I.

ACTS OF PRO-SLAVERY AGGRESSION.

Adoption of the Missouri Compromise-Purpose of the Mexican War-Acquisition of Slave Territory-The Wilmot Proviso-Its Defeat and the Confidence of the South-The Campaign of 1848— Non-Committal Policy of the Whigs-President Taylor and the Admission of California-The Fugitive Slave Law and Other Compromise Measures-Intense Feeling at the North-The Campaign of 1852-Renewal of the Agitation and Repeal of The Missouri Compromise-The Day of Compromises at an End.

Although the consolidation of a large majority of the Anti-Slavery voters of the North into the Republican party was finally a matter of a few months, yet the events that led to it covered a period of fully three decades. It was only after long discussion and strong opposition that Missouri was admitted to the Union as a slave state in 1820. To quiet this opposition those who favored admission finally proposed a section in the bill, enacting, "That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 degrees and 30 minutes of north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than as the punishment of crimes, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited."

Even with this pledge for the future the admission of Missouri as a slave state was reluctantly consented to. The pledge was finally accepted as a settlement of all controversy in respect to slavery in the territories. But the differences of opinion on the subject of slavery itself were so irreconcilable that they could not fail to be a constant source of irritation. Petitions even, from the North, in favor of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, and for other legislation, were resented by the Southerners, and led to the controversies over the right of petition, which lasted through three or four Congresses, and in which John Quincy Adams took a prominent part.

This, and the growing feeling against slavery in the North, and even in some of the border states, intensified the purpose of the most zealous supporters of that institution, not only to guard it against all assaults, but to extend it into new territory if possible.

It was thought, when the Missouri Compromise line was ac cepted, that states south of that line would be ready for admission as soon as those north of it. But migration was so much more rapid to the territory west of New England and New York, than it was further south as to upset these calculations. Michigan was ready for statehood and applied for admission in 1835, but was kept out for two years, lest two more Northern men should take seats in the Senate, without any new Southern men to offset them. The State was not finally admitted until Arkansas could be brought in at the same time. Iowa and Florida were admitted, under similar conditions, the former which represented free territory, being kept back until the latter could come in as a slave-holding State, just as in 1820 Maine had been kept out until Missouri could come in as a companion State.

But it was seen that this equality in the Senate could not long be maintained. Part of Wisconsin was filling up rapidly, and there was every prospect that emigration would soon spread over the region west of that territory, as well as that west of the states of Iowa and Missouri. There was no slave territory to counterbalance this, and the war with Mexico was, in its main purpose, a war brought on by the South for the acquisition of such territory. It was in connection with this war that the first of a long series of memorable contests arose in Congress.

The declaration of war was made in May, 1846, and on the 5th of August, of the same year, President Polk, in a special message to Congress, said that the chief obstacle to securing peace was the adjustment of a boundary line that would prove satisfactory and convenient to both Republics, and he asked that a sum of money might be placed at his disposal, to be used, in his discretion, in the adjustment of the terms of peace. This was in line with the precedent of 1803, when President Jefferson was voted a special appropriation for the acquisition of Louisiana. After the message was read Mr. McKay, of North Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, introduced a bill, that two millions of dollars be appropriated, to be "applied, under direction of the President, to any extraordinary expenses which may be incurred in our foreign

intercourse.” This followed the language of the act making an appropriation in Mr. Jefferson's time. But the conditions were very different. There was strong opposition to the Mexican war, while there had not been great opposition to the Louisiana purchase. There were grave apprehensions of some ulterior and unpatriotic designs. now. There were none then. Congress had the utmost confidence Many of its members had no confidence at

in President Jefferson.

all in President Polk.

In the debate which followed the introduction of the bill, Robert C. Winthrop, Whig, of Massachusetts, said he could not vote for it as it stood. It was a vote of unlimited confidence in an administration in which, he was sorry to say, very little confidence was to be placed. Mr. Winthrop had voted for the act under which war was declared against Mexico, while Mr. Adams, of the same State, had voted against it. The latter now said that he differed from his colleague with a regret, equal to that with which he had differed from him on the former measure. He should vote for Mr. McKay's bill in any form, but thought it should expressly require that the money should be used only for the purpose of negotiating peace with Mexico. The bill was amended in this manner, and seemed likely to pass without much further debate, and with comparatively little opposition.

Mexico had.

But some of the Northern members saw, in this apparently innocent proposition, possibilities of great mischief. There was comparatively little doubt that the money would be used for the acquisition of territory from Mexico outside of the State of Texas, which had been acquired as a result of the war, and that it was designed that such territory should be open to slavery. It has been held by some that this apprehension was groundless. twenty years before this, abolished slavery, and the assumption had been made that any territory acquired from that country would necessarily retain its free status. But to meet this, the doctrine had already been promulgated by Mr. Calhoun, that the Federal Constitution carried slavery into all territory from which it was not expressly excluded. This interpretation of that instrument would have carried that condition into any territory acquired from Mexico, and that such an interpretation of the Constitution would be attempted in actual practice subsequent events fully showed.

It was under this apprehension that a number of Northern Democrats met for consultation. Among them were Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine; George Rathbun, Martin Grover and Preston King, of New