their present state of degradation; assist in the mighty work. Every human affection recoils at their bondage. May every benevolent heart beat high for their freedom, and every human arm be extended for their emancipation. It is a cause, sir, in which the world is engaged. As it was commenced by the United States, let them continue their efforts; let Congress say, with all civilized nations, they will joyfully bear a part to accomplish an object so desirable, so humane.

But, sir, I am in favor of the resolution in a political point of view. Carry the great design into effect, and you place those forlorn objects within the reach of political and moral instruction. The basis on which every good government most firmly stands is knowledge and virtue. Diffuse and extend these sacred principles, and you enlarge the basis on which your Government is built; and, in the same proportion, you carry the principles of liberty and the rights of man to those who grope in darkness, and aid in the emancipation of those who are bound in the chains of despotism.

Mr. President, I am in favor of the resolution in a moral point of view. We, sir, are a Christian nation. The Bible is our moral guide. Are not its principles sacred, its precepts salutary, and its commands obligatory? Have not the frowns of indignant Heaven, and the threatenings of Jehovah, rested on nations and cities for their ingratitude to their fellow mortals? Babylon-Babylon the great has fallen! What has brought her down? The scene is viewed in prospect. "The merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her." In what did her commerce consist? "In gold, and silver, and precious stones, and pearls, and chariots, and slaves, and the souls of men." Ah, Mr. President, this was the climax of their abominations! They had a traffic in slaves and the souls of men. This brought down the judgments of Heaven. That they may be averted from the world, let the inhuman traffic be abolished to the end of the earth.

In accordance with the report of this and subsequent committees Congress, by the Acts of April 20, 1818, and March 3, 1819, authorized the President to send cruisers to the coast of Africa to stop the slave trade, and by the Act of May 15, 1820, declared the traffic to be piracy. By the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842 the Governments of the United States and Great Britain agreed to maintain independent squadrons on the African coast to act in conjunction. However, the slave trade with

the United States was not entirely suppressed until the close of the Civil War.

The trade was most active in the years just prior to the war, when the domestic supply of slaves was insufficient to fill the demand for them created by the development of the Southwest. In 1859-60, 85 vessels were fitted out from New York as slavers, and it is estimated that they introduced into the country from 30,000 to 60,000 negroes. During these years the repeal of the laws against the trade was actively urged by many prominent statesmen and newspapers of the South and openly demanded and justified in political conventions, such as the Democratic convention at Charleston, S. C., in 1860 [see Vol. V, chapter vii].

CHAPTER II

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE

[DEBATE ON THE RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES]

Organization of Mississippi Territory-George Thacher [Mass.] Offers Amendment to Exclude Slavery; It Is Defeated-Missouri Applies for Admission to the Union-James Tallmadge, Jr. [N. Y.], in the House of Representatives, Moves to Restrict Slavery in the State-Debate on the Motion: in Favor, Tallmadge, John W. Taylor [N. Y.], Timothy Fuller [Mass.], Arthur Livermore [N. H.]; Opposed, Philip P. Barbour [Va.]; Amendment Carried-The Senate Rejects the Tallmadge Amendment and the Bill Is Lost-Arkansas Territory Organized with Slavery-Senator Taylor's Proviso Abolishing Slavery North of 36 Degrees and 30 Minutes North Latitude; It Is Withdrawn-Debate in Senate on Admission of Maine and Missouri: in Favor of Restriction of Slavery in Missouri, Jonathan Roberts [Pa.], Walter Lowrie [Pa.], Rufus King [N. Y.]; Opposed, Freeman Walker [Ga.], Nicholas Van Dyke [Del.], James Barbour [Va.], William Pinkney [Md.]-Proposal of the Missouri Compromise-Debate in the House: Proslavery Speakers, Alexander Smyth [Va.], Robert W. Reid [Ga.], Benjamin Hardin [Ky.], Louis McLane [Del.], Philip P. Barbour [Va.], Charles Pinckney [S. C.], John Tyler [Va.]; Anti-Slavery Speakers, Henry Meigs [N. Y.], John W. Taylor [N. Y.], Joseph Hemphill [Pa.], John Sergeant [Pa.], William Darlington [Pa.], James Stevens [Ct.]-Missouri Is Admitted Under the Compromise-Debate in Congress on a Clause in the Proposed Constitution of Missouri Debarring Entrance into the State of Free Negroes--Henry Clay [Ky.] Secures a Compromise.

TH

HE specific issue under which the slavery question agitated the country for the greater part of the period from the formation of the Constitution under the Civil War was that of restrictions in regard to slavery in the formation of Territories and the admission into the Union of new States. As has been related in Volume I [see page 267], the Northwest Territory had been organized in 1787 with the exclusion of slavery.

On March 23, 1798, the question of the organization

of the Territory of Mississippi (comprising roughly the present States of Alabama and Mississippi) came before the House. A resolution was offered, giving the Territory the government of the Northwest Territory as established by the Ordinance of 1787, with the exception of the prohibition of slavery. George Thacher [Mass.] offered an amendment striking out the excepting clause, and so prohibiting slavery in the Southern Territories as well as in the Northern. The question was put on Mr. Thacher's amendment and negatived, there being only 12 votes in its favor.

Senator Thomas H. Benton remarks of this discussion in his "Debates of Congress" that it "was the first debate on the prohibition of slavery in a Territory which took place under the Federal Constitution, and it is to be observed that the constitutional power of Congress to make the prohibition was not questioned by any speaker. Expedient objections only were urged."

At the close of the War of 1812 the free and slave States were the same in number, nine and nine. In 1816 (under Madison's Administration) Indiana was admitted into the Union as free soil, being a part of the Northwest Territory in which slavery had been prohibited by the Ordinance of 1787. In 1817 Mississippi was formed as a State out of the western part of Mississippi Territory, which had been organized as slave territory. In 1818 Illinois was admitted under the same conditions as Indiana. To preserve the equality of slave and free States the next State should be admitted as slave. When therefore the northern part of Missouri Territory (organized by various Acts of Congress from 1812 onward, out of the Louisiana Purchase, wherein slavery prevailed and was recognized by the treaty with France) applied for admission into the Union, late in 1818, the Southern Congressmen assumed that it would be admitted as slave. They were therefore greatly incensed when James Tallmadge, Jr. [N. Y.], on February 13, 1819, moved an amendment to the bill for its admission declaring all its inhabitants free who should be born after the date of admission, and providing for the gradual emancipation of those now held in bondage.

Mr. Tallmadge's amendment was debated from February 13 to 15, when it was adopted in the Committee of the Whole by a vote of 79 to 67.

The principal speakers in favor of the amendment were, in addition to Mr. Tallmade, John W. Taylor [N. Y.], Timothy Fuller [Mass.], and Arthur Livermore [N. H.]. Philip P. Barbour [Va.] was the only speaker in the negative whose remarks were reported at length.

Henry Clay [Ky.], the Speaker of the House, opposed the amendment, but his arguments must be gleaned from the replies made by his opponents.

Of this debate Senator Benton, in his "Debates of Congress," remarks:

This was the commencement of the great Missouri agitation which was settled by the compromise. No two words have been more confounded of late than these of the restriction and compromise-so much so that some of the eminent speakers of the time have had their speeches against the restriction quoted as being against the compromise-of which they were zealous advocates. Though often confounded, no two measures could be more opposite in their nature and effects. The restriction was to operate upon a State-the compromise on territory. The restriction was to prevent the State of Missouri from admitting slavery-the compromise was to admit slavery there, and to divide the rest of Louisiana about equally between free and slave soil. The restriction came from the North-the compromise from the South. The restriction raised the storm-the compromise allayed it.

RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY IN MISSOURI

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 13-15, 1819

MR. TAYLOR.-Our votes this day will determine whether the high destinies of this region and of these generations shall be fulfilled, or whether we shall defeat them by permitting slavery, with all its baleful consequences, to inherit the land. Let the magnitude of this question plead my apology, while I briefly address a few considerations to the sober judgment of patriots and statesmen.

First. Has Congress power to require of Missouri a con