rom its tone
for the past six months would undoubtedly go in for an entire
separation, if its editors and contributors thought at the end of
the conflict the rebellious States would be restored to the Union
with the 'peculiar institution' still in force.'

_Ab uno disce omnes._ This, reader, is the manner in which every
democratic-conservative journal which has undertaken to notice our
Magazine speaks of it. And the reader who has followed us--who has
fairly and equitably appreciated our views of the war and of
Emancipation--will not hesitate for an instant in pronouncing it as
perfectly _false_ a verdict as was ever yet given against any one. We
have never in any way looked upon the war as 'solely for the freedom of
the nigger,' and we have been chid by the regular Abolition press
because we did _not_ look more to the welfare of the negro, or, as the
_Liberator_ accused us, of being willing to 'colonize the slave out of
the way.' It was in the _Knickerbocker_ and in these pages, and
editorially, that the principle of the true Republican, Free White Labor
Emancipationists, in the words, 'Emancipation for the sake of the WHITE
Man,' first appeared. And while we advocate ultimate emancipation, it
is not as _the_ matter of _primary_ importance that we do so. Slavery
has inextricably entangled itself with the war, and no one who takes a
broad, comprehensive view of the struggle, or of contemporary history,
can fail to see that slavery must ultimately go, because it makes bad
citizens of the masters, wastes soil, represses manufactures,
neutralizes the proper development of capital, and, worst of all,
degrades labor--man's noblest prerogative--and inflicts grievous wrong
on the white working man. And does not every Southern journal and every
Southern 'gentleman' prove what we say? 'Aristocrat,' 'Norman
gentleman,' 'Yankee serf,' 'vile herd'--is it not enough to make the
heart sick and the brain burn to hear the poor sons and daughters of
toil, those whom God has appointed to be truly good and useful, cursed
and reviled in this manner by the few owners of black labor? Is there
not enough in the wrongs of the _white_ man to inspire all the headlong
zeal and boldness with which the press credit us, without making the
miserable _negro_ the chief aim? Not but that we pity the latter, God
knows! But it is the elevation of the dignity of _white_ labor that we
have in hand, and while we advocate 'emancipation to