Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/460

428 The Kansas-Nebraska Act. [i854 section it pronounced "inconsistent with the principles of non-inter- vention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognised by the legislation of 1850," and expressly "declared in- operative and void." It was certainly an astonishing measure, conceived in the true spirit of the school of statesmen to which Senator Douglas belonged. No* doubt its very audacity was what chiefly commended it to Douglas ; no doubt, too, he believed it strategically as wise as it was daring. The southern men had never dreamed of demanding a measure which should repeal the now venerable Missouri Compromise, and open all the Territories to slavery ; parties wanted nothing so much as rest and oblivion of past excitements, if that might be had ; a session of ordinary routine would have been welcomed on all hands as a pleasing programme of peace. But to the party leaders who hearkened to Douglas 1 counsels it seemed best to use their present power to have done with compromises and make all the future plain by the adoption of the simple, obvious and consistent principle of " squatter sovereignty." Unexpected and revolutionary as the Bill was, it of course pleased the slavery men extremely, and majorities were found for it in both Houses. In the Senate 37 to 14 was the vote; and in the House 113 to 100. Forty-four northern Democrats voted against the measure in the House ; but as many more were ready to follow Douglas. Nine southern mem- bers looked askance at the new thing and voted "No"; but most of them received it gladly. On May 30 the President signed the Bill, and it became law. He had been consulted beforehand about it, as it seems, and had expressed his approval of it, saying that he thought it founded "upon a sound principle, which the Compromise of 1820 infringed upon," and to which he was willing to return. Notable debates had accompanied the passage of the Bill. There were men in both Houses who were ready to speak very plainly even upon this most thorny question. The most noticeable and influential group of these was to be found in the Senate. There William H. Seward, of New York, and Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, had been since 1849. The elections of 1849 had turned in no small degree upon the question of the extension of slavery to the great Pacific region then newly acquired from Mexico; and the Whigs of the New York legis- lature had sent Seward to the Senate to represent them in their wish that the new soil might be free soil. Chase had been chosen by the Democrats of the Ohio legislature to perform a like service for the " Free-soilers " of his party. They wanted no new party. They held still very loyally to their party connexions. But upon the subject of slavery their convictions would admit of no compromise. Four years before, in the debates on the compromise measures of 1850, Seward had declared that he deemed the common domain of the Union in the West devoted to justice and liberty not only by the Constitution but