_A._ That would be for the wisdom of legislators to decide; and they would probably decide that it would not be judicious to invest emancipated slaves with the elective franchise; for though it is not their fault that they have been kept brutally ignorant, it unfits them for voters. At the present time, slaves _are_ represented in Congress. Every five slaves are counted equal to three freemen; which is just the same as if our farmers were allowed to count every five of their oxen as three voters. This system gives the Southern aristocracy great political power, entirely unchecked by democratic influence, which comes in as a counterpoise in States where the laboring class are allowed to vote. W. B. Seabrook, of South Carolina, has lately published an Essay on the management of slaves, in which he says: “An addition of $1,000,000 to the private fortune of Daniel Webster would not give to Massachusetts more weight than she now possesses in the Federal Councils. On the other hand, every increase of slave property in South Carolina, is a fraction thrown into the scale by which _her representation in Congress is determined_.” This country has been governed by a President forty-eight years. During forty of those years we have been governed by a slave-holder! The New England candidates each remained in office but four years; and the great middle section has never given a President. The Middle States are politically stronger than the Northern, and are therefore more likely to act independently, and without reference to Southern support. Perhaps this may be the reason why those States, large and wealthy as they are, have never given a President to their country. Slave-holders are keen-sighted politicians; and they are closely knit together by one common bond of sympathy on the subject of slavery. It is a common remark with them that they never will vote for any man north of the Potomac. _Q._ You know that abolitionists are universally accused of wishing to promote the amalgamation of colored and white people. _A._ This is a false charge, got up by the enemies of the cause, and used as a bugbear to increase the prejudices of the community. By the hue and cry that is raised on the subject, one would really suppose that in this free country a certain set of men had power to compel their neighbors to marry contrary to their own inclination. The abolitionists have never, by example, writing, or conversation, endeavored to connect amalgamation with the subject of abolition. When their enemies insist upon urging this silly and unfounded objection, they content themselves with replying, “If there be a natural antipathy between the races, the antipathy will protect itself. If such marriages are contrary to the order of Providence, we certainly may trust Providence to take care of the matter. It is a poor compliment to the white young men to be so afraid that the moment we allow the colored ones to be educated, the girls will all be running after them.”