During the years of reconstruction and political agitation, uncertainty prevailed, but now again the Southern position is becoming settled. It is the old position with a variation. It runs: The Negroes are an inferior race, and must be held as a peasant class in subjection to the superior white race. To this the warning is again added: This is purely a domestic affair, and all outsiders must keep tongues and hands off. This revised version of the old theory is proclaimed by Senator Eustis in his now somewhat famous article in the _Forum_. More recently it has been re-affirmed in the fervid eloquence of Mr. Grady, of Atlanta, in his address at Dallas, Texas. This is the same orator (he is an orator) who a few years since electrified the whole country by his speech at the New England dinner, on the "New South." But the logic of Southern events has driven him down again to the platform of the "Old South." More recently still, the Governor of South Carolina, in his message to the Legislature, has taken the same position. These three gentlemen, representing the press and the politician, are sustained by the pulpit in the South. For example, the Presbyterian church South repels all overtures for re-union with the Presbyterian church North, because such a re-union would involve a practical recognition of the equal manhood of the inferior race. The Presbyterian church South does not stand alone on this platform. Other denominations are arrayed side by side with it, and we fear that even the Congregationalists in the South, with two Conferences in the same State, one white and the other black, are in danger of being numbered with them. This is the Southern position. It portends the renewal of the old antagonism. It repels the North, denying its right to interfere, and thus draws again the sectional line; and above all, it sets up sharply the antagonism of races, consigning the Negro permanently to an inferior place. This implies, of course, that if the Negro will not quietly accept this place, he must be compelled to do so by force of arms, and in this struggle the North is notified that it has no right to interfere. We can only express our amazement at this theory! With the memory of the war so fresh, when the North broke over all warnings against interference, and stepped in to aid the helpless slave, can the South now hope to make these warnings any more efficacious? Can it hope that the North will acquiesce in a quasi slavery, that sets aside substantially all that it gained and established by the long war?