The abolitionists feel a deep regard for the integrity and union of the government, on the principles of the Constitution.  Therefore it is, that they look with earnest concern on the attempt now making by the South, to do, what, in the view of multitudes of our citizens, would amount to good cause for the separation of the free from the slave states.  Their concern is not mingled with any feelings of despair.  The alarm they sounded on the “annexation” question has penetrated the free states; it will, in all probability, be favorably responded to by every one of them; thus giving encouragement to our faith, that the admission of Texas will be successfully resisted,—­that this additional stain will not be impressed on our national escutcheon, nor this additional peril brought upon the South.[A]

[Footnote A:  See Appendix, F.]

This, the present condition of the country, induced by a long train of usurpations on the part of the South, and by unworthy concessions to it by the North, may justly be regarded as one of the events of the last few years affecting in some way, the measures of the abolitionists.  It has certainly done so.  And whilst it is not to be denied, that many abolitionists feel painful apprehensions for the result, it has only roused them up to make more strenuous efforts for the preservation of the country.

It may be replied—­if the abolitionists are such firm friends of the Union, why do they persist in what must end in its rupture and dissolution?  The abolitionists, let it be repeated are friends of the Union that was intended by the Constitution; but not of a Union from which is eviscerated, to be trodden under foot, the right to SPEAK,—­to PRINT—­to PETITION,—­the rights of CONSCIENCE; not of a Union whose ligaments are whips, where the interest of the oppressor is the great interest, the right to oppress the paramount right.  It is against the distortion of the glorious Union our fathers left us into one bound with despotic bands that the abolitionists are contending.  In the political aspect of the question, they have nothing to ask, except what the Constitution authorizes—­no change to desire, but that the Constitution may be restored to its pristine republican purity.

But they have well considered the “dissolution of the Union.”  There is no just ground for apprehending that such a measure will ever be resorted to by the South.  It is by no means intended by this, to affirm, that the South, like a spoiled child, for the first time denied some favourite object, may not fall into sudden frenzy and do herself some great harm.  But knowing as I do, the intelligence and forecast of the leading men of the South—­and believing that they will, if ever such a crisis should come, be judiciously influenced by the existing state of the case, and by the consequences that would inevitably flow from an act of dissolution—­they would not, I am sure, deem it desirable or politic.  They would be brought, in their calmer moments, to coincide with one who has facetiously, but not the less truly remarked, that it would be as indiscreet in the slave South to separate from the free North, as for the poor, to separate from the parish that supported them.  In support of this opinion, I would say: