History of Hickory, Polk, Cedar, Dade, and Barton counties, Missouri, Part 8

Author: Goodspeed, firm, publishers, Chicago (1886-1891, Goodspeed Publishing Co.)
Publication date: 1889
Publisher: Chicago, The Goodspeed publishing co.
Number of Pages: 998

USA > Missouri > Cedar County > History of Hickory, Polk, Cedar, Dade, and Barton counties, Missouri > Part 8
USA > Missouri > Dade County > History of Hickory, Polk, Cedar, Dade, and Barton counties, Missouri > Part 8
USA > Missouri > Barton County > History of Hickory, Polk, Cedar, Dade, and Barton counties, Missouri > Part 8
USA > Missouri > Hickory County > History of Hickory, Polk, Cedar, Dade, and Barton counties, Missouri > Part 8
USA > Missouri > Polk County > History of Hickory, Polk, Cedar, Dade, and Barton counties, Missouri > Part 8

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).

4. The right to prohibit slavery in any Territory belongs exclusively to the people thereof, and can only be exercised by them in forming their consti- tution for a State government, or in their sovereign capacity as an independent State.

5. That in the event of the passage of any act of Congress conflicting with the principles herein expressed, Missouri will be found in hearty co-operation with the slave-holding States, in such measures as may be deemed necessary for our mutual protection against the encroachments of Northern fanaticism.

6. That our senators in Congress be instructed and our representatives be requested to act in conformity to the foregoing resolutions.

The resolutions were written by Hon. William B. Napton, afterward one of the judges of the supreme court.

The scope of this work forbids a detailed account of the dis- cussion which followed the introduction of these resolutions into the General Assembly, as well as the names of the many distin- guished men who took opposing sides upon the question of their adoption. The Jackson resolutions were finally adopted after much opposition, particularly in the Lower House, where a strong but unsuccessful attempt was made to modify them.

Perhaps the chief object in the introduction and passage of the resolutions was the retirement of Senator Thomas H. Benton. His course in and out of the Senate had become obnoxious to many of the Democratic politicians of the State, who determined to get rid of him. They knew he would not obey the instruc- tions contained in the resolutions, and this would furnish an excuse for a refusal to return him for another term. There was much excitement throughout the State, and the feeling was still farther intensified by the course of Senator Benton, who appealed from the Legislature to the people, and prosecuted a canvass against the resolutions, denouncing them in powerful and pas- sionate speeches, as tending to the dismemberment of the Union.

HISTORY OF MISSOURI.

He declared them to be in direct contradiction to the Missouri Compromise, upon which depended the safety and harmony of the nation.

That Col. Benton was right in his position, although, perhaps, intemperate in its defense, is perfectly apparent in the light of subsequent events; but his crusade against the " Jackson Reso- lutions" resulted in his defeat at the next election, when, after thirty years of loyal service toward his State and Nation, he was succeeded in 1851 by the Whig candidate, Henry S. Geyer, an eminent lawyer of St. Louis, who was chosen by Democratic votes.

ORGANIZATION OF KANSAS AND NEBRASKA.

Missouri was admitted as a slave State in 1820, only upon the terms of the Missouri Compromise, which forever prohibited involuntary servitude in territory north of 36° 30', now consti- tuting Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and a portion of Minnesota. And now this great domain was to be organized into territorial governments. Al- ready into these vast regions the tide of immigration was pour- ing, and it became necessary to provide for the future. In December, 1852, Hon. Willard P. Hall, of Missouri, introduced a bill into the United States House of Representatives, to organ- ize the Territory of Platte, which was designed to embrace the country above mentioned. Having been referred to the Com- mittee on Territories, that committee, in February, 1853, reported a bill to establish a territorial government in the Territory of Nebraska. As this bill did not contemplate a repeal of the Mis- souri Compromise, it was opposed in the House by all the South- ern delegations. The only senators from the South who voted for it were David R. Atchison and Henry S. Geyer, of Missouri. On January 16, 1854, when the subject again came before the Senate, Senator Dixon, of Kentucky, gave notice that whenever the Nebraska bill should be called up, he would move an amend- ment to the effect that the Missouri Compromise, drawing the line of 36° 30' north latitude, and forever prohibiting slav- ery or involuntary servitude north of said line, should not be so construed as to apply to the Territory contemplated by the act, or to any other Territory of the United States; but that the citi-

HISTORY OF MISSOURI.

zens of the several States or Territories should be at liberty to take and hold their slaves within any of the Territories or States to be founded therefrom. That is to say, in plain language, that the Missouri Compromise should be made null and void. The announcement of this amendment in Congress was immediately followed by the most intense excitement throughout the country, Indeed, the introduction, in 1848, of the Wilmot Proviso, did not rouse the people in a greater degree.

On January 23, 1854, Senator Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, reported from the Committee on Territories a bill which pro- vided for the organization of the region of country embraced by Mr. Hall's bill, known as the Platte country, from the Platte River, which flows through it into two Territories, namely, Kansas and Nebraska. As Senator Douglas' bill must always be an im- portant document in history, we transcribe some part of it.

* SEC. 21. And be it further enacted, That, in order to avoid misconstruction, , it is hereby declared to be the true intent and meaning of this act, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, to carry into practical operation the following propositions and principles, established by the compromise measures of 1850, to wit :

First. That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives.

Second. That all cases involving title to slaves and questions of personal free- dom, are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Third. That the provisions of the constitution and laws of the United States, , in respect to fugitives from service, are to be carried into faithful execution in all the organized Territories, the same as in the States.

The section of the bill which prescribed the qualifications and mode of election of a delegate to Congress from each of the Territories was as follows:

SEC. 2. And be it futher enacted, *

That the constitution and laws of the United States, which are not locally applicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Kansas as else- where within the United States, except the eight sections of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is declared inoperative.

The debate which ensued upon the introduction of this bill, known as the " Kansas-Nebraska Bill," was conducted with great ability, and lasted several weeks. On February 6 Hon. S.

HISTORY OF MISSOURI.

P. Chase, a senator from Ohio, who was afterward Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln's administration, and finally chief justice of the United States, moved to strike out so much of the bill as declared the Missouri Compromise " superseded " by the compromise of 1850, but the motion was defeated. On February 15 Mr. Douglas moved to strike out the clause objected to by Mr. Chase, and insert the following :

" Which being inconsistent with the principle of non-interven- tion by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850 (commonly called the com- promise measures) is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States."

This amendment embodied what was afterward known as the doctrine of "squatter sovereignty." It was at once adopted by the Senate; but Mr. Chase and others, not having full confidence that it was not the true intent and meaning of the act "to legislate slavery into any Territory or State," moved to add, after the words " United States," the following:

" Under which the people of the Territories, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein."

Mr. Chase's amendment was voted down. From January until May, Mr. Douglas' report was debated in Congress. By the Kansas-Nebraska bill the Missouri Compromise was virtually repealed, and the old settlement of the slavery question over- thrown at a single blow. All the bitter sectional animosities of the past were aroused in full force. The bill was violently opposed by a majority of the representatives from the East and North; but the minority, uniting with the congressmen of the South, enabled Douglas to carry his measure through Congress, and in May, 1854, the bill received the sanction of the President.

Kansas itself now became a battlefield for the contending parties; whether the new State should admit slavery or not depended upon the vote of the people. Both factions made a

HISTORY OF MISSOURI.

rush for the Territory in order to secure a majority. The people of Missouri were especially interested in the situation. Appre- hensive that Kansas would become a free State, and that Mis- . souri would in the future occupy the position of a slave-holding peninsula, jutting out into a sea of free soil, with Illinois and Iowa at the east and north, and Kansas and Nebraska on the west, many of her citizens, especially on the Kansas border, became seriously alarmed for the safety of their slaves, and in the excitement of the conflict were induced without authority of law to cross over into Kansas, and, carrying ballots in one hand and arms in the other, to coerce the new State into the Union with a pro-slavery constitution.

Meanwhile the Northern States were not idle. Massachu- setts had chartered a wealthy corporation, called the Emigrant Aid Company; Connecticut followed soon after with a similar company. The New York Tribune, edited by Horace Greeley, opened a Kansas contribution, and aid societies sprang into activity at hundreds of points in the Northwest. Thus stimulated, the people of the free States flocked to Kansas in such numbers that in a few months they constituted a decided majority of the actual settlers. The Missourians with force and arms attempted to carry out their measures, and prevent Northern and Eastern settlers from passing through their State, but the emigrants then wound around through Iowa, thus circumventing their plans. The struggle between the hostile parties in Kansas and on the Missouri border resulted in a series of desultory but bloody encounters, some of which assumed the proportions of battles. Large and fiercely excited public meetings were held in Missouri, and at times in some localities a reign of intolerance and pro- scription prevailed. This was intensified in that portion of the State bordering on Kansas.

An election held in the new State in November of 1854 resulted in the choice of a pro-slavery delegate to Congress, and, in the general territorial election of the following year, the same party was triumphant. The State Legislature thus chosen assembled at Lecompton, organized the government, and framed a constitution permitting slavery. The Free Soil party declar- ing the general election to have been illegal, on account of fraud-

HISTORY OF MISSOURI.

ulent voting, assembled in convention at Topeka, September 25, 1855, framed a constitution excluding slavery, and organized a rival government. Civil war broke out between the factions.

From the autumn of 1855 until the following summer the Territory was the scene of constant turmoil and violence. The people of the North held meetings to enlist additional settlers, cash poured into the Tribune fund, and food, clothing, seeds, arms and money were sent in quantities to the Free Soil settlers.

On September 8, 1856, John W. Geary, of Pennsylvania, was appointed governor. He issued a proclamation of peace, and promised the settlers protection in their persons, pursuits

and property. They therefore laid down their arms. This was no sooner done than an army from the Southern States attacked Lawrence, which had before been the scene of much violence; but Gov. Geary, calling out the United States troops, finally induced the invaders to retire. On January 26, 1857, the free legislature met at Topeka, but was dispersed by the United States marshal, who captured several members and threw them into jail at Tecumseh. The pro-slavery people now met in legis- lature at Lecompton and adopted a resolution calling a convention to frame another State constitution.

Gov. Geary resigned because the pro-slavery United States Senate refused to uphold some of his measures, and Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, was appointed to succeed him. Gov. Walker guaranteed protection to the settlers on election day, re- jected fraudulent returns, condemned both the Lecompton consti- tution and the methods of promulgation, and started for Wash- ington to prevent Congress from accepting it. The President had officially signed the instrument before the arrival of Gov. Walker, and the latter promptly resigned. J. W. Denver of Cal- ifornia was appointed to succeed him.

An election was held for the rejection or adoption of the pro-slavery clauses of the Lecompton constitution, December 21, 1856. The Free-State men did not go to the polls, and the fraud- ulent instrument was therefore adopted by a vote of 6,143 to 569. The pro-slavery legislature ordered a vote for State officers under the Lecompton constitution, January 4, 1858. The settlers' legislature then submitted that constitution to the people, as a

HISTORY OF MISSOURI.

whole, to be accepted or rejected, this election also to take place on January 4, 1858. It was rejected by a majority of 10,226. Congress, after a long discussion, again sent the Lecompton con- stitution to a vote of the people, and again it was rejected by a majority of 10,000 votes, on August 3, 1858. Gov. Denver then resigned, and Samuel Medary, of Ohio, succeeded him.

The settlers' legislature submitted another constitution, which was adopted. Some portions of it proving unsatisfactory, another convention was called, and at last the new constitution, forever prohibiting slavery, was promulgated at Wyandotte, July 4, 1859, and was adopted in October by a 4,000 majority. On December 6, 1859, a State election was held under the new constitution, and Charles Robinson, who had been chosen governor under the first Topeka constitution, in 1856, was once more elected to that office. January 29, 1861, Kansas came into the Union as a free State, and ultimately Nebraska was admitted upon the same conditions.

The facts thus briefly stated constitute the civil history of the struggle in Kansas. A fratricidal war raged over her rich plains for three years. Bloodshed, robbery, devastation and fire spread like a pestilence through her humble settlements, and but a faint shadow of the fearful events of that period is cast upon these pages.

In the final adjustment of these questions in Congress, Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, and James S. Green, of Missouri, played a prominent part. Senator Green opposed the views of Mr. Douglas, and, as the acknowledged leader of the pro-slavery party, maintained his ground with rare ability and eloquence. Coming into the Senate, in 1857, during the discussion of the question of the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton con- stitution, he supported the policy of the administration in speeches distinguished not only by perspicuity of style, but by powers of argument which called forth commendations, even from those who did not share his convictions.

" THE DRED SCOTT DECISION."

A few days after the inauguration of President Buchanan (1857), the Supreme court of the United States delivered the celebrated opinion known in American history as "The Dred Scott Decision."

HISTORY OF MISSOURI.

Dred Scott was a negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In 1834 Dr. Emerson took Scott from the State of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, Ill., and held him there as a slave until ·

April or May, 1836. At the time last mentioned, Dr. Emerson removed Scott to Fort Snelling, Minn., and there held him until 1838. At the latter place Scott was married to a colored woman who had been taken to Fort Snelling by her master in 1835, and had been subsequently sold there to Dr. Emerson. Two children were born of this marriage, and then the whole family were taken back to St. Louis and sold. Dred thereupon brought a complaint of assault and battery against John F. A. Sandford, the purchaser of himself, his wife and children, which was tried in the United States Circuit court for the District of Missouri.

Before beginning this suit Scott had brought another in the State courts of Missouri for his freedom, on the ground that hav- ing been a resident of a free State and a free Territory, he thereby relieved himself from the chains of bondage and became a citizen of the United States. The inferior court gave judg- ment in his favor, but on a writ of error to the Supreme court of the State the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. By consent this action was continued to await de- cision on the suit for assault and battery against Sandford, brought in the Federal court.

At the conclusion of the trial Scott's attorney asked the court to charge the jury, on the agreed statement of facts, to find for the plaintiff. This was refused, and the jury being instructed that the law was with the defendant, was ordered so to find. The verdict accordingly was that the plaintiff, his wife and chil- dren were slaves, as alleged by Sandford, and that therefore they had no rights in the court, and no redress against their master for personal violence.

Scott's attorney filed a bill of exception to the charge of the court, and thereupon carried the case by writ of error to the United States Supreme court. After a delay of nearly three years a decision was finally reached in March, 1857. Chief Justice Taney, speaking for the court, decided that negroes, whether free or slave, were not citizens of the United States, and that

HISTORY OF MISSOURI.

they could not become such by any process known to the con- stitution; that under the laws of the United States a negro could neither sue nor be sued, and that therefore the court had no juris- diction of Dred Scott's cause; that a slave was to be regarded in the light of a personal chattel, and that he might be removed from place to place by his owner as any other piece of property ; that the constitution gave to every slave holder the right of removing to or through any State or Territory with his slaves, and of returning with them, at will, to a State where slavery was recognized by law ; and that therefore the Missouri Compromise of 1820, as well as the compromise measures of 1850, was uncon- stitutional and void. In these opinions six of the associate justices of the Supreme bench-Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel, Campbell and Catron-concurred; while two associates-Judges McLean and Curtis-dissented. The decision of the majority, which was accepted as the opinion of the court, gave great satis- faction to the ultra slave-holding people of the South. Observ- ing that the control of Congress and the Government was slowly passing out of their hands by the tremendous expansion of the North, and the growth of the spirit of freedom, they hoped, before it was too late, to so wall in and hedge about their pecul - iar institution, that future Congresses would be unable and would not dare attempt to reach it by legislative enactments.

At the North, on the contrary, the decision excited thousands of indignant comments, and much bitter opposition. This indig- nation could not be expended in mere words, but crystallized into a well-grounded determination to resist in the free States the enforcement of the laws of the slave States which contravened or were repugnant to their own.

EVENTS PRECEDING THE CIVIL WAR.

The presidential campaign of 1860 must ever be regarded as one of the most important in the history of the republic, as the canvass of that year was one of the most exciting. Four candi- dates were in the field. The Republican party nominated Abra- ham Lincoln, on a platform in which opposition to the further extension of slavery was declared to be the vital issue. The Dem- ocratic convention, assembled at Charleston, divided on the

HISTORY OF MISSOURI.

question of slavery in the Territories, and, after a long and stormy session, the party was disrupted, and the "Southern Rights " delegates withdrew from the convention. They met first at Richmond and afterward at Baltimore, where they nomi- nated for president John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The squatter sovereignty Democrats nominated Stephen A. Douglas -the apostle of popular sovereignty. Still another-the "Ameri- can" party, or Constitutional Unionists-chose John Bell, of Tennessee, as their candidate.

The contest resulted in the election of Mr. Lincoln. The leaders of the South had declared that his election would be con- sidered as a just cause for the dissolution of the Union. The Government was under the control of the Douglas Democrats, but a majority of the cabinet and a large number of members of Congress in both Houses were supporters of Mr. Breckinridge, and the advocates of disunion. It was now evident that under the new administration all the departments of the Govern- ment must pass into the power of the Republican party. Dis- union was now possible, but the opportunity would shortly be past. The attitude of President Buchanan favored the measure. He was not himself a disunionist, but he did not consider that he had the constitutional right to coerce a sovereign State. The interval, therefore, between the presidential election of November, 1860, and the inauguration of the following March was improved to its full extent by the political leaders of the South.

SECESSION.

On the 17th of December, 1860, a convention assembled at Charleston, S. C., passed a resolution declaring that the union hitherto existing between that State and others, under the name of the United States of America, was dissolved. The cotton-growing States were almost unanimous in support of the measure. By the 1st of February, 1861, six other States - Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas- had withdrawn from the Union. Nearly all the senators and representatives of those States resigned their seats in Congress, and joined the disunion cause.

In the secession conventions there was little opposition to the

HISTORY OF MISSOURI.

movement, although in some instances a large minority vote was cast. A few of the speakers denounced disunion as wrong in principle and tending to certain ruin. Alexander H. Stevens, afterward vice-president of the Confederate States, while advo- cating the doctrine of State sovereignty and the right of seces- sion, spoke against the latter as a practical measure on the ground that it was impolitic and disastrous. Not a few promi- nent men at the South held similar views, and yet were governed by the opinion of the majority.

On the 4th day of February, 1861, delegates from six of the seceded States met at Montgomery, Ala., and formed a new government under the name of the Confederate States of America. On the 8th of the same month, the government was organized by the election of Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, as provisional president, and Alexander H. Stevens as vice-president.

In 1850 when the representatives of the slaveholders de- clared in Congress, that, unless California should be admitted as a slave State, they would break up the Union, albeit they would do it " calmly and peaceably," Daniel Webster arose in his maj- esty and uttered this remarkable and prophetic warning: -

"I hear with pain, anguish and distress the words secession; peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle-the dismemberment of this vast country- without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish as to expect to see such a thing? Sir, he who sees these States now revolving in harmony around a common center, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres and jostle against each other in realms of space, without producing the crash of the universe. There can be no such thing as peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. Is the great constitution under which we live here, covering the whole country, is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows of the mountains melt under the influence of the vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved and die off? No sir! No sir! I see it as plainly as I see the sun in heaven. I see disruption must produce such a war as I will not describe in its two-fold character."

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.

History of Hickory, Polk, Cedar, Dade, and Barton counties, Missouri, Part 8

Author: Goodspeed, firm, publishers, Chicago (1886-1891, Goodspeed Publishing Co.) Publication date: 1889 Publisher: Chicago, The Goodspeed publishing co. Number of Pages: 998

Author: Goodspeed, firm, publishers, Chicago (1886-1891, Goodspeed Publishing Co.)
Publication date: 1889
Publisher: Chicago, The Goodspeed publishing co.
Number of Pages: 998