As the Unionist has requested, we have reperused our remarks upon the conduct and designs of the abolitionists, and we find little to modify and nothing to retract. To the charge of severity and injustice towards the characters of the leaders in this crusade, we reply— Physician heal thyselfˆ– clear your own eyes of motes and films before you proceed to pull out beams from the eyes of others. The whole vocabulary of abuse and contumely has been exhausted by the abolitionists in their attempts to defame the motives and blacken the characters of the members of the Colonization society—so that now we scarcely see aught else in the columns of the Liberator and Emancipator, but numerous repetitions of the same false and unfounded charges. Indeed, one would think, from the matter contained in those papers, that their sole object is to destroy the Colonization society; as if that being accomplished, every thing else was easy. Now let the merits of abolitionism be ten times what its warmest abettors assert, no reasonable objection can be made to the Colonization Society whatever. It proposes to transport free blacks to Africa with their own consent, and if the blacks are willing to go, pray may not free white men give their money for the purpose without asking the consent of the President of the Anti-Slavery Society? Where was the kindness and charity of Garrison, yea more, where was his regard for moral probity, when he said that his object in going to England was to raise funds for the establishment of a manual labor school—and now, since his return, he acknowledges that he was induced to the voyage by a desire to represent (misrepresent he should have said) the object and designs of the Colonization Society to the English. That he slandered his countrymen in London, there is abundant proof. Since he returned, he denies it—so that no less than four falsehoods lie at his door, without the possibility of any good accruing from either. How much was there “of the law of kindness as well as of the requisitions of justice” in the latter which the patron of the Unionist wrote to some students, and which he requested might be published; when he said that he looked upon the Colonization Society in no other light than an emissary of Satan —whose only object is to perpetuate slavery? And who have been more frequently accused of falsehood and misrepresentation than Rev. Mr. Gurley and Mr. Finley? We do not ask these questions to justify ourselves if we have done wrong, but merely to, let our “brother” see that it ill becomes him to throw stones. Till he & his sect are free from sin they should be slow in condemning others. As to what we asserted concerning the leaders in the abolition enterprize, we deem it strictly true. When they are told that the constitution forbids the free states from meddling with property at the south, they reply in the language of the Apostle to the Jewish Ruler—we must obey God and not man—thus asserting their independence of the laws under which we live. If they respect the laws, why does not Miss Crandall dismiss her school? Till the decision of Judge Dagget is over ruled, that decision is the law of the land, which every honest citizen is bound to respect—and yet we see the Genius of Temperance, (the Editors of which call themselves Christians par excellence) encouraging her to continue in opposition to a decree of one of the highest tribunals in the state. We find the abolitionists endeavoring to cast contempt upon the Colonization Society, because the latter speak of what is expedient to be done, in opposition to the designs of the  former—and meeting in the writings of a gentleman of talents and learning, a quotation about expediency being “a wrap-rascal,” they have rung the charges upon it, till it has fairly become stale, not forgetting in the excess of their charity to insinuate that whoever may doubt of the expediency of a measure, there can be no question as to the character which such person  should sustain in their own immaculate conceptions. Did these over scrupulous gentlemen every hear or read of one who said that “all things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.” In the present state of the country immediate and unconditional abolition is neither expedient nor lawful —and those engaged in promoting it are only planting the seeds of sedition. Let them beware that in sowing the wind, they do not reap the whirlwind.