The dollar weekly bulletin. [volume] (Maysville, Ky.) 1862-1864, 1864-04-28

the jealousy of New England toward:
Southern acquisition, Texas was ceeded tC
Spain. as part of the consideration for Flori
da. So'that while we gained but SO ,O0(
square miles with Florida, we, gave away il
Texas and lew Mexican. Territory, ovel
100000 square miles. sesame
In 1920. Nilsson ri applied for admission
into the Union as a State, but having a
slavery constitution, and though formed out
Of the Louisiana territory, tOhich By the treaty
of purchase t0ith France t0as guaranteed as
slave territory, the New England faction
raised violent opposition to its admission
with Its slavery constitution, and the agita-
ton was such, that the safety of the Union
was then greatly endangered. The ques-
ton was however for time settleds by the
adm ission Of Missouri as slave state, but
with proviso, called the Missouri Con1pro-
mise. by which 1t was agreed, that from ths t
time, slavery should be prohibited (Mis-
sonri being excepted) north Of the latitude
of 36 deg. 80 min; and that no state should
be admitted with slavery formed in terri
tory north of that line. Free states might
be admitted from south. but no slave state
state from north of that line. 1t was at this
date Cl820) that the higher laio doctrine was
first brosched: then it was. that sectionalism
originated. This compromise Jefferson de-
- Texas, as above stated, formed Q part of
the Louisiana purchase, and having been
Iceeded to Spain. on the purchase of Florida.
and being attached to Mexico, with the sue
cess OF the Mexican Revolution, became one
OF the Mexican States; afterwards, by her
own revolution she became in turn, inde-
pendent OF Mexico, aud was then re annex
ed to the United States.
The Mexican war followed, and Cali
forDia was acquired and purchased from
Mexico, aud was admitted into the Union.
Now, what was the relative proportion Of
free and slave territory of the United States
at the date Of Liucolu's election?
The proportion of slave to free territory
Il include the entire area, whether states or
territories) west of the Mississippi, was as
follows: f
Entire area, say about 1000, 900 8. m.
Cflhis, at the date of Lincoln cleo
ton tho area Of free territory
was 1885 ,25l s. m.
The area of slaus territory was 6sl.464 S. m.
Total square miles 2ol6,7l5 E. m.
This area of 1885, PSI square miles of
free territory, is divided into he following
States, or territories to be formed into states.
viz: Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska,
DAcotah, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Nevada,
Oregon, Washington aud California, twelve
states, or to form at least twelve states, ivith
at least tsOsnty four Ul.'ted States Senators.
The area of 681 464 square mikes of slave
territory, is divided into Missouri, Arkan-
sas, Louisiana, Texas, Qndian pertitory,)
New Mexico and Arizona, six states or to
form six tOith but t,oelUe Senator's. To sum
up, we have a total area, thus:
East E, of Mississippi River 500 500 coo OOo $. m.
Total 2,sO4,00O s. m.
This, WHICH AT THE TIME WAS ALL SLAVE
TERRITORY, stood as follows, at the date of
Lincoln's elections:
Free soil East of Mississippi River 466 ,66s m.
Free soil West 1885, ,25l s. IN.
Total Free soil 1901 ,9l4 S. m.
Slave soil East Of mississippi River 44g, g,754 SIN.
Slave soil West . 6Sl ,464s. m.
Total slave slave soil 1,l22,2l5s. m.
Excess of free soil at the date OF
Linceln's election 1893 s. M
AND SHOWING A GAIN OF FREE SOIL FOR THE
North SINCE THE DECLARATION OF INDIE
pENDANcE, as follows:
Total, Dec 1860, area of the o.
Sta es, which was all slave soil,
july 4, l776 t. 2,s04 900 s. m.
Total area of slave soil, Dec. 1860 1922 ;2l5 m.
Total gain of free soil for the
North from the Declaration Of
Independence to Lincoln's elee- rr
tion . l,6Sl 1855. m.
Do these figures show Southern aggres-
sions? But, let us look little further, the
maiorit;es 10 Congress- of free state Repre-
sentatives, over slave state Representatives,
was e-' ..-' E.
In Isl1-25,
..E .f-.1 In lS22-S4,
In 1922,
In lS42-4S,
..t. ID In 1S52-57, -
A majority which more than doubled Itself
in 40 years. Do these figures show sggres.
sions of the South? .' .--..r- .s
Should not these figures satisfy inquiriDg
minds that the South had not been aggres
five? But what have the North to say in
justification of the refusal long before the