Chap. I. as lay to the north of the parallel of 36° 30′ north latitude-in other words, above a prolongation of the line which divides Virginia and Kentucky from South Carolina and Tennessee, excluding, however, the new State of Missouri itself, which lies altogether north of the line and indeed extends nearly to the latitude of New York. But the annexation of Texas, and the acquisition, by the Oregon Treaty with Great Britain and by conquest and purchase from Mexico, of the whole region west of the Rocky Mountains, caused the struggle to be again and again renewed; and the adoption, in 1850, of Mr. Clay's suggestion that the settlers in New Mexico and Utah should be permitted to choose for themselves between the admission and the prohibition of slavery, coupled, as it was, with the enactment of a very stringent Fugitive Slave Law, shook, if it did not displace, the precarious fabric of the Missouri Compromise. That arrangement was completely overthrown in 1854, when a part of the district which it embraced came before Congress for organization into two new Territories. The Compromise, after an obstinate struggle, was formally declared inoperative and void, the prohibition was cancelled, and the same option which Clay's Act had given to New Mexico and Utah was extended to Kansas and Nebraska. In this long warfare the final advantage rested with the South. If a line be drawn from Delaware Bay to the Ohio, and along the course of that river to its confluence with the Mississippi, ascending the Mississippi and Missouri as far as the northernmost limit of Iowa, thence carried to the crest of the Rocky Mountains, and beyond them to the boundary of California, we shall see that the whole dominion of the Republic south of that line was either occupied by Slave States or by express declaration thrown open to slavery should the inhabitants think fit. Indeed, the decision in the Dred Scott case had virtually rivetted the institution on all the Territories of the Union so long as they should remain in the condition of Territories. Yet the apparent magnitude of these successive conquests far exceeded their real value. Throughout the vast tracts of land which had been the chief subjects of dispute, there was but little on which slave-labour could be profitably employed; and though, in the neighbourhood of the planting States, negroes might be bred for sale, this had its geographical limits, which were soon reached. In West Virginia and those counties of Kentucky which border on the Ohio, slaves were few. Kansas, after a desperate internal struggle, finally organized herself as a free-labour State; and the adoption of Clay's Compromise in respect of New Mexico was advocated by Mr. Webster on the express ground that the character of the country, composed of high barren mountains and deep valleys with some narrow strips of river land rendered cultivable only by irrigation, made it impossible that slavery should ever flourish there. In fact, although the Legislature of New Mexico passed in 1859 very stringent laws for the protection of slave property, there were at the date of the Census of 1860 no slaves within that Territory. In Utah there were 29, in Nebraska 15, in Kansas 2, in Nevada, Washington, Colorado, and Dakota none.1 It was clear also that, whilst these victories, such as they were, promised little in the way of 1 "Mr. Seward made another speech in the Senate on the 2nd instant. He expressed perfect confidence that the Union would be preserved (he would not admit that it was already impaired and required to be restored), and he pointed out with considerable effect the unpractical character of the question which is nominally at all events the cause of the dispute. This question is that of the territories' of the United States. What, Mr. Seward asked, is the extent of the territories which remain after the admission of California, of Oregon, of Kansas? 1,063.307 square miles, an area twenty-four times that of the State of New York, the largest of the old and fully developed States. How many slaves are there in it? How many have been brought into it during the twelve years in which it has been not only relinquished to slavery, but in which the Supreme Court and the Legislature and the Administration have Chap. I. Chap. I. profit, not much more was to be expected from them in the way of political power. Wherever slavery proved unprofitable, the interests and influence of the white population must in the long run add their weight to the other scale. To retard this process might be possible, but not to arrest or reverse it. Outnumbered decisively and irrevocably in the House of Representatives, which is elected on the basis of population, the South struggled to keep its hold on the Senate, which is elected by States. The admission of Free and Slave States to the Union went on for a considerable time nearly at an even pace, and it was this which gave such extraordinary keenness to the contest for Missouri, Kansas, and the Valley of the Platte. But the endeavour to cut new Slave States out of countries in which slavery could not strike root was destined to fail; the balance, long preserved, was at length destroyed, and the future offered no prospect of its restoration.1 Meanwhile the struggle itself, its many vicissitudes, the heat and pertinacity with which it was carried on, the violences of speech and action by which it was occasionally sullied even within the walls of Congress, were gradually dividing the nation into hostile camps and embittering maintained, protected, defended, and guaranteed slavery there? Twentyfour African slaves-one slave for every 24,000 square miles."-Lord Lyons to Lord John Russell, 4th February, 1861. "It is true," says Mr. Pollard, speaking of the interest which the South had in passing the Act which cancelled the Missouri Compromise, "it is true that her Representatives in Congress were well aware that under the operation of the new Act their constituents could expect to obtain but little, if any, new accessions of Slave territory; while the North would necessarily, from the force of circumstances, secure a number of new States in the North-West, then the present direction of our new settlements. But, viewed as an act of proscription against her, the Missouri Compromise was justly offensive to the South, and its abrogation in this respect strongly recommended itself to her support.' Pollard's Southern History of the War, Richmond, 1862 (reprinted at New York, 1863), p. 20. 1 The progressive increase in the representation of the Free States in the feelings of each towards the other. The battle fought Chap. I. NUMBER of Representatives in Congress assigned to each of the FREE STATES. STATES. With Date of Admission into 1790. 1800. 1810. 1820. 1830. 1840. 1850. Chap. I. fixed its empire within the United States, was working steadily to extend that empire, and aimed at nothing less than to stamp on the Republic for ever the character of a great Slave Power. Attention was directed to its economical results; its influence on the growth of wealth and population began to be rudely canvassed, and its value as an instrument of production was exposed to searching inquiry. The abolitionist agitation, which had not before been formidable, gained strength, and a great party arose, which, not unanimous on all other points, acknowledged as its common principle the duty of resisting, at all costs, the further extension of slavery. "The United States," Mr. Seward declared, in 1858, "must and will, sooner or later, become or later, become entirely a (Note continued from page 21.) SLAVE STATES. STATES. With Date of Admission into 1790. 1800. 1810. 1820. 1830. 1840. 1850. 22 21 15 13 12 10 10 1792. 1819. 11. Alabama 1821. 12. Missouri 1836. 13. Arkansas 1845. 14. Florida. 15. Texas. |