USA > Missouri > History of southeast Missouri : a narrative account of its historical progress, its people and its principal interests, Volume I > Part 36
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 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103
Up to this time he had supposed that his brother, Eustache, and his sister, the wife of Francois LeSieur, had been killed in the earth- quakes; he was informed by his sister, how- ever, that his relatives in New Madrid were still living. He at once communicated with them, to their very great astonishment, for
they had considered him to be dead; in fact, after his leaving New Madrid in 1808, a re- port had come back to the post of his death, and they had sold the land that had been granted to him, consisting of 160 arpens of land, for a very small sum. This land had then passed into the hands of the persons who speculated in the land grants after the time of the earthquake. The state of Missouri had given to the purchasers of the Delisle land the right to locate an equal amount of land at some other place in the state and they had located this claim on the Missouri river where the city of Jefferson City now is. This grant from the state included within it the capitol grounds. Now, when John Baptiste De Lisle received this information that the land which he had possessed had passed away from him in this manner and that the state had given to the purchasers of his land a valuable grant, he brought suit against the state of Missouri to have the title to the lands thus granted declared to be in him. After various trials, the case was finally appealed to the Supreme court of the United States. It continued in that court from 1844 to 1862. In that year the court rendered a decision denying the claim of De Lisle to the land.
The earthquakes resulted in an immediate loss of population throughout all the region affected. Most people who could do so moved away at once. Those who remained were either the more determined and daring of the population or they were the poorest who could not afford to leave. The flourishing village
in consequence, as the inhabitants say and as was also affirmed in New Madrid, of the land having sunk 10 feet or more below its former level." (Nuttall Journal, pp. 78-79.)
The force of the shocks was felt over a very wide area and extended as far north as the Missouri river. Flagg, who visited Cape Gir-
ardeau in 1836, says that the great earthquake of 1811 agitated the site of Cape Girardeau very severely, many brick houses were shat- tered, chimneys thrown down and other dam- age effected, traces of the repairs of which are yet to be viewed. (Flagg, Far West, p. 87.)
233
HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST MISSOURI
of Little Prairie which, in 1803, had a popu- lation of 103, almost entirely disappeared. Only a few families remained. Among them was Col. J. H. Walker, who was not frightened enough to leave. New Madrid suffered greatly
in the same way, the population showing a great falling off shortly after the shocks. The same thing was true of the settlements and small villages all over the district.
CHAPTER XV
STATEHOOD ATTAINED
PETITION FOR ORGANIZATION AS A STATE-BILL TO ORGANIZE A STATE GOVERNMENT - THE SLAVERY CONTROVERSY-THE TALLMADGE AMENDMENT-DEBATE OVER THE AMENDMENT- DEADLOCK OF THE TWO HOUSES-THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE-FEELING IN THE STATE- THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION-MEMBERS FROM THE SOUTHEAST-THE CONSTITUTION IN CONGRESS-FURTHER OPPOSITION TO ADMISSION - THE DEBATE - CLAY'S COMPROMISE - THE SOLEMN PUBLIC ACT-THE PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION ADMITTING THE STATE-PE- CULIARITIES OF THE TRANSACTION-STATE BOUNDARIES -- MISSOURI - ARKANSAS - WOLF ISLAND.
The territory of Missouri grew, as we have seen, very rapidly in wealth and population. The people, though living since 1816 under the third or highest form of territorial gov- ernment, desired to be organized as a state and to be admitted to the Union. Accord- ingly, we find that in 1817 a number of peti- tions were drawn up and circulated among the people of the territory asking Congress to authorize the organization of a state govern- ment. Most of these petitions were lost, but recently Mr. Bartholdt, a member of Congress from St. Louis, found one of the copies and had it framed and preserved. It is set out below :
"Memorial of the Citizens of Missouri Ter- ritory-To the Honorable, the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled :- The pe- tition of the undersigned inhabitants of the Territory of Missouri respectfully showeth : That your petitioners live within that part of
the Territory of Missouri which lies between the latitudes of 36 degrees and 30 minutes and 40 degrees north, and between the Missis- sippi river to the east and the Osage boundary to the west. They pray that they may be admitted into the Union of the states with these limits.
"They conceive that their numbers entitle them to the benefits and to the rank of a state government. Taking the progressive increase during former years as the basis of the calcu- lation they estimate their present numbers at 40,000 souls. Tennessee, Ohio and the Missis- sippi state were admitted with smaller num- bers, and the treaty of cession guarantees this great privilege to your petitioners as soon as it can be granted under the principles of the Federal Constitution. They have passed eight years in the first grade of territorial govern- ment, five in the second: they have evinced their attachment to the honor and integrity of the Union during the late war and they with deference urge their right to become a
234
235
HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST MISSOURI
member of the great republic. They forbear to dilate upon the evils of the territorial gov- ernment but will barely name among the grievances of this condition :
"1. That they have no vote in your honor- able body and yet are subject to the indirect taxation imposed by you.
"2. That the veto of the territorial execu- tive is absolute upon the acts of the territorial legislature.
"3. That the Superior Court is constructed on principles unheard of in any other system of jurisprudence, having primary cognizance of almost every controversy, civil and erim- inal, and subject to correction by no other tribunal.
"4. That the powers of the territorial leg- islature are limited to the passage of laws of a local nature owing to the paramount au- thority of Congress to legislate upon the same subject."
And after describing the boundaries of the proposed new state the memorialists say that the boundaries, as solicited, will include the country to the north and west to which the Indian title has been extinguished, also the body of the population; that the Missouri river will run through the center of the state; that the boundaries are adapted to the coun- try : that "the woodland districts are found towards the great rivers; the interior is com- posed of vast ridges and naked and sterile plains stretching to the Shining mountains;" and that the country north and south of the Missouri is necessary to each other, the former possessing a rich soil destitute of minerals, the latter abounding in mines of lead and iron and thinly sprinkled with spots of ground fit for cultivation. In conclusion the memorial- ists say that they "hope that their voice may have some weight in the division of their country and in the formation of their state
boundaries; and that statesmen ignorant of its localities may not undertake to ent out their territory with fanciful divisions which may look handsome on paper, but must be ruinous in effect."
This petition was signed by Jacob Petit, Isaac W. Jameson, Sam S. Williams and others, nearly all of whom were at the time citizens of Washington county. The memorial was presented to Congress in January, 1818, but no action seems to have been taken upon it, nor upon other similar or perhaps identical petitions presented at the same time. In December of the same year, however, the terri- torial assembly of Missouri drew np a memo- rial on the same subject, which was presented to Congress by John Seott of Ste. Genevieve, the territorial delegate. This memorial was thereupon presented to a committee for con- sideration and report. This committee re- ported in favor of the organization of a state government in Missouri, and a bill was drawn and presented to the house for that purpose. The consideration of this bill precipitated a great diseussion and brought to the front for the first time, in an acute way, the slavery question.
To understand the history of this bill and the great controversy that raged over the ad- mission of the state, we must reeall the situa- tion that existed in the Union. The slavery question was already exciting people. It had not yet come to be regarded with such pas- sionate earnestness as a moral question as it was later destined to be considered, but as a political question it was already before the people. A fierce contest raged between the north and south for the control of Congress. Power in political affairs had for some years vacillated between slave and free states. A few years prior to the introduction of this
236
HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST MISSOURI
bill the north had a preponderance in both houses of Congress. That preponderance still maintained so far as the house was concerned. The organization of Alabama and its pending admission, however, threatened to increase the already superior power of the south in the senate. It was this political situation, the de- sire to control Congress, rather than opposi- tion to slavery as an institution, that caused the opposition to the organization of Mis- souri. If Missouri and Alabama should both come into the Union as slave states, as was very probable, then the balance of power would be destroyed and the south would have a very great preponderance in the senate. It was determined to prevent this if possible.
It was considered almost certain that if the people of Missouri were left free to determine the question of slavery in the state for them- selves that the constitution of the state would permit the existence of the institution. Some way must be accordingly found by which the matter of determining the question could be taken out of the hands of the people and trans- ferred to Congress. It had been suggested, in the case of Alabama, that a provision in the act permitting the organization of the state, require the prohibition of slavery as a condi- tion precedent to its admission. It was ob- jected to this course, however, that when Georgia ceded the territory out of which Ala- bama was subsequently organized it was stip- ulated that no restriction should be placed upon slavery. This was regarded as standing in the way of any attempt to dictate to the people of the state their attitude toward it. Accordingly nothing was said concerning slavery in the act authorizing the admission of Alabama. It was felt, however, that some provision must be made concerning slavery in Missouri.
Accordingly, Mr. Tallmadge of New York,
moved to amend the bill by inserting the fol- lowing provision: "And provided that the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for punish- ment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, and that all children born within the said state after the admission thereof into the Union shall be free at the age of twenty-five years."
The debate over this amendment was long and bitter. The opponents of the amendment contended that such action was contrary to the action of Congress in the admission of Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, all of which had been admitted as slave states without such provision ; that it violated the treaty entered into with France at the time of the cession of Louisiana, one clause of which guaranteed to the people of that territory, including Missouri, the posses- sion of their property. It was urged that if Congress had respected the provision made by Georgia in ceding Alabama, then it should re- spect the treaty obligations of the government of the United States. It was further urged that such a clause, hampering the free action of the people of a state, was beyond the power of Congress to make, and therefore unconsti- tutional ; that it put a stigma upon the people of Missouri, in that it did not admit them upon equal terms with the other states; and finally, that if the clause were inserted in the state constitution it could be repealed or amended at any time by action of the people of Mis- souri.
The friends of the amendment contended that the very fact that Congress could admit or reject a state was sufficient evidence that it possessed the power to prescribe the terms of admission; that the fact that slavery was morally wrong; that it was a political and economie evil existing only by virtue of local laws, conferred on Congress the right and
237
HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST MISSOURI
power to supersede, if necessary, treaty obli- gations, and take those measures needed for the best interests of the country.
After long debate the amendment passed the house, but the amended bill was rejected by the senate, and the fifteenth Congress ad- journed with a deadlock between the houses. The question was presented to the sixteenth Congress in December, 1819. Neither house seemed ready to recede from its position, but a new element entered into the discussion. Maine had applied for admission to the Union. It would come in, if admitted, as a free state. Its admission was desired by those who wished to place a restriction on the admission of Mis- souri. The senate, therefore, at the sugges- tion of Senator Jesse B. Thomas, of Illinois, united the measures for the two states into one bill. It was declared by those opposed to the restriction on Missouri that, unless that restriction was abandoned and Missouri ad- mitted on terms of equality with other states, Maine should not be admitted at all. The debate over this matter continued for several weeks. A deadlock again occurred between the two houses. Out of that disagreement came the measures which are collectively known as the Missouri Compromise.
Maine was admitted as a free state; the people of Missouri were authorized to form a government without any clause in the act re- ferring to slavery, and it was stipulated that slavery should be excluded from "all the ter- ritory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, north of thirty- six degrees and thirty minutes north lati- tude," except, of course, Missouri.
This series of measures known as the Mis- souri Compromise was approved on March 6. 1820. As we have said, this authorized the formation of a state government in Missouri;
but, contrary to the usual practice, did not provide for the admission of the state into the Union. The people had no sort of guarantee that they would be admitted, even after the formation of their government. In pursu- ance of the terms of the act, an election was held in the territory in May, 1820, to select members of a constitutional convention. This convention was empowered, by the terms un- der which its members were elected, to de- termine by majority whether it was expedient for them to frame a constitution, and, if con- sidered expedient, to proceed to the work of making the constitution. If, on the other hand, they felt that it was not the time for this work, they were authorized to provide for the election of another convention.
It is quite probable that a constitution favoring slavery would have been adopted in the state, no matter at what time the mem- bers of the convention had been elected. What was a mere probability, however, became a certainty, owing to the feeling of irritation over the attempted restriction on what was felt to be the right of the people of the state to decide the slavery question for themselves free from the dictation of Congress. John Scott had declared during the discussion of the Tallmadge amendment that the proposed limitation of the power of the people was an insult to them, and this was the prevailing sentiment in the state. Under such conditions the members of the constitutional convention were chosen and they were for a slavery con- stitution by a large majority.
This convention met in St. Louis, June 12, 1820. Its sessions were held in the hotel at the corner of Third and Vine streets, known as the "Mansion House." There were forty- one members of the convention. The South- cast Missouri members were as follows: From
.
238
HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST MISSOURI
Cape Girardeau county, Stephen Byrd, James Evans, Richard S. Thomas, Alexander Buck- ner and Joseph McFerron ; Jefferson county, Daniel Hammond ; Madison county, Nathaniel Cook ; New Madrid county, Robert D. Dawson and Christopher G. Houts; Ste. Genevieve county, John D. Cook, Henry Dodge, John Scott and R. T. Brown; Washington county, John Rice Jones, Samuel Perry and John Hutchings; Wayne county, Elijah Bettis. David Barton, of St. Louis, was made presi- dent of the convention and William G. Pettis, secretary.
The convention was in session for a little more than a month, adjourning July 19, 1820. It was at once agreed that a constitu- tion should be framed and the month the con- vention was in session was devoted to this work. The constitution thus made was in force in this state until superseded by the Drake constitution in 1865. It was compar- atively short, concise in statement, and was evidently the work of a statesman and thinker. It sanctioned slavery, as was almost certain in any case, but doubly so after the attempted restriction by Congress. This constitution, under the terms of the election of the mem- bers of the convention, did not require to be submitted to the people of the state for their approval; it became effective at once, upon the close of the convention.
The second session of the sixteenth Congress met November 13, 1820, and on the 16th of November Mr. Scott, the delegate from Mis- souri, presented to the house a copy of the constitution of the state. This constitution was referred to the committee which reported on the 23rd, reciting the fact that Congress had previously authorized the formation of the state government ; that the people of the state had held the convention and formed the con- stitution ; and that said constitution "is Re-
publican and in conformity with the provi- sions of said act." Accompanying this pre- amble was a resolution to admit the state into the Union on equal terms with the other states.
Doubtless it was supposed by the people of the state that there would be no further dif- ficulty over its admission. They had com- plied with the terms of the act authorizing the formation of a government. That act con- tained no prohibition on slavery and it would seem that there was no possible ground on which the state might be refused admission. In spite of these facts, the resolution to admit the state was very bitterly fought. The os- tensible ground of objection was the follow- ing clause in the constitution itself: "It shall be their duty, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary to prevent free negroes and mulattos from coming to and settling in this state under any pretext what- soever."
The opponents of the admission of Missouri argued that this clause in the constitution of the state was in direct violation of that clause in the constitution of the United States which guarantees equal privileges in all the states to the citizens of each state, of which priv- ileges the right of emigration is one. On the other hand, it was pointed out that similar clauses controlling emigration existed in the constitutions of a number of states and that no objection had ever been raised to them; and it was further pointed out that if this clause was in reality in opposition to the con- stitution of the United States, it would be de- clared null and void by the supreme court of the United States.
It is clear, of course, that the real ground of objection to the admission of Missouri was not this paragraph. The motive of the men who opposed Missouri was not to protect the rights
239
HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST MISSOURI
of a few negroes who might possibly wish to move to Missouri. In spite of the fact that the Missouri Compromise had been agreed to, there were a large number of the members of the house who had determined that the state should never be admitted as a slave state, and their real motive was the desire to keep the state from being admitted until a eonstitu- tion prohibiting slavery should be adopted.
The debate on this resolution was one of the fiercest that ever took place in Congress. The whole country was stirred to fever heat by the charges and eounter charges, by the threats of cession and the breaking up of the Union that were made on both sides. The whole institution of slavery was attacked with utmost vehemence and the right of the people of the states to decide this question for them- selves was defended with equal fervor. After several weeks of debate, and at a time when it seemed the very foundations of the govern- ment itself would crumble; when fear was present everywhere that the Union could not long survive, Henry Clay, of Kentucky, in- troduced a resolution, which was adopted, pro- viding that a committee of twenty-three mem- bers should be appointed by the senate and the house, who should take the whole matter under consideration and make a report to Congress. After long discussion, this commit- tee reported to each house of Congress, Febru- ary 26, 1821, a resolution which provided that Missouri should be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the original states upon the fundamental condition that the 4th clause of the 26th section of the 3rd article of the constitution-the clause which forbade im- migration of negroes-should never be con- strued to authorize the passage of any law by which any citizen of either of the states should be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges to which he is entitled under the
constitution of the United States. The resolu- tion further provided that the legislature of Missouri by a solemn public act should de- clare the assent of the state to this funda- mental condition, and should transmit to the president of the United States a copy of their actions. The president was thereupon anthor- ized to issue a proclamation reciting the fact that the legislature had passed such an act and that upon the making of this proclama- tion the admission to Missouri should be con- sidered as complete.
The resolution so reported was adopted on February 28th. The reason for referring the matter to the president and making his proc- lamation the basis for the final admission of the state, rather than an act of Congress, was to avoid any further discussion or agitation of a question which was felt to be dangerous to the safety of the country. All that remained to be done, under the terms of this resolution was for the legislature of the state to publish the solemn public act required of it. In order to do this, Governor Clark convened the legis- lature in special session June 24, 1821, and on June 26th the legislature adopted the fol- lowing act: "Forasmuch as the good people of this state have, by the most solemn and publie act in their power, virtually assented to the said fundamental condition, when, by their representatives in full and free conven- tion assembled, they adopted the constitution of this state, and consented to be incorporated into the federal Union, and governed by the constitution of the United States, which, among other things, provides that the said constitution and laws of the United States, made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything
240
HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST MISSOURI
in the constitution or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. And although this general assembly do most solemnly declare that the Congress of the United States have no constittuional power to annex any condi- tion to the admission of this state into the fed- eral Union, and that this general assembly have no power to change the operation of the constitution of this state, except in the mode prescribed in the constitution itself, neverthe- less, as the Congress of the United States has desired this general assembly to declare the assent of this state to said fundamental condi- tion, and forasmuch as such declaration will neither restrain nor enlarge, limit nor extend, the operation of the constitution of the United States or of this state; but the said constitu- tion will remain in all respects as if the said resolution had never passed, and the desired declaration was never made; and because such declaration will not divest any power or change the duties of any of the constitutional authorities of this state or of the United States, nor impair the rights of the people of this state, or impose any additional obligation upon them, but may promote an earlier en- joyment of their vested federal rights, and this state being, moreover, determined to give to her sister states and to the world the most unequivocal proof of her desire to promote the peace and harmony of the Union, there- fore
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.