ton, M. D., J, C. Nott, M. D., and Geo. R. Gliddon, that there were four distinet classes of beings, representing the Caucasian, Mongolian, African and Indian, 14well known to the Egyptian ethnographers, and antedating Moses. Hieroglyphics, representing these, were inscribed at that early day upon the Egyptian monuments, with which Moses must have been familiar, and also with those distinct classes; hence, at the time he revealed his inspired revelations to man, the beginning of which is the first chapter of Genesis, he was aware that either of those races would reproduce in resemblance to itself, if sexual intercourse was had with its own class. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suppose that God, in revealing to Moses the natural history of creation, had allusion, in the 26th verse of the first chapter of Genesis, to any other beings than "the man and the female," for God knew what Moses knew with regard to those four classes; wherefore, he revealed this natural history of creation in a natural and consistent manner to one of great reason and natural intelligence. Suppose that God had told Moses that a Caucasian originated from an African, Indian, or Mongolian, or corn from barley, or oats from rye, etc., or vice versa, would it not have tested Moses' good common sense and his physiological knowledge as to what he knew by his own daily experience? We do not presume that God would desire to trifle with man, as some presumptuous demi-gods are trying to at this day of reason and common sense. We think, from the physiological figure of the Red or Indian class, as it must have been photographed from the Egyptian hieroglyphics, that it more resembles the Malay class than the Indian of our continent; we have seen photographs of the types or classes above mentioned. If the Egyptians had a knowledge of the Mongolian class, then why not of the Malay class? that has ever intervened between those first mentioned. From natural geography and history we cannot see how the Indians, like our continental Indians, could have existed in Egypt 1500 years B. C., whereas, at present, we are unable to trace a living vestige of them in that country. The Egyptian ethnographers inscribed in hieroglyphics upon their monuments all the classes in question that were then known to them through their geographical researches, that the elect of State might have such knowledge descend from generation to generation. We use type or class indiscriminately, and variety only as a commixture of two classes or types, or more, in either of the kingdoms-vegetable or animal. Class we have defined on page 334 of this work.

If it could be proved that Moses was not inspired, the natural order of creation, as it is laid down in the first chapter of Genesis, and the commandments therein contained, all of which we have developed by the philosophy of reason, are wholly and incontrovertibly reconcilable with common sense and nature's order. Can the creature be greater than the creator? As the States created the Constitution of the United States, and as slavery existed in many of them one hundred and sixtyeight years before its formation, without slaves or free negroes having the right of State citizenship in any of them, under any circumstance whatsoever, where is the implied power in the creature (the Constitution) to make what the creators (States) did not grant within their limits? in view of clause 1, section 2, article 4, of the Constitution. Hence, the negroes were not entitled to any privileges personally in the slave or free States during our early history; wherefore, could they be in the free States at present, with that clause in view? The Constitution is divided into three departments, to-wit: Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. Under the Legislative department, clause 2, section 9, article 1, we see the privi lege of the writ of habeas corpus defined, but we see it in no other part of the Constitution defined with respect to its use. The President has not seen this part of the Constitution; if he had, he would not have touched it without the special sanction of Congress, bearing in mind the province of a good man and a usurper! The admitting of Western Virginia into the Union would violate clause 1, section 3, article 4, of the Constitution; and every act and every speech made in its favor are an open admission of the right of secession and a usurpation of power unguaranteed by the Constitution. The sole object is to make as many free States as possible, whether constitutionally or not. This is nothing but a common sense view of the above.

In every instance of a political arrest, where the party has not had a "speedy and public trial in the State and district where the offense shall have been committed," the Constitution has been broken. See article 6, Amendments to the Constitution. The terms "speedy and public" admit of no wide discretion, without incurring a high misdemeanor against the letter and spirit of the Presidentage, but is criminal in the highest degree, for he is no more than a common citizen, with a portion of the latter's power deputized to him through the Constitution, which the community could not collectively exercise. If the creature be not greater than its creator, which condition the Abolitionists, Emancipationists, Republicanized and Democratized Abolitionists will have to admit, what but

defined and expressed privileges can the creature exercise over its creator? It looks rather absurd that the universe, or the things therein, should exercise privi leges over their God. It is self-evident that inasmuch as man acts within the limits prescribed by organic law, thus far he is privileged to act by God himself; but no further without incurring collisions, pestilence, famine and rebellion. Thus it is with the United States Government and the governments of the States. The former is the creature of the latter. It has all the powers expressly defined which its creators intended to have exercised over them. They are still its creators, and consequently the United States Government is nothing more nor less than their creature, with powers limited like man unto his Creator. The Government acts and the man acts, yet each must act in obedience to the organic law that gave it birth; neither can act beyond it, nor short of it, but its letter and spirit must be acted up to. In this case, so eventful and so fruitful of good or ill consequences, who must be the judges, the creature or the creators? If God or a State be wise enough to create his respective being, and then create matter exterior to himself, which, in such an event, would be the most competent judge, the creator or the creature, that has just such being, just such vitality, and just such powers marked out and defined as the will of the Creator was willing to accord to his creature? Thus we see a picture of the State Governments and that of the United States. If we discover in the first part of a mathematical work that two and two make four, would it be necessary to turn to the middle or the latter part of the work to prove the same position, when addition is treated of in the first part only, and also to prove our belief in the work, any more or any less than it would be necessary to prove from the middle or latter part of the Bible, or the New Testament, the order of creation, and consequently the natural history of inanimates and animates, which we find exclusively related by the inspired Moses in the first chapter of Genesis, and which no man can find in any other portion of the Bible? Hence, as we have founded our whole authority to prove slavery a Divine Institu tion, upon the natural history of the order of creation, as laid down in the first chapter of Genesis, he or she who thinks us infidels on that account is lacking common sense. Such a term as infidel with deist, or atheist, or secessionist, is resorted to by those who extend their knowledge scarcely beyond monosyllables; and hence expect to awe one into silence without being necessitated to render their most imperial reasons. We judge men by their works and words, with full reasons assigned, and bid those who can, refute us in our dissertation, by reasoning from cause to effect, and vice versa.

If an astronomer should tell us of a coming eclipse of the sun, or moon, or the visitation of a comet to the earth; and in the form of a naturalist, should tell us that corn, wheat, rye and barley, with all seeds known to man, and that all animates should respectively produce the class which each represents, in the precise time of one year or that of nine months, what evidence has he adduced to convince us of such occurrence or production, except his word, within that time, till such are presented to our understandings? When the former have occurred, we acknowledge the fact to be in accordance with organic law at the period of the creation; hence, on the same principle of reasoning, should we not acknowledge the latter to accord with the same law? If we believe one we must believe the other, for both accord with that law. Hence existences of color and man arose from the dust of the earth; and hence slavery, as a Divine Institution, from God's ordinance, verse 28th of the first chapter of Genesis. Among those semi-atheists and atheists we frequently hear of the term "unconditional Union man." Let us examine it philologically. The condition of the Union, that is, of the States being united is the Constitution, the form of our General Government; hence an unconditional Union man is an Unconstitutionalist, for he is opposed to the condition of the Union under the Constitution, consequently, a lawless anarchist.

The history of the New England religionists, from the period of their abolishing the Church of England from their faith and selecting a faith contrary to it, has been one of domineering tyranny, which stamps them wherever they may settle. From their settlement on Pilgrim Rock to the formation of the United States Constitution it was, nominally, virtually and effectually, Church and State with them; hence their Blue Laws. These religionists, with their thousauds of cohorts throughout the North and West, have been endeavoring to make Church and State of this Government under the Federal, and latterly under the Abolition sway, since it dawned into existence, with their pious and God-like religion to bear sway, as it did against the Quakers and Catholics. It is now virtually Abolition Church and State, and if these rebel atheists should long bear rule and gain a few points, the reorganization of the Inquisition of olden times would be inaugurated in our midst, with all the concomitant evils, as Blue Laws, racks and tortures, which their prone ingenuity could invent-manifestations of which we

see in their torture of the Constitution and of a General Amnesty Bill. Most learned statesmen, to make laws and then pass sentence upon them! This serpent-like restive character has been at work in New England among the clergy and hysterical women since the year 1818 in a persistent manner till now we sce the seed of the serpent rather than that of the woman. This character was sly, cunning, docile, and often coiled, would play many a prank with other matter till won over, then polypus-like, it must multiply, or be tortured into multiplication. This took root and grew, not on liberal minds, but on those naturally fanatical, inclined to Church and State, and having no enlarged comprehension of the order of the creation. Henceforward this Abolition character is marked from the river St. Croix to the Rio Grande, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and will be a stigma upon those Abolition religionists, which will be characteristic of them in their physiognomy, and will distinguish them from the rest of mankind as the Gipsies of America. Allegiance and protection are, in a Government, mutual ties; and if the State does not protect the citizen in his life, liberty and property, she has no claim on him for his allegiance. In such a case those ties are abandoned, and the creature is the transgressor in first abandoning the mutual obligation, and the citizen is thrown back to natural principles. Hence, we will take the State of Kentucky for an example, in supposing that, out of one hundred counties seventy of them had not more than two negroes to every male citizen entitled to vote, and that thirty of them had twenty negroes to every male citizen entitled to vote; what natural justice and equity would there be, in view of the lands in the former case being poor and in the latter rich, for the majority of the counties to call a Convention for the purpose of abolishing slavery in this State, so long as it was opposed by the thirty rich counties, while these counties are better educated and pay more taxes than the former? In our view of natural law, the moment that a State says what shall and what shall not be property, when she has had a Constitution for years qualifying what shall be property, and when her citizens have invested their means in all kinds of property, she acts the part of an usurper to abolish the use of any property whatsoever under the Constitution, for where and who gave her the natural principle of discrimination on supposed terms of hu manity or inhumanity in property? The Constitution is supposed to be formed on natural principles; hence, how can the State strip one citizen of his natural means of support so long as he acts up to his allegiance in respect to the State? Hence, upon natural law, with the equity side of the Constitution in view, and upon natural reasoning and the natural foundation of property as acquired by individuals in the State under the Constitution, we deny the State the right in after time to pass an ex-post facto bill into a law, through a Convention, of abolishing the property of the minority, even of one citizen, in one species of property more than in another, when the Constitution recognizes chattels, negroes, horses, cattle, etc., and lands, as property, on equal terms. Look at this, statesmen! No one would be so insane as to say that the State could take the lands, horses, cattle, etc., and clothing of the minority; hence, how could she discriminate and take negro property without the consent of the minority, or even of one citizen? for one is property as much as the other. No one would admit that the majority in a Convention could force a minority of the citizens represented to give up their lands under any circumstance whatsoever, for nature's law says that they would perish; hence, what organic right has she to say what property shall be yielded up for a supposed public benefit, lest some one perishes in opposition to nature's laws? Hence, all those States that have abolished negro slavery have acted unconstitutionally against the minorities, according to the letter, spirit, and equity side of their respective Constitutions, and are bound accordingly to reimburse the beirs of the minorities with legal interest fully, as if it was other property, and according to the highest market value of the negroes in the United States at the time of their freedom. For those not versed in the principles of the natural sciences to utter their condemnation of this work without comparing its principles to the works of nature, it would indicate an assumption of mental judgment over one of thought, with a mind open to the inlet of reason, in such a manner as delicacy would elude, and impudence expose its own narrow and rusty conceit.

PART III.

PROGRESS OF SLAVERY SOUTH AND SOUTH WEST, WITH FREE LABOR ADVANCING, THROUGH THE ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY.

In the contemplation of the vast Continent of America and the Islands adjacent to it, its majestic rivers and ocean-like lakes, its mountains and valleys, presenting all shades of fertility and of climate, with all the needful, useful and ornamental metals; stones for sculpture and ornament; forests for architecture, gums, medicine, and food to man; and plants not only to nurture the human species, but to serve as a balm against every ill but age, we admire its peculiar adaptation to the great division of free, and slave labor, and to the progress of slave labor into its tropics.

The onward advance of Americans to the South West with the institution of slavery to serve as a pioneer labor, to reclaim the forests and swamps of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, and South America, notwithstanding the popular rage of aboli tionism against it, is, and will be the inevitable result of reason and common sense! And by this means, without freeing a negro, the free States will march down gulf-ward, as fast as the Northern Slave States, relatively speaking, shall find it their interest to move

upon more fertile lands adjacent to Texas, as the Mexican States of Chihuahua, Sonora, Lower California, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Durango, Sinaloa, and Tamaulipas, shall be acquired and opened to American settlement in our onward progress to civilization and enlightenment. In the States of Chihuahua and Durango, the lands on the rivers and small streams can be irrigated, and made to produce corn, wheat, barley and cotton in the greatest abundance, with all such vegetables as are useful to man. Iron, copper, silver or gold are their most valuable products, and useful to the comforts of man. Coal abounds in these States. The lands in these are elevated, possessing a healthful climate; and the valleys among the mountains of the Sierra Madre, are truly picturesque and tegrand, and fertile beyond description, being formed art from the washings of volcanic eruptions.

Compared with Delaware and Maryland with reference to the profits of negro slavery, the rich soils and fine pasturages of Durango and Chihuahua, including mining pursuits, would cast the former States in obscurity, should we acquire them, and transport the $ slaves from the former to the latter, in the march of emigration.

Without a struggle among the politicians for high positions, we would acquire two more slave States and two more free States, giving the negro a much milder climate to live in,-one in which he could pay his master at least three hundred per cent. more profit than by remaining slaves in Delaware and Maryland.

The State of Lower California would necessarily be a free State from natural causes;-the smallness