a was admitted as a Territory without slavery restriction. In the
next Congress Missouri was again introduced, but the antislavery
amendment was voted down. In 1820 Mr. Thomas, a senator from Illinois,
proposed, as a mutual concession, that Missouri should be admitted
without restriction, but that in all that part of the territory outside
that State ceded by France to the United States, north of the latitude
of 36 deg. 30' (the southern boundary of Missouri), slaves should
thereafter be excluded; and this bill was finally passed March 2,1820.
Mr. Clay is credited with being the father of this compromise, but,
according to Mr. Schurz, he did not deserve the honor. He adopted it,
however, and advocated it with so much eloquence and power that it
owed its success largely to his efforts, and therefore it is still
generally ascribed to him.

At that time no statesmen, North or South, had fully grasped the slavery
question. Even Mr. Calhoun once seemed to have no doubt as to the
authority of Congress to exclude slavery from the Territories, but he
was decided enough in his opposition when he saw that it involved an
irreconcilable conflict of interests,--that slavery and freedom are
antagonistic ideas, concerning which there can be no genuine compromise.
"There may be compromises," says Von Holst, "with regard to measures,
but never between principles." And slavery, when the Missouri Compromise
was started, was looked upon as a measure rather than as a principle,
concerning which few statesmen had thought deeply. As the agitation
increased, measures were lost sight of in principles.

The compromise by which Missouri was admitted as a slave State, while
slavery should be excluded from all territory outside of it north of
36 deg. 30', was a temporary measure of expediency, and at that period
was probably a wise one; since, if slavery had been excluded from
Missouri, there might have been a dissolution of the Union. The
preservation of the Union was the dearest object to the heart of Clay,
who was genuinely and thoroughly patriotic. Herein he doubtless
rendered a great public service, and proved himself to be a broad-minded
statesman. To effect this compromise Clay had put forth all his
energies, not only in eloquent speeches and tireless labors in
committees and a series of parliamentary devices for harmonizing the
strife, but in innumerable interviews with individuals.

In 1820, Clay retired to private life in order to retrie