at some time must be shattered that caused him to renew agitation of the slavery question? Some said it was his indiscreet and hasty ambition, others declared that his object "was to get the inside track in the South." Douglas never himself gave a satisfactory statement of the influences which moved him, but he did admit "that his party, in the election of Pierce, had consumed all its power, and therefore, without a deep-reaching agitation, it would have no more ammunition for its artillery." In preparing his bill, he consulted with no Southern men, at least not until he had shown it to some Western senators, although it has been said that Toombs and Stephens had much to do with bringing about his action.

It was natural that all sorts of speculation as to the source and meaning of the bill, charges of pollution and plots, should be advanced in the heat of a sentiment which rapidly inflamed throughout the North and expressed itself in the press of the Northern centres. One journal declared that the bill was a "proposition to turn the Missouri Compromise into a juggle and a cheat." On January 16th, Dixon, a Whig senator from Kentucky, gave notice of an amendment to the bill which would effectually repeal that part of the Missouri Compromise which restricted slavery in the Territory. Douglas personally remonstrated with Dixon, who replied that "he offered his amendment as a true friend of the compromise of 1850, for, in his view, unless the Missouri Compromise were expressly repealed, it would continue to operate in the Territory of Nebraska, and, while the bill of Douglas affirmed the principle of nonintervention, the amendment which he proposed was necessary to carry it legitimately into effect." On January 23d Douglas offered a substitute bill from his committee, providing for the establishment of two Territories, one to be called Nebraska and the other Kansas. By this, the KansasNebraska Bill, the provision of the Missouri Act, which gave a free status to territory north of the parallel thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, was pronounced void, and slavery

and freedom were given equal chance to secure the ascendency. The purpose of Douglas in proposing a division of the Nebraska Territory, as stated by himself, was to make one slave and one free State. Throughout the new Territories and the new States to be formed from them, the local dwellers should have the right through their representatives to decide. Cases involving title to slaves and personal freedom should be adjudicated by the local courts, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Fugitive Slave Law should be respected. Such was the new doctrine of non-intervention. This measure was acceptable to President Pierce, who is thought to have given to Douglas prior assurance of his support. Jefferson Davis, the secretary of war, was the president's go-between with the Territorial committee, but Marcy, secretary of state, was not in sympathy with the proposals of Douglas.

In the summer of 1853 a movement was begun in western Missouri which had as its purpose the making of Nebraska slave territory. In the western part of Missouri there were fifty thousand slaves and the interests of their owners dictated that the contiguous territory should be devoted to slavery. The Missouri border abounded in adventurous spirits who were ready for any bold enterprise. Senator Atchison was an avowed advocate of forcing slavery into Nebraska. Such were the influences at work to fortify Douglas in his action. Members upon the floor of the House did not hesitate openly to declare the purpose of the promoters of the Douglas bill to be to make Kansas a slave State.

On Tuesday, the 24th of January, the Washington Union had an editorial inspired by a conference between the president and Jefferson Davis with regard to the measure. This paper, which was the organ of the president, expressed the following sentiments: "We cannot but regard the policy of the administration as directly involved in the question. That policy looks to fidelity to the compromise of 1850 as

an essential requisite in Democratic orthodoxy. The proposition of Mr. Douglas is a practical execution of the principles of that compromise, and, therefore, cannot but be regarded by the administration as a test of Democratic orthodoxy. The union of the Democracy on this proposition will dissipate forever the charge of Free-soil sympathies so recklessly and pertinaciously urged against the administration by our Whig opponents; while it will take from disaffection in our ranks the last vestige of a pretext for its opposition." On this same day was published the Appeal of the Independent Democrats in Congress to the People of the United States. The paper was written by Samuel Chase, from a draft made by Giddings, with the aid of Sumner and Gerrit Smith, and bore the signatures of these men as well as those of Edward Wade and Alexander De Witt, representatives from Ohio and Massachusetts. All the signers were Free-soilers. It was marked by faithfulness to historical fact in its review of the questions involved in the issue of the pending bill and was forceful in its reasoning, although intemperately expressed. The appeal began with the declaration that the indorsement of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill would open to slavery the doors of all the unorganized territory of the Union. It then stated the history of the Missouri Compromise, and that compact was declared to have been universally recognized as inviolable American law. The proposition to abrogate it was characterized as "a bold scheme against American liberty worthy of an accomplished architect of ruin. Shall a plot against humanity and democracy so monstrous, and so dangerous to the interest of liberty throughout the world, be permitted to succeed? We appeal to the people. We warn you that the dearest interests of freedom and the Union are in imminent peril. . . . Let all protest, earnestly and emphatically, by correspondence, through the press, by memorials, by resolutions of public meetings and legislative bodies, and in whatever other mode may seem expedient, against this enormous crime." In a postscript

was added an appeal against the substitute bill of January 23d: "This amendment is a manifest falsification of the truth of history. . . . Not a man in Congress, or out of Congress, in 1850, pretended that the compromise measures would repeal the Missouri prohibition. Mr. Douglas himself never advanced such a pretence until this session. His own Nebraska Bill, of last session, rejected it. It is a sheer afterthought. To declare the prohibition inoperative may, indeed, have effect in law as a repeal, but it is a most discreditable way of reaching the object. Will the people permit their dearest interests to be thus made the mere hazards of a presidential game, and destroyed by false facts and false inferences?" This appeal was published broadcast throughout the free States and the journals of the North and stirred them to even more vigorous denunciations of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Criticising the bill and its author in unmeasured terms, they at the same time appealed to the friends of liberty not to permit an "infamous plot" to be consummated. Prophetic, indeed, were the words of the New York Evening Post on February 3, 1854, in which it declared that if the politicians at Washington doubted the trend of public opinion, they had but to put their ears to the ground to "hear the roar of the tide coming in."

On the 30th of January, Douglas spoke in favor of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The orator was indignant, and it was immediately evident that his disaffection was caused by the Appeal of the Independent Democrats and the thunders of protest it had awakened. He had, he declared, deferring to Chase and Sumner, postponed the consideration of the bill for six days, and now it was evident that these men had asked the time in order that their Appeal might be framed and sent out in the meanwhile. He declared that the address grossly misrepresented the bill, and proceeded to make a plea in favor of his bill. That speech was in substance as follows: That, when New Mexico and California were acquired, logical adherence to the Missouri Compromise

demanded the extension of the line to the ocean at that time. He affirmed that in 1848, upon his motion, the Senate had adopted such a provision, but a coalition of Northern members with Free-soil proclivities had defeated it. He pointed out that this refusal to extend the Missouri Compromise line had given rise to a furious slavery agitation, which had culminated in the adoption of the Compromise of 1850. He declared that, by the series of acts embraced in that measure, the principle was established of "Congressional non-intervention as to slavery in the Territories; that the people of the Territories were to be allowed to do as they please upon the subject of slavery, subject only to the provisions of the Constitution." He further declared that, notwithstanding the fact that the Territorial bills embraced in the Compromise of 1850 covered only the Territories specified, they nevertheless abrogated the Missouri Compromise line in all territory not covered by those bills. Said he: "We all know that the object of the compromise measures of 1850 was to establish certain great principles, which would avoid the slavery agitation in all time to come. Was it our object simply to provide for a temporary evil? Was it our object just to heal over an old sore and leave it to break out again? Was it our object to adopt a mere miserable expedient to apply to that Territory, and that alone, and leave ourselves entirely at sea, without compass, when new territory was acquired or new Territorial organizations were to be made? Was that the object for which the eminent and venerable senator from Kentucky (Clay) came here and sacrificed even his last energies upon` the altar of his country? Was that the object for which Webster, Clay, and Cass, and all the patriots of that day, struggled so long and so strenuously? Was it merely the application of a temporary expedient in agreeing to stand by past and dead legislation that the Baltimore platform pledged us to sustain the Compromise of 1850? Was it the understanding of the Whig party when they adopted the compromise measures of 1850 as an article of political faith, that