STATE ACTION ON MISSOURI QUESTION. 687

XXXII.

that, without the consent of Congress, no power existed CHAPTER to alienate territory, a thing done, as it was pretended by this treaty, since the true limit of Louisiana, as ac- 1819. quired from France, was not the Sabine, but the Rio Grande a claim which, since the springing up of the Missouri question, the South was the more disposed to press.

That was felt on all sides to be the great question of the session. On motion of Taylor, after a speech intended to be conciliatory, a committee was appointed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting slavery west of the Mississippi; and a bill, already brought in, to authorize Missouri to form a state Constitution, was postponed to await the report of this committee, which, how- 1820. ever, being unable to agree, was obliged soon to ask to be discharged. An attempt, meanwhile, on the other side of the House, to postpone action on another bill for the admission of Maine until the Missouri bill came up, was defeated, and the Maine bill was passed and sent to the Senate.

Discussion on this subject was not confined to Congress. The State Legislatures, as they successively met, freely expressed their opinions. Pennsylvania led off by a solemn appeal to the states "to refuse to covenant with crime," and by an unanimous declaration as well of the duty as of the right of Congress to prohibit slavery west of the Mississippi. New Jersey and Delaware followed, both also unanimously. New York, on the pointed recommendation of Governor Clinton, adopted similar resolutions; Federalists, Clintonians, and Tammany men, seemed to vie in zeal, and, on the strength of this feeling, King was sent back to the Senate, almost without opposition. Ohio endorsed the same doctrine. The Indiana Legislature severely censured Taylor, one of their

Jan. 5.

Jan. 3,

CHAPTER senators, for having voted to organize the Arkansas Ter XXXII. ritory without a prohibition of slavery. The New Eng1820. gland Legislatures remained silent; but numerous memo

rials from towns, cities, and public meetings in favor of freedom were laid before Congress. Virginia and Kentucky were just as strenuous the other way. The Virginia House of Delegates declared their intention "to interpose" on behalf of Missouri; but as this seemed to come very near what, but five years before (when Otis had offered a resolution in the Massachusetts Legislature to interpose on behalf of Vermont), had been denounced as actual treason, the Virginia Senate insisted upon a modification. The Legislature of Maryland coincided with those of Kentucky and Virginia; but in the city of Baltimore, a public meeting, over which the mayor presided, memorialized Congress—not, however, without provoking a counter memorial-against the further extension of slavery.

In the Senate, a clause for the admission of Missouri Jan. 16. was tacked to the Maine bill-a maneuver for which all the Southern senators voted, aided by those of Illinois, by Taylor, of Indiana, Parrott, of New Hampshire, and Palmer, of Vermont. To this Missouri clause, Roberts, of Pennsylvania, moved to add a prohibition of slavery; Feb. 1. but, after a fortnight's debate, this motion was lost, 16 to 27. Taylor, of Indiana, voted for it, but the slaveholders, besides their former allies, obtained the votes of Lanman, of Connecticut, Hunter, of Rhode Island, and Van Dyke, of Delaware. Horsey, the other Delaware senator, was absent. Lanman, recently chosen to succeed Dagget, was of the Connecticut "Toleration party." Parrott, Palmer, and Hunter, were of that school of New England Democracy of which the sole principle seemed to be to follow the lead of Virginia without scru

MAINE AND MISSOURI.

689

XXXII.

ple or question. Otis, of Massachusetts, at the last ses- CHAPTER sion, as well as on several occasions before, had exhibited his strong sympathy for the slaveholders, of which, 1820.indeed, he lived to give still further proofs; but now, on behalf of a northern ascendency, and with the prospect of a new political party on that basis, he exerted all his eloquence against them. Pinkney appeared on the other side as the leading orator for the extension of slavery; but the speeches, whether in the Senate or the House, consisted in a mere iteration of the ideas started at the last session. After another fortnight's debate, the union of Maine and Missouri in one bill was carried, 23 Feb. 16. to 21, the senators from Illinois, and Taylor, of Indiana, voting in the affirmative. Thomas, of Illinois, then proposed a new amendment, prohibiting the introduction of slaves into any of the remainder of the Louisiana cession north of the Arkansas boundary-the famous compromise clause, in fact, as finally adopted. Trimble, of Ohio, wished to include the Arkansas Territory within this prohibition; but this was rejected, 24 to 20, the Feb. 17 senators from Illinois and Indiana voting against it. Thomas's amendment was then carried, 34 to 10, the senators from Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and Indiana, with Macon, and one of the Mississippi senators, in the negative. Thus amended, the bill passed, 24 to 20; the slaveholding states, with Delaware and Illinois, the two least considerable states in the Union, for it, all the others against it. Thomas's proviso differed from that proposed by Taylor at the last session in giving up the new state of Missouri to the slaveholders. But if the South was thus conciliated to the idea of compromise, the North was rendered still more hostile to it.

The House was engaged, meanwhile, in Committee of the Whole on a bill for the admission of Missouri, the

XXXII.

CHAPTER question being on the prohibition of the further introduction of slaves. When the Maine bill came back with 1820. the unrestricted admission of Missouri and Thomas's Feb. 18. compromise tacked to it, an attempt was made to avoid an immediate decision by referring this bill to the same Committee of the Whole; but this was voted down, and the amendments of the Senate were disagreed to, Thomas's clause, 159 to 18, both sides voting against it. As both Houses persisted in the stand thus taken, the Senate asked a committee of conference, which was agreed to, Mr. Speaker Clay taking care to appoint, on the part of the House, a decided majority of compromisers. Pending this conference, the Missouri bill was reported to the House, with a clause prohibiting the further introduction of slaves. The zealous attempts of Storrs and Clay to turn this prohibition into a recommendation merely, Feb. 29. were voted down, 82 to 98, and the bill was passed as reported, 93 to 84. In these divisions, Holmes, Mason, the Boston representative, Storrs, Bloomfield, Baldwin, and M'Lean, of Delaware, had stood by the slaveholders as in the last Congress. They had also obtained five recruits among the new members: Hill and Shaw, of Massachusetts, Foot, of Connecticut, Meigs, of New York, and Fullerton, of Pennsylvania. A good deal had been hoped of the Maine members, especially as the consent of Massachusetts to the independence of Maine was on condition of her admission into the Union prior to the 4th of March, a date now close at hand but, beyond the votes of Holmes and Hill, no aid could be got from that quarter.

March 2.

The Senate, by the unanimous vote of the Southern delegation, in which the senators from Delaware and Illinois again concurred, assisted now by Lanman, Hunter, and Parrott, sent back this Missouri bill with the prohi

THE COMPROMISE CARRIED.

691

XXXII.

bition of slavery struck out, and Thomas's territorial CHAPTER proviso inserted in stead. At the same time, Holmes, from the committee of conference, reported a recommend. 1820. ation to the Senate to recede from their amendments to the Maine bill; and to the House to pass the Missouri bill in its new shape. Steps had been taken to secure the adoption of this latter recommendation. Four more obscure Northern members-Eddy, of Rhode Island, Stevens, of Connecticut, and Kinsey and Smith, of New Jersey-had been in some way prevailed upon to vote for the compromise; three others-Edwards, of Connecticut, and Case and Tompkins, of New York, the latter a brother of the vice-president-absented themselves; and by this defection, the striking from the Missouri bill of the prohibition of slavery was carried, 90 to 87. The insertion of Thomas's proviso was then agreed to, 134 to 42, of whom 35 were Southern members, who voted against it as not within the power of Congress.

Randolph, the leader of this ultra-southern party, indignantly denounced this compromise as a "dirty bargain," and the eighteen Northern men, by whose cooperation it had been carried, as "dough-faces"-an epithet at once adopted into our political vocabulary, and since in constant use. Hoping still to stave off final action till after the 4th of March, in which case the admission of Maine would fall to the ground, he gave notice of a motion for reconsideration. But this the adroit and nimble speaker took care to anticipate, by sending back the bill to the Senate, which, as the com- March 3. mittee of conference had recommended, had already receded from their amendments to the Maine bill. Both houses had thus done their part, but even yet there was an obstacle. The Legislature of Virginia had not only denied, in the most positive terms, any power in Con.