Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

payment of American claims on France. This to this amendment, which was sustained by the territory had just before been ceded by Spain to following vote: [taken first on agreeing to so France without pecuniary consideration. Slave- much of it as precedes and includes the word holding had long been allowed therein, alike!"convicted."] under Spanish and French rule, and the Treaty

Yeas-For the Restriction:

Massachusetts.........
Rhode Island.
Connecticut........
Vermont...

of Cession contained the following stipulation: New-Hampshire...............
Art. III. The inhabitants of the ceded Territory
shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States,
and admitted as soon as possible, according to the prin-
ciples of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of
all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of
the United States; and in the meantime they shall be
maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of
their liberty, property, and the religion which they
profess.

Delaware.

[blocks in formation]

Total Yeas 87-only one (Delaware) from a

Slave State

Nays Against the Restriction:
8 Virginia..

Massachusetts..
New-York..

Delaware..
Maryland..........

Illinois.

The State of Louisiana, embodying the southern portion of this acquired territory, was re- New-Jersey cognized by Congress in 1811, and fully admit- New-Hampshire.. ted in 1812, with a State Constitution. Those Ohio. who chose to dwell among the inhabitants of the residue of the Louisiana purchase, henceforth called Missouri Territory, continued to hold slaves in its sparse and small but increas-Slave ing settlements, mainly in its southeastern quarter, and a pro-Slavery Court-perhaps any Court —would undoubtedly have pronounced Slavery legal anywhere on its vast expanse, from the Mississippi to the crests of the Rocky Mountains, if not beyond them, and from the Red River of

Louisiana to the Lake of the Woods.

The XVth Congress assembled at Washington, on Monday, Dec. 1st, 1817. Henry Clay was chosen Speaker of the House. Mr. John Scott appeared on the 8th, as delegate from Missouri Territory, and was admitted to a seat as such. On the 16th of March following, he presented petitions of sundry inhabitants of Missouri, in addition to similar petitions already presented by him, praying for the admission of Missouri into the Union as a State, which were, on motion, referred to a Select Committee, consisting of

Messrs. Scott, of Mo.; Poindexter, of Miss.; Robert

son, of Ky.; Hendricks, of Ind.; Livermore, of N. H.;

Mills, of Mass.; Baldwin, of Pa.

April 3d, Mr. Scott, from this Committee, reported a bill to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States; which bill was read the first and second time, and sent to the Committee of the Whole, where it slept for the remainder of the session.

18

8 North Carolina..

13

[blocks in formation]

States.
Total Nays, 76-10 from Free States, 66 from

residue of the reported amendment (from the
The House now proceeded to vote on the
word "convicted" above), which was likewise
sustained.-Yeas, 82; Nays, 78.

Tallmadge in Committee of the Whole, and
So the whole amendment-as moved by Gen.
the House.
there carried--was sustained when reported to

striction), now moved the striking out of so
Mr. Storrs, of New York (opposed to the Re-
much of the bill as provides that the new State
shall be admitted into the Union “on an equal
footing with the original States "--which, he
contended, was nullified by the votes just taken.
The House negatived the motion.

Messrs. Desha, of Ky., Cobb, of Ga., and Rhea, of Tenn., declared against the bill as amended.

Messrs. Scott, of Mo., and Anderson, of Ky., preferred the bill as amended, to none.

The House ordered the bill, as amended, to a third reading; Yeas, 98; Nays, 56. The bill thus passed the House next day, and was sent to the Senate.

The following sketch of the debate on this question (Feb. 15th) is condensed from that in the Appendix to Niles's Register, vol. xvi.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEB. 15, 1819. Mr. Tallmadge, of New York, having moved the following amendment on the Saturday preceding

convicted; and that all children born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be declared free at the age of 25 years,"

That Congress convened at Washington for its second session, on the 16th of November, 1818. Feb. 13th, the House went into Committee of involuntary servitude, be prohibited, except for the "And provided that the introduction of Slavery or the Whole-Gen. Smith, of Md., in the Chair-punishment of crimes, whereof the party has been duly and took up the Missouri bill aforesaid, which was considered through that sitting, as also that of the 15th, when several amendments were adopted, the most important of which was the following, moved in Committee by Gen. James Tallmadge, of Duchess county, New-York, (lately deceased):

And provided also, That the further introduction of Slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall be duly convicted: and that all children of slaves, born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years.

On coming out of Committee, the Yeas and Nays were called on the question of agreeing

cert of interests, it was proper to make concessions. The Mr. Fuller, of Massachusetts, argued that, to effect a conStates where Slavery existed not only claimed the right to continue it, but it was manifest that a general emancipation of slaves could not be asked of them. Their political existence would have been in jeopardy; both masters and slaves must have been involved in the most fatal conse quences.

To guard against such intolerable evils, it is provided in the Constitution, "that the migration or importation of such persons, as any of the existing States think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited till 1808.-Art. 1, sec. 9. And it is provided elsewhere, that persons held to service by the laws of any State, shall be given up by other States, to which they may have escaped, etc.-Art. 4, sec. 2.

These provisions effectually recognized the right in the

States, which, at the time of framing the Constitution, held the blacks in Slavery, to continue so to hold them until they should think proper to meliorate their condition. The Constitution is a compact among all the States then existing, by which certain principles of government are established for the whole, and for each individual State. The predominant principle in both respects is, that ALL MEN ARE FREE, and have an EQUAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY, and all other privileges; or, in other words, the predominant principle is REPUBLICANISM, in its largest sense. But, then, the same compact contains certain exceptions. The States then holding slaves are permitted, from the necessity of the case, and for the sake of union, to exclude the republican principle so far, and only so far, as to retain their slaves in servitude, and also their progeny, as had been the usage, until they should think it proper or safe to conform to the pure principle, by abolishing Slavery. The compact contains on its face the general principle and the exceptions. But the attempt to extend Slavery to the new States, is in direct violation of the clause which guarantees a republican form of government to all the States. This clause, indeed, must be construed in connection with the exceptions before mentioned; but it cannot, without violence, be applied to any other States than those in which Slavery was allowed at the formation of the Constitution.

The Speaker (Clay) cites the first clause in the 2d section of the 4th article-"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States," which he thinks would be violated by the condition proposed in the Constitution of Missouri To keep slaves-to make one portion of the population the property of another-hardly deserves to be called a privilege, since what is gained by the masters must be lost by the slaves. But, independently of this consideration, I think the observations already offered to the committee, showing that holding the black population in servitude is an exception to the general principles of the Constitution, and cannot be allowed to extend beyond the fair import of the terms by which that exception is provided, are a sufficient answer to the objection. The gentleman proceeds in the same train of reasoning, and asks, if Congress can require one condition, how many more can be required, and where these conditions will end? With regard to a republican constitution, Congress are obliged to require that condition, and that is enough for the present question; but I contend, further, that Congress has a right, at their discretion, to require any other reasonable condition. Several others were required of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Mississippi. The State of Louisiana, which was a part of the territory ceded to us at the same time with Missouri, was required to provide in her Constitution for trials by jury, the writ of habeas corpus, the principles of civil and religious liberty, with several others, peculiar to that State. These, certainly, are none of them more indispensable ingredients in a republican form of government than the equality of privileges of all the population; yet these have not been denied to be reasonable, and warranted by the National Constitution in the admission of new States.

Congress will not contribute to discountenance and render abortive the generous and philanthropic views of this most worthy and laudable society.

Mr Tallmadge, of New York, followed—

Sir, said he, it has been my desire and my intention to avoid any debate on the present painful and unpleasant subject. When I had the honor to submit to this Horss the amendment now under consideration, I accompanied it with a declaration that it was intended to confine its operation to the newly acquired Territory across the Mississippi; and I then expressly declared that I would in no manner intermeddle with the slave-holding States, nor attempt manumission in any one of the original States in the Union. Sir, I even went further, and stated that I was aware of the delicacy of the subject-and, that I had learned from Southern gentlemen the difficulties and the dangers of having free blacks intermingling with slaves; and, on that account, and with a view to the safety of the white population of the adjoining States, I would not even advocate the prohibition of Slavery in the Alabama Territory; because, surrounded as it was by slave-holding States, and with only imaginary lines of division, the intercourse between slaves and free blacks could not be prevented, and a servile war might be the result. While we deprecate and mourn over the evil of Slavery, humanity and good morals require us to wish its abolition, under circumstances consistent with the safety of the white population. Willingly, therefore, will I submit to an evil which we cannot safely remedy. I admitted all that had been said of the danger of having free blacks visible to slaves, and, therefore, did not hesitate to pledge myself that I would neither advise nor attempt coercive manumission. But, sir, all these reasons cease when we cross the banks of the Mississippi, into a Territory separated by a natural boundary-a newly acquired Territory, never contemplated in the formation of our government, not included within the Compromise or mutual pledge in the adoption of our Constitution-a new Territory acquired by our common fund, and which ought justly to be subject to our common legislation.

Sir, when I submitted the amendment now under consideration, accompanied with these explanations, and with these avowals of my intentions and of my motives I did expect that gentlemen who might differ from me in opinion would appreciate the liberality of my views, and would meet me with moderation, as upon a fair subject for general legislation. I did expect, at least, that the frank declaration of my views would protect me from harsh expressions, and from the unfriendly imputations which have been cast out on this occasion. But, sir, such has been the character and the violence of this debate, and expressions of so much intemperance, and of an aspect so threatening have been used, that continued silence on my part would ill become me, who had submitted to this House the original proposition.

Sir, has it already come to this: that in the Congress of the United States-that, in the Legislative councils of Republican America, the subject of Slavery has become One gentleman, however, has contended against the a subject of so much feeling-of such delicacy of such amendment, because it abridges the rights of the slave- danger, that it cannot safely be discussed? Are memholding States to transport their slaves to the new States, bers who venture to express their sentiments on this for sale or otherwise. This argument is attempted to be subject, to be accused of talking to the galleries, with enforced in various ways, and particularly by the clause intention to excite a servile war; and of meriting the in the Constitution last cited. It admits, however, fate of Arbuthnot and Ambrister? Are we to be told of of a very clear answer, by recurring to the 9th sec- the dissolution of the Union, of civil war and of seas of tion of article 1st, which provides that "the migration or blood? And yet, with such awful threatenings before us, importation of such persons as any of the States then ex-do gentlemen, in the same breath, insist upon the encouristing shall admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress till agement of this evil; upon the extension of this monstrous 1808." This clearly implies that the migration and im-scourge of the human race? An evil so fraught with portation may be prohibited after that year. The impor- such dire calamities to us as individuals, and to our tation has been prohibited, but the migration has not nation, and threatening, in its progress, to overwhelm the hitherto been restrained; Congress, however, may restrain civil and religious institutions of the country, with the it, when it may be judged expedient. liberties of the nation, ought at once to be met, and to be The expediency of this measure is very apparent. The controlled. If its power, its influence, and its impending opening of an extensive slave market will tempt the dangers, have already arrived at such a point, that it is cupidity of those who, otherwise, perhaps, might gradu- not safe to discuss it on this floor, and it cannot now ally emancipate their slaves. We have heard much, pass under consideration as a proper subject for general Mr. Chairman, of the Colonization Society; an institu- legislation, what will be the result when it is spread tion which is the favorite of the humane gentlemen in through your widely-extended domain? Its present the slave-holding States. They have long been lament-threatening aspect, and the violence of its supporters, so ing the miseries of Slavery, and earnestly seeking for a far from inducing me to yield to its progress, prompt me remedy compatible with their own safety, and the happi- to resist its march. Now is the time. It must now be ness of their slaves. At last, he great desideratum is met, and the extension of the evil must now be prevented, found-a colony ir Af.ica for the emanc pated blacks. or the occasion is irrecoverably lost, and the evil can How will the generous intentions of these humane per- never be controlled. sons be frustrated, if the price of slaves is to be doubled by a new and boundless ma ket! Instead of emancipation of the slaves, it is much to be feared that unprincipled wretches will be found kidnapping those who are already free, and transporting and selling the hapless victims into hopeless bondage. Sir really hope that

Sir, extend your view across the Mississippi, over your newly-acquired Territory-a Territory so far surpassing, in extent, the limits of your present country, that country which gave birth to your nation-which achieved your Revolution-consolidated your Union-formed your Constitution, and has subsequently acquired so much

glory, hangs but as an appendage to the extended empire | presented, were immediately concerned. But when a over which your Republican Government is now called to question such as the amendments proposed by the gentlebear sway. Look down the long vista of futurity; see men from New York (Messrs. Tallinadge and Taylor), was your empire, in extent unequaled, in advantageous presented for consideration, involving constitutional prinsituation without a parallel, and occupying all the valua-ciples to a vast amount, pregnant with the future fate of ble part of one continent. Behold this extended empire, the Territory, portending destruction to the liberties of inhabited by the hardy sons of American freemen, that people, directly bearing on their rights of property, knowing their rights, and inheriting the will to protect their state rights, their all, he should consider it as a derethem-owners of the soil on which they live, and inter- liction of his duty, as retreating from his post, nay, double ested in the institutions which they labor to defend; with criminality, did he not raise his voice against their adoptwo oceans laving your shores, and tributary to your tion. purposes, bearing on their bosoms the commerce of our people; compared to yours, the governments of Europe dwindle into insignificance, and the whole world is without a parallel. But, sir, reverse this scene; people this fair domain with the slaves of your planters; extend Slavery, this bane of man, this abomination of heaven, over your extended empire, and you prepare its dissolution; you turn its accumulated strength into positive weakness; you cherish a canker in your breast; you put poison in your bosom; you place a vulture preying on your heart-nay, you whet the dagger and place it in the hands of a portion of your population, stimulated to use it, by every tie, human and divine. The envious contrast between your happiness and their misery, between your liberty and their slavery, must constantly prompt them to accomplish your destruction. Your enemies will learn the source and the cause of your weakness. As often as external dangers shall threaten, or internal commotions await you, you will then realize that, by your own procurement, you have placed amidst your families, and in the bosom of your country, a population producing at once the greatest cause of individual danger, and of national weakness. With this defect, your government must crumble to pieces, and your people become the scoff of the world.

Sir, we have been told, with apparent confidence, that we have no right to annex conditions to a State, on its admission into the Union; and it has been urged that the proposed amendment, prohibiting the further introduction of Slavery, is unconstitutional. This position, asserted with so much confidence, remains unsupported by any argument, or by any authority derived from the Constitution itself. The Constitution strongly indicates an opposite conclusion, and seems to contemplate a difference between the old and the new States. The practice of the government has sanctioned this difference in many respects.

Sir, we have been told that this is a new principle for which we contend, never before adopted, or thought of. So far from this being correct, it is due to the memory of our ancestors to say, it is an old principle, adopted by them, as the policy of our country. Whenever the United States have had the right and the power, they have heretofore prevented the extension of Slavery. The States of Kentucky and Tennessee were taken off from other States, and were admitted into the Union without condition, because their lands were never owned by the United States. The Territory northwest of the Omo is all the land which ever belonged to them. Shortly after the cession of those lands to the Union, Congress passed, in 1787, a compact, which was declared to be unalterable, the sixth article of which provides that, "there shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted." In pursuance of this compact, all the States formed from that Territory have been admitted into the Union upon various conditions, and, amongst which, the sixth article of this compact is included as one.

Mr. Scott entertained the opinion, that, under the Constitution, Congress had not the power to impose this, or any other restriction, or to require of the people of Missouri their assent to this condition, as a pre-requisite to their admission into the Union. He contended this from the language of the Constitution itself, from the practice in the admission of new States under that instrument, and from the express terms of the treaty of cession. The short view he intended to take of those points would, he trusted, be satisfactory to all those who were not so anxious to usurp power as to sacrifice to its attainment the principles of our government, or who were not desir ous of prostrating the rights and independence of a State to chimerical views of policy or expediency. The authority to admit new States into the Union was granted in the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that "new States may be admitted by the Congress into the Union." The only power given to the Congress by this section appeared to him to be, that of passing a law for the admission of the new State, leaving it in possession of all the rights, privileges, and immunities, enjoyed by the other States; the most valuable and prominent of which was that of forming and modifying their own State Constitution, and over which Congress had ne superintending control, other than that expressly given in the fourth section of the same article, which read, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Unior a republican form of government." This end accomplished the guardianship of the United States over the Constitu tions of the several States was fulfilled; and all restrictions, limitations and conditions beyond this, was so much power unwarrantably assumed. In illustration of this position, he would read an extract from one of the essays written by the late President Madison, contemporaneously with the Constitution of the United States, and from a very celebrated work: "In a confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchical innovations. The more intimate the nature of such an union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other, and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into, should be substantially maintained. But this authority extends no further than to a guarantee of a republican form of government, which supposes a preexisting government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the Federal guarantee for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance."

Mr. Scott believed it to be a just rule of interpretation, that the enumeration of powers delegated to Congress weakened their authority in all cases not enumerated; Let gentlemen also advert to the law for the admission and that beyond those powers enumerated they had none, of the State of Louisiana into the Union; they will find it except they were essentially necessary to carry into effect filled with conditions. It was required not only to form a those that were given. The second section of the fourth Constitution upon the principles of a republican govern- article of the Constitution, which declared that "the citiment, but it was required to contain the "fundamental zens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges principles of civil and religious liberty." It was even re- and immunities of citizens in the several States," was quired, as a condition of its admission, to keep its records, satisfactory, to his judgment, that it was intended the citiand its judicial and its legislative proceedings, in the Eng-zens of each State, forming a part of one harmonious lish language; and also to secure the trial by jury, and to whole, should have, in all things, equal privileges; the surrender all claim to unappropriated lands in the Terri- necessary consequence of which was, that every man, in tory, with the prohibition to tax any of the United States' his own State, should have the same rights, privileges, and powers, that any other citizen of the United States had in his own State; otherwise, discontent and murmurings would prevail against the general government who had deprived him of this equality.

lands.

After this long practice and constant usage to annex conditions to the admission of a State into the Union, will gentlemen yet tell us it is unconstitutional, and talk of our principles being novel and extraordinary?

Mr. Scott, of Missouri, said:

For example, if the citizens of Pennsylvania, or Virginia, enjoyed the right, in their own State, to decide the question whether they would have Slavery or not, the He trusted that his conduct, during the whole of the citizens of Missouri, to give them the same privileges, time in which he had had the honor of a seat in the House, must have the same right to decide whether they would or had convinced gentlemen of his disposition not to obtrude would not tolerate Slavery in their State; if it were his sentiments on any other subjects than those on which otherwise, then the citizens of Pennsylvania and Virginia the interest of his constituents, and of the Territory he re. I would have more rights, privileges and powers in their

respective States, than the citizens of Missouri would have in theirs. Mr. S. said he would make another quotation from the same work he had before been indebted to, which he believed had considerable bearing on this subject. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution, to the Federal Government, are few and defined; those which are to remain in the State Governments, are numerous and indefinite; the former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which last the powers of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The applicability of this doctrine to the question under consideration was so obvious, that he would not detain the House to give examples, but leave it for gentlemen to make the application.

Mr. Scott believed, that the practice under the Constitution had been different from that now contended for by gentlemen; he was unapprised of any similar provision having ever been made, or attempted to be made, in relation to any other new State heretofore admitted. The argument drawn from the States formed out of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio, he did not consider as analogous; that restriction, if any, was imposed in pursuance of a compact, and only, so far as Congress could do, carried into effect the disposition of Virginia in reference to a part of her own original Territory, and was, in every respect, more just, because that provision was made and published to the world at a time when but few, if any, settlements were formed within that tract of country; and the children of those people of color belonging to the inhabitants then there, have been, and still were, held in bondage, and were not free at a given age, as was contemplated by the amendment under consideration; nor did he doubt but that it was competent for any of those States admitted in pursuance of the Ordinance of '87, to call a Convention, and so to alter their Constitution as to allow the introduction of slaves, if they thought proper to do so. To those gentlemen who had in their argument, in support of the amendments, adverted to the instance where Congress had, by the law authorizing the people of Louisiana to form a Constitution and State Government, exercised the power of imposing the terms and conditions on which they should be permitted to do so, he would recommend a careful examination and comparison of those terms with the Constitution of the United States, when, he doubted not, they would be convinced that these restrictions were only such as were in express and positive language defined in the latter instrustrument, and would have been equally binding on the people of Louisiana had they not been enumerated in the law giving them authority to form a Constitution for themselves.

Mr. S. said, he considered the contemplated conditions and restrictions, contained in the proposed amendments, to be unconstitutional and unwarrantable, from the provisions of the Treaty of Cession, by the third article of which it was stipulated, that "the inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and, in the mean time, they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess."

of their own? In short, in what had they equal rights advantages and immunities, with the other citizens of the United States, but in the privilege to submit to a procrastination of their rights, and in the advantage to subscribe to your laws, your rules, your taxes, and your powers, even without a hearing? Those people were also to be admitted into the Union as soon as possible." Mr. Scott would infer from this expression, that it was the understanding of the parties, that so soon as any portion of the Territory, of sufficient extent to form a State, should contain the number of inhabitants required by law to entitle them to a representative on the floor of this House, that they then had the right to make the call for admission, and this admission, when made, was to be, not on conditions that gentlemen might deem expedient, not on conditions referable to future political views, not on conditions that the Constitution the people should form should contain a clause that would particularly open the door for emigration from the North or from the South, not on condition that the future population of the State should come from a Slaveholding or Non-Slaveholding State, but according to the principles of the Federal Constitution," and none other.

Mr. Scott had trusted that gentlemen who professed to be actuated by motives of humanity and principle would not encourage a course of dissimulation, or, by any vote of theirs, render it necessary for the citizens of Missouri to act equivocally to obtain their rights. He was unwilling to believe, that political views alone led gentlemen on this or any other occasion; but, from the language of the member from New-York (Mr. Taylor), he was compelled to suspect that they had their influence upon him. That gentlemen has told us, that if ever he left his present residence, it would be for Illinois or Missouri; at all events, he wished to send out his brothers and his sons. Mr. Scott begged that gentleman to relieve him from the awful apprehension excited by the prospect of this accession of population. He hoped the House would excuse him while he stated, that he did not desire that gentleman, his sons, or his brothers, in that land of brave, noble, and independent freemen. The member says that the latitude is too far North to admit of Slavery there. Would the gentleman cast his eye on the map before him, he would there see, that a part of Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland, were as far North as the Northern boundary of the proposed State of Missouri. Mr. Scott would thank the gentleman if he would condescend to tell him what precise line of latitude suited his conscience, his humanity, or his political views, on this subject. Could that member be serious, when he made the parallel of latitude the measure of his good-will to those unfortunate blacks? Or was he trying how far he could go in fallacious argument and absurdity, without creating one blush even on his own cheek, for inconsistency? What, starve the negroes out, pen them up in the swamps and morasses, confine them to Southern latitudes, to long, scorching days of labor and fatigue, until the race becomes extinct, that the fair land of Missouri may be tenanted by that gentleman, his brothers, and sons? He expected from the majority of the House a more liberal policy, and better evidence that they really were actuated by humane motives.

The House bill, thus passed, reached the Senate, February 17th, when it was read twice and sent to a Select Committee already raised on a like application from Alabama, consisting of Messrs. Tait, of Georgia; Morrow, of Ohio; Williams, of Mississippi; Edwards, of Illinois; Williams, of Tennessee. The people were not left to the wayward discretion of On the 22nd, Mr. Tait, from this Committee, this or any other government, by saying that they may be incorporated in the Union. The language was differ-reported the bill with amendments, striking out ent and imperative: "they shall be incorporated." the Anti-Slavery restrictions inserted by the Mr. Scott understood by the term incorporated, that House. This bill was taken up in Committee of they were to form a constituent part of this republic; the Whole, on the 27th, when Mr. Wilson of that they were to become joint partners in the character and councils of the country, and in the national losses New-Jersey moved its postponement to the 5th and national gains; as a Territory they were not an es- of March-that is, to the end of the sessionsential part of the Government; they were a mere province, subject to the acts and regulations of the General negatived: Yeas 14; Nays 23. Government in all cases whatsoever. As a Territory, they had not all the rights, advantages and immunities, of citizens of the United States. Mr. S. himself furnished an example, that, in their present condition, they had not all the rights of the other citizens of the Union. Had he a vote in this House? and yet these people were, during the war, subject to certain taxes imposed by Congress. Had those people any voice to give in the imposition of taxes to which they were subject, or in the disposition of the funds of the nation, and particularly those arising from the sales of the public lands, to which they already had, and still would largely contribute? Had they a voice to give in selecting the officers of this Government, or many

The Senate then proceeded to vote on agreeing to the amendments reported by the Select Committee, viz.: 1, to strike out of the House bill the following:

And that all children of slaves born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be Free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-one years.

Which was stricken out by the following vote. Yeas Against the Restriction -27. Nays-For the Restriction—7.

The Senate then proceeded to vote on the residue of the House Restriction, as follows:

And provided also, That the further introduction of Slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

The vote on this clause was as follows: Yeas - For striking out the Restriction-22. Nays —Against striking out -16.

The bill thus amended was ordered to be engrossed, and was (March 2nd-last day but one of the Session) read a third time, and passed without a division. The bill was on that day returned to the House, and the amendments of the Senate read: whereupon, Mr. Tallmadge, of New-York, moved that the bill be postponed indefinitely. Yeas 69; Nays 74.

[The record shows hardly a vote changed from Yea, on the original passage of the Restriction, to Nay now, but many members who voted then were now absent or gilent.]

The vote was then taken on concurring in the Senate's amendments, as aforesaid, and the House refused to concur; Yeas 76; Nays 78.

[Hardly a vote changed; but more members voting than on the previous division, and less than when the

Restriction was carried.]

The bill was now returned to the Senate, with a message of non-concurrence; when Mr. Tait moved that the Senate adhere to its amendment, which was carried without a division The bill being thus remanded to the House, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved that the House adhere to its disagreement, which prevailed. Yeas 78; Nays 66. So the bill fell between the two Houses, and was lost.

The Southern portion of the then Territory of Missouri (organized by separation from Louisiana in 1812) was excluded from the proposed State of Missouri, and organized as a separate Territory, entitled Arkansas.

The bill being under consideration, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved that the foregoing restriction be applied to it also; and the clause, proposing that slaves born therein after the passage of this act be free at twenty-five years of age, was carried (February 17th) by 75 Yeas to 73 Nays; but that providing against the further introduction of Slaves was lost; Yeas 70; Nays 71. The next day, the clause just adopted was stricken out, and the bill ultimately passed without any allusion to Slavery. Arkansas of course became a Slave Territory, and ultimately (1836) a Slave State.

THE SECOND MISSOURI STRUGGLE.

A new Congress assembled on the 6th of December, 1819. Mr. Clay was again chosen Speaker. On the 8th, Mr. Scott, delegate from Missouri, moved that the memorial of her Territorial Legislature, as also of several citizens, praying her admission into the Union as a State, be referred to a Select Committee; carried, and Messrs. Scott, of Missouri, Robertson, of Kentucky, Terrell, of Georgia, Strother, of Virginia, and De Witt, of New-York, (all but the last from the Slave region,) were appointed said

committee.

Mr. Strong, of New-York, that day gave notice of a bill "To prohibit the further extension of Slavery in the United States.".

On the 14th, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved a Select Committee on this subject, which was granted; and the mover, with Messrs. Livermore, of New-Hampshire, Barbour, (P. P.) of Virginia, Lowndes, of South-Carolina, Fuller, of Massachusetts, Hardin, of Kentucky, and Cuth bert, of Georgia, were appointed such committee, A majority of this Committee being Pro-Slavery, Mr. Taylor could do nothing; and on the 28th the Committee was, on motion, discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

On the same day, Mr. Taylor moved:

That a Committee be appointed with instructions to report a bill prohibiting the further admission of slaves into the Territories of the United States West of the river Mississippi.

On motion of Mr. Smith, of Maryland, this resolve was sent to the Committee of the Whole, and made a special order for January 10th; but it was not taken up, and appears to have slept the sleep of death.

Territorial Legislature, asking admission as a In the Senate, the memorial of the Missouri State, was presented by Mr. Smith, of SouthCarolina, December 29th, and referred to the Judiciary Committee, which consisted of

Messrs. Smith, of South Carolina; Leake, of Mississippi; Burrill, of Rhode Island; Logan, of Kentucky; Otis of

Massachusetts.

DANIEL WEBSTER ON SLAVERY EXTENSION.

The following is extracted from the "Memorial to the Congress of the United States, on the subject of restraining the increase of Slavery in New States to be admitted into the Union," in pursuance of a vote of the inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity, assembled at the State House on the 3d of December, 1819, which was drawn up by Daniel Webster, and signed by himself, George Blake, Josiah Quincy, James T. Austin, etc. It is inserted here instead of the resolves of the various New England Legislatures, as a fuller and clearer statement of the views of the great body of the people of that section during the pendency of the Missouri question:

[blocks in formation]

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States, in Congress assembled:

vicinity, beg leave most respectfully and humbly to repreThe undersigned, inhabitants of Boston and its sent: That the question of the introduction of Slavery into the new States to be formed on the west side of the Mississippi River, appears to them to be a question of the last importance to the future welfare of the United States. If the progress of this great evil is ever to be arrested, it seems to the undersigned that this is the time to arrest it. A false step taken now, cannot be retraced; and it appears to us that the happiness of unborn millions rests on the measure which Congress on this occasion may adopt. Considering this as no local question, nor a question to be decided by a temporary expediency, but as involving great interests of the whole United States, and affecting deeply and essentially those objects of common defense, general welfare, and the perpetuation of the blessings of liberty, for which the Constitution itself was formed, we have presumed, in this way, to offer our sentiments and express our wishes to the National Legislature. And, as various reasons have been sug gested against prohibiting Slavery in the new States, it may perhaps be permitted to us to state our reasons,

both for believing that Congress possesses the Constitu tional power to make such prohibition a condition, on the admission of a new State into the Union, and that it

is just and proper that they should exercise that power.

"And in the first place, as to the Constitutional au thority of Congress. The Constitution of the United

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »