British subjects accused of stirring up the Indians, (March, May.) So that the war, though called the Seminole, might as well be called the Florida war. The Spanish minister protested against the invasion of the Florida territory, of which the restitution was immediately ordered at Washington, though not without approbation of the course pursued by Jackson. Acquisi Florida. Florida was a sore spot on more accounts than tion of one. The old trouble of boundaries had never been settled; but that was a trifle compared with the later troubles arising from fugitive criminals, fugitive slaves, smugglers, pirates, and, as recently shown, Indians, to whom Florida furnished not only a refuge, but a starting point. The Spanish authorities, themselves by no means. inclined to respect their neighbors of the United States, had no power to make others respect them. "This country," said President Monroe, referring to Florida, "had, in fact, become the theatre of every species of lawless adventure." Matters there were not improved by the uncertain relations still continuing between the United States and Spain. Former difficulties, especially those upon American indemnities, were not settled; while new ones had gathered in consequence of South American revolutions, and North American dispositions to side with the revolutionists. The proposal of an earlier time to purchase Florida was renewed by the United States. Its acceptance was impeded chiefly by differences on the boundary between Louisiana and the Spanish Mexico, but this being settled to begin at the Sabine River, a treaty was concluded. On the payment of five millions by the American government to citizens who claimed indemnity from Spain, that power agreed to relinquish the Floridas, East and West, (February 22, 1819.) It was nearly two years, however, before Spain ratified the treaty, and fully two before Florida Territory formed a part of the United States, (1821.) New states. The State of Connecticut, hitherto content wita her charter government, at length adopted a new constitution, in which there was but little improvement upon the old one, except in making suffrage general and the support of a church system voluntary, (1818.) New constitutions and new states were constantly in process of formation. Indiana, (December 11, 1816,) Mississippi, (December 10, 1817,) Illinois, (December 3, 1818,) and Alabama,* (December 14, 1819,) all became members of the Union. Proposal Before the definite accession of Alabama, Misof Mis- souri was proposed as a candidate for admission. It souri. was a slaveholding territory. But when the preliminary steps to its becoming a state were begun upon in Congress, a New York representative, James W. Tallmadge, moved that no more slaves should be brought in, and that the children of those already there should be liberated at the age of twenty-five. On the failure of this motion, another New York representative, John W. Taylor, moved to prohibit slavery in the entire territory to the north of latitude 36° 30'. This, too, was lost. A bill setting off the portion of Missouri Territory to the south of the line just named, as the Territory of Arkansas, was passed. But nothing was done towards establishing the State of Missouri, (February, March, 1819.) Question Nothing, unless it were the debate, in which the of slavery. question at issue became clear. There were two reasons, it then appeared, for making Missouri a free state; one, that it was the turn for a free state, the last (Alabama) † having been a slave state; while, of the eight admitted since the Constitution, four had been free and four * The eastern half of the Mississippi Territory became the Territory of Alabama in 1817. Not yet actually admitted, but authorized to apply for admission in the usual way. slave states. ana. Another and a broader reason was urged, to the effect that slavery ought not to be permitted in any state or territory where it could be prohibited. On this, the northern views were the more earnest, in that the nation had committed itself by successive acts to a course too tolerant, if not too favorable, towards slavery. First, it will be recollected, came the organization of the Territory South of the Ohio; next, that of the Mississippi Territory; and afterwards, the acquisition and the organization of LouisiAll these proceedings were national, and all either acknowledged or extended the area of slavery. Kentucky had been admitted a slave state as a part of Virginia; Mississippi and Alabama as parts of the Mississippi Territory. To carry out the same course would have insured the admission of Missouri as a part of the Louisiana acquisition; and on this the southern members strongly insisted. To this, on the contrary, the north demurred, determined, if possible, to stop the movement that had thus far prevailed. A good deal of discussion arose on the point of tional ar- the treaty by which Louisiana had been acquired. gument. This, argued one party, by investing the inhabitants of the Louisiana Territory with all the rights of United States citizens, secures their privileges as slaveholders; a position, of course, opposed by northern men. But much greater stress was laid on the constitutional argument hinted at in a former connection. The proposal to oblige Missouri to become a free state, said the advocates of slavery, is a violation of the Constitution. That sovereign authority, they declared, leaves the state itself in all cases to settle the matter of slavery, as well as all other matters not expressly subjected to the general government. To this a twofold answer was returned: first, that Missouri was not a state, but a territory, and therefore subject to the control of Congress; and, second, that even if regarded as a Constitu state, she would not be one of the original thirteen, to which alone belonged the powers reserved under the Constitution. Therefore Congress could deal with her as it pleased. It was moreover argued that Congress ought to arrest the progress of slavery, as a point upon which the national welfare was staked; a point, therefore, to which the authority of the general government was expressly and indispensably applicable according to the Constitution. Two sides. Arguments so divergent, and principles so opposite, as those which have been sketched, show that there were two sides in the controversy. Other considerations were urged. One in particular was brought forward by the slave state party, that the slaves, as well as the freemen of the nation, were entitled to profit by its increase; in short, that humanity required the extension of slavery. Equally extreme opinions were preferred on the opposing side. In thus stating the various turns given to the question, we have gone somewhat beyond the limits of the original debate. It was not till a later time that many of the positions were so decisively taken as has been described. But the points involved in them were clear from the beginning. Intense Had it been an outbreak of hostilities, had it been agitation. a march of one half the country against the other, there could hardly have been a more intense agitation. The attempted prohibition of slavery was denounced in Congress as the preliminary to a negro massacre, to a civil war, to a dissolution of the Union. Out of Congress, it provoked such language as that used by the aged Jefferson: "The Missouri question," he wrote, "is a breaker on which we lose the Missouri country by revolt, and what more God only knows. From the battle of Bunker's Hill to the treaty of Paris, we never had so ominous a question." Public meetings were held; those at the south to repel the interference of the north, those at the north to rebuke the pretensions of the south. The arguments of Congress, repeated again and again, kept up the ferment. It was not the mere agitator, however, whether politician or philanthropist, who took the lead; grave men, men of years and of honors, entered into the lists on both sides. The dispute extended into the tribunals and the legislatures of the states, the northern declaring that Missouri must be for freemen only, the southern that it must be for freemen and for slaves. Maine mission. So stood the matter as the year drew to a close seeks ad- and Congress reassembled. A new turn was then given to the question, by the application of Maine to be received as a state, Massachusetts having consented to the separation. Here, then, is the free state to match with Alabama, exclaimed the partisans of slavery in Missouri: now give us our slave state. But the opponents of slavery did not yield; they had planted themselves on principles, they said, not on numbers. At this the south was naturally indignant. It had been a plea all along that a free state was due to the north; and now, when one was forthcoming, two were claimed. If the reply was made that Maine, being but a division of Massachusetts, was no addition to the northern strength, this did not content the south. Feelings of bitterness and of injustice were aroused between both parties; both drew farther apart. If peace did not come, war would, and that soon. The com The Senate united Maine and Missouri in the promise. same bill and on the same terms, that is, without any restriction upon slavery. But a clause, introduced on the motion of Jesse B. Thomas, of Illinois, prohibited the introduction of slavery into any portion of the Louisiana Territory as yet unorganized, leaving Louisiana the state and Arkansas the territory, as well as Missouri, just what |