as the Southern masters have called the institution blessed, they
have called it accursed. Their numbers have increased, and with
their numbers their power and their violence. In this way two
parties have been formed who could not look on each other without
hatred. An intermediate doctrine has been held by men who were
nearer in their sympathies to the slaveowners than to the
abolitionists, but who were not disposed to justify slavery as a
thing apart. These men have been aware that slavery has existed in
accordance with the Constitution of their country, and have been
willing to attach the stain which accompanies the institution to the
individual State which entertains it, and not to the national
government by which the question has been constitutionally ignored.
The men who have participated in the government have naturally been
inclined toward the middle doctrine; but as the two extremes have
retreated farther from each other, the power of this middle class of
politicians has decreased. Mr. Lincoln, though he does not now
declare himself an abolitionist, was elected by the abolitionists;
and when, as a consequence of that election, secession was
threatened, no step which he could have taken would have satisfied
the South which had opposed him, and been at the same time true to
the North which had chosen him. But it was possible that his
government might save Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri.
As Radicals in England become simple Whigs when they are admitted
into public offices, so did Mr. Lincoln with his government become
anti-abolitionist when he entered on his functions. Had he combated
secession with emancipation of the slaves, no slave State would or
could have held by the Union. Abolition for a lecturer may be a
telling subject. It is easy to bring down rounds of applause by
tales of the wrongs of bondage. But to men in office abolition was
too stern a reality. It signified servile insurrection, absolute