in　other　words；　leaving　the　ordinance　of　Nature　and　will　of　God　to　manifest　themselves。　　But　Webster　had　then　opposed　Cass'　election　and　denounced　his　doctrines　and　proposed　policies。　　The　Whigs；　having　run　counter　to　the　overwhelming　popular　sentiment　in　their　unpatriotic　opposition　to　the　Mexican　War；　found　themselves　ruined。　　They　chose　a　distinguished　soldier　of　that　war　President；　and　hoped　to　rally　by　adopting　this　Democratic　doctrine。
  He　accused　Seward　of　carrying　New　York　for　the　Whigs　in　the　late　election　by　assuring　them　that　Taylor；　though　a　slave…holder；　would　approve　the　legislative　monstrosity　known　as　the　Wilmot　proviso；　excluding　slavery　forever　from　the　new　Territories。　　But　Taylor　had　ignored　Seward's　promise。　　New　York's　vote　had　elected　Taylor　and　a　few　weeks　later　Seward　was　chosen　Senator。　　Taylor　was　made　President　and　Seward　Senator　by　the　latter's　successful　fraud。
  Calhoun's　charge　of　Northern　aggression　and　encroachment　he　met　with　a　sweeping　denial。　　Neither　the　North　nor　the　South　as　such　had　any　right　in　the　Territories；　but　all　the　people　of　the　States　had　equal　rights　there。　　The　Ordinance　of　1787；　denounced　by　Calhoun　as　a　Northern　aggression　on　Southern　rights；　was　voted　for　by　every　Southern　State。　　That　Ordinance　did　not；　in　fact；　exclude　the　South；　or　even　slavery；　from　the　Northwest　Territory。　　A　majority　of　the　settlers　in　Ohio；　Indiana　and　Illinois　were　from　the　South。　　Slavery　had　actually　existed　in　Indiana　and　Illinois　and　had　but　recently　disappeared。　　The　Missouri　Compromise　was　not　an　act　of　Northern　aggression；　but　was　passed　by　a　united　South　which　had　made　repeated　efforts　to　extend　it　to　the　Pacific。　　The　exclusion　of　slavery　from　Oregon　was　not　an　act　of　Northern　aggression；　but　the　work　of　the　settlers　during　the　period　of　joint　occupancy　under　the　treaty　with　Great　Britain；　and　should　be　accepted　by　the　anti…slavery　agitators　as　proof　of　the　wisdom　of　popular　sovereignty。　　the　objection　that　the　people　of　the　South　were　forbidden　to　emigrate　with　their　property　to　the　new　Territories　was　simply　a　complaint　that　they　could　not　carry　the　laws　of　their　States　with　them；　but　must　be　governed　by　the　laws　of　their　new　domicile。　　Calhoun's　project　of　maintaining　an　equilibrium　between　free　and　slave　States　or　of　compelling　States　to　accept　or　retain　slavery　against　their　will　was　impossible。
  At　the　organization　of　the　Government　twelve　of　the　thirteen　States　had　slavery。　　but　six　of　them　voluntarily　abolished　it。　　Delaware；　Maryland；　Missouri；　Kentucky；　North　Carolina；　and　Tennessee　would　yet　adopt　the　system　of　gradual　emancipation。　　Seventeen　free　States　would　soon　be　formed　out　of　the　territory　between　the　Mississippi　and　the　Pacific。　　Where　would　they　find　slave　territory　with　which　to　balance　these　States？　　If　Texas　were　divided　into　five　States；　three　of　them　would　be　free。　　If　Mexico　were　annexed；　twenty　of　her　twenty…two　States　would　be　free　by　the　ordinance　of　Nature　or　the　will　of　God。　　He　urged　the　duty　of　promptly　providing　governments　for　the　unorganized　domain　and　closed　with　a　graceful　tribute　to　Clay　and　the　prediction　that　the　Territories　would　soon　be　organized；　California　admitted　and　the　controversy　ended　forever。
  There　were　three　generically　distinct　groups　of　statesmen　participating　in　this　great　debatethe　aggressive；　unyielding　men　of　the　South　to　whom　slavery　was　dearer　than　the　Union；　the　temporizing　politicians　of　the　North　and　the　border；　with　their　compromises　and　concessions；　hoping　to　save　the　Union　by　salving　its　wounds；　and　the　stern　Puritans　of　the　North；　bent　on　rooting　out　the　sins　of　the　Nation；　through　the　heavens　fell。
  The　climax　of　the　debate　was　now　past；　but　it　continued　to　agitate　Congress　until　the　middle　of　September。　　President　Taylor；　who　had　exerted　his　influence　against　the　Compromise；　died　on　July　9th；　and　was　succeeded　by　Fillmore；　who　at　once　called　Webster　to　the　head　of　his　Cabinet　and　turned　the　Executive　influence　to　the　support　of　the　bill。　　It　proved　impossible；　even　with　his　help；　to　pass　it　as　a　whole；　but　after　it　had　gone　to　wreck　its　fragments　were　gathered　up　and　each　of　the　several　bills　which　were　jumbled　together　in　the　〃Omnibus〃　was　passed。　　The　great　Compromise　was　accomplished　and　the　slavery　question　declared　settled　forever。
  Chapter　V。　　Results　of　the　Fugitive　Slave　Law。
  In　1850　Douglas　moved　to　Chicago；　which　had　become　the　chief　city　of　the　State。
  The　people　were　greatly　exasperated　by　the　passage　of　the　Fugitive　Slave　Law。　　The　City　Council；　on　October　21st；　passed　resolutions　harshly　condemning　the　Senators　and　Representatives　from　the　free　States　who　had　supported　it　and　〃those　who　basely　sneaked　away　from　their　seats　and　thereby　evaded　the　question；〃　classing　them　with　Benedict　Arnold　and　Judas　Iscariot。　　This　was　a　personal　challenge　to　Douglas。　　It　happened　that　he　was　absent　from　the　Senate　on　private　business　when　the　bill　was　passed。　　But　the　charge　of　evading　the　question　was　grossly　unjust。
  On　the　evening　of　the　22nd　a　mass　meeting　was　held　at　the　city　hall；　attended　by　a　great　concourse　of　angry　citizens；　who；　amid　tumultuous　applause；　resolved　to　defy　〃death；　the　dungeon　and　the　grave〃　in　resisting　the　hated　law。　　Douglas　appeared　on　the　platform　and　announced　that　on　the　following　evening　he　would　address　the　people　in　defense　of　the　Fugitive　Slave　Law　and　the　entire　Compromise。　The　announcement　was　received　with　a　storm　of　hisses　and　groans。
  The　next　night　an　enormous　multitude　gathered　to　hear　him。　　The　audience　was　not　only　sullen　but　bitterly　hostile。　　After　a　contemptuous　reference　to　the　resolutions　and　a　brief　vindication　of　himself　against　their　insinuations；　he　plunged　into　the　defense　of　the　law。　　He　insisted　that　the　provision　for　the　return　of　fugitive　slaves　contained　in　the　recent　act　was　analogous　to　the　general　provision　of　law　for　the　return　of　fugitives　from　justice；　and；　while　abuses　of　the　process　might　occur　and　wrong　occasionally　inflicted；　that　was　one　of　the　inherent　infirmities　of　human　law；　and　the　same　objection　could　be　urged　with　equal　force　to　all　extradition　statutes。　　While　free　blacks　might　be　seized　in　the　North　and　carried　South　on　the　false　charge　of　being　fugitives　from　service；　innocent　white　men　might　also　be　seized　in　Chicago　and　carried　to　California　on　the　false　charge　of　being　fugitives　from　justice。
  He　reminded　them　that　the　law　of　1850　was　substantially　a　reenactment　of　that　of　1793；　passed　by　the　Revolutionary　Fathers；　the　founders　of　the　Constitution；　and　approved　by　President　Washington。　　He　did　not　argue；　but　assumed　the　justice　of　the　old　law；　nor　did　he　allude　to　the　increased　ardor　of　pursuit　of　fleeing　slaves　since　their　increase　in　value。　　He　rested　his　case　on　the　close　resemblance　of　the　letter　of　the　new　law　to　that　of　the　old。　　He　told　them　that　the　duty　of　returning　fugitive　slaves　was　created　not　by　THIS　law；　but　by　the　Constitution；　and　that　the　real　question　was　not　as　to　the　existence　of　the　duty；　but　which　law　performed　it　most　justly　and　efficiently。
  A　listener　asked　him　whether　the　Constitution　was　not　in　violation　of　the　will　of　God。　　He　warned　them　of　the　danger　of　that　objection；　arising　from　the　difficulty　of　authentically　ascertaining　the　will　of　God。　　It　was　not　practicable　to　allow　each　citizen　to　determine　it　for　himself。　　Hence；　certain　fundamental　principles　had　been　established　as　a　Constitution；　which　must　be　assumed　to　be　in　harmony　with　it　and　from　which　no　appeal　lay。　　The　Constitution　provided　for　the　return　of　fugitive　slaves。　　The　sacred　duty　of　citizenship　bound　them　to　support　it。　　Appeals　to　a　higher　law　were　impracticable　and　a　mere　evasion　of　duty。
  Read　in　a　the　calmer　light　of　after　years　the　effectiveness　of　this　speech　is　hard　to　understand。　　The　literal　difference　between　the　recent　act　and　the　law　of　1793；　was　not　great。　　But　the　difference　between　the　ethical　views　of　slavery　held　by　the　people　in　1850　and　those　held　in　1793　was　not　to　be　measured。　　The　changes　in　the　law　were　vicious　and　in　the　opposite　direction　from　the　radical　changes　in　popular　sentiment。　　The　specially　odious　provision　of　the　new　law；　distinguishing　it　from　general　extradition　statutes；　was　that　forbidding　resort　to　the　writ　of　habeas　corpus　by　the　alleged　fugitive　at　the　place　where　seized。　　The　fugitive　from　justice　in　California　seized　in　Chicago　could；　on　writ　of　habeas　corpus　issued　by　an　Illinois　court；　have　it　judicially　determined　before　his　deportation　whether　the　facts　charged　against　him　constituted　a　crime　and　whether　thee　was　probable　cause　to　believe　that　he　had　committed　it。
  Under　the　new　law　the　Federal　Commissioner　of　the　State　where　the　arrest　was　made　had　no　power　to　inquire　into　the　truth　or　sufficiency　of　the　charge。　　He　could　only　determine　whether　the　person　arrested　was　probably　the　one　who　had　committed　the　escape；　and　must　decline　to　hear　the　testimony　of　the　fugitive　himself。　　The　fact　of　escape　was　judicially　determined　in　advance；　ex　parte；　in　the　State　from　which　it　had　been　made；　and　the　alleged　fugitive　was　remanded　to　that　State　for　such　further　proceedings　as　its　laws　might　provide　and　〃no　process　issued　by　any　Court；　Judge；　Magistrate　or　other　person　wh