Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume I.

[109] the feud to become chronic. Those who perpetuated it would be most unlikely to share bounteously in the distribution of Federal offices and honors. Then a new Presidential contest began to loom up in the distance, and all manner of speculations were current, and hopes were buoyant, with regard to it. Yet more: the Cotton culture was rapidly expanding, and with it Southern trade, bringing the Northern seaports more and more under their sway.

There had been an effort, in 1817, to secure the passage through Congress of a more effective Fugitive Slave Law, which was defeated, after a most spirited discussion. In 1826 (March 9th), the subject of Slavery was brought before the House by Mr. Edward Everett-then a new and very young member from Massachusetts--who incidentally expressed his hostility to all projects of violent Abolition, his readiness to shoulder a musket to put down a slave insurrection, and his conviction, with regard to Slavery, that, “while it subsists, where it subsists, its duties ares presupposed and sanctioned by religion,” etc., etc. But this strange outburst, instead of being gratefully hailed and welcomed, was repelled and reprobated by the South. Mr. Mitchell, of Tennessee, though himself a slaveholder, pointedly dissented from it. Mr. C. C. Cambreleng, of New York, (a North Carolinian by birth and training), said:

The gentleman from Massachusetts has gone too far. He has expressed opinions which ought not to escape animadversion. I heard their with great surprise and regret. I was astonished to hear him declare that Slavery — domestic Slavery — say what you will, is a condition of life, as well as any other, to be justified by morality, religion, and international law, etc., etc.

And John Randolph, of Virginia--himself a life-long slaveholder and opponent of the North--saw fit to say:

Sir, I envy neither the lead nor the heart of that man from the North, who rises here to defend Slavery upon principle.

So that, so late as 1826, the doctrine of the essential righteousness and beneficence of Slavery had not yet been accepted in any quarter.¹

Virginia, in 1829, assembled² a Convention of her people to revise their Constitution. Ex-President James Monroe³ was chosen to preside, and was conducted to the chair by ex-President James Madison and Chief Justice Marshall. The first