Kept by the South.
But never was the power of persistent misstatement so signally exhibited as in the accepted belief that this compromise, reluctantly assented to by the
South as one in derogation of her rights, was by the
South broken and by the
North kept.
The opposition to the compromise came invariably from the
North, whenever the
South was the beneficiary of it. It was the
South which proposed the
[
281]
extension of the line to the
Pacific and the
North which rejected it. The settlement of 1820 had been already dishonored by denial, and by denial from the
North, when, in 1850, it was ignored and annulled on both sides of the line.
This was the exceeding wickedness of the
South—to think that the name should correspond with the reality; to think that when the reality had ceased to exist the utility of the name was not excessive; that when the practical operation of the compromise had been repudiated by the
North, with every expression of scorn and contempt, the dead letter need cumber the statute-book no longer.
And, after all, what was the practical effect of such a settlement, as derived from actual experience?
It had been witnessed in the case of
New Mexico (the most important of the
Territories), which had been organized for more than ten years, which was open to slavery by the settlement of 1850, whose climate was suitable, which adjoined
Texas.
It had an area of two million square miles, and at the end of ten years there were upon its soil only twenty-two slaves, and of these only ten were domiciled.
Did it injure the negro?
Did it augment slavery?
