CHAPTER II

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE

[DEBATE ON THE RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES]

Organization of Mississippi Territory-George Thacher [Mass.] Offers Amendment to Exclude Slavery; It Is Defeated-Missouri Applies for Admission to the Union-James Tallmadge, Jr. [N. Y.], in the House of Representatives, Moves to Restrict Slavery in the State-Debate on the Motion: in Favor, Tallmadge, John W. Taylor [N. Y.], Timothy Fuller [Mass.], Arthur Livermore [N. H.]; Opposed, Philip P. Barbour [Va.]; Amendment Carried-The Senate Rejects the Tallmadge Amendment and the Bill Is Lost-Arkansas Territory Organized with Slavery-Senator Taylor's Proviso Abolishing Slavery North of 36 Degrees and 30 Minutes North Latitude; It Is Withdrawn-Debate in Senate on Admission of Maine and Missouri: in Favor of Restriction of Slavery in Missouri, Jonathan Roberts [Pa.], Walter Lowrie [Pa.], Rufus King [N. Y.]; Opposed, Freeman Walker [Ga.], Nicholas Van Dyke [Del.], James Barbour [Va.], William Pinkney [Md.]-Proposal of the Missouri Compromise-Debate in the House: Proslavery Speakers, Alexander Smyth [Va.], Robert W. Reid [Ga.], Benjamin Hardin [Ky.], Louis McLane [Del.], Philip P. Barbour [Va.], Charles Pinckney [S. C.], John Tyler [Va.]; Anti-Slavery Speakers, Henry Meigs [N. Y.], John W. Taylor [N. Y.], Joseph Hemphill [Pa.], John Sergeant [Pa.], William Darlington [Pa.], James Stevens [Ct.]-Missouri Is Admitted Under the Compromise-Debate in Congress on a Clause in the Proposed Constitution of Missouri Debarring Entrance into the State of Free Negroes-Henry Clay [Ky.] Secures a Compromise.

TH

HE specific issue under which the slavery question agitated the country for the greater part of the period from the formation of the Constitution under the Civil War was that of restrictions in regard to slavery in the formation of Territories and the admission into the Union of new States. As has been related in Volume I [see page 267], the Northwest Territory had been organized in 1787 with the exclusion of slavery.

On March 23, 1798, the question of the organization

of the Territory of Mississippi (comprising roughly the present States of Alabama and Mississippi) came before the House. A resolution was offered, giving the Territory the government of the Northwest Territory as established by the Ordinance of 1787, with the exception of the prohibition of slavery. George Thacher [Mass.] offered an amendment striking out the excepting clause, and so prohibiting slavery in the Southern Territories as well as in the Northern. The question was put on Mr. Thacher's amendment and negatived, there being only 12 votes in its favor.

Senator Thomas H. Benton remarks of this discussion in his "Debates of Congress" that it "was the first debate on the prohibition of slavery in a Territory which took place under the Federal Constitution, and it is to be observed that the constitutional power of Congress to make the prohibition was not questioned by any speaker. Expedient objections only were urged."

At the close of the War of 1812 the free and slave States were the same in number, nine and nine. In 1816 (under Madison's Administration) Indiana was admitted into the Union as free soil, being a part of the Northwest Territory in which slavery had been prohibited by the Ordinance of 1787. In 1817 Mississippi was formed as a State out of the western part of Mississippi Territory, which had been organized as slave territory. In 1818 Illinois was admitted under the same conditions as Indiana. To preserve the equality of slave and free States the next State should be admitted as slave. When therefore the northern part of Missouri Territory (organized by various Acts of Congress from 1812 onward, out of the Louisiana Purchase, wherein slavery prevailed and was recognized by the treaty with France) applied for admission into the Union, late in 1818, the Southern Congressmen assumed that it would be admitted as slave. They were therefore greatly incensed when James Tallmadge, Jr. [N. Y.], on February 13, 1819, moved an amendment to the bill for its admission declaring all its inhabitants free who should be born after the date of admission, and providing for the gradual emancipation of those now held in bondage.

Mr. Tallmadge's amendment was debated from February 13 to 15, when it was adopted in the Committee of the Whole by a vote of 79 to 67.

The principal speakers in favor of the amendment were, in addition to Mr. Tallmade, John W. Taylor [N. Y.], Timothy Fuller [Mass.], and Arthur Livermore [N. H.]. Philip P. Barbour [Va.] was the only speaker in the negative whose remarks were reported at length.

Henry Clay [Ky.], the Speaker of the House, opposed the amendment, but his arguments must be gleaned from the replies made by his opponents.

Of this debate Senator Benton, in his "Debates of Congress," remarks:

This was the commencement of the great Missouri agitation which was settled by the compromise. No two words have been more confounded of late than these of the restriction and compromise so much so that some of the eminent speakers of the time have had their speeches against the restriction quoted as being against the compromise of which they were zealous advocates. Though often confounded, no two measures could be more opposite in their nature and effects. The restriction was to operate upon a State-the compromise on territory. The restriction was to prevent the State of Missouri from admitting slavery-the compromise was to admit slavery there, and to divide the rest of Louisiana about equally between free and slave soil. The restriction came from the North-the comproImise from the South. The restriction raised the storm-the compromise allayed it.

RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY IN MISSOURI

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 13-15, 1819

MR. TAYLOR.-Our votes this day will determine whether the high destinies of this region and of these generations shall be fulfilled, or whether we shall defeat them by permitting slavery, with all its baleful consequences, to inherit the land. Let the magnitude of this question plead my apology, while I briefly address a few considerations to the sober judgment of patriots and statesmen.

First. Has Congress power to require of Missouri a con

stitutional prohibition against the further introduction of slavery as a condition of her admission into the Union?

Second. If the power exist, is it wise to exercise it?

The third section of the fourth article of the Constitution declares that "the Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory, or other property, belonging to the United States."

After the formation of a Territory the Congress may admit the State into the Union in pursuance of a power delegated by the same section of the Constitution, in the following words: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into the Union.” This grant of power is evidently alternative; its exercise is committed to the sound discretion of Congress; no injustice is done by declining it. But if Congress has the power of altogether refusing to admit new States, much more has it the power of prescribing such conditions of admission as may be judged reasonable. The exercise of this power until now has never been questioned. The act of 1802, under which Ohio was admitted into the Union, prescribed the condition that its constitution should not be repugnant to the ordinance of 1787. The sixth article of that ordinance declares, "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." The same condition was imposed by Congress on the people of Indiana and Illinois. These States have all complied with it and framed constitutions excluding slavery. Missouri lies in the same latitude. Its soil, productions, and climate are the same, and the same principles of government should be aplied to it.

But it is said that, by the treaty of 1803, with the French Republic [cession of Louisiana] Congress is restrained from imposing this condition. The third article is quoted as containing the prohibition. It is in the following words: "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 meantime, they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess." The treaty made no provision for the erection of new States in the ceded territory. That was a question of national policy, properly reserved for the decision of those to whom the constitution had committed the power.

The treaty, therefore, has no operation on the question in debate. Its requirements, however, have been faithfully fulfilled. In 1804 the laws of the United States were extended to that territory. In 1811 a law was passed to enable the people of the Territory of Orleans to form a constitution and State government, and to provide for its admission into the Union. Did Congress then doubt its power to annex conditions to such admission? No, sir, far from it. The government of Orleans had always been administered according to the principles of the civil law. The common law, so highly valued in other parts of our country, was not recognized there. Trial by jury was unknown to the inhabitants. Instead of a privilege, they considered its introduction an odious departure from their ancient administration of justice. Left to themselves, they never would have introduced it. Congress, however, knowing these things, made it a condition of their admission into the Union that trial by jury should be secured to the citizen by a constitutional provision.

Even the language of the Territory was required to be changed as a condition of its admission. French and Spanish were the only languages generally spoken or even understood. But Congress required from them a constitutional provision that their legislative and judicial proceedings should be conducted in the English language. They were not left at liberty to determine this point for themselves. From these facts it appears that Congress, at that day, acted from a conviction that it possessed the power of prescribing the conditions of their admission into the Union.

Gentlemen have said the amendment is in violation of the treaty, because it impairs the property of a master in his slave. Is it then pretended that, notwithstanding the declaration in our bill of rights, "that all men are created equal," one individual can have a vested property not only in the flesh and blood of his fellowman, but also in generations not yet called into existence? Can it be believed that the supreme legislature has no power to provide rules and regulations for ameliorating the condition of future ages? And this, too, when the Constitution itself has vested in Congress full sovereignty, by authorizing the enactment of whatever law it may deem conducive to the welfare of the country. The sovereignty of Congress in relation to the States is limited by specific grantsbut in regard to the Territories it is unlimited. Missouri was purchased with our money, and, until incorporated into the family of States, it may be sold for money. Can it then be