Slike strani

be done.

as of the other States, require that the same should | 30th, and thence debated daily until the 19th of February, when a bill came down from the Senate "to admit the State of Maine into the Union," but with a rider authorizing the people of Missouri to form a State Constitution, etc., without restriction on the subject of Slavery.

"Resolved, That a copy of the above and foregoing resolution be transmitted, by the Speaker of the Senate, to each of the Senators and Repre. sentatives from this State in the Congress of the United States."


In Senate, January 24th, 1820, Mr. Logan communicated the following preamble and Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Kentucky, which were read:

"Whereas, The Constitution of the United States provides for the admission of new States into the Union, and it is just and proper that all such States should be established upon the footing of original States, with a view to the preservation of State Sovereignty, the prosperity of such new State, and the good of their citizens; and whereas, successful attempts have been heretofore made, and are now making, to prevent the People of the Territory of Missouri from being admitted into the Union as a State, unless trammeled by rules and regulations which do not exist in the original States, particularly in relation to the toleration of Slavery.

[ocr errors]


The House, very early in the session, passed a bill providing for the admission of Maine as a State. This bill came to the Senate, and was sent to its Judiciary Committee aforesaid, which amended it by adding a provision for Missouri as above. several days' debate in Senate, Mr. Roberts of Pa. moved to recommit, so as to strike out all but the admission of Maine; which was defeated (Jan. 14th, 1820)-Yeas 18; Nays 25. Hereupon Mr. Thomas of Ill. (who voted with the majority, as uniformly against any restriction on Missouri) gave notice that he should

"ask leave to bring a bill to prohibit the introduction of Slavery into the Territories of the United States North and West of the contemplated State of Missouri."

Whereas, also, if Congress can thus trammel or control the powers of a Territory in the formation of a State government, that body may, on the-which he accordingly did on the 19th; same principle, reduce its powers to little more when it was read and ordered to a third than those possessed by the people of the District reading. of Columbia; and whilst professing to make it a Sovereign State, may bind it in perpetual vassalage, and reduce it to the condition of a province; such State must necessarily become the dependent of Congress, asking such powers, and not the independent State, demanding rights. And whereas, it is necessary, in preserving the State Sovereign ties in their present rights, that no new State should be subjected to this restriction, any more than an old one, and that there can be no reason or justice why it should not be entitled to the same privileges, when it is bound to bear all the burdens and taxes laid upon it by Congress.

[NOTE. Great confusion and misconception exRestriction," two totally different propositions ists in the public mind with regard to "the Missouri being called by that name. The original Restriction, which Mr. Clay vehemently opposed, and Mr. Jefferson in a letter characterized as a tion of Slavery in its exclusion from the State of "fire-bell in the night," contemplated the limita Missouri. This was ultimately defeated, as we shall see. The second proposed Restriction was that of Mr. Thomas, just cited, which proposed the exclusion of Slavery, not from the State of "In passing the following Resolution, the Gene- Missouri, but from the Territories of the United ral Assembly refrains from expressing any opinion States North and West of that State. either in favor or against the principles of Slavery; proposition did not emanate from the original but to support and maintain State rights, which Missouri Restrictionists, but from their adversait conceives necessary to be supported and main-ries, and was but reluctantly and partially actained, to preserve the liberties of the free people cepted by the former.] of these United States, it avows its solemn conviction, that the States already confederated under one common Constitution, have not a right to deprive new States of equal privileges with themselves. Therefore,

"Resolved, by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That the Senators in Congress from this State be instructed, and the Representatives be requested, to use their efforts to procure the passage of a law to admit the people of Missouri into the Union, as a State, whether those people will sanction Slavery by their Con

stitution, or not.

"Resolved, That the Executive of this Commonwealth be requested to transmit this Resolution to the Senators and Representatives of this State in Congress, that it may be laid before that body for its consideration."

The bill authorizing Missouri to form a constitution, etc., came up in the House as a special order, Jan. 24th. Mr. Taylor of N. Y. moved that it be postponed for one week : Lost Yeas 87; Nays 88. Whereupon the House adjourned. It was considered in committee the next day, as also on the 28th and



The Maine admission bill, with the proposed amendments, was discussed through several days, until, Feb. 16th, the question was taken on the Judiciary Committee's amendments (authorizing Missouri to form a State Constitution, and saying nothing of Slavery), which were adopted by the following vote:

YEAS-Against the Restriction on Missouri:

Messrs. Barbour of Va.
Brown of La.
Eaton of Tenn.
Edwards of Ill.
Elliott of Ga.
Gaillard of S. C.
Johnson of Ky.
Johnson of La.
King (Wm. R.), Ala.
Leake of Miss.
Lloyd of Md.

Logan of Ky. Macon, of N. C. Pinkney of Md. Pleasants of Va. Smith of S. C. Stokes of N. C. Taylor of Ind. Thomas of Ill. Walker of Ala. Walker of Ga. Williams of Miss.

Williams of Tenn.-23.

[20 from Slave States; 3 (in italics) from Free States.]

[blocks in formation]

[19 from Free States, 2 (in italics) from Delaware.]

Mr. Thomas of Ill. then proposed his amendment, as follows:

"And be it further enacted, That the sixth article of compact of the Ordinance of Congress, passed July 13th, 1787, for the government of the Territory of the United States, northwest of the river Ohio, shall, to all intents and purposes, be, and hereby is, deemed and held applicable to, and shall have full force and effect in and over, all that tract of country ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits contemplated by this act.'

On the following day Mr. Thomas withdrew the foregoing and substituted the following:

[blocks in formation]

Smith (Wm.) of

S. C.
Taylor of Ind.
Walker of Ga.
Williams of
Miss. --10.
Restriction ulti-

[It will here be seen that the mately adopted, that excluding Slavery from all territory then owned by the United States North

and West of the Southwest border of the State of

Missouri, was proposed by an early and steadfast opponent of the Restriction originally proposed, relative to Slavery in the contemplated State of Missouri, and was sustained by the votes of fourteen Senators from Slave States, including the Senators from Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana, with one vote each from North Carolina and Mississippi.

The current assumption that this Restriction was proposed by Rufus King of New York, and mainly sustained by the antagonists of Slavery Extension, is wholly mistaken. The truth, doubtless, is, that it was suggested by the more moderate opponents of the proposed Restriction on Missouri-and supported also by Senators from Slave States-as a means of overcoming the resistance of the House to Slavery in Missouri. It was, in

"And be it further enacted, That in all that Territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana which lies north of thirty-effect, an offer from the milder opponents of six degrees thirty minutes, north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, Slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited. Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from where labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

[blocks in formation]

Slavery Restriction to the more moderate and flexible advocates of that Restriction-"Let us have Slavery in Missouri, and we will unite with you in excluding it from all the uninhabited territories North and West of that State." It was in substance an agreement between the North and the South to that effect, though the more de. termined champions, whether of Slavery Exten. sion or Slavery Restriction, did not unite in it.] ·

The bill, thus amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading by the following vote:

YEAS-For the Missouri Bill:
Messrs. Barbour of Va.

Brown of La.
Eaton of Tenn.
Edwards of Ill.
Elliott of Ga.
Gaillard of S. C.
Horsey of Del.
Hunter of R. I.
Johnson of Ky.
Johnson of La.

King of Ala.
Leake of Miss.

Lloyd of Md.
Logan of Ky.
Parrott of N. H.
Pinkney of Md.
Pleasants of Va.
Stokes of N. C.
Thomas of Ill.
Van Dyke, Del.
Walker of Ala.
Walker of Ga.
Williams of Miss.
Williams, Tenn.-24.

NAYS-Against the Bill:

Messrs. Burrill of R. I.

Dana of Conn.
Dickerson of N. J.
King of N. Y.
Lanman of Conn.

Lowrie of Pa.
Macon of N. C.
Mellen of Mass.
Morrill of N. H.
Noble of Ind.

Otis of Mass.
Palmer of Vt.

Roberts of Pa.

Ruggles of Ohio,
Sanford of N. Y.
Smith of S. C.
Taylor of Ind.
Tichenor of Vt.
Trimble of Ohio,
Wilson of N. J.

[blocks in formation]

Prior to this vote, the House disagreed to the log-rolling of Maine and Missouri, into one bill by the strong vote of 93 to 72. [We do not give the Yeas and Nays on this decision; but the majority was composed of the representatives of the Free States with only four exceptions; and Mr. Louis McLane of Delaware, who was constrained by instructions from his legislature. His colleague, Mr. Willard Hall, did not vote.]

The members from Free States who voted with the South to keep Maine and Missouri united in one bill were, Messrs. H. Baldwin of Pa.

Henry Meigs of N. Y. Bloomfield of N. J. Henry Shaw of Mass. The House also disagreed to the remaining amendments of the Senate (striking out the restriction on Slavery in Missouri) by the strong vote of 102 Yeas to 68 Nays. [Nearly or quite every Representative of a Free State voted in the majority of this division with the following from Slave States:

Louis McLane, Del. Nelson, Md. Alney McLean, Ky. Trimble, Ky.] So the House rejected all the Senate's amendments, and returned the bill with a corresponding message.

The Senate took up the bill on the 24th, and debated it till the 28th, when, on a direct vote, it was decided not to recede from the attachment of Missouri to the Maine bill: Yeas 21; (19 from Free States and 2 from Delaware;) Nays 23; (20 from Slave States, with Messrs. Taylor of Ind., Edwards and Thomas of Ill.)

of N. J., and Shaw of Mass., voting with the South]

Sec. 9, (the Senate's exclusion of Slavery from the Territory north and west of Missouri) was also rejected-Yeas 160; Nays 14, (much as before.) The Senate thereupon (March 2nd) passed the House's Missouri bill, striking out the restriction of Slavery by Yeas 27 to Nays 15, and adding without a division the exclusion of Slavery from the Territory west and north of said State. Mr. Trimble again moved the exclusion of Slavery from Arkansas also, but was again voted down; Yeas 12; Nays 30.

The Senate now asked a conference, which the House granted without a division. The Committee of Conference was composed of Messrs. Thomas of Ill., Pinkney of Md., and Barbour of Va. (all anti-restrictionists), on the part of the Senate, and Messrs. Holmes of Mass., Taylor of N. Y., Lowndes of S. C., Parker of Mass., and Kinsey of N. J., on the part of the House. [Such constitution of the Committee of Conference was in effect a surrender of the Restriction on the part of the House.] John Holmes of Mass., from this Committee, in due time (March 2nd), reported that,

tion of Missouri in the same bill with 1. The Senate should give up the combinaMaine.

2. The House should abandon the attempt to restrict Slavery in Missouri.

3. Both Houses should agree to pass the Senate's separate Missouri bill, with Mr. Thomas's restriction or compromising proviso, excluding Slavery from all Territory north and west of Missouri.

The report having been read,

The first and most important question was put, viz.:

"Will the House concur with the Senate in so strike from the fourth section of the [Missouri] much of the said amendments as proposes to bill the provision prohibiting Slavery or involuntary servitude, in the contemplated State, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes?"

On which question the Yeas and Nays were demanded, and were as follow: YEAS-For giving up Restriction on Mis


MASSACHUSETTS-Mark Langdon Hill, John Holmes, Jonathan Mason, Henry Shaw-4. RHODE ISLAND.-Samuel Eddy-1. CONNECTICUT.-Samuel A. Foot, James Ste


The Senate also voted not to recede from its amendment prohibiting Slavery west of Missouri, and north of 36° 30', north latitude. (For receding, 9 from Slave States, with Messrs. Noble and Taylor of Ind. : against it 33-(22 from Slave States, 11 from Free-2. States.) The remaining amendments of the Senate were then insisted on without division, and the House notified accordingly.

The bill was now returned to the House, which, on motion of Mr. John W. Taylor of N. Y., voted to insist on its disagreement to all but sec. 9 of the Senate's amendments, by Yeas 97 to Nays 76: [all but a purely sectional vote: Hugh Nelson of Va. voting with the North; Baldwin of Pa., Bloomfield

NEW-YORK.-Henry Meigs, Henry R. Storrs

NEW JERSEY.-Joseph Bloomfield, Charles

Kinsey, Bernard Smith-3.

PENNSYLVANIA.-Henry Baldwin, David Ful


Total from Free States 14.

DELAWARE.-Louis McLane-1.
MARYLAND.-Stephenson Archer, Thomas Bay-
ly, Thomas Culbreth, Joseph Kent. Peter Little,
Raphael Neale, Samuel Ringgold, Samuel Smith,
Henry R. Warfield-9.


VIRGINIA. Mark Alexander, William S. Archer, Philip P. Barbour, William A. Burwell,

John Floyd, Robert S. Garnett, James Johnson, James Jones, William McCoy, Charles F. Mercer, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Nelson, Severn E. Par ker, Jas Pindall, John Randolph, Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, George F. Strother, Thomas Van Swearingen, George Tucker, John Tyler,

Jared Williams-22.

NORTH CAROLINA.-Hutchins G. Burton, John Culpepper, William Davidson, Weldon N. Edwards, Charles Fisher, Thomas H. Hall, Charles Hooks, Thomas Settle, Jesse Slocumb, James

S. Smith, Felix Walker, Lewis Williams-12.
SOUTH CAROLINA. — -Josiah Brevard, Elias
Earle, James Ervin, William Lowndes, James
McCreary, James Overstreet, Charles Pinckney,
Eldred Simkins, Sterling Tucker-9.
GEORGIA.Joel A. Abbott, Thomas W. Cobb,
Joel Crawford, John A. Cuthbert, Robert R.
Reid, William Terrell--6.

ALABAMA.-John Crowell-1.
MISSISSIPPI.-John Rankin-1.
LOUISIANA. Thomas Butler-1.

KENTUCKY.-Richard C. Anderson, jr., William Brown, Benjamin Hardin, Alney McLean, Thomas Metcalf, Tunstall Quarles, Geo. Robertson, David Trimble-8.

TENNESSEE. Robert Allen, Henry H. Bryan,

Newton Cannon, John Cocke, Francis Jones,

John Rhea 5.

Total Yeas from Slave States 76; in all 90. NAYS--Against giving up the Restriction on Slavery in Missouri:

NEW HAMPSHIRE. Joseph Buffum, jr., Josiah Butler, Clifton Clagett, Arthur Livermore, William Plumer, jr., Nathaniel Upham- .6.

MASSACHUSETTS (including Maine). Benjamin Adams, Samuel C. Allen, Joshua Cushman, Edward Dowse, Walter Folger, jr., Timothy Fuller, Jonas Kendall, Martin Kinsley, Samuel Lathrop, Enoch Lincoln, Marcus Morton, Jeremiah Nelson, James Parker, Zabdiel Sampson, Nathaniel Sils bee, Ezekiel Whitman_16.

RHODE ISLAND. Nathaniel Hazard_1. CONNECTICUT Jonathan O. Moseley, Elisha Phelps. John Russ, Gideon Tomlinson__4.

VERMONT. Samuel C. Crafts, Rollin C. Mallary, Ezra Meech, Charles Rich, Mark Richards, William Strong-6.

NEW YORK.Nathaniel Allen, Caleb Baker, Robert Clark, Jacob H. De Witt, John D. Dick inson, John Fay, William D. Ford, Ezra C. Gross, James Guyon, jr., Aaron Hackley. jr., George Hall, Joseph S. Lyman, Robert Monell, Nathaniel Pitcher, Jonathan Richmond, Randall S. Street, James Strong, John W. Taylor, Albert H. Tracy, Solomon Van Rensselaer, Peter H. Wendover, Silas Wood_22.

NEW JERSEY. Ephraim Bateman, John Linn, Henry Southard_3.


Andrew Boden, William Darlington, George Dennison, Samuel Edwards, Thomas Forrest, Samuel Gross, Joseph Hemphill, Jacob Hibschman, Joseph Heister, Jacob Hostetter, William P. Maclay, David Marchand, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, John Murray, Thomas Patterson, Robert Philson, Thomas J. Rogers, John Sergeant, Christian Tarr, James M. Wal lace- 21.

OHIO.Philemon Beecher, Henry Brush, John W. Campbell, Samuel Herrick, Thomas R. Ross,

John Sloane___6.

INDIANA.-William Hendricks-1.
ILLINOIS. Daniel P. Cook_1.

Total Nays 87-all from Free States. [The members apparently absent on this important division, were Henry W. Edwards of Conn., Walter Case and Honorius Peck of N. Y. and John Condit of N. J., from the Free States;

with Lemuel Sawyer of N. C., and David Walker of Ky., from the Slave States. Mr. Clay of Ky., being Speaker, did not vote.]

This defeat broke the back of the Northern

resistance to receiving Missouri as a Slave State.

Mr. Taylor, of N. Y., now moved an amendment, intended to include Arkansas Territory under the proposed Inhibition of Slavery West of Missouri; but this motion was cut off by the Previous Question (which then cut off amendments more rigorously, according to the rules of the House, than it now does), and the House proceeded to concur with the Senate in inserting the exclusion of Slavery from the Territory West and North of Missouri, instead of that just stricken out by 134 Yeas to 42 Nays, (the Nays being from the South). So the bill was passed in the form indicated above; and the bill admitting Maine as a State, (relieved, by a conference, from the Missouri rider,) passed both Houses without a division, on the following day.

Such was the virtual termination of the struggle for the restriction of Slavery in Missouri, which was beaten by the plan of proffering instead an exclusion of Slavery from all the then Federal Territory West and North of that State. It is unquestionable that, without this compromise or equivalent, the Northern votes, which passed the bill, could not have been obtained for it.



THOUGH the acceptance of Missouri as a State, with a Slave Constitution, was forever settled by the votes just recorded, a new excitement sprang up on her presenting herself to Congress (Nov. 16, 1820), with a State Constitution, framed on the 19th of July, containing the following resolutions:

"The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws, First, for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, or without paying them, before such emancipation, a full equivalent for such Slaves so emancipated; and, Second, to prevent bona fide emigrants to this from any of the United States, or from any of State, or actual settlers therein from bringing their Territories, such persons as may there be deemed to be Slaves, so long as any persons of the same description are allowed to be held as Slaves by the laws of this State.


* *It shall be their duty, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary, from coming to, and settling in, this State, under "First, to prevent free negroes and mulattoes any pretext whatever."

The North, still smarting under a sense of its defeat on the question of excluding Slavery from Missouri, regarded this as needlessly defiant, insulting, and inhuman, and the last quoted as palpably in violation of that clause of the Federal Constitution which gives to the citizens of each State (which blacks are, in

several Free States,) the rights of citizens in every State. A determined resistance to any such exclusion was manifested, and a portion of the Northern Members evinced a disposition to renew the struggle against the further introduction of Slaves into Missouri. At the first effort to carry her admission, the House voted it down-Yeas, 79; Nays, 93. A second attempt to admit her, on condition she would expunge the obnoxious clause (last quoted) of her Constitution, was voted down still more decisively-Yeas, 6; Nays, 146.

The House now rested, until a joint resolve, admitting her with but a vague and ineffective qualification, came down from the Senate, where it was passed by a vote of 26 to 18six Senators from Free States in the affirmative. Mr. Clay, who had resigned in the recess, and been succeeded, as Speaker, by John W. Taylor, of New York, now appeared as the leader of the Missouri admissionists, and proposed terms of compromise, which were twice voted down by the Northern Members, aided by John Randolph and three others from the South, who would have Missouri admitted without condition or qualification. At last, Mr. Clay proposed a Joint Committee on this subject, to be chosen by ballot which the House agreed to by 101 to 55; and Mr. Clay became its Chairman. By this Committee it was agreed, that a solemn pledge should be required of the Legislature of Missouri, that the Constitution of that State should not be construed to authorize the passage of any Act, and that no Act should be passed, "by which any of the citizens of either of the States should be excluded from the enjoyment of the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled under the Constitution of the United States." The Joint Resolution, amended by the addition of this proviso, passed the House by 86 Yeas to 82 Nays; the Senate concurred (Feb. 27th, 1821,) by 26 Yeas to 15 Nays(all Northern but Macon, of N. C.) Missouri complied with the condition, and became an accepted member of the Union. Thus closed the last stage of the fierce Missouri Controversy, which for a time seemed to threaten as so many other controversies have harmlessly threatened the existence of the Union.



THE State of Missouri, as originally organized, was bounded on the West by a line already specified, which excluded a triangle West of said line, and between it and the Missouri, which was found, in time, to be exceedingly fertile and desirable. It was free soil by the terms of the Missouri compact, and was also covered by Indian reservations, not to be removed without a concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. Messrs. Benton and Linn, senators from Missouri,

undertook the difficult task of engineering through Congress a bill including this triangle (large enough to form seven Counties) within the State of Missouri; which they effected, at the long Session of 1835-6, so quietly as hardly to attract attention. The bill was first sent to the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary, where a favorable report was procured from Mr. John M. Clayton, of Delaware, its Chairman; and then it was floated through both Houses without encountering the perils of a division. The requisite Indian treaties were likewise carried through the Senate; so Missouri became possessed of a large and desirable accession of territory, which has since become one of her most populous and wealthy sections, devoted to the growing of hemp, tobacco, etc., and cultivated by Slaves. This is the most pro-Slavery section of the State, in which was originated, and has been principally sustained, that series of inroads into Kansas, corruptions of her ballot-boxes, and outrages upon her people, which have earned for their authors the appellation of Border Ruffians.



THE name of Texas was originally applied to a Spanish possession or province, lying between the Mississippi and the Rio Grande del Norte, but not extending to either of these great rivers. It was an appendage of the Viceroyalty of Mexico, but had very few civilized inhabitants down to the time of the separation of Mexico from Spain. On two or three occasions, bands of French adventurers had landed on its coast, or entered it from the adjoining French colony of Louisiana; but they had uniformly been treated as intruders, and either destroyed or made prisoners by the Spanish military authorities. No line had ever been drawn between the two colonies; but the traditional line between them, south of the Red River, ran somewhat within the limits of the present State of Louisiana.

The etymology of Natchitoches, a city of Louisiana on the Red River, several miles within the present boundary of that State, attests its claims to a Spanish origin.

When Louisiana was transferred by France to the United States, without specification of boundaries, collisions of claims on this frontier was apprehended. General Wilkinson, commanding the United States troops, moved gradually to the west; the Spanish commandant in Texas likewise drew toward the frontiers, until they stood opposite each other across what was then tacitly settled as the boundary between the two countries. This was never afterward disregarded.

In 1819, Spain and the United States seemed on the verge of war. General Jackson had twice invaded Florida, on the assump

« PrejšnjaNaprej »