States are required to guarantee to every State a republican form of government, but it is a form only, when its institutions and laws are modelled to accommodate the will of others than the governed. Where is the grant of power necessary to enforce the observance of the terms? Suppose a State admitted this year upon the condition of abolishing slavery convenes a new convention next year and re-establishes it. What then? Can Congress resolve her out of the Union? Can the General Government abolish slavery in her limits? If not, of what avail was the original restriction. Surely, if that was constitutional, the framers of that instrument would have provided some means to enforce the observance of her faith by the covenant-breaking State.

A bill was originated in the House of Representatives, authorizing the people of Missouri to form a constitution and State government, and after the insertion of a provision abolishing slavery, passed by the House against the unanimous vote of the Southern representatives. In the Senate, upon motion of Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, the prohibition clause was stricken out, and in lieu of it was inserted the so-called Missouri Compromise, which was nothing more, nor less, than a prohibition of slavery for all future time in the territory outside of the limits of Missouri and north of her southern boundary, accompanied with a provision for her admission on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever. As an alternative

proposition to the other, the Southern men, generally, sustained the compromise. proposed by Mr. Thomas, and with the aid of a few conservative men from the north, passed it through both Houses of Congress. There has latterly been considerable discussion as to the paternity of this measure, and the responsibility of its adoption has been variously imputed to the North or the South, as best suited the temporary purposes of the writer or speaker. It is not, however, we think, a subject for difference. The North certainly imposed upon the South the alternative, and the South as certainly accepted the compromise in preference to the prohibition. We'do not consider this, however, a matter of vital moment at this date. It is, in our judgment, a plain and palpable usurpation of power, and we regret that the South ever did accede to it. Then was the appropriate time to meet the aggression, if not successfully elsewhere, at the point of the bayonet and the muzzle of the cannon. Resolute and unyielding resistance then would have strangled the monster in its cradle. In pursuance of the act of Congress, the people met, adopted a Constitution, and organized a State government. When Congress reassembled, the Senate promptly passed a resolution declaring Missouri a member of the Confederacy. In the House, however, it encountered most vehement opposition. The compromise made the year previous was openly repudiated, and Missouri refused the admission to which the public faith was plighted. Exception was taken to a clause in her Constitution, empowering the legislature to prohibit the emigration of free negroes; and upon this pretext her entrance into the Union was resisted. A similar provision existed then in Massachusetts, and at this day in Indiana and Illinois. The true objection was elicited upon a proposition of Mr. Mallory, of Vermont, to amend the resolution, by inserting, as a preliminary to her admission, a requisition upon Missouri to alter her Constitution and abolish slavery. Upon the call of the ayes and noes, 61 representatives from the North voted aye, and but 33 no. The former compromise was repudiated by the House, and new concessions were demanded. Upon motion of Mr. Clay, a joint committee of 23 on the part of the House, and 7 on the part of the Senate, was appointed to consider the subject. They reported a resolution providing for

the admission of Missouri upon a fundamental condition, viz.: that the clause in her Constitution relative to free colored emigration into the State should never be construed to authorize the passage of an act by which any citizen of either of the United States should be excluded from the enjoyment of the privileges to which he was entitled under the Federal Constitution. To this fundamental condition Missouri was required to declare her assent by an act, in the nature of a solemn compact with the United States, and upon the receipt of an authenticated copy of such act, the President was authorized to issue a proclamation declaring her a State. The

proposition of the joint committee passed both houses, and Missouri, having complied with the requisition, Mr. Monroe issued his proclamation August 10, 1821. Thus Missouri was really admitted upon the compromise proposed by the committee. It is true that the new requisition amounted to no more than a declaration of fidelity to the Constitution. But that matters not. It was imposed upon her as a condition of her admission into the Union, and was in flagrant violation of the pledge of the previous session to admit her upon an equal footing in all respects whatsoever with the original States. This was the first violation of the 36° 30′ compromise, and especially heinous, as withholding the consideration of the contract.

This exciting question being thus disposed of at length, the public mind settled down into quiet acquiescence. Abolition sank into obscurity-we had nearly said contempt; but it was only slumbering. An unfortunate discussion of the subject in the Virginia legislature in the winter of 1831-2, consequent upon an insurrection of slaves in the county of Southampton, in the progress of which, 55 whites, of all ages, sexes, and conditions, were brutally massacred, infused new life into the abolitionists, and renewed the agitation. It may be well imagined that the Southampton affair awakened the most intense feeling throughout the limits of Virginia; and in the legislative session of the ensuing winter many of the calmest and ablest of her citizens were open and avowed advocates of prospective emancipation. Propositions to that effect were discussed with warmth and ability. Appearances indicated the existence of a large and influential, if not controlling party favorable to abolition: and had the

fanatics of the North not interposed, success might have crowned their efforts in a few years. Negrophilism abroad, then protected Virginia from the overthrow of her established institutions. Soon after this, began abolition organizations and anti-slavery conventions in the northern cities. The press was forced into service to misrepresent and distort our institutions and our people. The mails were loaded with incendiary documents. The most fiendish appeals to the passions of the slave were sought to be distributed among us by inclosing them to free negroes and hired emissaries in our midst. Under cover of the sanctity of private correspondence, diabolical suggestions for a repetition of the Southampton outrage were secretly pressed upon the contented slaves of the South. The facilities of communication afforded by a common government, established "to insure domestic tranquillity; to provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare," were abused to assail the South in her Achilles' heel. Abolition Munchausens devoted their imaginations and their energies to the concoction and extensive circulation in the North of the grossest misrepresentations of the Southern people. A friend has frequently related to us a conversation he held, about this time, with a very intelligent and well-informed gentleman, then, or very recently, the editor of a political press at the seat of government. The present state of Northern feeling upon the slavery question was predicted at that day with almost historic accuracy. Our friend then entertained the prevalent impression of his Southern brethren that the agitation was confined to a small and contemptible faction, and combated the despondency of the exeditor. But his faith was not a little shaken when presented with a specimen of the literature with which the agitators were then busily flooding the country. One of the tracts professed, in its outset, to discard all the exaggerated stories which were related of Southern cruelty, and indulged in expressions of virtuous indignation against the abolitionists for the infliction of such outrage upon their brethren at the South. The author professed as his design, the recital of simple and unvarnished facts, not of rare occurrence, but so frequent and common that no fair-minded Southern man would for a moment call in question their truth. And after these hypocritical professions

he proceeded to relate the most shocking cruelties and the most infamous outrages upon the unhappy slave, as the necessary and unvarying incidents of Southern life. The truthful narratives were embellished with engravings to elicit the attention and arouse the passions. Upon one page was a large plate of a hunting scene in the South; in the foreground an umbrageous oak; beneath it a prostrate human body, surrounded by a pack of hungry and wolfish dogs, while at a distance appeared the hunter riding off with his gun carelessly thrown over his shoulder. The accompanying narrative was to the effect that a gentleman in the South, having lost a slave, contented himself with informing a neighbor, who had a fancy for negro hunting, and placing him at liberty to enjoy whatever sport the chase of the fugitive might afford. Accordingly he assembled his hounds and sallied forth. After some time he discovered the fugitive in the branches of an oak, when he deliberately levelled his gun and fired. The shot took effect, and as the poor negro fell, the blood-hounds rushed upon him to complete the work of death and destruction. The slave-hunter's sympathies for suffering humanity did not allow him to witness the mutilation, and he leisurely rode away. In another place, under the head of anecdotes, the author says that a friend of his, recently returned from a jaunt to the South, informed him that while visiting a friend, a young lady of the family fell down and knocked out all her teeth. A very handsome mulatto slave, blest with fine teeth, who was employed about the house, was called in, and a sufficient number of hers extracted to supply the place of those lost by her young mistress. With such stories as these the pamphlet was filled; and this, our friend was informed, was but a sample of the publications then in process of dissemination among the children and less enlightened classes of Northern society. The seed was sowing, and we reap the harvest.

Another phasis of the abolition agitation was presented incessantly upon the floor of Congress. Not a session elapsed without the presentation of innumerable petitions from men, women, and children in the North, praying Congress, in its wisdom, to restrain our cruelty, and overthrow our institutions. reference to these petitions, we are frank to confess that we always re

In

gretted the policy of the South. There was no wrong done to the abolitionist in refusing to receive his petition; but the adoption of a standing rule of the House of Representatives to that effect, afforded his sympathisers in Congress the opportunity for continual agitation, and gave to hin somewhat of the odor of martyrdom. The 21st rule we always considered a blunder; but it is mere nonsense to assail the South for it. Admit all that may be urged against it, and was it more than a Roland for an Oliver? If it did abridge constitutional rights, it abridged those of none besides a faction who were trampling upon hers. We have neither time nor inclination to dwell here. The South has more grievous causes of complaint than the reception of abolition petitions. The continual agitation of the 21st rule in the House of Representatives was practically more efficient of mischief against her than all the petitions ever drafted. So it was considered, and so it was designed. The agitators but needed a pretext to assail the South. There were political reminiscences ever present with some to point, with the bitterness of disappointed hopes, the shafts of hate and malice, and those who treasured them might forsake a friend, but never forgot a foe.

Of

The annexation of Texas in 1845, is the starting-point of another epoch in the history of Abolition. The territory of Texas was originally included in the Louisiana purchase, but surrendered to Spain by the provisions of the Florida treaty. Mr. Benton--high authority with the Free Soilers, though, we confess it, not very conclusive upon us-says in his recent ponderous tome, that it was unnecessarily sacrificed by the Southern advisers of Mr. Monroe, to conciliate the Free Soil sentiment of that day. course its re-acquisition met with violent hostility from the same quarter. But the sovereign will of the people commanded it, and the deed was done beyond recall. It is needless now to examine the propriety or expediency of the act. Texas is in the Union, and if we would, we cannot displace her. She is in too, under the provisions of a solemn covenant for her subdivision into five States, whenever in her judgment her population may be large enough to render division expedient-such of the new States as lay south of 36° 30', with or without slavery as their people may desire, and those to the north of that line;