UNITED
170
UNITED
the mails of this obnoxious Hterature, but the post-
master-general claimed that he had no authority to
exclude objectionable matter from the mails. In the
summer of 1835 the people of Charleston took the
matter into their own hands, intercepted the mails,
seized the Abohtionist literature and made a public
bonfire of it. The House of Representatives refused
to receive petitions in any way relating to slavery, or
rather voted to lay them on the table. In Congress
ex-President John Quincy Adams acted as the spokes-
man of the Abolitionists. In the brief space of four
years he presented two thousand anti-slavery peti-
tions. The more the House endeavoured to dis-
courage such petitions, the more active became the
Abohtionists. That body therefore on 28 Jan., 1840,
declared that "no petition, memorial, resolution or
other paper praying for the abolition of slavery in the
District of Columbia or any State or Territory, or the
slave trade between the States and the Territories of
the United States in which it now exists, shall be
received by this House or entertained in any way
whatever". About twenty members from the free
states supported this resolution. For a long time
petitions poured into the House praying for the repeal
of the "gag rule", but it was not until 1844 that this
was done.
In 1840 the Abolitionists nominated James Gilles- pie Birney, a Southerner, as their first candidate for the presidency. He received 7000 votes. Four years later (1844) 62,000 voters supported another Abolitionist candidate. When it is remembered that many of the anti-slavery party were so radical that they refused to participate in such contests, their increase in numbers must have convinced the South that they were destined soon to be a menace to slavery. In Congress the discussion of slavery aroused much bitterness, and henceforth that issue coloured almost every question in the tide of events. Slavery had been recognized by the Constitution, but that instrument gave to Congress authority over the subject only in the District of Columbia and in the territories, and it was not until vast areas had been acquired by the United States that Southern states- men perceived any danger to their own section in such agreements as the Compromise on the admission of Missouri. After the acquisition of the South-West from Mexico, they insisted that the restriction of slavery in the territories was a discrimination against those Southern citizens who were interested in the institution. The territories were open to the citi- zens of the Nortli with their property; why not allow the citizens of the South the same privilege? To this the North replied that negro slavery was a moral wrong, and ought to be restricted rather than ex- tended. The civilized world, said that section, has condemned slavery as an evil. If, then, the institu- tion could not be abolished, it should not be further extended. Moreover, if the citizens of a common- wealth could take into one of the territories all the kinds of property recognized by the laws of that commonwealth, the citizens of other states could insist upon the same privilege. In this case every- thing would be property in one of the territories which was so regarded in any one of the states. This is entirely inconsistent with any Congressional regula- tion of the subject. Perhaps not more than one- third of the Southern people were interested in the institution of slavery, but the large slave-holders formed a powerful aristocracy. Though in number they may not have exceeded 10,000, they were influential enough to name governors, congressmen, and state legislators, and for a time to determine important questions of foreign and domestic policy. In the South their opinions were not often questioned. In many of the Southern States it was forbidden to teach slaves to read and write, but oftentimes the more humane masters taught them the meaning of
the Scripture and even the elements of knowledge.
Naturally the influence of the more intelligent among
the negroes was feared. Southern statesmen of the
generation before the Civil War expressed opinions
that arc not now held in that section.
The Kansas-Nehraska BUI. — From the results of the presidential election of 18.52 the Whig party never recovered. The great Democratic victory of that year is generally ascribed to the attitude of that party toward tlie Compromise measures, especially its position on the Fugitive Slave Law. Though in the beginning it met with much opposition, that act was now enforced quietly. When I'Vanklin Pierce was inaugurated, 4 March, 1853, the nation was enjoying .something like a state of tranquillity. The new president ajjparently believed that the slavery agitation had permanently sunk to rest. In the midst of this repose a measure was introduced into Congress which plunged the nation into a sectional strife more bitter than any which preceded it. Ste- phen A. Douglas, of Illinois, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, introduced a bill to organ- ize a government for that part of the Louisiana Terri- tory between Missouri and the Rocky Mountains. Senator Douglas has been accused of having been influenced by his personal ambition. He could have added to his popularity by assisting in the acquisition of Cuba, a project agreeable to the South, but he was not in the president's cabinet. In the way of increasing his popularity he could have made himself acceptable to that section by a better tariff law, but he had little talent for mathematics or economics. The position which he occupied, as Chairman of the Committee on Territories, he proceeded to turn to account. He maintained that the part of the Com- promise of 1S50 referring to Utah and New Me.xico established "certain great principles", which were intended to be of "general appUcation". In his second bill it was provided that the country men- tioned would be divided into two territories, one to be called Kansas and the other Nebraska. It expressly repealed that section of the Missouri Compromise restricting slavery, and opened up to slavery territory which was already free soil.
The true intent and meaning of this act, said the law, is, "not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the LTnited States". There began at once a seven years' struggle for Kansas. From the North the free state men and from the South the slave state men rushed into Kan- sas and began a struggle for its possession. The slave State of Missouri promptly attempted to colonize the new territory, and settled at a place which was called Atchison, in honour of a pro-slavery Senator of Missouri. On the other hand, the North was not idle. The New England Emigrant Aid Society sent a band of free state men, who settled west of Atchison at a place named Lawrence. Strife began in Novem- ber, 1854, at the election of a territorial delegate to Congress. Armed bands of Missourians crossed the border into Kansas, took possession of the polls, and, though they had no right to vote, elected a pro- slavery delegate. .According to the principle of the Kan.sas-Nebraska Bill, the people dwelling in the territory were to decide whether it should be a free or a slave territory. Therefore each side endeavoured to elect a majoril y of members to the territorial legis- lature. The eleciion took ])ku-e in March, 1855. As election day aiiproaclinl, armed Missourians entered Kansas "in companies, squads, and jiavties, like an invading army, voted, and then went Iidmic to Mi.s- souri". In this manner was elected :\ li'gisiature of which every member save one was a pro-slavery ninii. It promptly adopted the slave laws of Missouri ;ind
