claim admission into the Union? and, further, supposing Congress to refuse its consent, what is the political status of the Territory in question?

At the time when the Union was formed out of the thirteen original States, Massachusetts was the only one in which slavery did not exist, though in New Hampshire and Rhode Island the number of slaves was so small as to be of little account. At that time, therefore, the slave-owning interest was the predominant one in Congress. Slavery, however, was a decaying institution in the Northern and Eastern states; and, though abolition was an idea hardly broached at that period, there was great jealousy between the Southern and Northern States, on the subject of taxation. The Constitution, in its nature of a compromise, shirked every dangerous question that could be avoided, and nowhere defined what were the political relations of a slave to the State. Representation and taxation were to be proportioned to population, and so at once the dilemma arose, whether slaves were to be regarded as population or not. At last a compromise was come to the most illogical of any recorded in political history-by which a slave was to be counted for purposes of taxation and representation as three-fifths of a white citizen. The compromise, like most compromises, satisfied neither party. The North justly considered that the South was undertaxed; the South, not without reason, considered the

North had more than its due share of representatives. This grievance was not long in coming to a practical issue on the territorial question.

By 1820, the whole relations of the Slave and Free States had entirely changed. Of the old States, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania had altogether abolished slavery; while, in New York and New Jersey, slavery was abolished prospectively. Of the new States admitted to the Union, Vermont, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Maine were free; and Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama were slave-holding. By this year, too, the growth in population of the Free States had completely outstripped that of the Slave States. The population of the Free States was 5,143,476 to 4,371,921 in the Slave. Thus, the Free States had already a decided majority in the House of Representatives, with the certainty that this majority would increase year by year. In the Senate there were twelve Free States to eleven Slave; and, therefore, it became of immense political importance to the South to counteract the inevitable predominance of the North in Congress, by increasing the number of Slave States.

The "irrepressible conflict" between Slavery and Freedom came for the first time to an open issue in this year of 1820, when the Territory of Missouri claimed admission as a State. The House of Representatives passed a bill introduced for the purpose, coupled with

an amendment, that Missouri should be a Free State, but the Senate rejected the bill on account of the amendment. The difficulty as usual was got over by a compromise, which established no principle. Missouri was admitted, with permission to adopt slavery or not, as she chose. And, in order to reconcile the Free State party to this concession, slavery was declared illegal in all Territories of the United States north of latitude 36° 30′. If slavery was morally wrong, it was as much wrong in latitude 37° as in latitude 35°. If it was politically objectionable in northern latitudes, the degree of latitude was strangely chosen, as Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, lay entirely north of the forbidden line. In fact, the Missouri compromise always reminded me of the story of the drunkard who promised to take the pledge on condition that the abstinence society would supply him brandy for a week's debauch. Still, for a few years, the compromise staved off the dissension. It was not till 1849 that the old quarrel burst forth again, on the proposed admission of California.

In spite of every effort of the South, its relative inferiority in population had still further increased during these thirty years. Of the new States admitted since the Missouri compromise, and in accordance with its provisions, Arkansas, Florida, and Texas, were slaveholding; but Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa, were free. The number of the Slave and Free States was

still exactly equal; and as the South was always more politically united than the North, its influence in the Senate was still the predominating one. But the populations of the Free and the Slave States were now respectively 13,342,327 and 9,612,969; so that, in the House of Representatives, the South was in a decreasing minority. Minnesota and Oregon had both been admitted, as Territories; and as they both lay north of the Missouri line, they were certain to claim admission very shortly as Free States. The supremacy of the South was threatened in the Senate, and it was at this moment that California demanded admission under a free constitution. There can be little question that, according to the spirit of the Missouri compromise, California could only be admitted as a Free State, for but a very small portion of her territory, and that almost uninhabited, lay south of latitude 36° 30′. On the other hand, the South felt that the compromise had not fulfilled her expectations; that, in fact, it was a losing bargain. The truth is, the South has never been able or willing to admit the fact that the reason of her want of prosperity, as compared with the North, is due solely to those natural causes which make free labour more productive than slave; and has, in consequence, constantly endeavoured to rectify the laws of nature by artificial legislation. In 1820, it was believed that the Missouri compromise would restore the balance of power, and make the Slave States

as influential in the Union, as they had been in 1790. By 1849 the error of this calculation had been discovered; and the South now believed that it was the existence of the Missouri compromise which marred the development of her prosperity. The Southern members, therefore, opposed the admission of California as a Free State, and threatened secession in case of her admission, probably with more sincerity than was then imagined. At any rate, the North was alarmed, and a new compromise was come to, after months of angry dispute, even more illogical than the Missouri one. By this, the Clay compromise, California was admitted as a Free State; but Utah and New Mexico, both north of latitude 36° 30', were admitted as Territories without any inhibition of slavery; while, in the same spirit of giving with one hand and taking with the other, the slave trade was abolished in the district of Columbia, and the fugitive slave laws were enacted.

This further concession to the South only patched up a peace for four years. In 1854, the KansasNebraska bill roused the old feud. The South insisted that, in violation of the Missouri compromise, Kansas should be a Slave State, and only gave way when Douglas proposed a third and final compromise, that Congress should relinquish any power of determining the conditions on which a new Territory should be admitted into the Union, but should leave it to the