Hi323

March 6, 1997

In January of 1819 Representative John W. Taylor of New York asked the Congress to provide that the further introduction of slavery be prohibited from the Arkansas Territory. His motion was defeated, and Arkansas was organized without any restriction on slavery. On February 13^th, Congressman James Talmadge of New York, a former Federalist, rose up to speak on the enabling bill to admit Missouri into the Union. He created quite a stir by suggesting that Congress impose conditions on admission: (1) Missouri must prohibit any more slaves from entering the state, and (2) children born of slaves in Missouri after Missouri became a state should be freed when they reached the age of 25. The ensuing debate, passionate and explosive, frightened those who read about it in the newspapers. Thomas Jefferson, living in retirement at Monticello, later wrote to John Holmes of Massachusetts: "this momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union." He added, "I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it."

What lay behind Talmadge's proposition and the reactions to it of others within Congress and without? Why all the excitement about Missouri? What did members of the Congress have to consider in their debate? How would they vote?

When the United States achieved recognition as a nation by the Treaty of Paris of 1783, it held territories south of Canada, east of the Mississippi, and north of Florida. Land ordinances adopted by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation provided a procedure by which territories would be organized and by which territories could apply to Congress for admission into the Union. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 prohibited the introduction of slavery into the area bounded by the Ohio River and the Mississippi-later occupied by the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This ordinance was reaffirmed by the first Congress elected under the Constitution. Such prohibition did not apply to areas south of the Ohio River. The ordinance harmonized with revolutionary sentiments that ran against the idea of permanent colonies, and allowed new members of the Union, once admitted, to have the same standing as any of the original states.

President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 acquired the Louisiana Territory by a treaty, ratified by the Senate, and he commissioned the Lewis and Clark expedition to explore the western boundary of this land. Missouri lay within Louisiana and already had a lengthy history under French and Spanish control. At first Jefferson considered moving all European settlers from Missouri eastward and making the area a permanent home for various Indian tribes. He imagined those tribes learning agricultural skills and becoming farmers. However, there were already as many as 10,000 persons living there, including 1,500 blacks, and several towns of significance, including St. Louis where the Missouri converged with the Mississippi. He quickly abandoned the idea. Missouri did not have much experience with self government under either the French or the Spanish, and the settlers fought over competing land claims derived from French, Spanish, and Indian authorities. Daniel Boone, Moses Austin, George Morgan, James Wilkinson, and Aaron Burr were all attracted to the opportunities that the area offered for trade, mining, political offices, and intrigue. Meriwether Lewis became territorial governor from 1807-1809; William Clark served in that capacity from 1813-1820. Settlers increased to the point that by 1820 there were as many as 56,000 whites, 10,000 slaves, and 375 free black persons in Missouri.

In the years since 1789 new states had been routinely admitted to the Union without regard for the status of slavery. In 1790 North Carolina and Rhode Island, neither of which had previously adopted the Constitution nor had participated in the presidential election of 1789, belatedly ratified and became the twelfth and thirteenth state. In 1791 Congress admitted Vermont, whose territory had been the subject of rival claims by Massachusetts and New York, and in 1792 and 1796 Kentucky and Tennessee, located just to the west of Virginia and North Carolina. In 1798 Congress created the Mississippi Territory, and settlement began slowly in the southwest. In 1805 Congress established the Louisiana and Michigan Territories and in 1809 the Illinois Territory. In 1812 Congress admitted Louisiana into the Union and organized the Missouri Territory. During the War of 1812, the United States seized West Florida, a land claimed by Spain. Congress admitted Indiana into the Union in 1816, Mississippi in 1817, Illinois in 1818, and Alabama in 1819. Admission meant that the new state immediately had two Senators and one Representative in the Congress (hence three electoral votes).

By the end of 1819, the Union consisted of 22 states (year of admission in parentheses): Alabama (1819), Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois (1818), Indiana (1816), Kentucky (1792), Louisiana (1812), Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi (1817), New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina (1789), Ohio (1803), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island (1790), South Carolina, Tennessee (1796), and Virginia. There were organized territories in Alabama, Arkansas, Michigan, and Mississippi, each with a non voting delegate to the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.

At the time the thirteen colonies declared their independence from Great Britain, slavery existed throughout. But the older states in the North began the process of ending slavery during the later years of the Revolutionary War. For example, Pennsylvania adopted a law in 1780 that abolished slavery. In Massachusetts the state's supreme court in 1783 prohibited slavery. Rhode Island and Connecticut passed abolitionist legislation in 1784, while New York and New Jersey passed preliminary measures for gradual emancipation in 1785 and 1786 that were strengthened in the years 1799-1804. It is important to note that these were state, not federal, measures. Step by step, slavery ceased being a national institution, and by the early 19^th century it had become the peculiar (i.e. distinguishing) institution of the South.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, enacted by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, and passed again by the first Congress under the Constitution, excluded slavery from the territory. Clearly members of both Congresses believed that the central government had the authority to take such action in the territories, but few, if any, claimed that the federal government could abolish slavery in any state. Indeed, it might be argued that slavery existed only in those states where positive law recognized it and protected it; those were state laws. The absence of a slave code in any territory or state would subject slave-holders to the risks of losing their property in slaves.

The emergence of western states, both the Northwest and Southwest, shifted the sectional balance within the United States. Instead of thinking about New England, the Middle states, and the South, Americans began thinking of North, South, and West. Within the North, observers could see the demographic decline of New England and the rise of New York to preeminence. Whereas in 1800 New England's population accounted for 23.2% of the total national population, in 1810 it contributed but 20.3% and in 1820 17.2% of the total. The Middle Atlantic states' share stayed fairly constant at 26.4%, 27.7%, and 28% of the total for the same periods.

Within the South, it also became clear that there was a growing difference between the Old South, based in tobacco and rice, and the New South, based on short staple cotton. The former faced difficult social and economic problems associated with stagnation: youthful migrants leaving the state for the West, a black population that constituted an increasing proportion of the total population, a staple crop that exhausted the soil. The New South attracted ambitious planters who needed more labor to produce cotton. Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana provided vast opportunities for wealth, and beyond were lands of the trans Mississippi that might someday be part of the United States. The South Atlantic suffered a sharp decline in proportion of its residents to the total population in the nation, going from 43.1% to 37% and 31.8% during the periods 1800, 1810, and 1820, respectively. According to the 1820 census, the population of the free states exceeded that of the slave states for the first time.

Those thinking long term could see that the West would determine whether northern or southern institutions and practices-politics, economic development, education, labor, outlook--would prevail in the nation as a whole. Indeed, the East North Central areas increased their share of the total national population from 1% to 3.8, and 8.2%, whereas the East South Central went from 6.3% to 9.8% and 12.4%

The census data below shows populations and percentage of African-Americans:

Year 1800 1810 1820

Alabama 1,250 9,046 127,901

(33.2%)

Connecticut 251,002 261,942 275,248

(2.5%) (2.6%) (2.9%)

Delaware 64,273 72,674 72.749

(22.4%) (23.8%) (24.0%)

Georgia 162,686 252,433 340,989

(37.1%) (42.4%) (44.4%)

Illinois 12,282 55,211

(6.4%) (2.5%)

Indiana 5,641 24,520 147,178

(5.3%) (2.6%) (1.0%)

Kentucky 220,955 406,511 564,317

(18.6%) (20.2%) (22.9%)

Louisiana 76,556 153,407

(55.2%) (51.8%)

Maryland 341,548 380,546 407,350

(36.7%) (38.2%) (36.2%)

Massachusetts 422,845 472,040 472,040

(1.5%) (1.4%) (1.3%)

Mississippi 7,600 31,306 75,448

(48.3%) (55.4%) (44.1%)

New Hampshire 183,858 214,460 244,161

(0.5%) (o.5%) (0,3%)

New Jersey 211,149 245,562 277,575

(8.0%) (7.6%) (7.2%)

New York 589,051 959,049 1,372,812

(5.3%) (4.2%) (2.9%)

North Carolina 478,103 555,500 638,829

(29.4%) (32.2%) (34.4%)

Ohio 45,365 230,760 581,434

(2.7%) (2.9%) (2.9%)

Rhode Island 69,122 76,931 83,059

(5.3%) (4.8%) (4.3%)

South Carolina 345,591 415,115 502,741

(43.2%) (48.4%) (52.8%)

Tennessee 105,602 261,727 422,823

(13.2%) (17.5%) (19.6%)

Vermont 154,465 217,895 235,981

(0.4%) (0.3%) (0.4%)

Virginia 807,557 877,683 938,261

(45.3%) (48.2%) (49.2%)

United States 5,308,483 7,239,881 9,638,453

(18.9%) (19.0%) (18.4%)

Ever since 1800 the Jeffersonian Republicans exercised firm control of the national government and most state governments outside of New England. Federalists had never been adept at the democratic politics practiced by their rivals, and found themselves out of power, bewildered, leaderless, and alienated. Republican actions in 1803-the Louisiana Purchase, the continued attack on the judiciary, and the alteration of the Constitution by the twelfth amendment for immediate partisan political purposes-made some Federalists desperate. The so-called Essex Junto talked about the secession of New England. The drastic effects of the Embargo on their region and the declaration of war against England rather than France in 1812 temporarily revived Federalist hopes for national influence. Dissatisfied with the course of the war, Federalists met at the Hartford Convention of 1814. The Convention called for numerous constitutional amendments, including a two-thirds vote to admit new states, impose an embargo, and declare war; a limit of one term for presidents; and abolition of the three-fifth clause that over-represented the South in the House of Representatives and in the electoral college. Unfortunately for the Federalists, Republicans benefited from Andrew Jackson's victory over the British at the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815 and news of the Peace of Ghent, negotiated on Christmas Eve of 1814 but reaching the United States in February. It appeared that victory in the field had yielded the peace. In this light, Federalists looked like grumblers and half-hearted patriots. Their political future looked bleak.

With the close of the war and the demise of Federalism, President Madison and the Republicans in 1816 took measures that co-opted the old Federalist program. They adopted a tariff both to raise revenue and to help American manufacturers cope with the return of European competition; chartered the Second Bank of the United States; bolstered the peace-time army; and even spoke about the need for internal improvements to promote commerce and to make troop movements easier. It was striking to find Republican John C. Calhoun, war hawk Congressman from South Carolina, among those advocating the Bank and the tariff, while Federalist Daniel Webster of Massachusetts (formerly of New Hampshire) argued against the tariff for its potential negative effects on commerce. Enjoying broad popular support among the electorate and combining the best of Republican and Federalist programs, the post-war Republicans pretty much eliminated formal opposition at the national level.

Many moderate Federalists saw no hope of winning political office as long as they were tagged Federalists, and began to declare themselves Republicans. When James Monroe, the third consecutive Virginia Republican, ran for President in 1816, Federalists could not mount a challenge. He and his party faithful captured the White House and both houses of Congress. His presidency became the start for "The Era of Good Feelings," a one-party era in American history when partisan political competition for national office ended, when issues--like the tariff and internal improvements--were debated on their merits, and the President stood above the fray.

The year 1819 was not without its difficulties. In the years since 1815 and the final defeat of Napoleon, American agriculture had expanded dramatically to provide foodstuffs and other raw materials for European markets. The Second Bank of the United States encouraged this development by pursuing an easy credit policy. The bank lent money to those who speculated on lands. Moreover, when those owing money to the bank paid with state bank notes, the B.U.S. held those notes rather than attempt to redeem them for specie. In effect, the B.U.S. was thereby loaning money to the state banks as well as to its own customers. This monetary policy helped fuel rapid westward movement. By 1819, however, European farmers were recuperating from the devastation and dislocation of the Napoleonic wars. As they resumed their agricultural pursuits, the combined output of European and American farmers reached a level that could not sustain price. Prices fell. This decline started a chain reaction in which each action contributed to a worsening economy that became the Panic of 1819. Farmers who had borrowed money found it difficult to pay back. Bankers feared for the safety of their loans and called them in. No one was more insistent on repayment than the Second Bank of the United States. The consequent tight money policy depressed prices for goods and land. In the midst of the Panic, John Marshall and the Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland in favor of the constitutionality of the Bank (hence for national supremacy over state sovereignty) at a time when the Bank was highly unpopular, especially in the West.

Finally, the United States waited eagerly for Spain to ratify the Adams-Onis agreement that would open the Pacific Northwest to United States expansion. Spain seemed to be balking at ratification.

The members of Congress who heard James Talmadge's motion had a lot to think about before determining how they should vote. In addition to the political, international, economic, and moral factors, they had to consider what the Constitution said. That fundamental text included a number of provisions that might be brought to bear on the authority of the central government to set conditions for the admission of Missouri:

Art. I. sect. 2. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Art. I. sect. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article IV. sect. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges

and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Art. IV. sect. 3. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Art. IV. sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

And so the 186 white male members of the House and the 44 white male members of the Senate began to debate the Talmadge amendments to the enabling bill. The bulk of the discussions occurred between December 8, 1819 and March 20, 1820. During this period, Congress faced other business, including a petition from Maine asking for admission to the union and a request from Alabama to be made the 22^nd state that Congress granted.

In the United States Senate, Walter Lowrie of Pennsylvania declared that he would rather see the dissolution of the union than the spread of slavery over the whole of the western country. At first slaves would not be numerous, but the "avarice" and "insatiable love of gain" by slave-holders would soon lead to a huge increase in their numbers.

Senator Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina condemned the harsh language used by Lowrie, and argued for the blessings of the Union and of the Constitution, both of which have recognized slavery from the start. Without both, the country would suffer serious troubles. Why is anyone concerned about slavery at this time? What are the motives of Talmadge and his allies? Do they want mulatto states with black Congressmen? Don't they understand that negroes actually reap benefits from slavery: they like it, are treated well, and relate freely and easily with their masters. Freeing them will lead to the degradation of all. The most pressing issues for the nation involve government revenues during the current economic crisis, the status of the Bank of the United States, and our relationship with Spain-not slavery. The Talmadge amendments would encourage the formation of geographical parties of the kind that George Washington had warned against in his Farewell Address. They would inflict serious injuries on the settlers in Missouri, many of whom are southern war veterans who had fought in the War of 1812 and received land grants in the West for their service. They should be secure in their property in both land and slaves. Government should not try to govern too much, especially when its actions would make Missouri less than an equal member in the Union. Indeed, Missouri will have fewer rights as a state than she had as a territory.

William Smith, Senator from South Carolina, chided "easterners." They were the ones in Philadelphia who foisted the 3/5 clause on the constitutional convention. They were quite satisfied with that clause as long as it applied to the allocation of taxes because the slave states would pay more per white person than would the free states. Now they repudiate their own handiwork. Slavery as an institution is quite honorable. The whole commerce between master and slave is patriarchal. Negro and white children mix freely. Slavery maintains order and is sanctioned by the Bible. Remember that the chosen people of God were slaves, and Jesus often recognized slavery in the societies in which he preached. What happens when slavery is abolished? When Massachusetts emancipated slaves, we got Shays' Rebellion. When Pennsylvania ended the institution, we got the Whiskey Rebellion. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania unfortunately responded to the "misguided influence of fanaticism and humanity." In the South there are no rebellions and insurrections, and there is full compliance with requisitions.

William Pinckney of Maryland disagreed. He thought that "slavery … is unchristian and abominable." He believed, "it engenders pride and indolence in him who commands and inflicts intellectual and moral degradation on him who serves." Yet he was not convinced that the federal government could adopt restrictions on slavery. When new states enter the union, they do so inter pares, not inter disparates. If Missouri enters with restrictions, its compact with the union differs from that of all other states. Congress may admit or not admit states, but it cannot prescribe restrictions on them.

In the House, John W. Taylor, representative from Ballston Spa in New York, asserted that the Congress' adoption of enabling bills to admit previous states set no precedent with regard to Missouri. All of the other cases involved states carved from territories that existed as parts of the United States when the Constitution's was adopted. That is not true for Missouri, acquired by the Louisiana Purchase. New rules can be prescribed. The concern is for the future of Missouri and her people. He believes that majority of states don't want to allow slavery there. The Congress can rely on the power to "make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States" to support the Talmadge amendments. Missouri is still a territory until it is admitted as a state. The Congress has taken action in the Northwest Territory to exclude slavery. When it did so, southern representatives did not protest. The Louisiana Purchase required the United States to acknowledge the residents in the "enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States." But owning slaves is not a right that derives from the federal Constitution.

Representative Robert R. Reid of Georgia acknowledged that slavery was a "fixed evil" but that it was a system characterized by certainty and moderation. Emancipating slaves was not practical if one considers the welfare of all citizens. White society cannot incorporate free blacks, and prejudices in both the North and South are deep. He hoped for a time when negroes are "placed upon the high eminence of equal rights, and clothed in the privileges and immunities of American citizens," but at this time such a hope amounted to nothing but a dream of philanthropy. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution refers to the importation and migration of slaves from Africa and other foreign countries and cannot be applied to the movement of slaves in United States territories. Article IV, section 4 gives the federal government the responsibility for guaranteeing republican form of government in the states. Since the Union began with South Carolina and Georgia and other states that already had slavery, the Congress cannot now interpret this provision to mean that a republican form is incompatible with the existence of slavery in Missouri. The Northwest Ordinance did exclude slavery in the territories between the Ohio and Mississippi, but Congress made a grave error in adopting it. There was absolutely no authority in the Articles of Confederation to make such a policy, and it flew in the face of the agreements by which the several states gave up claims to these lands on the belief that new states formed there and then admitted would be admitted on the same equal provisions as the original thirteen states. Moreover, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have all been admitted in recent years without any restrictions. In spite of personal reservations about slavery, Reid saw no constitutional authority for Congress trying to proscribe it in Missouri.

Charles Pinckney of South Carolina rejected the idea that slavery was evil. Slavery is good. Great civilizations in the past have had slaves; the American South stands in good company. Look at the comfort of slaves in the South as opposed to the misery of negroes in Africa or the wretched lower classes in Europe. "The most miserable and degraded state of human nature is to be found among free negroes of New York and Philadelphia" where the number of crimes indicates that the "state of freedom is one of the greatest curses you can inflict on them." By contrast, "every slave has a comfortable house, is well fed, clothed, and taken care of; he has his family about him, and in sickness has the same medical aid as his master." For Congress to exclude slavery in Missouri would be tantamount to punishing the South, which put up half the funds for the purchase of the Louisiana territory. Exclusion and emancipation would also diminish the investment in slaves and reduce the value of land throughout the South.

In the upper house, Senator James Burrill, Jr., of Rhode Island rose to object to the constitution upon which Missouri proposes to enter the Union. In particular, Article III, section 26 provides "That it shall be the duty of the General Assembly of the State, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary … to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in this State, under any pretext whatever." Missouri overlooks the fact that there have been negro soldiers who have served their nation and who have received land grants. They are citizens of their home states and as such entitled to the rights of citizens of all states. They are entitled to move freely from place to place, yet Missouri intends to forbid them to enter. Congress should decide this question now, rather than wait to allow the judiciary to settle it once a dispute arises.

Senator Smith of South Carolina objected. Article III, section 26 does not affect the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Free negroes and mulattoes have never been considered part of the body politic. Almost all states exclude negroes from voting. No state has passed any law constituting them citizens. The Declaration of Independence does say that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed … with certain unalienable rights …." If this were a declaration for negroes as well as whites, why weren't all slaves emancipated in 1776? Clearly slaves were considered personal property. The Constitution recognized property in slaves. Most free negroes became free by virtue of their masters deciding to manumit them. Masters do not have the power to make them citizens. Note also the text of the naturalization law of 1802: "That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions."

Senator David L Morril of New Hampshire contended that because Congress has the power to admit new states, it also has the power to deny admittance. It should not admit new states when those states do not protect the rights and privileges of citizens of other states. A citizen of any state should be able to pass into another state and enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of that state. What is at issue is citizenship, not race. There are free negroes who are citizens and states that recognize such citizenship. The right to migrate is inherent in citizenship. If Missouri can proscribe one class of citizen, it can proscribe others. If one state can do this, then other states may do so. Missouri claims that a mulatto who is a citizen in another state has no rights other than those that a mulatto in Missouri enjoys. That is nonsense. According to this doctrine, a free negro citizen from a northern state who moved to a southern state would be a slave. Back in New Hampshire, it is true that there is a distinction made between white and negro. Custom has made that distinction, but the constitution and the laws do not.

As members of the House, join the debate on the Talmadge amendments and help create policy for the United States.