beginnings become a mighty empire; but while prosperous in its material interests, it was vexed with intestine commotions. It had acquired enormously large possessions in the south; but what was to be done with them? Eager discussions respecting these acquisitions occurred in congress, 1849-50. Zachary Taylor, the new president, having recommended the organisation of California as a state, and New Mexico and Utah as territories, of the Union, there arose a contest on that everlasting subject-the imposition of restrictions as to slavery. Once more, Henry Clay interposes to allay the storm with an ingeniously complicated and specious compromise. To understand the purport of this beautiful piece of legislation, it is necessary to have some notion of the state of affairs since 1834. The invasion of Texas, and its probable results in extending slavery, greatly stimulated the party of Abolitionists, who about this time began to agitate with uncommon zeal-perhaps more zeal than discretion-through the agency of speeches, pamphlets, and petitions. One of the things they especially demanded was the expulsion of slavery from the District of Columbia, where it was a scandal to the official capital of the States. So numerous were the petitions presented to congress on this and analogous subjects, that at length the extraordinary resolution to receive no more was adopted, and for several years the very right of petition was so far suspended. It was during this turbulent decade (1830–40), that a bill was brought in to extend the slave state of Missouri. The prescribed boundaries of this state on the west having excluded a triangular district, which remained free soil in virtue of the ordinance of 1787, the incorporation of it was anxiously desired by the Missourians, for it was exceedingly fertile, and lay on the route to the rich and still unappropriated lands of Kansas.

Strange to say, the bill to incorporate this region -legally insured to freedom-was passed in 1836 without any perceptible opposition. The tract so annexed composes six counties, and has become one of the most populous and wealthy sections of the state, devoted to the growing of hemp, tobacco, and other articles, and cultivated by slaves. This, we are told, 'is the most pro-slavery section of the state, in which was originated, and has been principally sustained, that series of inroads into Kansas, corruptions of her ballot-boxes, and outrages on her people, which have earned for their authors the appellation of border ruffians.' *

Not discouraged, the ultra anti-slavery party kept up a constant war of argument and remonstrance through the press. The Texan invasion and its consequences imparted fresh energy to the remonstrants. Petitions for a dissolution of the Union, for amendments in the constitution, for a reform of the representation, were poured into congress, and when discussions arose respecting the admission of California, the contest overshadowed all other questions. Clay, as has been said, now comes on the scene, with his plan of conciliation, which, being embodied in several bills, was cleverly carried through congress in August 1850. This famous 'omnibus measure, as it was called, was worthy of Clay's genius. The South had complaints against the North, on account of the difficulties thrown in the way of recovering fugitive slaves. The North complained that slavery continued to exist in the District of Columbia. Clay projected some mutual concession on these points; and as the South was the more intractable, adjusted its demands

* History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction. By Horace Greeley. Dix & Edwards, New York, 1856.

by conceding that the inhabitants of the new southern acquisitions should exercise the right of introducing or excluding slavery; further, the original compact with Texas was confirmed, and its western boundary fixed at the Rio Grande del Norte. California was admitted as a state, and New Mexico and Utah as territories, on the basis of 'squatter sovereignty '—a circumstance of no moment, as it proved, to California, which, though already intruded on by some planters and their slaves, made choice of freedom. Slavery was not abolished in Columbia, but the slave-trade and open sales of slaves were prohibited under heavy penalties in the District. Lastly, the Fugitive Slave Bill strengthened those provisions in the federal constitution for recovering runaways, which in many parts of the country had become practically inoperative.

These united measures did not become law without incurring opposition on both sides; but we are concerned to observe, that in all the divisions in the legislature, members from free states voted with the South-the only rational explanation of this being, that the principle of freedom versus slavery had not attained force sufficient to overcome party connection or individually selfish considerations. Among the eminent men who on this occasion voted in violation of formerly professed principles, was Daniel Webstera circumstance of which he was so painfully reminded by his rejection at a convention for proposing candidates for the presidentship, that he languished and died 'a damaged man,' October 1852. Clay, a short time before, made an equally abrupt and unlamented exit.

It is now, we believe, generally admitted by its partisans, that Clay's Fugitive Slave Bill was a grave political blunder; for, besides failing in its professed object, it caused considerable exasperation in the northern states, in some of which it is already as much

a dead-letter as were the original obligations on which it was founded. So much for Clay's omnibus measure, which was to insure universal harmony! So much for what a committee of congress in 1854, sagaciously proclaimed as having been a final settlement of the controversy, and an end of the agitation.' Well may one say, with how little wisdom is the world governed !

With the incentives to increase, to which we have drawn attention, it will not be thought remarkable that in 1850, the number of slaves in the United States had risen to 3,204,313.

THE

KANSAS-NEBRASKA

AFFAIR.

Ir will be recollected that on the occasion of constituting the state of Missouri, in 1820, there was a compromise among parties to the effect that, in all the territory which had been ceded by France north of 36° 30′, the state of Missouri excepted, slavery should be for ever prohibited; and the act which admitted the state to the Union bore a clause of this kind. Here was a law settling the question so far, one would think. Events proved that this was not so certain. Missouri having edged itself in as a slave state, there the affair rested; and when, in 1836, a slice of fresh free territory was added to this slave state, the compromise clause does not appear to have been agitated. It was reserved for Mr Pierce's first congress to be troubled with the resurrection of a measure which the bulk of the members-and Pierce to boot-had probably begun to hope was past being brought to life. On the 15th of December 1853, a bill was submitted to the senate to organise the territory of Nebraska; and on this occasion the unhappy compromise rises from the dead. Let us look at our maps, and see where lies the region which was to provoke one of the severest party contests that has ever occurred in or out of congress.

Nebraska was the name at first given to a large tract of country, having on the east Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota, and stretching from 36° 30′ or thereabouts, to the borders of Canada. Its limits on the west were New Mexico, Utah, Oregon, and Washington. The more eastern portion of this vast territory, was