only alternative presented to them. To remain voluntarily in the Union under a Constitution that must be thus construed, would be suicidal to ourselves, as well as treason against man. kind, and rebellion against God. Common prudence, to say nothing of principle or of piety, should suffice to direct, in so clear a case, a people not judicially blinded. The "patriotism" and the "chivalry" the "honor" and the "magnanimity," the "sagacity" and the "prudence," that could deliberately plant themselves against every "attribute of the Almighty" and every instinct of human nature, in opposition to every principle of law, and every element of social order—and all this under the hallucination or the pretext of being "orderly and law abiding"-invite epithets which we are unwilling tó use.

The Second Theory-that of "the Compromises," may appear less appalling, at the first view, but it deserves serious inquiry, whether this be anything more than mere appearance.

An attempted "compromise" between moral right and moral wrong, results always in the ascendency of the wrong, and the overthrow of the right. In matters of civil government, in politics, in legislation, in jurisprudence, this is as certain as everywhere else. The history of the Slavery Question in America furnishes lamentable illustrations in point.

The friends of liberty, adhering to the Constitution, yet admitting its "compromises" and promising to fulfil them, admit themselves to be compromising with moral wrong! What, then, becomes of their moral power? If anything deserving the name of success, is to come from the pursuit of this policy, the historical verification of it is yet future. The annals of the world, thus far, have not supplied it. The good Providence of God, in spite of their moral obliquities and compromises, may have delivered an oppressed people. But their compromises have never deserved the credit of it, any more than the idolatries of the Hebrews deserved the credit (as they stupidly fancied,) of having supplied them with bread.*

* Jeremiah 44: 17.

If the "Compromises of the Constitution" include-as they are commonly understood to do-the "guaranty" of the right (under any restrictions) to reclaim fugitives, and the "guaranty" of northern assistance in suppressing a servile insurrection, then the construction that concedes these compromises, concedes the most atrocious as well as the most effective supports of slavery included in that ultra southern construction which the masses at the North so indignantly repudiate! Conceding these, very little more would be lost, in a moral view, by conceding the whole.

And the extent of the moral concession is the measure of the political. An effort in Congress, or at the ballot box, against slavery, conceding the sacredness of the "compromises" with the "guaranties" involved in them, is an effort for victory after having relinquished the main controversy in debate. Such efforts must be abortive of course. By the operation of well known laws of human nature, they generally fail of reaching the low point at which they are aimed. And if reached, only an unsightly limb is displaced, leaving the root untouched and the trunk less offensive and, perhaps, the more thrifty and vigorous for the pruning.

That local and partial victories may sometimes be gained by this policy is not denied. But a wise general knows that a local victory may be purchased too dearly. A political victory is always purchased too dearly, when it is done by å moral compromise, or when the victor, by his compromises, concessions, and pledges, ties up his own hands, and forecloses himself from doing his main work.

If it be true that the Constitution does contain the "compromises and the guaranties" commonly attributed to it, even at the North, then the main battle between slavery and freedom cannot be fought under it, nor otherwise than by a repudiation of it, or the proposal of such amendments as would be regarded as revolutionary to insist upon. And however wise it might be for the friends of liberty to avail themselves of any advantages thrown in their way, to weaken or cripple the slave power, (taking care to avoid giving sanction to any

constitutional compromises) it would be evidently impolitic for them to expend their main strength and wear out their energies and dishearten their successors in labors which, if never so successful, would leave their main work unaccom plished and even unattempted, after all. The longer the friends of liberty busy themselves in this manner, the more firmly will they establish the precedents which, sooner or later, must be rebelled against and spurned.

If the Constitution be a "compromise" between slavery and freedom, then those who adhere to it, giving their assent to the compromise, yet expecting to "secure the blessings of liberty" under it for "themselves and their posterity," are only acting over again the folly of their fathers, but with less excuse, after having witnessed the experiment of the last sixty years. The fruits borne by the tree of "compromise" thus far, should warn us to expect nothing better of it in future.

Of the third theory of the Constitution, that which repudiates all its supposed "compromises" and "guaranties," it is sufficient to say that, if it be correct, it is all that could be desired as a basis of political action. In the words of another,

"Those who believe that slavery is unconstitutional, are the only persons who propose to abolish it. They are the only ones who claim to have the power to abolish it. Were the whole North to become abolitionists, they would still be unable to touch the chain of a single slave so long as they should concede that slavery is constitutional.

"The mass of men will insist on seeing that a thing CAN be done, before they will leave the care of other interests to assist in doing it. Hence the slow progress of all political movements based on the admission that slavery is constitutional."-SPOONER.

These considerations should not tempt us to put an unwarrantable construction upon our great national document. But they should induce a candid and thorough investigation of the matter, with a determination to take the position demanded by a discovery of the truth of the case. If the organic structure of our National Government does indeed cast us at the feet of the Slave Power, bound hand and foot, let us know the worst of the case, and in view of it, determine

whether we have strength and resolution to cut the cords, or whether we will submit to be slaves, with our posterity, forever. But if we have in our hands the Charter of Freedom, let us understand its use, and the responsibilities with which it invests us.

CHAPTER L.

THE SLAVERY QUESTION IN AMERICA AND THE CRISIS.-WHAT SHALL BE DONE?

Effects of Compromise thus far-Shall it be repeated or continued?—The Slavery question, as it now stands, stated-Must be settled by the Church and in the State-A question for the people-Can the Church and the State be reformed, and wielded against Slavery?-Questions behind these-What is the organic structure of the Church and the State ?-Fallacy of the idea that the Federal Government can occupy a neutral position, divorced from the support of Slavery, yet not wielded effectively against it-Fallacy of the idea that the peculiar structure of our Government relieves us from responsibility in respect to SlaverySuggestions concerning what might be done. The Church-Can the politics of a people, or of reformers, rise above the level of their religion?-Responsibility of the Church and its constituent members.

THE reader of the preceding pages will, by this time, comprehend something of the magnitude of the pending slave question in America. Though, primarily a question concerning the liberation of the enslaved, there is involved in it the question of the civil and political liberties of the nominally free. And the crisis seems to have arrived, predicted by one of our prominent statesmen, at the time our present Federal· Government was organized.

"I have no hope that the stream of general liberty will forever flow unpolluted through the mire of partial bondage, or that they who have been habituated to lord it over others, will not, in time, become base enough to let others lord it over them. If they resist, it will be the struggle of pride and selfishness, not of principle."-Wm. Pinckney's Speech in the House of Delegates of Maryland, 1789.

The North has submitted to compromise on this subject till one of her own Senators taunts her with infidelity to her constitutional engagements, if she insists upon any legal securities