“If the Unionist is determined not to understand, but to misconceive, we cannot be responsible. If we have been “unjust,” we are ready to make amends—but the “severity” must in all probability be laid at the door of truth, and the latter will take care of herself. All that we have to say is, that we have not wittingly “misrepresented” any body. We have spoken of the abolitionists with freedom, and shall do it again. Their designs are of a character that do not require that we should be very mincing in our words, or exceeding choice of our language. We mean, at all times, that it shall be decent and respectful, for the sake of the public—but we are not aware of any peculiar obligation that we are under to suit our phrases to the holiday conceptions of those from whom we differ. We disclaimed, expressly, the justice of retorting railing for tailing, and yet the Unionist suppresses the disclaimer totally, and yet treats us as if we justified it. This is a specimen, we presume, of abolitionist propriety. The Unionist says—

“We do not wish the free states to ‘meddle with property at the south,” or to interfere in any shape or form, with slavery at the south, except by legal and constitutional methods. Our only meddling is such as almost all the papers in the land have been guilty of, whenever they have denounced Russian tyranny, or sympathized with Polish patriots suffering under imperial despotism. In short the only meddling of which we are, or wish to be guilty, is the utterance of the truth, the exposure of the evils and guilt of slavery, the asserting and proving that its abolition will be for the good of all parties concerned, the petitioning Congress for its abolition in those parts of the country which are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the General Government.”

Thus pray what is the use of your keeping up this constant agitation at the North, where there are no slaves, and upon what grounds do you justify your opposition to, and wholesale abuse of, the Colonization Society. If any person is to be enlightened, it is the Southern planter. Why not go to the South and disperse your lucubrations—if they are so very cogent, wise, and convincing? You are a citizen of the U. States, and the Constitution guaranties the freedom of speech and of the press. Go to the South, if your zeal is so abundant, your logic so good, and be sure that your effusions will be read. If the above extract is the truth, (and who shall gainsay it?) how does it condemn the leaders, (for the Unionist is too modest to assume that title,) how does it, we say, condemn the conduct of the leaders in this “crusade” against the Colonization Society, and the Constitution. Such as the Unionist may be too timid to avow their real designs—but that the leaders look forward to some modification, and if that cannot be obtained, some infraction of the Constitution, few persons opposed to them have much doubt. If this extract from the Unionist speaks the language of the main body of the abolitionists, they must moderate their tone before the public mind can be convinced. If the above is all they aim at, they are laboring in a hopeless cause.”