The "London

Cotton-Plant," a journal established to sustain the interests of Slavery in the Old World, is almost overpowered with acute distress for the Order of Creation, and offers its sustaining shoulder to the System of the Universe. "Fear nothing," it seems to say, "glorious structure of the Divine Architect! Giddings shall not touch you, nor shall Seward lay his sacrilegious hand on you!" "Who are ye?" murmurs the Voice, "that would reedit the works of the Almighty?" "Sublime, but misguided object of our compassion, we prefer to remain in the modest seclusion of namelessness, but we are published at Red-Lion Court, Fleet Street, and are sold for one shilling!" To judge from Mr. Cushing's letter, he has studied this organ of the sympathizers with the Pre-established Harmonies,—certainly there is a singular coincidence in the sentiments of both, so far as we can make them out. Both call themselves conservative, both are anti-philanthropists, both claim that public opinion is tending in the direction of their views, both affirm that their cause is that of the white man, and both appear to mean by white man the same thing,—the owner of a slave.

But is not Mr. Cushing's anxiety misdirected, and wilfully so, in seeking the material for its forebodings of danger to the Union in the Free States? The only avowed disunionists of the North are the radical Abolitionists, whose position is the logical result of their admitting that under the Constitution it is impossible to touch Slavery where it exists, and who, therefore, seek in a dissolution of the federal compact an escape from complicity with what they believe an evil and a wrong,—with what, till within the last twenty years, was conceded to be such by the South itself. If Mr. Cushing be so great an admirer of stability in conviction, he might have found in these men the subject of something other than vituperation. There are men among them who might have won the foremost places of political advancement, could they have sacrificed their principles to their ambition, could they believe that public honors would heal as well as hide the wounds of self-respect. It is the South that advocates disunion, from sectional motives, and adds the spice of treason. The "London Cotton-Plant" says,—

 "If she [the South] is denied 'equality'
 within the Union, she can have 'independence'
 out of it. Already in European cabinets
 the possibility of this contingency is
 contemplated. We but perform a public duty
 when we tell Mr. Douglas that there is in
 Europe more than one power able and willing
 and prepared to take the Cotton States of America,
 and with them the other 'Slave'-States,
 so-called by free-negroists, under their protection,
 as valuable and desirable allies ... And
 more, he can say by authority that she [the
 South] has active and successful agents in every
 part of Europe preparing the way for equal existence,
 commercially as well as politically, so
 long as the Union exists, or the active support of
 powerful allies, if driven as a last resort to appeal
 to the civilized world against tyranny and
 oppression." [1]

But what does the "Cotton-Plant" understand by "equality"? Nothing less than the reopening of the slave-trade. Speaking of the chance that the captured slaves of the "Echo" would be sent back to Africa, and resenting such a procedure as "a brand upon our section and upon our social condition," it affirms that:

 "This labor-question of the South does
 not depend upon such miserable clap-trap
 as Kansas or the Fugitive Slave Law. It
 rests upon a full, open, and deliberate recognition
 of the rights of the Southern people;
 and the Senator from Illinois, by moving the
 abrogation of the so-called slave-trade treaty
 with England, allowing the South to supply herself
 with labor as she may see fit, would give,
 indeed, unquestioned assurance of his disposition
 and courage to follow the principle of the
 white-basis to its logical and constitutional consequence."

It declares that the sending home of the Africans would be "a practical reversal of the Dred Scott decision," and adds,—"We have no fear that our people will long remain passive under such an accumulating weight of inequality." [2]

Is not this explicit enough? and does