it did seem as if nothing but insane madness, or judicial blindness, could have driven us into a civil war.

And even in regard to the subject of slavery, the North and the South were for a long time virtually agreed. Slaves were introduced here by the British Government while we were colonies, and landed in Virginia. before Massachusetts had any settlers. Virginia had petitioned George III. to prohibit their importation, instead of which His Majesty gave peremptory orders to the Royal Governor, "not to assent to any law of the Colonial Legislature by which the importation of slaves should in any respect be prohibited or ob structed." The institution had always been regarded by most people as something wrong, unchristian, inhuman;-by the ablest statesmen as an unwise policy, and a violation of the most fundamental of human rights; while Christian people could hardly fail to sce that it was not "doing to others as we would have others do to us," to enslave them.

And though such a system had been imposed upon us, and transmitted by inheritance, it was regarded as a natural and necessary duty to alleviate and remove it. It was hoped and expected that under the influence of advancing civilization, and increasing regard for human rights, and stronger Christian sentiment, slavery would be done away. be done away. Especially under our new Republic, where all were to be free and equal, it was to be assumed that such oppression could not long continue. With this idea, the framers of the Constitution refused to admit the word "slave" into that sacred instrument, but used the paraphrase "persons held to service," to describe slaves, which would be unmeaning when such a class ceased to exist. Such was the hope and endeavor not only of Northern statesmen like John Adams, but of Thomas Jefferson,

a Virginian, as well. And that State, be it forever remembered to her honor, in order to found such a Republic and secure the adoption of the Federal Constitution, not only gave the nation the Great Northwest Territory, out of which those five prosperous States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin have been formed, but allowed it to be exclusively and forever dedicated to Freedom. For such was understood to be, and was undoubtedly meant to be, the force of that brief but significant clause in the Ordinance of 1787, for the government of that Territory: "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory." The attempt to break down that barrier against slavery in the North, and the repeated and successful attempts to modify and finally to do away with the "Missouri Compromise" by the South, have been the cause of nearly all our sectional strife.

In the meantime cotton had become one of the great staples of the world, and as few countries could raise it, and the blacks were best able to bear the hot climate that produced it, slave labor was at a premium. The value to which such labor attained seems incredible, yet we have it on good authority that the slaves of the South were worth in the market two thousand millions of dollars. Happily the North had no such motive to justify and extend slavery, while the South unfortunately fell under its influence, and urged on a course of measures which brought the nation to the verge of ruin, where it was only saved, under Providence, when the institution itself was swept away.

These measures began with the admission of Missouri into the Union. The great Louisiana Territory, out of which the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Oregon

and the Indian Territory, have already been organized, had been purchased of France in 1803. The way in which it came to us reads more like romance than history. Napoleon I. was in his greatest straits, and expecting that England would fit out a naval expeditionwhere he was the weakest-and take possession of this valuable province of France. He suddenly decided, in order to keep it out of the hands of his great enemy, to sell it to us, which was done for fifteen millions of dollars. The securing of it at this, or almost any price, when it was "held by the greatest military power of Europe, and coveted by the greatest naval power of the world," is a high tribute to the wisdom and statesmanship of Mr. Jefferson, who was then President. Though stoutly opposed and bitterly denounced for it by the partisans of that day, his wise and comprehensive statesmanship in this matter, not only gave us our broad and continental Republic, but also prevented our being hemmed in on three sides by British territory, and confronted on the other by England's formidable navy. Then again, no such motive as has influenced presidential administrations since that time could be fairly attributed to him who was, if we mistake not, uniformly and consistently opposed to the perpetuation and extension of slavery.

Louisiana was admitted into the Union in 1812, and with slavery, because it was south of the line which was understood to limit it on the north. There was opposition made to it, from the natural reluctance of the free States to have a system extended and invigorated, which it was hoped would die out eventually. But as it was only an extension of the system at the South where it already existed, it was acquiesced in. But when Missouri applied for admission, with her great territory-larger in area than all New England, and lying almost wholly north of the line of the Ohio

river, which was to be the perpetual limit of slavery on that side of the Mississippi-the discussion of the whole subject came up anew and agitated the entire country. That line was understood to be, and was certainly meant to be, the established division line between Freedom and Slavery. The North had confidence in the superiority of Freedom over Slavery to develop the population, wealth, intelligence and virtue of a community, and with time in their favor, they were patiently awaiting the result. And this measure was regarded as a deliberate attempt to break down the established barrier against all the evils of the worst institution in the land. After three years of discussion and delay, Missouri was admitted as a slave state, but at the same time an ordinance was enacted that, from all the remainder of that territory lying west of the Mississippi, and north of the parallel of 36° 30°, or the southern boundary of the new State, slavery should be forever excluded, as from all north of the same parallel on the other side of the river. And though this was to be a slave state, and lay north of the established line between Freedom and Slavery, it was acquiesced in for the sake of peace, and with the expectation that this would be the final settlement of the whole matter. Nobody proposed then to break up that whole arrangement, agreed upon so early and acted upon so often; certainly no one could have dreamed that this whole plan would ever be repudiated, and pronounced unconstitutional, and madly swept away to extend slavery. This was the famous "Missouri Compromise," upon the basis of which the matter was adjusted in 1820. It was a hard compromise for the North. This is where disunion virtually commenced, and went on until it terminated in secession and the war.

In the meantime the admission of Texas as a slave state into the Union (a revolted province of Mexico, where by the laws of Mexico slavery was prohibited), and the war with Mexico into which we were led to acquire more, slave

territory, were still more disturbing to the North. These things showed that slavery was no longer to be any mere local institution, and subject only to State laws, but was to be fostered, extended, and perpetuated by the whole power of the general government. They proved how groundless were the philanthropic and seemingly reasonable expectations of the earlier statesmen of the Republic, that an institution thus restricted by the Constitution, the ordinances and the legislation of the first half-century of the government, would ever die out, if such a perversion of power was allowed for its support. No wonder the country was intensely agitated, or that members of both political parties, and some even from the slave states, should protest against it. Hence came the "Wilmot Proviso of 1846," a proviso moved by Mr. Wilmot of Pennsylvania, of the House of Representatives in Congress, to be attached to a bill appropriating two millions for the acquisition of Mexican territory, which declared it to be "an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from Mexico, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist therein." Mr. Wilmot is said to have been an intense partisan of the Democratic school, a firm supporter of the administration in its general policy, and to have represented a strong administration district, and still he did not hesitate to assert that this money was wanted to secure more slave territory, and that he was resolved then and there to make a stand in favor of "Free Soil." The bill was long and ably debated, and though the House was democratic, and the bill supported by the whole power of the administration, it could not be carried through that body without this proviso. This was the rallying point, and the rallying cry of the "Free Soil" movement that followed, which drew to its ranks so many from all parties, and ultimately won its victory in the election of Mr. Lincoln to the presidency. It shows the sober sense and sturdy prin