"Resolved, That it is not expedient at this time to suspend the sixth article of compact for the "And although it is not considered expedient to government of the Territory of the United States force the population of the Territory, yet it is de-northwest of the River Ohio." sirable to connect its scattered settlements, and, in

admitted political rights, to place it on an equal And here ended, so far as we have been footing with the different States. From the inte- able to discover, the effort, so long and earnrior situation of the Territory, it is not believed that slaves could ever become so numerous as to estly persisted in, to procure a suspension of endanger the internal peace or future prosperity the restriction in the Ordinance of 1787, so as of the country. The current of emigration flow to admit Slavery, for a limited term, into the ing to the Western country, the Territories should Terrritory lying between the Ohio and Misall be opened to their introduction. The abstract question of Liberty and Slavery is not involved in sissippi rivers, now forming the States of the proposed measure, as Slavery now exists to a Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wis considerable extent in different parts of the Union; consin.

VI.

THE FIRST MISSOURI STRUGGLE.

THE vast and indefinite territory known as Louisiana, was ceded by France to the United States in the year 1803, for the sum of $15,000,000, of which $3,750,000 was devoted to the payment of American claims on France. This territory had just before been ceded by Spain to France without pecuniary consideration. Slaveholding had long been legal therein, alike under Spanish and French rule, and the Treaty of Cession contained the following stipulation :

"Art. III. The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into 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 mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess."

The State of Louisiana, embodying the southern portion of this acquired territory, was recognized by Congress in 1811, and fully admitted in 1812, with a State Constitution. Those who chose to dwell among the inhabitants of the residue of the Louisiana purchase, henceforth called Missouri Territory, continued to hold slaves in its sparse and small, but increasing settlements, mainly in its southeastern quarter, and a pro-slavery court-perhaps any courtwould undoubtedly have pronounced Slavery legal anywhere on its vast expanse, from the Mississippi to the crests of the Rocky Mountains, if not beyond them, and from the Red River of Louisiana to the Lake of the Woods.

The XVth Congress assembled at Washington, on Monday, Dec. 1st, 1817. Henry Clay was chosen Speaker of the House. Mr. John Scott appeared on the 8th, as delegate from Missouri Territory, and was admitted to a seat as such. On the 16th of March following, he presented petitions of sundry inhabitants of Missouri, in addition to similar petitions already presented by him, praying for the admission of Missouri into the Union as a State, which were, on motion, referred to a Select Committee, consisting of

Messrs. Scott of Mo. Poindexter of Miss. Robertson of Ky. Hendricks of Ind. Livermore of N. H. Mills of Mass. Baldwin of Pa.

April 3rd, Mr. Scott, from this Committee, reported a bill to authorize the People of Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States; which bill was read the first and second time, and sent to the Committee of the Whole, where it slept for the remainder of the session.

for its second session, on the 16th of November, 1818. Feb. 13th, the House went into Committee of the Whole-Gen. Smith, of Md., in the chair-and took up the Missouri bill aforesaid, which was considered through that sitting, as also that of the 15th, when several amendments were adopted, the most important of which was the following, moved in Committee by Gen. James Tallmadge, of Dutchess County, New York, (lately deceased :)

"And provided also, That the further introduction of Slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall be duly convicted and that all children of slaves, born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years."

On coming out of Committee, the Yeas and Nays were called on the question of agreeing to this amendment, which was sustained by the following vote: [taken first on agreeing to so much of it as precedes and includes the word "convicted.”]

YEAS-For the Restriction:

NEW HAMPSHIRE.-Clifton Clagett, Samuel Hale, Arthur Livermore, Nathaniel Upham-4. MASSACHUSETTS (then including Maine).-Benjamin Adams, Samuel C. Allen, Walter Folger, jr., Timothy Fuller, Joshua Gage, Enoch Lincoln, Elijah H. Mills, Marcus Morton, Jeremiah Nelson, Benjamin Orr, Thomas Rice, Nathaniel Ruggles, Zabdiel Sampson, Nathaniel Silsbee, John Wilson-15.

RHODE ISLAND.--James B. Mason-1. CONNECTICUT.-Sylvester Gilbert, Ebenezer Huntington, Jonathan O. Moseley, Timothy Pitkin, Samuel B. Sherwood, Nathaniel Terry, Thomas S. Williams-7.

VERMONT.-Samuel C. Crafts, William Hunter,

Orsamus C. Merrill, Charles Rich, Mark Richards-5.

NEW-YORK.-Oliver C. Comstock, John P. Cushman, John R. Drake, Benjamin Ellicott Josiah Hasbrouck, John Herkimer, Thomas H. Hubbard, William Irving, Dorrance Kirtland, Thomas Lawyer, John Palmer, John Savage, Philip J. Schuyler, John C. Spencer, Treadwell Scudder, James Tallmadge, John W. Taylor, Caleb Tompkins, Geo. Townsend, Peter H. Wendover, Rensselaer Westerlo, James W. Wilkin, Isaac Williams-23.

NEW JERSEY.-Ephraim Bateman, Benjamin Bennett, Charles Kinsey, John Linn, Henry

Southard-5.

PENNSYLVANIA.-William Anderson, Andrew Boden, Isaac Darlington, Joseph Heister, Joseph Hopkinson, Jacob Hostetter, William Maclay, William P. Maclay, David Marchand, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, John Murray, Alexander Ogle, Thomas Patterson, Levi Pawling, Thomas J. Rogers, John Sergeant, James M. Wallace, John Whiteside, William Wilson-20.

OHIO.-Levi Barber, Philemon Beecher, John W. Campbell, Samuel Herrick, Peter Hitchcock

-5.

INDIANA.-William Hendricks_1.
DELAWARE.-Willard Hall-1.

Total Yeas 87-only one (the last named) from a Slave State.

NAYS-Against the Restriction: MASSACHUSETTS.-John Holmes, Jonathan

That Congress convened at Washington | Mason, Henry Shaw-3.

NEW-YORK.-Daniel Cruger, David A. Ogden, | question (Feb. 15th) appears in the AppenHenry R. Storrs-3.

MARYLAND.-Archibald Austin, Thomas Bayly; "And provided that the introduction of Slavery, Thomas Culbreth, Peter Little, George Peter, Philip Reed, Samuel Ringgold, Samuel Smith, for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party or involuntary servitude, be prohibited, except Philip Stuart-9. VIRGINIA.-William Lee Ball, Philip P. Bar has been duly convicted, and that all children bour, Burwell Bassett, William A. Burwell, Ed-born within the said State, after the admission ward Colston, Robert S. Garnett, James Johnson, thereof into the Union, shall be declared free at William J. Lewis, William McCoy, Hugh Nelson, the age of 25 years." Thomas M. Nelson, John Pegram, James Pindall, James Pleasants, Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, Henry St. George Tucker, John TylerNORTH CAROLINA. Joseph H. Bryan, William Davidson, Weldon N. Edwards, Charles Fisher, Thomas H. Hall, James Owen, Lemuel Sawyer, Thomas Little, Jesse Slocumb, James G. Smith, James Stewart, Felix Walker, Lewis Williams

tution was established, to continue to hold them. With that subject the National Legislature could not interfere, and ought not to attempt it. But, Mr. F. continued, if gentlemen will be patient, they will see that my remarks will neither derogate from the constitutional rights of the States, nor from a due respect to their several forms of government. Sir, it is my wish to allay, and not to excite local animosities, but I shall never refrain from advancing such arguments in debate as my duty requires, nor do I believe that the reading of our Declaration of Independence, or a discussion of republican principles on any occasion, can endanger the rights, or merit the disapprobation of any porton of the Union.

then, the same compact contains certain exceptions. The States then holding slaves are permitted, from the necessity of the case, and for the sake of union, to exclude the republican principle so far, and only so far, as to retain their slaves in servitude, and also their progeny, as had been the usage, until they should think it proper or safe to conform to the pure principle, by abolishing Slavery. The compact contains on its face the general principle and the exceptions. But the attempt to extend Slavery to the new States, is in direct violation of the clause, which guarantees a republican form of government to all the States. This clause, indeed, must be construed in connection with the exceptions before mentioned; but it cannot, without violence, be applied to any other States than those in which Slavery was allowed at the formation of the Constitution.

The honorable speaker cites the first clause in the 2d section of the 4th article-"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States," which he thinks would be violated by the condition proposed in the Constitution of Missouri. To keep slaves-to make one portion of the population the property of another, hardly deserves to be called a privilege, since what is gained by the masters must be lost by the slaves. But, independently of this consideration, I think the observations already offered to the committee, showing that holding the black population in servitude is an exception to the general principles of the Constitution, and cannot be allowed to extend be

My reason, Mr. Chairman, for recurring to the Declaration of our Independence, was to draw from an authority admitted in all parts of the Union, a definition of the basis of republican government. If, then, all men have equal rights, it can no more comport with the principles of a free government to exclude men of a certain color from the enjoyment of "liberty and the pursuit of happiness," than to exclude those who have not attained a certain portion of wealth, or a certain stature of body, or to found the exclusion on any other capricious or accidental circumstance. Suppose Missouri, before her admission as a State, were to submit to us her Constitution, by which no person could elect, or be elected to any office, unless he possessed a clear annual income of twenty thousand dollars; and suppose we had ascertained that only five, or a very small number of persons had such an estate, would this beyond the fair import of the terms by which that anything more or less than a real aristocracy, exception is provided, are a sufficient answer to under a form nominally republican? Election the objection. The gentleman proceeds in the and representation, which some contend are the same train of reasoning, and asks, if Congress can only essential principles of republics, would exist require one condition, how many more can be reonly in name-a shadow without substance, a quired, and where these conditions will end? With body without a soul. But if all the other inhabit-regard to a republican constitution, Congress are ants were to be made slaves, and mere property obliged to require that condition, and that is of the favored few, the outrage on principle would enough for the present question; but I contend, be still more palpable. Yet, sir, it is demonstra- further, that Congress has a right, at their discre ble, that the exclusion of the black population tion, to require any other reasonable condition. from all political freedom, and making them the Several others were required of Ohio, Indiana, property of the whites, is an equally palpable in- Illinois and Mississippi. The State of Louisiana, vasion of right, and abandonment of principle. If which was a part of the territory ceded to us at we do this in the admission of new States, we vio- the same time with Missouri, was required to prolate the Constitution, and we have not now the vide in her Constitution for trials by jury, the writ excuse which existed when our National Constitu- of habeas corpus, the principles of civil and relition was established. Then, to effect a concert gious liberty, with several others, peculiar to that of interests, it was proper to make concessions. State. These, certainly, are none of them more The States where Slavery existed not only claimed indispensable ingredients in a republican form of the right to continue it, but it was manifest that a government than the equality of privileges of all general emancipation of slaves could not be asked the population; yet these have not been denied to of them. Their political existence would have be reasonable, and warranted by the National been in jeopardy; both masters and slaves must Constitution in the admission of new States. Nor have been involved in the most fatal conse- need gentlemen apprehend that Congress will set quences. no reasonable limits to the conditions of admission. In the exercise of their constitutional dis cretion on this subject, they are, as in all other cases, responsible to the people. Their power to levy direct taxes is not limited by the Constitu tion. They may lay a tax of one million of dollars, or of a hundred millions, without violating the letter of the Constitution; but if the latter enor mous and unreasonable sum were levied, or even the former, without evident necessity, the people have the power in their own hands-a speedy corrective is found in the return of the elections. This remedy is so certain, that the representatives of the people can never lose sight of it; and, consequently, an abuse of their powers to any considerable extent can never be apprehended. The same reasoning applies to the exercise of all the powers entrusted to Congress, and the admission of new States into the Union is in no respect an exception.

To guard against such intolerable evils, it is provided in the Constitution, "that the migration or importation of such persons, as any of the existing States think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited till 1808"-Art. 1, sec. 9. And it is provided elsewhere, that persons held to service by the laws of any State, shall be given up by other States, to which they may have escaped, etc.-Art. 4, sec. 2.

These provisions effectually recognized the right in the States, which, at the time of framing the Constitution, held the blacks in Slavery, to continue so to hold them until they should think proper to meliorate their condition. The Constitution is a compact among all the States then existing, by which certain principles of government are established for the whole, and for each individual State. The predominant principle in both respects is, that ALL MEN are FREE, and have an EQUAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY, and all other privileges; or, in other words, the predominant principle is REPUBLICANISM, in its largest sense. But,

One gentleman, however, has contended against the amendment, because it abridges the rights of the slaveholding States to transport their slaves

to the new States, for sale or otherwise. This argument is attempted to be enforced in various ways, and particularly by the clause in the Constitution last cited. It admits, however, of a very clear answer, by recurring to the 9th section of article 1st, which provides that "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States then existing shall admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress till 1808." This clearly implies, that the migration and importation may be prohibited after that year. The importation has been prohibited, but the migration has not hitherto been restrained; Congress, however, may restrain it, when it may be judged expedient. It is, indeed, contended by some gentlemen, that migration is either synonymous with importation, or that it means something different from the transportation of slaves from one State to another. It certainly is not synonymous with importation, and would not have been used if it had been so. It cannot mean exportation, which is also a definite and precise term. It cannot mean the reception of free blacks from foreign countries, as is alleged by some, be cause no possible reason existed for regulating their admission by the Constitution; no free blacks ever came from Africa, or any other country, to this; and to introduce the provision by the side of that for the importation of slaves, would have been absurd in the highest degree. What alternative remains but to apply the term "migration" to the transportation of slaves from those States, where they are admitted to be held, to other States. Such a provision might have in view a very natural object. The price of slaves might be affected so far by a sudden prohibition to transport slaves from State to State, that it was as reasonable to guard against that inconvenience as against the sudden interdiction of the importation. Hitherto it has not been found necessary for Congress to prohibit migration or transportation from State to State. But now it becomes the right and duty of Congress to guard against the further extension of the intolerable evil and the crying enormity of Slavery.

said, that we are bound, by the treaty of cession with France, to admit the ceded territory into the Union, "as soon as possible." It is obvious that the President and Senate, the treaty-making power, cannot make a stipulation with any foreign nation in derogation of the constitutional powers and duties of this House, by making it imperative on us to adinit the new territory according to the literal tenor of the phrase; but the additional words in the treaty, "according to the principles of the Constitution," put it beyond all doubt that no such compulsory admission was intended, and that the republican principles of our Constitution are to govern us in the admission of this, as well as all the new States, in the national family.

Mr. TALLMADGE, of New York, roseSir, said he, it has been my desire and my inten tion to avoid any debate on the present painful and unpleasant subject. When I had the honor to submit to this House the amendment now under consideration, I accompanied it with a declaration that it was intended to confine its operation to the newly acquired territory across the Mississippi; and I then expressly declared, that I would in no manner intermeddle with the slaveholding States, nor attempt manumission in any one of the original States in the Union. Sir, I even went further, and stated that I was aware of the delicacy of the subject--and, that I had learned from southern gentlemen the difficulties and the dangers of having free blacks intermingling with slaves; and, on that account, and with a view to the safety of the white population of the adjoining States, I would not even advocate the prohibition of Slavery in the Alabama territory; because, surrounded as it was by slaveholding States, and with only imaginary lines of division, the intercourse between slaves and free blacks could not be prevented, and a servile war might be the result. While we deprecate and mourn over the evil of Slavery, humanity and good morals require us to wish its abolition, under circumstances conThe expediency of this measure is very appa- sistent with the safety of the white population. rent. The opening of an extensive slave market Willingly, therefore, will I submit to an evil will tempt the cupidity of those who, otherwise, which we cannot safely remedy. I admitted all perhaps, might gradually emancipate their slaves. that had been said of the danger of having free We have heard much, Mr. Chairman, of the Colo- blacks visible to slaves, and, therefore, did not nization Society; an institution which is the fa- hesitate to pledge myself that I would neither advorite of the humane gentlemen in the slavehold- vise nor attempt coercive manumission. But, sir, ing States. They have long been lamenting the all these reasons cease when we cross the banks miseries of Slavery, and earnestly seeking for a of the Mississippi, into a territory separated by a remedy compatible with their own safety, and the natural boundary-a newly acquired territory, happiness of their slaves. At last the great deside- never contemplated in the formation of our govratum is found-a colony in Africa for the eman-ernment, not included within the compromise or cipated blacks. How will the generous intentions of these humane persons be frustrated, if the price of slaves is to be doubled by a new and boundless market! Instead of emancipation of the slaves, it is much to be feared, that unprincipled wretches will be found kidnapping those who are already free, and transporting and selling the hapless victims into hopeless bondage. Sir, I really hope that Congress will not contribute to discountenance and render abortive the generous and philanthropic views of this most worthy and laudable society. Rather let us hope, that the time is not very remote, when the shores of Africa, which have so long been a scene of barbarous rapacity and savage cruelty, shall exhibit a race of free and enlightened people-the offspring, indeed, of cannibals or of slaves; but displaying the virtues of civilization and the energies of independent freemen. America may then hope to see the developement of a germ, now scarcely visible, cherished and matured under the genial warmth of our country's protection, till the fruit shall appear in the regeneration and happiness of a boundless

continent.

One argument still remains to be noticed. It is

mutual pledge in the adoption of our Constitution-a new territory acquired by our common fund, and ought justly to be subject to our common legislation.

Sir, when I submitted the amendment now under consideration, accompanied with these explanations, and with these avowals of my intentions and of my motives-I did expect that gentlemen who might differ from me in opinion would appreciate the liberality of my views, and would meet me with moderation, as upon a fair subject for general legislation. I did expect, at least, that the frank declaration of my views would protect me from harsh expressions, and from the unfriendly imputations which have been cast out on this occasion. But, sir, such has been the character and the violence of this debate, and expressions of so much intemperance, and of an aspect so threatening have been used, that continued silence on my part would ill become me, who had submitted to this house the original proposition. While this subject was under debate before the Committee of the whole, I did not take the floor, and I avail myself of this occasion to acknowledge my obligations to