USA > Illinois > Illinois in 1818, 2nd ed > Part 29
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34
While there seems to have been little or no opposition to post- poning the program of general legislation to a later session, there was clearly a difference of opinion among the members of the general assembly as to the advisability of enacting the special laws thought necessary by the joint committee. A large minority in both houses appears to have favored such legislation but the general assembly adjourned without enacting a single law. This whole proceeding is probably to be explained by the existence
308
ILLINOIS IN 1818
of a fear that congress might not consider the constitution with its article on slavery in accord with the ordinance and the en- abling act and might therefore refuse to admit the state to the union; there seems to have been no serious doubts as to the legal- ity of passing laws before congress acted, if only its action should prove to be favorable. 319
Although the general assembly placed no laws upon the statute books at this first session it did transact some other business of importance besides the election of officers. Of special interest is the action concerning the seat of government. The opponents of the plan adopted by the convention had by no means given up hope. The proprietors of Carlyle declared in their advertise- ment which appeared in the Intelligencer during September that they felt "assured notwithstanding the late decision of the Con- vention, that so soon as the lower counties can reconcile it to themselves to part with the legislature from the town of Kaskas- kia, the seat of government will be fixed at this place, they having been creditably informed that there is no place above, that has the advantage of navigation, and a site sufficiently eligible for a town; for in every instance where a bluff puts in, an extensive bottom is opposite." Just across the Kaskaskia from the site of Carlyle, William and Robert Morrison had laid out on paper the town of Donaldson and in an advertisement dated October 3, 1818, they declared: "The site is high, dry and commanding, and from its central position to the popula- tion, and its manifest advantages, holds out as fair a promise of its becoming the future capital of the state, as any other that can be mentioned."320
The legislature, however, obeyed the instructions of the con- vention and drew up a petition asking congress "to grant and give gratuitously to this state the said four sections. The said General Assembly do further present; that all the Land near the Above four Sections of Land belong to the United
BioChurchill, "Annotations," no. 7. The foregoing account of the proceed- ings of the legislature is based on the Senate Journal, I general assembly, I session, 23, 25, 29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 41 ; House Journal, I general assembly, I ses- sion, 7-10, 21, 23, 25-28, 32-36; Intelligencer, October 14, 21, 1818.
820Intelligencer, September 9, October 14, 1818.
309
A STATE IN THE UNION
States, And that by establishing a seat of Government on the Land so granted it would enhance the Value of the Adjoining Unsold Lands of the United States-that the United States would not be injured by such donation; but should the congress of the United States be of a contrary Opinion from the General Assembly of this state, in making the Above donation: the said General Assembly do petition the congress of the United States, to give to this state the preemption in the purchase at two dollars per Acre of the said four sections of Land." From the phraseology of the petition, it would seem that it repre- sented not merely a formal compliance with the directions of the convention but also the real wishes of the legislature. 821
The petition was presented to the house of representatives in Washington December 7, 1818 and was referred to the com- mittee on public lands. Two days later a remonstrance counter to this petition was received and referred to the same committee. The document bore the signatures of fifty-three "inhabitants of the state of Illinois" and protested against the granting of the petition on the ground that "the location of the seat of govern- ment upon the Kaskaskia river, was not the act of a majority of the People." In the first place, it was maintained, "the mem- bers of the Convention were apportioned among the several coun- ties, without any regard to the actual population of the same" with the result that the six members from Madison and St. Clair represented a larger population than fourteen members from seven other counties. Secondly, the provisions for fixing the seat of government "passed the Convention by the votes of only sixteen members out of the thirty-three members elected- one member having deceased, and another refusing to vote." Especial emphasis was laid upon the fact that should the petition be granted the location of the capital could not be changed for twenty years, except by the "intricate, expensive, and inconven- ient" process of amending the constitution. "By rejecting the said petition" it was asserted, "your honorable body will leave in the hands of the people of this state a power of which they
321 Intelligencer, October 21, 1818; original petition in House Files, De- cember 7, 1818.
310
ILLINOIS IN 1818
never ought to be divested-that of locating their seat of gov- ernment where it shall be most convenient to them, and of re- moving it, when the public interests shall require its removal." A majority of the signers of this remonstrance were residents or owners of lots in the town of Upper Alton, a fact which raises a suspicion that that place also was in the race for the capital.
When the general assembly came together for its second ses- sion in January, 1819, congress had not acted on the petition for a land grant for the capital. On February 25 Senator Thomas introduced a bill for the grant and just before the close of the session of congress it passed both houses, receiving the approval of the president on March 3. News of this action was several weeks in reaching Illinois, however, and some of the members of the state senate were becoming impatient. On March 16 they passed, by the casting vote of the lieutenant governor, a resolu- tion to receive proposals for gifts to the state of land and money in return for the location of the capital "on the Kaskaskia river, at some point at or above Carlyle." The house refused to con- sider the resolution before hearing of the action of congress, and the receipt of information from Washington put an end to the fight. An act for the location of the grant and the removal of the capital thereto passed both houses and was approved by the governor on March 30, 1819.
Another petition to congress drawn up by the general assem- bly at its first session urged certain extensions in the right of preëmption. A resolution further instructed the Illinois senators to endeavor to procure the passage of laws establishing the office of surveyor of the public lands in the state and authorizing the sale of land in eighty acre lots. On the last day of the session reports were received from the territorial auditor and treasurer which show the financial status of the state of Illinois at the beginning of its career. In his message the governor announced that "the treasury will be found in a state of present embarrass- ment," and the house refused to consider a report "from the committee to procure stationary . till a committee of ways and means be appointed to enquire into the state of the finances." The treasurer's report showed that from December
311
A STATE IN THE UNION
2, 1817 to October 1, 1818 the receipts were $3,979.72, the ex- penditures $4,039.25, leaving a deficit of $59.53. The auditor reported that the income expected up to December from various sources amounted to $8,771.20, from which were to be paid out- standing warrants for $7,588. This would leave a possible $183.20 with which to meet the deficit and start the new gov- ernment. That an important source of revenue would be avail- able when the state was admitted, however, is indicated in a report presented to the house on October 10 from a joint com- mittee appointed to confer with the lessees of the salines. From this it appears that the lessees of the Ohio saline were willing to pay the state ten thousand dollars a year if allowed to sell salt at a dollar and fifty cents a bushel, and eight thousand, if the max- imum price were fixed at a dollar and twenty-five cents. The committee favored the latter proposition but no action was taken on the report.322
Shortly after the convention adjourned, the constitution was printed at Kaskaskia, and on September II, 1818, Greenup, the secretary forwarded a copy to Henry Clay, speaker of the na- tional house of representatives. Congress met on November 16, more than a month after the adjournment of the first legislative session, and on the first day Speaker Clay laid the Illinois con- stitution before the house, where it was tabled. Three days later McLean appeared in the house and asked to be sworn in, but the speaker, in doubt about "the propriety of administering the oath to him, in consequence of Congress not having concluded the act of admission," submitted the question to the house. Poindexter of Mississippi thought it necessary "to see, first, whether the requisitions of the act of last session were complied with; and,
322 House Journal, I general assembly, I session, 7, 14, 32-36; Intelligencer, October 14, 21, 1818. That one of the counties at least was in an embarrassed financial condition, also, is seen from a note which the census enumerator for Johnson county appended to his returns. After showing that the annual revenue from taxes on taverns, slaves, and horses, would be $138.50, for which must be deducted $80.00 for sheriff's and clerk's fees, he continued : "Johnson County oweth at present $2000-which at an Average will take some more than thirty-six years to Discharge the old Debt-Poor Little John- son But is not yet on the Parish-the territorial tax in Johnson County this year is near about 48 or 50 Dollars from the Lands Returned to me for tax as will be seen more correct when I Draw off my Book in alpabetacle [sic] order."
312
ILLINOIS IN 1818
secondly, whether the form of government established was re- publican," while Pitkin of Connecticut insisted that the presence in the territory of the population required by the enabling act should first "be officially established, . and the resolution of admission passed." Harrison of Ohio claimed that there was precedent for immediate admission, but "it was decided appar- ently by a large majority that the SPEAKER should not at this time administer the oath of office." This event probably has- tened matters, however, for the constitution was at once referred to a select committee consisting of Anderson of Kentucky, Poin- dexter of Mississippi, and Hendricks of Indiana, all western men.
On the following day, November 20, the committee reported a resolution for the admission of Illinois "on an equal footing with the original States." The preamble declared the constitution and state government framed by the convention to be republican and "in conformity to the principles of the articles of compact" of the Ordinance of 1787. After the resolution had been read twice, the question of population was again raised, this time by Spencer of New York, who wished to know if any documentary evidence on the subject had been transmitted. Anderson replied for the committee that the preamble of the constitution stated "that the requisitions of the act of Congress had been complied with . the committee," he said, "had considered that evi- dence sufficient; and he had, in addition, himself seen, in the newspapers, evidence sufficient to satisfy him of the fact, that the population did amount to forty thousand souls, the number required." The resolution "was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading."323
The principal debate took place in the house on November 23 when the resolution came up for final action. As a prelude to the controversy over the admission of Missouri, which opened a few months later, this debate and the vote which followed have an importance even greater for national history than for the
823 Annals of Congress, 15 congress, 2 session, I:296-298. The resolution is printed in the appendix to the Annals of Congress, 15 congress, 2 session, 2 :2548. Senator Edwards had asked Governor Bond for a statement of the population as returned to the convention. Washburne, Edwards Papers, 146.
PIERRE MENARD (From original painting owned by Chicago Historical Society]
313
A STATE IN THE UNION
history of Illinois-an importance which has not, as a rule, been recognized by historians.
The discussion was opened by Tallmadge of New York, the same man who was to lead the fight against the admission of Missouri with a constitution permitting slavery. Although he was inclined to demand further evidence that Illinois had the requisite population, he preferred to rest his opposition upon an- other point. "The principle of slavery, if not adopted in the constitution, was at least not sufficiently prohibited." After citing the provision against slavery in the Ordinance of 1787, he declared that: "The sixth article of the constitution of the new State of Illinois, in each of its three sections con- travened this stipulation, either in the letter or the spirit. These sections he separately examined, as to their construction and bearing, and felt himself constrained to come to the conclusion that they embraced a complete recognition of existing slavery, if not provisions for its future introduction and toleration ; partic- ularly in the passage wherein they permit the hiring of slaves, the property of non-residents, for any number of years consecu- tively. If Congress would observe in good faith the terms of the convention, he said, they were bound, under this circum- stance, to reject the constitution of Illinois, or at least this fea- ture of it." He had no desire, the speaker said, "to invade the rights of the slaveholding States, or to assail their prerogatives, he believed they were equally sensible with him of the evils of slavery, and did what they could to control and regulate them." After referring to the excellent provisions of the Indiana consti- tution relative to slavery, he declared :324 "Our interest and our
honor . . calls on us rigidly to insist on the observance of good faith under the article of the ordinance I have referred to, so far as that no involuntary service be permitted to be recog- nised in the constitution of any State to be formed out of that territory."
In replying to Tallmadge, Poindexter (whether deliberately or not it is impossible to say) misrepresented the facts. After expressing his concurrence in the "solicitude to expel from our
324 The debate is reported in the Annals of Congress, 15 congress, 2 ses- sion. I:305-3II. It is summarized in the Intelligencer, December 23, 1818.
314
ILLINOIS IN 1818
country, whenever practicable, anything like slavery," he de- clared, "that the article on the subject of slaves was almost lit- erally copied from the constitution of Ohio into that of Illinois. The third section of the article in question, in the latter, was the only variation, and the necessity of that additional provision would be obvious to any gentleman who would examine and reflect upon the subject. By an antecedent law of the Territorial government, all persons, slaves or under indenture, in the Terri- tory, were required to be registered, as the only way in which they could be discriminated from fugitives, &c. The constitu- tion directs that their children also shall be registered, that they may be secure of enjoying their freedom, when by the constitu- tion they become entitled. From their color, (being prima facie slaves in other States,) was it not more secure to the freedom of the people of color, that their births, parentage, &c., should be recorded in the new State, than otherwise? So far from consti- tuting an objection to it, Mr. P. said, he considered this a valu- able part of the constitution of Illinois." The speaker also main- tained, with more truth, that "it would be found impracticable, after admitting the independence of a State, to prevent it from framing or shaping its constitution as it thought proper. As to a constitution like that of Indiana, prohibiting the introduction of an amendment to it, of whatever nature, if the people were to form a convention to-morrow, that provision would be of no force : the whole power would be with the people, whom, in their sovereign capacity, no provision of that nature can con- trol. Nor would Congress prevent them."
Anderson, another member of the committee, not only agreed with Poindexter, but maintained that there was nothing binding about the so-called articles of compact in the ordinance, since "the people of the Northwestern Territory" were not "repre- sented at all, nor consulted on the occasion." In his opinion "there was nothing unconstitutional, in any view, in Congress accepting what the people of Illinois have done, if they thought proper; since the consent of the two contracting parties (sup- posing the ordinance to be a compact) would thus be given." "Are we," asked Tallmadge in reply, "to be drawn into a dis-
315
A STATE IN THE UNION
cussion of slavery, its merits and demerits, on abstract prin- ciples? He would not enter into such a discussion; but must persist in stating it as his opinion, that the interest, honor, and faith of the nation, required it scrupulously to guard against slavery's passing into a territory where they have power to pre- vent its entrance." Nor would he admit that a state could change its constitution at will. He believed that it would "cease, by the very act, to be a component part of the Union" should it "violate the condition on which it was admitted."
William Henry Harrison "as a Representative of Ohio" pro- tested against this doctrine. The "people of that State," he said, "were fully aware of their privileges, and would never come to this House, or to the State of New York, for permission so to alter their constitution as to admit the introduction of slavery, the object of the gentleman's abhorrence, as, said Mr. H., it is of mine. They had entered into no compact which had shorn the people of their sovereign authority . . he sincerely wished that Illinois had either emancipated its slaves, or followed the example of Indiana" and left "the question relating to this description of property . . for the decision of the courts
of justice . In regard to the supposed compact, how- ever, and its efficacy, Mr. H. said, he had always considered it a dead letter."
The yeas and nays having been requested by Livermore of New Hampshire, who was opposed to the resolution, the vote was taken and the resolution carried 117 to 34. The followers of Tallmadge in this vote were few as compared to those who supported him in the Missouri contest three months later, due probably to the fact that the issue was not so clear. It is signifi- cant, however, that only one of the thirty-four, Reed of Mary- land, voted against the Tallmadge amendment to the enabling act for Missouri. With the exception of Reed, all of those who opposed the Illinois resolution were from the five New England states, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. They in- cluded a majority of the representatives from New England. Clearly the opposition to the admission of Illinois was due to the provisions relative to slavery in the constitution and clearly, also,
316
ILLINOIS IN 1818
the extension of slavery was already a sectional issue in the United States in November, 1818.
The resolution for the admission of Illinois was received in the senate on November 25 and was referred to the committee on public lands. The following day the committee "reported the same without amendment." It was considered in committee of the whole on November 28 and 30, but if there was any debate, it was not reported. On December I the resolution passed the senate without a division, and on the third it received the ap- proval of the president. Illinois was now a state in the union. The next day "NINIAN EDWARDS and JESSE B. THOMAS, re- spectively appointed Senators by the Legislature of the State of Illinois. took their seats in the Senate." In the house, "MR. JOHN McLEAN . . took his seat as the Represent- ative of the State of Illinois."325
By December 16, news of the action taken in the house had been received in Illinois. That news allayed any fear there had been that the state might not be admitted. In announcing it, the editors of the Intelligencer commented: "As the senate will act speedily on this subject, we may expect early information of our complete emancipation from territorial government." That in- formation arrived in time for the governor to issue on December 22, the following proclamation :
"Whereas information has been received that by a resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in congress Assembled the State of Illinois has been declared to be one of the United States of America and has been admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever
"Therefore I Shadrach Bond Governor of the said State, by virtue of the power vested in me by the constitution do appoint the third monday in the month of January next for a meeting of the General Assembly of said state and I do hereby require all
825 Annals of Congress, 15 congress, 2 session, I :23, 26, 31, 32, 38, 342. The proclamation was printed in the Intelligencer, December 23, 1818. It is here copied from the manuscript "Executive Register" in the secretary of state's office.
317
A STATE IN THE UNION
the members of each branch thereof to convene on said day at Kaskaskia the seat of Government.
"In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and pri- vate seal (there being no State seal provided) this twenty second day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighteen and of the Independence of the United States of America the forty-third."
ABSTRACT OF THE CENSUS OF 1818
ORIGINAL CENSUS
SUPPLEMENTARY CENSUS
Families
Heads of
Age
Males of
Free White
Inhabitants
All Other
of Color
Free People
Slaves
Servants or
Schedules
June
`ary in
the Secre-
Families
Heads of
Age Males of
Free White
Inhabitants
All Other
of Color
Free People
Slaves
Servants or
Schedules
Schedules
Combined
Convention
Report to
Bond
212
264
II05
0
15
1384 2069
1382 2074 1948
...
...
.
...
. . .
1384 2946
2839
Edwards
..
...
...
...
...
...
.
42
71
227
0
0
298
298
2243
Franklin
17I
218
943
52
15
I228
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
I228
1281
Gallatin
541
742
2397
83
218
3440
3256
75
167
250
9
85
5II
395I
3849
Jackson
.
...
II7
118
535
I
24
678
678
...
..
...
...
. ..
678
767
Madison
. .
717
1012
3393
34
77
4516
5456
. . .
. ..
. ..
. ..
...
. ..
4516
6303
Monroe
227
317
1007
6
41
I37I
I358
...
...
. ..
...
. . .
. ..
1371
1517
Pope
......
322
399
1481
0
64
1944
1975
...
...
...
...
...
...
1944
2069
Randolph
...
...
...
...
...
...
2939
16
23
20
0
2
45
45
2974
St. Clair ...
497
683
2422
29
97
323I
4519
...
. ..
. ..
...
...
...
3231
5039
Union
...
.
392
439
2020
0
33
2492
2484
...
...
...
...
...
...
2492
2709
Washington
249
281
1382
19
23
1705
1707
16
26
82
0
5
I13
1818
1819
White
572
720
2751
II
57
3539
3539
...
. ..
. ..
·· ·
...
...
3539
3832
Totals
.
4616
5865
21971
313
733
28882
34610
308
541
I305
9
96
1951
30833
40258
.
397
422
1549
78
20
I2I
179
. .. 98
0
0
877
1398
Crawford
.
(318)
.
. .
202
250
986
0
49
1285
1295
38
75
28
0
4
107
I392
1619
Johnson
.
..
....
APPENDIX
Total in
Total in
Total in
Report of
Counties
White
White
319
APPENDIX
The figures in the foregoing table, except where otherwise indicated, are the result of a careful checking up of extant schedules. Most of the com- missioners who attempted to foot up the totals made errors of addition. The census of Franklin county had not been taken when the secretary made his report in June. The enumerator for Madison county appended to his schedule the following statements : "I beg leave further to state from good information that there are at
Fort Crawford 680 Souls
Fort Armstrong 150 Souls
Fort Edwards 70 66
do. Clark 80
Makeing in the whole 5466 Souls within the boundury of Madison County."
These 980 reputed inhabitants are not included in the schedule total but are included in the secretary's report and presumably in the final report to the convention. The schedule for St. Clair county has been burned in part and the figures given represent only what remains intact. Italics are used to indicate incomplete totals due to missing or incomplete schedules. The total of the secretary's report is a correct addition of the figures and is ten less than his total of the same figures as given in Intelligencer, June 17, 1818. The report to the convention is printed in the Illinois State His- torical Society, Journal, 6:359.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.