ment? Their opinions are
preserved among us—they were dic-
tated by their position and necessities—and they were wisely formed. In the North, slavery was useless; nay, more, it was a drawback to the prosperity of that section of the Union—it was dispensed with. In other sections, gradually, our people have seen their condition would be more prosperous without slaves—they have emancipated them. In the South, they are ne-
cessary: though an evil, it is one that cannot be dispensed with; and here they have been retained, and will be retained, unless God should manifest his will (which never yet has been done) to the contrary. Knowing that the people of the South still have the views of their revolutionary forefathers, we see plainly that many of the North have rejected the opinions of theirs. Slaves were at the North and South considered and recognized as pro-
perty, (as they are in Scripture.) The whole nation sanc-
tioned slavery by adopting the Constitution which provides for them, and for their restoration (when fugitive) to their owners. Our country was then like one family—their souls had been tried and made pure by a united struggle—they loved as bro-
thers who had suffered together. Would it were so at the present day!
The subject of slavery was agitated among them; many diffi-
culties occurred,but they were all settled—and, they thought, effectually. They agreed then, on the propriety of giving up run-
away slaves, unanimously. Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, "saw no more impropriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant than a horse!" (Madison's Papers.) This was then consi-
dered a compromise between the North and South. Henry Clay and Daniel Webster—the mantle of their illustrious fathers de-
scended to them from their own glorious times. The slave-trade was discontinued after a while. As long as England needed the
