THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 111 states, the states owning and possessing them are denied a representation but for three-fifths on this floor, while the whole of the comparatively unproductive inhabitants of the northern and eastern states are fully represented here. Is this just? is it equal? And yet they have the modesty to complain of the representation as unjust and unequal; and that they have not the return made them they expected, by taxing the slaves and making them bear a proportion of the public burdens. "I have not condescended to notice the remark that one of the evils of slavery is the lessening and depreciating the character of the whites in the slaveholding states, and rendering it less manly and republican, and less worthy than in the non-slaveholding states, because it is not less decorous than true. It is refuted in a moment by a review of the revolutionary, and particularly of the last war. Compare the conduct of the heroes and statesmen of the north and south in both those wars, in the field and in the senate. See the monuments of valor, wisdom, and patriotism they have left behind them, and then ask an impartial world on which side the Delaware lies the preponderance; it will answer in a moment to the south. It will not be a matter of surprise to any one that so much anxiety should be shown by the slaveholding states, when it is known that the alarm given by this attempt to legislate on slavery, has led to the opinion that the very foundations of that kind of property are shaken; that the establishment of the precedent is a measure of the most alarming nature, for should succeeding congresses continue to push it, there is no knowing to what length it may be carried. "If you refuse to admit Missouri without this prohibition, and she refuses it, and proceeds to form a constitution for herself, and then applies to you for admission, what will you do? Will you compel her by force? By whom or by what force can this be effected? Will the states in her neighborhood join in the crusade? Will they who, to a man, think Missouri is right, and you wrong, arm in such a cause? Can you send a force to the westward of the Delaware? The very distance forbids it; and distance is a powerful auxiliary to a country attacked. If in the days of James the Second, English soldiers under military discipline, when ordered to march against their countrymen contending in the cause of liberty, disobeyed the order and laid down their arms, do you think our free brethren on the Mississippi will not do the same? Yes, sir, they will refuse, and you will at last be obliged to retreat from this measure, and in a manner that will not add to the dignity of your government." The debate was continued by Messrs. Hendricks of Indiana, Darlington and Dennison of Pennsylvania, Whitman of Massachusetts, and Rich of Vermont, in favor, and by Messrs. Rankin of Mississippi, Cuthbert of Georgia, Johnson of Virginia, Lowndes and Simpkins of South Carolina, and Tyler of Virginia against the restriction, un til the 19th of February, when it took another direction by reason of the reception by the house of representatives of amendments of the senate, by which that body had coupled the Missouri bill with another, for the admission into the Union of the district of Maine, and added thereto a compromise, so called, admitting slavery into Missouri, but prohibiting it outside the state north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude. It will now be instructive to pass from the discussion in the house to that which occurred in the senate. On the 6th of January, 1820, Mr. Smith of South Carolina reported to the senate the bill for the admission into the Union of the district of Maine, with the entire Mis THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 113 souri bill without restriction in respect to slavery annexed as an amendment. On the 14th, Mr. Roberts of Pennsylvania moved to recommit, with instructions to separate the two subjects, and report the Maine bill as it came from the house. The question was taken and decided in the negative. He thereupon offered to the Missouri bill an amendment prohibiting slavery. Judge Thomas of Illinois, pursuant to previous notice, introduced a joint resolution extending the ordinance of 1787 over all territo ry of the United States west of the Mississippi, and north of latitude thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, and the same was referred to a select committee. The amendment of Mr. Roberts was debated from day to day until the first of February, when it was rejected; ayes sixteen, noes twenty-seven. On this question both senators from New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Indiana, and one from New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, voted in the affirmative. On the 3d of February Mr. Thomas re-submitted his former proposition to exclude slavery except in Missouri, north of latitude thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, as an amendment to the Missouri bill. On the 11th Mr. Rufus King addressed the senate two hours against the admission of slavery in the state of Missouri, and therefore against the proposed compromise. Messrs. Smith of South Carolina, and Pinckney and Lloyd of Maryland, replied. On the 16th the question was taken in the senate upon uniting the two bills, and decided in the affirmative, ayes twentythree, noes twenty-one. Mr. Barbour of Virginia then moved to raise the line of slavery to the fortieth parallel of north latitude, which was lost without division. On the 17th the question was taken on Mr. Thomas' amendment, and decided in the affirmative; ayes thirty-four, noes ten. On the 21st the bill as amended was read a third time, passed, and returned to the house, where it originated. We now look into the house of representatives, where, on the 19th of February the amendments of the senate to the Maine bill came up for concurrence, and after an animated discussion of three days, were disagreed to. The house bill, with Mr. Taylor's proviso added, was then passed by a vote of ninety-one against eighty-two, and sent to the senate for concurrence, where the proviso was rejected by a vote of twenty-seven against fifteen, and the compromise of Judge Thomas substituted, without division, in its stead. This resulted in the appointment of a committee of conference, whose report recommended the separation of the bills and the passage of the Missouri act without restriction upon the state, but with an absolute prohibition of slavery in all other territory west of the Mississippi north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes; or in other words, the bill as amended by the senate. The house finally adopted the report, and concurred in its recommendations, by a vote of one hundred and thirty-four against forty-two. And so the famous act to authorize the people of Missouri territory to form a constitutional state government, and to prohibit slavery in certain territories of the United States, passed both houses of congress, and received the approbation of President Monroe on the 6th of March, 1820. But the subject was not yet disposed of. It remained for the people of Missouri to form a constitution and submit it to congress at its next session for approval. When it was received, it was found to contain a clause requiring the legislature to enact laws to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from going into or settling in the state, a provision which many believed to be repugnant to the provision of the constitution, which declares that "the citi THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 115 zens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. However, Mr. Eaton in the senate and Mr. Lowndes in the house, concluding that it was a point for judicial rather than for legislative decision, reported favorably upon the constitution, as submitted, and recommended the admission of the state. Perceiving that serious doubts were entertained on that point in the senate, Mr. Eaton undertook to avoid the difficulty by proposing an amendment, to the effect that nothing therein contained should be so construed as to contravene the clause in the constitution referred to, which, after much debate, was adopted; and the resolution for admission so amended was agreed to by a vote of twenty-six against eighteen. With the exception of Mr. Macon of North Carolina, and Mr. Smith of South Carolina, all the senators who voted in the negative were from the free states. All the southern senators with these exceptions, two senators from Illinois, one from New Hampshire, and one from Rhode Island, voted in the affirmative. This resolution thus amended was considered in the house of representatives on the 29th of January, 1821, when Mr. Randolph of Virginia moved to strike out the proviso, and Mr. Clay urged the passage of the resolution as it came from the senate. Messrs. Foot of Connecticut, Storrs of New York, Moore of Pennsylvania, and McLane of Delaware, offered resolutions to annul or destroy the force of the offensive clause, but they were all rejected. On the 2d of February Mr Clay, who had become fatigued with the subject, made another vigorous effort to settle it, and succeeded in obtaining a reference of it to a committee of his own appointment, to which he was subsequently added as chairman, who, on the 10th, reported an amendment imposing the condition that the state should never pass a law excluding therefrom the |