DEAR FRIEND: Where didst thou get thy statement of what Abolitionists mean by immediate emancipation? I assure thee, it is a novelty. I never heard any abolitionist say that slaveholders ‘were physically unable to emancipate their slaves, and of course are not bound to do it,’ because in some States there are laws which forbid emancipation. This is truly what our opponents affirm; but _we_ say that all the laws which sustain the system of slavery are unjust and oppressive--contrary to the fundamental principles of morality, and, therefore, null and void. We hold, that all the slaveholding laws violate the fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States. In the preamble of that instrument, the great objects for which it was framed are declared to be ‘to establish justice, to promote the _general_ welfare, and to secure the blessings of _liberty_ to us and to our posterity.’ The slave laws are flagrant violations of these fundamental principles. Slavery subverts justice, promotes the welfare of the _few_ to the manifest injury of the many, and robs thousands of the _posterity_ of our forefathers of the blessings of liberty. This cannot be denied, for Paxton, a Virginia slaveholder, says, ‘the _best_ blood in Virginia flows in the veins of slaves!’ Yes, even the blood of a Jefferson. And every southerner knows, that it is a common thing for the _posterity of our forefathers_ to be sold on the vendue tables of the South. _The posterity of our fathers_ are advertised in American papers as runaway slaves. Such advertisements often contain expressions like these: ‘has sometimes passed himself off as a _white_ man,’--‘has been mistaken for a _white_ man,’--‘_quite white_, has _straight_ hair, and would not readily be taken for a slave,’ &c. Now, thou wilt perceive, that, so far from thinking that a slaveholder is bound by the _immoral_ and _unconstitutional_ laws of the Southern States, _we_ hold that he is solemnly bound as a man, as an American, to _break_ them, and that _immediately_ and openly; as much so, as Daniel was to pray, or Peter and John to preach--or every conscientious Quaker to refuse to pay a militia fine, or to train, or to fight. _We_ promulgate no such time-serving doctrine as that set forth by thee. When _we_ talk of immediate emancipation, we speak that we do mean, and the slaveholders understand us, if thou dost not. Here, then, is another point in which we are entirely at variance, though the _principles_ of abolitionism are ‘generally adopted by our opposers.’ What shall I say to these things, but that I am glad thou hast afforded me an opportunity of explaining to thee what _our principles_ really are? for I apprehend that _thou_ ‘hast not been sufficiently informed in regard to the feelings and opinions’ of abolitionists.