of the relentless and unappeasable Enemy of their Country and its
democratic institutions; they mourn, and will not be comforted, over the
expiring System, in the Border Slave-States; and, in tones of
indignation or of anguish, they utter lamentations over the Proclamation
of Emancipation, and the policy that is bringing Rebel States back again
radiant with Freedom."

Among these "loyal" Democratic opponents of Emancipation, in any shape,
or any where, were not wanting men--whether from Loyal Northern or
Border States--who still openly avowed that Slavery was right; that
Rebellion, to preserve its continuance, was justifiable; and that there
was no Constitutional method of uprooting it.

Saulsbury of Delaware, was representative and spokesman of this class,
and he took occasion during this very debate--[In the Senate, March 31,
1864.]--to defend Slavery as a Divine Institution, which had the
sanction both of the Mosaic and Christian Dispensations!

[Said he: "Slavery had existed under some form or other from the
first period of recorded history. It dates back even beyond the
period of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, in whose seed all
the Nations of the Earth were to be blessed. We find that,
immediately after the Flood, the Almighty, for purposes inscrutable
to us, condemned a whole race to Servitude: 'Vayomer Orur Knoan
Efet Afoatim Yeahio Le-echot:' 'And he said, Cursed be Canaan;
Slave of Slaves he shall be to his brethren.' It continued among
all people until the advent of the Christian era. It was
recognized in that New Dispensation, which was to supersede the
Old. It has the sanction of God's own Apostle; for when Paul sent
back Onesimus to Philemon, whom did he send? A Freeman? No, Sir.