Изображения страниц

the event far beyond what a common occasion | restriction of Slavery, would, in their opinion, escould inspire."

sentially impair the right of this and other existing States to equal representation in Congress (a right at the foundation of the political compact), inasInstead of reprinting the Speeches elicited much as such newly-admitted slaveholding State by this fruitful theme, which must necessarily, would be represented on the basis of their slave to a great extent, be a mere reproduction of population; a concession made at the formation ideas expressed in the debate of the last ses-States, but never stipulated for new States, nor to of the Constitution in favor of the then existing sion, already given, we here insert the Re-be inferred from any article or clause in that insolves of the Legislatures of New-York, strument. New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and "2. Resolved, That to admit the Territory of Kentucky-the first three being unanimous Missouri as a State into the Union, without pro hibiting Slavery there, would, in the opinion of the expressions in favor of Slavery Restriction; representatives of the people of New-Jersey afore the fourth, from a Slave State, also in favor said, be no less than to sanction this great politiof such Restriction, though probably not cal and moral evil, furnish the ready means of unanimously agreed to by the Legislature; peopling a vast Territory with Slaves, and perthe last against Restriction, and also (we petuate all the dangers, crimes, and pernicious effects of domestic bondage. presume) unanimous. The Legislatures of the Free States were generally unanimous for Restriction; those of the Slave States (Delaware excepted) unanimous against it. It is not deemed necessary to print more than the following:


"State of New-York, in Assembly, Jan. 17, 1820:

"Whereas, The inhibiting the further extension of Slavery in these United States is a subject of deep concern among the people of this State; and whereas we consider Slavery as an evil much to be deplored; and that every constitutional barrier should be interposed to prevent its further extension; and that the Constitution of the United States clearly gives Congress the right to require of new States, not comprised with the original boundaries of these United States, the prohibition of Slavery, as a condition of its admission into the Union: Therefore,

[ocr errors]

"Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur herein), That our Senators be instructed, and our Representatives in Congress be requested, to oppose the admission as a State into the Union, any territory not comprised as aforesaid, without making the prohibition of Slavery therein an indispensable condition of admission: therefore,

Resolved, That measures be taken by the clerks of the Senate and Assembly of this State, to transmit copies of the preceding resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress." [Unanimously concurred in by the Senate.]


January 24th, 1820. S

Mr. Wilson of N. J. communicated the following Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of New-Jersey, which were read : "Whereas, A Bill is now depending in the Congress of the United States, on the application of the people in the Territory of Missouri for the admission of that Territory as a State into the Union, not containing provisions against Slavery in such proposed State, and a question is made upon the right and expediency of such provision.

The representatives of the people of New-Jersey, in the Legislative Council and General Assembly of the said State, now in session, deem it a duty they owe to themselves, to their constituents, and posterity, to declare and make known the opinions they hold upon this momentous subject; and,

"1. They do resolve and declare, That the further admission of Territories into the Union, without

"3. Resolved, As the opinion of the Representatives aforesaid, That inasmuch as no Territory has a right to be admitted into the Union, but on the principles of the Federal Constitution, and only by a law of Congress, consenting thereto on the part of the existing States, Congress may rightfully, and ought to refuse such law, unless upon the reasonable and just conditions, assented to on the part of the people applying to become one of the


"4. Resolved, In the opinion of the Representatives aforesaid, That the article of the Constitution which restrains Congress from prohibiting the migration or importation of Slaves, until after the year 1808, does, by necessary implication, admit the general power of Congress over the subject of Slavery, and concedes to them the right to regulate and restrain such migration and importation after that time, into the existing, or any newly-tobe created State.

"5. Resolved, As the opinion of the Representatives of the people of New-Jersey aforesaid, That inasmuch as Congress have a clear right to refuse the admission of a Territory into the Union, by the terms of the Constitution, they ought in the present case to exercise that absolute discretion in order to preserve the political rights of the several existing States, and prevent the great national disgrace and multiplied mischiefs, which must ensue from conceding it, as a matter of right, in the immense Territories yet to claim admission into the Union, beyond the Mississippi, that they may tolerate Slavery.

6. Resolved, (with the concurrence of Council,) That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of the Senators and Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States."



December 11th, 1819.
A motion was made by Mr. Duane and
Mr. Thackara, and read as follows:

"The Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, while they cherish the right of the individual States to express their opinion upon all public measures proposed in the Congress of the Union, are aware that its usefulness must in a great degree depend upon the discretion with which it is exercised; they believe that the right ought not to be resorted to upon trivial subjects or unimportant occasions; but they are also persuaded that there are moments when the neglect to exercise it would be a dereliction of public duty.

"Such an occasion, as in their judgment demands the frank expression of the sentiments of Pennsylvania, is now presented. A measure was

ardently supported in the last Congress of the vested in them by the Constitution, to stipulate United States, and will probably be as earnestly with the Territory upon the conditions of the urged during the existing session of that body, boon. which has a palpable tendency to impair the po"The Senate and House of Representatives of litical relations of the several States; which is cal- Pennsylvania, therefore, cannot but deprecate culated to mar the social happiness of the present any departure from the humane and enlightened and future generations; which, if adopted, would policy pursued not only by the illustrious Conimpede the march of humanity and Freedom gress which framed the Constitution, but by their through the world; and would transfer from a successors without exception. They are persuadmisguided ancestry an odious stain and fix it in-ed that, to open the fertile regions of the West to delibly upon the present race-a measure, in brief, which proposes to spread the crimes and cruelties of Slavery from the banks of the Mississippi to the shores of the Pacific. When a measure of this character is seriously advocated in the republican Congress of America, in the nineteenth century, the several States are invoked by the duty which they owe to the Deity, by the veneration which they entertain for the memory of the founders of the Republic, and by a tender regard for posterity, to protest against its adoption, to refuse to covenant with crime, and to limit the range of an evil that already hangs in awful boding over so large a portion of the Union.

"Nor can such a protest be entered by any State with greater propriety than by Pennsylvania. This commonwealth has as sacredly respected the rights of other States as it has been careful of its own; it has been the invariable aim of the people of Pennsylvania to extend to the universe. by their example, the unadulterated blessings of civil and religious freedom; and it is their pride that they have been at all times the practical advocates of those improvements and charities among men which are so well calculated to enable them to answer the purposes of their Creator; and above all, they may boast that they were foremost in removing the pollution of Slavery from among


"If, indeed, the measure, against which Pennsylvania considers it her duty to raise her voice, were calculated to abridge any of the rights guaranteed to the several States; if, odious as Slavery is, it was proposed to hasten its extinction by means injurious to the States upon which it was unhappily entailed, Pennsylvania would be among the first to insist upon a sacred observance of the constitutional compact. But it cannot be pretended that the rights of any of the States are at all to be affected by refusing to extend the mischiefs of human bondage over the boundless regions of the West, a territory which formed no part of the Union at the adoption of the Constitution; which has been but lately purchased from a European Power by the people of the Union at large; which may or may not be admitted as a State into the Union at the discretion of Congress; which must establish a republican form of Government, and no other; and whose climate affords none of the pretexts urged for resorting to the labor of natives of the torrid zone; such a territory has no right, inherent or acquired, such as those States possessed which established the existing Constitution. When that Constitution was framed in September, 1787, the concession that three-fifths of the slaves in the States then existing should be represented in Congress, could not have been intended to embrace regions at that time held by a foreign power. On the contrary, so anxious were the Congress of that day to confine human bondage within its ancient home, that on the 13th of July, 1787, that body unanimously declared that Slavery or involuntary servitude should not exist in the extensive territories bounded by the Ohio, the Mississippi, Canada and the Lakes; and in the ninth article of the Constitution itself, the power of Congress to prohibit the emigration of servile persons after 1808, is expressly recognized; nor is there to be found in the statute-book a single instance of the admission of a Territory to the rank of a State in which Congress have not adhered to the right,

a servile race, would tend to increase their numbers beyond all past example, would open a new and steady market for the lawless venders of human flesh, and would render all schemes for obliterating this most foul blot upon the American character useless and unavailing.

"Under these convictions, and in the full persuasion that upon this topic there is but one opinion in Pennsylvania

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, That the Senators of this State in the Congress of the United States be, and they are hereby instructed, and that the Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States be, and they are hereby requested, to vote against the admission of any Territory as a State into the Union, unless said Territory shall stipulate and agree that the further introduction of Slavery or involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall he prohibited; and that all children born within the said Territory, after its admission into the Union as a State, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years.'

[ocr errors]

"Resolved, That the Governor be, and he is hereby requested to cause a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolution to be transmitted to such of the Senators and Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States, "Laid on the table."

"THURSDAY, December 16, 1819. "Agreeably to the order of the day, the House resumed the consideration of the resolutions postponed on the 14th inst., relative to preventing the introduction of Slavery into States hereafter to be admitted into the Union. And on the question, 'Will the House agree to the resolution?' the Yeas and Nays were required by Mr. Randall and Mr. Souder, and stood Yeas, 74-(54 Democrats, 20 Federalists); Nays, none. Among the Yeas Randall of Philadelphia, now a Whig supporter were David R. Porter, late Governor, Josiah of Buchanan, William Wilkins, late minister to Russia, now in the State Senate, Dr. Daniel Sturgeon, late U. S. Senator, etc., etc. William Duane, editor of The Aurora, then the Democratic Organ, also voted for the resolutions, as he had prominently advocated the principle they asserted.

"The Senate unanimously concurred, and the Resolves were signed by Gov. William Findlay."


In Senate of the United States, early in 1820, Mr. Van Dyke communicated the following Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Delaware, which were read:

"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware, in General Assembly met: That it is, in the opinion of this General Assembly, the constitutional right of the United States, in Congress assembled, to enact and establish, as one of the conditions for the admission of a new State into the Union, a provision which shall effectually prevent the further introduction of Slavery into such State; and that a due regard to the true interests of such State, as well

[blocks in formation]

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



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.


The House, very early in the session, passed as a State. a bill providing for the admission of Maine 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.

"In passing the following Resolution, the General Assembly refrains from expressing any opinion either in favor or against the principles of Slavery; but to support and maintain State rights, which it conceives necessary to be supported and maintained, to preserve the liberties of the free people 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 Constitution, 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

[NOTE.-Great confusion and misconception exists in the public mind with regard to "the Missouri Restriction," two totally different propositions 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 limitaMissouri. 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 Missouri, but from the Territories of the United States North and West of that State. This proposition did not emanate from the original Missouri Restrictionists, but from their adversaries, and was but reluctantly and partially accepted by the former.]

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]

[It will here be seen that the Restriction ultimately 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 Mis souri-and supported also by Senators from Slave "And be it further enacted, That in all that Ter- States-as a means of overcoming the resistance ritory ceded by France to the United States under of the House to Slavery in Missouri. It was, in 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."

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:

Mr. Trimble of Ohio moved a substitute for this, somewhat altering the boundaries of the region shielded from Slavery, which was rejected Yeas 20 (Northern); Nays 24 (Southern, with Noble, Edwards, and Messrs. Barbour of Va. Taylor, as aforesaid).

The question then recurred on Mr. Thomas's amendment, which was adopted as follows:

YEAS-For excluding Slavery from all the
Territory North and West of Missouri:

[blocks in formation]

YEAS-For the Missouri Bill:

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 remain-
ing 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.)

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 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

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,

1. The Senate should give up the combination of Missouri in the same bill with Maine.

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


[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »