braska when Mr. Greeley's political sympathizers made a State of it.

But Mr. Greeley wished to belabor the South, and he was not scrupulous in selecting weapons.

5. The "slave power" annexed Texas for the purpose of strengthening itself.

There may be some truth in this charge; but possibly there were good and sufficient reasons for the annexation, aside from any party or sectional advantage. The population of Texas was composed almost entirely of emigrants from the States of the Union; they were anxious for some sort of an alliance with the United States as a shield against aggressions from Mexico; and the election of Mr. Polk on an annexation platform removes any suspicion of intrigue on the part of the "slave power." The platform declared for "the re-annexation of Texas at the earliest practicable period"; and Mr. Polk received the electoral votes of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan (Benton, 2, 625)-States which certainly were not favorable to an expansion of the "slave power.

But if we grant that the motive was solely what the traducers of the South insist it was, the necessity for self-defense against the "eating out" of their substance by the commercial and manufacturing classes in the Northeastern and Middle States and the squandering of the property belonging to all the States, was a sufficient justification.

6. The "slave power" trampled on a sacred compact which it had made with "freedom"-the so-called Missouri Compromise; or, in the words of Eli Thayer, "ventured foolishly to overthrow a time-honored compact and subject herself to a charge of bad faith."

1 Kansas Crusade, page 22.

It would be a long and tedious work to show by reviewing acts of Congress the utter groundlessness of this accusation; and the reader shall not be asked to do more than weigh the evidence presented by a few decisive facts.

a. The Constitution conferred on the Congress no power over slavery in any of the territory "belonging to the United States."

b. Article III of the treaty with France stipulated that "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the Federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and, in the meantime, they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.

91

c. African slavery existed in the Louisiana Territory— slaves were property-at the time of the treaty of cession. Hence, since treaties are declared to be a portion of the "supreme law of the land," any interference of the Congress with the institution of slavery in the said Territory, was a double violation of "law"; and was, ipso facto, null and void, or, as Brightley's Digest, Vol. I, p. 647, says in a footnote, was "null and void, ab incepto."

But if it had been a valid law, the charge of "bad faith" on the part of the South was without foundation, for the following reasons:

a. The Missouri Compromise was section 5 of the Act of March 6, 1820, the 1st section of which authorized the people to form a State Constitution; and declared that "the said State, when formed, shall be admitted

1 United States Statutes at Large, Volume VIII, page 202.

into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever."

b. The people, thereupon, proceeded to form a Constitution, organize a State government, and elect all necessary officials, including Presidential Electors.

c. But the restrictionists repudiated the "time-honored compact" at the next session of Congress; they refused to permit Missouri's electoral vote to be counted, or to accord to her any of the privileges of a member of the Union; and she was admitted into the Union August 21, 1821, by an act which was opposed almost unanimously by the restrictionists, the vote in the House of Representatives being 87 to 81.

There was, therefore, no compromise between the North and the South which any code of morals recognized among sane men would hold to be binding on the South. The restrictionists did not agree to permit Missouri to come into the Union as a Slave State on condition that the South would consent to recognize the parallel of 36 degrees and 30 minutes as the boundary between "slavery" and "freedom "in the territory west of the Mississippi.1

Many other accusations have been brought against the "slave power"; but they belong to that class of indictments which impose on the accused the necessity of proving a negative. Hence we may pass them by as not worthy of notice.

Such, dear reader, were the principal weapons in the armory of the South's traducers during all the ante-bellum days; and being regarded as the ravings of igno

The whole subject, with references to authorities, is fully presented in Stephens's Pictorial History of the United States; and the dates of the so-called Missouri Compromise, and of the act to admit Missouri into the Union can be found on page 647 of Brightley's Digest, Volume I.

rant fanatics, not deserving of respectful refutation, they passed into history. They stand as history to-day, supplemented by such choice selections as "traitor," "oligarchy," "chivalry," "conspiracy," "insurrection,' etc., etc., "rebel" being regarded as a mild term.

But among all the charges against the "slave power" the most ignorant and malignant of the enemies of the South never stultified themselves by including the charge that the South ever attempted to use the machinery of the Federal Government to enrich herself at the expense of the North! She never asked for the privilege of compelling the North to pay from 20 to 200 per cent for the products of her fields and forests more than the price of similar products of foreign countries; she never asked for bounties to any class of her laborers; she never asked for any undue participation in the distribution of the public lands or the proceeds of their sales; she never asked for any monopolistic privileges; and she never asked for any unfair advantages to her soldiers in the distribution of pensions. Her hands are clean-admitted to be so by the silence of her enemies, even if the evidence furnished by public records were destroyed.

NOTE W.

The first movement ever made toward a disruption of the Union was made by Massachusetts.

The plan of changing the basis of the contributions of the States from land to population being in contemplation in the early months of 1783, it was the desire of the Northeastern Members to include all or nearly all of the slaves, while the Southern Members urged that not even half of them should be included. The committee appointed to report a plan advised that "two blacks be rated as one freeman." But "for the sake of the object" the South yielded to the rate of three-fifths, the first vote on this rate being as follows: New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, aye.

The next vote was on a motion of Bland, of Virginia, to strike out the clause as amended, and the States voted as follows:

New Hampshire, aye; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; Delaware, no; South Carolina, no.

"On April 1 Mr. Gorham (Massachusetts) called for the order of the day, to wit: the report on revenue, etc., and observed, as a cogent reason for hastening that business, that the Eastern States, at the invitation of Massachusetts, were, with New York, about to form a convention for regulating matters of common concern, and that if any plan should be sent out by Congress during their session, they would probably cooperate with Congress in giving effect to it.".

This was a threat of secession from the Confederacy, and it was intended to coerce the South into compliance with the demands of Massachusetts. It was so understood by Mr. Mercer, of Virginia, who "expressed great disquietude at this information; considered it as a dangerous precedent; and that it behooved the gentleman to explain fully the objects of the convention, as it would be necessary for the Southern States to be, otherwise, very circumspect in agreeing to any plans on a supposition that the general Confederacy was to continue.'

Mr. White, of New Hampshire, informed the Members that his State had declined to accede to the plan of a convention on foot.

Mr. Hamilton, who had been absent when the vote was taken, moved a reconsideration, and was seconded by Mr. Osgood. “Those who voted differently from their former votes were influenced by the conviction of the necessity of the change, and despair on both sides of a more favorable rate of slaves." The rate of three-fifths was agreed to without opposition. 1

1 Elliot's Debates, Volume V, pages 79-81.