should be undertaken by the government under proper restrictions, and had suggested amendments to the Constitution to give Congress the power. Many believed that the power to make internal improvements was implied in the Constitution; others, that the whole matter rested with the states, and that the national government had nothing to do with it; they also disapproved on principle the giving to Congress increased power. The subject of slavery began now to force itself before men's minds in a way that demanded attention. With the questions of the tariff, "internal improvements," and slavery before the country, it is clear that the "era of good feeling" was rapidly coming to an end, and that these questions would be sufficient to divide the Democratic-Republican party. A leader for a new party had already appeared in Henry Clay of Kentucky.

203. Erie Canal. (1817-1825.) (1817-1825.)- Meanwhile some of the states had gone on building roads and constructing canals independently of the national government. The most important of these works was the Erie Canal in the state of New York. The construction of this great work is mainly due to the indomitable perseverance of DeWitt Clinton. Begun on the 4th of July, 1817, "Clinton's Ditch," as it was called in derision by the opponents of the measure, was finished in 1825. Joining the waters of Lake Erie with those of the Hudson River, and extending over three hundred and sixty miles through the very heart of the state, this canal became the means of carrying a vast amount of merchandise to and from the sea. It stimulated in a wonderful manner the growth of the whole state through which it passed, and enabled the city of New York to leave Philadelphia, heretofore the largest city in the Union, far behind in commercial prosperity and in population.

204. Missouri, Slave or Free? (1818-1820.)-In 1819 the number of states in the Union was twenty-two. All the states added so far to the original thirteen had been formed out of territory within the original limits as fixed by the treaty with Great Britain, except the state of Louisiana, admitted in 1812. Of the thirteen, seven were free and six were slave states, but by the admission of the nine new states the number of slave and free states had become equal, thus giving each section of the country an equal voice in the Senate. In the House of Representatives, on the other hand, the representation from the free states was larger, owing to the much more rapid growth in population.1 Heretofore the Ohio River had been the dividing line between freedom and slavery; all new states admitted north of it were free, and all south of it were slave states. Late in 1818 the legislature of the territory of Missouri applied to Congress to be admitted into the Union. At once the question was forced upon the country to decide whether the vast domain lying west of the Mississippi should be slave or free. The latter would mean the overthrow of the slaveholders' influence in Congress; the former, the continuance and increase of slavery. Louisiana had been admitted as a slave state; it was south of the Ohio, and slavery was an established institution when the Louisiana Purchase was made. But the northern part of the proposed state was on a line with Indiana and Ohio, while the southern boundary, 36° 30', was almost exactly that of Kentucky and Virginia. Geographically, therefore, the territory was debatable ground. A bitter controversy was imminent, and Jefferson, now in retirement, wrote, "From the battle of Bunker Hill to the treaty of Paris, we never had so ominous a question."

1 See tables, Appendices v.-viii. (Admission of the States, and Population of the Sections, 1790–1890).

MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

189

205. Missouri Compromise. (1818-1820.) - The South held that Congress had no right to interfere with slavery, as it was a question which concerned the individual states, and should be left to each to determine for itself. The North held that Congress had full power over territories, and could prescribe conditions requisite for the admission of new states which should be binding. The South recognizing that the loss of the equality of representation in the Senate meant loss of political supremacy, and probably a fatal blow to the extension, if not the existence, of slavery, resisted the admission of Missouri as a free state with stubborn tenacity. The abstract character of slavery itself entered also into the discussion, intensifying the feelings of the combatants.

The struggle raged for about two years, until 1820, when Jesse B. Thomas of Illinois introduced a bill into Congress proposing that Missouri should be admitted as a slave state, but that slavery should be forever prohibited in the territory of the United States lying north of the 36° 30' north latitude. Mainly through the efforts of Henry Clay of Kentucky, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, this bill passed Congress and became a law. Such is the famous Missouri Compromise Bill, which for the first time fixed by law the division of the country into a free North and a slaveholding South. Almost simultaneously the South permitted the admission of Maine into the Union as a free state, having refused to admit it until the Missouri question was settled.

206. Monroe re-elected. (1820.) Notwithstanding the bitter controversy just described, no candidates were nominated for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency, there being no opposition to the re-election of Monroe and Tompkins. Monroe received the vote of all the Presidential electors except that of one in New Hampshire, who gave his vote for John

Quincy Adams, on the ground, it is said, that no one but Washington should receive a unanimous vote. For VicePresident, Daniel D. Tompkins was elected.

The suc

207. Spanish-American Republics. (1810-1822.) cess of the United States and its wonderful growth had not been unobserved by the other colonies in America, both north and south; and from 1810 the Spanish colonies one after another began to rebel, and then to throw off the yoke of the mother country. As early as 1816 Henry Clay had "put the question whether the United States would not have openly to take part with the patriots of South America"; in 1818 he had urged the recognition of the Spanish-American republics, and in 1822 arrangements were made for opening diplomatic relations with "independent nations on the American continent." It was evident that Spain was unable to reduce her refractory colonies to obedience, but there were indications that some of the European powers were inclined to give her assistance. After the final overthrow of Napoleon, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and afterwards England and France, had formed themselves into what they called the Holy Alliance." Nominally for the purpose of "preserving peace, justice, and religion in the name of the gospel," its real design was to prevent the recurrence of anything like a revolution, and to put down anything like the appearance of rebellion. Thus a rising in Naples was put down by Austrian forces, and an attempt at a liberal government in Spain itself was crushed by France in 1823.1

66

208. Monroe Doctrine. (1823.) · It was now said that this Holy Alliance was about to aid Spain to recover her colonies, and that France was about to set up a kingdom in the new world. In a message to Congress in 1823 the President

1 England disavowed these acts committed in Italy and Spain.

NEW NATIONAL ISSUES.

191

announced, (1) That the United States would remain neutral as regarded political affairs in Europe, but that any attempt by European governments to extend their system to any part of North or South America, or to oppress or control independent American states, would be regarded as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States." (2) "That the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers." These statements are known as the "Monroe Doctrine." Little of this "Doctrine" was new; for Washington, Jefferson, and others had already stated the principles laid down in the first part. The authorship of the second part is attributed to John Quincy Adams. England, for reasons of her own, opposed the plan to reduce Spanish colonies to obedience, but she did not relish the second part of Monroe's statement, for it affected her claims on the west coast of America.

209. New National Issues. (1824.) - Monroe was the last of the Revolutionary statesmen, and before the close of his second term a new generation of men had come to the front, before whom new questions of public policy presented them-* selves, and new dangers rose up to be avoided. In the Congress to which was addressed the message containing the "Monroe Doctrine" two subjects, already referred to, began to be national issues: (1) Internal improvements at the national expense; and (2) a tariff for protection. Upon these two lines the old Democratic-Republican party divided. A bill creating a distinctively protective tariff was passed by a small majority. This is known as the tariff of 1824. A bill providing for surveys looking to a national system of canals was also passed.