We are aware of all that can be said in favor of independence of mind; we would by no means wish to bind any man down to the opinions of the past, or to say to any bold departure from established usages and opinions, "You are wrong, because you differ from great and learned men;" but still we would ask, if the Constitution is as Anti-Slavery as Mr. Spooner asserts it to be, how happens it that such egregious mistakes have been made concerning it? Can a real Anti-Slavery document be so misconstrued, as to satisfy slave-holders, who dread the least appearance of Anti-Slavery, as Satan does the truth of God? We will grant for the sake of argument, that it does not directly sanction Slavery; still we assert that it is a pro-slavery document for the following reason. Anti-Slavery is a bold, outspoken, and unmistakable thing. It is "known and read of all men, a living epistle," and can be no more mistaken for pro-slavery, than the shining of the sun, for total darkness. The difference between the two is so great, that they can never be mistaken, the one for the other; or at least genuine Anti-Slavery can never be regarded as pro-slavery to the full satisfaction of slave-holders. We cast our eyes over the history of our country, and from the commencement of its political existence until the present time, we see Slavery justified by the Constitution. From the President seated in the chair of State, to the representative of the smallest village in the most insignificant State of the Union; from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to the petty lawyer and esquire of the country village; from the wisest statesman, to the most ignorant politician; from all who ever filled the presidential chair, down to him who hopes to fill it soon; from politicians of all parties, to men who abjure politics; we hear but one voice respecting the character of the Constitution, excepting a few persons like our friend Spooner, who seem to be disposed, for want of better employment, to test the power of their minds in arguing its Anti-Slavery character; as the philosophers of olden times, polished their logical weapons in discussing such questions, as "Whether God loved a possible unexisting angel, better than an existing insect;" or "whether an angel in travelling from point to point, passed through the intermediate points;" and "whether more than one can exist in the same space, at the same moment." Those mighty enquiries were the intellectual jousts and tournaments of the age of chivalry and knight errantry. Happy will it be for us, if a moral Don Quixotism does not intrude itself into our efforts for true reform. There is to us a great similarity between that celebrated genius's battle with the wind-mill, and our friend's long and laborious fight, to prove the Anti-Slavery character of the Constitution; for after he has made good his arguments, and proved, to the demonstration of all, that technically the Constitution does not