st, as in the East, the better
educated, more intelligent, and more energetic minds, have at once
comprehended the necessities of the war, and dared the whole, 'call it
Abolition or not,' the blinder and more illiterate, who were afraid of
being 'called' Abolitionists, have kept back, or remained by Secession
altogether.

As we write, a striking proof of our news comes before us in a remark in
an influential and able Western conservative journal, the Nebraska
_News_, The remark in question is to the effect that the proposition
made by us in THE CONTINENTAL MONTHLY, to partition the
confiscated real estate of the South among the soldiers of the Federal
army is nothing more nor less than 'a bribe for patriotism.' That is the
word.

Now, politics apart--abolition or no abolition--we presume there are not
ten rational men in the country who believe that the proposition to
colonize Texas in particular, with free labor, or to settle free
Northern soldiers in the cotton country of the South, is other than
judicious and common-sensible. If it will make our soldiers fight any
better, it certainly is not very much to be deprecated. To settle
disbanded volunteers in the South so as to gradually drive away slave
labor by the superior value of free labor on lands confiscated or
public, is certainly not a very reprehensible proposition. But it
originated, as all the more advanced political proposals of the day do,
with men who favor Emancipation, present or prospective, and _therefore_
it must be cried down! The worst possible construction is put upon it.
It is 'a bribe for patriotism,' and must not be thought of. 'Better lose
the victory,' says Conservatism, 'rather than inspire the zeal of our
soldiers by offering any tangible reward!' We beg our thousands of
readers in the army to note this. Since we first proposed in these
columns to _properly_ reward the army by giving to each man his share of
cotton-land, [we did not even go so far as to insist that the land
should absolutely be confiscated, knowing well, and declaring, that
Texas contains public land enough for this purpose,] the
democratic-conservative-pro-slavery press, especially of the West, has
attacked the scheme with unwonted vigor. For the West _understands_ the
strength latent in this proposal better than the East; it _knows_ what
can be done when free Northern vigor goes to planting and town-building;
it 'knows how the thing is done;' it 'has been there,' and sees