house, their friends, their secrets have been joint property, and
have formed bonds of union. But yet such quarrels may arise, such
mutual antipathy, such acerbity and even ill usage, that all who
know them admit that a separation is needed. So it is here in the
States. Free soil and slave soil could, while both were young and
unused to power, go on together--not without many jars and unhappy
bickerings, but they did go on together. But now they must part;
and how shall the parting be made? With which side shall go this
child, and who shall remain in possession of that pleasant
homestead? Putting secession aside, there were in the United States
two distinct political doctrines, of which the extremes were opposed
to each other as pole is opposed to pole. We have no such variance
of creed, no such radical difference as to the essential rules of
life between parties in our country. We have no such cause for
personal rancor in our Parliament as has existed for some years past
in both Houses of Congress. These two extreme parties were the
slaveowners of the South and the abolitionists of the North and
West. Fifty years ago the former regarded the institution of
slavery as a necessity of their position--generally as an evil
necessity, and generally also as a custom to be removed in the
course of years. Gradually they have learned to look upon slavery
as good in itself, and to believe that it has been the source of
their wealth and the strength of their position. They have declared
it to be a blessing inalienable, that should remain among them
forever as an inheritance not to be touched and not to be spoken of
with hard words. Fifty years ago the abolitionists of the North
differed only in opinion from the slave owners of the South in
hoping for a speedier end to this stain upon the nation, and in
thinking that some action should be taken toward the final
emancipation of the bondsmen. But they also have progressed; and,