an active partisan of Senator Atchison, rapidly pushed on the treaties with the Indians west of Missouri and dallied with the Omahas, the inference was unavoidable, that Iowa interests were being sacrificed to Missouri interests.  Such was the story that the Iowa Johnson poured into the ear of Senator Douglas, to whom he was presented by Senator Dodge.[461] The surest way to safeguard the interests of Iowa was to divide the Territory of Nebraska, and give Iowa her natural outlet to the West.

Senator Dodge had also come to this conclusion.  Nebraska would be to Iowa, what Iowa had been to Illinois.  Were only one Territory organized, the seat of government and leading thoroughfares would pass to the south of Iowa.[462] Put in the language of the promoters of the Pacific railroad, one Territory meant aid to the central route; two Territories meant an equal chance for both northern and central routes.  As the representative of Chicago interests, Douglas was not blind to these considerations.

On Monday, January 23d, Douglas reported the Kansas-Nebraska bill with a brief word of explanation.  Next day Senator Dixon expressed his satisfaction with the amendment, which he interpreted as virtually repealing the Missouri Compromise.  He disclaimed any other wish or intention than to secure the principle which the compromise measures of 1850 had established.[463] An editorial in the Washington Union threw the weight of the administration into the balance:  “The proposition of Mr. Douglas is a practical execution of the principles of that compromise [of 1850], and therefore, cannot but be regarded by the administration as a test of Democratic orthodoxy."[464]

While the administration publicly wheeled into line behind Douglas, the “Appeal of the Independent Democrats in Congress to the People of the United States” summoned the anti-slavery elements to join battle in behalf of the Missouri Compromise.  This memorable document had been written by Chase of Ohio and dated January 19th, but a postscript was added after the revised Kansas-Nebraska bill had been reported.[465] It was an adroitly worded paper.  History has falsified many of its predictions; history then controverted many of its assumptions; but it was colored with strong emotion and had the ring of righteous indignation.

The gist of the appeal was contained in two clauses, one of which declared that the Nebraska bill would open all the unorganized territory of the Union to the ingress of slavery; the other arraigned the bill as “a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights.”  In ominous words, fellow citizens were besought to observe how the blight of slavery would settle upon all this land, if this bill should become a law.  Christians and Christian ministers were implored to interpose.  “Let all protest, earnestly and emphatically, by correspondence, through the press, by memorials, by resolutions of public meetings and