the reason, and was told that the delay was occasioned by the fact that he had employed Coffin as one of his letter-carriers!  Coffin was immediately dismissed, and the senate in a few days confirmed the appointment!  Is not this a pitiful business?”

If the reader, who wishes further information, will consult William Jay’s work, entitled “A View of the Action of the Federal Government in behalf of Slavery,” he will find ample historical proof that the internal and external administration of the Union—­legislative, executive, and diplomatic—­has been employed, without any deviation from consistency, to subserve the interests of the slave-holding States.  Yet these States are, in population, numerically weaker than those of the North, and inferior, to a far greater degree, in wealth, intelligence, and the other elements of political power.  They are strong only in the compactness of their union, while the citizens of the free States are divided in interest and opinion.  Here, then, is presented a distinct and legitimate object for those of the abolitionists who regard their political rights as a trust for the benefit of the oppressed and helpless, to combine the scattered and divided power of the North into a united phalanx, which shall wrest the administration of the Federal Union from the slave-holding interest, and shall purify the general Government from the contamination of slavery, by reversing its general policy on that subject, and by the adoption of the specific measures before mentioned; while, in the States in which they respectively reside, the abolitionists feel it to be their duty to exert themselves, to wipe away from the statute book every vestige of that barbarism which makes political, civil, or religious rights depend upon the color of the skin.

Yet more important is it, however, to bring the moral force of the North to bear against slavery, by reforming the prevailing public sentiment of the religious, moral, and intelligent portion of the community.  Here again, one of the most sagacious leaders of the pro-slavery party, J.C.  Calhoun, has descried the danger from afar, and has publicly proclaimed it in the senate of the United States, by vehemently deprecating the anti-slavery proceedings, not as intended to provoke the slaves to a servile war, but as a crusade against the character of the slave-holders.

Although the different States are distinct governments, their geographical boundaries are mere lines upon the map; their inhabitants speak the same language, and enjoy a communion of citizenship all over the Union.  The North Eastern States have by far the greater part of the whole commerce of the Union, and are the medium through which the planter exchanges his cotton for provisions and clothing for his slaves, implements for his agriculture, and his own family supplies.  These commercial ties create a direct and extensive pro-slavery interest in the North.  Again, the planter is yet more dependent on the North for education for his children, and for the gratification of his own intellectual wants, as the slave-holding region has few colleges, and those of secondary reputation; while I believe it has no periodical of higher pretension than the political newspapers.  The pro-slavery re-action in this way, on the seminaries of the North, and on the literature of the United States, is most sensibly felt.