as have an echo in them, that
reverberate in the ear of public opinion, that produce an effect of
notice, honor, advancement _in the_ OPINIONS of men, are relished. In
the North, men are educated to _be_ something--in the South to _seem_
something. The North tends to _doing_--the South to _appearing_. And
both tendencies spring from the root of opposite theories of men and
notions of society.

And it is this innate, hereditary indisposition to work that, after
all, is the greatest obstacle to emancipation. Laziness in the South
and money in the North, are the bulwarks of Slavery! To take away a
planter's slaves is to cut off his hands. There is where he keeps his
work. There is none of it in himself. And it is this, too, which leads
to the contempt which southern people feel for northern men. They are
working men, and work is flavored to the Southerner with ideas of
ignominy, of meanness, of vulgar lowness. Neither can they understand
how a man who works all his life long can be high-minded and generous,
intelligent and refined.

Not only is there this contrast in dignity of work, but even more--_in
rights of industry_. Work, in the North, has responsibilities that are
prodigious educators. We ordain that a man shall have the fullest
chance, and then he shall have the results of his activity. He shall
take all he can make, or he shall take the whole result of
_indolence_. It is a double education. It inspires labor by hope of
fruition, and intensifies it by the fear of non-fruition. The South
have their whole body of laborers at work without either
responsibility. They cut it off at both ends. They virtually say to
the slave, in reality, "_Be lazy_, for all that you earn shall do you
no good; be lazy, for when you are old and helpless we are bound to
take care of you."

It is this apparent care for the helplessness of slaves, that has won
the favor of many northern men, and of some who ought to have known
better the effect of taking off from men the responsibility of labor,
in both ways, its fruition and its penalty. Once declare in New York
that Government would take care of poverty and old age, so as to make
it honorable, and it would be a premium upon improvidence. With us, it
is expected that every man will work, will earn, will lay up, will
deliver his family from public charity. There is, to be sure, an Alms
House to catch all who, by misfortune or improvidence, fall through.
But such is the public opinion in