stitution of slavery
should gain no advantage by this act of perfidy. It was denounced
as a violation of a plain specific pledge of the public faith made
by acts of Congress in 1820 and in 1850. With this feeling there
ran current a conviction that the measure adopted was forced by
southern domination, and yielded to by ambitious northern dough-
faces anxious to obtain southern support.

Unfortunately the drift of parties was on sectional lines. The
whole south had become Democratic, so that a united south, acting
in concert with a few members from the north, could control the
action of Congress. I believe that a feeling did then prevail with
many in the south, that they were superior to men of the north,
that one southern man could whip four Yankees, that their institution
of slavery naturally produced among the masters, men of superior
courage, gentlemen who could command and make others obey. Whether
such a feeling did exist or not, it was apparent that the political
leaders in the south were, as a rule, men of greater experience,
were longer retained in the service of their constituents, and held
higher public positions than their associates from the north.
Besides, they had in slavery a bond of union that did not tolerate
any difference of opinion when its interests were involved. This
compact power needed the assistance only of a few scattered members
from the north to give it absolute control. But now the south was
to meet a different class of opponents. There had been growing
all over the north, especially in the minds of religious people,
a conviction that slavery was wrong. The literature of the day
promoted this tendency. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise
aroused the combative feeling of the north until it became general
among all parties and sects. Still, the north recognized the legal
existence of slavery in the south, and did not propose to interfere
with it, and was entirely content to faithfully observe the
obligations of the constitution and the laws, including those for
the return of fugitive slaves. A smaller, but very noisy body of
men and women denounced the constitution as "a covenant with hell
and a contract with the devil." A much large number of conservative
voters formed themselves into a party called the Free Soil party,
who, professing to be restrained within constitutional limits, yet
favored the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. They
invoked the moral inf