358 INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. exclusively rested the authority to decide whether there was imminent danger of invasion, and that his decision was binding upon all persons. The law on the subject,1 therefore, was constitutional, and every member of a military company was amenable to it. The decision was of the highest importance, because it extended the military authority of the United States over the militia service in every State, and established the authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the militia when it was called into the national service. The war of 1812 left the country free to develop its internal interests, and of these the first to demand attention were internal improvements. The main question was, who should pay for them? Should they be undertaken only by the States in their several capacities, or could Congress inaugurate and maintain them independent of the States? Now on this subject the Constitution is not explicit. It empowers Congress to establish postroads, to regulate commerce between the States, to control the territories, to levy taxes, to make appropriations and to make all proper and necessary laws. But down to 1815, no party had arrived at the conclusion that the Constitution permits internal improvements at national expense. The matter had come up before the second war with England, during Jefferson's second administration, when he informed Congress that as there was likely to be a surplus in the treasury the question would arise how should it be applied. Now a surplus in the national treasury always generates a portentous activity in Congress. Jefferson pointed out two ways in which the surplus might be worthily expended; first, in internal improvements, and secondly, in public education. But he could find no authority in the Constitution to expend it for either purpose, there1 Act of February 28, 1795; Statutes at Large, I, 424. MONROE'S MESSAGE. 359 fore, falling back on his political principles, he advised an amendment which would permit such an application of public moneys,1 and repeated the recommendation in his last annual message.2 As Madison and Monroe, his disciples and successors in the government, renewed the suggestion in no less than five messages the policy implied may be accepted as a settled part of the early Democratic creed, that internal improvements at national expense are not authorized by the Constitution. The most elaborate argument on the subject was made by Monroe in his veto of the Cumberland road bill in 1822, the longest message from any of our Presidents. Taking up each clause in the Constitution which by any construction he thought might be applied to authorize internal improvements, and after making the most painstaking examination, he reached the conclusion that Congress had not been granted power to execute a system of internal improvements. If undertaken at all, they must be made by the States. Not denying that such improvements would produce many advantages to the general government, he believed that these would be no compensation for the violence done to the supreme law. Though desiring such improvements and admitting their vital importance, he saw only one way, the Jeffersonian, by which Congress could authorize them, that is by amending the Constitution. The States individually could not transfer the necessary power to Congress, and if they could do so, the United States could not receive it. Any compact between the general government and a particular State which 1 Message, December 2, 1806; Richardson, I, 409. 2 November 8, 1808; Id., 456. • Madison, December 5, 1815; Id., 567: Monroe, December 2, 1817, Richardson, II, 18; December 3, 1822, Id., 191; December 2, 1823, Id., 207; May 4, 1822, Id., 142. 4 May 4, 1822, Richardson, II, 144. 360 BEGINNING OF THE MISSOURI STRUGGLE. was not common to all the States, would produce, he believed, most pernicious consequences. Thus the answer of the Republicans to the great demand heard loudly in the West, for internal improvement at national expense in 1818, was non possumus. In this opinion Monroe only followed Madison, who had taken exactly the same ground in an earlier veto.1 But these opinions were not shared by the whole country as the resolutions of the House of Representatives adopted a year after Madison's veto indicated.2 These asserted the right of Congress to make appropriations for such improvements, but as yet they had not the support of the majority of the people, and therefore, were only the opinion of the minority party, but it was a minority which was soon to be heard from. Slavery flourished in the Louisiana country before its acquisition by the United States, and the treaty of 1803 bound our government to protect its inhabitants in the enjoyment of their religion, liberty and property. As we have seen, no objection was made to the acquisition, even by the Federalists, because of the existence of slavery within it, nor was any objection made to the admission of Louisiana as a State in 1812, on account of slavery,3 though the number of slaves had then greatly increased. There were at that time about one hundred thousand people in the entire Louisiana country, of whom about twenty thousand were scattered within the bounds of the present State of Missouri. The tide of immigration was then turning toward the southwest, and in ten years the population of what we now call Missouri had increased to nearly seventy thousand, of whom one-seventh were slaves. There were at this time, 1819-1820, about sixteen 1 March 3, 1817, Richardson, I, 585. 2 March 4, 1818. April 8, 1812. hundred slaves in Arkansas. The treaty of 1803 also provided for the organization of new States out of the purchase and their ultimate admission into the Union on equal footing with the original thirteen. By the treaty, therefore, the United States assumed two obligations; first, to protect slavery, because slaves were property; and secondly, to admit new States from the region without discrimination. Soon after the admission of Louisiana, the region lying to the north was organized as a territory under the name of Missouri,1 but nothing was said at the time concerning slavery in the territory; the act differing from former organizing acts chiefly in providing for the biennial election of members of the Lower House, who, as it was the custom in the earlier territorial acts, were required to be freeholders. The laws of Louisiana were extended over Missouri territory, and as Louisiana was a slave State, the future of the territory seemed determined. The rapid influx of immigrants, especially from the older slave-holding States, soon awakened a desire for admission into the Union, which culminated in a formal petition for admission, presented by Scott, the delegate from the territory, to Congress in March, 1818. The matter rested until December, when Henry Clay, the Speaker, resubmitted the Missouri petition for admission, but it was not acted upon until the thirteenth of February, at which time the report of the Committee of the Whole, favorable to admission, was discussed. It was in the usual form, that the Constitution of the new State must be Republican in form and consistent with the Constitution of the United States. The greater part of Missouri lay north of the line of 36 deg. 30 min., and west of the region which by the ordinance of 1787, had forever been set apart 1 June 4, 1812. 362 SLAVERY EXCLUSION. as free soil. The principle of the compromise embodied in the ordinance was doubtless at this time in the mind of many members of Congress, who wished the new State to be free soil, and would extend the anti-slavery clause of the ordinance over it. The sudden appearance of a Free-Soil party at the time of the committee's report favoring the admission of Missouri, appears upon closer examination to have been the result of many causes of long standing, rather than a sudden inspiration. The conditions which the Committee of the Whole imposed, that the Constitution of new States should be republican in form, gave opportunity to test what that form was understood to be. Two days after the committee's report, Tallmadge, of New York, precipitated one of the most critical debates in our constitutional history by proposing two restrictions on the new State; the exclusion of slavery, except as punishment for crime, and the gradual emancipation of all children born slaves within the State, at the age of twentyfive years.1 The effect of these two restrictions would ultimately transform Missouri into free soil. The ordinance of 1787 undoubtedly suggested the first restriction, and the gradual emancipation acts of several Northern States, the second. The restrictionists urged the expediency of the two provisions, but the anti-restrictionists, with equal zeal, replied that Congress had no authority to impose any conditions other than that the new State be republican in form. But the restrictionists cited the authority of Congress to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting territorial and other property of the United States, and referred to the enabling acts of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, each of which forbade slavery. As Missouri lay west of these States, the restrictionists argued 1 February 15, 1819; Benton's Debates, VI, 334. |