that in Massachusetts, there are (in proportion to the whole population) TWELVE coloured persons to one white, in poor-houses and prisons!

• In Connecticut, ELEVEN Coloured, to one White, in Do.!
• In New-York, EIGHT Coloured, to one White, in Do.!
• In New-Jersey, FOUR Coloured, to one White, in Do.!
• In Pennsylvania, ELEVEN Coloured, to one White, in Do.!

If the trial of 300,000 Coloured free persons, (the number now in the States,) emancipated gradually,

and under the most favourable circumstances possible, be not sufficient to open the eyes of the Abolitionists to the recklessness of their course, I know not what could. Can this result afford any encouragement or satisfaction? And if not, why persevere in attempting to bring about what cannot take place; and which if it could, would produce incalculable misfortunes throughout the States?

We shall now investigate the other appeal, viz., that no evils arose from the immediate emancipation of the slaves in Mexico—the British slaves in the West Indies, those in Chili, Buenos Ayres, Colombia, and New York. In the first place, then, give me leave to remark that as to Mexico, the slaves there were only comparatively a handful, about 20,000. Secondly, they were incorporated into the Army, as the condition of emancipation; so that they actually only changed from civil to martial law! And thirdly, so far from the slaves in Mexico having been set free in one day, it took them TWELVE YEARS to buy their freedom! The law, granting them this privilege, was, it is true, made in one day; but the accomplishment of it, took TWELVE YEARS! See Dr. Reese's Letters to the Hon. William Jay, p. 104. As to the English slaves in the West Indies, every one knows their emancipation was not immediate, for in fact they are not as yet literally emancipated! Besides, the British found it necessary not only to pay handsomely for them; but they find it indispensably necessary still to maintain there a considerable standing Army! And the venerable Mr. Clarkson, writing on the subject, said, "I never stated that our West Indian slaves were to be emancipated suddenly, but by degrees. I always, on the other hand, took it for granted, that they

were to have a preparatory school, also." Lastly, as to the four other places, it is notorious, that the slaves were not in one single instance, immediately and unconditionally emancipated. Here are the cases so frequently referred to by Abolitionists, as a ground of justification for their project, and yet we perceive there is not one of them a case, parallel, to the condition of the Southern States; moreover, where any of them, have any resemblance to the circumstances of our country, the result shows the madness of the Abolition Scheme! There is one more fatal objection to the Abolition system, viz., that its whole aim is the removal of the effect, and not the cause! Now the first principle in philosophy, indeed in common sense, is, "to remove the cause:" and every system built upon any other principle is absurd, and must turn out useless. Abolitionism is therefore unphilosophical, absurd, fallacious, and inefficacious! That slavery is the cause of much evil, I do not pretend to deny; but then slavery itself is only an effect. For example, a person gets a splinter of wood into his finger—the finger inflames—the arm inflames—the whole body (as it were) inflames—delirium or lockjaw supervenes, and death closes the scene! Now the inflamed finger is the cause of the inflamed arm; and that the cause of the general fever; and that the cause of the delirium; and that the cause of death![39:A] What kind of empirical practice would every attempt be to remove the inflammation of the finger, of the arm, or of the body, while the cause (the splinter) still remained in the finger? The very first thing any man of science would, under such circumstances, do, would be to

extract the splinter—the original cause of all—when once the cause had been removed, then, but not till then, would he attempt to remove the effects.