« 이전계속 »
States, and Brazil had rigidly put down the Blavetrade, it should still be carried on under the protection of the Spanish authorities in Cuba. With reference to the measures of suppression recently taken, the intelligence was of a more satisfactory nature. In February, 1854, prohibitive orders of a stringent nature were issued, and Mr. Crawford, the British representative, expressed himself satisfied of the sincerity of those orders. Further instructions to the same effect were issued in March, and under them 600 negroes were released. Other regulations imposed the penalty of dismissal of any of the authorities who should fail to report the arrival of fresh slaves, and under this regulation several district officers had been dismissed. In May, also, 600 more negroes were released. It was quite obvious that if such measures were rigorously carried into effect the importation of slaves into Cuba must soon cease. It was true that the venality of officers had to a very large extent frustrated the efforts made to suppress the trade, but as the Queen-Mother of Spain, who had been the chief promoter of the trade, was now removed, and a new Government had been instituted, he doubted not it would give energetic aid to suppress the traffic: at all events the British Government would keep a watchful eye on the matter, and do all in its power to secure the complete suppression of the traffie.
In the House of Lords the Marquis of Clan
ricarde elicited an explanation from the Earl of Clarendon, by some sharp strictures on the conduct of the war. He said that the blockade had not been so effectual as might have been expected from the great force at the disposal of the Government, and complained especially that they had no adequate force of gun-boats of small draught in the Baltie, or any vessels carrying mortars from which a bombardment, in the proper sense of the term, could be carried on. He condemned the policy which had induced England to permit an Austrian occupation of the Principalities, as a high price paid for a co-operation which was not even yet forthcoming, and which was always to be distrusted, as prompted by the purest selfishness. He, however, highly approved the expedition to the Crimea, as one really worthy of the two great nations by which it was undertaken, and hoped that, before Parliament next met, they would have cheering news of its success. Lord Clarendon, in reply, explained and vindicated the perfect loyalty with which Austria had acted to Turkey in the long series of negotiations which had ended in the treaty by which she had engaged to enter the Principalities. Her threatening attitude had done much to produce the retreat of the Russian army, but he denied that France and England had ever allowed their policy to become dependent on that of Austria. That power had great financial and political difficulties to encounter, but she had given the most convincing proofs, even within the last few hours, that she would not be content with the results which had already been obtained. He insisted also that there was no reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the campaign. The Russinns had been foiled in every attack by the Turkish troops under Omar Pasha, encouraged by the presence of the allied armies; their siege of Silistria had been ignominiously raised: they had recrossed the Danube, and were now so entirely discomfited that no further offensive operations were to be apprehended from them. In the Baltic the allied fleets had shut up those of Russia behind their granite fortifications, and had insured for British trade the most
complete freedom and security in every sea, while that of Russia was extinguished. These results might not appear very heroie, but they had brought the war home in its utmost severity to Russia. She had been compelled to increase her armaments, already so excessive, and the charge weighed most heavily on her resources. All these operations had only tended to increase the mutual respect, and to strengthen the alliance of the two great nations, on whose jealousy the Emperor of Russia had counted. He thought these no insignificant ends to have arrived at in five months; he could not state the conditions on which he would conclude a peace, but none would be just, honorable, or lasting, which did not make the Ottoman Empire a part of the general system of European policy. To gain this great result they would endeavor to obtain the co-operation of other governments, but would rely on the resources of France and England alone.
Mazzini has issued a new and stirring appeal to the masses of Europe to hold themselves ready for instant insurrection whenever the vicissitudes of the pending war shall offer a favorable opportunity. He reviews the whole subject of European politico to show that the Italians especially ought at once to throw off the yoke of Austria, and that there is no need to await the organization of great conspiracies, but that the insurrection ought instantly to commence in every village. The day for great conspiracies, he says, is past. The friends of freedom must no longer trust the cause to the issue of a single battle. Nor need they wait the signal of political leaders. Wherever five of them can meet together, they should form a nucleus, collect arras, and stand ready to aid any movement that may be made. The document is very able, elaborate, am) eloquent. Garibaldi, in a brief note, has disavowed all share in these sentiments, and expressed the opinion that a revolutionary movement under present circumstances would be hopeless. Kossuth,
on the 20th, made a long and able address to the people of Staffordshire, seeking mainly to prove that the substantial interests of the English people would be injuriously affected by an alliance with Austria. He said that the Allies had deterred the Turkish army from following up its successes by pursuing the Russians across the Danube, and that the prearranged occupation of the Principalities by Austria, would be a severe blow to the integrity of Turkey and to the general welfare of Europe. He ridiculed the project of the Allies to restrict the power of the Czar by obtaining from him pledges, and said this could only be done by reconstituting the Polish nation.
The revolutionary movement in Spain seems to have subsided. Espartero is at the head of the new Government; and the Ministry, in an exposition to the Queen, state that it has been decided to convoke the Constituent Cortes, which it is hoped will prove a new bond between the throne and the people—between liberty and the dynasty, interests concerning which no debate can be allowed. In discussing the composition of the Cortes, the Ministers admit the services hitherto rendered by the Senate, but fear that difficulties would arise from a conflict between two legislative bodies. They propose, therefore, the convocation of the Deputies alone for the formation of a new constitution, though they decline to express any opinion as to whether the permanent legislative power should be vested in one assembly or in two. In considering the mode of electing deputies the Ministers have followed mainly the precedent of 1837, amended in some particulars by the electoral laws of 1846. At their recommendation the Queen has issued a decree convoking the Cortes, to be composed of the Congress of Deputies alone, to meet at Madrid on the 9th of November—a deputy to be elected for each 35,000 souls; the voting to last three days; and the suffrage to be limited by a property qualification. This step has given satisfaction generally, but deputations have waited upon Espartero soliciting universal suffrage and a withdrawal of the statement that the question of dynasty is not to be discussed. Their applications, however, have been unsuccessful. There is a general demand that Queen Christina shall be tried by the Cortes for her peculations, but it is strongly resisted.
The new Greek Ministry has been constituted, and has issued a programme of principles and promises. The first duty of the new Government is assumed to be to conform to the Constitution, which is the germ of the future progress of the Greek nation. Every effort will be made to preserve friendly relations with foreign powers. Special attention is promised to the moral and material interests of the people, and especially to the subject of education, the benefits of which will be extended to all classes of society. Every thing will be done to strengthen religion, to appease dissension and party spirit, to promote agriculture, commerce, and industry, to reduce the expenses of the government, to build up the navy and to increase the numbers, perfect the discipline and increase the efficiency of the army.
THE EASTERN WAR. Without any brilliant or decisive actions, the Eastern war has made some progress during the month. In the Baltic the event of interest has been the capture of Bomarsund by the allied forces. The first disembarkation of French troops took place on the 8th of August, and operations were immediately commenced and prosecuted for several days against the Russian forts, which were finally taken on the 16th. The loss of life on either side was not great. The land forces of the Allies numbered 11,000, those of the Russians 3000. The Aland Islands have thus fallen into the hands of
the Allies. On the Danube, the only movement
of importance is the occupation of the Principalities by the Austrians : they entered between the 18th and 25th of August. Count Coronini is Commander of the Austrian army of occupation. The Russians still remain on the lines of the Sereth and Pruth.
Alarming accounts are received of the ravages
of cholera in the allied camp at Varna. Letters from authentic sources state that the losses in the French regiments are frightfully severe, and that the prevalence of the disease has exercised a most dispiriting effect on both armies. The ravages of cholera are attributed to the fact that the wells nearly all contain more or less dead bodies of Turks and
Russians. In Asia, it is said that the Turkish
army has met with a decided defeat. A Vienna dispatch states, but without date, that Gen. Bebutoff had attacked and signally routed the main body of the Turks under the walls of Kara. The Russians say they killed 3000 Turks, took 2000 prisoners, including 84 staff and other officers, and captured 15 guns, with an immense amount of military stores. The shattered remains of the Turkish force had dispersed.
A diplomatic correspondence of considerable interest between the various parties to the pending war has been published. Count Nesselrode, on the part of Russia, replies, June 29, to the demand for the evacuation of the Principalities made by Austria and supported by Prussia. After rehearsing the history of the war, he assents to the three principles laid down in the protocol of April 9th, embraoing the integrity of Turkey, the evacuation of the Principalities on proper securities being given, and the consolidation of the rights of Christians in Turkey under a European guarantee. He thinks negotiations for a peace on this basis may be prepared by means of an armistice. The securities desired as a condition of evacuating the Principalities are, that she shall not be molested on the evacuated territory, and that the allied troops relieved by that
movement shall not be employed against her.
The Austrian Government, in a reply dated July 9, expresses its regret that Russia should have attached to the evacuation conditions which do not depend on the will of Austria. But as her demand is not, under the circumstances, without an appearance of equity, and as Austria deems it very important to exhaust every possible means of restoring peace, she promises to exert herself to secure the acquiescence of the maritime powers in this arrangement. In case of failure, however, she will be compelled to maintain her demand in its full
extent. The French Minister, M. Drouyn de
L'Huys, has also replied under date of July 22, to Count Nesselrode's argument, saying that France and England can not consent to a suspension of arms on the vague assurances of the Russian court; and laying down as the sole basis of peace the abandonment by Russia of the protectorate over the Provinces, the free navigation of the Danube, the revision of the treaty of 1841, for the purpose of limiting Russian power in the Black Sea, and that Christian rights in Turkey shall be guaranteed by all the European powers, and not by any one of them.
It is stated that the Austrian Government has issued a circular to all its diplomatic agents, intended to apprise them of the present position of affairs in the East. After alluding to the proposition made by Russia on the 29th of June, and by France on the 22d of July, the Austrian Minister observes, that although the position of Austria is considerably changed by the evacuation of the Principalities, the war continues between Russia on the one side, and England, France, and the Porte on the other. Secondly, that all treaties between Russia and the Porte have been abrogated by the present war, and have not regained validity by the evacuation of the Principalties. The Austrian Government, in principle, approves the conditions of peace proposed by the Western Powers, and conditionally agrees to them. The Austro-Prussian treaty of April 20, is in spirit in accord with the stipulations in question, though not exactly in word. A hope is expressed that the Court of Berlin will not be of another opinion; but should such unfortunately be the case, it will lead to no change in the foreign policy of Austria. For the present Austria will maintain an armed neutrality. It is announced that a formidable movement is on foot against Sebastopol, and that an invasion of the Crimea is proposed as the next movement of the Allies against Russia.
ARE WE ONE OR MANY? The very question, we hare said, involves a solecism. The personal pronoun, implying, as it does, unity in plurality, rebels against being used in any such query. There are tomes of morality, as well as psyehology in this significant We, thus embracing the whole supposed brotherhood of man, and separating it from every thing else in nature or creation, whether of a higher or a lower kind. We can, perhaps, only fully learn the value of the idea by its actual or supposed loss. Complaints are often made of the little influence the pulpit and the Bible seem to be exercising on mankind. But let the world try and do without them for a generation or two, and we should then have the most unerring data, the most positive and deplorable statisties, by which to estimate the ruinous deficit in all true temporal as well as spiritual progress. And so of the question before us. We may treat it now as only a matter of curious scientific interest. It excites no great alarm, because old associations yet govern our thinking. Scientific men, so called, are mostly incapable of reasoning about it out of their own exceedingly narrow range; and such is the superficialness of the general mind in respect to all the deeper questions of ethies and theology, that it is liable to be imposed upon by almost any thing that assumes this name of the scientifie, while stupidly ignoring all that can possibly impart to science any real dignity, or any true interest for a moral and immortal being.
But let the opposing opinion become general— let it be transferred from the head to the heart—let it be supposed to enter into the common and practical thinking of the age. We might, in that case, have some grounds for caleulating the moral value of this now assailed tenet of a common blood and universal fraternity. It would be found that it has had a power—a negative or restraining power perhaps—but still a power which has made earth less of a slaughter-house, and held back the human race, bad as it is, from that still lower depravity to which it would have descended, had it been universally known or thought that the different tribes which bore some resemblance to a common form had, in truth, no more of a common life and common nature, than the various species of animals that roamed around them. It would be found that, amidst all ferocities, the traditional belief, obscure and faint as it may have been, has still cherished a respect for man, as man and brother—that it had converted evil into good, or made it the means of preventing still greater evils—that it had softened the horrors of war, and when it could not wholly remedy, had introduced servitude and subjugation instead of that utter extermination which it is thought right to wage against the hostile and untamable beasts of the forest.
This alone would be enough for our argument; but the sentiment and the doctrine have had a positive influence. It might be shown that civilization, Christianity, philosophy, philanthropy, in a word, humanity, have grown with the increasing recognition of this principle of the essential oneness and brotherhood of the whole human race. We can not better express the thought than in the language of two of the most gifted minds of the present age: "While we maintain the unity of the human species," says Alexander von Humboldt, "we repel
the depressing assumption of superior and inferior races of men." Again says his noble brother—" If we would indicate an idea which throughout the whole course of history has ever more and more widely extended its empire, or which more than any other testifies to the much contested and still more decidedly misunderstood perfectibility of the whole human race, it is that of establishing our common humanity—of striving to treat all mankind, without reference to nation or color, as one fraternity fitted for the attainment of one object, the unrestrained development of its highest powers. Thus deeply rooted in the innermost nature of man, and even enjoined upon him by his highest tendencies, the recognition of the bond of humanity becomes one of the noblest leading principles in the history of mankind."
Following this train of thought we may see how much we are indebted to the Scriptures for a truth so purely a matter of revelation, whether traditional or written, and which instead of being dependent on a few texts, like the question in geology, enters into the core of all revealed religion, and into the very heart of Christianity. Instead of being a matter with which the Bible has nothing to do, as some say, it forms the very foundation of its most important teachings. Next to the sublime annunciation—" Hear, O Isracl, the Lord thy God is one Jehovah," is the declaration of the old Scriptures so emphatically repeated by Paul on Mars-hill—''Godhath made of one blood all nations (nuv l&voc—every ethnos or tribe) of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having before determined their times and the bounds of their habitations."
And here, by the way, we can not help remarking that the language of the inspired Apostle has a very peculiar significance from the region and circumstances in which he was placed. There had come down from the primeval times the tradition of the human unity. In its wanderings from the old homestead each immigration had carried with it the myth of the first pair—either the first pair created, or the only pair saved from a flood. It was the common idea, with such mythological modifications, perhaps, as might cherish in each early isolated tribe its own fond claim of primogeniture. As exceptions, however, to this wide fact, there was here and there a people who asserted for themselves a different origin from the rest of mankind. Such claim has no historical value, for it always stands alone, out of the grand stream of human development, and ever connected with some absurd feeling of national pride, like that of our modern Anglo-Saxonism. A striking example of this is furnished by the Athenians. They claimed to be aitTOxBovec, indigence, the pure genuine "natives," or Anglo-Saxons of their day. They were the Aborigines. No other blood had ever mingled with their own. Now there can be no doubt that Paul meant to rebuke this spirit, and that God through Paul condemned their doctrine of diversity of origin, as strongly and as sternly as that endlessly diversified polytheism of which Athens was so noted an example. One God, one humanity, one common redemption, one resurrection, one judgment, through one man Christ Jesus, who had entered into the peculiar physical and forensic relations through which alone the mighty work of human salvation could be accomplished— such is the substance of Paul's ever-memorable sermon on Mars-hill. How is it to stand with the modern doctrine of diversity? We would especially ask the question of those evangelical theologians who, if they do not subscribe to the dogma, yet see no great harm in it, and who prudently advise the Church to have no opinion on this unimportant matter until it gets further light from science.
The absolute equality of each man, as man, comes directly from the idea of a common origin, and can be truly traced to no other source. One man is equal to another, not equally wise, equally good, equally strong, but equally a man; and this not on the ground of more or less resemblance in bodily or mental qualities, but because of a generic or genealogical fact. Each man is equal to every other man, because there was a period in time and space where the life which is now individually two or more was generically, and not only generically but actually one. This absolute equality of man, as man, is unaffected by that inequality of condition which grows out of the political relations. Without discussing here the right or wrong of this, it is enough for our argument, that it is essentially distinct from the other inequality which is supposed to have its ground in the very blood or nature. There may be monarch and subjects, rulers and ruled. These may be determined by institutes of longer or shorter, of more permanent or flexible duration. The distinctions they create may be hereditary or elective—for generations, for lives, or for years, according as the organic good may seem to require. They are the result of our dual existence —of the fact that we all live two lives, and are intended by God to live two lives, the individual and the social, and that the true and healthful organization of the latter necessitates diversities of condition. These may be master and servant, even SeOTtorTIc and dovTioc—we use the terms in their old political senses—and yet generic equality. One man may have power over another man more or less stringent, conferred by laws more or less just, and yet the two stand in the relation of brethren, and consistently and feelingly call each other brethren. This is the real Scripture test. Whatever relation allows the fraternal word and sentiment to stand unimpaired in their true generic force, that the Bible assails not, notwithstanding any outward diversities of condition or claim of magisterial authority; whatever theory, whether physical or political, would weaken and destroy them, that is unholy, inhuman, unchristian. The simple idea is worth more, and will do more to elevate mankind, than all the Magna Chartas, and Bills of Right, and Missouri Compromises that have ever been contrived as barriers to human oppression. Each member of the human fc)dy is equally flesh, and equal flesh, and all make one flesh, although the hands, the eyes, the feet, perform different offices, apparently and outwardly of different degrees of rank, yet all equally honorable, because all equally interdependent, when viewed in their catholic or organic relations. It is in fact this absolute equality which renders the organic relation possible. The latter could not exist between parts generically distinct. Animals of the highest class, or any species that arc not truly men, could no more belong to the constitution of the body politic than the rod in the hand, or the shoes beneath the feet, could be true members of the fleshly human organization.
Man, then, we say, may have dominion over man; he may even have a political lordship over him. There is nothing degrading or dehumanizing in this,
if the organic good of society require it; since it may possibly be the case that in this way, even the most subordinate parts may be raised to a higher absolute elevation than they could have ever attained in a state of relative equality with its possible consequences of savage anarchy and animal barbarism. Thus, then, would stand our argument; its application we would leave to the reader. Political and social inequalities, political and social relations of every kind, rest solely oh their expediencies, to be determined, not by abstract reasoning, but by a careful induction of facts. Whatever, on the other hand, denies, or is inconsistent with the true and proper humanity of any part of the one family of mankind, or, in other words, the great fact of brotherhood, that we bring to the bar of the universal human sentiment, and to the central truth of the divine Word. It is inhuman, antibiblical, antichristian—condemned of God, and to be abhorred by all who believe that man was created in His image.
Brother may have dominion over brother, even lordly or despotic dominion, and rightly exercise it. Philemon and Onesimus were master and servant, yet true brethren, both in nature and " in the Lord." The stringent social and domestic relation is as distinctly recognized by the Apostle as the natural and spiritual kinsmanship. But the assertion of title on the other ground is an indignity to the common honor of the race. We feel it as we would degradation of kin or family dishonor. Is the Negro a man? the dignity of the lord as well as of the vassal demands the clear recognition of such humanity. We have no scruple about his political bondage. Its expediency, its righteousness, its humanity, are all to be determined by circumstances apart from the question of race. But the other claim we would resent as a personal insult. Even the African, far-off cousin though he be, is a relative for whom we have some regard. He is of our blood, our kin, our kind; for the words are of the same stock. We trace them up into the oldest roots of the Saxon. We find them again in the Greek ytv, the Sanscritjan. We only lose sight of them where all history disappears—in the primitive state, and in that primitive language which was the vernacular when the whole human family obeyed one living ancestor, dwelt in the same palm grove, and perhaps slept beneath the covert of the same tent. The genealogy is yet preserved in the old Family Bible; and" that science and that political philosophy are the greatest enemies of the highest human good that would seek to obliterate or in any way impair the credit of the record.
Paul's declaration to the Athenians was only an inspired interpretation of elder Scripture. It was holding up before the Greek that authentic genealogical roll which had so long been familiar to the Jew, while he cites, by way of illustrat ion, the ancient poets of the nation in opposition to their extravagant claim of generic distinction and superiority. Nothing can be more idle than the attempt to make the term "blood," as thus employed, mean simply a resemblance in certain qualities. The interpretation is only worthy of such a philologist and biblical scholar as Mr. Nott. It is just what we would expect from a critic who denies that the authors of King James's translation of the Bible had any knowledge of Hebrew, and who furnishes such evidence of his own hermeneutical skill in his profound remarks about Samson's foxes. The use of "blood" for "kin" is common to all tongues. Whether the belief on which it seems to be grounded be true or not, there can be no mistake in respect to the idea. The blood, if not the life, is representative of the life. It denotes the ever-flowing river of human vitality, the stream of generation, however widely parted its numerous branches—the essential unity of being, however multifold its individual manifestations. It expresses the fact, and carries up the mind to a real point of unity, where all this diverging diversity was once one, actually one, numerically as well as ideally. Thus brothers are of one blood because they have the same father. Cousins are consanguinei, or of one blood, because they have the same grandfather. Recognized kindred are of the same blood, because their lines meet in a common proavus, or ancestor. Any two human beings—even the Anglo-Saxon and the Negro—are of kin, or possessed of a common life, on the ground that there was a time, an exact time of measurable though unknown degrees, when their individual streams parted from one parent fountain, and it could be said of them, in the clear language of the Latin poet—
"Sic genus amborum scindit se sanguine ab uno."
And this is the only true idea of a nature or species. It is not resemblance in appearance or in working, in cause or in effect. It is not likeness of process merely, be it ever so constant and ever so uniform. It is causativeof resemblance and classification, not constituted by them. Nature is birth, a scries of births. It is a being born, as its name (natura) implies, and an ever being about to be born of one thing from another. It is the unfolding of a life, of a germ, whose beginning must be out of itself, or supernatural, and this beginning, from the very idea, and the law of the idea, must be one. Here is the point at which our scientific naturalists so greatly stumble. It is their error here which makes them so incapable, many of them, of rightly appreciating the moral and theological positions that are connected with this higher idea. We might suppose Deity to have created beings in the form of men, and with such a degree of resemblance, material and spiritual, that no examination could detect the least appreciable difference in the length of a hair, the strength of a feeling, or the significance of a thought. Still, if they had never had with each other any connection of life, they could not be said to be of one nature, of one race, of one blood. For nature is a fact, it is community of vitality; and there must, therefore, be as many natures as there are distinct beginnings.
Neither would any contiguities of habitation at all alter the case in respect to beings thus originating. They would be as alien as the dwellers on separate planets. No remoteness in space or time could make them less of kin, less of the same nature, than the simple fact that there was not, and never had been, between them any community of life. There might indeed be said to be a connection, but only through God, the universal, uncreated centre of unity, and by whom they would be alike connected with all things else in the spiritual and material universe.
Whatever may be thought of it theoretically, we are satisfied that, practically and morally—and this is at present the aspect of the question on which we are mainly insisting—we can not overestimate the value of this idea of blood or kinsmanship. We have reference now, not only to the universal consanguinity of the race, but more especially to those nearer affinities to which we chiefly give the name of kindred, because we can trace chronologically and genealogically the originating unity from which it flows. It is the chief fault of this age of moral
and political generalizations, that we do not think enough and make enough of blood or kinsmanship. It is not too much to say that some of the strongest supports of human virt ue are failing in consequence of it. And yet, if we may judge from the abundant genealogies of the Scriptures, no human feeling was held in greater honor. Next to the Sacra Dei, were ever the saneti patres, and the brethren according to the flesh. But that is the Old Testament, it may be said; Christian love is grounded solely on tho class or moral relation. We would not rashly meddle here with themes so sacred; it may be permitted, however, to say that the question, Is it not something more than this? is the great problem for Out modern theology, the great question of a standing or falling Church. But to come down to our more natural and human sphere, we repeat it, we do not think enough of blood either as respects the whole human family, or even the narrower circles within which its currents can be more distinctly traced. Indeed we may say that the strength and purity of the former feeling will depend much on the degree in which we cherish the latter. Our philanthropy, our zeal for political and social rights, can never get above our love for kin without proving its own spuriousness. We suspect that cosmopolitanism which ignores the family, the neighborhood, the circle of known consanguinities, in its enthusiasm for the good of being in general. We have here again the sure testimony of the Scriptures, and that too as given by the "loving Apostle"—"He that Ioveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" By parity of reasoning—he that loveth not his brother who is near him in the flesh, how can he truly love his brother who is far removed from the common fountain of life?
Ours is an age, and especially ours is a country, in which the mind should be especially recalled to these laws of nature and of nature's God. It is an age of rambling, of emigration, of the continual breaking up of family and kindred ties. The feeling and idea of home is getting to be almost lost. We need to be reminded of the mine of virtue there is in these genealogical remembrances, in the cherished thought of "the dear kindred blood," as Daniel Webster has so feelingly expressed it. It would do our national character no harm if we had more of this best and purest kind of " nativism"— if the feeling extended habitually to third, fourth, even fifth cousins, or those still remoter ties of traceable blood which we ridicule some of the older and more stable nations for so assiduously cherishing. We want no acquaintance with the man whose soul does not warm to one in whose veins he knows there runs the same stream of kindred life which not long since parted from his own, or who fails to recognize him as a kinsman whether in low or high station, in poverty, in rags, and even in ignominy.
At first view, one would very naturally think that by no class would the Nott and Agassiz doctrine have been more unequivocally condemned than by those who have declaimed the loudest about human rights, and whose motto has been, or ought to have been—" Am I not a man and a brother?" Some of this school have heartily denounced the book, and we give them all honor for consistency and sincerity. Others have obviously hesitated. The question has puzzled them by presenting two aspects. There is the dehumanizing side, which certainly seems at war with their professed philanthropy. But there is, again, the antibiblical side, and the antibiblical interest, that is in unison with their