"Sectional division" was abhorrent to him, but on the question of slavery
his sympathies were rather with the South, for I find among his papers
the following:--

"My creed on the subject of slavery is short. Slavery _per se_ is not
sin. It is a social condition ordained from the beginning of the world
for the wisest purposes, benevolent and disciplinary, by Divine Wisdom.
The mere holding of slaves, therefore, is a condition having _per se_
nothing of moral character in it, any more than the being a parent, or
employer, or ruler, but is moral or unmoral as the duties of the relation
of master, parent, employer or ruler are rightly used or abused. The
subject in a national view belongs not, therefore, to the department of
Morals, and is transferred to that of Politics to be politically
regulated.

"The accidents of the relation of master and slave, like the accidents of
other social relations, are to be praised or condemned as such
individually and in accordance with the circumstances of every case, and,
whether adjudged good or bad, do not affect the character of the relation
itself."

On the subject of foreign immigration he was most outspoken, and replying
to an enquiry of one of his political friends concerning his attitude
towards the so-called "Know Nothings," he says:--

"So far as I can gather from the public papers, the object of this
society would seem to be to resist the aggression of foreign influence
and its insidious and dangerous assaults upon all that Americans hold
dear, politically and religiously. It appears to be to prevent injury to
the Republic from the ill-timed and, I may say, unbecoming tamperings