, and they hold the men who utter
these denunciations to be worse enemies to their country than the rebels
in arms--morally far worse than the great mass of the misguided
followers of the rebel chiefs.

LETTER III.

SLAVERY.

Dear Sir: A considerable portion of your letter is taken up with a
discussion of the rebel Vice-President Stephen's declaration touching
slavery.

In his speech at Savannah, Mr. Stephens, speaking of the new Government
which the rebels had set up, says: 'Its foundations are laid, its corner
stone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the
white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his
natural and moral condition.'

One would think this was clear enough, and that it was doing no
injustice to its substantial purport to say that Mr. Stephens here makes
slavery the corner stone of his new Government. You say, however, that
this is 'an egregious misapprehension,' that '_he has made no such
declaration_.' 'Let us learn' (you go on) 'what he actually did say. His
language is this: 'The foundations of our new Government are laid, its
corner stone rests upon'--what? slavery? no--'upon the _great truth_
that _the negro is not equal to the white man_, that slavery,' which he
then defines to be 'subordination to the superior race, is his natural
and moral condition.''

This is nice! How admirably your _italic_ emphasis upon the first
clause, your intercalated comments, and the slight way of bringing in
the second clause, serves to bring out the full, undivided force of the
whole sentence! What a charming union of acuteness and moral nobleness
it exhibits! Equally admirable for the same qualities is your
distinction between basing a government upon _slavery_ and basing it
upon a _great truth_ about slavery. Mr. Stephens has said that the
corner stone of his new Government rests upon the _great truth_ that
slavery is the natural and moral condition of the negro. He has not,
therefore, said that it rests on _slavery_! And so you think yourself
justified, do you, in your emphatic assertion that 'he has made no such
declaration'? You stand impregnable and triumphant--on the words! You
stick to what is 'nominated in the bond'--the very Shylock of criticism!

But not satisfied with this, you strengthen the case by argument: Mr.
Stephens did not say so, or mean so, because he would have been very
foolish if he had--so must every one be that thinks he did. Mr.
Stephen