for three fifths of this population, the only consideration for which was that direct taxes, when necessary to be resorted to, should be assessed in the same ratio. The state of the finances in time of peace not requiring this aid, the non-slave-holding states were subject to the inconveniences, without enjoying the benefits expected from the compromise; and a further extension of the principle operated to increase and perpetuate this inequality.

Where slave labor is principally relied on, the militia are few and feeble, and their services required to overawe and keep in subjection the slaves. The nation must be protected by the militia of the non-slave-holdi ng states.

It was further urged, that permitting slaves on the border settlements led to a connection between them and the Indians, hazardous to the frontier. The recent Seminole war had its origin in this connection. Former masters were generally the first victims of the united vengeance of the fugitive slave, and the dispossessed Indian. In reply to the argument, that permitting slavery to exist in Missouri would not increase their numbers, it was said, that in a country so extensive, and so sparsely settled, smuggling slaves from abroad could not be prevented. Wherever there was a market opened, these wretched victims would be found to supply it. To meet the continually increasing demands of the west, slaves would be raised, and purchased in the Atlantic states, and transported in droves with little less cruelty than attends their passage across the Atlantic. It was often insinuated, that the prospect of this gainful traffic was among the most powerful arguments against the restriction. Such a scene of internal trade in human flesh, it was said, would disgrace any country; much less ought it to be permitted in one which boasts of being the only free and happy country on earth.

In answer to the objections arising out of the Louisiana treaty, it was said, that slavery was already abolished in a majority of the states; it was not, therefore, one of the federal rights common to all, contemplated by the treaty. In the three new states northwest of the Ohio, slavery was expressly excluded by compact. No treaty could bind congress to perpetuate a practice wrong in itself. The proposed restriction allowed the present inhabitants the benefit of all the slaves they might own at the time of passing the bill, and only provided against the further extension of slavery where it did not then exist. In point of fact, it was contended, that in every instance except in the case of

Vermont, where congress had exercised the power of admitting new states into the union, they had annexed certain conditions or restrictions to such admission. This was only a proposition to the citizens of Missouri, situated without the limits of the original parties to the federal compact, which they were free to accept or reject. They might refuse it, and remain in their colonial state, subject to such regulations as congress might establish. In the senate, on

the final question on Mr. Roberts' amendment, the votes were, in favor of the proposed restriction sixteen, and against it twenty-seven; all the members of the slave-holding states, and Mr. Parrot from New Hampshire, Hunter from Rhode Island, Lanman from Connecticut, Palmer from Vermont, Vandyke from Delaware, and Edwards and Thomas from Illinois, voting in the negative.

This subject lingered in debate from the commencement until nearly the close of a long session. In the mean time, the proposed state of Maine became impatient of her unfortunate connection with Missouri; and earnestly solicited congress that the two cases might be separated. Her representatives were the more urgent on this subject, as the proceedings of the legislature of Massachusetts relative to her becoming a separate state, were bottomed upon the condition of her being admitted into the union previous to the 4th of March, 1820. As that period drew nigh, they made a spirited representation to congress, requiring a decision upon their application, disentangled from the Missouri question. The anti-restrictionists, apprehending their case to be hopeless, without the influence of this connection, refused a separate consideration; in consequence of which, the senators and representatives of the district of Maine, in the Massachusetts legislature, applied to that body for a repeal of the condition limiting the time for their admission into the union.

The compromise. At length, after the speakers had exhausted all their eloquence, and congress and the public all their patience upon the subject, the following compromise was proposed, that slavery should be allowed in Missouri, and in all the territory south of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latittude, being the latitude of the southern boundary of Missouri, and about as far north as upon an average slavery is tolerated in the original states; and prohibited in all the territory northerly and westerly of those limits. On the territory exclusive of Missouri, where it was permitted, there were a few inhabitants who might be

affected by a decision of the question; on that where it was prohibited, there were none. After considerable discussion, and without much other reason than an ardent desire to bring the subject to a close, the compromise was agreed to in the house of representatives, ayes ninety, noes eightyseven, and an act passed agreeable thereto.

"In this contest of principle, the victory was altogether on the side of the slave-holding states, yielded indeed with great reluctance, only in the spirit of forbearance. Slavery was admitted in every region where there were people who wanted it, and prohibited only where there were none; and this prohibition subject to the future legislation of congress, whenever the territory should be inhabited, and its citizens apply for admission into the union.

Excitement on the occasion. The agitation of this question occasioned great excitement, and many things were done, which, after the fervor had subsided, were universally condemned. The slave-holding states considered the measure as an assumption of power, not warranted by the constitution, dangerous in principle, and in effect leading to an abolition of slavery, and a destruction of that species of property. Resolutions were passed in some of the legislatures, denouncing the measure in unqualified terms, recommending to the inhabitants of Missouri to reject the condition, should it pass congress, and giving them assurances of support in such an event. These apprehensions of the citizens of the south on this subject, were not well founded. However much the non-slave-holding states may hold the subject in abhorrence; whatever moral or political evils may be attached to the practice, as between the original parties to the federal compact, it is exclusively a subject of state legislation. Except in the single instance of prohibiting the traffic in slaves between the United States and Africa, the general government have no powers to interfere: and for the peace of the nation, it is hoped that few occasions will occur of agitating any question relating to the subject. None of the guilt, and few of the evils resulting from the measure, can attach themselves to the people of the nonslave-holding states.

Proceedings at Savannah. A singular instance of the extreme sensibility of the people of the south on this subject, occurred at Savannah.

In January, 1820, while the Missouri question was laboring in congress, a destructive fire desolated that city, and reduced many of its inhabitants from affluence to a state of

absolute want. An affecting appeal was made by the city authorities, in behalf of the sufferers, to the humanity of their fellow-citizens, throughout the United States, and was responded to by liberal contributions in their behalf. In the city of New York, ten thousand dollars in money, and nearly an equal sum in provisions and clothing was collected and transmitted, with a request that it might be applied "to the relief of indigent persons, sufferers by the late fire, without distinction of color, who are dependent on their own industry for support." The magistracy of Savannah refused to accept the donation, and returned it to the donors, remarking that they would not accept it with the condition annexed; that "it was calculated to awaken, and put forth impressions, not only dangerous to the tranquillity of that section of the union, but in reference to the humanity of the citizens of Savannah grossly injurious, and palpably incorrect; that it was throwing among them the fire-brand of discord, and if persevered in, would shake to its foundation the beautiful fabric of liberty, and jeopardize the federal unity of the republic." Their letter concluded with some general remarks unwarrantable by the occasion, and altogether inconsistent with the rules of civility, and the respect due to the generous contributors. "Traitors and demagogues," saythey, "who only seek their own aggrandizement, may be permitted to smile amidst the havoc th ir unprincipled ambition may create; but that a true hearted American, devoted as he ought to be to the happiness and best interests of his country, should, under any metaphysical notions of abstract human rights, place in danger the union of these states, offering, as they do, the last and only rampart on earth against the inroads and aggressions of tyranny, is an impiety, madness, and folly, without the apology of any reason or motive. It is a moral malady, for which there can be no remedy; an infatuation, no analogies of the mind can explain." The rejected donation was applied to the relief of the indigent citizens of New York, without distinction of color, and Mr. Colden, in behalf of the donors, expressed their surprise and regret, that a wish, intimating the objects to which their charity should be applied, should have excited such a train of reflections as appeared in the letter. Any reference, the most remote, to the subject in agitation between the different sections of the union, or any sentiments other than those of sorrow and sympathy for their calamity, were disclaimed. The publication of this correspondence, put an end to all

affected by a decision of the question; on that where it was prohibited, there were none. After considerable discussion, and without much other reason than an ardent desire to bring the subject to a close, the compromise was agreed to in the house of representatives, ayes ninety, noes eightyseven, and an act passed agreeable thereto.

"In this contest of principle, the victory was altogether on the side of the slave-holding states, yielded indeed with great reluctance, only in the spirit of forbearance. Slavery was admitted in every region where there were people who wanted it, and prohibited only where there were none; and this prohibition subject to the future legislation of congress, whenever the territory should be inhabited, and its citizens apply for admission into the union.

Excitement on the occasion. The agitation of this question occasioned great excitement, and many things were done, which, after the fervor had subsided, were universally condemned. The slave-holding states considered the measure as an assumption of power, not warranted by the constitution, dangerous in principle, and in effect leading to an abolition of slavery, and a destruction of that species of property. Resolutions were passed in some of the legislatures, denouncing the measure in unqualified terms, recommending to the inhabitants of Missouri to reject the condition, should it pass congress, and giving them assurances of support in such an event. These apprehensions of the citizens of the south on this subject, were not well founded. However much the non-slave-holding states may hold the subject in abhorrence; whatever moral or political evils may be attached to the practice, as between the original parties to the federal compact, it is exclusively a subject of state legislation. Except in the single instance of prohibiting the traffic in slaves between the United States and Africa, the general government have no powers to interfere : and for the peace of the nation, it is hoped that few occasions will occur of agitating any question relating to the subject. None of the guilt, and few of the evils resulting from the measure, can attach themselves to the people of the nonslave-holding states.

Proceedings at Savannah. A singular instance of the extreme sensibility of the people of the south on this subject, occurred at Savannah.

In January, 1820, while the Missouri question was laboring in congress, a destructive fire desolated that city, and reduced many of its inhabitants from affluence to a state of