civil liberty and the civil liberty of the white man are as opposite as are the colors of their skins. One man is a being dominant and commanding; the other inferior and subordinate, and by this opposition do they harmonize in civil life. One supplies what the other wants; one thinks and directs, the other labors and obeys, and, as a consequence, the circle is complete. If one gets hands to do his physical labor, the other gets a mind, superior to his own, for his care and protection. The negro, as a slave, is contented with his lot, and, under it, is the _freest_ as well as the happiest man in the world; for he is freed from the cares of life, and particularly from the cares of state, which, on the civilized plane, he has ever found himself unable successfully to manage. His subordination as a race of man pertains to him alone; and yet we have a very marked parallel within the very limits of our own species. We are males and females; but to the male alone belongs the desire of dominion. Our women reject the right of suffrage and official position in the state. They do not want to be voters, or legislators, or officers in command, nor do they even want the position of suitors in our courts of law; because such rights to them are burdens, therefore do they reject them, and find their civil liberty, not by accepting, but by rejecting those very rights which alone make their husbands freemen. Why is this so? It is because, in nature, the woman is subordinate to the man, as is also the negro to the Caucasian species. This is almost a parallel case. The woman has not the rights which make the man free. But does this make her a slave? If it does, then is her slavery just what her nature requires. The “woman’s-rights man” sees this parallel, and very properly concludes that if the negro be oppressed by a deprivation of political rights, the woman, whose very existence, both political and legal, is merged in that of her husband, can be none the less so. Here we must approve his arguments, and, with him, censure the abolitionist for inconsistency who is not also a woman’s-rights man; for if the negro be enslaved by being relieved of rights which to him are burdens, why is not the woman equally a slave who is, in the same way, excluded. His logic, from his premises, is, we think, unanswerable. But he does not seem to have discovered that different natures require different rules, limits and extensions for the attainment of proper civil status in society. When he discovers this, he may find, as others have found before him, that, Concerning man, “though wrangle e’er so long, ’Tis only this, if Heaven hath made him wrong.”