vassed by public speakers and flooded with pamphleteers; the press opened its battery and kept up a continual fire; thus the country was agitated until it was fairly ablaze with excitement.

The North opposed the permanent establishment of slavery, from moral and political considerations. It claimed to be actuated by the spirit of the founders of the Republic, who sought by all legislative means to prevent the growth of slavery. It was plain, however, that whatever party obtained Missouri, obtained the balance of power, and there is no doubt that the North sought to obtain it on this account, as well as from other considerations. But such is the construction which mankind put upon the motives of an action, that where there may be an unworthy one, no matter how many good ones, they generally attribute it to the former. The South put, therefore, the very worst interpretation upon the actions of the North, as aiming at political supremacy by an unjust and oppressive legislation.

The position of the anti-restrictionists was a very singular one, if not inconsistent. They bewailed in most eloquent lamentations over the wrongs which slavery inflicted upon the slaves, country and people; conceded the right and duty of Congress to prohibit it from the territories, and to provide, in every constitutional way, for its removal; but now that they had the power to prevent its extension, and, consequently, its growth, they refused to exercise it. But they fought the battle under the banner of State Rights, State Sovereignty, Liberty, and the Right of the people to frame their own institutions, as opposed to Usurpation and Oppression on the part of Congress.

Fresh from the heat of popular discussion, with feelings all aglow with excitement, the members of the XVIth Congress convened. Memorials from the people and Legislature of Missouri bearing evidence of an angry feeling, caused by

(6) December 16, 1819.

their former rejection, were soon presented, and in the House referred to a select committee; in the Senate, to the Judiciary. The committee in the House reported, through its chairman, Mr. Scott, delegate from Missouri, a bill authorizing that territory to form a State constitution and government, without any prohibition of slavery. On motion of Mr. Taylor, of New York, a committee was appointed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting slavery in all territory west of the Mississippi, of which he was made chairman. But the committee being unable to agree among themselves, in a few days, at the request of the chairman, was discharged." On January 26, 1820, Mr. Taylor proposed an amendment to the Missouri bill, the restrictive provisions of which are as follows:

"And shall ordain and establish that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. And it is provided, also, That the said provision shall not be construed to alter the condition or civil rights of any person now held to service or labor in said territory."

An animated discussion immediately ensued, which continued, with scarcely any interruption, for twenty-three days. In the meantime, the bill admitting Maine into the Union, which had passed" the House, had a heavy burden thrown upon it in the Senate. The skill and tactics of slavery propagandists were here most strikingly displayed. The committee to whom the bill had been referred recommended" its passage, with several amendments, the most important of which was the Missouri bill without restriction. The object was, of course, to enable the latter bill to ride through the House upon that of the former. Strong efforts were made in the Senate to throw it off, or apply to it the restrictive clause, which occasioned a long and protracted discussion.

Both Houses were now intently engaged in stormy debate. Never before, nor since, was there ever such a display, in the

(7) December 8. (8) December 9. (9) December 14. (10) December 28. (11) January 3, 1820. (12) January 6.

13

halls of Congress, of forensic skill and impassioned eloquence.
It was a sublime occasion for the orator. The excited nation
were the anxious spectators; the Legislatures of the different
States the abettors. The subject was one calculated to call
forth no buncombe speech-making; but earnest, heart-warmed
sentiments. It was legislating, not for a day, nor a year, upon
one section of the country and a few people; but for centuries,
over one-fourth of the domain of the United States. In it
humanity plead her claim, and the country asked for deliver-
ance from a curse. On the other hand, the rights of a free
people were invaded, and Oppression frowned upon them,
ready to trample them beneath her iron heel. The beams of
sovereignty in a State were to be blotted out, and its greatness
and glory abased. Many of the speakers rose to the sublimity
of the occasion, and even their opponents melted to tears before
. their persuasive pleadings. Others descended as far below
it, and their speeches are marked by sectional prejudice, van-
ity and animosity. Both parties were about equally
matched in argument, skill and eloquence.

On the part of the Restrictionists it was contended that
the founders of our Republic lamented the existence of
slavery, as a
as a "great evil," which they could not remove,
but hoped, by a wise legislation, that it would ultimately
disappear; that they had themselves set the example by
the famous ordinance of 1787, which was intended to cover
all the territory of the United States, and now, at least, its
precedent should have weight; to all of which the Anti-
restrictionists fully conceded, but denied that the precedent
spoken of should have any weight, as that was done under
the Confederacy; and, furthermore, it was unconstitutional,
because done after the cession made by Virginia, which de-
clared that the States formed from that territory should be
admitted into Union on the footing of the original thirteen
States. For constitutional right the Restrictionists point to

(13) Memorials had been received in Congress from the different States, both for and against restriction.

wwwww

the clause in that sacred document which says, "New States may be admitted by Congress into the Union;" from which they argue that Congress has the right to refuse a State admittance into the Union, and to prescribe the conditions of admission. To which it is replied that the powers of Congress are specified, and those not plainly mentioned in the Constitution are reserved, to the States or people; and hence, Congress can gather no powers from inference. They are then directed to another clause in the Constitution, which says that "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territories;" to which a reply is given that Missouri is not to be regarded as an open, wild and uninhabited territory but a populous State, with sovereign powers, asking admission into the Union according to the original compact between the States. The clause relating to the powers of Congress to prevent the migration and importation of slaves, in which the term migration is used, the Restrictionists declare, refers to the passage of slaves form States to States, or from States to Territories; but the opposite party demostrate that it refers entirely to the introduction of slaves from abroad. The Restrictionists show that the practice of Congress has been to exact conditions from States before ⚫ admission into the Union, and point to Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and Louisiana; to which their opponents reply that all such exactions were usurpations, and hence not binding, or entitled to consideration as precedents. The treaty between France and the United States would be adduced by the Anti-restrictionists with an air of triumph, which provided that the inhabitants of Louisiana should be protected in the possession of their property, and that it would be a breach of faith for the United States to emancipate their slaves; to which it is replied that the restriction does not affect the relation of master and slave there now, but merely provides against the introduction of slaves from abroad. It is further contended that this treaty provides that the people of said territory "shall be incorporated into the Union as soon as possible, and admitted

to all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens; to which it is replied that they have already been admitted to all the privileges of citizens in the Union, but admitting a State into the Union formed from that territory was a different thing, for which the treaty made no provision. It is argued that by extending slavery west, the condition of both master and slave would be improved; but it is replied that by extension the growth of slavery is only accelerated, that it is a curse, and the more it is extended, the more country it afflicts. It was asserted that these conditions would be degrading and humiliating to the sovereign State of Missouri; but it is retorted that other States have complied with them and not felt in the least degraded, but were proud of their positions among the sister States, and were unequaled in prosperity and promise.

Such was the way that some of the arguments were put and answered. I will now give a few extracts from speeches although their severance from the closely wrought connection will not show them in their real light. Speaking of the treaty by which Louisiana was obtained and which, it had been argued, would compel Congress to admit Missouri without restriction, Mr. Otis, of Massachusetts, says:

"Still, if in reality our faith, by treaty, was thus plighted, though he should deem the acquisition of the whole territory a vital misfortune, and should think it would have been better for us if the Mississippi was an eternal torrent of burning lava, impassible as the lake which separates the evil from the good, and the regions beyond destined forever to be covered with brakes and jungles, and the impenetrable haunts of the wolf and the panther; yet, he would not advocate a breach of public faith, but he should think it the duty of Congress to recommend a new negotiation with the present beneficent monarch of France, to the end of obtaining his release from the provisions of a treaty so fatal to our best interests."

Here is Mr. Barbour's (of Virginia) apology for the change of sentiment from that which existed at the time of the formation of our Government:

5