'With a writer in the Southern Review we say, "the situation of the people of these States was not of their own choosing. When they came to the inheritance, it was subject to this mighty incumbrance, and it would be criminal in them to ruin or waste the estate, to get rid of the burden at once." With this writer we add also, in the language of Capt. Hall, that the "slaveholders ought not (immediately) to disentangle themselves from the obligations which have devolved upon them, as the masters of slaves." We believe that a master _may_ sustain his relation to the slave, with as little criminality as the slave sustains his relation to the master. But we feel little sympathy for those who, in the language of Mr Harrison of Virginia, "still look upon their slaves in the light in which most men regarded them when the slave trade was legitimate. Of those, wherever they are, who hold their slaves with that same sentiment which impelled the kidnapper when he forcibly bore them off, I know not how morality can distinguish them from the original wrong-doers, pirates by nature, and pirates by civilized law." That the system of slavery must exist temporarily in this country, we as firmly believe, as that for its existence a single moment, there can be offered justly no plea but necessity. Were the very spirit of angelic charity to pervade and fill the hearts of all the slaveholders in our land, it would by no means require that all the slaves should be instantaneously liberated.'--[Af. Rep. vol. v. p. 329.] 'The long established habits of the South, the attachments which are frequently found subsisting between the proprietor and his servants, together with the difficulty of substituting at once white for slave labor, and the derangement which would ensue in the domestic concerns of life, would not merely make general emancipation at once inexpedient, but the attempt would denote the extremity of madness and folly, and convulse this government to its centre.'--[Idem, vol. vi. p. 291.]