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?

And if the struggle comes again, what hope of success can the South cherish?  If in the last national struggle, it was overpowered when the slave, as Mr. Grady acknowledges, guarded the house while his master fought for his perpetual enslavement, what can it do when the Negroes have tasted freedom for a quarter of a century, and now number nearly as many as the whites in the South?  It is for the white people of the South to say whether that struggle shall come.  The North does not desire it, the Negro does not desire it, and we sincerely believe that a large share of the people of the South do not want it.  Rev. Dr. Haygood, the efficient agent of the Slater Fund, in a recent article in The Independent, in reply to Senator Eustis, voices, as we hope, the sentiments of thoughtful and influential Southerners.  But it remains to be seen whether these wise counselors will be heard.  Such voices were uttered before the war, but they were drowned in the noise of sectional hatred and the imperious demands of slavery.  God grant that the sad lesson of the past may be heeded.

In the meantime, the A.M.A. will continue its efforts at what it believes to be the true solution of the Southern problem—­the Christian, educational and industrial advancement of the colored people.  With the help of the great benefaction of Mr. Hand, whose money was made in the South, and is now consecrated to the South, we shall go forward with greater zeal and encouragement.  We are not partizans; we are not sectionalists.  We are working for the good of both whites and blacks, and for the peace and prosperity of our common country.