These and further enactments of a like nature ended constitutionally the slave traffic in the United States. Many New Englanders had nothing further to gain; there was no legitimate financial emolument now standing between them and a realization of the ethical side of the slave question. Instead of lending a conservative help to those of the South who hoped by gradual and conciliatory methods to loose slavery’s growing hold upon their institutions, through a curious psychological metamorphosis they began to look askance upon the South and its institution of slavery, and to affiliate in thought with the abolition movement which under Clarkson, Wilberforce, and others was stirring England; forgetting in their zeal that the wrongs which Clarkson and Wilberforce were championing were the wrongs of which England and New England as slave traders had been the chief perpetrators. This growing sentiment was seized upon by politicians and played upon for party purposes. It was with increased apprehension that they saw the extension of the slave interests which the purchase of Louisiana had necessitated, and the further representation these interests would be given as new States were formed from the slave territory. For a decade this jealousy was kept within safe bounds by any preponderance of representation being checkmated and balanced by the formation of a Free State. Yet this feeling was becoming rapidly contagious, spreading to many who had not previously thought of slavery, or who regarded it as a domestic policy to be settled by the Slave States individually and exclusively. With the development of the Missouri controversy, the temperamental divergence born of several centuries of turmoil and turbulence in England, and too deep-rooted to be really dead, roused from the anesthesia of united effort against a common enemy and a subsequent enthusiasm for Union, and stood forth definitely defined as North and South. Forgetful of the give and take necessary for the harmonious existence of polities as of individuals, the country was still not large enough or the political interests sufficiently varied, for such differences to be conducive to well-being. In his Presidential farewell Washington warned his countrymen against a geographical division of interests: “In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as a matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by _geographical discrimination_, ... northern and southern ... Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien