USA > Missouri > Missouri the center state, 1821-1915 > Part 5
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
The "Oath of Loyalty" became known immediately as the "test oath." Speed- ily the qualifying adjective of "infamous" was prefixed. The words of the oath give no adequate impression of what a test it was designed to be. In Section 3, referred to at the beginning of the oath, was the interpretation and application. As the people of Missouri coupled the section with the oath they realized that sweeping political disfranchisement was only one of the consequences. The con- vention had handed out a Pandora box of trouble. Section 3 must be given in its entirety for the understanding of the full meaning of the test oath.
"Section 3. At any election held by the people under this constitution, or in pursuance of any law of this State, or under any ordinance or by-law of any municipal corporation, no person shall be deemed a qualified voter, who has ever been in armed hostility to the United States, or to the lawful authorities thereof, or to the government of this State, or has ever given aid, comfort, countenance, or support to persons engaged in any such hostility; or has ever in any manner adhered to the enemies, foreign or domestic, of the United States, either by contributing to them, or by unlawfully sending within their lines, money, goods,
20
MISSOURI, THE CENTER STATE
letter, or information; or has ever disloyally held communication with such enemies; or has ever advised or aided any person to enter the service of such enemies; or has ever, by act or word, manifested his adherence to the cause of such enemies, or his desire for their triumph over the arms of the United States, or his sympathy with those engaged in exciting or carrying on rebellion against the United States ; or has ever, except under overpowering compulsion, submitted to the authority, or been in the service of the so-called 'Confederate States of America,' or has left this State and gone within the lines of the armies of the so-called 'Confederate States of America,' with the purpose of adhering to said States or armies ; or has ever been a member of, or connected with, any order, society, or organiza- tion, inimical to the Government of the United States, or to the government of this State; or has ever been engaged in guerrilla warfare against loyal inhabitants of the United States, or in that description of marauding commonly known as 'bushwhacking'; or has ever knowingly and willingly harbored, aided, or countenanced, any person so engaged ; or has ever come into or left this State for the purpose of avoiding enrollment for or draft into the military service of the United States ; or has ever, with a view to avoid enroll- ment in the militia of this State, or to escape the performance of duty therein, or for any other purpose, enrolled himself, or authorized himself to be enrolled, by or before any officer, as "disloyal, or as a Southern sympathizer, or in any other terms indicating his dis- affection to the Government of the United States in its contest with rebellion, or his sympathy with those engaged in such rebellion; or, having ever voted at any election by the people of this State, or in any other of the United States, or in any of their territories, or held office in this State, or in any other of the United States, or in any of their territories, or under the United States, shall thereafter have sought, or received, under claim of alienagc, the protection of any foreign government, through any consul or other officer thereof, in order to secure exemption from military duty in the militia of this State, or in the army of the United States; nor shall any such person be capable of holding, in this State, any office of honor, trust, or profit, under its authority; or of being an officer, councilman, director, trustee, or other manager of any corporation, public or private now existing or hereafter established by its authority; or of acting as a professor or teacher in any educational institution, or in any common or other school; or of holding any real estate, or other property, in trust for the use of any church, religious society, or congregation. But the foregoing provisions in relation to acts done against the United States shall not apply to any person not a citizen thereof, who shall have committed such acts while in the service of some foreign country at war with the United States, and who has, since such acts, been naturalized, or may hereafter be naturalized, under the laws of the United States, and the oath of loyalty hereinafter prescribed, when taken by such person, shall be con- sidered as taken in such sense."
There are forty-five different offenses in the foregoing article. The Missourian who wished to vote, to hold office, to teach, to practice law, to preach was re- quired to swear he had not been guilty of any one of them. Under the ninth section of Article XI, which was entitled the "Right of Suffrage," it was declared that no person shall be permitted to practice law "or be competent as a bishop, priest, deacon, minister, elder or other clergyman of either religious persuasion, sect or denomination to teach or preach unless such person shall have first taken, subscribed and filed said oath."
Section II prescribed that "Every court in which any person shall be sum- moned to serve as grand or petit juror, shall require him, before he is sworn as a juror, to take said oath in open court; and no person refusing to take the same shall serve as a juror."
Senator Drake.
Carl Schurz in his "Reminiscences" drew this pen picture of the man who dominated the convention and who dictated the spirit of the constitution of 1865: "Senator Drake was an able lawyer and an unquestionably honest man, but nar-
RENE PAUL First city engineer of St. Louis
WM. CARR LANE First mayor of St. Louis
THE MARKET HOUSE AND LEVEE AT ST. LOUIS ABOUT 1840
21
THREE ORGANIC ACTS
row-minded, dogmatic and intolerant to a degree. He aspired to be the Republican 'boss' of the State-not, indeed, as if he had intended to organize a machine for the purpose of enriching himself or his henchmen. Corrupt schemes were abso- lutely foreign to his mind. He merely wished to be the recognized authority dic- tating the policies of his party and controlling the federal offices in Missouri. This ambition overruled with him all others. His appearance was not imposing, but when you approached him, he made you feel that you had to do with a man full of the consciousness of power. He was of small stature, but he planted his feet upon the ground with demonstrative firmness. His face framed with gray hair and a short stubby white beard, and marked with heavy eyebrows, usually wore a stern, and often even a surly expression. His voice had a rasping sound, and his speech, slow and peremptory, was constantly accompanied with a vigorous shake of the forefinger which meant laying down the law. I do not know to what re- ligious denomination he belonged; but he made the impression as if no religion could be satisfactory to him that did not provide for a well-kept hell fire to roast sinners and heretics. Still he was said to be very kind and genial with his family and in his circle of intimate friends. But in politics he was inexorable."
Senator Vest described the situation in Missouri vividly: "The Girondists, under the leadership of Hamilton R. Gamble, had disappeared, and the Jacobins, under the leadership of Charles D. Drake, were in possession of the State. The Drake constitution had been enacted-the most drastic, the most cruel, the most outrageous enactment ever known in a civilized country. No man could practise law, teach school, preach the Gospel, act as trustee, hold any office of honor, trust, or profit, or vote at any election, unless he swore he had never sympathized with the cause of the Confederacy or any person fighting for it. The father who had given a drink of water or a crust of bread to his son who belonged to the Confed- erate forces was ostracised and put under the ban of the law. Blair came back and went to the polls, dressed in his major-general's uniform, and demanded the right to vote without taking the oath. It was denied, and he immediately com- menced suit against the election officials. Pending the suit, a Catholic priest named Cummings, who had instituted a similar proceeding, had his case adjud- icated by the supreme court, and it was decided that the Drake constitution violated that of the United States and was a bill of attainder and ex post facto law. Gen- eral Blair, not satisfied, attacked the Drake party throughout the commonwealth, and canvassed it from one end to the other, denouncing the men who were per- petrating these iniquities upon the people of the State."
In reversing the decision of the supreme court of Missouri and in declaring the test oath in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the court of last resort said: "The counsel from Missouri closed his arguments in this case by presenting a striking picture of the struggle for the ascendency in that State' during the recent revolution between the forces and the enemies of the Union, and the fierce passions which that struggle raised. It was in the midst of the struggle that the present constitution was framed, although it was not adopted by the people until the war was closed. It would have been strange, therefore, had it not exhibited in its provisions some traces of the excitement under which the convention held its deliberations. It was against the excited action of the States, under such influences as these, that the Federal Constitution was intended to guard."
22
MISSOURI, THE CENTER STATE
The section applying to ministers, lawyers and teachers aroused the earliest and greatest opposition. While the constitution went into effect on the 4th of July, 1865, Carl Schurz, B. Gratz Brown and other prominent Republicans formally started a movement for universal amnesty and enfranchisement in Mis- souri. So widespread was the opposition to the ninth section that Governor Fletcher, in January, 1867, recommended the constitution be amended to strike out these obnoxious provisions. Reaction from the test oath was rapid. Its first practical effect was the political downfall of Drake. That came within three years. Missouri went Republican in 1868, but the legislature refused to accept Drake's candidate, Ben F. Loan, for the Senate and elected Carl Schurz, who was the editor of the Westliche Post and had been a resident of the State a short time.
How Schurz Became Senator.
In his "Reminiscences" Carl Schurz tells the story of his candidacy for the Senate : "I was a member of a little club consisting of a few gentlemen of the same way of thinking in politics and who dined together and then discussed cur- rent events once or twice a month. At one of those dinners, soon after the Presi- dential election of 1868, the conversation turned upon the impending election of Senator Henderson's successor and the candidacy of Mr. Drake's favorite, General Loan. We were all agreed in heartily disliking Mr. Drake's kind of statesman- ship. We likewise agreed in disliking the prospect of seeing Mr. Drake duplicated in the Senate-indeed fully duplicated-by the election of Mr. Loan. But how to prevent it? We all recognized, regretfully, the absolute impossibility of getting the legislature to re-elect Mr. Henderson. But what other candidate was there to oppose MIr. Loan? One of our table-round turned to me and said: 'You!' The others instantly and warmly applauded. The thought that I, a comparatively newcomer in Missouri, should be elected Senator in preference to others who had been among the leaders in the great crisis of the State only a few years ago, seemed to me extravagant, and I was by no means eager to expose myself to what I considered almost certain defeat. But my companions insisted, and I finally agreed that a 'feeler' might be put out in the Democrat, the leading Republican journal in St. Louis, of which Colonel William M. Grosvenor, a member of our little table company, was the editor-in-chief."
The "feeler" took well. Newspaper notices of Schurz were favorable. As- surances of support came from the interior of the State. The legislature met in January, 1869. Schurz went to Jefferson City with a few friends. Senator Drake came on from Washington full of confidence that Loan would be elected when the caucus was held. He freely expressed his opinion that there was noth- ing in the candidacy of Schurz. When the suggestion was made that the caucus hear the two candidates and himself, Senator Drake readily agreed. The ar- rangement was made that two evenings should be given to the speeches. By the program Schurz was to open and Loan was to follow. Then Senator Drake was to speak. The argumentative tournament was to be closed by Schurz. This program was carried out to the great interest of the legislators. It was opened rather indifferently. Some who had been told much of the German's oratorical power were disappointed. When the Senator's turn came, he made a strong appeal but it was in a more liberal and conciliatory spirit than might have been
THE HOME OF MADAME CHOUTEAU, MOTHER OF ST. LOUIS
23
THREE ORGANIC ACTS
expected from the author of the test oath. In closing Schurz was at his best. He captivated the caucus. He sprung a trap on Senator Drake in one of the most dramatic incidents of Missouri politics. He read what he said was formerly the position of Drake on state issues. He contrasted those drastic opinions with the more conciliatory utterances just heard by the caucus. Charles E. Weller, one of the veteran stenographers of Missouri, has well described how the trap which determined a senatorship was set and sprung :
"L. L. Walbridge had reported the constitutional convention of 1865, but by reason of lack of state funds it was never ordered written out, and the notes were finally consigned to the junk pile as a 'dead horse' with no hope of ever being called upon to write it up. The senatorial contest waxed warm, and in the midst of it somebody who was present at the constitutional convention called Schurz's attention to the fact that Drake had made a certain speech in that convention in which he took a stand on an important question which was totally at variance with his later attitude. It became very important for Mr. Schurz to obtain a transcript of that speech and he called on Walbridge and asked him to make a thorough search for his notes, which Walbridge proceeded to do, with little hope of finding it among a mass of old note books covered with the soot and dust of past years, but, fortunately for Mr. Schurz, Walbridge found the notes of the speech and wrote it out for him. Two months later, after the usual preliminary caucuses, the legislature met in joint session, at which they were to be addressed at length by each candidate in his own behalf. It was a battle royal. Drake, who had for years been the autocrat of his party in Missouri, with his ponderous utterances, his dogmatic demeanor, which was characteristic of the man: Schurz, on the other. hand, always cool and collected, polite and courteous to his opponent, which gave him a decided advantage over his fiery antagonist.
"During Schurz's speech, which closed the debate before the legislative caucus, he drew from his pocket Walbridge's transcript and began reading therefrom. Drake started up, as the fatal words fell upon his ear, and his former utterances rose before him like Banquo's ghost, and harshly demanded of Schurz, 'What are you reading, sir?' 'From a report of your speech delivered at the constitutional convention in 1865,' blandly replied Schurz. 'Reported by whom?' demanded Drake. 'Reported by Mr. Walbridge, who sits at the table here, and is reporting the proceedings of this meeting,' replied Schurz. Drake looked despairingly at Walbridge, whom he knew too well to question his accuracy as a reporter, and sank back into his chair, and shortly afterwards the legislature proceeded to ballot, resulting in the election of Carl Schurz to the United States Senate. It was an embarrassing position for Walbridge, who was a personal friend of Drake's, and regretted to have been the means of inflicting the final blow which resulted in his downfall."
When Schurz ended his speech, Drake recognized his defeat. He left Jefferson City that night. Before his senatorial term expired he resigned and accepted the appointment of chief justice of the court of claims at Washington. Missouri knew him no more.
The Constitution of 1875.
Even with the test oath eliminated "the Drake Constitution" could not get rid of its bad name. In 1874 a movement in favor of another constitutional conven- tion, the fourth in the history of the State, was inaugurated. It was carried by a popular vote. The delegates constituted probably the ablest body of men ever assembled in Missouri. Among them were Washington Adams of Cooper, De Witt C. Allen of Clay, A. M. Alexander of Monroe, F. M. Black of Jackson, James O. Broadhead of St. Louis, Henry C. Brockmeyer of St. Louis, L. H. Davis of Cape Girardeau, James C. Edwards of St. Louis, Thomas T. Gantt of St. Louis, A. M. Lay of Cole, B. F. Massey of Newton, Elijah H. Norton of
24
MISSOURI, THE CENTER STATE
Platte, Henry T. Mudd of St. Louis, Joseph Pulitzer of St. Louis, John F. Rucker of Boone, Thomas Shackleford of Howard, George H. Shields of St. Louis, Wil- liam F. Switzler of Boone, Amos R. Taylor of St. Louis, Albert Todd of St. Louis and Henry C. Wallace of Lafayette.
One man who sat in the convention of 1865 was elected to that of 1875-Mr. Switzler.
When the convention had completed the draft the delegates unanimously ap- proved it. The constitution was carried by the remarkable vote of 91,205 to 14,517. In later years some of the provisions have been criticised even by courts as too restrictive. The name of "the strait jacket constitution" has been applied by those who thought sufficient power was not given to the legislature to encourage industrial development.
CHAPTER III SLAVERY AND AFTER.
Immigration Influenced-Illinois Envious of Missouri Prosperity-The Secret Emancipation Movement-Benton in It-Thomas Wilson's Letter-Coming of Lovejoy-St. Louis Observer-Attacks on the Peculiar Institution-A Raid on the Printing Office-The Alton Trogedy-Treatment of St. Louis Slaves-What Kossuth Saw-Madame Chou- teau's Consideration-A Colonial Problem-The Spanish Policy-Slave Importation a Concession-Thomas Shackleford's Reminiscences-Dred Scott-Five Years of Litiga- tion-The Missouri Compromise Unconstitutional-The Blair Slaves Manumitted- Growth of Emancipation Sentiment-William Hyde's Graphic Analysis-Missourians in the Forefront-Blair and Lincoln Confer-Slavery Issue in 1860-Auctions Made Odious -The Proposition to Pay Missouri Slavchalders-President Lincoln's Interest-Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego-John B. Henderson's Recollections-Elijah H. Norton's Argu- ment-Charcoals and Claybanks-An Election in 1862-The First and Second Plans of Emancipation-Negro Education-Lincoln Institute-Manual Training-Samuel Cupples' Interest-Vest on the Ex-Slavc-Negro Farmers-Their Holdings Estimated at Nearly $30,000,000-Premium for "the Highest Yield of Corn on One Acre" Won by a Negro-Calvin M. Woodward's Monument.
We can't get through this terrible war with slavery existing. You've got sense enough to know that. Why can't you make the horder States' members see it? Why don't you turn in and take pay for your slaves from the government? Then all your people can give their hearty support to the Union. We can go ahead with emancipation of the slaves hy proclamation in the other States and end the trouble .- President Lincoln to Senator John B. Henderson in 1862.
No sooner was Missouri admitted to the Union than there was a renewal of the slavery issue in the new-made State across the Mississippi. Ford in his His- tory of Illinois, said: "A tide of emigrants was pouring into Missouri, through Illinois, from Virginia and Kentucky. In the fall of the year every great road was full of them all bound for Missouri, with their money, and long trains of teams and negroes. These were the most wealthy and best educated emigrants from the slave States. Many of our people, who had lands and farms to sell, looked upon the great fortune of Missouri with envy, whilst the lordly emigrant, as he passed along with his money and droves of negroes, took a malicious pleasure in increasing it, by pretending to regret the shortsighted policy of Illinois, which precluded him from settlement amongst us, and from purchasing the lands from our people. In this mode a desire to make Illinois a slave State became quite prevalent." When the Missouri question was before Congress the two Illinois Senators, Ninian Edwards and Jesse B. Thomas, voted to admit as a slave State, while the single Representative, Cook, was on the other side. Whether Illinois should follow Missouri and become a slave State was one of the chief issues in the election of 1822. There were four candidates for governor. Edward Coles, who had come out from Virginia and had freed his slaves, was elected by a plurality over Chief Justice Joseph Philips, who divided the pro-slavery vote with Judge Thomas C. Brown.
25
26
MISSOURI, THE CENTER STATE
A Secret Conference.
After the admission of the State, Missourians who disliked slavery began to plan for gradual emancipation. Benton was among those who counselled such a course. Missouri was not a cotton State. It had comparatively a small popu- lation limited to certain sections. It looked to free labor for its development. In 1828, Missourians held a secret conference to consider what could be done to bring about emancipation. The two United States Senators, John Wilson and others were in the conference. Wilson at the time lived in Fayette. He was a lawyer and political leader. Years afterwards he removed to San Francisco, living there to the ripe old age of eighty-seven. A letter from Wilson, written to Thomas Shackleford and preserved by the Missouri Historical Society, gives his recollections of the movement and of what led to the abandonment of it:
"In 1827 (I believe it may have been in 1828), I was one of those who attended a private meeting in that good old State, of about twenty of us claiming at least to be party leaders, about equally representing every district of the State, of about equal numbers of Democrats and Whigs. Colonel Benton and Judge Barton were present, the two latter, however, not being on speaking terms. One object that brought us together was to con- sider how we should get rid of slavery in Missouri. We unanimously determined to urge action upon all candidates at the approaching election. Resolutions were drawn up and printed (in secret) and distributed amongst us, with an agreement that on the same day these resolutions, in the shape of memorials, were to be placed before the people all over the State, and both parties were to urge the people to sign them. Our combination, too, then had the power to carry out our project. Unfortunately, before the day arrived, it was published in the newspapers generally that Arthur Tappan of New York had entertained at his private table some negro men, and that, in fact, these negro men had rode out in his private carriage with his daughters. Perhaps it was not true, but it was believed in Missouri, and raised such a furor that we dare not and did not let our memorials see the light. And, as well as I can call to mind, of the individuals who composed this secret meeting, I am the only one left to tell the tale; but for that story of the conduct of the great original fanatic on this subject we should have carried, under the leadership of Barton and Benton, our project, and begun in future the emancipation of the colored race that would long since have been followed by Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. Our purpose further, after we got such a law safely placed on the statute books, was to have followed it up by a provision requiring the masters of those who should be born to be free to teach them to read and write. This shows you how little a thing turns the destiny of nations."
The Lovejoy Tragedy .*
Elijah Parrish Lovejoy came to Missouri in the latter part of 1827. He was twenty-five years of age, a native of Maine, the son of Rev. Daniel Lovejoy, a Congregational minister. He had graduated at Waterville College in 1826 and after teaching school in Maine several months he caught the western fever. In St. Louis, Lovejoy became first a school teacher. He was an industrious reader and in a short time began writing for the newspapers. One of his first articles was a poem addressed to his mother. It appeared in the Missouri Republican.
The next year after taking his residence in St. Louis, Lovejoy became con- nected with the Times, the first of five newspapers which have borne that name in St. Louis. The Times was supporting Henry Clay for the presidency. Young Lovejoy rapidly obtained a reputation in his writing which made him popular with the Whigs. He might have become prominent in politics, but in the winter of 1831-32 he was converted in a religious revival. This experience changed his
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.