ting in all stages of passion that the tide of
Abolition be checked in the North, that the flood of incendiary
publications be suppressed at their sources in the free States. The
Southern slave-holding President had suggested the suppression of these
by Congress. He would "prohibit, under severe penalties, the circulation
in the Southern States, through the mail, of incendiary publications
intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection." But when Webster and
a few Northern leaders objected to such a proceeding as unconstitutional
and in derogation of the freedom of the press, the South treated the
objection as inimical to Southern interest and security. Thereupon the
Southern excitement increased all the faster. The slave-power was not
disposed to accept anything short of complete submission on the part of
the North. And this the North could not well yield. While the
slave-holding States were clamoring for the suppression of Abolitionism
in the free States, Abolitionism was giving evidences of extraordinary
expansion, and activity. It had risen well above the zero point in
politics. It was gaining numbers and it was gaining votes. A new element
had appeared at the polls and both of the old parties began to exhibit a
certain degree of impressibility to the latest attraction. The
slave-power with quick instinct recognized in the new comer a dangerous
rival, and schemed for its destruction. Southern jealousy took on the
character of insanity. Neither Northern Whigs nor Northern Democrats
were permitted to show any regard for the rival. They were to snub and
utterly abolish her, otherwise they should be snubbed and utterly
abolished by the slave-power. They could not with impunity give to
Abolitionism the scantiest attention or courtesy. Not even a gallant
like John Quincy Adams, who was able to see nothing attractive in the
little band of reformers. They seemed to him, in fact, "a small,
shallow, and enthusiastic party preaching the abolition of slavery upon
the principles of extreme democracy." If Mr. Adams had little love for
the South, he had none whatever for the Abolitionists. By no stretch of
the imagination could he have been suspected of any sentimental
attachment to the Abolition movement. For his unvarying attitude towards
it was one of grim contempt. But if the old Roman had no love for the
Abolitionists, he did have a deep-seated attachment and reverence for
certain ancient rights appertaining to free instituti