a term not applicable to the colored more than to the white race of men; the meaning of the word being foreign, wild, or things in their normal condition. The Greeks and Romans called all foreigners-such as lived without their countries, and were ignorant of their language, laws and customs-barbarians. The word barbarian with them was not reproachful as with us; they applied it to things, as to manufactures made abroad, as Barbarice Vestes, embroidered garments from foreign nations; Barbaricum Aurum, gold from Africa. When applied to man, it meant a foreigner; and all such were considered slaves, and the Greeks and Romans considered themselves their masters so soon as they entered their countries.

At a later period, it was thought by other nations, that to hold men in Slavery, would aid in teaching them the Christian religion; and to this end, the pious King Louis XIII signed a law, declaring all negroes within his dominions slaves. Who knows, but that it was from a reading of this Christian law, and the pure piety of the Vice-President of the late Southern Confederacy, A. H. Stephens, that he conceived the philosophical ideas, advocated by him, of the divine right of Slavery.

The anti-Christian operations of the armies of the Republic of America, and the anti-Christian Proclamation of Emancipation, issued by Abraham Lincoln, no doubt entitle the whole Republican party to the name of barbarians, in the estimation of the slave-breeders of the South and their Democratic brethren of the North.

The doctrines and notions of Slavery and barbarians, as practiced and understood in Europe, had found early advocates in the Colonies of America. Virginia, (the mother of Presidents, and the mother of Slavery

in the United States) not satisfied with introducing Slavery of the negro into America, (twenty having arrived at Jamestown, Virginia, on board of a Dutch ship in 1620, the first in America) soon conceived the idea of enslaving the barbarian, and to this end enacted a code of laws, that has been in strict conformity with the sentiments of the leaders in the Slave States up to the date of Emancipation. With this exception, the slave-breeder of the latter days, neither discriminated between his own child (if a little mixed) and the negro, nor between "Christian and barbarian."

As early as the year 1679, the chivalry of Virginia passed laws, turning over to the soldiers the absolute. possession of all Indians captured by them. The statute reads: "For the better encouragement of soldiers, that all Indians taken prisoners in war in the Colony, should be the property of their captors.'

Soon after this, it was held that all persons not Christians, could be held as slaves. In the case of Hudgins v. Wright, it was held by Judge Tucker in 1682, "That all servants brought into Virginia by sea or land, not being Christians, whether negroes, Moors, mulattoes, or Indians; and all Indians which shall hereafter be sold by neighboring Indians, or any other trafficking with us, as slaves, shall be slaves to all intents and purposes."-Hamirag and Mumford's Reports, p. 139.

CHAPTER VIII.

TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES. — GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORY.

SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORY.-ADMISSION OF MISSOURI.-OPPOSITION TO
HER ADMISSION.-MISSOURI COMPROMISE.-POSITION OF THE FRIENDS OF
FREEDOM AND OF SLAVERY.-SPEECHES UPON BOTH SIDES.

ONE of the subjects agitating the public mind during the past thirty years, was in relation to the government of the public domain, the great cause of which had its origin in the interests of the Slavery question. The Territories stretching westward from the Missouri to the Pacific, were filling up with a population chiefly from the Free States, carrying with them all their love of liberty and hatred of Slavery. Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and Iowa, had planted themselves upon the territorial domain, reaching from the Ohio to the great lakes in the west, and had been admitted as Free States. Minnesota was still further northward; Wisconsin entered the Union from the west, in 1848, with a prohibition of Slavery; and now, in 1850, the jewel of the Republic, California, with an area greater than that of all the New England and Middle States, and with a climate, natural mineral and agricultural resources, unequaled in the world, came with Neptune's trident from the shores of the Pacific, and the golden harvest of her mountains, proclaiming that her hardy sons had planted the flag of liberty where the aurora borealis reflects back departed day, and demanded admission into the family of States. Her Constitution. was examined, to see if it was Republican in form.

Article I. Section 18, reads: "Neither Slavery nor

involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crimes, shall ever be tolerated in this State." The Constitution in all its forms seemed to be Republican; indeed too much so to suit the Senators and Representatives from the Slave States. The friends of freedom were anxious for her admission, but they were met early in the proceedings with bitter opposition from the South. The emaciated form of the leading spirit. of "State Rights," ever true to his instincts, was in the Senate Chamber- the sands of life fast running through the glass, and the kingdom of Slavery crumbling before his gaze, from the Atlantic to the Pacificall the heresies of his youth unrepented, and the accumulated sins of half a century fresh blown upon him; still, with a fiendish propensity clinging to the relics of barbarism, he exerted every physical and mental effort at his command, to delay the admission of the new State, upon the specious argument of her coming into the Union without having gone through the probationary process of a Territorial Government, and her unwieldy proportions. Nor was the voice of John C. Calhoun, the only one raised against the admission of California; for now, as in 1820, on the application of Missouri for admission into the Union, the powerful combination of the entire South stood arrayed against her; but unlike that contest, the South did not pretend to feel disposed to enter into any "Compromise" for the interdiction of Slavery in the western territory. The act called the "Missouri Compromise," had already proved inoperative, as Slavery was extending itself into the whole western territory. Compromise had passed from the thought of the leaders of the South, who, now that they had violated the Missouri compact, claimed that Congress had no right to legislate upon

Slavery in the Territories; in fact this was their doctrine when they entered into the solemn agreement as follows, in 1820, on the admission of Missouri, which is known as the MISSOURI COMPROMISE:

"That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirtysix degrees and thirty minutes, north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contemplated by their act, Slavery or involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall be duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby forever prohibited. Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed, in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor as aforesaid."

Some of the positions taken, and arguments made, by the friends and opponents, at the time of this compact, to fasten the sin of Slavery upon Missouri by National sanction, will serve to aid the reader in determining upon the justice or injustice of this league with the traders in men.

On the 16th day of March, 1818, a petition from the inhabitants of Missouri, for admission into the Union, was presented to Congress. The petition for the admission of Maine was now also before that body; little objection was offered to her admission, save by members from the South, who were anxious that certain doctrines which had arisen regarding the admission of States from territory west of the Mississippi should be settled, "which," said Mr. Clay, "if persevered in, no man can tell where they will end. If conditions were to be demanded upon the admission of a State, where was the limit?" Mr. Taylor, of New York, said:

'Congress may admit new States into the Union.