favored a more efficient executive than was popular with the States or delegates; but it cannot be doubted that his powerful arguments, and clear enunciation of fundamental principles of government had great weight with men more eager for truth than victory.  There were animated discussions as to the ratio of representation, and the equality of States, which gave rise to the political parties which first divided the nation, and which were allied with those serious questions pertaining to State rights which gave rise, in part, to our late war.  But the root of the dissensions, and the subject of most animated debates, was slavery,—­that awful curse and difficult question, which was not settled until the sword finally cut that Gordian knot.  But so far as compromises could settle the question, they were made in the spirit of patriotism,—­not on principles of abstract justice, but of expediency and common-sense.  It was evident from the first that there could be no federal, united government, no nation, only a league of States, unless compromises were made in reference to slavery, whose evils were as apparent then as they were afterwards.  For the sake of nationality and union and peace, slavery was tolerated by the Constitution.  To some this may appear to have been a grave error, but to the makers of the Constitution it seemed to be a less evil to tolerate slavery than have no Constitution at all, which would unite all the States.  Harmony and national unity seemed to be the paramount consideration.

So a compromise was made.  We are apt to forget how great institutions are often based on compromise,—­not a mean and craven sentiment, as some think, but a spirit of conciliation and magnanimity, without which there can be no union or stability.  Take the English Church, which has survived the revolutions of human thought for three centuries, which has been a great bulwark against infidelity, and has proved itself to be dear to the heart of the nation, and the source of boundless blessings and proud recollections,—­it was a compromise, half-way indeed between Rome and Geneva, but nevertheless a great and beneficent organization on the whole.  Take the English constitution itself, one of the grandest triumphs of human reason and experience,—­it was only gradually formed by a series of bloodless concessions.  Take the Roman constitution, under which the whole civilized world was brought into allegiance,—­it was a series of concessions granted by the aristocratic classes.  Most revolutions and wars end in compromise after the means of fighting are expended.  Most governments are based on expediency rather than abstract principles.  The actions of governments are necessarily expedients,—­the wisest policy in view of all the circumstances.  Even such an uncompromising logician as Saint Paul accepted some customs which we think were antagonistic to the spirit of his general doctrines.  He was a great temperance man, but recommended a little wine to Timothy for the stomach’s