There are good reasons for believing that Mr.Seward desired some modification of the President's policy of Reconstruction after he comprehended the spirit which had been exhibited by the Southern Conventions, and the still more objectionable spirit shown by the Southern Legislatures.
His philanthropic nature, the record of his public life, his great achievements in the anti-slavery field, all forbid the conclusion that he could knowingly and willingly consent to the maltreatment and the permanent degradation of the freedmen.

If he had no higher motives, the selfish one of preserving his own splendid fame must have inspired him.
Mr.Seward had reached the age of sixty-five years, and he surely could not consent to undo the entire work of his mature manhood.
Consistency, it is true, is not the highest trait of statesmanship.
Crises often arise in the conduct of National affairs when cherished opinions must be sacrificed and new departures taken.

But this necessity can never apply to that class of political questions closely and inseparably allied with moral obligation.

Mr.Seward had himself taught the nation that conflict on questions involving the rights of human nature is irrepressible.

The slavery against which he had warred so long and so faithfully had been abolished in vain if another form of servitude, even more degrading in some of its aspects, was to take its place.