objection to it, for the theory was part of their philosophy of life. When opposition sprang up it was not on the ground of the right or wrong of slavery; it was a question of expediency and prosperity. It is true that a great many Southerners believed that slavery was not only the divinely appointed condition of the black race but also that it was the happiest and most natural for them. But the best men, and particularly in Virginia, Missouri and the other border states, would have favored emancipation. The trouble was that no practical plan could be found. Men like Lee and Jackson have put themselves on record as desiring to see the way open for the freeing of the slaves but the solu tion of the problem was hidden.* Thomas H. Benton was emphatic in his statements that the people would be happier and far more prosperous if the state were free than with slaves. He saw that those features which made the men of the Southern states feel that slavery was the corner stone of their prosperity, were wanting in his state and it would be the part of folly to favor establishing slavery there. Not only did the great men of the time take this view but the attitude was common, though the reasons for it differed widely. In the later fifties an acting governor of the state is quoted as saying to a Northern companion: "We do not want you Northerners to meddle with our institutions; but we know very well that this peculiar institution is one that we need to get rid of. It don't pay. I can hire a Dutchman, for moderate wages, to do as much work as I can get out of a nigger that I own and feed. Then, if the Dutchman dies, 'tis his loss, but if the nigger dies, 'tis my loss." There is no idea of principle of any kind wrapped up in such a statement. It simply shows how from a selfish, business point of view slavery was unsteady on its foundations in Missouri. Not only in the minds of the statesmen with the best welfare of the people of the state in view but as a mercenary question, slavery was coming to be regarded as a menace to prosperity.

There was little opposition except on such grounds up till war times. Of course years before, men from the North, who desired the overthrow of slavery on principle, had made their

*Henderson: Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War. I, 79-89.

homes in the state and, especially in Saint Louis, there came to be an Abolition party. In the state at large there was no such agitation to amount to anything till well on in the Fifties. The result was that there was a lack of the bitter discussions which disturbed so many of the states long before the war. The attitude of the great Benton roused little opposition in his own state till the very time of his defeat, although he was fighting bravely against the extension of slavery and was leaving no doubt of his personal hatred of it. The state was occupied with its internal affairs long after the rest of the country was taking sides on the great question which was so soon to lead to rebellion.

The nature of the occupations which were prominent in Missouri, did not seem to demand slave labor to the extent that was true farther south and, consequently, there was not the same need to defend the institution. Also the very struggle about admission gave rise to a conservative attitude toward the question. During the early years of the state, local interests were predominant, the great national questions were secondary in importance. To an extent which would not be possible in this day of newspaper supremacy when we can hardly avoid the knowledge of what is occurring on the opposite side of the earth, the inhabitants of the new state paid little attention to matters outside of their own vicinity. It was only as the crisis approached that the great question of the time became the dominant issue in Missouri.

The period of special agitation of the slavery question in the state was during those years shortly after its admission when in the nation at large there was a lull in the conflict. The Missouri Compromise was accepted on all sides as the end of the trouble. and, in spite of the farsightedness of certain wise men who realized that the end was not yet, the struggle appeared to be over. The special interest in the state was awakened by the attempt to formulate and adopt a policy of gradual emancipation. As far as the national problem is concerned it was considered settled by the Missourians as truly as in any other part of the country. With them it was a question of the prosperity of the Commonwealth. Both parties were together in carrying through this project and success seemed sure, when a distorted account of the entertainment of some negroes by Arthur Tappan in New York

*started the idea that the freedom of the negro would necessitate the recognition of his social equality. The result was that the entire attempt toward gradual emancipation was given up. This fear of social equality accompanying emancipation was very strong at the time. Any incident such as this was all that was necessary to raise a storm in the slave states. As the war progressed this feeling continued among many of those, standing loyally by the Union, who had spent their lives among the slaves. An incident in Saint Louis as late as 1864 will illustrate the tennacity of their fear. A great deal of time and care was given by the citizens of Saint Louis to the Mississippi Valley Sanitary Fair. A building over 500 feet long was filled day after day with the crowds which came to see the displays and do their part for the relief of the war sufferers. Many soldiers attended, among them several colored regiments. One of these, the 68th United States Infantry, helped the cause by more than $1200. A large donation had been made to the "Freedmen's and Union Refugees' Department" of the Fair by an association of colored people in Brooklyn. During the progress of the Fair, two representatives of this association visited Saint Louis. These gentlemen, Rev. Mr. Glouces ter and Prof. Day, were received by the chairman of the department to which their donation had been made. At dinner time the officers of the fair, who were entertaining them, took them to the Cafe Laclede which was managed by the ladies of the city. The lady in charge that day was absent and there was a disgraceful scene in which all but one lady refused to wait upon the guests. Certain of the papers appeared with garbled accounts of the proceedings and, though the management of the Fair sustained the action of the gentlemen who entertained the visitors, there was much excited criticism of the occurence. Colonel Boyle, who was in charge of the Fine Arts Department, placed a notice at the entrance to Fine Arts Hall forbidding admission to negroes. The Executive Committee requested him to remove the sign and, on his tendering his resignation, at once accepted it. His action laid him open to considerable ridicule in the Democrat for at the time Colonel Boyle was seeking to be appointed to the command. of a negro regiment! This is but one instance of many which *Wilson: Commonwealth of Missouri. 222, 3.

show how ready good people were to be upset by an incident which a little thought would have shown to be only common politeness and no lowering of proper dignity. Had it not been for this irresistable feeling a satisfactory plan of emancipation might have been developed and carried out long before freedom was finally extended to the slaves in Missouri.

Several years later Lovejoy began to press the matter again but conditions were entirely changed. The agitation of the extreme abolitionists in the North had so enraged the Southern element that they refused to take any concerted action with the other party. Lovejoy partook of the characteristics to which they objected and made himself very unpopular. There was really nothing in what he said or wrote in his paper at Saint Louis that can begin to compare with the unbridled attacks of later years, but the time was ill chosen. He was urged to desist by men as true to the anti-slavery cause as he, but he continued on his course till the neighborhood became too hot for him and he decided to move to Alton, Illinois. Before he got away an attack was made upon his office and his press and type were destroyed. In Alton, he was attacked several times and, at a raid upon his third press, was shot and killed after one of the attacking party had been killed.

Lovejoy was sincere in his policy. We cannot doubt but that he held to his chosen way in spite of opposition because he thought he was right. In the light of all that afterwards occurred, it is hard to say whether acts such as his, which in themselves seem ill-timed and unwise, had a real influence for good or not. We cannot tell whether the terrible war could have been avoided by any means and we have no right to lay the blame for the great struggle upon those who were devoted to the cause of freedom because we judge them to have been unwise in their methods. It is probable that the unrestricted ardor of such men is the inevitable accompaniment of great movements of reform rather than the necessary cause or desirable precursor of success. After Lovejoy's departure from Saint Louis the attempt toward gradual emancipation was abandoned by everyone.

Taking everything into consideration, the condition of affairs. in the years preceding the war was very different from that in any

other state. There were those who were ready to do anything for slavery during the Kansas troubles; there were many who had come from the South, with or without slaves of their own, who were as staunch upholders of the right of slavery and as ready to join in Confederacy as any in the Southern states. And there were Abolitionists of the objectionable type in Missouri as in every state where they were tolerated. But the majority of the people were ready to stand by the Union and were anxious only for the best good of their nation and their commonwealth. In the Texas troubles the attitude of the state was particularly patriotic. In a set of resolutions adopted by the legislature the belief was stated that the question of slavery or no slavery should be left to the inhabitants of the territory to decide but they considered the addition of the Texas territory of such importance to the nation that they advised any necessary concessions. Such an attitude was very different from that of the Southern states. So we find that till shortly before the war there was a conservative Union feeling in Missouri which was only modified as the heat of the contest increased and the rupture approached.

We have noticed that the special reason for this difference in feeling was due to the popular status of slavery in the state. Most of the early settlers were accompanied by their slaves and, from time to time till the war, incoming slaveholders added to the number, but there was no great demand for that kind of labor so that the increase of slaves did not bear comparison with that of other states. In 1850 there were only 87,422 slaves among the 592,077 white inhabitants of the state. Adding 2,544 free colored persons we have a total population of 682,043. In South Carolina, which was nearest of all the slave states in population, 668,507, there were 385,009 slaves and only 274,647 white people. And, comparing Missouri with the Southern state having nearest the same white population, North Carolina, we find Missouri's 87,422 slaves against 288,412. With these figures before us we can hardly call Missouri a slave state in the same sense that we use with the Southern states. We are faced by very different conditions. With the exception of Delaware with her 2,289 slaves and 17,957 free blacks, the proportion of free population to slave in Missouri was twice that of any other slave state.