Abolitionist," in April number, 1897, of the American Historical Magazine.)
When the slave trade was abolished in 1808, the Northern States had already found slavery unprofitable. There was no cogent interest to withhold them from yielding to sentiments of philanthropy or from following sound principles of public policy in abolishing slavery and transferring their slaves to the South. They got rid of slavery and they got rid of the slaves. In the South a very different question was presented. Slave labor had been found profitable, or at least convenient, by the Southern planters. Slaves had accumulated on their hands in large numbers. Even if they should be willing to abolish slavery, there was no means to get rid of the slave population. Thus, in 1819, all the States north of Mason and Dixon s line and the Ohio river to the Mississippi were Free States, and all south of that line were Slave States.
Simultaneously with the transfer of slavery to the South, a steady stream of foreign population began to flow to the North and to move over to the northwest. This was due to two causes. The North Atlantic coast was the commercial section and immigrants were landed at the Northern ports, and naturally followed the lines of latitude in moving West. It was soon found that these immigrants, by a natural instinct, avoided slavery. (American Politics, Johnston, p. 334.)
In 1816, the representation in Congress stood: In the Senate, Free States, 24, Slave States, 24; in the House, Free States, 105, Slave States, 82. The number of States was twenty-four, of which 12 were Free and 12 were Slave States. The preponderance of population and of representation was in favor of the Free States.
Party divisions, however, were not drawn on the same lines. Slavery had followed the geographical lines, but politics had not. Shrewd political leaders were now planning to divide political parties along the same geo-
