Delaware State journal and statesman., 1862-11-04

posed that the change should be effected peace
lully and1legally hy common Consent and to
that end they enleavored to chow what they
the ultimate danger and present
wrong Of the Constitution. This was their "agi-
tatitnp They opposed yiolenceaof every kind.
They were, many of them, non-resistanls. They
did not vote tor TO vote was TO acknowledge
what they thought wicked Constitution, They
did not approve the method but only the pur-
pose Of John Brown; nnd they said to the rest OF
US, . You Who believe in force have no right to
anne him for helping others to do what you
praise our fathers for dong in the Revolution.
They believed that immediate emancipation was
desirable, but they aimed 10 achieve it solely by
influencing public opinion through that perfect
freedom OF discussion which the Constitution
guaranteed Some among them but very few
wore more vehement aud sometimes attempt
cd to resist the law, MS il Boston at the Burns
capture. But the Personal Liberty bills. al
though The Aboitiouists approved aud adVoea
ted them, were passed by Legislatures in which
NO AbOtionist sat, because no Aholitonist could
swear to support the Constitution aud the laws
OF the United States,
4 Ahoitiousm, justly und rslood, was thus a
| purely moral wer, 1t sought II moral end
I solely Ly moral menus IL was fierce yiiupera-
4 tive aud denunciativr; but So has every pnrty
been. It's leaders deliberately resigned alt the
przes of worldly ambition, aud accepted the
coutumely heaped upon them by both the great
parties in the country. Republican and Demo
crnt equally eschewed the name or suspicion OF
ab htonism And justly. For the Democrats
w,re in political alliance with slavery, aud the
Republicans differed fundamentally from the
| AboltiOnists iu their Interpretation OF the Con-
stltuiion. The latter held II To he a bond of sla-
very the former OF liberty The Abolitonsts
thought the only hope II the country was in es-
Gaping from The Constitution. The Republicans
believed that the Slavery question could he set
tod peacefully for liberty without change of the
/ Constitution
They were right For it was the clear percep-
ticn of the slave interest that it e0uid be so set
tlpd-n fact Of which MIR. LineGh's election was
the tarncst--that drove that interest to arms tC
destroy the Constitution Philosophically, the
difference between the Republicans and the Ab0
itonists was one of political method, not ofmora
conviction. But in human affairs difference OF
method is radical The Republicans, therefore,
neither decritd the Constitution nor the Union.
But they deplored the fase Interpretation Of tht
Que and the prostitution Of the other. They he
lieSed that the people would yet save both Con
srquenlly they were all Of them unswervinl
uaiouisis. They did not threaten to rebel i
they were not su cessful at the polls, and they
severely condemned all who assented to sucl
threats, For they had faith in popular govern
meut to right even the worst wrongs. And lhei
faith is justified
There is no more interesting chapter Of ou
history than that known rs Aboitionism, whicl
is an episode in the great movement Of libert.
upon this continent. To call it ianaucism, an'
consider that final and satisfactory explsna
tion, is as ludcrous AS to define Washington
simply as rebel or Luther as u hereto.