=329. The First Missouri Compromise.=—The close of the year 1819 saw a renewal of the contest in the new Congress, which assembled after the matter had been much discussed in state legislatures and throughout the country. Alabama was admitted to balance Illinois; then bills passed the House admitting Maine[142] and Missouri, but with the anti-slavery proviso made applicable to the latter. The Senate would admit Maine only if Missouri were admitted as a slave state. The House refused to yield, but finally a compromise was effected. A line was drawn across the Louisiana Territory at 36° 30′, _i.e._ along the northern boundary of Arkansas, and it was agreed that north of this line slavery should not exist save in Missouri. This famous arrangement, which went into effect in March, 1820, became known as the “Missouri Compromise” and was effective until new territory was added to the Union as a result of the Mexican War. [Illustration: HENRY CLAY (1832).] =330. The Second Missouri Compromise.=—Missouri was not, indeed, admitted until 1821, on account of a provision in its Constitution against allowing free colored men to enter its borders. This obstacle was overcome by the address and dexterity of Henry Clay[143] who, as a Virginian by birth and a Kentuckian by residence, was in every way admirably suited to act as mediator between the two sections. He did not like slavery, and had been president of the Colonization Society; but he understood how thoroughly in earnest the Southern men were to defend the institution. He used all the tact and personal charm for which he was conspicuous among his contemporaries, and succeeded in making the people of Missouri agree not to deprive citizens of other states of their rights. [Illustration: JOHN RANDOLPH.] =331. General View of the Compromises.=—The Second Compromise was distinctly ambiguous and meant little; the First was a sacrifice of principle which, however, was regarded as necessary at the time. Both sides were in earnest, and the extreme adherents of each stood out to the end for their respective principles. On the whole, the responsibility for the settlement rested largely on the moderate Southerners and on their Northern and Western sympathizers, who were very influential in some states,—for example, in Illinois. Few men saw with John Randolph[144] that the day of settlement was only postponed. Whether it would have been best to fight the question out then and there, will always be a mooted point. Compromise on matters of principle is incapable of satisfying men’s consciences for long; but it is equally true that principles cannot be uncompromisingly maintained with success at all times and seasons. Fighting unyieldingly for them at the wrong time may postpone their final triumph indefinitely. Hence it was, perhaps, best that the forces of freedom were given time to grow strong and that the Union was not hazarded at so early a juncture. FACTIONAL POLITICS.