The Maine-Missouri Bill in the Senate

of the proposed State of Missouri, which bill passed to a second reading. As the debate continued, most of the States sent up resolutions, and, except those from Delaware, the resolutions opposing the extension of slavery came from free States. Some compromise must be made, for neither the restrictionists nor the extensionists seemed likely to recede. On the 16th of February, by a majority of two votes, the Senate united the Maine and Missouri bills, and Thomas offered the compromise. Except within the limits of the State of Missouri, in all the territory north of 36° 30' slavery should be prohibited. Efforts were made to modify this amendment—as by Barbour, of Virginia, who wished the line at forty degrees. Thomas amended it on the following day by adding a fugitive-slave clause, and in this form it passed the Senate by a majority of more than three to one.* Eaton, of Tennessee, sought to have the amendment apply to the West only so long as it remained a Territory; and Trimble, of Ohio, wished the restriction to apply to all territory west of the river, except Missouri; but both propositions were rejected. On the 18th theMaine-Missouri bill, as amended, passed the Senate and went to the House. Taylor moved that the House disagree to the amendments, and Scott that they be sent to the Committee of the Whole; his motion had precedence under the rules. A long and animated discussion followed, when the motion to commit was lost.t

*Thirty-four to ten.

+ Seventy to one hundred and seven.

Would the House disagree? This was debated three days, when, by large majorities, the Missouri rider and the Thomas amendment were rejected.* The House then took up its own bill, with the Taylor restriction, in Committee of the Whole. It made but slight progress; yet the discussion disclosed that a restrictive clause of some kind would be likely to pass. Taylor's restriction passed, in Committee of the Whole, on the 25th, and on the following day Storrs, of New York, moved the Thomas amendment, in substance, and, in a speech, supported it, though only incidentally examining the right of Congress to impose the slavery restriction on Missouri. Two days later a message was received from the Senate that it would insist on its amendments, and Taylor at once moved that the House insist on its disagreement. It was carried by a large majority-first, that the Maine bill and the Missouri bill should not be combined,† and, secondly, by a larger majority, that the compromise amendment should be rejected. The meaning of the vote was stated by Lowndes, of South Carolina. The friends of Missouri would vote for the compromise principle when combined with the free admission of the State; yet, as the amendment relative to Missouri had been disagreed to, it was useless to return it in

* The Missouri attachment by vote of ninety-three to seventytwo; the details of the Missouri bill, by vote of one hundred and two to sixty-eight; the Thomas amendment, by vote of one hundred and fifty-nine to eighteen.

+ Ninety-seven to seventy-six.

One hundred and sixty to fourteen.

Conference on the Maine-Missouri Bill

connection with the Maine bill alone. Thus it was clear that Lowndes and his friends would oppose slavery restrictions on Missouri, though they might agree to apply them to the Territories.

When the Senate was informed that the House insisted upon its disagreement, Thomas moved for a committee of conference, whereupon a debate marked by "vehemence and warm feeling" ensued. But the motion prevailed. Its author, Pinkney, of Maryland, and Barbour, of Virginia, were appointed conferees for the Senate. On the next day the House agreed to confer, and appointed as conferees Holmes, the delegate from Maine; Taylor; Lowndes; Parker, of Massachusetts, and Kinsey, of New Jersey.

This procedure did not interrupt the progress of the bill pending in the House, and, with the Taylor restriction, it passed on the 1st of March,* and was sent to the Senate for concurrence. The Senate, on the following day, struck out the Taylor restriction, substituted the Thomas amendment, passed the bill, and sent it back to the House. Would the bill in this form be agreed to by the conference committee? At the request of Holmes, the Senate bill was laid on the table long enough to give him an opportunity to make a report from the committee. That report was soon made. The Senate should recede from its amendments-that is, abandon the combination of Maine and Missouri in one bill-and Maine should be admitted.

* Ninety-one to eighty-two.

+ Twenty-seven to fifteen.

The House should abandon the restriction of slavery within Missouri. Both Houses should agree to the Thomas amendment-the compromiseexcluding slaves north and west of Missouri.

Would the House concur? Would it consent to the admission of another slave State? It seemed impossible that so strong a majority as that which had voted for restriction would recede. But moderation prevailed, Kinsey undoubtedly expressing the opinions of the body of the House-at neither extreme-favoring a compromise: "Now is to be tested whether this grand and hitherto successful experiment of free government is to continue, or, after more than forty years' enjoyment of the choicest blessings of heaven under its administration, we are to break asunder on a dispute concerning a division of territory. Gentlemen of the majority have treated the idea of a disunion with ridicule; but, to my mind, it presents itself in all the horrid, gloomy features of reality. On this question, which for near[ly] six weeks has agitated and convulsed this House, I have voted with the majority. But I am convinced, should we persist to reject the olive-branch now offered, the most disastrous consequences will follow. These convictions are confirmed by that acerbity of expression arising from the most irritated feelings, wrought upon by what our Southern brethren conceive [the] unkind, unjust, determined perseverance of the majority, and to those I now beg leave to address myself. Do our Southern brethren demand an equal division of this wide-spread, fertile region,

**

Stubborn Resistance of the Free-Soilers

this common property, purchased with the common funds of the nation? No; they have agreed to fix an irrevocable boundary, beyond which slavery shall never pass; thereby surrendering to the claims of humanity and the non-slave-holding States, to the enterprising capitalists of the North, the Middle and Eastern States, nine-tenths of the country in question. In rejecting so reasonable a proposition we must have strong and powerful reasons to justify our refusal. *** Should we now numerically carry the question, it will be a victory snatched from our brothers. It will be an inglorious triumph, gained at the hazard of the Union. Humanity shudders at the thought. National policy forbids it. It is an act at which no good man will rejoice, no friend of his country can approve." The vote was called, and disclosed that compromise had prevailed over restriction by a majority of three.* Taylor, unwilling to give up the fight for free soil, moved to strike out 36° 30', and exclude slavery from all soil west of the Mississippi, except Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri; but this was rejected. The bill passed both Houses on the 2d, Maine was admitted on the 15th,† and the people of Missouri were empowered to form a constitution and a State government.

On the 12th of June the constitutional conven

*Ninety to eighty-seven.

+ Massachusetts had consented to the separation of Maine on condition that it should be admitted to the Union by the 4th of March, 1820. See the Articles of Separation, Sec. i., in Nash, p. 3 of third paging.