Slave property then, is held under the protection of the supreme law of the nation, and any citizen invading the rights of the South, is guilty of a civil trespass. Hence, all interference with slavery by northern men, is a violation of the spirit, if not of the letter of that constitutional compact, which binds these states together. Any attempt by northern men, either direct or indirect, to dispossess the South of her slave property, or in any way to endanger or injuriously to affect their interests therein, is a violation of the supreme law of the nation. It is an act of bad faith—of gross injustice, and none but bigoted corrupt fanatics, and low political demagogues, would be guilty of so base an act.

It is clear then, that the slave states never will yield to the requisitions of abolitionists, and should that faction ever become the dominant party in the free states, dissolution of the Union will be a necessary consequence Intelligent men, who will persist in a course of conduct so unjust, so illegal, with a perfect knowledge of the probable consequences; are to all intents and purposes, as truly traitors to their country, as was Benedict Arnold; and as such, they should be viewed and treated. Mark my words, reader, I say, intelligent men, for nine out of every ten among those who have been seduced into the abolition net, are objects of pity, and not of contempt or indignation. Poor souls, they are ignorant; it is, I suppose, their misfortune and not their fault.

In order that I may be clearly understood, I will reiterate tho foregoing argument. Before the adoption of the Federal constitution, the states were to a great extent sovereign and independent, and of course were in a condition to settle terms on which to form a more perfect union. The North and the South, otherwise, the slave-holding and the non-slaveholding states met in convention to settle those terms. The North in convention conceded to the South the right to hold slave property; and the sole right of making all laws necessary for the regulation of slavery. It was thus, we see, by a solemn contract or agreement, that the South acquired exclusive right to control domestic slavery within her borders. What right then, have the citizens of free states, to intermeddle with it? They have none, as long as the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The union of these states is based on that instrument, and whenever we cease faithfully to observe its provisions, the Union must necessarily cease to exist. All interference then on the part of the North, endangering the rights or injuriously affecting the interests of the South in slave property, is a violation of the supreme law of the nation. I need not say more; the argument must be clear to every one; and I think the duty of all concerned equally clear.

Ralfe, referring to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, says, "It was no easy task to reconcile the local interests and discordant prepossessions of different sections of the United States, but it was accomplished by acts of concession." Madison says, "Mutual deference and concession were absolutely necessary," and that the Southern States never would have entered the Union, without concession as to slave property. And Governor Randolph informs us, "That the Southern States conceived their property in slaves to be secured by this arrangement?"

We are also informed by Patrick Henry, Chief Justice Tiglman, Chancellor Kent, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Justice Shaw, Chief Justice Parker, Edward Everett and others, that no union of these states ever could have taken place, had not the right to hold slave property, and the sole right to control that property been conceded to the southern States. And, Edward Everett, moreover, tells us that the northern States "deemed it a point of the highest policy, to enter with the slave states into the present Union." The reader will observe, that a majority of the authorities referred to, are northern men of the highest distinction.

I remarked in the preceding pages, that whoever invades the rights of the South in her slave property, violates the law of the land, and is guilty of a civil trespass; and I will now prove from the sacred record, that in opposing the civil laws of their country, they violate the laws of God, and consequently are guilty of a moral trespass. The primitive church of Christ was, under all circumstances, and at all times, subordinate to the civil authorities. They never stopped to inquire whether the laws were good or bad, just or unjust; their business was to obey the laws and not to find fault with them.

Christ and his apostles enjoined on their followers unreserved obedience and submission to the civil authorities. I need not here quote the language of our Saviour; it must be familiar to every Bible reader. I will, however, quote the remarks of St. Paul and St. Peter, on this topic. The former says, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers." "Whosoever therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." He instructs Bishop Titus to put his flock "in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work." "To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, showing meekness unto all men." St. Peter says, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of men for the Lord's sake; whether to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers." There is neither precept nor precedent in the Bible, which will countenance opposition to the laws of our country. No, not one word in the sacred volume, that can be thus construed. Opposition and resistance to the civil authorities, is one of the many corruptions winch have crept into the church of Christ. Men "have become wise above what is written;" and truly as our Saviour said unto the ancient scribes and pharisees, "they shall receive the greater damnation."

What a marked contrast between Christ and his apostles, and the apostles of modern reform, alias abolitionists. How dare they professing Christianity to fly in the face of the laws of their country? How dare they resist the execution of those laws? How dares Mrs. Stowe inculcate disobedience and open resistance to her country's laws? Great God! shall our country ever be freed from the dark and damnable deeds of religious fanatics? Shall our country ever be freed from the curse of curses, religious ultraism, bigotry, and delusion? Let those who profess to be the followers of the meek and lowly Jesus—those who profess to take the Bible as their guide, cease from their unwarrantable and seditious opposition to the laws of their country; or otherwise let them renounce the Bible, lay aside their Christian garb, and appear before us in their true colors, that we may know who they are, what they are, whom they serve, and under what standard they are fighting. Throw off your masks, gentlemen; don't try to deceive us any longer; some of us understand you, and we intend to expose you, and hold you up to the public gaze, as long as the good Lord will vouchsafe to us health and strength sufficient to sit in our seats, and hold a pen in our hands. Your conduct is a reproach to the Christian name, a stigma on the Christian character.

SECTION II.

There are nearly four millions of slaves in the United States; and the question now presents itself to every free born American citizen; what are we to do with them? The abolition party demand their immediate emancipation. Is it practicable, safe, or proper? What would be the consequences? What would be the consequence of turning loose upon ourselves four millions of human beings, to prowl about like wild beasts without restraint, or control, and commit depredations on the white population? Four millions of human beings without property or character, and utterly devoid of all sense of honor and shame, or any other restraining motive or influence whatever!