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 property, (as they are in
Scripture.) The whole nation sanctioned 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
brothers who had suffered together. Would it were so at the present day!

The subject of slavery was agitated among them; many difficulties occurred,
but they were all settled--and, they thought, effectually. They agreed
then, on the propriety of giving up runaway 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 considered a compromise between the North and South. Henry Clay and
Daniel Webster--the mantle of their illustrious fathers descended to them
from their own glorious times. The slave-trade was discontinued after a
while. As long as England needed the sons and daughters of Africa to do
her bidding, she trafficked in the flesh and blood of her fellow-creatures;
but our immortal fathers put an end to the disgraceful trade. They saw its
heinous sin, for they had no command to enslave the heathen; but they had
no command to emancipate the slave; therefore they wisely forbore farther
to interfere. They drew the nice line of distinction between an unavoidable
evil and a sin.

Slavery was acknowledged, and slaves considered as property all over our
country, at the North as well as the South--in Pennsylvania, New York, and
New Jersey. Now, has there been any law reversing this, except in the
States that have become free? Out of the limits of these States, slaves are