Another wonder, scarcely less than the first, will be with some readers, how it could be possible that honorable men--men whose personal characters before the war were above reproach, either from Southern or Northern men; men who had led consistent Christian lives, and who had been regarded as bright and shining lights in their respective church organizations, could permit such things to be done before their very eyes, and look on indifferently, if not approvingly. The explanation is this: Most of this business of running off slaves was done without the knowledge of the Confederate authorities. Indeed, had it come to their ears during the earlier stages of the war they would have done what they could to prevent it, however indifferent they might have been to it during the last year or last few months of the war. But a far weightier reason is, that what seems so heinous, so diabolical, so criminal indeed, to a Northern anti-slavery man, was, in the eyes of a Southern pro-slavery man, only a fair business transaction, based on Bible authority, State law, and the law of self-preservation. They regarded these negroes as much the property of those who had owned them, as horses or cattle would have been. Nor did they regard the proclamation of President Lincoln and the acts of Congress, whereby slaves were declared free, with any more awe or respect than they would have regarded a like proclamation, or like acts of Congress, if issued or made with regard to horses or cattle. Hence, to their consciences it was no more of a sin to seize and run off to a market these negroes during the war, or even after the war, than it would have been to seize or run off from the grasp of an enemy a like number of horses or cattle. That conscience is largely dependent on surroundings, and on education, is no longer a disputable question among mental philosophers. That the cannibal, who kills and eats his fellow-man, is just as conscientious in what he does as the man who kills and eats a lamb, is now a generally admitted fact. With this philosophic truth as a stand-point from which to look at the subject, who can doubt that General Polk, who for so many years had been the universally respected and highly beloved Bishop of the diocese of Louisiana, was just as conscientious in his advocacy of slavery, and in his defence of the Southern Confederacy, as Bishop Simpson was in his opposition to slavery and his advocacy of the Union. Who can doubt that General Pendleton, who had been for so many years a reverend doctor in the Episcopal Church, and the head of a seminary near Alexandria, Va., and who never gave the order to fire without first raising his eyes heavenward and saying, "God have mercy on their souls," was just as conscientious in the belief that slavery was justified by the Bible, and approved of by God, as John Wesley was in the belief that "slavery was the sum of all villanies"? Who can doubt that General Jackson ("Stonewall"), with whom the Bible was a constant companion, who prayed while he marched, who prayed when he encamped, who prayed even while directing the movements of a battle, was just as conscientious in his belief that slavery was right, as Wendell Phillips was that slavery was wrong; just as conscientious in the belief that the Southern Confederacy should succeed, in order to make slavery perpetual in this country, as General Birney was that the Union cause should succeed, if for no other reason than to wipe out slavery once and forever from the United States. This, certainly, is the charitable view to take of the whole subject; nor, with our present knowledge of ethics and mental philosophy, is it any more charitable than true.