shall examine in the course of this treatise; but whatever may happen, I
have a full right to call to mind the true scope of the vote which has
just been taken. It does not involve the slightest idea of present
emancipation; it contents itself with checking the progress of slavery;
and to check its progress is, doubtless, to diminish the perils of its
future abolition.

It was important to present this observation, for nothing perverts our
judgment of the American crisis more than the inexact definitions which
are given of abolitionism. We willingly picture abolitionists to
ourselves as madmen, seeking to attain their end on the spot, regardless
of all else, through blood and ruin! That there may be such is possible,
is even inevitable; but the men who exercise any political influence
over the North have not for a moment adopted such theories. This is so
true, that the other day, at Boston, the people themselves (the people
who nominated Mr. Lincoln) dispersed a meeting intended to discuss
plans of immediate emancipation.

What if abolitionism, moreover, be a party? what if it make use of the
means employed by parties? what if it have its journals, its publicists,
its orators? what if it seek allies? what if it be based on interests
which may be given it by the majority? what if it appeal to the passions
of the North, as the slavery party appeals to those of the South? I do
not see, in truth, why this should astonish us. I am far from believing
that all the acts of abolitionism are worthy of approbation; I say only
that it would be puerile to repudiate a great party for the sole reason
that it has the bearing of a party. The duty of citizens in a free
country is to choose between parties, and to unite with that whose cause
is just and holy. Let them protest against wrong measures, let them
refuse to participate in them--nothing can be better; but to withdraw