potent voice can say to it, Thus far shalt thou go and no farther. Slavery engenders pride and indolence in him who commands, and inflicts intellectual and moral degradation on him who serves. Slavery, in fine, is

Moreover, the shape and manner in which the question was presented were exceedingly favorable to the Southern side. Its advocates, in accordance with their general policy of defending and promoting Slavery in the abused name of Liberty, fought their battle under the flag of State Sovereignty, State Equality, etc. The Right of the People to form and modify their institutions in accordance with their own judgment, in-nocent trespass that beats down a few blades of grass, which the first kind sun or the next terest, feelings, or convictions, was refreshing shower may cause to spring again the burden of their strain. Said Mr.but that which levels with the ground the

William Pinkney,' of Maryland, their most pretentious and ornate, if not their ablest champion:

"Slavery, we are told in many a pamphlet, memorial, and speech, with which the press has lately groaned, is a foul blot on our otherwise immaculate reputation. Let this be conceded yet you are no nearer than be

fore to the conclusion that you possess power which may deal with other objects as effectually as with this. Slavery, we are further told, with some pomp of metaphor, is a canker at the root of all that is excellent in this republican empire, a pestilent disease that is snatching the youthful bloom from its cheek, prostrating its honor and withering its strength. Be it so-yet, if you have power to medicine to it in the way proposed, and in virtue of the diploma which you claim, you also have the power, in the distribution of your political alexipharmics, to present the deadliest drugs to every Ter

ritory that would become a State, and bid it drink or remain a colony forever. Slavery, we are also told, is now rolling onward with a rapid tide toward the boundless regions of the West,' threatening to doom them to sterility and sorrow, unless some

1820.

Speech in the U. S. Senate, February 15,

10 In the debate of Monday, Feb. 15, 1819, Mr. P. P. Barbour, of Va., said:

"The effect of the proposed amendment is to prohibit the further introduction of slaves into the new State of Missouri, and to emancipate, at the age of twenty-five years, the children of all those slaves who are now within its limits. The first objection, said he, which meets us at the very threshold of the discussion, is this: that we have no constitutional right to enact the proposed provision. Our power, in relation to this subject, is derived from the first clause of the third section of the fourth article of the Consti

unchristian and abominable. Sir, I shall not stop to deny that Slavery is all this and more; but I shall not think myself the less authorized to deny that it is for you to stay the course of this dark torrent, by opposing to it a mound raised up by the labors of this portentous discretion on the domain of oththrough the instrumentality of a trespass of ers; a mound which you cannot erect but no ordinary kind-not the comparatively in

lordliest trees of the forest, and claims immortality for the destruction which it inficts."

Throughout the discussion, the argument that Missouri, by the adoption of this amendment, would be subject to unprecedented, invidious, and degrading exactions-that she would be brought into the Union not as the equal, but as the subject of her elder sisters-that the power thus exercised involved the assertion of unlimited and utterly irresponsible authority to shape and mold the institutions of every new State-was pressed with eminent subtlety, pertinacity, and vigor. The right to prohibit Slavery in any or all of the Territories, denied by none, was expressly admitted by Mr. Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia. 10 But this admission, however generally made,

tution, which is in these words: 'New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.' Now, Sir, although by the next succeeding clause of the same section, Congress has the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory of the United States;' and although, therefore, whilst the proposed State continued a part of our Territory, upon the footing of a Territorial government, it would have been competent for us, under the power expressly given to make needful rules and regulations to have established the principle now proposed; yet the question assumes a totally different aspect when that principle is intended to apply to a STATE."-Benton's Abridgment. N. Y 1858., vol. vi., p. 341.

JOHN W. TAYLOR FOR RESTRICTION

77

cising it. And here I might rest satisfied with reminding my opponents of their own declarations on the subject of Slavery. How often and how eloquently have they deplored its existence among them! What willingmanifested to be relieved from this burden! ness, nay, what solicitude, have they not How have they wept over the unfortunate this country! How have they disclaimed policy which first introduced slaves into the guilt and shame of that original sin, and thrown it back upon their ancestors! I regret, and confided in their sincerity; I have with pleasure heard these avowals of have hoped to see its effects in the advance

did not gain a single Southern vote for the policy of Restriction when the bill to organize Arkansas Territory was under consideration; whereon Mr. Walker, of North Carolina, in opposing that policy, gravely, and without the least suspicion of irony, observed: "Let it not be forgotten that we are legislating in a free country, and for a free people." But the champions of Restriction, though less agile and skillful of fencement of the cause of Humanity. Gentlemen than their opponents, were by no means worsted in the argument. Here is a specimen of their logic, from the speech of John W. Taylor:"

"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 fellow-man, 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 meliorating 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 grants, but 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 maintained that, though we have the power to dispose of the whole Territory, we have no right to provide against the further increase of Slavery within its limits? That, although we may change the political relations of its free citizens by transferring their country to a foreign power, we cannot provide for the gradual abolition of Slavery within its limits, nor establish those civil regulations which naturally flow from self-evident truth? No, Sir; it cannot: the practice of nations, and

the common sense of mankind have long since decided these questions.

"Having proved, as I apprehend, our right to legislate in the manner proposed, I proceed to illustrate the propriety of exer

have now an opportunity of putting their principles into practice. If they have tried Slavery and found it a curse-if they desire their land-I call upon them to exclude it to dissipate the gloom with which it covers from the Territory in question; plant not its seeds in this uncorrupt soil; let not our children, looking back to the proceedings of this day, say of them, as they have been constrained to speak of their fathers, We wish their decision had been different; we regret the existence of this unfortunate population among us; but we found them here; we know not what to do with them; it is our misfortune; we must bear it with patience.'

"History will record the decision of this day as exerting its influence for centuries to come over the population of half our contifer this evil, now easily eradicated, to strike nent. If we reject the amendment, and sufits roots so deep into the soil that it can never be removed, shall we not furnish some apology for doubting our sincerity when we deplore its existence? Shall we not expose

ourselves to the same kind of censure which was pronounced by the Saviour of mankind on the Scribes and Pharisees, who builded the tombs of the prophets, and garnished the sepulchres of the righteous, and said, if they had lived in the days of their fathers, they would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets, while they manifested a spirit which clearly proved them the legitimate descendants of those who killed the prophets, and thus filled up the measure of their fathers' iniquities?"

The Legislatures of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania unanimously adopted and transmitted resolves in favor of the proposed Restriction; and like resolves were

11 February 15, 1819.

adopted by the Legislature of the Slave State of Delaware. A frank and forcible memorial from inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity, drafted by Daniel Webster," and signed by the principal citizens of all parties, asserted the complete authority of Congress over the subject, and

demanded

as a market for slaves, the Government will seem to become a party to a traffic which, in so many acts, through so many years, it has denounced as impolitic, unchristian, inhuman. To enact laws to punish the traffic, and at the same time to tempt cupidity and avarice by the allurements of an insatiable market, is inconsistent and irreconcilable. Government, by such a course, would only tory its own measures. Nor can the laws

defeat its own purposes, and render nuga

Restriction on those derive support from the manners of the peo

grounds of expediency, morality, and justice, with which thoughtful readers are by this time abundantly familiar. The following extract from this memorial is eminently worthy of its author:

"Your memorialists were not without the hope that the time had at length arrived when the inconvenience and danger of this description of population had become apparent in all parts of this country and in all parts of the civilized world. It might have been hoped that the new States themselves would have had such a view of their own permanent interests and prosperity as would have led them to prohibit its extension and increase. The wonderful growth and prosperity of the States north of the Ohio are unquestionably to be ascribed, in a great measure, to the consequences of the Ordinance of 1787; and few, indeed, are the occasions in the history of nations, in which so much can be done, by a single act, for the benefit of future generations, as was done by that Ordinance, and as may now be done by the Congress of the United States. We appeal to the justice and to the wisdom of the National Councils to prevent the further progress of a great and serious evil. We appeal to those who look forward to the remote consequences of their measures, and who cannot balance a temporary or trifling inconvenience, if there were such, against a permanent, growing, and desolating evil. We cannot forbear to remind the two Houses of Congress that the early and decisive measures adopted by the American Government

for the abolition of the Slave-Trade, are among the proudest memorials of our nation's glory. That Slavery was ever tolerated in the Republic is, as yet, to be attributed to the policy of another Government. No imputation, thus far, rests on any portion of the American Confederacy. The Missouri Territory is a new country. If its extensive and fertile fields shall be opened

12 Then a recent emigrant to Massachusetts from the neighboring State of New Hampshire.

ple, if the power of moral sentiment be weakened by enjoying, under the permission of Government, great facilities to commit offenses. The laws of the United States have denounced heavy penalties against the traffic in slaves, because such traffic is deemed unjust and inhuman. We appeal to the spirit of these laws. We appeal to this justice and humanity. We ask whether they ought not to operate, on the present occasion, with all their force? We have a strong feeling of the injustice of any toleration of Slavery. Circumstances have entailed it on a portion of our community, which cannot be immediately relieved of it without consequences more injurious than the suffering of the evil. But to permit it in a new country, where, as yet, no habits are formed which render it indispensable, what is it, but to encourage that rapacity, and fraud, and violence, against which we have so long pointed the denunciations of our penal code? What is it, but to tarnish the proud fame of the country? What is it, but to throw suspicion on its good faith, and to render questionable all its professions of regard for the rights of Humanity and the liberties of mankind?

"As inhabitants of a free country-as citizens of a great and rising Republic-as members of a Christian community-as living in a liberal and enlightened age, and as feeling ourselves called upon, by the dictates of religion and humanity, we have presumed to offer our sentiments to Congress on this question, with a solicitude for the event far beyond what a common occasion could inspire."

The House Committee, of course, reported the bill without restriction, and it came up as a special order. 13 Mr. Taylor moved its postponement for a week, which was voted downYeas 87; Nays 88. It was considered in Committee the next day," as also on the 28th, and 30th, and thence

13 January 24, 1820.

14 Missouri impatiently awaited admission.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

debated daily, until the 19th of February, when a bill came down from the Senate "to admit the State of Maine into the Union," with a rider, authorizing the people of Missouri to form a State Constitution, etc.-the connection being intended to force the Missouri measure through the House upon the strength of the other proposition.

79

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 reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

The Senate adopted this proposiThe Maine bill had passed the tion by 34 Yeas to 10 Nays, and House weeks before, without serious passed the Missouri bill, thus amendopposition. Reaching the Senate, it ed, by 24 Yeas to 20 Nays-the miwas sent to its Judiciary Committee, nority embracing both advocates and which appended to it the provision opponents of Restriction. The House for organizing Missouri. An attempt at first rejected Mr. Thomas's amendto shake this off was defeated by 25 ment by the overwhelming vote of Nays to 18 Yeas, and the bill re- 159 Yeas to 18 Nays. The Senate turned to the House accordingly. refused to recede from its amendThe House refused to concur by the ments, and the House decisively indecisive vote of 93 to 72-only four sisted on its disagreement to them; members from the Free States voting whereupon the Senate asked a conin the minority. The House further ference, and the House granted it disagreed, by the strong vote of 102 without a division. The Committee to 68, to the Senate's amendment of Conference was framed so as to striking the Restriction out of the give the anti-Restrictionists a decidMissouri bill. Hereupon, what is ed preponderance; and John Holmes, known in history as the Missouri of Massachusetts, reported" from said Compromise was concocted. It was Committee, that the Senate should the work, not of the advocates, but give up its combination of Missouri of the opponents, of Slavery Restric- with Maine; that the House should tion, intended solely to win votes abandon its attempt to restrict Slaveenough from the majority in the ry in Missouri; and that both Houses House to secure the admission of should concur in passing the bill to Missouri as a Slave State. It was admit Missouri as a State, with Mr. first proposed in the Senate by Mr. Thomas's restriction or proviso, excludThomas, of Illinois-a uniform oppo- ing Slavery from all Territory North nent of Restriction on Missouri-and and West of the new State. Fourintroduced by him" in this shape: teen members, in all, from the Free "And be it further enacted, That in all States" voted to adopt this Comthat Territory ceded by France to the United promise, with 76 from the Slave States, under the name of Louisiana, which States, making 90 in all; while 87 lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty min-members from the Free States, and utes north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits none from the Slave States, voted

14 February 17, 1820. 15 March 2, 1820.

The names of the fourteen members from

the Free States, thus voting with the Anti-Restrictionists, are as follows:

against the Compromise. So the bill passed both Houses, as did that for the admission of Maine on the same day.

This virtually ended the Missouri struggle;" though, at the next Session, when Missouri presented herself for admission as a State, with a Constitution denying to her Legislature any power to emancipate slaves or to prevent their immigration, and requiring said Legislature to pass laws to prevent the immigration of free negroes or mulattoes at any time or under any circumstances, the Northern members for the moment revolted. They keenly felt that this was not the "liberty" and "equality" which had been so stoutly demanded and eulogized by the opponents of Slavery Restriction; and they further objected that this arbitrary and irrevocable prohibition of free colored immigration was in palpable violation of that clause of the Federal Constitution which guarantees to the citizens of each State the rights of

MASSACHUSETTS.-Mark Langdon Hill, John Holmes, Jonathan Mason, Henry Shaw-4. RHODE ISLAND.-Samuel Eddy-1. CONNECTICUT.-Samuel A. Foot, James Ste

phens-2.

| citizens in every State. Her admission was at first voted down in the House by 93 Nays to 79 Yeas; but, finally, a fresh Compromise, concocted by a select Joint Committee, whereof Mr. Clay" was chairman, was adopted. By this Compromise, Missouri was required to pledge herself that no act should be passed by her Legislature, " by which any of the citizens of either of the States should be excluded from the enjoyment of the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled under the Constitution of the United States." With this added as a proviso, the joint resolve admitting Missouri finally passed the House by 86 Yeas to 82 Nays; and the Senate concurred" by 26 Yeas to 15 Nays. Missouri, through her legislature, complied with the condition, and thereby became an admitted State. And thus closed the memorable Missouri controversy, which had for two years disturbed the harmony, and threatened the peace of the Union.20

language as this? All things considered, we wish that the Missouri question may be suffered to rest where it is, as the lesser evil; but, if Congress pleases to take it up again, and refuses to admit the Territory under the Constitution which its Convention has formed, and is without power to enforce its determination, it is high time, indeed, that a new organization of affairs should take place."-Niles' Register, August 26, 1820, vol. xviii., p. 451.

18 Colonel William H. Russell, of Missouri, a distant relative and life-long friend of Mr. Clay, in a letter (1862) to Hon. James S. Rollins, M. C., from his State, says that Mr. Scott, the Delegate from Missouri at the time of her admission, told him that Mr. Clay, at the close of the struggle, said to him: "Now, go home, and prepare your State for gradual Emancipation."

19 February 27, 1821.

20 Even John Adams's faith in the Union was somewhat shaken in this stormy passage of its

1