About the year 1800, an attempt was made to extend the limitation of the act as to Ohio Territory, but Ohio was admitted a free state in the year 1802.

Indiana Territory, also wrestled with the same question, then under the leadership of its governor, afterward President W. H. Harrison, and a petition from its legislature was presented in congress for the suspension of the Sixth Article for the period of ten years, so that slaves born within the United States, or from any one of the states, might be admitted. This necessarily resulted in the appointment of committees, the discussion of the subject matter and reports to the house involving these discussions. The extension was not considered expedient, and was hence the subject of refusal. Following slowly afterward came into the union the free states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The latter was formed from the cession made by Great Britain to our government in 1796, and with like restriction.

On the 20th of December, 1803, the government of the United States took possession of that extensive country lying north of Florida, and from the mouth of the Mississippi river to the British Possessions, and from thence across the Rocky mountains. This purchase. had been at a venture of 60,000,000 francs from the First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte, of France, without reference to the extension of human slavery, and that portion constituting the present state of Louisiana was admitted into the union in 1812, under its pro-slavery state constitution.

Upon the treaty of 1767, whereby France had ceded the northwest territory to the British government, the French trappers and traders who resided in the Illinois country crossed over into Missouri, taking their slaves with them, and human slavery existed there at the time of purchase in 1803.

In December, 1817, a delegate from Missouri appeared in congress, and was admitted to a seat. It was proposed during the fol. lowing February, that Missouri be admitted into the Union, but a clause was desired by northern congressmen prohibiting the extension of slavery. This was the great entering wedge and resulted finally in the Missouri compromise of 1820. It was in this discussion that Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, declared that if the north persisted, the union would be dissolved, and remarked with warmth, addressing a con

gressman from New York: "You have kindled a fire which all the water of the ocean can not put out, which seas of blood only can extinguish." This first struggle resulted in the organization of the territory south of 36 30 min. and north of Louisiana, into the Territory of Arkansas, with slavery unrestricted, but the admission of Missouri into the union of states on either basis, slave or free, was defeated.

The second Missouri struggle commenced in December of the next session, and much new blood having been infused into the house, by reason of previous elections, the debates were long and the question was again fully discussed. Memorials were presented from legislatures of several states, including New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, favoring the restriction of slavery. An elaborate memorial prepared by Daniel Webster, and signed by himself, George Blake, Josiah Quincy, and many others, desiring that measures be taken "to restrain the increase of slavery in new states to be admitted into the union," was presented December 3, 1819. This sentiment prevailed strongly in Boston, and throughout the New England states. The legislature of Kentucky passed a memorial by a unanimous vote against the desired restriction, and it was also presented to congress in January following. Upon the final vote the restriction was lost, and Missouri was admitted into the union with slavery on February 28, 1821. Maine was received a free state on the next day. This was according to an agreement, and all the territory north and west of the line of 36 30 min., which was the south line of the state of Missouri, was declared by act of congress, at the same time, to be free territory, and that slavery should be forever excluded. It was at that time occupied only by Indians, a few trappers, and two detachments of the regular army.

The Missouri state line on the west ran due north and south, crossing the river at Kansas City, at the mouth of the Kaw river. The territory comprising the six counties in the northwest part of the state was then an Indian reservation, and contains its most fertile soil. Senators Benton and Linn succeeded in securing an extension of this state line to the river, and this extension included these fine lands, the bill being approved by President Jackson on the 7th day of June, 1836. This extension of slave territory was so quietly done, notwithstanding the anti-slavery agitation of the times, and

the great debate pending in congress on the right of petition, led by John Quincy Adams, that it hardly attracted attention, and was the first encroachment upon the terms of the Missouri compromise by any direct measure. This section of the state furnished the most aggressive emigration into the western territory in later years.

In the year 1819 negotiations were opened with Spain for the purchase of Florida, and the treaty was ratified by both governments in July, 1821, and that sovereignty was formally transferred to the United States. The north boundary line of Florida followed the St. Mary's river from its mouth to its source, thence west to the Chatahoochée, thence along that stream to the 31st parallel, thence west to the Mississippi river, including the present state of Florida, parts of Alabama and Mississippi, and some parts of the present Louisiana. It also included all that territory west of the Rockies and north of the 42nd parallel to the British possessions, and from the Rocky mountains to the Pacific, including Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and part of Wyoming, thereby extinguishing the Spanish claims to this vast area. Florida proper was acquired with the institution of slavery existing, and was not subject to the restriction of the Missouri compromise, as claimed by one school of politicians and subject to the restriction as claimed by the other. Slavery was neither prohibited nor sanctioned by the terms of this grant. About the same time this government ceded to Spain that country between Louisana and the Rio Grande, and in less than twenty-five years afterward, was very desirous of getting it back again.

Prior to December 27, 1845, Texas had twice sought to be annexed to the United States, and was finally received by congress on that day, and ratified by that people on the 19th of February, 1846. Prior to this time it had proclaimed its independence, and had obtained some recognition. It was not subject to the restrictions contained in the compromise of 36 30 min. At this time General Taylor was at Corpus Christi, near the mouth of the Rio Grande, with a large part of the United States army for the protection of the Texas frontier, and annexation was immediately followed by the Mexican war, at the termination of which, and by the terms of the treaty of Gaudalupe Hidalgo, 1848, a vast area of territory both north and south of the line of 36 30 min. was acquired.

The annexation of Texas and the beginning of hostilities between

the United States and Mexico, was followed by a message from President Polk to congress, asking that a sum of money be placed at his disposal for immediate use, in effecting a treaty with the Mexican government; and a bill was soon introduced for that purpose, appropriating $30,000 for immediate use, and placing $2,000,000 more at his disposal for the purchase of peace and the settlement of boundary lines. David Wilmot proposed a proviso to that section of the bill refering to the acquisition of territory, against slavery and involunsary servitude in any of its parts, "except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted." This proviso was substantially guarded in the terms of the ordinance of 1787, in the erection of the Northwest Territory, and is known in history as the Wilmot Proviso. This proviso provoked an extended discussion both north and south, its advocates being called free soilers and the opponents pro-slavery men. It was proposed by a democrat and was supported by democrats in the north. The bill and proviso both passed the house, and was sent to the senate on the day provided by law for its adjournment, August 10, 1846. The question was again raised in the bills intro duced in 1848, providing for the organization of territorial governments for Oregon, California, and New Mexico, in which the principles of the Wilmot proviso figured largely. The bill for the organization of Oregon passed and was approved by the President. The battle ground was transferred to the remaining bills and finally to New Mexico. All public men took part in these discussions, pro and con, both within congress and out of it, and the people became well versed in the issues involved. Many also committed themselves by informal expressions in ordinary conversation, and by neatly written political letters, as the records of the times now appear. Among the number who are said to have approved the Wilmot proviso in ordinary con. versation was General Lewis Cass, at that time in public life and journeying in a railroad car from Washington to his Michigan home. He was among the number, however, who wrote upon that subject, and in a letter dated December 24, 1847, and addressed to General A. O. P. Nicholson, took that middle ground afterward espoused by Senator Douglas, and known in history as the doctrine of "popular sovereignty." In the course of this letter he says:

The theory of our government pre-supposes that its various members have reserved to themselves the regulation of all subjects

relating to what may be termed their internal police. They are sovereign within their boundaries, except in those cases where they have surrendered to the general government a portion of their rights in order to give effect to the objects of the union, whether these concern foreign nations, if I may so speak, whether they have reference to slavery or to any other relations, domestic or public, are left to local authority, either original or derivative. Congress has no right to say that there shall be slavery in New York, or that there shall be no slavery in Georgia; nor is there any other human power but the people of those states, respectively, which can change the relations existing therein; and they can say, if they will, we will have slavery in the former and we will abolish it in the latter.'

"In various respects the territories differ from the states. Some of their rights are inchoate, and they do not possess the attributes of sovereignty. Their relation to the general government is very imperfectly defined by the constitution, and it will be found upon examination in that instrument, the only grant of power concerning them is conveyed in the phrase, Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States.""

*

*

*

*

"The question as will, therefore, be seen on examination, does not regard the exclusion of slavery from a region where it now exists, but a prohibition against its introduction where it does not exist, and where, from the feelings of the inhabitants and the laws of nature it is morally impossible, that it can ever re-establish itself." The third step in the restriction of slavery was, therefore, fully taken in the political campaign of 1848. The first had been the restriction of the slave trade, the second, the restriction of slave territory, and now the third was the doctrine of free soil in all the territories. The advocates of the Wilmot proviso were, therefore, called free soilers and nominated a candidate for president, thus taking a prominent place in the public gaze. It happened in this wise. state of New York was represented in the democratic national convention at Baltimore, May 22 of that year, by two delegations, that of the free soilers or "barn burners," composed of Wilmot proviso men, and the Hunkers under the leadership of General Daniel S. Dickinson. The convention undertook to conciliate both delegations by admitting

The