Border Slave States! What imputation could be more insulting to the former, and what more false in the face of the fact that, whilst the Border Free States have furnished soldiers but to the loyal army and these cheerfully and abundantly, the Border Slave States, except little Delaware not so many, have furnished thousands-nay some, and probably each of them, tens of thousands— of soldiers to the rebel army! There is not homogeneousness between Pennsylvania and Maryland; nor between Ohio, Indiana and Illinois on the one hand and Kentucky on the other; nor between Iowa and Missouri. I admit that the people of Missouri are coming to resemble the people of Iowa. But it is only because Missouri is casting off slavery, and hasting to make her grand State the grandest of perhaps all the States, and her City the Capital of the Nation, whilst Washington is left to be the University of the Nation. I admit that there is a class of men in the Border Free States, and indeed in all the Free States, who are exceedingly homogeneous with a class of men in the Border Slave States. I refer to the pro-slavery politicians in each section. Take for instance Governor Robinson of Kentucky and yourself. One might be tempted to conclude that the same pen wrote your recent Message and his so equally imbued are they with the pro-slavery spirit; so equally devoted are they to the Border State policy, which makes the saving of slavery paramount to the saving of the country; and so equally determined are they that even in time of war "the military is and must be subject to the civil authority," and must be made and kept so "at all hazards."

I ought to have said in its more proper connection, that such a State as Ohio or Iowa will not thank you for implying that slavery is less repugnant to her moral sense than to New-England's; and that Western hatred of oppression is less radical than Eastern.

To bolster up this theory you say, (for this is your meaning, and the only meaning that would be at all pertinent to the case,) that the Border Free and Border Slave States came out as one at the breaking out of the Rebellion. This is entirely true as regards the former: but it is glaringly false as regards the latter. Virginia went with the rebels; and for a long time there was a strong doubt (not even yet wholly dispelled) whether there was not in Maryland and also in Kentucky and Missouri a majority in favor of going with the rebels. You are constrained to except "Eastern Virginia”—though you do it in a way so ingenious and artful, that the careless reader would make scarce any account of the exception. Nevertheless this "Eastern Virginia" is several times as populous as the remainder of Virginia. And is it really so, that you did not see that this exception, which you make, is fatal to your attempt to prove that slavery is not the cause of the Rebellion? If you did not, then is there here another fact of the stone-blindness which has come upon you. Why did Western Virginia cast in her lot with the North? Because she has but half a dozen thousand slaves, and wants to get rid of them. And why did Eastern Virginia go with the South? Because she has several

hundred thousand slaves, and wants to hold and multiply them. Can you doubt that Eastern Virginia, had her slave population been as sparse as that of Western Virginia, would have come North? Can you doubt that Western Virginia, had hers been as dense as that of Eastern Virginia, would have gone South?

I

That the Western and Central Free States "enlisted warmly in a war for the Union and Constitution" I admit. But your implication that New-England did not is baldly and cruelly false. That the Administration has abandoned its "sole purpose to restore the Union and maintain the Constitution" is a slander. had no part in bringing it into power, but not the less ready am I to do it justice. And if, as you substantially say, "the Central and Western States" have in this gloomy hour, when to stand by the country is to stand by the Administration, given the cold shoulder to the Administration, then it is the slanderers and not the slandered who are responsible for so calamitous an alienation. I charged you with slandering the Administration. The sole difference between Democrats, Republicans and Abolitionists at this point where you slander it, is that whilst all three agree that the one issue is the salvation of the Constitution and the Union, the Democrats are not willing to have them saved at the necessary sacrifice of slavery; the Republicans are; and the Abolitionists rejoice in the necessity.

To return for a moment to your queer theory. What will not a man do when he is in straits? You would not consent to the disgrace and ruin of your pro-slavery party, as you would do if you consented to have slavery held responsible for the accursed Rebellion. Hence your queer theory, that has not one fact nor one semblance of a fact to sustain it. The theory which is made from facts is valuable. But the theory to which facts are made is worthless. Emphatically worthless is yours, since you have not so much as taken the pains to coin facts, and have substituted for the coinage simple assertion!

Slavery not the cause of the Rebellion! Then why is it that, whilst every Free State came out instantly in battle array against the Rebellion, eleven of the Slave States embarked in it, and three, if not indeed all four, of the others gave only too abundant signs that they also would embark in it but for their fear of Federal troops? Slavery not the cause of the Rebellion! Then why is it that the rebels say it is?—and why is it that they insult the Civilization of the age by making slavery the boasted corner-stone of their new nation? - and by making the first of all the objects of their diabolical movement the protecting, spreading, and eternizing of slavery?

I do not murmur at the Providence, which has brought you again into high political power. On the contrary, I submissively accept it as a part of the penalty of the American people for their oppressions of the poor. Your election, instead of the election of the brave and noble man who rejoices in the deliverance of the slave and who with his three sons is in the army of his country

instead of being in the counsels of its foes, is, notwithstanding it is so frightfully calamitous, to be endured as one of our merited inflictions. Every nation prepares its own cup. We have made ours very bitter. Nevertheless we must drink it. As a part of the punishment for our unsurpassed crimes against humanity we may have to witness the failure of all endeavors to save our beloved country, and may have to pass through the humiliation of recognizing the Southern Confederacy. But God be praised that over against all this deep and unutterable sorrow will be the deep and unutterable joy that the slave is free! In spite of the influence of your Party to the contrary and of your individual and amazing determination to the contrary, the slave will go free. Yes, though the guilty nation, with whose continued existence stands connected the highest object of your ambition, may be left to perish, the innocent slave nevertheless shall surely go free. Do you wonder at the positiveness with which I express myself at this point? I answer that this being, high above all human purposes and issues in it, a war of God against slavery, pro-slavery men are but fools in it, and only abolitionists competent to advise in it, and foresee its grand results.

Faithful were the abolitionists, all through a quarter of a century, to warn their countrymen of this day of blood. But proslavery politicians requited them with scorn. And so frenzied are such politicians now, as to purpose to save the country by crushing the abolitionists. This, however, is but as every impenitently wicked people have dealt with their faithful prophets.

The counsels of the abolitionists of the men who have made slavery their life-long study can alone, under God, save our appallingly imperiled nation. Every step taken by her in accordance with these counsels is a step in the way of her salvation; and her every step to the contrary is in the way to her destruction.

Your former and your present friend,

GERRIT SMITH.

STAND BY THE GOVERNMENT.

SPEECH IN ALBANY, FEBRUARY 27, 1863.

AFTER offering the following Resolution :

"Whereas, the one work of the nation is to crush the Rebellion; and whereas it can be accomplished through the Government only: Therefore resolved, that Democrats, Republicans, and Abolitionists-men of all parties and men of no parties-should stand by the Government, and sympathize with it under its embarrassments, and bear its burdens, and be grateful for its fidelity, and, whilst quick to commend its wise measures, should never criticise its mistakes but in the spirit of patriotism instead of party, and but to make the Government stronger instead of weaker, and the enemy weaker instead of stronger.'

Mr. SMITH proceeded to say:

I am not rightly represented in all respects. For instance, because I am an old and zealous Temperance man, it is assumed that I am for having Government take the Cause of Temperance under its wing. Whereas the theory, which I have spent so much time during the last twenty years in elucidating and commending, is that Government has nothing to do with Churches nor even with Schools, with religious institutions nor even with moral reforms; and that its only legitimate province is the narrow one of protecting the persons and property of its subjects. Hence when I would have Government shut up a dram-shop, it is not because I would have it enact a sumptuary law or care in the least for the cause of Temperance; but it is solely because a portion of the men, who frequent that dram-shop, are wont to get crazed in it, and to go forth from it to perpetrate crimes against person and property. It is because that manufactory of madmen sends out one man to fire a dwelling, and another to murder a wife, and others to other deeds of mischief or horror. Then again because I am an old and radical Abolitionist, it is taken for granted that I would have our struggle to put down the Rebellion perverted

arm and

into a crusade against Slavery. Whereas ever since the Rebellion broke out, I have been entreating my countrymen not to fall away to any side issues, but to consecrate themselves " soul to the one work of putting down the Rebellion. Unceasingly have I summoned them to stand shoulder to shoulder in this work, notwithstanding their differences as Democrats, Republicans, and Abolitionists. To this end was my printed Letter in 1861 to Edwin Croswell. To this end have been many of my writings and speeches. With this struggle to put down the Rebellion I have from first to last been unconditionally identified. The President's blocking up of Fremont's and Hunter's Abolition way did not in the least diminish my devotion to the one absorbing purpose of putting down the Rebellion; and his Proclamation of Freedom could not increase it. Whether the Government in its changeful measures, was now for slavery or now against it, I kept steadily on in my zeal and labor for the overthrow of the Rebellion.

Excuse the egotism of these introductory remarks. I dislike egotism, whether it be in myself or in others. But I felt that I must make them in order to get your unprejudiced and open ears. I felt that you would not respect what I have to say to you, unless I should first disabuse you of your false impressions regarding my attitude toward the Rebellion.

The way is now open for me to mention some of our duties at this crisis.

1st. The Rebellion must be put down.

2d. All hands must help put it down.

The Republicans, Democrats, and Abolitionists must all help, be it at whatever risk to their respective parties. Indeed, so far as the Rebellion is concerned, they must all give up their parties, and become one party. Outside of this one party they may still maintain old party names and old party aims. But into this new and sacred party they must bring no party interests, no party jealousies, no party divisions. In this party all must be harmony; and its members must know each other only as Americans.

I add that whilst on the one hand the Abolitionists must help put down the Rebellion not merely because it is a Pro-Slavery one-(for, Slavery out of the question, they should be equally prompt to put it down)-on the other hand the Anti-Abolitionists must not withhold their help because it is a Pro-Slavery Rebellion. The Democrats must be as prompt to assist in putting down this Rebellion as they would be were it an Anti-Slavery one. They know that they would lose very little time in arraying (and that too most vindictively) all their might against a NewEngland Anti-Slavery Rebellion. They, who are now Peace Democrats, would then be War Democrats; and such of them, as are now the most tender to rebels, would then be the least patient with rebels.

I said that the Abolitionists must help put down the Rebellion. If any of them would not have it put down unless Slavery be put