Upon the virgin soil of Kansas the fragments of many of the one-time powerful red nations of the East had been colonized. Here, at last, we meet again the Wyandots of Lake Huron,[4] the Delawares of Pennsylvania, the Sacs and Foxes, Ottawas, Pottawatomies, Shawnees, Kickapoos, Piankeshaws and other warlike peoples whose race as nations had been run. To this point they had at length been rolled back by the ever-advancing tide of white emigration. They probably far outnumbered the original owners of the soil,—the Missouris, Kansas, Otoes, Pawnees, Osages,—and all maintained their tribal organization unimpaired within the limits Government had set for them. Here these wrecks of once powerful peoples peacefully lived on the bounty of the nation which had told them Kansas was to be their permanent home. Among most of these tribes missions and schools had been planted by various religious denominations. One of the richest and seemingly most prosperous ones was that founded by the Methodists[5] among the Shawnees, who were half-civilized, and also held a few slaves. To protect its emigrants who were constantly passing over the great routes toward the Pacific, Government had established the military posts of Fort Leavenworth[6] on the Missouri, Fort Riley at the junction of the two chief branches of the Kansas, and Fort Kearney on the Platte. Fort Scott was also founded in the south, on the road leading to the Indian Territory. Set against these new Territories were two States,—one slave and the other free. It was thought that Kansas would mostly take her settlers from Missouri, and so easily be a slave State, while Nebraska in a like manner would become a free State through the influence of Iowa, its neighbor. Moreover the soil and climate of Kansas were thought favorable to the employment of slave labor, while Nebraska was considered to lie north of the line beyond which such labor could be made profitable. Hence it was to Kansas that the efforts of those favoring slavery were turned; and as the best part of it was occupied by Indians, their removal or restricting within smaller tracts was provided for, so making way for the coming settlement. FOOTNOTES [1] SURRENDERED THE PRINCIPLE. The two great Whig leaders, Webster and Clay, advocated the compromise measures of 1850. Clay was a Southern man, though no slavery propagandist, like Calhoun; but Webster, a Northern man, disappointed many of his constituents, and lost his old influence over them from that time onward. [2] FRANKLIN PIERCE was a native of New Hampshire, a lawyer by profession, who had served in the Mexican War. He was not in the front rank of Democratic statesmen, but was selected as a compromise candidate, after thirty-five ballots had been divided between Cass, Douglas, and Buchanan. [3] SOME IN THE SOUTH. Benton of Missouri and Houston of Texas opposed the repeal.