The pro tem editor of the Truc Dernocrat, in default cf other topics, hascommenced au attack on abolitioniÃ¯ts-, nhowing up what he conceivesto be their inconsistencies. We will notice two point on which he dwtlls. Ãn referencc to their eflbrts to libÃ©rate the slaves, he suys : S' Now, do you not see that if the slaves were free, according to your wishes you would incraase ihe " power of the south' about which you ar? harping so incessant ly ? That undcr the present npportion ment, the slave stales would be entirlec to something like fif; een more represen tativeÃ¡ thati tliey now have in Congress l Thisis the beautiful consistency of Aboli tionists." Abolitionists do not object to the "pcicer of the South," only so far as that powe is wielded by Slaveholders for the exten sion and perpetuity of Slavery. We war not on the South, but on Slavery Does not our neighbor y et understanc this ? Let Slavery be abolished, and the Slave Power, which now rules the coun iry, would ceaoe to exist. But hear this writer again : " Secondly, you support the cause o your party solelyou political grounds : in the same manner that a democrat or a whig does bis. You say slavery is a pohlical evil, nnd it eau be renched only by political action. Now suppose Soul' Carolina should arraign Michigan fo aholishing the Court of Chancery, or tak Massachusetts to task for den ying t aliens the right to acquire and hold land ed property, would you not be trumpe tongued in your demmciations ogains her ? You would say, and that justly that she has no right to pronounce upÃ¶n matters of which each and evcry stat has exclusive jurisdiction. You woulc say that every state should sustain its ow proper authority, indeiining the right of all persons residing within its borders not exceeding the limits of the sphere ii the federal compact. Here again is the transcendent consis tency of Abolilionism. DiÃ¡tort this mat ter as you mny, gentlemen, these tw pointswill forever remain, glaring, anc evident to the plain common sense o mankind." Aboliti-.mists do not propose to abolis Slavery in South Carolina by the legis lation of the Federal Government. They have not now the authority to do so. Bu had they the power, they would repea all national laws sustaining slavery, anc would exolude all the slaveholders fno citizens) of that State from holding office under the Federal Government. Bu should the people of that State foolishly persist in holding slaves, the Abolitionist of other States would not interiere witl their enjoyment of the curse, unlessby spreading light upon the subject throug] that benig" ited regiÃ³n. What "trans cendant inconsistency" would there be in such action oÃ Abolitionists ? But those who throw stones at other should be without sin themselves. Ho is it with the " Rrform Dcmocrals" Do they not hold thnt all men are endowec by the Creator with a right to Liberty If so.why did JOHN ALLEN, the Edito of the True Democrat, vote against th prohibiton of Slavery in our newly acquir ed territory ? Was not that most " trans cendantly inconsistent" in a ' Democrat? Will Mr. Pro Tem answer?