TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT IN MISSOURI. 197 CHAPTER XXXII. 1819-1821. THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. The settlement of Missouri-Her petitions for admission to the Union - Attempt of Congress to prohibit slavery -The struggle over slavery in Arkansas - Public sentiment respecting slavery Early attempts of Maine to separate from Massachusetts - Her formation of a constitution and application for admission - Debate over the admission of Maine and Missouri - Speeches of Pinkney and King and the debate on the Thomas amendment - Final passage of the bill-Obnoxious clauses in the Missouri constitution - Clay's compromise Struggle over the electoral vote The final compromise and termination of the dispute. On March 26, 1804, Congress divided the newly purchased Louisiana into two parts, with the 33d degree of north latitude as the dividing line. The territory south of this line was named the Territory of Orleans, and that north of it was called the District of Louisiana. As we have seen, the territory of Orleans was given a government of its own, but Louisiana had been attached to the Territory of Indiana. On July 4, 1805, however, the District of Louisiana became the Territory of Louisiana, with a governor, secretary, judges, etc.* In 1812, when the Territory of Orleans was admitted as a State under the name of Louisiana, the name Territory of Louisiana was dropped and that of Territory of Missouri substituted. As Missouri, according to the census of 1810, had 20,000 inhabitants, it became a Terri *See Volume v., chaps. ii. and xii. of this History. tory of the second grade and was given a a house of representatives elected by the people, a legislative council of nine appointed by the President, and a delegate to Congress. When the hard times came after the War of 1812, hundreds of thousands. of people migrated from East to West, a large percentage of them settling in Missouri. As slavery was permitted in the Territory, it was a land of promise for every slaveholder and emigrant from the Southern States. The increase in the population brought a desire for a change in the form of government. In 1816 Congress had consented. that the council should consist of one member from each county to be elected by the people, who clamored for the kind of local government they had known in the East. Hence when In * McMaster, vol. iv., pp. 570–571. 198 PETITIONS FOR STATEHOOD; SLAVERY AMENDMENT. diana, Mississippi and Illinois were admitted, the feeling that Missouri should become a State and be allowed to join the Union became much stronger. Soon petitions were sent to Congress, and though they were ignored at first, one finally came from the Territorial legislature, received attention, and was sent to the select committee of which John Scott, the Missouri delegate, was chairman. A bill was soon reported and sent to the Committee of the Whole, but nothing was done before the House adjourned in the summer. In November of 1818, when Congress re-assembled, a second petition was presented from the Missouri Legislature and on January 30, 1819, Mr. Scott introduced another petition from what is now Arkansas, asking that the Territory be divided.* These petitions were referred to the proper committees, and shortly afterward a bill to enable the people of Missouri to form a State constitution was reported, and on February 13, 1819, the matter was taken under consideration by the Committee of the Whole. Hardly had the discussion opened when James Tallmadge, Jr., of New York, introduced an amendment which threw the committee into confusion. This amendment provided "That the introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited except for the punishment of crimes whereof the party has been duly convicted; and that all children born *Annals of Congress, 15th Congress, 2d session, pp. 413-414, 418, 911. within the said State after the admission thereof into the Union shall be free at the age of twenty-five years.' This amendment was immediately attacked from all sides as being unconstitutional, unwise, and impossible of execution. It was said that Congress had no power to lay a restriction on any State as a condition upon which it might be admitted to the Union. According to the treaty by which Louisiana was purchased, Congress was pledged to form that territory into States and admit them on the same footing as the original States; but if Missouri were compelled to abolish slavery before being admitted to the Union, she would not enter the Union on an equality with the other States. The restriction would be unwise, as Southern emigrants would thus be shut out from the State and free State men alone allowed to enter. Besides, the diminution of emigrants would lessen the number of purchasers of land, with the consequent drop in public revenues. The amendment could not be carried out, for even though the State were admitted with this restriction, it would amend its constitution and reëstablish slavery on becoming a State, a thing Congress could not prevent. † Despite all oppo * Ibid, p. 1170; Benton, Abridgment, vol. vi., p. 234; Niles' Register, vol. xvi., sup., p. 161; McDonald, Select Documents, p. 221. See also Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History, vol. i., p. 357.; G. W. Williams, History of the Negro Race in America, vol. ii., p. 14. See the speeches in Annals, pp. 1170–1193; Benton, Abridgment, vol. vi., p. 334; Niles' Register, vol. xvi., sup., pp. 161-173. THE STRUGGLE OVER SLAVERY IN ARKANSAS. 199 sition, the committee adopted the amendment by a vote of 79 to 67, when the bill was reported to the House.* On February 16 it was finally agreed to by two votes (87 to 76 and 82 to 78), was ordered to a third reading by a vote of 97 to 56 and on the 17th passed the House.† In the Senate the matter was quickly disposed of, for the session was rapidly drawing to a close. The bill was hurried to a committee, reported with the Tallmadge amendment stricken out, and passed on March 2.1 The House, by a majority of two (78 to 76), refused to concur in the amendments and sent the bill back to the Senate,|| but the Senate refused to reconsider its amendments and returned the bill to the House, which for the second time voted to adhere (78 to 66) and consequently the bill was lost.§ The whole subject was therefore laid over until the next session. The struggle for free soil was not confined to Missouri, for a bill had been introduced creating the Territory of Arkansas. On February 17, 1819, this bill came up in Committee of the Whole and John W. Taylor Wilson, Rise and Fall of Slave Power, vol. i., pp. 136-138. Annals, pp. 1194-1216; Benton, pp. 346-356; Williams, The Negro Race, vol. ii., p. 15. Annals, pp. 238, 251, 272-273, 279. || Annals, pp. 1433–1435. Annals, pp. 1436-1438; Benton, pp. 370–371. Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. ii., pp. 200, 201; Williams, The Negro Race, vol. ii., p. 15; Schurz, Life of Clay, vol. i., pp. 176-177; Wilson, Rise and Fall of Slave Power, vol. i., pp. 138139; Schouler, United States, vol. iii., pp. 102103. moved an amendment similar to Tallmadge's amendment to the Missouri bill.* A sharp struggle followed. Clay accused the free-soil accused the free-soil members of negrophobia," of a desire to coop up their brethern of the South, and demanded to know what they had done that they should be proscribed. Felix Walker, of North Carolina, said that the amendment deprived the South of all part and lot in the territory west of the Mississippi and the people of Arkansas of the constitutional right of enacting their own laws by imposing on them a condition which they could not accept.‡ These arguments had much weight and the amendment failed by a vote of 80 to 68.|| When the bill came up the next day (February 18) Taylor again moved his amendment. The first part, relating to the future introduction of slaves, was lost by one vote (71 to 70), but the second part, declaring that "all children born of slaves within the said territory shall be free but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years, was passed by a vote of 75 to 73.8 But the bill was laid on the table and on the next day was sent to a select committee, with instructions to report it with a gradual abolition clause.¶ This committee reported 200 PUBLIC SENTIMENT RESPECTING SLAVERY. the bill immediately without amendment and the report was concurred in by a vote of 89 to 87.* Taylor moved some new amendments, and when these were rejected he moved that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall hereafter be introduced into any part of the territories of the United States lying north of 36 degrees and 30 minutes north latitude." The House was not ready for such a sweeping declaration, however, and Taylor withdrew the amendment, whereupon the bill was ordered to be engrossed. On the 20th it was passed and, as no opposition was encountered in the Senate, it was sent to the President for signature, becoming law on March 2.|| The struggle for free soil was then transferred to the country at large. Anti-slavery societies at this time had fallen into decay, and even anti-slavery literature had ceased to appear; the only anti-slavery newspaper in existence was The Philanthropist, edited by a Southern man and circulated in the South, while the only active anti-slavery societies were the manumission societies in the South. The belief was prevalent in the North that the status of slavery had long since been settled, but when the fur *Annals, p. 1272-1273. † Annals, p. 1280; Niles, p. 95; Benton, p. 366. Annals, 1282. Annals, pp. 2502-2505. See also McMaster, vol. iv., pp. 574-576; Wilson, Rise and Fall of Slave Power, vol. i., pp. 139–141. ther extension of slavery was brought A up by the struggle over the admission of Missouri, the North became violently excited, and the excitement found vent in meetings and resolutions. At a meeting in Trenton on January 24, 1820, the Senators and Representatives of that State in Congress were requested to use their utmost endeavors to prevent slavery in Missouri or in any other State which should hereafter be admitted.* meeting at Boston declared that Congress had ample power under the Constitution to prohibit slavery, that it could make the prohibition of slavery a condition of admission to the Union, and that in this particular case it was expected to do so. Various other meetings at Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York took the ground that slavery was a political and moral evil, dangerous to the public welfare, at variance with the Declaration of Inde pendence and with the principles of universal liberty and human rights, and that it was unwise to allow States to be created which would tolerate slavery within their jurisdiction. These resolutions were re-echoed by county meetings, town meetings, grand juries, etc., and all the North ern States and several of the other States instructed their Representatives to oppose the admission of Missouri on a slaveholding basis, while * Williams, The Negro Race in America, vol. ii., p. 16; McMaster, vol. iv., P. 577. ALABAMA ADMITTED; THE MAINE PETITION. Pennsylvania went so far as to demand a total abolition of slavery.* South of Pennsylvania and Delaware, public sentiment was just the reverse. Maryland instructed her Representatives to see that all new States admitted be given the same rights and privileges as the old ones and that a prohibition of slavery should not be a condition of admission.† The General Assembly of Virginia declared that they would "support the good people of Missouri in their just rights and admission into the Union, and [would] coöperate with them in resisting, with manly fortitude, any attempt which Congress [might] make to impose restraints or restrictions as the price of their admission."‡ Kentucky instructed her Representatives and Senators to vote for the admission of Missouri" whether those people will sanction slavery by their constitution or not." Ohio and Indiana favored restraining slaveholding in the territory east of the Mississippi. The first session of the Sixteenth Congress began on December 6, 1819. Clay was reëlected Speaker without opposition and on the 7th the third annual message was received. § Al * Wilson, Rise and Fall of Slave Power, vol. i., pp. 150-152. See also Niles' Register, vol. xvii., pp. 189, 199-201; 241-242, 287, 296-297, 304, 342-343. Niles' Register, vol. xvii., pp. 334, 336. Ibid, vol. xvii., p. 344. For which see Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. ii., pp. 54-62; Niles' Register, vol. xvii., pp. 235-239; Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st session, pp. 12-20; Benton, Abridgment, vol. vi., pp. 375-379. 201 most immediately after this was read, John Scott moved that the memorial sent by Missouri to the last Congress be referred to a select committee. Strong, of New York, then said that he would introduce a bill the next day prohibiting the further extension of slavery within the Territories of the United States.* On December 14 Alabama was admitted as a slave State, without any great difference of opinion in Congress,† and almost at the same time (December 8) a memorial was presented by the people of Maine praying to be admitted as a State before the last day of January, 1820.‡ It will be remembered that for a long time after the Revolution Maine continued to be a part of Massachusetts, and the subject of separation does not seem to have been broached until public discussion was started in the Falmouth Gazette in 1785. In September of that year a call was issued for a convention of the inhabitants to take the subject under consideration. In January of 1786 such a convention met at Falmouth (now Portland) and a committee was appointed to draw up a list of grievances against Massachusetts. Such a list was drawn up, but nothing seems to have been said regarding separation, though it was suggested that another 營 Annals, p. 704. For her constitution see Niles' Register, vol. xvii., pp. 45-53. The enabling act, resolution for admission, and constitution will be found also in Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, vol. i., PP. 92-114. Annals, p. 704. |