I conclude, then, that the public never demanded the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise.

I now come to consider whether the appeal with its avowed principles, is
intrinsically right. I insist that it is not. Take the particular case. A
controversy had arisen between the advocates and opponents of slavery, in
relation to its establishment within the country we had purchased of
France. The southern, and then best, part of the purchase was already in
as a slave State. The controversy was settled by also letting Missouri in
as a slave State; but with the agreement that within all the remaining
part of the purchase, north of a certain line, there should never be
slavery. As to what was to be done with the remaining part, south of the
line, nothing was said; but perhaps the fair implication was, it should
come in with slavery if it should so choose. The southern part, except a
portion heretofore mentioned, afterward did come in with slavery, as the
State of Arkansas. All these many years, since 1820, the northern part
had remained a wilderness. At length settlements began in it also. In due
course Iowa came in as a free State, and Minnesota was given a
territorial government, without removing the slavery restriction.
Finally, the sole remaining part north of the line--Kansas and
Nebraska--was to be organized; and it is proposed, and carried, to blot
out the old dividing line of thirty-four years' standing, and to open the
whole of that country to the introduction of slavery. Now this, to my
mind, is manifestly unjust. After an angry and dangerous controversy, the
parties made friends by dividing the bone of contention. The one party
first appropriates her own share, beyond all power to be disturbed in the
possession of it, and then seizes the share of the other party. It is as
if two starving men had divided their only loaf, the one had hastily
swallowed his half, and then grabbed the other's half just as he was