ing a permanent Union of the States, so necessary to their protection and prosperity. But in this whole transaction, we find no trace of selfishness nor any compromise of correct principles.

On the other hand, that so-called compromise, which Gen. Washington entitled a "bargain," was a distinct sacrifice of principle on both sides. The Northern majority in the Convention, who by their votes imposed the continuance of the slave trade on the country for twenty years, professed to be opposed to slavery, and denounced it and the slaveholders often in most violent terms; yet they voted a clause into the Constitution forbidding Congress to prohibit the importation of slaves into this country for twenty years-and for what? To procure for themselves some advantages by which they could and did coin millions and millions of money. One of these advantages, and not the least, being that they themselves could still carry on the slave trade and reap its profits. Crying out against slavery, yet they bargained to have negroes stolen for twenty years, converting their flesh and blood into gold!

The two Southern States who made the bargain with them were equally guilty (or more so if possible, as they first made the proposition which was to work such dire injury to their own sister States as well as themselves) of a direct sacrifice of principle for what they mistakenly imagined to be their own interest. They had been in favor of the two-thirds vote, and were opposed to granting that power to the North over the South, which their majority would give to that section, unless controlled by such a restriction as the two-thirds provision in regard to the vote of Congress. But they, too, were tempted by the prospect of more and more wealth; and, utterly regardless of the remonstrances of the other Southern States, utterly reckless of the consequences to them, and to themselves as well, they entered into that accursed bargain which not only made all after attempts to rid the country of slavery and the negroes an utter

failure, but also placed the South at the mercy of the Northern majority in all legislation, her only safety in the after years consisting in the fact of her holding the balance of power as between the two great political parties of the North.

To this sacrifice of principle to greed, on the part of these contractors of a cruel and selfish bargain, to this compromise of all right principle, may be traced directly or indirectly the greater part, if not perhaps all, of the dissensions which have since arisen between the States.

But, however wrong, or mistaken, or by whatever name called, whether bargain, or covenant, or compromise (excepting as regarded the Ordinance of 1787, which was only an act of Congress), these compacts were made by sovereign States, acting in their sovereign capacity, whose right to do so could be questioned by no power on earth. Being confirmed in the most solemn manner by the members of the Convention, and afterward ratified by the people of the States, there was only one way to have gotten rid of the obligations imposed by them, and this was by amending the Constitution in those particulars.

Just here, however, lay the difficulty. To amend the Constitution by mutual consent was the one thing that was never practically recognized as the proper method to get rid of those obligations.

The truth is, whilst the men who made the Constitution were keenly alive to its defects, yet such was the necessity for Union among the States that they accepted it with all its faults as the best that could be procured in view of the great diversity of sentiment and interest between the States, trusting to the wisdom of future generations to so amend or alter it as might be best suited to the needs of those living under it. Mr. King, the most prominent of the Northern members, said he "had always expected that, as the Southern States are the richest, they would not league themselves with the

Northern, unless some respect were paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect those preferential distinctions in commerce, and other advantages which they will derive from the connection, they must not expect to receive them without allowing some advantages in

When, therefore, the Constitution came before the people of the States for their acceptance or rejection, its advocates so ignored its faults and blazoned its virtues in order to secure its acceptance, that loyalty to country and Constitution became synonymous terms. After a time the Constitution was held to be a sacred thing, and to alter it would have been looked upon almost as sacriligious.

Patrick Henry, who, with some others, most vehemently opposed its adoption, yet became, when once it was accepted, the most pronounced of its adherents, and advocated in the strongest terms the strictest obedience to its obligations."

With the growth of this sentiment as to the sacredness of the Constitution, disappeared all possibility of its alteration by common consent.

Its provisions respecting slavery were:

1. The three-fifth representation.

2. The fugitive slave law.

3. The uninterrupted continuance of the slave trade for the period of twenty years, or until 1808.-

And these were constitutional provisions, which neither Congress nor the States could, except by regular constitutional amendment, interfere with in any way.

However it came to be made, or by whatever name called, the compact of the Constitution, as regarded

1 Madison's Papers.

"Patrick Henry denounced the defects of the Constitution, as at first made, so powerfully as to lead directly to the first ten amendments to it.

slavery, was rigidly adhered to during all the early years of the Republic.

The Quakers, at once upon the adoption of the Constitution, began to petition Congress to take steps for the abolition of slavery, and even Dr. Franklin signed one of the first, if not the first, of these petitions; though he had so recently signed the Constitution and so indorsed all its obligations; but upon the South's protesting against such legislation as a violation of the compact just made between the sovereign States, it was decided to lay all such petitions on the table without discussion, and this was the course pursued for many years.

In 1808, the slave trade was abolished by an act of Congress, and there is not a more interesting episode in our history than is furnished in the difficulty which was found in framing this act, which yet every member of Congress was anxious to pass.' The special points of difficulty were, what punishment to inflict upon the captains of the slave vessels, and on the rich Northern merchants who owned them; and what disposition to make of the cargo; for it would be monstrous to have the slaves forfeited to the United States, and sold, as in the instance of ordinary forfeiture; and yet it would be inhuman to take them back to Africa, to be eaten by their cannibal foes or remanded to a worse slavery; whilst none of the States would be willing to have these savages fresh from the wilds of Africa landed on their shores, to become a burden upon society; ignorant as

1 It had become a matter of finance with South Carolina and Georgia. So many slaves had been imported that their value had materially decreased, and they were as anxious to stop the trade now as they had been to encourage it before.

'It was at first proposed to hang the captains, but that seemed unfair unless the merchants were to be hung also; and a member from Rhode Island remarked that "a man ought not to be hung for merely stealing a nigger." The debates on these questions were exceedingly lively and animated.-Author.

they would be of the language, incapable of supporting themselves, and deprived of the only civilization possible to them, the civilization of slavery. The act was, however, finally shaped to meet all difficulties, and in such a way as not to interfere with the rights of any of the States, nor yet to make the United States a dealer in slaves, nor to inhumanly return them to their own country.