History of Kansas (Holloway 1868)/Chapter 4
CHAPTER IV.
TRIUMPH OF SLAVERY IN 1820
As it has been before shown, when the Territory of Orleans was admitted into the Union, under the name of Louisiana, the remaining portion of the Louisiana purchase, heretofore called the Territory of Louisiana, passed to the second grade of government, under the title of Missouri Territory. The population spreading back from each side of the Missouri River, and extending about two hundred miles west of the Mississippi, in 1815 petitioned Congress for the privilege of forming a State government and an admission into the Union on the same footing as the original States. This petition, after having been presented twice in the House of Representatives and ordered to lie on the table, was a third time presented[1] by Mr. Scott, delegate from that territory, and referred to a select committee of which the above named gentleman was made chairman. On the 3d of April Mr. Scott reported a bill in compliance with the petitioners' request which was referred to a Committee of the Whole, but was never acted upon. At the next session of Congress the Speaker, Mr. Clay, presented a petition from the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Territory of Missouri, praying that they might be permitted to form a constitution and frame a State government, and be admitted into the Union. The House in Committee of the Whole entered into discussion upon a bill relating to this subject,[2] and after considering various amendments, one was proposed by Mr. Tallmadge, of New York, in these words:
“And provided, That the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; and that all children born within said State, after the admission thereof, shall be free at the age of twenty-five years.”
This amendment elicited a spirited discussion, but passed the House[3] by a very close vote. The bill on going to the Senate was amended by striking out[4] the restriction clause, and concurred in[5]; but the House adhering to its amendment, it was lost.
The same Congress organized the Territory of Arkansas from the southern part of Missouri, agreeable to a petition from the inhabitants thereof. Attempts were made to apply the slavery restriction to it, but failed, and it was accordingly organized without any reference to slavery.
A glance at the map will reveal the magnitude of this question which affected the two contending parties. It was not merely whether Missouri should be a slave or a free State; but whether the vast expanse of territory extending westward from Missouri across the broad prairies, over the Rocky Mountains, to the Pacific—comprising about one-fourth the area of the United States—should be consecrated to Slave, or Free, labor. This is the way the question was viewed at that time; it was thought that the fate of Missouri would decide that of the territory west and south of it, which then belonged to, or would be acquired afterwards by, the United States.
During the following summer, the interim between the two Congresses, the subject of slavery restriction was agitated all over the country. Public meetings were held and speeches made; conventions were called and resolutions passed in accordance with their sentiments; the whole country was canvassed by public speakers and flooded with pamphleteers; the press opened its battery and kept up a continual fire; thus the country was agitated until it was fairly ablaze with excitement.
The North opposed the permanent establishment of slavery, from moral and political considerations. It claimed to be actuated by the spirit of the founders of the Republic, who sought by all legislative means to prevent the growth of slavery. It was plain, however, that whatever party obtained Missouri, obtained the balance of power, and there is no doubt that the North sought to obtain it on this account, as well as from other considerations. But such is the construction which mankind put upon the motives of an action, that where there may be an unworthy one, no matter how many good ones, they generally attribute it to the former. The South put, therefore, the very worst interpretation upon the actions of the North, as aiming at political supremacy by an unjust and oppressive legislation.
The position of the anti-restrictionists was a very singular one, if not inconsistent. They bewailed in most eloquent lamentations over the wrongs which slavery inflicted upon the slaves, country and people; conceded the right and duty of Congress to prohibit it from the territories, and to provide, in every constitutional way, for its removal; but now that they had the power to prevent its extension, and, consequently, its growth, they refused to exercise it. But they fought the battle under the banner of State Rights, State Sovereignty, Liberty, and the Right of the people to frame their own institutions, as opposed to Usurpation and Oppression on the part of Congress.
Fresh from the heat of popular discussion, with feelings all aglow with excitement, the members of the XVIth Congress convened.[6] Memorials from the people and Legislature of Missouri bearing evidence of an angry feeling, caused by their former rejection, were soon presented, and in the House referred[7] to a select committee; in the Senate,[8] to the Judiciary. The committee in the House reported,[9] through its chairman, Mr. Scott, delegate from Missouri, a bill authorizing that territory to form a State constitution and government, without any prohibition of slavery. On motion of Mr. Taylor, of New York, a committee was appointed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting slavery in all territory west of the Mississippi, of which he was made chairman. But the committee being unable to agree among themselves, in a few days, at the request of the chairman, was discharged.[10] On January 26, 1820, Mr. Taylor proposed an amendment to the Missouri bill, the restrictive provisions of which are as follows:
“And shall ordain and establish that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. And it is provided, also, That the said provision shall not be construed to alter the condition or civil rights of any person now held to service or labor in said territory.”
An animated discussion immediately ensued, which continued, with scarcely any interruption, for twenty-three days.
In the meantime, the bill admitting Maine into the Union, which had passed[11] the House, had a heavy burden thrown upon it in the Senate. The skill and tactics of slavery propagandists were here most strikingly displayed. The committee to whom the bill had been referred recommended[12] its passage, with several amendments, the most important of which was the Missouri bill without restriction. The object was, of course, to enable the latter bill to ride through the House upon that of the former. Strong efforts were made in the Senate to throw it off, or apply to it the restrictive clause, which occasioned a long and protracted discussion.
Both Houses were now intently engaged in stormy debate. Never before, nor since, was there ever such a display, in the halls of Congress, of forensic skill and impassioned eloquence. It was a sublime occasion for the orator. The excited nation were the anxious spectators; the Legislatures of the different States the abettors.[13] The subject was one calculated to call forth no buncombe speech-making; but earnest, heart-warmed sentiments. It was legislating, not for a day, nor a year, upon one section of the country and a few people; but for centuries, over one-fourth of the domain of the United States. In it humanity plead her claim, and the country asked for deliverance from a curse. On the other hand, the rights of a free people were invaded, and Oppression frowned upon them, ready to trample them beneath her iron heel. The beams of sovereignty in a State were to be blotted out, and its greatness and glory abased. Many of the speakers rose to the sublimity of the occasion, and even their opponents melted to tears before their persuasive pleadings. Others descended as far below it, and their speeches are marked by sectional prejudice, vanity and animosity. Both parties were about equally matched in argument, skill and eloquence.
On the part of the Restrictionists it was contended that the founders of our Republic lamented the existence of slavery, as a “great evil,” which they could not remove, but hoped, by a wise legislation, that it would ultimately disappear; that they had themselves set the example by the famous ordinance of 1787, which was intended to cover all the territory of the United States, and now, at least, its precedent should have weight; to all of which the Anti-restrictionists fully conceded, but denied that the precedent spoken of should have any weight, as that was done under the Confederacy; and, furthermore, it was unconstitutional, because done after the cession made by Virginia, which declared that the States formed from that territory should be admitted into Union on the footing of the original thirteen States. For constitutional right the Restrictionists point to the clause in that sacred document which says, “New States may be admitted by Congress into the Union;” from which they argue that Congress has the right to refuse a State admittance into the Union, and to prescribe the conditions of admission. To which it is replied that the powers of Congress are specified, and those not plainly mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the States or people; and hence, Congress can gather no powers from inference. They are then directed to another clause in the Constitution, which says that “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territories;” to which a reply is given that Missouri is not to be regarded as an open, wild and uninhabited territory but a populous State, with sovereign powers, asking admission into the Union according to the original compact between the States. The clause relating to the powers of Congress to prevent the migration and importation of slaves, in which the term migration is used, the Restrictionists declare, refers to the passage of slaves from States to States, or from States to Territories; but the opposite party demostrate that it refers entirely to the introduction of slaves from abroad. The Restrictionists show that the practice of Congress has been to exact conditions from States before admission into the Union, and point to Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and Louisiana; to which their opponents reply that all such exactions were usurpations, and hence not binding, or entitled to consideration as precedents. The treaty between France and the United States would be adduced by the Anti-restrictionists with an air of triumph, which provided that the inhabitants of Louisiana should be protected in the possession of their property, and that it would be a breach of faith for the United States to emancipate their slaves; to which it is replied that the restriction does not affect the relation of master and slave there now, but merely provides against the introduction of slaves from abroad. It is further contended that this treaty provides that the people of said territory “shall be incorporated into the Union as soon as possible, and admitted to all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens; to which it is replied that they have already been admitted to all the privileges of citizens in the Union, but admitting a State into the Union formed from that territory was a different thing, for which the treaty made no provision. It is argued that by extending slavery west, the condition of both master and slave would be improved; but it is replied that by extension the growth of slavery is only accelerated, that it is a curse, and the more it is extended, the more country it afflicts. It was asserted that these conditions would be degrading and humiliating to the sovereign State of Missouri; but it is retorted that other States have complied with them and not felt in the least degraded, but were proud of their positions among the sister States, and were unequaled in prosperity and promise.
Such was the way that some of the arguments were put and answered. I will now give a few extracts from speeches although their severance from the closely wrought connection will not show them in their real light. Speaking of the treaty by which Louisiana was obtained and which, it had been argued, would compel Congress to admit Missouri without restriction, Mr. Otis, of Massachusetts, says:
“Still, if in reality our faith, by treaty, was thus plighted, though he should deem the acquisition of the whole territory a vital misfortune, and should think it would have been better for us if the Mississippi was an eternal torrent of burning lava, impassible as the lake which separates the evil from the good, and the regions beyond destined forever to be covered with brakes and jungles, and the impenetrable haunts of the wolf and the panther; yet, he would not advocate a breach of public faith, but he should think it the duty of Congress to recommend a new negotiation with the present beneficent monarch of France, to the end of obtaining his release from the provisions of a treaty so fatal to our best interests.”
Here is Mr. Barbour's (of Virginia) apology for the change of sentiment from that which existed at the time of the formation of our Government:
“We are asked why has Virginia changed her policy relative to slavery? That the sentiments of our most distinguished men thirty years past entirely correspond with the course which the friends of restriction now advocate; that Mr. Jefferson has delineated a gloomy picture of the baneful effects of slavery; that the Virginia delegation, one of whom was the late President of the United States, voted for the restriction on the north-western territory.—When it is recollected that the notes of Mr. Jefferson were written during the progress of the Revolution, the mind operated upon its incidents as novel as stupendous, it is no matter of surprise, that the writer who was performing so distinguished a part, should have imbibed a large share of that enthusiasm which such an occasion was so well calculated to produce. With the eye of benevolence surveying the condition of mankind, and a holy zeal for the amelioration of their condition, he gave vent to his feelings in the effusion to which our minds have been called. It is palpable these are the illusions of fancy.”
Mr. Scott closed his remarks by warning gentlemen from the North that “they were sowing the seeds of discord in the Union;” that “they were signing, sealing and delivering their own death-warrant;” that “the weapon they were unjustly wielding was a two-edged sword;” that “he considered the question big with the fate of Caesar, and of Rome.” Mr. Walker, of Georgia, said that “he must be badly acquainted with the signs of the times who does not perceive a storm portending, and callous to all the better feelings of our nature who does not dread the bursting of that storm.” Mr. Cobb, of the same State, declares that “if they (Restrictionists) persist the Union will be dissolved;” that “they were kindling a fire which all the waters of the ocean cannot put out, which seas of blood can only extinguish.” Mr. Colston, of Virginia, accuses Mr. Livermore, of New Hampshire, “of speaking to the galleries, and by his language, endeavoring to excite a servile war,” and ended by saying that “he was no better than Arbuthnot, or Ambrister, and deserved no better fate.” Mr. Jones rings in the chorus, “although Missouri be an infant, she reposes on the laps of eleven mothers, that if even Missouri succumbs to this humiliating condition, her name will be written in characters of blood.”
On the 18th of February, the Missouri bill, which had been appended to the Maine bill was passed in the Senate with Mr. Thomas' amendment prohibiting slavery from the territories north of 36°–30° north latitude, except that included in the aforesaid State. It then passed to the House, which refusing to concur in the amendments on the 1st of March passed the Missouri bill with the restrictive clause of Mr. Taylor. This passed in the Senate by striking out the amendment of the House and inserting that of Mr. Thomas.
In the meantime a committee of conference had been appointed which now reports, recommending to the Senate to recede from its amendment of the Maine bill, and to the House to concur in the amendment of the Senate to the Missouri bill. The House thereupon accepted the amendment of the Senate by 90 yeas and 87 nays. This was the Missouri Compromise. It was decidedly a Southern measure, originated by a man who had opposed restriction, and only received 14 votes from northern men, and all the votes of the South.
Some of those from the North who voted for it did so to quiet the agitation and to avert what they feared would be the consequence—the disruption of the Government—which had been so frequently threatened in debate.
The following is Mr. Thomas' amendment, generally called the Missouri Compromise:
“And be it further enacted, That in all that Territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-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 whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully taken and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.”
On the authority thus obtained the people of Missouri proceeded the following summer to frame a constitution and organize a State government, and at the meeting of the next Congress this State presented herself in her constitutional robe for admission into the Union. The Senate after some debate passed a resolution admitting her; but the House on account of the following clause refused her admission:
“It shall be the duty of the General Assembly, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to, or settling in, this State, under any pretext whatever.”
There was also a clause forbidding the General Assembly from emancipating slaves without the consent of their owners. All of these, together with the general spirit of the Constitution, were regarded as a menace and a strike at those who favored restriction. The clause given above was plainly unconstitutional. The Constitution of the United States ordains that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States;” and negroes and mulattoes in some States are citizens. The excitement ran very high in Congress and seemed to threaten more danger than at any previous time; but the difficulty was finally adjusted by passing a bill to admit Missouri whenever she should legitimately expunge the above odious clause.
This condition Missouri soon complied with and her admission into the Union was declared by a proclamation of the President.