provision to restore fugitive slaves; and this mutual and
concurrent action was the cause of the similarity of the
provisions contained in both, and had its influence in
creating the great unanimity by which the ordinance passed,
and also in making the Constitution the more acceptable to
the slaveholders."

Mr. MADISON, also, in the Virginia Convention, urged the ratification
of the Constitution for the following among other reasons, viz.:

"At present, if any slave escape to any of those States
where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws;
for the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another
in this respect. This clause was expressly inserted to
enable owners of slaves to retain them. This is a better
security than any that now exists."

General PINCKNEY, one of the delegates in the Federal Convention, from
South Carolina, in a debate in the House of Representatives of that
State on the Constitution, said:

"We have obtained a right to remove our slaves in whatever
part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we
had not before. In short, considering all the circumstances,
we have made the best terms we could, and on the whole I do
not think them bad."

In the speech made by Mr. WEBSTER on the 7th of March, 1850, he
remarked that:

"So far as we can now learn, there was a perfect concurrence
of opinion between those respective bodies--the Congress and
the Constitution--and it resulted in this ordinance of
1787."

When Mr. WEBSTER had closed his speech, Mr. CALHOUN arose, and among
other things, said:

"He, Mr. WEBSTER, states very correctly that the ordinance
commenced under the old confederation; that Congress was
sitting in New York at the time, while the Convention sat in
Philadelphia; and that there was concert of action.... When
the ordinance was passed, as I have good reason to believe,
it was upon a principle of compromise; first, that this
ordinance should contain a provision similar to the one put
in the Constitution, with respect to fugitive slaves; and
next, that it should be inserted in the Constitution; and
this was the compromise upon which the prohibition was
inserted in the ordinance of 1787."

This agrees with Mr. MADISON. The idea he conveys could scarcely have
been more identical with Mr. MADISON if he