Texas. Down to this time when the slavery agitation had become quite serious, the balance in the Senate was kept unbroken. When the proposition for the annexation of Texas came up the Senate contained fifty-two Senators, twenty-six from each section. The Missouri Compromise had guaranteed all the remaining portion of the territory except Florida to the tier of free States. By the census of 1830 the twelve free States had a population of 7,000,000, which gave them twentyfour senators and one hundred and five members of the House of Representatives, which was increased by 1832 to 141 members. The twelve slave States had a population of 5,848,000, of which 2,153,000 were slaves. This gave them 24 senators and 82 members of the House, which number increased to 99 in 1832. In 1840 the population of the thirteen free States was 9,778,834, to 7,290,619 for the slave States, of which 2,486,300 were slaves. This disparity of population of the two sections in favor of the North gave the slave States no hope of controlling the national House of Representatives. The exhaustion of the territory from which States could be carved and admitted as slave States, with vast stretches lying north of the compromise line, insuring the admission of several free States, pointed to the time when the equilibrium in the Senate would be destroyed and both the House and the Senate lost to the South.

Calhoun's motive. This situation was the real controlling motive in the annexation of Texas and furnished most of the opposition to the measure from the North. When the measure was consummated, the expectation was to create four new States in addition to Texas, which would have given the slave States increased influence in the Senate. By the admission of Florida and Texas in 1845 the balance in the Senate was in favor of the South by a majority of four. But the rapid development of the free section promised soon to change the result. Iowa, when admitted, reduced the majority to two.

Mexican War and Wilmot Proviso. The precipitation of the war with Mexico was regarded by many as in the interest of the extension of slavery. To thwart such a result the Wilmot Proviso was introduced. It provided, "That as an express fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted." This measure passed the House but failed to become a law. It keenly offended the South which looked upon it as an attempt to exclude the people of the Southern States from territory purchased by the valor and treasure of the whole country. This feeling was augmented by the wide and enthusiastic support the measure received throughout the entire North.

Discovery of gold in California. The discovery of gold in the newly acquired territory was occasion for a flocd of emigration to that section. California was admitted as a free State by the Compromise of 1850, the measure that sought to adjust the dispute that had become acute. While the North held that the South had gained by it, the fact proves that the equilibrium in the Senate was destroyed in favor of the North, an advantage never again lost.

Kansas-Nebraska bill. In four years Senator Douglas succeeded in enacting into law his scheme of "popular sovereignty," a measure repealing the Compromise of 1820, and opening the vast territory north of the Compromise line to the introduction of slavery. The fugitive slave feature in the Compromise of 1850 and the reopening of the free territory by the Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1854 did more to arouse antislavery sentiment than all the efforts of all the Abolitionists. in all the preceding years. They gave an opportunity for concentrating opposition to slavery.

Effect of the election of Lincoln. Upon the election of Lincoln the South feared that the last hope for their peculiar institution was gone. Both branches of the national legislature were hopelessly lost. The return of the escaping fugitive was openly and secretly obstructed in many quarters. The protection of the slave-holder in his property in the Territories was not respected. The statesman who denied the right of the Supreme Court to dictate his political theory had been endorsed by his election to the presidency. These considerations induced South Carolina to take the fatal step of Secession,

CHAPTER XIV

STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, THE ADVOCATE OF "POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY"

Popular sovereignty. "Popular sovereignty," as a theory of government, should not be confused with constitutional supremacy on the one hand, nor State Sovereignty on the other. Constitutional supremacy, as a theory, derives its force from the sovereign sanction of the people through the Constitution. State Sovereignty, as a theory, derives its force from the reserved rights not granted away. While popular sovereignty claims its force from the inherent and inalienable right to govern one's self so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. When applied to the Territories popular sovereignty meant that the question whether slavery was to be tolerated there or not, was a question for the people of the Territory and them only to determine that Congress had no authority in the matter. All and any legislation upon that point by Congress was unwarranted, because it ignored the fundamental principle of local self-government.

Stephen A. Douglas. The greatest exponent of this theory was Stephen A. Douglas. A native of Vermont, he became a citizen of Illinois and in 1834, when twenty-one years old, was admitted to the Bar. Nine years later he entered Congress as a member of the House of Representatives. He continued in this capacity until 1847 when he was elected to the Senate, which position he held up to his death in 1861. Prior to his entering Congress he had held the position of attorney-general,