abolitionists—­yes, actual members of the Anti-Slavery Society—­who, carrying out this delusion of helping the slave by helping their “party,” say, that they would vote even for a slaveholder, if their party should nominate him.  Let me remark, however, that I am happy to be able to inform you, that this delusion—­at least in my own State—­is fast passing away; and that thousands of the abolitionists who, in voting last Autumn for Gov.  Marey or Gov.  Seward, took the first step in the way, that leads to voting for the slaveholder himself, are now not only refusing to take another step in that inconsistent and wicked way, but are repenting deeply of that, which they have already taken in it.

Much as you dislike, not to say dread, abolition action at “the ballot-box,” I presume, that I need not spend any time in explaining to you the inconsistency of which an abolitionist is guilty, who votes for an upholder of slavery.  A wholesome citizen would not vote fur a candidate for a law maker, who is in favor of laws, which authorize gaming-houses or groggeries.  But, in the eye of one, who his attempted to take the “guage and dimensions” of the hell of slavery, the laws, which authorize slaveholding, far transcend in wickedness, those, which authorize gaming-houses or groggeries.  You would not vote for a candidate for a law-maker, who is in favor of “the sub-treasury system.”  But compared with the evil of slavery, what is that of the most pernicious currency scheme ever devised?  It is to be “counted as the small dust of the balance.”  If you would withhold your vote in the case supposed—­how gross in your eyes must be the inconsistency of the abolitionist, who casts his vote on the side of the system of fathomless iniquity!

I have already remarked on “the third” of the “impediments” or “obstacles” to emancipation, which you bring to view. "The first impediment,” you say, “is the utter and absolute want of all power on the part of the General Government to effect the purpose."

But because there is this want on the part of the General Government, it does not follow, that it also exists on the part of the States:  nor does it follow, that it also exists on the part of the slaveholders themselves.  It is a poor plea of your neighbor for continuing to hold his fellow man in slavery, that neither the Federal Government nor the State of Kentucky has power to emancipate them.  Such a plea is about as valid, as that of the girl for not having performed the task, which her mistress had assigned to her.  “I was tied to the table.”  “Who tied you there?” “I tied myself there.”

"The next obstacle,” you say, “in the way of abolition arises out of the fact of the presence in the slave states of three millions of slaves."