to all judicial tribunals in the United States, whether constituted by the Congress of the United States or the States individually. This view is incorrect. Chief Justice Marshall said of all the amendments made up to 1832, that they "contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to State governments." And Chief Justice Chase held in 1868, that the Fifth and Sixth "were not designed as limits upon the State governments in reference to their own citizens, but exclusively as restrictions upon Federal power." 1 [Article XI.-This Article has been quoted and discussd in dealing with the Judiciary. Article XII.-This Article has been considered in connection with the election of the President and Vice-President.] 1 Twitchell v. the Commonwealth, 7 Wallace 321. CHAPTER XLVIII. SLAVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION. AMENDMENTS XIII.-XV. 632. Slavery, North and South.-Under the Constitution, slavery continued to decline at the North until it came to an end without shock or violence. In 1787 it was generally expected that such would be the result at the South also at no distant day, but new causes gave to history a wholly different direction. In course of time, the whole industrial system of the South was adjusted to slavery as a center, which was followed, somewhat later, by the adjustment of politics to the same center. 633. Free and Slave States.-The question whether the virgin lands beyond the Alleghany Mountains should be devoted to slave labor or to free labor, was raised as early as 1784. In 1787 Congress prohibited slavery throughout the Northwest Territory forever; but when organizing the Southwest Territory, in 1792, refused to apply the same principle to the region now comprised in the States of Alabama and Mississippi. At first there were seven Northern and six Southern States. Moreover, physical causes and the desire of statesmen to preserve what they called the "balance of the Constitution " tended to keep the numbers of free and slave States equal. In 1819 the balance was perfect, II to II; moreover, up to that time slavery had not become a political, or at least a sectional, question. 634. The Missouri Compromise.—The feeling that no more slave States should be admitted into the Union, declared itself when Missouri applied for admission in 1818. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 embraced two main features; the admission of Missouri as a slave State, and the enacting of the following prohibition: "That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana, which lies North of 36° 30′, north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is, hereby forever prohibited." 635. The Admission of Texas.-After 1820 the political sig nificance of the names North and South became more definite. The admission of Maine to the Union in 1820 balanced the admission of Missouri in 1821. Arkansas balanced Michigan. Florida gave the South the preponderance. But territory available for slave States was now used up; nothing remained south of the parallel 36° 30′ but the Indian Territory, which had already been dedicated to the Indian tribes. At the North, Iowa and Wisconsin were on the threshold of Statehood; while southwest and west of those States, lay the great region out of which numerous States have since been carved. This state of things Southern statesmen strove to meet by securing the admission of Texas to the Union in 1845. 636. The Mexican Annexations and Wilmot Proviso.-The annexation of Texas was shortly followed by the Mexican War, which closed in 1848 with a large annexation of Mexican territory. Again, in 1853, a second, though much smaller, annexation was made. Before the war closed, the following proposition was offered in the House of Representatives: "Provided that, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall be first duly convicted." This proposition is known as the Wilmot proviso, from Mr. David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, who offered it. Mexico had abolished slavery; and those who favored this proviso, as the majority of the Northern people did, desired to perpetuate the act so far as any Mexican territory coming to the United States was concerned. It failed, however, of adoption. 637. The Compromise of 1850.-Almost at once it became necessary to deal with the territory acquired in 1848. This was done, for the time, by the adoption of a series of measures known together as the Compromises of 1850, of which these are the chief ones: The admission of California to the Union as a free State; the enacting of the Fugitive Slave Law; the understanding that new States, in the future, might be carved out of Texas, to be free or slave as their inhabitants should decide; the prohibition of the slave-trade, but not of slavery, in the District of Columbia; the payment to Texas of $10,000,000 for so much of the present territory of New Mexico as lies east of the Rio Grande, which she claimed; and the organization of the Territories of New Mexico and Utah without slavery being either expressly prohibited or permitted. The Compromise of 1820 was in no way disturbed. In these disputes was evolved the dogma called "popular sovereignty," according to which the question whether there should be slavery in any Territory should be left for the people of the Territory thereof to settle for themselves. 638. North and South.-In these transactions the North and the South did not act as units. A number of men at the South always opposed the aggressive pro-slavery policy; a still larger number at the North opposed, or were indifferent to, the anti-slavery sentiment of that section. Political parties had never been organized with reference to slavery; thus the issue tended to become more bitter and more sectional, and parties and politics were national only so long as slavery was kept out of sight. 639. Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.—The bill for organizing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, approved by President Pierce, May 30, 1854, declared the prohibition of 1820 "inoperative and void, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures." The true intent and meaning of the Kansas-Nebraska Act was also declared to be: "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 United States." 640. Position of Parties in 1856.-The new-formed Republican party disclaimed any intention of interfering with slavery in the States where it existed; but its first platform denied the right of any authority, whether of Congress or a Territorial government, to give legal existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States, and declared also that the Constitution gave Congress sovereign power over the Territories, and that it was both the right and duty of Congress in exercising this power to prohibit polygamy and slavery. On the other hand, the Democratic party put forth in 1856 the declaration, "Non-interference with slavery in the States and Territories, or in the District of Columbia." Slavery in the Territories now became the great political issue. Mr. Buchanan, the Democratic candidate for President, was elected on this issue in 1856. 641. Dred Scott Decision. 1-In delivering the decision of the Supreme Court in this celebrated case, in 1857, Chief Justice Taney denied that negroes had a legal existence as persons in the United States, or that they could sue in the National courts. He denied, also, that Congress had supreme control over the Territories, and pronounced the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Jus1 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 Howard 528. tices McLean and Curtis dissented. This decision greatly tended to intensify the anti-slavery sentiment of the North, as the Fugitive Slave Law had also done. 642. Presidential Election of 1860.-In this canvass the Republican party stood united in opposition to the extension of slavery. The Democratic party, on the other hand, divided on the true intent and meaning of the non interference principle. Both the Douglas and the Breckenridge wings agreed that Congress had nothing to do with the domestic institutions of the Territories and States; the people themselves, or the popular sovereigns, they said, must decide such questions. But when, and in what capacity, should the people assert their power? The Breckenridge platform said the people could exercise it only when forming a constitution for admission to the Union, and that, in the meantime, all citizens of the United States had an equal right to settle in a Territory with their property of all kinds, without their rights of person or property being destroyed or injured by Congressional or Territorial legislation. The Douglas platform said, whether a Territorial Legislature could or could not prohibit slavery was a question for the Supreme Court to determine. The result of the election was that Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate, received 180 electoral votes out or 303, and was declared duly elected. Now followed the secession of the eleven States, as related in a previous chapter. 643. Emancipation Proclamation.—At the North, slavery was generally considered the cause of the Rebellion, and the belief gained ground, as time went on, that it could not be finally suppressed without destroying its cause. President Lincoln, who shared this belief, issued a preliminary proclamation, September 22, 1862, warning the inhabitants of the insurrectionary States that, on the first day of January, 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof should then be in rebellion against the United States, should be then and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, would recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons. As the seceded States paid no heed to this proclamation, on the day named the President issued his Emancipation Proclamation, in which he designated Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, except (thirteen enumerated parishes), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, except forty-eight counties (or West Virginia and seven enumerated counties in the eastern part of the State), as the States and parts of States which were in rebellion, and to which the proc |