slavery south of that line, nothing was said in the law. But Arkansas
constituted the principal remaining part south of the line; and it has
since been admitted as a slave State, without serious controversy. More
recently, Iowa, north of the line, came in as a free State without
controversy. Still later, Minnesota, north of the line, had a territorial
organization without controversy. Texas, principally south of the line,
and west of Arkansas, though originally within the purchase from France,
had, in 1819, been traded off to Spain in our treaty for the acquisition
of Florida. It had thus become a part of Mexico. Mexico revolutionized
and became independent of Spain. American citizens began settling rapidly
with their slaves in the southern part of Texas. Soon they revolutionized
against Mexico, and established an independent government of their own,
adopting a constitution with slavery, strongly resembling the
constitutions of our slave States. By still another rapid move, Texas,
claiming a boundary much farther west than when we parted with her in
1819, was brought back to the United States, and admitted into the Union
as a slave State. Then there was little or no settlement in the northern
part of Texas, a considerable portion of which lay north of the Missouri
line; and in the resolutions admitting her into the Union, the Missouri
restriction was expressly extended westward across her territory. This
was in 1845, only nine years ago.

Thus originated the Missouri Compromise; and thus has it been respected
down to 1845. And even four years later, in 1849, our distinguished
Senator, in a public address, held the following language in relation to
it:

"The Missouri Compromise has been in practical operation for about a
quarter of a century, and has received the sanction and approbation of
men of all parties in every section of the Union. It has allayed all