ADMISSION OF THE STATES OF ARKANSAS AND MICHIGAN INTO THE UNION.
These two young States had applied to Congress for an act to enable
them to hold a convention, and form State constitutions, preparatory
to admission into the Union. Congress refused to pass the acts, and
the people of the two territories held the convention by their own
authority, formed their constitutions--sent copies to Congress,
praying admission as States. They both applied at this session, and
the proceedings on their respective applications were simultaneous
in Congress, though in separate bills. That of Michigan was taken up
first, and had been brought before each House in a message from the
President in these words:
"By the act of the 11th of January, 1805, all that part of the
Indian Territory lying north of a line drawn due 'east from
the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan until it shall
intersect Lake Erie, and east of a line drawn from the said
southerly bend, through the middle of said lake, to its northern
extremity, and thence, due north, to the northern boundary of
the United States,' was erected into a separate Territory, by
the name of Michigan. The Territory comprised within these
limits being part of the district of country described in the
ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, which provides that,
whenever any of the States into which the same should be divided
should have sixty thousand free inhabitants, such State should
be admitted by its delegates 'into the Congress of the United
States, on an equal footing with the original States in all
respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent
constitution and State government, provided the constitution
and government so to be formed shall be republican, and in
conformity to the principles contained in these articles,' the
inhabitants thereof have, during the present year, in pursuance
of the right secured by the ordinance, formed a constitution and
State government. That instrument, together with various other
documents connected therewith, has been transmitted to me for
the purpose of being laid before Congress, to whom the power
and duty of admitting new States into the Union exclusively
appertains; and the whole are herewith communicated for your
early decision."
The application was referred to a select committee, Mr. Benton
the chairman; and a memorial, entitled from the "Legislature of
Michigan," was also referred to the same committee, though objected
to by some senators as purporting to come from a State which, as
yet, had no existence. But the objection was considered by others as
being one of form--that it might be considered as coming from the
people of Michigan--and was not even material in that point of view,
as the question was already before the Senate on the President's
Message. Some objection was also made to the boundaries, as being
too large, and as trenching upon those of Indiana and Ohio. A
bill was reported for the admission of the State, in support of
which Mr. Benton said, the committee had included in the proposed
limits a considerable portion of territory on the northwest, and
had estimated the superficial contents of the State at 60,000
square miles. The territory attached contained but a very small
portion of Indian population. It was necessary to make her large
and strong, being a frontier State both to the Indians and to the
British possessions. It should have a large front on Lake Superior.
The principal points of objection, of a permanent character,
were, that the proceedings of the people were revolutionary, in
forming a constitution without a previous act of Congress; and
her constitution inconsistent with that of the United States in
admitting aliens to vote before naturalization. To the first it
was answered that she had applied for an act of Congress two years
ago, and was denied by the then dominant party, and that it was
contradictory to object to her, for not having that which had been
refused to be given; and on the second, that the same thing had been
done for a quarter of a century. On the latter point Mr. Buchanan
said:
"Michigan confined herself to such residents and inhabitants of
her territory as were there at the signing of her constitution;
and to those alone she extended the right of suffrage. Now,
we had admitted Ohio and Illinois into this Union; two sister
States, of whom we ought certainly to be very proud. He would
refer senators to the provision in the constitution of Ohio on
that subject. By it, all white male inhabitants, twenty-one
years of age, or upwards, having resided one year in the State,
are entitled to vote. Michigan had made the proper distinction;
she had very properly confined the elective franchise to
inhabitants within the State at the time of the adoption of her
constitution; but Ohio had given the right of suffrage as to
all future time to all her white inhabitants over the age of
twenty-one years; a case embracing all time to come, and not
limited as in the constitution of Michigan. He had understood
that, since the adoption of her constitution, Ohio had repealed
this provision by law. He did not know whether this was so or
not; but here it was, as plain as the English language could
make it, that all the white male inhabitants of Ohio, above
the age of twenty-one years, were entitled to vote at her
elections. Well, what had Illinois done in this matter? He
would read an extract from her constitution, by which it would
appear that only six months' previous residence was required
to acquire the right of suffrage. The constitution of Illinois
was therefore still broader and more liberal than that of Ohio.
There, in all elections, all white male inhabitants above the
age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State six months
previous to the election, shall enjoy the rights of an elector.
Now, sir, it had been made a matter of preference by settlers
to go to Illinois, instead of the other new States, where they
must become citizens before they could vote; and he appealed to
the senators from Illinois whether this was not now the case,
and whether any man could not now vote in that State after a six
months' residence.
"[Mr. Robinson said that such was the fact.]
"Now, here were two constitutions of States, the senator from
one of which was most strenuously opposed to the admission of
Michigan, who had not extended the right of suffrage as far as
was done by either of them. Did Michigan do right in thus fixing
the elective franchise? He contended that she did act right; and
if she had not acted so, she would not have acted in obedience
to the spirit, if not the very letter, of the ordinance of 1787.
Michigan took the right ground, while the States of Ohio and
Illinois went back in making perpetual in their constitution
what was contained in the ordinance. When Congress admitted them
and Indiana on this principle, he thought it very ungracious
in any of their senators or representatives to declare that
Michigan should not be admitted, because she has extended the
right of suffrage to the few persons within her limits at the
adoption of her constitution. He felt inclined to go a good deal
further into this subject; but as he was exceedingly anxious
that the decision should be made soon, he would not extend his
remarks any further. It appeared to him that an amendment might
very well be made to this bill, requiring that the assent of the
people of Michigan shall be given to the change of boundary.
He did hope that by this bill all objections would be removed;
and that this State, so ready to rush into our arms, would not
be repulsed, because of the absence of some formalities, which,
perhaps, were very proper, but certainly not indispensable."
On the other point, that of a revolutionary movement, Mr. Buchanan
answered:
"I think their course is clearly justifiable; but if there to
any thing wrong or unusual in it, it is to be attributed to the
neglect of Congress. For three years, they have been rapping
at your door, and asking for the consent of Congress to form
a constitution, and for admission into the Union; but their
petitions have not been heeded, and have been treated with
neglect. Not being able to be admitted in the way they sought,
they have been forced to take their own course, and stand upon
their rights--rights secured to them by the constitution and a
solemn irrepealable ordinance. They have taken the census of
the territory; they have formed a constitution, elected their
officers, and the whole machinery of a State government is ready
to be put in operation: they are only awaiting your action.
Having assumed this attitude, they now demand admission as a
matter of right: they demand it as an act of justice at your
hands. Are they now to be repelled, or to be told that they
must retrace their steps, and come into the Union in the way
they at first sought to do, but could not obtain the sanction
of Congress? Sir, I fear the consequences of such a decision; I
tremble at an act of such injustice."
The bill passed the Senate by rather a close vote--twenty-four to
eighteen; the latter being all senators in the opposition. It then
went to the House of Representatives for concurrence. From the time
of the admission of new States, it had been the practice to admit
a free and slave State together, or alternately, so as to keep up
a numerical equilibrium between them--a practice resulting from
some slight jealousy existing, from the beginning, between the two
classes of States. In 1820, when the Missouri controversy inflamed
that jealousy, the State of Massachusetts divided herself to furnish
territory for the formation of a new free State (Maine) to balance
Missouri; and the acts of Congress _for_ the admission of both,
were passed contemporaneously, March, 1820. Now, in 1836, when the
slave question again was much inflamed, and a State of each kind to
be admitted, the proceedings for that purpose were kept as nearly
together as possible, not to include them in the same bill. The
moment, then, that the Michigan bill had passed the Senate, that of
Arkansas was taken up, under the lead of Mr. Buchanan, to whom the
Arkansas application had been confided, as that of Michigan had been
to Mr. Benton. This latter senator alluded to this circumstance to
show that the people of these young States had no fear of trusting
their rights and interests to the care of senators differing from
themselves on the slavery question. He said:
"It was worthy of notice, that, on the presentation of these two
great questions for the admission of two States, the people of
those States were so slightly affected by the exertions that had
been made to disturb and ulcerate the public mind on the subject
of slavery, as to put them in the hands of senators who might
be supposed to entertain opinions on that subject different
from those held by the States whose interests they were charged
with. Thus, the people of Arkansas had put their application
into the hands of a gentleman representing a non-slaveholding
State; and the people of Michigan had put their application
into the hands of a senator (himself) coming from a State where
the institutions of slavery existed; affording a most beautiful
illustration of the total impotence of all attempts to agitate
and ulcerate the public mind on the worn-out subject of slavery.
He would further take occasion to say, that the abolition
question seemed to have died out; there not having been a single
presentation of a petition on that subject, since the general
jail delivery ordered by the Senate."
Mr. Swift, of Vermont, could not vote for the admission of Arkansas,
because the constitution of the State sanctioned perpetual slavery;
and said:
"That, although he felt every disposition to vote for the
admission of the new State into the Union, yet there were
operative reasons under which he must vote against it. On
looking at the constitution submitted by Arkansas, he found that
they had made the institution of slavery perpetual; and to this
he could never give his assent. He did not mean to oppose the
passage of the bill, but had merely risen to explain the reasons
why he could not vote for it."
Mr. Buchanan felt himself bound by the Missouri compromise to vote
for the admission, and pointed out the ameliorating feature in the
constitution which guaranteed the right of jury trials to slaves;
and said:
"That, on the subject of slavery, this constitution was more
liberal than the constitution of any of the slaveholding States
that had been admitted into the Union. It preserved the very
words of the other constitutions, in regard to slavery; but
there were other provisions in it in favor of the slaves, and
among them a provision which secured to them the right of trial
by jury; thus putting them, in that particular, on an equal
footing with the whites. He considered the compromise which had
been made, when Missouri was admitted into the Union, as having
settled the question as to slavery in the new South Western
States; and the committee, therefore, did not deem it right to
interfere with the question of slavery in Arkansas."
Mr. Prentiss, of Vermont, opposed the admission, on account of the
"revolutionary" manner in which the State had held her convention,
without the authorization of a previous act of Congress, and because
her constitution had given perpetual sanction to slavery; and,
referring to the reasons which induced him to vote against the
admission of Michigan, said:
"That he must also vote against the admission of Arkansas. He
viewed the movements of these two territories, with regard to
their admission into the Union, as decidedly revolutionary,
forming their constitution without the previous consent
of Congress, and importunately knocking at its doors for
admission. The objections he had to the admission of Arkansas,
particularly, were, that she had formed her constitution without
the previous assent of Congress, and in that constitution
had made slavery perpetual, as noticed by his colleague. He
regretted that he was compelled to vote against this bill; but
he could not, in the discharge of his duty, do otherwise."
Mr. Morris, of Ohio, spoke more fully on the objectionable point
than other senators, justifying the right of the people of a
territory, when amounting to 60,000 to meet and form their own
constitution--regretting the slavery clause in the constitution of
Arkansas, but refusing to vote against her on that account, as she
was not restrained by the ordinance of 1787, nor had entered into
agreement against slavery. He said:
"Before I record my vote in favor of the passage of the bill
under consideration, I must ask the indulgence of the Senate for
a moment, while I offer a few of the reasons which govern me in
the vote I shall give. Being one of the representatives of a
free State, and believing slavery to be wrong in principle, and
mischievous in practice, I wish to be clearly understood on the
subject, both here and by those I have the honor to represent. I
have objections to the constitution of Arkansas, on the ground
that slavery is recognized in that constitution, and settled
and established as a fundamental principle in her government. I
object to the existence of this principle forming a part of the
organic law in any State; and I would vote against the admission
of Arkansas, as a member of this Union, if I believed I had
the power to do so. The wrong, in a moral sense, with which I
view slavery, would be sufficient for me to do this, did I not
consider my political obligations, and the duty, as a member
of this body, I owe to the constitution under which I now act,
clearly require of me the vote I shall give. I hold that any
portion of American citizens, who may reside on a portion of the
territory of the United States, whenever their numbers shall
amount to that which would entitle them to a representation in
the House of Representatives in Congress, have the right to
provide for themselves a constitution and State government, and
to be admitted into the Union whenever they shall so apply; and
they are not bound to wait the action of Congress in the first
instance, except there is some compact or agreement requiring
them to do so. I place this right upon the broad, and, I
consider, indisputable ground, that all persons, living within
the jurisdiction of the United States, are entitled to equal
privileges; and it ought to be matter of high gratification to
us here, that, in every portion, even the most remote, of our
country, our people are anxious to obtain this high privilege at
as early a day as possible. It furnishes clear proof that the
Union is highly esteemed, and has its foundation deep in the
hearts of our fellow-citizens.
"By the constitution of the United States, power is given
to Congress to admit new States into the Union. It is in
the character of a State that any portion of our citizens,
inhabiting any part of the territory of the United States,
must apply to be admitted into the Union; a State government
and constitution must first be formed. It is not necessary for
the power of Congress, and I doubt whether Congress has such
power, to prescribe the mode by which the people shall form a
State constitution; and, for this plain reason, that Congress
would be entirely incompetent to the exercise of any coercive
power to carry into effect the mode they might prescribe. I
cannot, therefore, vote against the admission of Arkansas
into the Union, on the ground that there was no previous act
of Congress to authorize the holding of her convention. As a
member of Congress, I will not look beyond the constitution that
has been presented. I have no right to presume it was formed
by incompetent persons, or that it does not fully express the
opinions and wishes of the people of that country. It is true
that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the
Union a republican form of government: meaning, in my judgment,
that Congress shall not permit any power to establish, in any
State, a government without the assent of the people of such
State; and it will not be amiss that we remember here, also,
that that guaranty is to the State, and not as to the formation
of the government by the people of the State; but should it
be admitted that Congress can look into the constitution of a
State, in order to ascertain its character, before such State
is admitted into the Union, yet I contend that Congress cannot
object to it for the want of a republican form, if it contains
the great principle that all power is inherent in the people,
and that the government drew all its just powers from the
governed.
"The people of the territory of Arkansas, having formed
for themselves a State government, having presented their
constitution for admission into the Union, and that
constitution being republican in its form, and believing
that the people who prepared and sent this constitution here
are sufficiently numerous to entitle them to a representative
in Congress, and believing, also, that Congress has no right
or power to regulate the system of police these people have
established for themselves, and the ordinance of 1787 not
operating on them, nor have they entered into any agreement
with the United States that slavery should not be admitted in
their State, have the right to choose this lot for themselves,
though I regret that they made this choice. Yet believing that
this government has no right to interfere with the question of
slavery in any of the States, or prescribe what shall or shall
not be considered property in the different States, or by what
tenure property of any kind shall be holden, but that all these
are exclusively questions of State policy, I cannot, as a member
of this body, refuse my vote to admit this State into the Union,
because her constitution recognizes the right and existence of
slavery."
Mr. Alexander Porter, of Louisiana, would vote against the
admission, on account of the "revolutionary" proceedings of the
people in the formation of their constitution, without a previous
act of Congress. It is believed that Mr. Clay voted upon the same
ground. There were but six votes against the admission; namely: Mr.
Clay, Mr. Knight of Rhode Island, Mr. Porter, Mr. Prentiss, Mr.
Robbins of Rhode Island, and Mr. Swift. It is believed that Mr.
Robbins and Mr. Knight voted on the same ground with Mr. Clay and
Mr. Porter. So, the bill was easily passed, and the two bills went
together to the House of Representatives, where they gave rise to
proceedings, the interest of which still survives, and a knowledge
of which, therefore, becomes necessary. The two bills were made the
special order for the same day, Wednesday, the 8th of June, Congress
being to adjourn on the 4th of July; and the Michigan bill having
priority on the calendar, as it had first passed the Senate. Mr.
Wise, of Virginia, on the announcement of the Michigan bill, from
the chair, as the business before the House, moved to postpone its
consideration until the ensuing Monday, in order to proceed with the
Arkansas bill. Mr. Thomas, of Maryland, objected to the motion, and
said:
"He would call the attention of the House to the position of
the two bills on the Speaker's table, and endeavor to show
that this postponement is entirely unnecessary. These bills
are from the Senate. By the rules of this House, two, I may
say three, questions will arise, to be decided before they can
become a law, so far as this House is concerned. We must first
order each of these bills to be read a third time; the next
question then will be, when shall the bill be read a third
time? And the last question to be decided will be, shall the
bill pass? Why, then, should Southern men now make an effort to
give precedence to the bill for the admission of Arkansas into
the Union? If they manifest distrust, must we not expect that
fears will be entertained by Northern members, that unreasonable
opposition will be made to the admission of Michigan? Let us
proceed harmoniously, until we find that our harmony must be
interrupted. We shall lose nothing by so doing. If a majority
of the House be in favor of reading a third time the Michigan
bill, they will order it to be done. After that vote has been
taken, we can refuse to read the bill a third time, go into
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, then consider
the Arkansas bill, report it to the House, order it to be read a
third time, and in this order proceed to read them each a third
time, if a majority of the House be in favor of that proceeding.
Let it not be said that Southern men may be taken by surprise,
if the proceeding here respectfully recommended be adopted. If
the friends of Arkansas are sufficiently numerous to carry now
the motion to postpone, they can arrest at any time the action
of the House on the Michigan bill, until clear undubitable
indications have been given that the Missouri compromise is not
to be disregarded."
These latter words of Mr. Thomas revealed the point of jealousy
between some Southern and Northern members, and brought the
observance of the Missouri compromise fully into view, as a question
to be tried. Mr. Wise, after some remarks, modified his motion by
moving to refer both bills to the Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, with instructions to incorporate the two bills
into one bill. Mr. Patton, of Virginia, opposed the latter motion,
and gave his reasons at length against it. If his colleague would so
modify his motion as to move to refer both bills to the Committee of
the Whole House, without the instructions, he would vote for it. Mr.
Bouldin, of Virginia, successor to Mr. Randolph, said:
"He agreed with his colleague [Mr. Patton] in a fact too
plain for any to overlook, that both bills must be acted on
separately, and that one must have the preference in point of
time. Michigan had it at that time--he was willing it should
hold it. His colleague [Mr. Patton] seemed to think that in
the incipient steps in relation to this bill, it would be well
enough to suffer Michigan to hold her present position; but
that, before the final passage of the bill, it would be well
to require of the House (or rather of the non-slaveholding
portion of the Union) to give some unequivocal guaranty to the
South that no difficulty would be raised as to the reception of
Arkansas in regard to negro slavery. Mr. B. was willing to go
on with the bill for the admission of Michigan. He had the most
implicit confidence in the House, particularly alluding to the
non-slaveholding part of the Union, that no serious difficulty
would be made as to the admission of Arkansas in regard to negro
slavery. If there were any serious difficulties to be raised
in the House to the admission of Arkansas, upon the ground
of negro slavery, he wished immediate notice of it. If his
confidence was misplaced, he wished to be corrected as soon and
as certainly as possible. If there really was any intention in
the House of putting the South under any difficulty, restraint,
limit, any shackle or embarrassment on the South on account of
negro slavery (some gentlemen said slavery, but he said _negro_
slavery), he wished to know it. If there were any individuals
having such feeling, he wished to know them; he wished to hear
their names upon yeas and nays. If there were a majority, he
should act promptly, decisively, immediately upon it, and had
no doubt all the South would do the same. There might be some
question as to the claim of non-slaveholding States to stop the
progress of Southern habits and Southern influence Northward.
As to Arkansas, there could be no question; and if seriously
pressed, such claims could leave no doubt on the minds of
the South as to the object of those who pressed them, or the
course to be pursued by them. Such a stand being taken by the
non-slaveholding States, it would make little difference whether
Michigan was in or out of this Union. He said he would sit down,
again assuring the House, and the gentlemen particularly from
the non-slaveholding States, of his entire confidence that no
such thing would be seriously attempted by any considerable
numbers of this House."
Mr. Lewis, of Worth Carolina, took decided ground in favor of giving
the Arkansas bill the priority of decision; and expressed himself
thus:
"He should vote for the proposition of the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wise] to lay the bill for the admission of
Michigan into the Union on the table, until the bill for the
admission of Arkansas should be first passed. He should do this,
for the obvious reason that there were dangers, he would not
say how great, which beset Arkansas, and which did not beset
Michigan. The question of slavery could be moved as a condition
for the admission of Arkansas, and it could not as a condition
to the admission of Michigan. I look upon the Arkansas question
as therefore the weaker of the two, and for that reason I would
give it precedence. Besides, upon the delicate question which
may be involved in the admission of Arkansas, we may be the
weaker party in this House. For that reason, if gentlemen mean
to offer no obstructions to the admission of Arkansas, let them
give the assurance by helping the weaker party through with the
weaker question. We of the South cannot, and will not, as I
pledge myself, offer any objections to the domestic institutions
of Michigan with regard to slavery. Can any gentleman make the
same pledge that no such proposition shall come from the North?
Besides, the two bills are not now on an equal footing. The bill
for the admission of Arkansas must be sent to a Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union. The bill for the admission
of Michigan need not necessarily go to that committee. It will
therefore pass in perfect safety, while we shall be left to get
Arkansas along, through the tedious stages of commitment, as
well as we can. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Sutherland]
says that these two bills will be hostages for the safety of
each other. Not, sir, if you pass the stronger bill in advance
of the weaker. Besides, the North want no hostages on this
subject. Their institutions cannot be attacked. We of the South
want a hostage, to protect us on a delicate question; and the
effect of giving precedence to the Michigan bill is to deprive
us of that hostage."
Mr. Cushing, of Massachusetts, addressed the committee at length on
the subject, of which only the leading passages can be given. He
said:
"The House has now continued in session for the space of
eighteen or nineteen hours, without any interval of refreshment
or rest. It is impossible to mistake the intentions of the
ruling majority. I see clearly that the committee is resolved to
sit out the debate on these important bills for the admission
of Michigan and Arkansas into the Union. This, it is apparent,
the majority have the power as well as the right to do. Whether
it be just and reasonable, is another question. I shall not
quarrel, however, with the avowed will of the House. It has
done me the favor to hear me with patience on other occasions;
and I cannot render it the unfit return of trespassing on its
indulgence at this unseasonable hour, nor seek to defeat its
purposes by speaking against time. But having been charged
with sundry memorials from citizens of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire, remonstrating against that clause in the constitution
of Arkansas which relates to the subject of slavery, I should
be recreant to the trust they have reposed in me, if I suffered
the bill for the admission of Arkansas to pass without a word of
protestation. The extraordinary circumstances under which I rise
to address the committee impel me to brevity and succinctness;
but they would afford me no justification for a passive
acquiescence in the admission of Arkansas into the Union, with
all the sins of its constitution upon its head.
"The constitution of Arkansas, as communicated to Congress in
the memorial of the people of that Territory, praying to be
admitted into the Union, contains the following clause: 'The
General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the
emancipation of slaves without the consent of the owners. They
shall have no power to prevent emigrants to this State from
bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the
laws of any one of the United States.' This provision of the
constitution of Arkansas is condemned by those whom I represent
on this occasion as anti-republican, as wrong on general
principles of civil polity, and as unjust to the inhabitants
of the non-slaveholding States. They object to it as being,
in effect, a provision to render slavery perpetual in the new
State of Arkansas. I concur in reprobating such a clause. The
legislature of Arkansas is forbidden to emancipate the slaves
within its jurisdiction, even though it should be ready to
indemnify fully their owners. It is forbidden to exclude slaves
from being imported into the State. I cannot, by any vote of
mine, ratify or sanction a constitution of government which
undertakes in this way to foreclose in advance the progress of
civilization and of liberty for ever. In order to do justice
to the unchangeable opinions of the North, without, in any
respect, invading the rights, real or supposed, of the South,
my colleague [Mr. Adams], the vigilant eye of whose unsleeping
mind there is nothing which escapes, has moved an amendment of
the bill for the admission of Arkansas into the Union, so that,
if the amendment be adopted, the bill would read as follows:
'The State of Arkansas is admitted into the Union upon the
express condition that the people of the said State shall never
interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within
the said State, nor shall they levy a tax on any of the lands
of the United States within the said State; and nothing in this
act shall be construed as an assent by Congress [to the article
in the constitution of the said State relating to slavery and
to the emancipation of the slaves, or] to all or to any of the
propositions contained in the ordinance of the said convention
of the people of Arkansas, nor to deprive the said State of
Arkansas of the same grants, subject to the same restrictions,
which were made to the State of Missouri.' This amendment is,
according to my judgment, reasonable and proper in itself, and
the very least that any member from the North can propose in
vindication of the opinions and principles of himself and his
constituents.
"It is opposed, however, by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Wise], with his accustomed vigor and ability. He alleges
considerations adverse to the motion. He interrogates the
friends of the proposed amendment in regard to its force,
effect, and purposes, in terms which seem to challenge
response; or which, at any rate, if not distinctly and promptly
met, would leave the objections which those interrogatories
impliedly convey, to be taken as confessed and admitted by our
significant silence. What may be the opinions of Martin Van
Buren as to this particular bill, what his conduct formerly in
reference to a similar case, is a point concerning which I can
have no controversy with the gentleman from Virginia. I look
only to the merits of the question before the committee. There
is involved in it a principle which I regard as immeasurably
more important than the opinion of any individual in this
nation, however high his present situation or his possible
destiny--the great principle of constitutional freedom. The
gentleman from Virginia, who, I cheerfully admit, is always
frank and honorable in his course upon this floor, has just
declared that, as a Southern man, he had felt it to be his duty
to come forward and take a stand in behalf of an institution of
the South. That institution is slavery. In like manner, I feel
it to be my duty, as a Northern man, to take a counter stand in
conservation of one among the dearest of the institutions of the
North. This institution is liberty. It is not to assail slavery,
but to defend liberty, that I speak. It is demanded of us, Do
you seek to impose restrictions on Arkansas, in violation of
the compromise under which Missouri entered the Union? I might
content myself with replying that the State of Massachusetts was
not a party to that compromise. She never directly or indirectly
assented to it. Most of her Representatives in Congress voted
against it. Those of her Representatives who, regarding that
compromise in the light of an act of conciliation important to
the general interests of the Union, voted for it, were disavowed
and denounced at home, and were stigmatized even here, by a
Southern member, as over-compliant towards the exactingness
of the South. On the first introduction of this subject to
the notice of the House, the gentleman from Virginia made a
declaration, which I particularly noticed at the time, for
the purpose of having the tenor of the declaration distinctly
understood by the House and by the country. The gentleman gave
it to be known that, if members from the North held themselves
not engaged by the terms of the compromise under which Missouri
entered into the Union, neither would members from the South
hold themselves engaged thereby; and that, if we sought to
impose restrictions affecting slave property on the one hand,
they might be impelled, on the other hand, to introduce slavery
into the heart of the North. I heard the suggestion with the
feelings natural to one born and bred in a land of equality and
freedom. I took occasion to protest, in the surprised impulse
of the moment, against the idea of putting restrictions on
liberty in one quarter of the Union, in retaliation of the
attempt to limit the spread of slavery in another quarter.
I held up to view the inconsistency and inconsequence of
uttering the warmest eulogiums on freedom one day, of pouring
out aspirations that the spirit of liberty might pervade the
universe, and at another time threatening the North with the
establishment of Slavery within its borders, if a Northern
member should deprecate the legal perpetuation of slavery
in a proposed new State of the West. It did not fall within
the rules of pertinent debate to pursue the subject at that
time; and I have but a single idea to present now, in addition
to what I then observed. It is not possible for me to judge
whether the gentleman from Virginia, and any of his friends or
fellow-citizens at the South, deliberately and soberly cherish
the extraordinary purpose which his language implied. I trust
it was but a hasty thought, struck out in the ardor of debate.
To introduce slavery into the heart of the North? Vain idea!
Invasion, pestilence, civil war, may conspire to exterminate
the eight millions of free spirits who now dwell there. This,
in the long lapse of ages incalculable, is possible to happen.
You may raze to the earth the thronged cities, the industrious
villages, the peaceful hamlets of the North. You may lay waste
its fertile valleys and verdant hill-sides. You may plant its
very soil with salt, and consign it to everlasting desolation.
You may transform its beautiful fields into a desert as bare
as the blank face of the sands of Sahara. You may reach the
realization of the infernal boast with which Attila the Hun
marched his barbaric hosts into Italy, demolishing whatever
there is of civilization or prosperity in the happy dwellings of
the North, and reducing their very substance to powder, so that
a squadron of cavalry shall gallop over the site of populous
cities, unimpeded as this wild steeds on the savannas of the
West. All this you may do: it is within the bounds of physical
possibility. But I solemnly assure every gentleman within the
sound of my voice, I proclaim to the country and to the world,
that, until all this be fully accomplished to the uttermost
extremity of the letter, you cannot, you shall not, introduce
slavery into the heart of the North."
A point of order being raised whether the two bills were not
required by a rule of the House to go before the Committee of the
Whole, the Speaker, Mr. Polk, decided in the affirmative--the
Arkansas bill, upon the ground of containing an appropriation for
the salary of judges; and that of Michigan because it provided
for judges, which involved a necessity for an appropriation. The
two bills then went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speight, of
North Carolina, in the chair. Many members spoke, and much of the
speaking related to the boundaries of Michigan, and especially the
line between herself and the State of Ohio--to which no surviving
interest attaches. The debate, therefore, will only be pursued as
it presents points of present and future interest. These may be
assumed under three heads: 1. The formation of constitutions without
the previous assent of Congress: and this was applicable to both
States. 2. The right of aliens to vote before naturalization. 3.
The right of Arkansas to be admitted with slavery by virtue of the
rights of a State,--by virtue of the third article of the treaty
which ceded Louisiana to the United States--and by virtue of the
Missouri compromise. On these points, Mr. Hamer, of Ohio, spoke thus:
"One of the principal objections urged against their admission
at this time is, that their proceedings have been lawless and
revolutionary; and that, for the example's sake, if for no other
reason, we should reject their application, and force them to
go back and do all their work over again. I cannot assent to
this proposition. Two ways are open to every territory that
desires to emerge from its dependent condition and become a
State. It may either petition Congress for leave to form a
State constitution, and, when that permission is given, proceed
to form it, and present the new State constitution for our
approbation; or they may meet, in the first instance, form
the constitution, and offer it for our approval. There is no
impropriety in either mode. It is optional with Congress, at
last, to admit the State or not, as may be thought expedient. If
they wish to admit her, they can do it by two acts of Congress;
one to authorize the formation of a constitution, and the other
to approve of it when made; or by one act allowing the prayer
of the petitioners to become a State, and approving of their
constitution at the same time. This latter course is the one
adopted in the present case. There is nothing disrespectful
in it. Indeed, there is much to justify the Territory in its
proceeding. Year after year they petitioned for leave to form
a constitution, and it was refused, or their application was
treated with neglect. Wearied with repeated instances of this
treatment, they have formed a constitution, brought it to us,
and asked us to sanction it, and admit them into the Union.
We have the authority to do this; and if their constitution
is republican, we ought to do it. There is no weight in this
objection, and I will dismiss it without further remark.
Another objection is, that aliens have aided in making this
constitution, and are allowed the right of suffrage in all
elections by the provisions it contains. As to the first point,
it is sufficient to say that all the new States northwest of
the Ohio formed their constitutions precisely in the same way.
The ordinance of 1787 does not require sixty thousand citizens
of the United States to be resident within the limits of a new
State, in order to authorize a constitution and admission into
the Union. It requires that number of 'free inhabitants;' and
the alien who resides there, if he be a 'free inhabitant,' is
entitled to vote in the election of delegates to the convention;
and afterwards in deciding whether the people will accept the
constitution formed by their convention. Such has been the
construction and practice in all the country north of the Ohio;
and as the last census shows that there are but a few hundreds
of aliens in Michigan, it would be hard to set aside their
constitution, because some of these may have participated in its
formation. It would be unjust to do so, if we had the power; but
we have no authority to do it; for if we regard the ordinance
as of any validity, it allows all 'free inhabitants' to vote in
framing the State governments which are to be created within the
sphere of its influence. We will now turn to the remaining point
in this objection, and we shall see that it has no more force in
it than the other.
"The constitution allows all white male citizens over twenty-one
years of age, having resided six months in Michigan, to vote
at all elections; and every white male inhabitant residing in
the State at the time of signing the constitution is allowed
the same privilege. These provisions undoubtedly confer on
aliens the right of suffrage; and it is contended that they
are in violation of the constitution of the United States.
That instrument declares that 'new States may be admitted by
the Congress into this Union;' that 'the United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of
government;' and that 'the citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several States.' The ordinance of 1787 provides that the
constitution to be formed northwest of the Ohio 'shall be
republican.'
"It is an error not very uncommon to suppose that the right
of suffrage is inseparably connected with the privilege of
citizenship. A slight investigation of the subject will prove
that this is not so. The privileges are totally distinct.
A State cannot make an American citizen who, under the
constitution of the United States shall be entitled to the
rights of citizenship throughout the Union. The power belongs
to the federal government. We pass all the naturalization laws,
by which aliens are transformed into citizens. We do so under
the constitution of the United States, conceding to us this
authority. But, on the other hand, we have no control over
the right of suffrage in the different States. That belongs
exclusively to State legislation and State authority. It varies
in almost all the States; and yet who ever supposed that
Congress could interfere to change the rules adopted by the
people in regard to it? No one, I presume. Why then attempt to
control it here? Other States have adopted the same provisions.
Look at the constitutions of Ohio and other new States, and you
will find that they require residence only, and not citizenship,
to enable a man to vote. Each State can confer this right upon
all persons within her limits. It gives them no rights beyond
the limits of the State. It cannot make them citizens, for that
would violate the naturalization laws; or, rather, it would
render them nugatory. It cannot give them a right to vote in any
other State, for that would infringe upon the authority of such
State to regulate its own affairs. It simply confers the right
of aiding in the choice of public officers whilst the alien
remains in the State; it does not make him a citizen; nor is
it of the slightest advantage to him beyond the boundaries of
Michigan."
Mr. Hamer concluded his remarks with a feeling allusion to the
distractions which had prevailed during the Missouri controversy,
a congratulation upon their disappearance under the Missouri
compromise and an earnest exhortation to harmony and the
preservation of good feeling in the speedy admission of the two
States; and said:
"We can put an end to a most distracting contest, that has
agitated our country from Maine to Georgia, and from the
Atlantic to the most remote settlement upon the frontier. There
was a time when the most painful anxiety pervaded the whole
nation; and whilst each one waited with feverish impatience for
further intelligence from the disputed territory, he trembled
lest the ensuing mail should bear the disastrous tidings of a
civil strife in which brother had fallen by the hand of brother,
and the soil of freedom had been stained by the blood of her own
sons. But the storm has passed. The usual good fortune of the
American people has prevailed. The land heaves in view, and a
haven, with its wide-spread arms, invites us to enter. After so
long an exposure to the fury of a tempest that was apparently
gathering in our political horizon, let us seize the first
opportunity to steer the ship into a safe harbor, far beyond
the reach of that elemental war that threatened her security in
the open sea. Let us pass this bill. It does justice to all. It
conciliates all. Its provisions will carry peace and harmony to
those who are now agitated by strife, and disquieted by tumults
and disorders. By this just, humane, and beneficent policy, we
shall consolidate our liberties, and make this government what
Mr. Jefferson, more than thirty years ago, declared it to be,
'the strongest government on earth; the only one where every
man, at the call of the law, will fly to the standard of the
law, and meet invasions of the public order as his own personal
concern.' With this policy on the part of the government, and
the spirit of patriotism that now animates our citizens in full
vigor, united America may bid defiance to a world in arms; and
should Providence continue to smile upon our country, we may
confidently anticipate that the freedom, the happiness, and the
prosperity, which we now enjoy, will be as perpetual as the
lofty mountains that crown our continent, or the noble rivers
that fertilize our plains."
Mr. Adams commenced a speech in Committee of the Whole, which
was finished in the House, and being prepared for publication by
himself, and therefore free from error, is here given--all the main
parts of it--to show his real position on the slavery question, so
much misunderstood at the time on account of his tenacious adherence
to the right of petition. He said:
"I cannot, consistently with my sense of my obligations as a
citizen of the United States, and bound by oath to support their
constitution, I cannot object to the admission of Arkansas
into the Union as a slave State; I cannot propose or agree to
make it a condition of her admission, that a convention of her
people shall expunge this article from her constitution. She
is entitled to admission as a slave State, as Louisiana and
Mississippi, and Alabama, and Missouri, have been admitted,
by virtue of that article in the treaty for the acquisition
of Louisiana, which secures to the inhabitants of the ceded
territories all the rights, privileges, and immunities, of the
original citizens of the United States; and stipulates for
their admission, conformably to that principle, into the Union.
Louisiana was purchased as a country wherein slavery was the
established law of the land. As Congress have not power in time
of peace to abolish slavery in the original States of the Union,
they are equally destitute of the power in those parts of the
territory ceded by France to the United States by the name of
Louisiana, where slavery existed at the time of the acquisition.
Slavery is in this Union the subject of internal legislation
in the States, and in peace is cognizable by Congress only, as
it is tacitly tolerated and protected where it exists by the
constitution of the United States, and as it mingles in their
intercourse with other nations. Arkansas, therefore, comes,
and has the right to come into the Union with her slaves and
her slave laws. It is written in the bond, and, however I may
lament that it ever was so written, I must faithfully perform
its obligations. I am content to receive her as one of the
slave-holding States of this Union; but I am unwilling that
Congress, in accepting her constitution, should even lie under
the imputation of assenting to an article in the constitution of
a State which withholds from its legislature the power of giving
freedom to the slave. Upon this topic I will not enlarge. Were I
disposed so to do, twenty hours of continuous session have too
much exhausted my own physical strength, and the faculties as
well as the indulgence of those who might incline to hear me,
for me to trespass longer upon their patience. When the bill
shall be reported to the House, I may, perhaps, again ask to be
heard, upon renewing there, as I intend, the motion for this
amendment."
After a session of twenty-five hours, including the whole night,
the committee rose and reported the two bills to the House. Of the
arduousness of this session, which began at ten in the morning of
Thursday, and was continued until eleven o'clock the next morning,
Mr. Adams, who remained at his post the whole time, gave this
account in a subsequent notice of the sitting:
"On Thursday, the 9th of June, the House went into Committee
of the Whole on the state of the Union upon two bills; one to
fix the Northern boundary of the State of Ohio, and for the
conditional admission of the State of Michigan into the Union;
and the other for the admission of the State of Arkansas into
the Union. The bill for fixing the Northern boundary of the
State of Ohio, and the conditional admission of Michigan into
the Union, was first taken up for consideration, and gave rise
to debates which continued till near one o'clock of the morning
of Friday, the 10th of June: repeated motions to adjourn had
been made and rejected. The committee had twice found itself
without a quorum, and had been thereby compelled to rise, and
report the fact to the House. In the first instance there had
been found within private calling distance a sufficient number
of members, who, though absent from their duty of attendance
upon the House, were upon the alert to appear and answer to
their names to make a quorum to vote against adjourning, and
then to retire again to their amusement or repose. Upon the
first restoration of the quorum by this operation, the delegate
from Arkansas said that if the committee would only take up
and read the bill, he would not urge any discussion upon it
then, and would consent to the committee's rising, and resuming
the subject at the next sitting of the House. The bill was
accordingly read; a motion was then made for the committee to
rise, and rejected; an amendment to the bill was moved, on
taking the question upon which there was no quorum. The usual
expedient of private call to straggling members was found
ineffectual. A call of the House was ordered, at one o'clock
in the morning. This operation to be carried through all its
stages, must necessarily consume about three hours of time,
during which the House can do no other business. Upon this call,
after the names of all the members had been twice called over,
and all the absentees for whom any valid or plausible excuse was
offered had been excused, there remained eighty-one names of
members, who, by the rules of the House, were to be taken into
custody as they should appear, or were to be sent for, and taken
into custody wherever they might be found, by special messengers
appointed for that purpose. At this hour of the night the city
of Washington was ransacked by these special messengers, and the
members of the House were summoned from their beds to be brought
in custody of these special messengers, before the House, to
answer for their absence. After hearing the excuses of two of
these members, and the acknowledged no good reason of a third,
they were all excused in a mass, without payment of fees; which
fees, to the amount of two or three hundred dollars, have of
course become a charge upon the people, and to be paid with
their money. By this operation, between four and five o'clock
of the morning, a small quorum of the House was obtained, and,
without any vote of the House, the speaker left the chair, which
was resumed by the chairman of the Committee of the Whole."
Mr. Adams resumed his seat, and Mr. Wise addressed the committee,
particularly in reply to Mr. Cushing. Confusion, noise and disorder
became great in the Hall. Several members spoke; and cries of
"order," and "question" were frequent. Personal reflections
passed, and an affair of honor followed between two Southern
members, happily adjusted without bloodshed. The chairman, Mr.
Speight, by great exertions, had procured attention to Mr. Hoar, of
Massachusetts. Afterwards Mr. Adams again addressed the committee.
Mr. Wise inquired of him whether in his own opinion, if his
amendment should be adopted, the State of Arkansas would, by this
bill, be admitted? Mr. Adams answered--"Certainly, sir. There is not
in my amendment the shadow of a restriction proposed upon the State.
It leaves the State, like all the rest, to regulate the subject of
slavery within herself by her own laws." The motion of Mr. Adams was
rejected, only thirty-two members voting for it; being not one third
of the members from the non-slaveholding States.
The vote was taken on the Michigan bill first, and was ordered to a
third reading by a vote of 153 to 45. The nays were:
"Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Heman Allen, Jeremiah Bailey, John
Bell, George N. Briggs, William B. Calhoun, George Chambers,
John Chambers, Timothy Childs, William Clark, Horace Everett,
William J. Graves, George Grennell, jr., John K. Griffin,
Hiland Hall, Gideon Hard, Benjamin Hardin, James Harper, Abner
Hazeltine, Samuel Hoar, Joseph R. Ingersoll, Daniel Jenifer,
Abbott Lawrence, Levi Lincoln, Thomas C. Love, Samson Mason,
Jonathan McCarty, Thomas M. T. McKennan, Charles F. Mercer,
John J. Milligan, Mathias Morris, James Parker, James A.
Pearce, Stephen C. Phillips, David Potts, jr., John Reed,
John Robertson, David Russell, William Slade, John N. Steele,
John Taliaferro, Joseph R. Underwood, Lewis Williams, Sherrod
Williams, Henry A. Wise."
It is remarkable that this list of nays begins with Mr. Adams, and
ends with Mr. Wise--a proof that all the negative votes, were not
given upon the same reasons.
The vote was immediately after taken on ordering to a third reading
the bill for the admission of the State of Arkansas; which was so
ordered by a vote of 143 to 50. The nays were:
"Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Heman Allen, Joseph B. Anthony,
Jeremiah Bailey, William K. Bond, Nathaniel E. Borden, George
N. Briggs, William B. Calhoun, Timothy Childs, William Clark,
Joseph H. Crane, Caleb Cushing, Edward Darlington, Harmer Denny,
George Evans, Horace Everett, Philo C. Fuller, George Grennell,
jr., Hiland Hall, Gideon Hard, James Harper, Abner Hazeltine,
Joseph Henderson, William Hiester, Samuel Hoar, William Jackson,
Henry F. Janes, Benjamin Jones, John Laporte, Abbott Lawrence,
George W. Lay, Levi Lincoln, Thomas C. Love, Samson Mason,
Jonathan McCarthy, Thomas M. T. McKennan, Mathias Morris, James
Parker, Dutee J. Pearce, Stephen C. Phillips, David Potts, jr.,
John Reed, David Russell, William N. Shinn, William Slade,
John Thomson, Joseph R. Underwood, Samuel F. Vinton, Elisha
Whittlesey, Lewis Williams."
Here again the beginning and the ending of the list of voters is
remarkable, beginning again with Mr. Adams, and terminating with
Mr. Lewis Williams, of North Carolina--two gentlemen wide apart in
their political courses, and certainly voting on this occasion on
different principles.
From the meagreness of these negative votes, it is evident that
the struggle was, not to pass the two bills, but to bring them to
a vote. This was the secret of the arduous session of twenty-five
hours in the House. Besides the public objections which clogged
their admission--boundaries in one, slavery in the other, alien
voting, and (what was deemed by some), revolutionary conduct in
both in holding conventions without authority of Congress; besides
these public reasons, there was another cause operating silently,
and which went more to the postponement than to the rejection of the
States. This cause was political and partisan, and grew out of the
impending presidential election, to be held before Congress should
meet again. Mr. Van Buren was the democratic candidate; General
William Henry Harrison was the candidate of the opposition; and
Mr. Hugh L. White, of Tennessee, was brought forward by a fraction
which divided from the democratic party. The new States, it was
known, would vote, if now admitted, for Mr. Van Buren; and this
furnished a reason to the friends of the other candidates (even
those friendly to eventual admission, and on which some of them were
believed to act), to wish to stave off the admission to the ensuing
session.--The actual negative vote to the admission of each State,
was not only small, but nearly the same in number, and mixed both
as to political parties and sectional localities; so as to exclude
the idea of any regular or considerable opposition to Arkansas as a
slave State. The vote which would come nearest to referring itself
to that cause was the one on Mr. Adams' proposed amendment to the
State constitution; and there the whole vote amounted only to 32;
and of the sentiments of the greater part of these, including Mr.
Adams himself, the speech of that gentleman must be considered
the authentic exponent; and will refer their opposition, not to
any objection to the admission of the State as slave-holding, but
to an unwillingness to appear upon the record as assenting to a
constitution which forbid emancipation, and made slavery perpetual.
The number actually voting to reject the State, and keep her out
of the Union, because she admitted slavery, must have been quite
small--not more in proportion, probably, than what it was in the
Senate.