Centennial history of Missouri (the center state) one hundred years in the Union, 1820-1921, Volume I, Part 7

Author: Stevens, Walter Barlow, 1848-1939
Publication date: 1921
Publisher: St. Louis, Chicago, The S. J. Clarke publishing company
Number of Pages: 1074

USA > Missouri > Centennial history of Missouri (the center state) one hundred years in the Union, 1820-1921, Volume I > Part 7

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).

This was signed by Thomas Dozier, William S. Burch, William Keithley, Randall Biggs, James Baldridge, Francis Howell, James Smith, Antoine Raynal, Warren Cottle. James Clay, Samuel Wells, N. Howell, T. D. Stephenson, David Lancaster, Edward Hinds, Joseph Sumner, Antoine Derocher, Armstrong Kennedy, Charles Parmer, Joseph D. Beauchamp.

New Boundaries Suggested.

In the summer of 1819, a movement to go before Congress with new petitions for statehood was started in the southern part of the territory. These petitions proposed that the new state should be bounded on the north by the Missouri river and on the south by the White river. They received some signa- tures, the argument being that if the territory north of the Missouri was left out for later consideration, Congress would be less likely to impose slavery restrictions on the new state. The movement was scarcely well underway when indignant remonstrances were made. St. Louis voiced urgent objections to a state leaving out the country north of the Missouri. The Enquirer, for which Benton wrote, led in the campaign against the new boundaries. It said:

"We are particularly opposed to a division by the Missouri river. We should consider such a division as a deathblow to the grandeur and importance of the State of Missouri. We deprecate the idea of making the civil divisions of the states to correspond with the natural boundaries of the country. Such divisions would promote that tendency to sep- arate which it is the business of all statesmen to counteract."

1415241

My Dear Sec

received very important intelligence in, no other than the eniti ation of New Orleans and the whole of Lodicinamen to hi Minutes Status- official to that ofict on the 30 th of

a Minister Plenipotentiais on the haut of Fraises facto is a ship from a News pofor containing the information I give you the earliest information of

material to you in some way on throw of the nuth shit your new not found It is the curtain that war was declara on the 16 of May by quat Britain against

De queation, fithe King of Britain Nos Sig-

The original letter loaned from the Tullock collection

HOW THE FIRST NEWS OF REACHED

terrified in the spanish Count that their centrality woud has no pected so long is it são presence buy them-

i Do not know What The Chutia Hole, will Do with uppur dicuisine but Thanks it probable that it will an

Af deserving some of your friends of this

in that a shall not be Righicas- If you should consider in finhelly Consistent with youne Dnity I thoud like Moms porreciament together with PleinDi -

Well Hemay Haveyou.

Jection of the Copious of Journana from fin de cutting ofwar. T. Butions

Coli Delossas

THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE

ST. LOUIS

THE TRAVAIL OF STATEHOOD

The Flow of Immigration.

In the late autumn of 1819, The St. Louis Enquirer told of the rapid growth of population :

"Notwithstanding the great number of persons who are held in check by the agitation of the slave question in Congress, the emigration to Missouri is astonishing. Probably from thirty to fifty wagons daily cross the Mississippi at the different ferries, and bring in an average of four to five hundred souls a day. The emigrants are principally from Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and the states further south. They bring great numbers of slaves, knowing that Congress has no power to impose the agitated restriction, and that the people of Missouri will never adopt it."

More than slavery was involved, Missourians thought, in the attempt of Congress to dictate the constitution of the new state. Joseph Charless said, in his Missouri Gazette, of March 24, 1819, "But the question before Congress is a question of more vital importance. It is, in fact, whether the inhabitants of this territory shall themselves be slaves to the other states." And this was from the newspaper which printed the views of the restrictionist and which . was not pro-slavery.

The grand jury of the circuit court for the northern district of the territory of Missouri, in a pronouncement, hinted at dire possibilities if Congress con- tinued to dictate the constitution to be framed by Missouri : "Altho' we deprecate anything like an idea of disunion, which, next to our personal liberty and security of property, is our dearest right and privilege, and cannot entertain for a moment the most distant probability of such an event, yet we feel it our duty to take a manly and dignified stand for our rights and privileges, as far as is warranted by the Constitution of the United States, and the act of cession, and from which we will not depart."

The grand jurors of the supreme court for the territory of Missouri uttered their protest, concluding, "And they believe it the duty of the people of Missouri to make it known in the most public manner that they are acquainted with their own rights and are determined to maintain them." The grand jurors declared that the "action of Congress is a gross violation of those rights."

There were anti-slavery men in Missouri, quite a number of them. "Emanci- pationists," they called themselves, but more frequently "restrictionists." But with few exceptions these opponents of slavery were for the settlement of the question by the new state, not by Congress.

Jefferson's Apprehensions.

Very seriously this issue over the admission of Missouri was taken by the whole country. In December, 1819, Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams : "The banks, bankrupt law, manufacturers, Spanish treaty, are nothing." These are occurrences which, like waves in a storm, will pass under a ship. But the Missouri question is a breaker on which we lose the Missouri country by revolt and what more God only knows. From the battle of Bunker Hill to the treaty of Paris, we never had so ominous a question."

Two months later, in February, 1820, while Congress was still wrestling with the problem, Mr. Jefferson in a letter to Hugh Nelson, said: "The Missouri ques- tion is the most portentous one which ever yet threatened our Union. In the

CENTENNIAL HISTORY OF MISSOURI

gloomiest moment of the Revolutionary war I never had any apprehensions equal to what I feel from this source."

Missouri and Maine.

When Congress reassembled in December, 1819, the Territory of Maine was there asking admission as a free state. The Senate offered to pair Maine and Missouri and admit them together. In the House the determination that Mis- souri should be a free state had grown stronger. Northern men outnumbered Southern men in the House. The sectional line had become sharply marked. Missouri was not in the cotton-growing region the Northern Congressmen urged. While the early settlers were largely from slave states, there were comparatively few slaves in the territory,-not one-sixth of the population. The Senate argued that Congress could not impose conditions on admission to statehood ; that the House resolution would violate the treaty of purchase of Louisiana. In March, 1820, the first Missouri Compromise was reached. It was the proposition of Senator Thomas of Illinois. Maine was admitted as a free state. Missouri was given permission to frame a state constitution without restriction as to slavery. But the compromise provided that from all of the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, which was the western extension of the southern boundary of Missouri, slavery was forever excluded.

In the course of the discussion Henry Clay took a position which Missourians never forgot: "A state, in the quarter of the country from which I come, asks to be admitted into the Union. What say the gentlemen who ask for the admis- sion of Maine? Why, they will not admit Missouri without a condition which strips her of one essential attribute of sovereignty. What, then, do I say to them? That justice is due to all parts of the Union. Equality is equality, and if it is right to make the restriction of slavery the condition for the admission of Missouri, it is equally just to make the admission of Missouri the condition for that of Maine."

Legislative Legerdemain.

The vote on the compromise was taken in the House on the 2nd of March, IS20. It was ninety to eighty-seven. Passage was made possible by three mem- bers absenting themselves and four changing their votes. Frederick W. Leh- mann, late solicitor-general of the United States, addressing the Missouri His- torical Society in 1914, said the compromise "did not draw all of the Representa- tives of the South to the support of the measure, and it was bitterly antagonized by the radical element, among whom was Randolph, who characterized the eigh- teen Northern members supporting it, and without whose votes it must have failed, as 'doughfaces,' a name from that time applied in our politics to Northern . men with pro-slavery principles. On the morning following the adoption of the report of the conference committee, Randolph moved a reconsideration of the vote on the Missouri bill, but was held by the Speaker, Clay, to be out of order until the regular morning business was disposed of. While the morning business was on, Clay signed the bill, and the clerk took it at once to the Senate. When at the close of the morning hour, Randolph again rose and moved a reconsideration he was told that he was too late as the bill was no longer in the possession of the

THE TRAVAIL OF STATEHOOD

House. The relations between Randolph and Clay were already strained and what Randolph felt was a trick on Clay's part did not serve to improve them."

The enmity between the two statesmen grew until it led to a duel of which Benton was a spectator and of which he wrote a fascinating description. North- ern Congressmen who voted for the bill were denounced and burned in effigy by their angry constituents. President Monroe had his doubts about the con- stitutionality of the measure. Much had been brought out in the debate on that point. Mr. Lehmann said, "When the bill came to President Monroe for signa- ture, he submitted to his cabinet the question whether Congress had constitution- al authority to prohibit slavery in a territory. And they all, Adams, Crawford, Calhoun and Wirt, answered yes. He asked further whether the provision inter- dicting slavery 'forever' applied to the territorial status alone or was binding as well on the state formed out of the territory. The southern members, Craw- ford, Calhoun and Wirt, held that it applied only to the territorial status, while Adams held it was binding on the state. To preserve the appearance of unanim- ity, the question was changed to, 'Is the eighth section of the Missouri bill con- sistent with the Constitution?' Each of the secretaries having in mind his own construction of the bill answered yes." Monroe decided to sign.

Acceptance of the Missouri Compromise came about in the early days of March, 1820, through the action of eight senators and fifteen representatives from the North in voting with the South to leave with the new state the settle- ment of the slavery question. Some of these northerners who yielded were denounced at mass meetings of their anti-slavery constituents. One of the sen- · ators, Lanman of Connecticut, was burned in effigy at Hartford. Benton's paper, the St. Louis Enquirer, commenting on the course of these northerners, used language intimating that their votes had farreaching effect in the direction of preventing disunion :

"In all eight senators and fifteen representatives who have offered themselves as sacrifices upon the altar of public good to save the states and to prevent the degredation of Missouri. Their generous conduct deserves a nation's gratitude, and let a grateful nation deliver it to them. Let public honors wait upon their steps, and public blessings thicken round their heads. Let fame with her brazen trumpet, from the summit of the Alleghany, proclaim their honored names thro' out the vast regions of the South and West."

The Motive of the Compromise.

In the manuscript collection of John H. Gundlach, of St. Louis, is a letter from Congressman Stokes, of North Carolina, written to John Branch, the governor of that state. The date of the letter, February 27, 1820, shows that it was sent just at the time when a majority of Congress was deciding to accept the Missouri Compromise. The letter is far more enlightening upon the action of Congress than the scores of speeches and pages of newspaper editorials which attempted to deal with the Missouri Question during the months it was upper- most in the public mind.

"The question of compelling the people of Missouri to form their constitution so as to forever prevent the introduction of slavery in that state, has occupied both houses of Congress for some weeks, and has not yet been settled. You have seen, and will here- after see, volumes of speeches on the subject, most of which (not having been listened

CENTENNIAL HISTORY OF MISSOURI

to in either house), are intended for home consumption. As I have differed from my honorable colleagues upon some propositions for accommodating and settling, for years to come, this all important contest, which is agitating the people of the United States in a great degree everywhere; but which, in some of the Northern states, has produced a delirium and phrensy approaching to madness; I have thought it proper to state the grounds upon which my conduct has been, and probably will be, maintained and de- fended. Those who are opposed to this unconstitutional restriction upon the people of Missouri cannot and do not expect that Missouri will be admitted into the Union without the restriction, unless some concession or agreement shall take place excluding slavery from a portion of the west territory beyond the Mississippi. This is not mere opinion; it has been ascertained by several votes in the House of Representatives, that a consid- erable majority of that body are in favor of restriction as to all the country purchased from France under the name of Louisiana. It is useless to examine at this time, whether this is a correct principle or not. The majority have satisfied their own minds upon the subject, and are determined to enforce the restraint. All that we from the slave holding states can do at present, is to rescue from the rapacious grasp of those conscientious fanatics, a considerable portion of Louisiana, including all the inhabited parts of that extensive country. I can see no means, either now or hereafter, of accomplishing this object but by consenting that slavery may be prohibited in the northern portion of the Louisiana Purchase. By agreeing to this conception, I believe we may secure the remain- ing portion of that Purchase as an asylum for slaves already too numerous to be com- fortably supported in some of the southern states. With this view I have consented that slavery may be excluded by an act of Congress, from the territory lying west of the contemplated state of Missouri, and north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees, thirty min- utes of North Latitude; nor do I think the Constitution violated by this act in as much as Congress are only legislating. upon a territory, in which there is not one citizen of the United States settled at this time. By this prudent and proper concession we shall quiet the minds of many people who have already been excited by bad men to commit daring acts of injustice and outrage. And although I cannot respect Members of Congress who, in violation of their obligations to the Constitution, are endeavoring to enforce this re- striction upon the free people of Missouri; yet I do and always shall have a charitable and respectful regard for the feelings and even the prejudices of that great portion of the people of the northern states who are averse to slavery in any shape; and who would join with me in pursuing and promoting any constitutional measure to get rid of the evi !. These are my views and the motives which have influenced my conduct upon this very important subject; and I can safely appeal to my conscience and to my God to justify the purity of my intentions.

"I have thus taken the liberty, my dear sir, of writing to you, that it may be recorded as my deliberate opinion and referred to in case of misrepresentation hereafter."

Jefferson's Argument for the Compromise.

One of the arguments advanced in favor of allowing Missouri to settle the slavery question for herself was that, as the national government had stopped the importation of slaves, a scattering of the slaves already in the country would help toward the gradual abolition rather than toward the increase. Six days after President Monroe signed the Missouri Compromise, Jefferson wrote a letter upholding this argument. His letter of March 12, 1820, was to Hugh Nelson :

"Of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one state to another would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier, and proportionately facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burden on a greater number of coadjutors."

THE TRAVAIL OF STATEHOOD

Missouri's First "Extra."

The first newspaper "Extra" issued in Missouri appeared on the streets of St. Louis March 25, 1820. It announced "the happy intelligence" that the Missouri State bill had passed Congress "without restrictions." The St. Louis Enquirer told, in its next regular number, how the news was obtained from Washington and how the extra was received by the Missourians. It used head- lines for perhaps the first time in the history of Missouri journalism.

"GRATIFYING NEWS FROM WASHINGTON-KING AND CLINTON DE- FEATED-THE SENATE TRIUMPHANT-FINAL PASSAGE OF THE MIS- SOURI STATE BILL WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS."

"A traveler from Cincinnati arrived in town Saturday evening (25th March), bring- ing with him a copy of the National Intelligencer of the 4th of March, containing the pro- ceedings of Congress to the 3rd. A handbill announcing the happy intelligence con- tained in the paper was immediately issued from this office amidst the ringing of the bells, the firing of cannon and the joyful congratulations of the citizens."

Congress had acted but the bill did not receive the President's signature until March 6th. The news was three weeks in reaching St. Louis. Not satisfied with the impromptu celebration, St. Louis proceeded in a more formal manner. The two papers contained this "Notice."

"Upon the request of many citizens of the town of St. Louis, it is resolved by the Board of Trustees that an illumination of the town be recommended to the citizens on Thursday night, 30th inst., to commence precisely at 8 o'clock p. m. in consequence of the admission of Missouri into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states.

"A national salute under the direction of the Trustees will be fired precisely at -8 o'clock.

"PIERRE CHOUTEAU, "Chairman."

St. Louis at that time was incorporated as a town, governed by a board of trustees. The incorporation as a city came three years later.

Congratulation and Ratification.

In the issue of the 29th, which told of the Enquirer's enterprise in getting out the extra, was this congratulatory editorial in the best style of Benton :

"But the agony is over and Missouri is born into the Union, not a seven- months baby but a man child; his birth no secret in the family, but a proud and glorious event, proclaimed to the nation with the firing of cannon, the ringing of bells and illumination of towns and cities."

In the Enquirer of April 1, 1820, the celebration of the 30th of March was described :

"The town was illuminated on Thursday evening according to the notice given by the Board of Trustees. It was entirely general, the whole town not presenting above four or five instances of exception. To these no sort of molestation was offered, and the evening passed off without a single occurrence to interrupt the harmony of the town, or to mar the festivity of the scene. Among the names which appeared in transparencies were those of the 'eight senators' and 'fifteen representatives' from the non-slaveholding states, who supported the rights of Missouri at the risk of their own personal popularity. Mr. Lanman's name occurred most frequently. Some were in favor of burning the effigy of an adversary senator (Mr. King) in retaliation for the indignity offered him

CENTENNIAL HISTORY OF MISSOURI

(Mr. Lanman) at Hartford; but the idea was discouraged and it was not done. 'Our faithful delegate,' Mr. Scott, was duly noticed. To enumerate all our friends from the South and West who deserve the gratitude of Missouri would be to repeat the list of their names as published last week.

"Among the transparencies was noticed at Dr. Heely's a beautiful representation of the American Eagle, from the beak the words 'Missouri and no Restrictions.' Under- neath was the Irish harp and the motto 'Erin go Bragh.'"

The Missouri Gazette's account of the celebration was in like spirit: "On Thursday last the citizens of St. Louis expressed their satisfaction at the ad- mission of Missouri into the Union. The town was generally and splendidly illuminated ; several transparencies were displayed. Among others a very hand- some one displaying the American Eagle surmounting the Irish Harp. We were diverted by another, representing a slave in great spirits, rejoicing at the permission granted by Congress to bring slaves into so fine a country as Missouri."

That Congress had no right to impose upon Missouri any restrictions as to slavery seems to have been the conviction of Missourians generally. All through 1819. while the deadlock prevailed in Congress, there were expressions of this conviction in a variety of forms. The Gazette, which was much more conservative than the Enquirer for which Benton wrote, declared its position in these words :

"Our fellow citizens of the United States are assured that the people of Missouri understand the extent of the powers of Congress over this country, and their own rights to self government as will be shown hereafter."

In September, 1820, when the state government was about to be organized, Joseph Charless, retiring from the ownership of the Gazette, which he had established and kept going twelve years, said, in his valedictory :

"Missouri has become a free and independent state, and the people, assuming the government themselves, have taught aristocrats a plain lesson of truth and have placed in the government of this state, 'the men of the people.'"

Mr. Charless, at the same time, took occasion to vindicate the position of the Gazette throughout the travail of statehood :

"It has been said that the Gazette advocated the restriction of Missouri by Congress. The base fabricator of this charge is defied to prove it. Examine the files and they will be found to pursue the uniform course. Open to all decent communications, the editor has never hesitated to state his opposition to the interference of Congress, but still felt desirous that some limitation should be put by the people to the importation of slaves."

When the Missouri Compromise was nearing final action in the early days of March, 1820, the House, which had yielded only after prolonged debate and delay, deliberately voted down the proposition, the last stand of the free state members, to require the Missouri constitution, when framed, to be reported to Congress for approval. This action seemed to sustain the contention of Missourians that when the constitution was framed and the state government was formed, Missouri was a state in the Union. The official record of the House read :

"Mr. Taylor then renewed. the motion which he had made unsuccessfully in the committee, to amend the last section of the bill, by striking out the words

Courtesy Missouri Historical Society

GEN. DANIEL BISSELL Commander of Fort Bellefontaine

GOVERNOR ALEXANDER McNAIR'S HOUSE

THE BOUGENOU HOME Where first marriage in St. Louis was celebrated

THE TRAVAIL OF STATEHOOD

'and the state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states,' and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 'And if the same (the constitution) shall be approved by Congress, the said territory shall be admitted into the Union as a state, upon an equal footing with the original states.' The question was briefly supported by the mover, and was opposed by Messrs. Scott, Lowndes, Mercer, Floyd and Hendricks; and, the question being taken thereon, it was decided in the negative, by Yeas 49, and Nays 125."

"The State of Missouri."

There was no doubt in the minds of Missourians that statehood began in the summer of 1820. The constitution was signed on the 19th of July. It opened with :

"We, the people of Missouri, inhabiting the limits hereinafter designated, by our representatives in convention assembled at St. Louis on Monday, the 12th day of June, 1820, do mutually agree to form and establish a free and independent republick, by the name of the State of Missouri, and for the gov- ernment thereof do ordain and establish this constitution."

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.

Centennial history of Missouri (the center state) one hundred years in the Union, 1820-1921, Volume I, Part 7

Author: Stevens, Walter Barlow, 1848-1939 Publication date: 1921 Publisher: St. Louis, Chicago, The S. J. Clarke publishing company Number of Pages: 1074

Author: Stevens, Walter Barlow, 1848-1939
Publication date: 1921
Publisher: St. Louis, Chicago, The S. J. Clarke publishing company
Number of Pages: 1074