Produced by Polyvios J. Simopoulos

[Transcriber's note:

In Memoriam

Michael S. Hart (1947-2011),

Inventor of the e-Book

and

Founder of Project Gutenberg

]

================================= A History of the Republican Party by George Washington Platt =================================

[Frontispiece: Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley.]

A History

OF THE

Republican Party

BY

GEO. W. PLATT

—————————————————-

"And summon from the shadowy Past,
The forms that once have been."

—————————————————-

C. J. KREHBIEL & CO., CINCINNATI, O. 1904

Copyright, 1904, by GEO. W. PLATT. All rights reserved.

Inscribed

to the Memory of

the three Martyred Republican Presidents

LINCOLN, GARFIELD, McKINLEY.

PREFACE.

Early in February, 1900, the writer delivered an address before the Stamina Republican League of Cincinnati on "The Origin and Rise of the Republican Party." The interest in the subject shown by the audience and the many words of approbation led to a deeper consideration of the history of the Party, and the address was repeated on a more elaborate plan before many other organizations in Cincinnati and vicinity.

It soon became apparent that the great majority of every audience had very vague recollections of the tragic events which led to the organization of the Party, and of its early history, owing perhaps to the fact that they belonged to a generation that had followed the enactment of those events. It was also clear that those who had lived in the momentous decade before the Civil War were deeply interested and stirred by a new recital of the history of that period, and thus it was suggested that a History of the Republican Party might prove of interest and value.

Like the place of Homer's birth that of the Republican Party is in dispute, but it is believed that the facts herein narrated are supported by the weight of evidence.

It is hoped that this work does not display so much partisanship as to make it uninteresting to members of other political parties in the United States.

GEO. W. PLATT.
Cincinnati, February, 1904.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER. PAGE I. Formative Causes …………………………………… 5 II. Ancient and Modern Slavery ………………………….. 11 III. Beginning of Slavery in the United States …………….. 22 IV. The Early Federal Government ………………………… 28 V. The Missouri Compromise …………………………….. 42 VI. The Abolitionists ………………………………….. 51 VII. Compromise of 1850 …………………………………. 59 VIII. Birth of the Republican Party ……………………….. 70 IX. First Republican National Convention …………………. 86 X. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates …………………………. 101 XI. Lincoln …………………………………………… 112 XII. Reconstruction and the National Debt …………………. 135 XIII. Grant …………………………………………….. 148 XIV. Hayes …………………………………………….. 170 XV. Garfield and Arthur ………………………………… 185 XVI. Blaine ……………………………………………. 201 XVII. Harrison ………………………………………….. 213 XVIII. Cleveland's Second Term …………………………….. 230 XIX. McKinley ………………………………………….. 244 XX. Roosevelt …………………………………………. 285

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

PAGE 1. Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley …………………. Frontispiece 2. White House ……………………………………. facing 28 3. Capitol ……………………………………….. " 44 4. Alvan E. Bovay …………………………………. " 76 5. Schoolhouse at Ripon, Wis ……………………….. " 84 6. John C. Fremont ………………………………… " 92 7. Wm. H. Seward ………………………………….. " 100 8. Lincoln's First Inauguration …………………….. " 124 9. New York Herald, April 15, 1865 ………………… " 132 10. Andrew Johnson …………………………………. " 140 11. Ulysses S. Grant ……………………………….. " 148 12. Rutherford B. Hayes …………………………….. " 180 13. Chester A. Arthur ………………………………. " 196 14. James G. Blaine ………………………………… " 204 15. Benjamin Harrison ………………………………. " 213 16. John Sherman …………………………………… " 220 17. Inauguration of Wm. McKinley, March, 1897, ………… " 244 18. Thos. B. Reed ………………………………….. " 252 19. Second Inauguration of McKinley ………………….. " 260 20. Marcus A. Hanna ………………………………… " 276 21. Theodore Roosevelt ……………………………… " 285

A HISTORY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

CHAPTER I.

FORMATIVE CAUSES.

"Resolved, That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the territories of the United States for their government, and that in the exercise of this power it is both the right and duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery."

Republican National Platform, 1856.

Near the beginning of Mr. Conway's small volume entitled "Barons of the Potomack and Rappahannock" occurs the sententious remark that "a true history of tobacco would be the history of English and American Liberty." With whatever truth there is in such sweeping statements it may also be said that "a history of Slavery in this country would be the history of the Republican Party." This is distinctly so, at least to the close of the Civil War, for we are to notice that while the party originated in a desire to oppose the extension of slavery, the cause of its origin disappeared in less than ten years after the birth of the organization. But the results of that cause remained for many years, and justified the assertion in the Republican platform of 1860 that "a history of the nation during the last four years has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican Party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature." From its primary position as an opponent of slavery extension, the new party became the champion of abolition, and in the chaos brought on by the Civil War, and in the Reconstruction period which followed, it was kept in power, notwithstanding the disappearance of its direct formative cause, and the justification for its continued existence was found in the urgent necessity of the hour. Gradually but firmly it became a strong State and National Party, solving the many vexed problems which followed the great conflict, restoring public credit, reducing the enormous war debt; and when the slavery question and its direct consequences had been eliminated from national politics, taking up new political ideas and economic policies, for the welfare of the entire country, until now, after half a century of existence, during which time it has written some of the brightest pages of American history, the Republican Party stands out as one of the greatest and most consistent of political parties in all the world's history.

Taking the popular vote as a criterion of permanent growth, the vote for the Republican presidential candidates, beginning with 1,341,264 for Fremont in 1856, reached the maximum of 7,208,244 for McKinley in 1900, and only once (in 1892) during this entire period did the popular vote for the Republican presidential candidate fail to show an increase over the vote of the preceding election.

The events of the momentous decade before the Civil War (during which period the Republican Party was firmly established), the election of Mr. Lincoln, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the story of the national development along commercial and financial lines since that period, present the most interesting and vivid chapters of American history. Throughout its history of fifty years, covering the period just mentioned, the Republican Party has a remarkable record for solid and consistent action, resulting universally in national prosperity and honor, and on the three occasions since its formation (1856, 1884 and 1892), when the voters turned away to listen to the teachings of Democracy, the invariable result has been national disaster and humiliation and a retarding of progress.

The Republican Party was organized in the early months of 1854, and the direct formative causes leading to its establishment were the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the efforts on the part of the South, under the leadership of that ambitious politician, Stephen A. Douglas (with his specious doctrines of non-intervention on the part of the Government, and popular sovereignty), to force slavery into the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, which, by the Compromise of 1820, should have been forever dedicated to freedom. By these efforts it was seen that the South was attempting to make slavery a national instead of a sectional institution, and the situation early in 1854 (after the long series of triumphs of the Slave Power) seemed almost hopeless as far as concerned political opposition to these radical measures was concerned. At this time, and, indeed, for many years past, the Democratic Party was firm and united in its support of slavery, and the course of the Whig Party, intimidated by its southern members, and fearful of civil strife, had been one of subserviency to the exacting demands of slavery. The Whig Party had proven itself totally incapable of meeting the great question of the hour, and after the election of 1852 was on the verge of absolute dissolution.

The astonishing repeal of the Missouri Compromise early in 1854, coming, as it did, in a time of comparative peace on the slavery question, obliterated old party lines in the North completely, and left disorganized groups of anti-Nebraska Whigs, anti-Nebraska Democrats, Free-soilers, Abolitionists, and Know-Nothings, all of whom represented every extreme of the northern views of slavery. But underneath these views was the belief that slavery was a great moral wrong, and that its extension, at least, should be opposed, and from these seemingly discordant elements it became, in fact, an easy matter to organize, in a short time, a strong opposition party to the new aggression of the slave interests.

The Republican Party was at first one of defense only; it was a combination of the existing political elements opposed to slavery, and its first stand was conservative, not to abolish slavery, but to firmly oppose its extension. The Party at first had no intention of interfering with slavery in the States in which it then existed, but the idea of allowing slavery, with its manifest evils, to be extended into other States and Territories at the will of the South was not to be silently borne. The early views of the party, up to the Civil War, were well expressed by Mr. Lincoln in his last great public utterance before his election as President in November, 1860 (The Cooper Union Speech, February, 1860): "Wrong, as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national territories and to overrun us here in these free States?"

It will be of interest, before taking up the history of the immediate casual events which made necessary this new political party, to consider the early history of that great institution, slavery, which, from the very beginning of American history to the close of the Civil War, and indeed for many years after, was the chief disturbing element in the country; to consider how this institution established itself in other countries, how it insidiously began its growth in the Jamestown colony, and how it gained in strength and political power, until, at the opening of the Revolution it owned half a million slaves, and after Independence had been gained, forced recognition in the Constitutional Convention and there domineered the North into the first of a series of humiliating compromises on the slave question. And from that time on, with increasing force, pressed its obnoxious doctrines upon the press, the pulpit, platforms and political parties of the country, until, after many years of bitter contention, it was met in 1854 by the organization of a determined opposition political party, which, after one failure, brought about its political overthrow, an event followed by a last tremendous struggle for the mastery, in which slavery was wiped out forever in the life-blood of those who upheld and those who opposed it.

CHAPTER II.

ANCIENT AND MODERN SLAVERY.

"Slavery is as ancient as War, and War as human nature."

Voltaire.

"That execrable sum of all villainies, commonly called the slave trade."

John Wesley, 1792.

The earliest records of the human race begin with accounts of slavery. The first slave was probably a war captive whose life had been spared, and slavery probably originated when the nations emerging from the savagery of early times discovered that the prisoner captured in war could render to the conqueror more service alive than dead; and it became a very early custom that all persons captured in war and not ransomed by their fellows should remain the property of the conqueror to be used by him at will or sold to others. It is seen that slavery in its inception was in some degree an innocent and humane institution, because it saved many lives and resulted in much development in building, agriculture and the crude manufacturing of early times.

It is convenient to divide the history of slavery into two epochs, ancient and modern, although there are times in the history of several nations when ancient slavery assumed the modern form. The ancient slaves were the prisoners captured in war, the hereditary slaves, and persons who, by the laws of their country, became slaves by the commission of crime or inability to meet their debts. Modern slavery assumed a more brutal aspect. Here the slave was not the result of wars, but the direct object of them, and we find nations engaged in the shameful traffic of deliberately declaring war upon a foreign and inoffensive people for the purpose of obtaining possession of their bodies to carry them away for sale in foreign countries. The modern slave for four centuries was a distinct article of commerce, quoted and bargained for in the markets and reckoned on as a medium of exchange.

For the history of ancient slavery we turn first to Egypt, and find abundant evidence of the use of slaves from the very earliest times. Egypt thrived, and its native population was overflowing; but notwithstanding this, thousands of slaves were brought into the country by the early Wars of Conquest. Most of these slaves, for lack of other work, were put to labor on vast monuments, buildings, shrines and temples. The great Pyramid of Gizeh, near Memphis, the smaller pyramids near it and the ruins near Thebes, and the Karnak, still remain as mysterious and wonderful records of the skill of the Egyptian builders, and as mute evidence of the use of vast numbers of slaves.

In the quaint diction of early biblical history is told the manner of the Egyptian use of slaves. We learn how Joseph was treacherously sold by his brethren into Egyptian captivity, but gaining favor, was placed in the house of his master, and how, in later years, when famine waxed sore in the land of Canaan, Joseph's father, Jacob, and his brethren and their flocks went into Egypt and prayed to Pharaoh for permission to dwell there, and partly through the influence of Joseph were given permission to live in the country of Goshen. The Israelites grew and multiplied until the land was filled with them, but new Kings ruled in Egypt, hostile to them, and their lives were made bitter with hard bondage and compulsory work in mortar and brick, "and they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses."

When the Hebrews, under the guidance of Moses, left Egypt, they took slaves with them, and in their subsequent history we find a record of the use of two classes of slaves, the Hebrew born and those of alien blood. The Hebrew slave usually became such by selling himself on account of his poverty, or because it was imposed upon him as a punishment for crime. He could claim his liberty at the end of six years, but not so with the alien, who was in bondage for life. Jerusalem was built, and after many years captured by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, who razed the city and carried the upper classes of the Hebrews captive to Babylon, where they remained in a condition of servitude until the destruction of Babylon by Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, who, as a political measure, permitted the Hebrews to return to their homes and rebuild Jerusalem. Egypt went down to rise no more before the new power of the Persians, who, in turn, gave way to the Greeks, and they to the Romans. Throughout the history of the ancient people, the Egyptians, the Syrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Medes and Persians, slavery developed in the same general way; the prisoner of war was held in slavery and reduced to the lowest caste, and this we find true in China, Ancient India and in the history of the Aztecs.

Slaves were used in Greece, especially so at Athens, where, at the height of the city's power, there were four times as many slaves as citizens. The slaves took a prominent part in the domestic and public economy, being used as agricultural laborers, and as artificers and servants, and by the State as policemen and soldiers. Sparta possessed very few slaves, probably only enough to supply the demand for domestic servants. With the rapid progress of the Greeks came an increased use of slaves, and the wars not being sufficient to supply the demand, an open slave trade was soon established. In Greece arose to its height that peculiar form of slavery practiced by the early Hebrews, wherein foreigners violating laws, and Greeks themselves, if unable to meet their debts, were sold with their families into slavery. This brought about such a threatening state of affairs that by the wise laws of Solon this form of slavery was abolished. This peculiar slavery also existed in the early days of Rome, but in the third century before Christ it was also abolished.

In the Roman Empire slavery existed from the earliest times, and was carried to an excess not known before or since in the history of slavery. The wonderful and rapid rise of the Romans in power, domain and wealth led to a moral and political degeneracy which demanded the increased use of slaves in all branches of domestic and public life. Here, as in Greece, the Wars of Conquest bringing in, as they did, vast numbers of slaves, failed to supply the demand, and here again, as in Greece, the slave trade, with its acts of piracy, was established to obtain a supply, and the occupation of the professional slave hunter and slave dealer became fully recognized and were the forerunners of similar acts in the history of Negro slavery many centuries later. The abuses brought on by the Roman system of slavery led to such decay and corruption in the Empire that it became an easy prize for the Teutonic tribes, and Rome of the West fell to rise no more, about the middle of the fifth century.

Then probably began the Feudal system, which practically abolished the ancient form of slavery, and in its place the lower classes of the population were put in the semi-servile condition of serfs and villeins to their Feudal Lords. This system spread in Germany, France, England and Russia, but by the time of the capture of Constantinople in 1453 by the Turks, Feudalism, the last relic of slavery in Western Europe, was almost extinct, and was gradually assuming a very mild form in the other countries, when suddenly and unexpectedly slavery was revived and perpetuated in a new, its modern form, by a singular and interesting series of events which brought about the ruthless bondage of an entire people to nations whom they had never offended.

Portugal, Spain and England were mainly responsible for fastening the evils of Negro Slavery on the New World. The Portuguese first began the modern traffic in negro slaves; the Spaniards introduced them into America, and the English engaged in and encouraged, more than any other nation, the infamous slave trade, to supply the New World demand.

In a strange way Christianity was indirectly responsible for the beginning of negro slavery in its modern form. For many centuries prior to the discovery of America the Mohammedans and Christians had been arrayed against each other in western Europe, and the struggles for the mastery had aroused the most implacable hatred between the foes, and the almost inevitable fate of the captives, whether taken by Christian or Mohammedan, was slavery for life. Fifty-one years before the discovery of America some Portuguese sailors, coasting along the shores of Morocco, took captive a few Moors and brought them to Portugal. This event led to the beginning of modern slavery, for in the following year, 1442, these captive Moors, at their own request, were exchanged for negroes, which they procured from Africa. It appears that Prince Henry of Portugal had made many ineffectual attempts to convert these Moors, and their obstinate refusal made acceptable an exchange for negroes, "for whatever number he should get he would gain souls, because they might be converted to the Faith, which could not be done with the Moors," said the Prince. With what sincerity this argument was advanced cannot be known, but it is certain that the beginning of modern slavery was justified by this crafty philanthropy, not only in Portugal but later in the Spanish Colonies, where the same argument was advanced by Columbus and accepted by the Spanish Monarchs to ease their minds while it filled their treasuries. It is also certain that in a very short time, whether to be Christianized or not, shipload after shipload of the unfortunate Africans were brought to Portugal and a regular slave trade, with all its sickening horrors, was established, the Crown receiving one-fifth of the proceeds as its royal share. Soon Spain engaged in the traffic, and then the event happened, the discovery of America, which startled Europe, and opened up a vast new country to whatever good or evil its conquerors might choose to plant.

Strangely enough the very events which led to the discovery of the New World operated to firmly establish the beginning of what was to be its greatest curse. With the capture of Constantinople in 1453 by the Turks and the cutting off of that way to the Indies, increased efforts were made to discover a new route, and the first attempts were down the west coast of Africa. The Portuguese were the most active mariners at that time and took the most prominent part in these new voyages, and while they did not meet with complete success, they discovered a country thronged with the people, who, by the circumstances already related, were practically doomed to slavery. So promising was this base of supplies that about the year 1485 the Portuguese established a Colony at Benin, on the west coast of Africa, for the purpose of more actively carrying on the slave trade, and this was the first of those permanent fortified places established in Africa by the Christian countries of the world as stations where, by the blackest of cruelties and crimes, they might obtain large and immediate supplies of this new article of commerce. From the time of the establishment of this first Colony to the year 1807, when Great Britain and the United States prohibited the slave trade (a period of 322 years), Africa was desolated and her people abducted, sold and murdered by the Christian people of the earth; and indeed for many years after its prohibition the slave trade was carried on, notwithstanding that it became piracy to do so, punishable by death, so profitable had the business become and so rapacious and insensate those who engaged in it.

Thus was the slave monster, a gigantic and hideous Frankenstein, created by the Christian nations, and long after, when it obtained its full growth, it was to fright them, retard their progress and result in dreadful retribution. The slave district began with the River Senegal on the west coast of Africa and continued a distance of fully 3000 miles to Cape Negro. The enormous sum of cruelty and wickedness which attended the slave trade throughout this vast territory can never be known, but may be partially imagined when we know that at its height fully 80,000 persons were torn from their homes annually, with all the attendant horrors of rapine, murder and the worst crimes of mankind.

The evil thus begun and fostered in Europe needed only a new impetus to make it grow beyond all bounds; owing to economical conditions, it would probably have died out in western Europe had it not been for the discovery of America, which almost immediately opened up a new and enormous market for slaves. The first Spanish settlement in the West Indies was called Hispaniola, now the Island of Haiti, and this Colony became the scene of the first use of negro slaves in the New World. A cruel fate seemed to be working out the enslavement of the African, for it is almost certain that Columbus in his first voyages did not take with him any slaves, and there seemed to be no thought of using them in this new Colony during the first few years after the discovery. The first negroes were brought to Hispaniola about eight years after Columbus landed, but they were few in number, and it was probably not contemplated to use them in the fields and mines, for the Spaniards had an immense and almost inexhaustible supply of free labor at hand in the native population, who, by the avarice of the Spaniards, were almost immediately enslaved and compelled to work in the mines and on the farms. So greedy were the Spaniards to acquire sudden wealth, and so numerous the natives, that their lives were reckoned of no value, and so heartlessly cruel and inhuman was their treatment that the population of the island, which is given as about 800,000 in 1492, had decreased, it is estimated, one-third four years later, and twenty years later the native population is given as only 14,000. These figures are probably greatly exaggerated, but making all allowances they tell a frightful story.

The benevolent Las Casas, aroused by the frightful cruelties to the natives and their rapid destruction, began his successful opposition to Indian slavery; but, without knowing or intending it, his success was at the fearful cost of the Africans, who now began to be imported in large numbers to take the place of Indian slaves, and it was shortly discovered that one negro could do the work of four or five natives. Thus a new and growing market opened for slaves, and the slave trade of the New World became so profitable that Charles V. of Spain, desiring to reap the greatest benefit from it, granted, for a consideration, an exclusive right for eight years of supplying four thousand slaves per year to the Spanish Colonies. This seems to have been the first monopoly on the slave trade, but soon other nations were attracted by the ease and profit of the business, and the Dutch and English began early to engage their energies in the trade, and the latter, with their superior methods, greatly increased its profit and popularity. William Hawkins was the first Englishman to begin the slave trade, and made a trip to Guinea in 1530. In 1562 his son, John Hawkins, who was knighted later for his services by Queen Elizabeth, followed in his father's steps and carried away three hundred slaves to San Domingo. This voyage was repeated in 1564 and 1567 with great profit, and soon England had entered and was committed fully to the business. One hundred and fifty years later the traffic in negro slaves was considered the most profitable branch of British commerce.

Thus it is seen that prior to the discovery of America negro slavery had begun in western Europe, and, like some dread scourge, lay in wait for new fields in which to operate; and we have seen how it was permitted to enter so early into the history of the New World. From the islands of the West Indies the Spaniards went to the mainland, and with them went slavery; and as more territory was discovered the use of slaves was more in demand and they were brought over in almost incredible numbers. This history is not further concerned with the development of slavery in other countries, or with the horrifying details of the slave trade which grew up to supply the enormous demand of the New World, except as it affected this country.

How slavery became established in the United States, how it dominated the first attempts of the Colonies to organize a strong Federal Government, and how, after a series of compromises, seeking to settle a question which could only be settled by its abolition, it resulted in the organization of a great opposition political party, the first success of which was followed by the bloodiest civil war in all history, will now be the direct subject of our inquiry.

CHAPTER III.

BEGINNING OF SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES.

"I do not say who was guilty of this … but there was the evil, and no man could see how we were to be delivered from it."

Frelinghuysen.

Ayllon, a Spaniard, who attempted to find the northwest passage, landed in Virginia as early as 1526, near the same place where the English eighty-one years later founded their colony, and began to build a town, using negro slaves in the work, but this settlement was abandoned. Negro slaves were also used in Florida prior to the Jamestown settlement. These appear to be the first use of negro slaves in territory subsequently a part of the United States. But we are not concerned with these events except as curious historical facts, because they had no influence on the history of the country, and are of no more importance or interest than the discovery of America by the Norsemen before Columbus. But toward the end of August, 1620, an event occurred of the greatest moment to the history and welfare of the country, and which was to have a far-reaching and lasting effect upon the political and social life of the United States. In that month, about thirteen years after the English founded their settlement, a Dutch ship, in great distress for food, entered the James River, and after some negotiation with the settlers, exchanged twenty negroes for a supply of food. This was the beginning of negro slavery in the United States, and thus was the disturbing element planted which was to distract the nation for so many weary years, and the opposition to which was finally to culminate in the founding of the Republican Party.

Not many months after these slaves were landed the Pilgrims established their settlement on the New England shores and began that political and social life whose subsequent development made them an enemy to slavery. If there is one scene or period in American history representing the very genesis of the Republican Party, it is the landing of the Pilgrims in December, 1620; just as the settlement at Jamestown, Virginia, was the point from which radiated, by subsequent economical and social developments, the principles of the Democratic Party. Thus it is seen at this early period that slavery and freedom were planted almost side by side to progress along unconsciously until economical conditions and demands were to make them openly antagonistic; and here began that remarkable balancing of power between slavery and freedom, which was to be maintained in later years, after the Union had been formed, by a series of compromises, and indeed also by a balancing of progress along economical lines.

The Virginians at first neither sought nor needed negro slaves; this is proven by the circumstances under which the first slaves were landed, and also by the fact that slavery grew very slowly. In 1622 there were only twenty-two negro slaves in the Colony, and in 1648, twenty-eight years after the first acquisition, there were only three hundred in Virginia; not that the settlers were averse to using them, but because another class of cheap labor was obtainable in the great number of criminals which were sent from England to work out their freedom in the New World, and by other white persons who voluntarily sold themselves and became indented or bond servants for a period of years in payment of their passage to America, or for other considerations. The use of this class of labor began very shortly after the first settlement, but toward the close of the seventeenth century the use of indented servants became less as negro slaves became more numerous.

Negro slaves were introduced into every one of the other Colonies when they were founded, or a short time afterwards, and to the close of the Revolution negro slaves were used in every Colony. The North was for slavery as long as it was necessary and profitable, and the early settlers in New England found no scruple in using as slaves the Indians captured in war; and when negro slavery appeared later, the shrewd Yankees made money in the slave trade along the coast to the South and to the West Indies. The modern Newport, R. I., was the great slave mart of New England, and it is said that the first slave ship used by American colonists was fitted up in a New England port.

Prior to 1715 the number of slaves in America was not so great, but after that year they increased in large numbers, not only by an active demand which sprang up for them, but also by the infamous Asiento Clause in the Treaty of Utrecht between England and Spain, whereby the former for a period of thirty years, from 1713 to 1743, took the exclusive right of importing and selling 144,000 negroes into the Spanish Colonies at the rate of 4,800 per year, and more could be brought in on the payment of a small tax. This made England the greatest slave nation in the world, and her interest demanded, and Parliament saw to it, that nothing adverse to the use of slaves should happen in the American Colonies. The growth of slavery in America from 1715 to 1775, and the slave population in the Colonies at these two periods, were as follows:

                             1715 1775
    New Hampshire …….. 150 629
    Massachusetts …….. 2,000 3,500
    Rhode Island ……… 500 4,373
    Connecticut ………. 1,500 5,000
    New York …………. 4,000 15,000
    New Jersey ……….. 1,500 7,600
    Pennsylvania ……..} 2,500 10,000
    Delaware …………} 9,000
    Maryland …………. 9,500 80,000
    Virginia …………. 23,000 165,000
    North Carolina ……. 3,700 75,000
    South Carolina ……. 10,500 110,000
    Georgia ………….. 16,000
                           ——— ———-
                           58,850 501,102

Of the half million slaves in this country at the opening of the Revolution, 450,000 were in the Southern Colonies. The reasons for this are found in the difference in economical conditions and political and social customs which separated the Northern and Southern Colonies before the Revolution. The Northern group devoted themselves mainly to fishing, commerce and farming. The soil, especially in New England, was unpromising for the production of great staples, and the result in the North was concentration of the people, growth of town life, distribution of political power, great freedom of speech and press, and a wide discussion of political principles. The South devoted herself wholly to the production of three great staples, rice, indigo and tobacco, and the result in the South was just the reverse of that in the North. Great plantations were established, few cities of any importance sprang up, manufacturing did not thrive, the South importing almost every article of use or luxury. Political power was in the hands of a few, and the three great staples demanded cheap labor, working under the most destructive conditions. Thus, influenced almost entirely by environment and economical and political development, the North became the scene of freedom to individuals and protection to industries, because these things were absolutely essential to the existence and happiness of the people; and the South, by the same necessity, was dedicated to slavery and free trade.

It must not be thought that the colonial period was without any development of opposition to slavery. The German Quakers of Pennsylvania in 1688 took a stand against the use of slaves in their community, and they subsequently became the most active opponents to slavery and the slave trade. Their efforts, however, had little effect except in Pennsylvania, but it is important to mark their action as the beginning of the abolition movement in this country. There are records in the Southern Colonies of taxes placed upon the importation of slaves prior to the decade before the Revolution, but it would appear that these taxes were more for revenue than as prohibitive means, and that they were of no value in diminishing the demand and the number of negroes imported. However, in 1769, a distinct sentiment crystallized in Virginia against the further importation of slaves, and the Legislature passed a law prohibiting it, but this was vetoed by the Royal Governor, acting under orders from the Crown; the same thing occurred in Massachusetts two years later. In 1772 Lord Mansfield proclaimed the law, "As soon as a slave sets foot on the soil of the British isles he becomes free." This decision had a marked influence on the anti-slavery sentiment, which was now strong in the Colonies, and the approach of the Revolution, with its spirit of national independence and of individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, seemed to promise freedom to a people who had already suffered three centuries of terrible bondage.

CHAPTER IV.

THE EARLY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

"The policy to sustain which Mr. Lincoln was elected President in 1860 was first definitely outlined by Jefferson in 1784. It was the policy of forbidding slavery in the National Territory."

John Fiske.

The history of slavery from the opening scenes of the Revolution to the meeting of the First Congress affords a curious example of the direct influence of self-interest upon the opinions of mankind. The opening of the Revolution saw an emphatic and unanimous expression against slavery and the slave trade, and a general spirit of emancipation was abroad. Two years later this had changed, for when the Declaration was promulgated there was no mention of anti-slavery sentiments in it, and as Independence became more and more assured, the feeling against slavery seems to have weakened, and finally, when a serious attempt to perfect the Union was made, the slave question was decided by expediency and not by principle.

In 1773 and 1774, when the colonists spoke their final defiance against Great Britain, and the latter launched her retaliatory measures, the climax was reached. It is to be kept in mind that at this time slavery existed in every one of the Colonies. The First Continental Congress, representing all the Colonies except Georgia (who agreed to concur), met at Philadelphia in September, 1774, to determine what should be done in this grave crisis. It turned out to be largely a Peace Congress, but a protest, several addresses and a non-importation and non-consumption agreement was signed. One of the Articles of this agreement provided that "We will neither import nor purchase any slave imported after the first day of December next, after which time we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels or sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it." This important and far-reaching resolution received the unanimous support of all the Colonies. Would that its spirit had been kept alive!

[Illustration: The White House, Washington, D. C.]

Almost two years after the First Continental Congress met (the Revolution having been started in the meantime) the Declaration of Independence was adopted, but there was no expression in it against slavery or the slave trade. The original draft of that instrument contained a fierce denunciation of England's part in the slave trade:

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him; capturing and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur a miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of Infidel Powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men could be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative by suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."

These burning words were from the pen of Jefferson, who had been the most active in his opposition to slavery. They were omitted from the Declaration, out of compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, but they voiced unquestionably the sentiment of a large majority of the Continental Congress. This was the first fatal concession to South Carolina and Georgia, and we shall find them again united and influencing the other Southern Colonies to maintain a bold stand for slavery at the most critical period in the nation's history.

On the same day in June, 1776, that the Committee was appointed to draft the Declaration of Independence, Congress resolved that "A Committee be appointed to prepare and digest the form of a Confederation to be entered into between the Colonies." The work of this Committee was the Articles of Confederation, which were presented in November, 1777, for ratification by the States. These Articles contained no anti-slavery sentiments, and we are only concerned with them in noting the unexpected and most important results which came up before the ratification was completed. Several of the States claimed a right to the territory west of the Alleghanies to the Mississippi under their original charter. Their claims were conflicting, and Maryland refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation until the land-claiming States should relinquish all their rights to Congress. For a number of years these States were obdurate, but Maryland held out resolutely and bravely, and finally, by her firm action and the magnanimity of New York and Virginia, the question was settled by the cession of the disputed lands to Congress. The acquisition of the Northwest Territory is one of the great turning points in American history, for we shall see that the subsequent development of this territory was of no less importance than the saving of the Union from annihilation by the slave power.

Thomas Jefferson was the most urgent against slavery of all the founders of the nation. His statesmanship foresaw the evils negro slavery would bring upon the nation's social and political development, and his nature was stirred by the great moral wrong. Long before the Declaration of Independence he worked untiringly in Virginia to bring about a sentiment against the slave trade, and his efforts met with success. His fierce denunciation of England's part in the slave trade was stricken from the Declaration, but he did not give up the fight, although the material interests of the South thwarted his plans for the moment. When, by the unforeseen results attendant upon the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, that imperial domain reaching from Pennsylvania to the Mississippi and from the Ohio to the Lakes became national territory, Jefferson, with the prescience of a mighty genius, saw an opportunity to deal a death blow to slavery. This magnificent public domain, subsequently to be divided into the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan, was given to the nation on condition that it should be cut up into States, to be admitted when they had a certain population, and that the land should be sold to pay the debts of the United States. Throughout this vast region there were very few people, and there had been no social, political or economical development, and so the only opposition which could come in Congress to any measure for the future government of the Territory would be from the original States. No sooner had the cession been fully made than Jefferson suggested a plan which, if it had succeeded, would have confined slavery North and South to the mountain boundaries of the original States. His plan for the government of this new territory, among other things, provided that after the year 1800 slavery should be prohibited in it. He went beyond this and advocated and urgently solicited Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to cede their rights in the land west of the Mountains, and he would have had slavery prohibited in this territory also after the year 1800. His plan was no more or less than to prohibit slavery after the year 1800 in all land between the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, from the Lakes to Florida.

On April 19, 1784, Jefferson's Ordinance came up for consideration. North Carolina moved that the clause prohibiting slavery after 1800 be stricken out; South Carolina seconded the motion, which was put in the form, "Shall the words moved to be stricken out stand?" Six States voted that the clause should stand, three were opposed to it, but as the Articles of Confederation required the votes of nine States, the motion was lost and the Ordinance, with the slavery clause taken out, was then adopted.

The following year Congress made inducements so attractive that in a short time several companies were organized and bought large tracts in the new National Territory; and as they purposed settling on their purchases at once, Congress agreed upon a more elaborate plan of government and laws than those set forth in the Ordinance of 1784. The famous Ordinance of 1787 was the result of this agreement. Mr. Jefferson was not present at the time of its adoption, having been sent as Minister to France, but the influence of his work and sentiments were felt, and his ideas were adopted in a new form. The new Ordinance repealed the old one, and among other things provided that the Territory should be cut up into not less than three nor more than five States, all of which were to be admitted into the Union when they had a population of 60,000 free inhabitants. The States which might be formed were forever to remain a part of the United States, and it was declared that the Ordinance was to be considered as a compact between the original States and the people and States of the new territory, and forever to remain unalterable unless by common consent. Most important and far-reaching of all was the Article,

"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid."

With slavery forever prohibited in such a large territory, with the Ordinance beyond repeal, and secession condemned, the Ordinance of 1787 stands out as one of the most remarkable and most important enactments in American history. What the Declaration of Independence and the War had obtained, and the Constitution was to make more perfect—the Union —the development of the country under the Ordinance of 1787 was to preserve. The South yielded to the strong anti-slavery clause in this ordinance because a fugitive slave clause was added to it, and because she had a plan of making the territory west of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia slave territory. This was done shortly afterwards, when two years later South Carolina and North Carolina, and Georgia in 1802, ceded their western claims to Congress on the express condition that it should be slave soil, and Congress accepted the territory on that condition; Kentucky being admitted as a slave State in 1792.

While the national greatness and safety were being worked out in the West, affairs were in a miserable condition in the East, owing to the radical defects in the Articles of Confederation which had been in operation since 1781. The cup of bitter national humiliation was being drained to the dregs, but fortunately the best men of the country finally succeeded in calling a Convention to revise the Articles. The Convention met at Philadelphia in May, 1787, and by September had adopted a new Constitution.

The great struggle between the North and the South began in the Constitutional Convention. Slavery and the conflicting commercial interests were the difficult questions which divided the country and resulted in the first of the Compromises that held off the Civil War for so many years. It was decided to have an equal representation of States in the Senate and an unequal representation in the House, based upon population; but should slaves be counted as population? This and the other slavery questions which came up in the Convention threatened to disrupt the proceedings entirely. There were at this time about 675,000 slaves in the country, of which number fully 625,000 were in the South. South Carolina, henceforth to be so active for the interests of the South, immediately claimed that these slaves should be considered as population to be counted in fixing the representation in the House. The North argued that the slaves were chattels and should not be counted, for it was seen at a glance that if this enormous number of slaves were to be counted on any basis, the political power of the South would be greatly increased. South Carolina made open and repeated threats to withdraw from the Confederacy, and the situation was serious, because, without her and the other Southern Colonies, who would unquestionably be influenced by her, the work of the Convention would not be ratified, and there would be no Union. The inexorable necessity of the hour demanded a compromise, and it was decided that in apportioning the Representatives there should be added to the whole number of free persons three-fifths of all other persons. This was equivalent to saying that five slaves in the South should be counted the same as three white persons in the North.

In regard to the slave trade there was a sentiment in all the States except Georgia and South Carolina against it, because five slaves counted as three whites, and because almost all of the eminent men North and South were at this time opposed to Slavery itself as not only a moral wrong, but as something which would injure the development of the country. The Southern planters insisted upon a continuation of the slave trade, but at the same time they were fearful that the North might tax their exports. The second great Compromise was affected, and it was agreed that the importation of such persons as any of the States might think proper to admit should not be prohibited by Congress prior to 1808, but a tax on each person so admitted might be imposed, not exceeding $10, and that no tax or duty should be laid on articles exported from any State. A Fugitive Slave Clause very similar to that contained in the Ordinance of 1787 was also added.

By these Compromises, especially the one giving representation for slaves, the South was given that tremendous political power which she wielded so long to threaten and coerce the North to her bidding. The Slave Power was politically enthroned, not to be finally dislodged until the election of Mr. Lincoln. At this early period, however, it was firmly and honestly believed that in a very short time slavery would disappear in all of the Colonies, as it was already dying out rapidly in the North, and it was fully believed that after 1808, when the slave trade should be prohibited, slavery would become extinct. It must be remembered that at this time cotton was not a staple of the South, and there was nothing seriously present or threatened, in the social or economical development of the South, which made slavery absolutely necessary. Nobody foresaw how greatly cotton was to add to the wealth and standing of the South, and nobody foresaw the great injury which the Constitution was to do the North.

When Washington was inaugurated, April 30, 1789, the United States reached from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, and from the Lake of the Woods, the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence and St. Croix Rivers southward to Florida, which then extended to the Mississippi and was owned by Spain.

All of the threatening phases of the slave question had been compromised by the various provisions in the Constitution, and the common territory of the nation had been practically partitioned between Freedom and Slavery, with the Ohio River as the dividing line. With some exceptions the Northern States still possessed a large number of slaves, New York and New Jersey having the greatest number (33,000 out of the 40,000 still in the North), but not only in these States, but throughout the North, emancipation was making rapid progress.

The population of the country was scattered along the Atlantic seaboard, but the migration to the west of the Alleghanies had set in strongly both north and south of the Ohio River; the settlers from Virginia and the States south of her carrying with them, westward, the prejudices and customs of their mother States, while the settlers north of the Ohio River took with them into the wilderness the energy and thrift of the East, and its spirit of freedom and emancipation for all individuals, laying the foundation of those great States which, in later years, untrammeled by the commercial conservatism of the East, were so outspoken and sturdy in their expressions against slavery. The first census, taken in 1790, showed a population of 3,929,827, classed and divided between the North and South as follows:

                                 Free
                     White. Negroes. Slave.
  North ………. 1,900,976 27,109 40,370
  South ………. 1,271,488 32,357 657,527

These figures are interesting because of the political effect that the population of the two sections had upon the representation in the House.

The South was still devoting herself to the raising of tobacco, rice, indigo, and several lesser staples, but since the close of the Revolution, owing to the dying out of the indigo plant, a new staple had received considerable attention. Cotton had been cultivated in Virginia by the early settlers, but little attention had been paid to it, and only enough was produced for domestic use; but after the close of the Revolution it gradually came to be cultivated in all the Southern States, and it was quickly discovered that being an indigenous plant it grew very rapidly, and the climate, soil and the great number of slaves at hand were favorable toward making it, with some attention, a most promising and valuable product.

The development of cotton manufacture had been gradual but certain to this period, which saw the triumph and use of the mechanical inventions of Hargreave, Arkwright, Crompton and Cartwright. The steam engine was introduced to supply motive power, and only one thing stood in the way of an enormous production of the new staple. The separation of the seed from the cotton fibre was a tedious and time-consuming task; one negro could only remove the seeds from about two pounds of cotton a day, and consequently only a small amount could be sent to market.

In 1790 not a pound of cotton was exported from the United States. In 1793, Eli Whitney, of Massachusetts, who was temporarily in Georgia, invented his Cotton Gin, one of the earliest and most remarkable of the many great inventions of Americans. This invention was productive of most important and far-reaching consequences. It caused an industrial revolution in the South by making cotton the great staple. The production increased by leaps and bounds, bringing great wealth and increasing social and political power to the South. With the earlier form of the new invention the seeds could be removed from about one hundred pounds of cotton a day. In 1792, 192,000 pounds were exported to Europe; in 1795, after Whitney's invention, nearly six million pounds were exported. The value of the export in 1800 was $5,700,000; in 1820, it was $20,000,000. These figures represented enormous wealth in those days.

Whatever sentiment in the South against slavery had survived the Constitutional period now disappeared completely. Cotton brought about a new view, and from being an evil to be eradicated in some way in the course of time, it was now regarded as absolutely necessary to the social and political welfare of the South. The strongest of human passions, avarice, ambition and worldly interest now bound the South closer than ever to slavery. The slaves produced cotton—which was wealth—and wealth brought independence and social distinction; besides the slave was a political advantage of great importance, because five of them, without any voice in the matter themselves, counted as three white persons. Under these auspices grew the Slave Power, soon to be a bold, threatening and overbearing faction in the nation.

While the South and the Slave Power were thus being prepared for great wealth and political standing, circumstances were working in the North to counteract and balance, in a way, this development. New England was beginning to feel the first impulses of a great industrial development; interest in commerce and manufacturing was awakening, and inventive genius, called into action by economical necessity, was at work, and the use of machinery and mechanical inventions was increasing. New England was shortly to be covered with cotton and other factories.

The war between France and England opened to the United States almost a monopoly on the West Indies trade in 1793, and it was the North that received the greatest benefit from this trade. Congress in 1791 had established the United States Bank at Philadelphia, with branches in all of the important cities, and this aided the North more than the South. In short, the North was developing that capital, energy, ingenuity and thrift and use of mechanical inventions, the lack of which was the greatest weakness of the South. The settlement of the Northwest Territory by pioneers from the northern States is also to be kept in mind.

This great manufacturing and commercial development, and the movement of the population westward, also awakened in the North a lively interest in internal improvements, and the steamboat, railroad and telegraph were soon to add their tremendous influences and advantages to this section of the country. The various pursuits and the development of the North increased and attracted population, and the balance between the North and the South, which was so nearly even in 1790, grew steadily in favor of the North, until at the opening of the Civil War the North had nineteen million free people against eight and one-quarter million in the South, the South at that time having four million slaves.

CHAPTER V.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

"The Missouri question marked a distinct era in the political thought of the country … suddenly and without warning the North and the South, the free States and the slave States, found themselves arrayed against each other in violent and absorbing conflict."

James G. Blaine.

Shall there be Slave States other than Louisiana west of the Mississippi River? This question coming suddenly before the people in 1818, laying bare the inherent antagonisms of the North and South, aroused the entire country to a white heat of excitement; and only after a most bitter and alarming struggle resulted in the third great Compromise on the slavery question.

From the time of Whitney's invention to the Missouri Compromise, three
important events happened in the history of slavery: The first Fugitive
Slave Law passed in January, 1793; the acquisition of the Louisiana
Territory in 1803, and the abolition of the slave trade in 1807.

The call for legislation to enforce the Fugitive Slave provision in the Constitution came, strangely enough, from the North. A free negro had been kidnapped in Pennsylvania in 1791 and taken to Virginia. The Governor of Virginia refused to surrender the kidnappers, claiming there was no law on the subject. Upon the matter being brought to the attention of Congress by the Governor of Pennsylvania, a Fugitive Slave Law and also an Extradition Law for fugitives from justice were enacted. While the fugitive from justice was surrounded by the safeguards of a requisition accompanied by a certified copy of an indictment or affidavit charging the crime, these safeguards were not given to the slave, but he could be forcibly seized by the owner or his agent and taken before a magistrate. There was no trial by jury, and the only requisite for conviction was an affidavit that he had escaped. The harshness of this procedure was resisted from the very first by the northern people, but this law was on the statute books until the second and last law on the subject was passed as a part of the Compromise of 1850.

When the time came at which Congress could abolish the slave trade, a law was promptly passed, after considerable angry debate as to its terms, prohibiting the slave trade after December 31, 1807. In fact, it was necessary to even effect a compromise on this subject on the point as to what should be done with any slaves that might be imported contrary to the law; and it was decided that they should belong neither to the importer nor any purchaser, but should be subject to the regulations of the State in which they might be brought. As far as it restrained the South, the law abolishing the slave trade proved to be more of a dead letter than the Fugitive Slave Law did in the North, because the slave trade was carried on with more or less openness until the Civil War, it being estimated that about fifteen thousand slaves were brought into the country annually. The abolition of the slave trade caused several of the border States to devote their attention to slave breeding, which, with the increased demand and the large advance in prices, became a profitable industry in Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky.

The acquisition in 1803 of the Louisiana Territory, the wonderful and romantic exploration of it by Lewis and Clark in 1804-5, the closing of the Indian Wars and the second war with England, and hard times in the East, caused that tremendous rush of population to the West, which resulted in the admission of so many new States prior to 1820, and opened anew the slavery question. Vermont, admitted in 1791, Kentucky 1792, Tennessee 1796, Ohio 1803, Louisiana 1812, Indiana 1816, Mississippi 1817, Illinois 1818, and Alabama 1819, had raised the number of States to twenty-two; eleven free and eleven slave; the early custom of admitting a free and slave State together having been strictly followed. The admission of these States effectively partitioned all of the territory east of the Mississippi between Freedom and Slavery, with the exception of the Michigan Territory (subsequently divided into Michigan and Wisconsin), and the new Territory of Florida, purchased from Spain in 1819. West of the Mississippi only one State had been admitted, and the rest of the land was known as the Missouri Territory. The tide of population passing down the Ohio, or through the States, had crossed the Mississippi into the Missouri country, and Missouri, in 1818, petitioned Congress for permission to form a Constitution and enter the Union. Nothing was said about slavery, but it was known that the great majority of the Missouri settlers were slave owners or sympathizers, as those who held anti-slavery opinions were content to remain in the States formed out of the Northwest Territory, and it was therefore certain that Missouri would be a slave State.

[Illustration: The Capitol, Washington, D. C.]

The Bill authorizing Missouri to act was taken up in the House on February 13, 1819, and immediately Mr. Tallmadge, of New York, moved that the further introduction of slavery in Missouri be prohibited, and that children born in the State after its admission should be free at the age of twenty-five years. Instantly and unexpectedly an exciting, violent debate took place between the North and South. Neither professed to understand the position of the other, but the North was more sincerely astonished, because for the first time she realized what the South had intended for many years, that slavery should be made a permanent institution in the original States, and that it should be forced into the Missouri Territory as a matter of political necessity; because the extension of slave area had by this time become absolutely necessary for the interests of the South.

It was a plain proposition that if the South lost control of the legislative reins at Washington, slavery would eventually be doomed by adverse legislation and by the admission of free States. At the time the Missouri question came up, the North, by reason of her larger population, controlled the House, but the Senate was controlled by the South. The censuses taken in 1800 and 1810 had shown that the North was increasing two to one in population over the South, and the coming census, it was feared, would show a much larger increase in favor of the North; in fact, when the census for 1820 was published the division of the population was as follows:

                                  Free
                     White. Negroes. Slaves.
  North ………. 5,030,371 99,281 19,108
  South ………. 2,831,560 134,223 1,519,017

With a great moral weakness to justify, the South now knew herself to be growing physically weaker, and her skillful leaders, always alert on every phase of slavery, saw quickly that the South must insist upon more slave territory, not only to maintain the equilibrium in the Senate, but to counteract the growing population in the North. Therefore the Missouri question was pressed with violence, threat and strategy. The South was determined that Missouri should come in as a slave State or the South would secede from the Union; the North not only argued that slavery was a great wrong, not to be encouraged by its extension, but was equally determined that the South should have no more political advantage because of her slaves. "This momentous question," wrote Jefferson, "like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror."

With the two Sections dead-locked, nothing could take place but the most acrimonious debates, accompanied by threats and defiances. The House adopted the Tallmadge Amendment, but it was rejected by the Senate. Neither branch would recede from its position, and amid scenes of the greatest excitement in Washington and throughout the country, the Fifteenth Congress adjourned.

The Sixteenth Congress met on December 6, 1819, and the Missouri question came up immediately. A compromise that the territory west of the Mississippi should be divided in the same manner as that east of the river was rejected by the North. Fortunately or unfortunately, there is some difficulty in deciding which, Maine applied at this time for admission, and the South in the Senate refused to admit Maine unless the North would admit Missouri, and out of the situation rose the Missouri Compromise. By a close majority the Senate joined Maine and Missouri in the same Bill, and then Senator Jesse B. Thomas, of Illinois, moved that, excepting Missouri, slavery should forever be prohibited in all the Louisiana Territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, this being the southern boundary of Missouri. The Bill was taken to the House toward the end of January, 1820, but it refused to concur. The Senate stood fast, and after some further angry debate the House yielded early in March, 1820; Maine came into the Union, and Missouri was permitted to draft a Constitution, which, if acceptable, would admit her to statehood.

But the difficulty was not over, for when Missouri presented her Constitution it was found to contain a provision that the Legislature should pass a law preventing free negroes from settling in the State. The North violently opposed this provision and refused to admit Missouri, and the situation was even more serious than when the original subject was considered. The intense excitement spread from Washington throughout the country, and many felt that the Union would be dissolved. The debate continued until the middle of February, 1821, without solution, and Congress was to adjourn early in March. Maine had already been admitted, and her representatives were in Congress. The South felt that she had been betrayed. Finally a second compromise on the Missouri question was reached, through the efforts of Henry Clay, and Missouri was admitted upon condition that no law should ever be passed by her to enforce the objectionable provision in her Constitution.

While it was true that the North received in area decidedly the best of the bargain, the Missouri Compromise was a distinct victory and gain for the South, because she obtained a present, tangible and important advantage in the admission of a slave State and the establishment of slavery in the heart of the Louisiana Territory. The North obtained nothing but a hazy, speculative advantage, and as the subsequent history of this Compromise proved, the South intended to keep it only as long as it served her interests.

On the subject of the sacredness of the various Compromises on slavery, it is interesting to note that a strong attempt was made to set aside the Ordinance of 1787. After Ohio had been admitted the rest of the Northwest Territory was organized under the name of the Indiana Territory, and as many of the settlers were slavery sympathizers, they very early (1802), under the lead of William Henry Harrison, asked Congress to at least temporarily suspend the operation of the Ordinance of 1787. This was refused, but Governor Harrison and a large number of the settlers persisted until 1807 in their efforts; fortunately Congress took no action, and in 1816 Indiana came in as a free State. There was a struggle to make Illinois a slave State, by amending her Constitution, which continued until 1824.

The Compromise of 1820 practically settled the slavery question for twenty-five years, for the question only came up in a serious form when new territory was acquired and the manner of its division arose. No more States were admitted until 1836, when Arkansas became a State, to be balanced by the admission of Michigan in 1837. From 1820 to 1845 the main issues before the people were those relating to the Tariff, Re-chartering the Bank of the United States, and Internal improvements.