This, also, from the North Carolina Watchman:—­

“It (the abolition party) is the growing party at the North.  We are inclined to believe that there is even more of it at the South than prudence will permit to be openly avowed.”

“It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that there is a LARGE, RESPECTABLE and INTELLIGENT PARTY in Kentucky, who will exert every nerve and spare no efforts to dislodge the subsisting rights to our Slave population, or alter in some manner, and to some extent, at least, the tenure by which that species of property is held.”—­Speech of the Hon. James T. Morehead in the Kentucky Legislature, last winter.]

A second reason why the South will not dissolve the Union is, that she would be exposed to the visitation of real incendiaries, exciting her slaves to revolt.  Now, it would cover any one with infamy, who would stir them up to vindicate their rights by the massacre of their masters.  Dissolve the Union, and the candidates for “GLORY” would find in the plains of Carolina and Louisiana as inviting a theatre for their enterprise, as their prototypes, the Houstons, the Van Rennsselaers, and the Sutherlands did, in the prairies of Texas or the forests of Canada.

A third reason why the South will not dissolve is, that the slaves would leave their masters and take refuge in the free states.  The South would not be able to establish a cordon along her wide frontier sufficiently strong to prevent it.  Then, the slaves could not be reclaimed, as they now are, under the Constitution.  Some may say, the free states would not permit them to come in and dwell among them.—­Believe it not.  The fact of separation on the ground supposed, would abolitionize the whole North.  Beside this, in an economical point of view, the demand for labor in the Western States would make their presence welcome.  At all events, a passage through the Northern States to Canada would not be denied them.

A fourth reason why the South will not dissolve is, that a large number of her most steady and effective population would emigrate to the free states.  In the slave-selling states especially, there has always been a class who have consented to remain there with their families, only in the hope that slavery would, in some way or other, be terminated.  I do not say they are abolitionists, for many of them are slaveholders.  It may be, too, that such would expect compensation for their slaves, should they be emancipated, and also that they should be sent out of the country.  The particular mode of emancipation, however crude it may be, that has occupied their minds, has nothing to do with the point before us. They look for emancipation—­in this hope they have remained, and now remain, where they are.  Take away this hope, by making slavery the distinctive bond of union of a new government, and you drive them to the North.  These persons are not among the rich, the voluptuous, the effeminate; nor are they the despised, the indigent, the thriftless—­they are men of moderate property, of intelligence, of conscience—­in every way the “bone and sinew” of the South.