thereafter. When hinted at in the Virginia Legislature, it was, as we have seen, instantly repelled.

In the Virginia resolutions the language appears sufficiently distinct and clear in its meaning. In those of Kentucky, as we have already said, there is some ambiguity in "their obvious meaning and import"-but the idea of the right of a State to disregard its constitutional obligations is not inculcated in either.

The Hartford Convention of 1814, in its address, used nearly precisely the identical language of the Virginia resolutions, to wit:

"But in cases of deliberate, dangerous and palpable violations of the Constitution affecting the sovereignty of a State, and the liberties of the people, it is not only the right, but the duty of such a State to interpose its authority for their protection. States which have no common umpire must be their own judges and execute their own decisions."

The right of a State to interpose is here claimed. Yet as there is no evidence included that the interference was to be exercised in an illegal manner, the assertion cannot be considered as treasonable. The same remark applies equally to the latter clause. If the interposition were to consist in an attempt to repeal obnoxious laws, it was not only unobjectionable, but proper and right. There are several reasons why this construction ought to be given to to this

language. The delegates from Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut were instructed to devise means of security and defence not repugnant to their obligations as members of the Union. And the Federal party vehemently denied afterwards any design to disturb the Union.

CHAPTER XI.

THE MISSOURI CONTROVERSY.

Popular Errors on the Subject of the So-called Missouri Compromise— The Slave Line of 36° 30′ not the Real Compromise-Admission of the State into the Union-Mr. Clay's Part Therein,

WE should be derelict in

our duty to the truth of history were we to neglect to notice in this work the singularly anomalous course which the public mind has taken with regard to the real facts connected with the admission of the State of Missouri into the Union in 1820-21, and the formidable agitation of that period. The great masses of our people for more than a generation have been educated into the belief of two egregious errors on this subject. The first of these is, the notion that the establishment of the line, restricting the extension of slavery to the South of 36° 30′ north latitude, and abolishing it in all the remainder of the territories north and west of the State of Missouri, was the real Missouri Compromise" by which that State was enabled to enter the Union; and the second is, that this measure was the work of Henry Clay.

It is perhaps needless to tell the attentive student of our political history that neither of these propositions is true; but it is certainly high time that the mistakes of the popular mind

these important questions should be corrected and put to rest.

It is for the purpose of contributing our humble share towards this desired result that we introduce the facts stated in this chapter. We need scarcely add that we shall draw liberally upon Mr. Benton's Thirty Years in the Senate for the authority of our statements, than which, it must be acknowledged, there can be none better or more reliable. Of the exciting circumstances attending the admission of his State, Mr. Benton could truly say with the poet, "all of which I saw, and part of which I was, for after taking an active part in the formation of the State Constitution, he visited Washington, with his senatorial credentials in hand, to enter the United States Senate, on her admission as a member of the Union. If all the writers of our political history and the biographies of eminent public men had been as full and explicit on this subject as Mr. Benton, the prevalent mistakes of popular opinion would have long since disappeared. Mr. Colton, for instance, in his life of Mr. Clay, slurs over this matter in a careless and invidious manner, evidently afraid to mention the facts which he must have known. He states the fact that Mr. Clay had resigned his position as Speaker of the House and had gone home, where he was detained attending to his private affairs, and did not again come to Washington until January

16, 1821. He then proceeds to state that on February 2d following, he offered the motion for the appointment of his celebrated joint committee of thirteen-the number of the original States-to consider the admission of Missouri. We shall see that this committee effected the real Missouri Compromise in the final work of admitting the State-the line of 36° 30′ having been adopted at the previous session of Congress, Mr. Clay taking no part in it whatever. This measure had its origin in the Senate, having been proposed by a Senator from New York. It was passed with very little popular excitement; sustained by nearly the united voices of the Southern Senators and Representatives, and unanimously approved by Mr. Monroe's Cabinet.

The unanimity of the slave-holding States in the Senate in favor of the Restriction," will be seen by the vote as it appears upon the journal of that body, on the motion to strike out the clause constituting the so-called "compromise." It stood thirty votes for the "restriction," to fifteen votes against it, every one of the latter from non-slave holding States, the former comprehending every slave State then present and a few from the North.

In the House there was some discussion among the Southern members, but the whole vote in favor of it was 134 to 42 in the negative, the latter comprising some of the Northern members as the former did a majority of the Southern.