e made up our minds that it _was_ too bad to cut one
another's throats for the sake of benefiting certain 'fat and lazy
niggers,' who were probably rather better off as chattels than as free
men. But it is not from this point of view that the world is now
beginning to view the subject. Common-sense has ascertained clearly
enough that without the agitation of Abolition, the South would have
become intolerable and tyrannical--it was imperious, sectional, and
arrogant in the days of its weakness, while the Abolitionists scarcely
existed, and given to secession for any and every cause. The insolent,
individual independence which prompted the wearing of weapons, wild law
and wild life, free from mutual social obligations, contained within
itself the germs of withdrawal from a civilized and superior people and
a stable government. For such men, one pretense served as well as
another. They of South-Carolina employed Nullification long before they
dreamed of Anti-Abolition.

Still more absurd is the 'Democratic' opposition, since Abolition for
the sake of the Negro has been changed into the cry of _Emancipation for
the sake of the White Man_. Before this cry, before the inevitable and
mighty demand of the free white labor of the future on the territories
of the South, all protestations against 'meddling' with emancipation
shrivel up into trifles and become contemptible. The prayer of the ant
petitioning against the removal of a mountain, where a nation was to
found its capital, was not more verily frivolous and inconsiderable than
are these timid ones of 'let it alone!' And _why_ let it alone? The
Emancipation-for-the-sake-of-the-white-man party, as represented by
President Lincoln's Message, commending remuneration, asks for no undue
haste, no violent or sudden aggressive measures. It is satisfied to let
the South free itself when it shall be disposed so to do; simply
offering it a kindly aid when this measure shall become popular and
expedient. More than this we have never asked for in these columns; yet
it would be hard to imagine a term of 'newspaper abuse,' which has not
been given us by the 'Democratic' press. Yes, at a time when ninety-nine
men in a hundred in the free States avow that they would like to see
slavery 'out of the way,' if only to avoid the endless war which its
continuance _must_ entail, all mention of it is tabooed by the men who
claim to head the party of the virtual majority! No matter how far off
the f