■'^ ' . . » \ 
 
 ^0 
 
 0.;-. 
 
 » . rv ^ 
 
 
 .0* 
 
 iV 
 
 
 -P^ 
 
 < O 
 
 
 o > 
 
 
 ^<-, 
 
 
 
 ,^^ 
 
 '^^ 
 
 .0^ 
 
 V- 
 
 -7*. 
 
 o^ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 A V/ 
 
 
 
 '/- 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 >. 
 
 
 ) 
 
 " \'. 
 
 
 
 /'^ 
 
 <■■ 
 
 
 
 
 ^'V 
 
 
 
 r^' 
 
 
 
 **. 
 
 
 
 '^% 
 
 
 0^ 
 
 ' .*^ 
 
 "^. 
 
 
 " v/' 
 
 
 " 9 . "^ 
 
 
 • • » V 
 
 .V 
 
 ^-0' 
 
 -".. .*•» 
 
 <^ - O H o - O, 
 
 
 4 o 
 
 "^^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 • v 
 
 vl-' 
 
 
 
 '^^. 
 
 '-v-v 
 
 vV^' -^ 
 
 -<» >» 
 
 
 .V 
 
 ■^ ' f- ' -^ - *o 
 
 ^-^^ 
 
 
 • • ' \ ' 
 
 .^^ 
 
 o > 
 
 ^^•n^ 
 
 *>, 
 
 
 - 
 
 o 
 
 **:. 
 
 
 
 -% 
 
 .0^ 
 
 
 
 -i-ti' 
 

 •) 
 
 o 
 
 
 V-" '^<^, 
 
 V^ 
 
 "<^ 
 
 » ( •< 
 
 
 .f 
 
 0- 
 
 •V^s 
 
 
 :% 
 
 
 
 ^m.: ^•n.o^ 
 
 (y c ° " " " ^o ■ ' ■ ^ 
 
 
 
 . > V ^ ' * "' C 
 
 
 
 
 a<^ 
 
 yi>^ A^^ ' '^'' ' X*^ -7-. 
 
 V, * o « o ' ^^ 
 
 s • • . -^^ 
 
 
 ' t/ "- 
 
 
 'V. * o » " A^ 
 
 ^^ 'o . » * 
 
 .^^ 
 
 
 ( 
 
J 
 

 A^/^2 
 
 CONSIDEEATIONS 
 
 ON 
 
 THE IMPROPRIETY AND INEXPEDIENCY 
 
 OF RENEWING 
 
 THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 
 
 *' The JMissouri Question is the most portentous one that ever yet threatened 
 our Union. — In the glooiniest moment of the Revolutionarij War, I never had 
 any apprehension equal to that I feel from this source." — Jeffehson. 
 
 BY A PENNSYLVANIAN. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 M. CAREY ^ SON. 
 
 1820. 
 
 m 
 
C.^^ ^ '"S 
 
 
 # 
 
CONSIDERATIONS, t^c. 
 
 NO one, who has the welfare of his country at heart, can 
 look with indifference upon the approaching session of Con- 
 gress. If general report, and the declarations of some of the 
 principal newspapers in this quarter of the Union, are to be 
 credited, that great and solemn question, which has already- 
 shaken the republic to its foundation, is again to be contested. 
 The admission of Missouri into the family of states is to be 
 again opposed, when her constitution is laid before congress. 
 The toleration of slavery by this instrument is to be held forth 
 as the reason for prohibiting her entrance ; and the warm and 
 universal feeling of repugnance which is known to exist in the 
 eastern and middle states against the extension of that evil, 
 will, it is supposed, induce the people to second the measure 
 with the same unanimity that was displayed on the first agita- 
 tion of the question. Nothing, it seems, has been gained by 
 the experience of the last session of congress. The lessons 
 which that memorable period ought to have inculcated, appear 
 to be neglected. What has been solemnly and harmoniously 
 decided, is now to be violently unsettled; the torch of discord 
 is to be again lighted ; " rancour" is to be " put into the vessels 
 of our peace ;" and the fortunes of the republic are once more 
 to be s'et adrift. Whatever may be the opinions of individuals 
 upon the abstract right of holding human beings in bondage, 
 however deeply they may deplore the existence of slavery in 
 the United States, and however ardently they may desire its 
 extinction, (and no one can have a greater abhorrence of this 
 pernicious evil than I have) with all its crimes and miseries, 
 I do conceive the calamities that are likely to spring from the 
 renewal of the discussion to be so much greater and more 
 
alarming, that no true friend of our happy and blessed Union 
 can hesitate which alternative to prefer. With the proceed- 
 ings of the next session of congress I believe the destinies of 
 the Union to be connected. Whether this great and admirable 
 republic is to i"emain united and prosperous, a monument of 
 the beauty and efficacy of free institutions, or to be violently 
 resolved into its original elements, and to become the theatre 
 and prey of a fierce intestine conflict, will, it appears to me, 
 mainly depend on the final settlement of the Missouri Ques- 
 tion. If this subject be passed over in harmony, — if Missouri 
 be admitted, as she claims to be, on the same footing with 
 Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, 
 that is, with the privilege of determining for herself on the 
 subject of slavery, there appears nothing in the perspective 
 from which the Union has aught to apprehend. But if, on the 
 other hand, we are to persist in the determination of shackling 
 her with restrictions, consequences the most awful will proba- 
 bly ensue. Impressed with the opinion that great moral and 
 political mischiefs will follow even from the agitation of the 
 question anew, and believing that an adherence to the princi- 
 ples of the compromise agreed upon last winter is required by 
 reason, humanity, and political expediency, I conceive that 
 no effort should be wanting to prevent a renewal of the dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 The Missouri Question, as it was presented to the con- 
 sideration of the last session of congress, was admitted on 
 all sides to be the most delicate and difficult question that 
 had arisen since the adoption of the present constitution. 
 Perhaps it is not going too far to say, that no question was 
 ever discussed before a legislative bod}', more complicated in 
 its connexions, or pregnant with more important conse- 
 quences. The constitutional right of the legislature, under 
 our peculiar form of government, to prohibit the introduction 
 of slavery into the new states and territories; the right to pro- 
 hibit the introduction or holding of slaves, in the particular 
 case of Missouri, in opposition to a supposed covenant in the 
 treaty with France by which the territory was acquired ; the 
 expediency of exercising such right, supposing it to exist; the 
 
5 
 
 effect of the proposed restriction upon the condition of the 
 slaves at present existing in the elder states, and upon the fu- 
 ture increase, by procreation or importation, of that unfortu- 
 nate race ; the consequences of the proposed restriction upon 
 the character and capacities of the white population of Mis- 
 souri and the territories, considered with reference to their 
 morals and to their political privileges and duties as members 
 of the confederacy ; the consequences of the proposed restric- 
 tion upon the political importance of the different sections of 
 the Union ; and, above all, its effect upon the health and per- 
 manence of that Union, — were considerations which gave the 
 subject a most fearful and unusual importance. It was a subject 
 upon which some of the first men in the country differed, and 
 upon which, if considered connectedly with its threatened po- 
 litical consequences, the best and wisest men in any country 
 might differ. To the moralist of a foreign nation, the naked 
 question, whether the doors of a new and unpolluted land 
 should be thrown open to the admission of evil, would appear 
 too plain and self-evident to admit of doubt. But when the 
 right to prohibit was denied by those upon whom it was to be 
 exercised, and the consequences of persisting in the claim 
 appeared in their full magnitude, a different question was pre- 
 sented. On the one hand, was to be considered the pi-obable 
 increase of a servile population, at once the curse and reproach 
 of the nation; and on the other, the possible destruction of our 
 happy republic, the source of prosperity and comforts to mil- 
 lions of a better race, or at least the certain creation of hostile 
 feelings between the members of a confederacy, which, in or- 
 der that it may be at all beneficial, requires, more than any 
 other species of government, the aid of mutual harmony and 
 deference. 
 
 It may be doubted whether any political question ever re- 
 ceived more ample consideration. Long before the assem- 
 bling of congress, public meetings had been held in different 
 parts of the United States, at which it was fully canvassed. 
 The newspapers, especially those of the eastern and middle 
 states, teemed with essays and paragraphs upon the subject ; 
 while pamphlets, enforcing the right and expediency of the 
 
restriction, were circulated with eagerness through the com- 
 munity. In congress, the period of time occupied with the 
 discussion of the question was commensurate with its impor- 
 tance. The most eloquent, the most argumentative, and the 
 most diffuse speakers in either house took part in the debate ; 
 and every thing that ingenuity or research could bring to bear 
 upon the point, was produced and enforced. In the senate, 
 where the discussion commenced, more than thirty days were 
 occupied, either partially or wholly, with the orations (for so 
 many of the speeches may be called) of the advocates and op- 
 ponents of the restriction. For thirty-six days, little other 
 business was transacted in the house of representatives. The 
 whole public business of the nation was at a stand, at a time 
 when urgent necessity existed for the despatch of important 
 measures. No appropriations were made for the support of 
 government, the consequences of which were felt in every de- 
 partment. The veterans of the revolution, whom the tardy 
 gratitude of the legislature had at last provided for, were now 
 dismissed unpaid from the pension-offices. The great ques- 
 tions regarding the manufactures, the bankrupt system, and 
 the public lands, upon which so much of the welfare of the 
 country depended, were suffered to remain unsettled. The 
 danger of sectional questions began to appear from the debate. 
 Local animosities displayed themselves. Brethren of the same 
 nation seemed to look upon each other as aliens; and measures 
 which no true friend to his country can contemplate without 
 horror, were not obscurely hinted at.* 
 
 After a debate unexampled in our history, the vote was 
 taken upon the question, in both branches of the legislature. 
 A large majority of the senate decides against imposing the 
 restriction. A majority of nine, in the house of representa- 
 tives, determines in favour of it. The two houses being thus 
 at issue, a committee of conference is appointed on each side. 
 A plan of compromise, by which each party yielded some- 
 lliing, is reported, and agreed to by a majority of both houses. 
 Harmony is restored, — the public confidence re-established; 
 
 • See Note A. 
 
provision is made for the support of government ; and the 
 business of the nation proceeds without further interruption. 
 When we reflect upon the public inconvenience that was 
 removed, and the danger that was avoided, by this happy 
 compromise, it is natural to suppose, that the advocates of re- 
 striction, that all true philanthropists, would rest satisfied with 
 the really considerable victory they have obtained ; and that, 
 weighing in the scales of prudence the certain gain of a limit- 
 ed but immense territory, with their possible success in the 
 whole at a risk of blood and desolation, they would leave to 
 time, and the progress of better feelings, the task of emancipa- 
 tion in the um-estricted countries. Reason, which can never 
 be divorced from philanthropy, might say to those who op- 
 posed the extension of slavery — You have laboured nobly in 
 the cause of freedom, and in support of the true policy of the 
 republic. Those whom a mistaken sense of interest, or the 
 pride of opinion, or local prejudices, or constitutional scruples, 
 have led to oppose you, will, at no distant day, acknowledge 
 the purity of your motives and the soundness of your views. 
 You have done well, and you have gained much : but true 
 philanthropy no more requires of her advocates to enforce her 
 principles at all hazards, than true religion expects of her vo- 
 taries that they should make proselytes with fire and sword. 
 The freedom and comfort of the African race are certainly 
 objects worth a strenuous effort to obtain; but if they are to 
 be bought at the expense of the peace and happiness of this 
 country, the price is too great. 
 
 To the advocates of the restriction, as it was attempted to 
 be enforced at the last session, no improper views can, I think, 
 be fairly attributed. Most of them, I am satisfied, look with 
 a single eye to the welfare of their country and the human 
 race ; and even their opponents must admit, that in that me- 
 morable contest, they displayed, with a few exceptions, a pru- 
 dent and temperate tone, worthy of the highest praise. I agree 
 with them fully, that the congress possesses a constitutional 
 right to impose restrictions both upon states and territories, 
 and that it was expedient to impose that restriction upon the 
 
state of Missouri, provided such measure could be carried 
 through without danger of weakening the bonds of union; and 
 I believe that by far the greater part of the friends of negro 
 emancipation are bounded in their ideas of expediency by the 
 same limits. JVIany of them I know well enough to be sure 
 that they would disdain to build up the fabric of their own ad- 
 vancement with the materials of general philanthropy. That 
 worthy and useful sect of Christians, to whom we in Pennsyl- 
 vania owe so much of what is good and excellent in our insti- 
 tutions, were among the principal advocates of the restriction; 
 and those who are acquainted with their principles, know how 
 far from them is every thing like political intrigue. One of 
 the earliest and warmest opponents of the unrestricted admis- 
 sion of Missouri, is a member of that society, a philanthropist 
 in the genuine sense of the term, the purity of whose views 
 was never darkened by a suspicion of selfishness, even in the 
 worst times of party violence, — who, from the days of boy- 
 hood, has been first and foremost in all measures of public use- 
 fulness to his native country, — and whose benevolence is as 
 eager and untiring as it is sincere and disinterested. 
 
 There are, however, perhaps others, and possibly no incon- 
 siderable number, who have enrolled themselves under the 
 sacred banners of philanthropy, with far different principles 
 and views. It is difficult to bring oneself to believe that there 
 are many among us who desire to produce a dissolution of the 
 Union. The project is so politically monstrous, bears on the 
 face of it so much moral deformity, and is so repugnant to the 
 natural feelings of Americans, that no other than one despe- 
 rately bankrupt in reputation and fortune could possibly enter- 
 tain it. But, without being guilty of designs so atrocious, a 
 portion of those by whom this unhappy question is again to 
 be stirred up may have views of personal aggrandizement, to 
 the furtherance of Avhich the cloak of philanthropy may be 
 found sufficiently well adapted. Political history is not defi- 
 cient in precedents of this nature. In all ages of the world, 
 religion and morality have furnished pretexts for designing 
 men to promote their own purposes. If it be asked, in what 
 
9 
 
 manner the Missouri Question can be brought to operate in 
 favour of political views, the answer is not difficult. The old 
 party distinctions, that for nearly thirty years divided and 
 agitated the nation, seem to be nearly obliterated. On princi- 
 ples of foreign policy at least, if not on most questions of a 
 domestic nature, no great difference of opinion seems to exist. 
 The principal offices, however, in the general government, 
 and in that of most of the states, are held by republicans ; and 
 there is little probability of any of the leading federalists, more 
 especially of such as were prominent in the last war, reaching 
 any considerable height in public affairs, as long as opposition 
 is made on the old party grounds. The great body of the \ 
 people have imbibed too deep an aversion to the principles 
 avowed by some federal leaders, ever to flock around the / 
 federal standard, as such. If, therefore, there be, ainong those 
 who for the last twenty years have been engaged in an ineffec- 
 tual political contest, any who are still possessed of the craving 
 for power and emolument, it is plain, that in order to possess 
 even a hope of success, they must raise a new standard. The 
 present moment, too, is the most favourable that could be 
 seized, for laying the foundation of new party distinctions. 
 Men who, under their primitive appellation of federalists or 
 repubhcans, have found it impossible to gain the public confi- 
 dence, may, by a change of name, and a lucky adoption of 
 soine popular principle, flatter themselves with the hope of 
 effecting their purpose. The charge of hostility to the consti- 
 tution, — the clamour of French influence — the predictions of 
 ruin, and subjugation, and military despotism, from the late 
 war, — even the popular theme of taxation, — all these have 
 availed nothing to dislodge the leading men of the republican 
 party from the hold they had gained in the affections of the 
 people. But the Missouri Question was one in which the \ ^ 
 old party feelings could apparently have no play. It was a 
 mixed question of morals and policy, one in a great measure 
 new, and calculated to excite the feelings of the people of the 
 states in which slavery is not tolerated. It was a fruitful 
 theme for eloquence and invective, and naturally gave great 
 advantages to those who supported the cause of restriction 
 
 (2) 
 
10 
 
 over their opponents. The settlement of the question by com- 
 promise must therefore have been signally mortifying to those 
 (if any th.^re were) who sought to make use of it as the ladder 
 of political elevation. The renewed agitation of the question, if 
 it be not brought about by this description of politicians, cannot 
 fail at least to be serviceable to their views. The flame will be 
 fanned by their efforts, and managed no doubt with adroitness, 
 in the hope of producing the desired effect. If among those 
 opposed to the compromise, there be any who are actuated by 
 political schemes, it is plain that it would tend to further those 
 schemes greatly, to represent particular individuals, citizens 
 of the " slave states," as improper to fill the public offices. 
 It would doubtless be urged, that public functionaries, above 
 all other men, should be free from sin, or the reproach of sin; 
 and that nothing can b',' more sinful or reproachful than to hold 
 human beings in bondage. Should there happen to be, in one 
 of the " free states," an ambitious politician, who had raised 
 his views to the presidency, and found that ordinary efforts 
 were insufficient to elevate him to that station, it would clearly 
 be his interest to take advantage of this opportunity of forming 
 a new partv. His adherents would endeavour to impress upon 
 the people the superior fitness of one who was not a holder of 
 slaves, for the station of chief magistrate of a free republic, — 
 and the moral deformity of the spectacle that is at present ex- 
 hibited. The existence of domestic slavery, and the clandes- 
 tine continuation of the slave trade, would afford fruitful 
 themes for declamation and excitement; and it would proba- 
 bly be asked — " Whether the executive authorities are so com- 
 posed as to allow the hope, that xvhile they are filled from the 
 same quarter^"^ the legislative measures on this subject will ever 
 be fully and zealously carried into effect.* In pursuance of the 
 same system, the features of domestic slavery in the southern 
 states would be distorted and caricatured, the political advan- 
 tages of the slave states exaggerated, and every opportunity 
 taken to stir up and enlist on their side the honest feelings or 
 prejudices of the people.f 
 
 • See Note B. f See Note C. 
 
a 
 
 As long as men have the liberty of freely expressing their 
 opinions, distinct parties will exist ; and if, in the new forma- 
 tion of parties that must before long take place, divisions simi- 
 lar to those of the republicans and federalists should arise, no 
 great mischief would probably happen. But it is an incontro- 
 vertible truth, that in a republic like ours, the most dangerous 
 of all parties are those which arise from sectional distinctions. 
 " In contemplating the causes which disturb our union," said 
 that illustrious man, whose name and character alone, if there 
 were no other motives to it, ought to be a bond of union, as 
 the glory of it belongs to us all, " it occurs as a matter of seri- 
 ous concern, that any ground should have been furnished for 
 characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, — 
 Northern and Southern^ — Atlantic and Western; whence de- 
 signing men may endeavour to excite a belief that there is a 
 real difference of local interests and views. One of the expe- 
 dients of partij to acquire influence -within particular districts^ 
 is to 77iis rep resent the opinioiis and aims of other districts. 
 You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies 
 and heart-burnings which spring from these misrepresema- 
 tions : they tend to render alien to each other those who ought 
 to be bound together by fraternal affection." Nothing can 
 tend more to bring about a dissolution of the Union, than the 
 formation of parties not differing on questions of foreign poli- 
 cy, nor of such domestic measures as the encouragement of 
 manufactures or commerce, in which cases the members of 
 each party may exist in every quarter of the Union, but actu- 
 ally bounded and designated by fixed geographical marks, all 
 of one party being in one half of the Union, and all of the other 
 party in the remaining half. When we reflect how far the 
 mildest and best of men may be led by party zeal, how much 
 the feelings become inflamed by contest and opposition, to 
 what lengths of recrimination and retort party zealots will go, 
 it is impossible to think without horror of the consequences 
 that would flow from sectional parties. In ordinary cases, 
 party spirit may be often mitigated by the intercourse in soci- 
 ety of those who differ upon political matters : but how little 
 of this check would exist, if the people of the east, and those 
 
13 
 
 of the soutli, were formed into opposing factions ! When, 
 during the hite war, it so happened that a majoritv of the peo- 
 ple of some of the most eastern states were opposed in political 
 sentiments to a majority of the people in the other states, it is 
 well known to what extremities the leaders of the ruling fac- 
 tion in the former states would have pushed the people, al- 
 though there existed within those states a strong and respect- 
 able minority. Now the Missouri Question, if persevered in, 
 must at all events produce geographical parties. This is one 
 of the least of the evils to be apprehended from it ; and it be- 
 hooves those who value the peace of the nation, and the inte- 
 grity of the Union, to be on their guard against the efforts of 
 such as would renew the discussion. For the motives of those 
 who honestly believe that the honour or interests of this coun- 
 try, that religion or morality, requires that Missouri should 
 not be admitted into the Union without restriction, I have the 
 highest respect : I believe them, however, to be mistaken; 
 and I hope to be able to show them, that they have censured 
 the celebrated compromise of that question without sufficient 
 consideration. It is to the sober sense of the community, and 
 not to their passions or prejudices, that an appeal on so mo- 
 mentous an occasion should be made. The great body of the 
 people will always decide rightly, when the whole ground is 
 laid open to them, however they may be occasionally led into 
 error by designing men. Philanthropy and humanity are 
 words which sound well on the tongue, and come gratefully 
 to the ear ; and those find the easiest access to public affection 
 who assume them as their text. Prudence, which the ancient 
 poet considered as comprising every virtue, is too often dis- 
 regarded, amid the tumult and violence of party spirit. With- 
 out consulting her lessons, however, humanity and philanthro- 
 py would shower curses, instead of blessings, upon mankind. 
 
 Of the points so strenuously and diffusely argued in the 
 original discussion of the JVlissouri Question, the public must 
 now be sufficiently weary. Every thing that could be said, 
 on the constitutionality and expediency of the restriction, has 
 been urged by the numerous writers and speakers on the 
 
13 
 
 opposite sides. Every man in the community, at all conver- 
 sant in political affairs, must have had sufficient light on this 
 subject, to enable him to form a decided opinion. The com- 
 promise, however, I think, has never received the examination 
 it was entitled to. It has been attacked with vehemence, by 
 the zealots of both parties : those who gave it their votes, after 
 supporting the restriction, have been held up to the ridicule 
 and indignation of their fellow citizens; and so successful have 
 been the violent opposers of Missouri, in their efforts to decry 
 and misrepresent it, that in this quarter of the Union, scarcely 
 a voice has been raised in its favour. From the almost uni- 
 versal sentence of reprobation that has been passed upon this 
 settlement, one not acquainted with the history and constitu- 
 tion of this country, or with the peculiar circumstances of this 
 question, would be led to suppose that the system of compro- 
 mise was new to our annals and unheard of in our legislation, 
 and that the particular measure in question involved some 
 great sacrifice of a moral or political right, made without any 
 existing necessity, a gratuitous assumption of evil, and, from 
 its peculiar deformity, in nowise binding upon the conscience 
 or good faith of the people.* How far such conclusion is well 
 founded, will be seen from the view I propose to take of the 
 subject. It is, I think, demonstrable,^ — ■ 
 
 I. That the union of these states derived its existence from 
 a spirit of compromise; that our present admirable constitution 
 was built upon the basis of compromise ; that its spirit has 
 pervaded our whole legislation ; and that nothing but an ad- 
 herence to that original and vital spirit can preserve us from 
 discord and disunion. 
 
 II. That there was nothing in the compromise of the Mis- 
 souri Question, at the last session of congress, to render it 
 obnoxious to public censure ; that, on the contrary, it will, if 
 adhered to, produce great public benefit ; but that, whatever 
 may be our opinions of its propriety, we are bound by good 
 faith and policy to fulfil it. 
 
 * See Note D. 
 
14 
 
 I. If any doubt could be entertained that our union and con- 
 stitution derived and maintained their existence from com- 
 promise and concession, a brief review of our political history 
 will be sufficient to satisfy the reader. He will there see what 
 mutual forbearance with the prejudices and errors of brethren 
 has done to remove difficulties, to soften animosities, to awa- 
 ken kindly sentiments, and finally, to create that beautiful sys- 
 tem of polity whose blessings we are now experiencing. 
 
 No one can form a just estimate of our political condition, 
 who is not prepared to make the fullest allowance for the ra- 
 dical difference that exists between a confederacy of states, 
 and a homogeneous mass, composing an entire and indivisible 
 nation, such as exists in many parts of Europe. From the 
 earliest settlement of this country, geographical and political 
 lines have separated the people into distinct communities, with 
 distinct laws and governments. Although generally peopled 
 from the same fountain, no more political union existed be- 
 tween them, previous to the revolution, than there is at this 
 moment between Jamaica and Hindostan, both of which are, 
 however, provinces of the same empire. When it became 
 necessary to take up arms against England, a coalition offerees 
 and councils was agreed upon, and as tlie royal authority be- 
 came virtually extinct, this coalition was extended and con- 
 firmed by a confederation, the great features of which were 
 the perfect equality, and, with very few exceptions, the sove- 
 reignty, of the allied states. Limited, however, as were the 
 powers of the general government, and the deductions from 
 the sovereignty of the individual states, the task of bringing 
 them to revolve haimoniously in one system, appears to have 
 been no easy one. So conflicting were the interests, so oppo- 
 site the political views, so strong the prejudices, of different 
 sections, even under the perilous circumstances of the times. 
 The example was then first set of compromise, of a mutual 
 concession of a portion of interfering claims and opinions, 
 which is necessary for the public good. We find the expedi- 
 ency of acting upon this principle, strongly urged by congress, 
 in their circular letter to the states, (dated at York Town, 
 
15 
 
 November 17, 1777',) which accompanied the act of confede- 
 ration. " To form a permanent union," said this venerable 
 body, " accommodated to the opinions and wishes of the de- 
 legates of so many states, differing in habits, produce, com- 
 merce, and internal police, was found to be a work which no- 
 thing but time and reflection, conspiring with a disposition to 
 conciliate, could mature and accomplish. Hardly is it to be 
 expected, that any plan, in the variety of provisions essential 
 to our union, should exactly correspond with the maxims and 
 political views of every particular state. Let it be remarked, 
 that after the most careful inquiry, and the fullest information, 
 this is proposed as the best that could be adapted to the cir- 
 cumstances of all ; and as that alone which affords any tolera- 
 ble prospect of general ratification. Permit us then earnestly to 
 recommend these articles to the immediate and dispassionate 
 attention of the legislatures of the respective states. Let them 
 be candidly reviewed, under a sense of the difficulty of com- 
 bining in one general system, the various sentiments and in- 
 terests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and in- 
 dependent communities, under a conviction of the absolute 
 necessity of uniting all our councils, and all our strength, to 
 maintain and defend our common liberties : let them be exa- 
 mined with a liberality becoming brethren and fellow-citizens, 
 surrounded by the same imminent dangers, contending for the 
 same illustrious prize, and deeply interested in being for ever 
 bound and connected together by ties the most intimate and 
 indissoluble; and finally, let them be adjusted with the tem- 
 per and magnanimity of wise and patriotic legislators, who, 
 while they are concerned for the prosperity of their own im- 
 mediate circle, are capable of rising superior to local attach- 
 ments, when they may be incompatible with the safety, happi- 
 ness, and glory, of the general confederacy." 
 
 When the articles of confederation were laid before the re- 
 spective states for their consideration, the numerous objec- 
 tions that were made to different provisions, notwithstanding 
 the eloquent representation of congress, displayed in a strong 
 light the opposition of interests that prevailed. One of the 
 articles which seems to have excited the strongest animadver- 
 
16 
 
 bion, was that which 'provided that the quota of troops to be 
 furnished by each state, should be in proportion to the number 
 o( white inhabitants in such state. This oi^jcction was parti- 
 cularly taken by the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey; 
 by the latter, in a memorial addressed to congress, in which 
 the hardship of the rule upon the " free states" was particu- 
 larly pointed out. So early did this unfortunate question arise 
 in our history. In consequence of this and other objections 
 to the instrument, its ratification was delayed for a considera- 
 ble period. It is probable, that then, as now, political agita- 
 tors were at work, to prove the sinfulness of compromise, and 
 the impolicy of sacrificing political rights. At length, how- 
 ever, the spirit of harmony and concession prevailed ; and on 
 the 9th of July, 1778, it was ratified by all the states, except 
 New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. To these, the general 
 government addressed a second letter, in which the necessity of 
 mutual forbearance was again insisted upon. " Congress," it 
 was said, " intent upon the present and future security of these 
 United States, has never ceased to consider a confederacy as 
 the great principle of union which can alone establish the liber- 
 ty of America, and exclude for ever the hopes of its enemies. 
 Influenced by considerations so powerful, and duly weighing 
 the difficulties which oppose the expectation of any plan being 
 formed which can exactly meet the wishes and obtain the ap- 
 probation of so many states, diff"ering essentially in various 
 points, congress have, after mature deliberation, agreed to 
 adopt without amendments, the confederation transmitted to 
 the several states for their approbation." This appeal to their 
 American feelings prevailed, and the non-concurring states 
 finally agreed to ratify the articles of confederation as they 
 stood, preferring to sacrifice minor points to risking the great 
 oliject of union. It would not be a difficult matter to detail 
 numerous instances, to prove that the spirit of compromise 
 and forbearance prevailed to a great extent in the period be- 
 tween the declaration of independence and the formation of the 
 new constitution. Strong evidence of this fact appears in the 
 cession, made by several of the states, of their, vacant lands, 
 for the common benefit. The example was set by New York, 
 
17 
 
 and the reasons given, in the preamble to the act of cession, 
 display the feelings that were then predominant among the 
 community in that section of the republic. " Whereas nothing 
 under Divine Providence can more effectually contribute to 
 the tranquillity and safety of the United States of America, 
 than a federal alliance, on such liberal principles as will give 
 satisfaction to its respective members ; and whereas the arti- 
 cles of confederation and perpetual union, recommended by 
 the honourable congress of the United States of America, have 
 not proved acceptable to all the states, it having been conceiv- 
 ed that a portion of the waste and uncultivated territory with- 
 in the limits or claims of certain states, ought to be appropri- 
 ated as a common fund for the expenses of the war : and the 
 people of the state of New York, being on all occasions dis- 
 posed to manifest their regard for their sister states, and their 
 earnest desire to promote the general interest and security ; 
 and more especially to accelerate the federal alliance, by re- 
 moving, as far as it depends on them, the before mentioned 
 impediment to its final accomplishment," &c. 
 
 Virginia followed, by a liberal relinquishment of all its land 
 north-west of the river Ohio. Massachusetts and Connecti- 
 cut made similar grants of all their claims to western land, 
 and South Carolina threw into the general fund all its south- 
 western territory. The preamble of the act by which the lat- 
 ter state conveyed its rights to the United States, breathes a 
 similar spirit with that of New York. " Whereas the congress 
 of the United States did, on the 6th day of September, in the 
 year 1780, recommend to the several states in the Union, hav- 
 ing claims to western territory, to make a liberal cession to 
 the United States of a portion of their respective claims, for 
 the common benefit of the Union : and whereas this state is 
 willing to adopt every measure which can tend to promote the 
 honour and dignity of the United States, and strengthen their 
 federal union," &c. When we consider the immense extent 
 of the territory ceded by these states to the confederacy, and 
 the various interests that must have operated to induce them 
 to retain the property of the soil, and to forbid the narrowing 
 of their respective limits, it must be acknowledged that the 
 
 (3) 
 
18 
 
 sacrifice thus made at the shrine of concord, was of no ordi- 
 narv magnitude-. 
 
 When, in consequence of tlie flagrant defects in the old sys- 
 tem of confederation, alterations became necessary in some of 
 its principal features, new difficulties arose, which could only 
 be surmounted by an increased spirit of accommodation. So 
 clashing were the interests and views represented in the con- 
 vention, that it has been said nothing but the authority of the 
 great men who composed it could have availed to obtain the 
 ratification of the constitution. Every ai'ticle of that consti- 
 tution bears the stamp of compromise, and that, the very name 
 of which political manoeuvre or a mistaken zeal is now striving 
 to render obnoxious, was considered by the illustrious patriots 
 of those times as the vital breath of the Union. Upon that 
 they rested their hopes of a free and efficient government, 
 which should " establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, 
 provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, 
 and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their 
 posterity." The concessions too that were made on that oc- 
 casion, let it be remembered, were not merely concessions of 
 political feelings and local claims, but concessions of what are 
 considered moral principles^ for the sake of union and good 
 government. When they call to recollection when and by 
 what kind of men those concessions were made, let the un- 
 bending advocates of restriction, the opponents of all compro- 
 mise and concession, take a lesson of humility and prudence. 
 
 In their letter to congress, which accompanied the consti- 
 tution, the convention conveyed their views of the necessity 
 of a mutual yielding and abandonment of prejudices and local 
 interests, in language which is equally applicable to the pre- 
 sent period. '' It is ob\ iously impracticable, in the federal 
 government of these states," said they, " to secure all rights 
 of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the 
 interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society, 
 must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The 
 magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation 
 and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all 
 times difficult to draw with precision the line between those 
 
19 
 
 rights which must be surrendered and those which may be 
 reserved ; and on the present occasion, this difficulty was in- 
 creased by a difference among the several states as to their 
 situation, extent, habits, and particular interests." 
 
 " In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in 
 view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every 
 true American, the consolidation of our union, in which is in- 
 volved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national 
 existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply 
 impressed on our minds, led each state in the convention to 
 be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have 
 been otherwise expected ; and thus the constitution which we 
 now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mu- 
 tual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our po- 
 litical situation rendered indispensable." 
 
 " That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every 
 state, is not perhaps to be expected ; but each will doubtless 
 consider, that had her interest been alone consulted, the con- 
 sequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injuri- 
 bus to others. That it is liable to as few exceptions as could 
 reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe ; that it 
 may promote the lasting welfare of that country, so dear to us 
 all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent 
 wish." 
 
 The magnitude of the sacrifices made on this occasion, the 
 nature of the compromises by which union and the constitution 
 were preserved, can only be estimated properly by a review 
 of the different parties that agitated the convention. These 
 may be classed under the following heads : — 
 
 1. The political interests of the greater and lesser states 
 were opposed to each other. 
 
 2. The interests of the commercial and agricultural states 
 were in opposition. 
 
 3. An opposition of feeling and interest existed between 
 those states which possessed slaves, and those which had abo- 
 lished slavery. 
 
 1. The debates which took place in the convention have 
 never been given to the world. They sate with closed doors; 
 
20 
 
 and it is only within a few months that their Journal has been 
 piiljlished. In the different state conventions, however, parts 
 of their proceedings, and sketches of their debates, were made 
 known by some of the members. The fullest account of the 
 views of the framers of the constitution, and of the difficulties 
 they met with in the convention, is to be found in " The Fede- 
 ralist," "a work," say the PLdinburgh Reviewers, "which 
 exhibits an extent and precision of information, a profundity 
 of research, and an acuteness of understanding, which would 
 have done honour to the most illustrious statesmen of ancient 
 or modern times." In the 37ih Number of those Essays,=»<= 
 we find the following remarks on this subject, which deserve 
 to be attentively weighed at the present period : — " To the 
 difficulties already mentioned, may be added the interfering 
 pretensions of the larger and smaller states. We cannot err 
 in supposing that the former would contend for a participation 
 in the government, fully proportioned to their superior wealth 
 and importance ; and that the latter would not be less tenacious 
 of the equality at present enjoyed by them. JVe may xvell 
 suppose that nc'itlier side would enttrehj yield to the other, and 
 consequently that the struggle could be terminated only by com- 
 promise. It is extremely probable, also, that after the ratio of 
 representation had been adjusted, this very compromise must 
 have produced a fresh struggle between the same parties, to 
 give such a turn to the organization of the government, and to 
 the distribution of its powers, as would increase the importance 
 of the branches, in forming which they had respectively ob- 
 tained the greatest share of influence. There are features in 
 the constitution which warrant each of these suppositions; and 
 as far as either of them is well founded, it shozus that the con- 
 vention must have been compelled to sacrifice theoretical pro- 
 priety to the force of extraneous considerations.'''' 
 
 The strength of the arguments that we may presume to 
 have been urged by either side of the question, will show how 
 much difficulty must have existed in elTecting a compromise. 
 The convention — (it was doubtless urged by the representa- 
 
 • Written by Mr. Madison. 
 
*> 
 
 1 
 
 lives of the smaller states) — was an assemblage of envoys from 
 sovereign and independent communities : that all sovereigns 
 being equal in the eye of the law of nations, as all men were 
 equal in their political rights in the eye of the municipal law, 
 it followed, that in the proposed plan of union, each state ought 
 to be allowed an equal representation in the national council. 
 The obvious danger to the smaller states, of being swallowed 
 up or partitioned by the greater sovereignties in their vicinity, 
 in case a contrary system was adopted, must have been insist- 
 ed upon by their delegates, with a warmth which an attach- 
 ment to the rights and dignity of their native state, however 
 circumscribed in territorj- that state might be, would naturally 
 create. On the other hand, it was probably said, with no less 
 zeal, that the new constitution was proposed as one emanating 
 from, and binding, the people as one nation, however, for cer- 
 tain purposes, they were politically divided into states. It was 
 the first principle of a republican government, that a majority 
 of the people should govern. If the system contended for by 
 the smaller states should prevail, one-third of the people might 
 make laws binding the remainder. The payment of two-thirds 
 of the taxes, and the furnishing of two-thirds of the militia, 
 would, contrary to every principle of justice, entitle the larger 
 states to no more than an equal representation. Such a system 
 would be far more likely to lead to violence and usurpation, 
 than one which gave each state political power in proportion 
 to its capacity of supporting the government. 
 
 Here were certainly arguments sufficiently plausible to in- 
 duce both sides to adhere to their opinions. Had not the love 
 of union been a paramount feeling, the contest would have been 
 continued until one party was gratified at the expense of the 
 other, in which case a hollow and heartless alliance might have 
 been formed; or, neither party giving way, the whole scheme 
 of the constitution must have been abandoned. 
 
 Those illustrious patriots knew better the value of harmony 
 and accommodation, in a confederacy like this, than some of 
 the politicians of more modern days. The political equality of 
 each member of the Union was admitted by the larger states j 
 and a representation upon this prinqiple was given in the 
 
23 
 
 senate, which, by a particular provision of the constitution, 
 can never be reduced. The principle that representation 
 should be conformable to population, was also admitted by the 
 smaller states ; and upon this basis the house of representatives 
 was established. Thus, by the expedient of compromise^ both 
 parties gave way, but both were gratified. If Delaware and 
 Connecticut were outvoted in the house of representatives, 
 they knew that in the senate their " voice would be as poten- 
 tial" as that of the richest and proudest state in the Union ; 
 and Pennsylvania and Virginia, if they had reason to be dis- 
 satisfied with their comparative insignificancy in the senate, 
 felt themselves perhaps sufficiently compensated by receiving 
 their due share of respect in the most numerous branch of the 
 legislature. " The equality of representation in the senate^'' 
 says general Hamilton,* '■'■ ivas evidently the result of compro- 
 mise betxveen the opposite pretensions of the large and the sm,all 
 states.'''' " It is superfluous to try by the standard of theory 
 a part of the constitution which is allowed on all hands to be 
 the result, not of theory, but ' of a spirit of amity, and that 
 mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our 
 political situation rendered indispensable.' A common go- 
 vernment, founded on principles more consonant to the wishes 
 of the larger states, is not likely to be obtained from the small- 
 er states. The only option then for the former, lies between 
 the proposed government and a government still more objec- 
 tionable. Under this alternative^ the advice of prudence must 
 be^ to embrace the lesser evil; and^ instead of indulging a fruit- 
 less anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue^ to 
 co7itemplate rather the advantageous consequences zvhich ?nay 
 (jucdify the sacrifice.'''' Nothing can be more just, nothing can 
 Ije more conformable to the princi])les of our government, than 
 the doctrines contained in this passage of the Essay. 
 
 2. Another series of difficulties that could onlv be removed, 
 and of pretensions that could only be reconciled, by compro- 
 mise, arose from the difference of the soil, climate, and local 
 position, of the various members of the confedcracv. 'I'he 
 
 • Tlie Federalist, No.LXlI. 
 
eastern and middle states derived a great deal of their pros- 
 perity directly from commerce. The people of the southern 
 states were, as still they are, more purely agricultural : their 
 produce was exported to foreign countries by the vessels of 
 the eastern states, by which means also they received all or 
 the greater part of their returns, in foreign produce or manu- 
 factures. The commercial states, at that time, formed a ma- 
 jority of the confederacy; and great fears were entertained by 
 the southern members, that if the power of regulating com- 
 merce were given to a majority of the legislature, navigation 
 laws prejudicial to their interests would be enacted. Under 
 this impression, they contended vehemently for the introduc- 
 tion of an article into the constitution, forbidding the passage 
 of laws relating to commerce or navigation, unless by the vote 
 of two-thirds of the members present in both houses. The 
 members from the eastern and middle states, on the other 
 hand, struggled with equal pertinacity against a proposition 
 which should thus subject the majority to the will of a mino- 
 rity. The discussion, it is well known, eventuated in the suc- 
 cess of the commercial states ; but it is not equally known that 
 this result also was the effect of compromise. The fact appears 
 from the debates of the Virginia convention. Great opposi- 
 tion had been manifested in that body to the proposed consti- 
 tution, on the ground taken by the southern members in the 
 federal convention. In explanation of the reasons which led 
 to the adoption of the constitution as it stood, governor Ran- 
 dolph said — " I have never hesitated to acknowledge, that I 
 wish the regulation of commerce had been put in the hands of 
 a greater body than it is in the sense of the constitution. But 
 I appeal to viy colleagues in the federal convention^ whether 
 this xvas not a sine qua non of the Union^^ Mr. Mason, 
 another member of the federal convention, said — " I will 
 give you, to the best of ntiy recollection, the history of that 
 affair. This business was discussed at Philadelphia for four 
 months, during which time, the subject of commerce and 
 navigation was often under consideration; and I assert, that 
 
 * Page 430. 
 
24 
 
 eight states out of twelve, for more than three months, voted 
 for requiring two-thirds of the members present in each house 
 to pass commercial and navigation laws. True it is, that 
 afterwards it was carried by a majority as it stands. If I am 
 right, there was a great majority for requiring two-thirds of 
 tlie states in this business, till a compromise took place between 
 the northern and southern states, the northern states agreeing 
 to the temporary importation of slaves, and the southern states 
 (Georgia and South Carolina) conceding in return that navi- 
 gation and commercial laws should be on the footing on which 
 they now stand."* Mr. JMadison said, in the course of the 
 same debate — " I well recollect the reasoning of some gentle- 
 men on the subject. It was said, and I believe with truth, 
 that every part of America does not stand in equal need of 
 security. It was observed, that the northern states were most 
 competent to their own safety. Was it reasonable, asked they, 
 that they should bind themselves in defence of the southern 
 states, and yet be left at the mercy of the minority for com- 
 mercial advantages ? Should it be in the power of the minority 
 to deprive them of this and other advantages, when they were 
 bound to defend the whole Union, it might be a disadvantage 
 for them to confederate."! 
 
 3. It is obvious that the eastern and middle states on one 
 side, and the southern states on the other, must have been 
 directly at issue on all subjects connected with the unfortunate 
 existence of slavery in the latter. Two questions, especially, 
 of great magnitude and interest, arose : — First, whether any, 
 and what, representation in the national government, should 
 be allowed to that part of the poi)ulation which M'as held in 
 bondage ? — and second, what steps could be taken by the gene- 
 ral government, to restrain their increase, and promote their 
 emancipation ? The subjects I have before noticed must ne- 
 cessarily have produced considerable excitement, and required 
 for their accommodation the exercise of a strong spirit of 
 
 • Page 431. ftfr. Mason appears, from the Journal of the convention, to 
 liavc been mislakcu in this point. Seven stales, out of the twelve, voted 
 aj^^iinst the article requiring more than a majority to pass commercial laws. 
 
 t I'age 444. 
 
25 
 
 amity. But the subject of slavery was one with which such 
 important interests were connected, in the discussion of which 
 so much passion and prejudice must have been evolved, upon 
 which politics and morals and religion must have exercised 
 so much influence, one in short so difficult and so dangerous, 
 that to pi-oduce any thing like agreement between the opposing 
 parties, immense sacrifices of feelings and opinions must have 
 been made. We may imagine, from the sensibility still display- 
 ed in some of the " free states" on the point, what must have 
 been the impediments in the way of adjusting the question of re- 
 presentation, when it came, as it did then for the first time, be- 
 fore the convention. Under the old system of confederation, 
 this question could not arise, because each state was entitled to 
 an equal vote. The number of white inhabitants, however, was 
 made the standard in apportioning the quotas of militia. The 
 same rule, it would naturally be thought by the delegates from 
 the "free states," ought to be applied to representation. " Slaves 
 (they probably said) were not considered in the southern states 
 in the light of citizens; they paid no taxes, they were excluded 
 from the militia, they contributed in no way to the support of 
 government: they were, on the contrary, a dead weight on the 
 political energies of the southern whites, and tended to pro- 
 duce debasing effects upon their morals. To give, therefore, 
 a representation in the national councils to the masters of this 
 proscribed and disfranchised race, as if they were free and 
 useful citizens, Avould be flagrantly unjust, and diametrically 
 opposite to the principles of republicanism. If they are looked 
 upon as property, we of the north have an equal claim to ask 
 a representation of our houses and cattle. As these unhappy 
 beings will not be allowed the privilege of voting, it follows, 
 that if they are represented, a white man in Virginia or 
 Carolina will have nearly twice as much political power as a 
 freeman in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts. What reason can 
 be given for such discrimination ? Is there any thing in south- 
 ern blood, or southern intellect, that elevates the free inhabitant 
 of the ' slave states' so far above the New Englander V Such 
 were probably the reflections of many members of the conven- 
 tion, on the discussion of this question. On the other hand, 
 
26 
 
 many strong reasons would suggest themselves to the mem- 
 birs from the southern states, in support of a claim for a full 
 representation of their whole population. " The rule of the old 
 confederation, l)y which the quota of taxes to be paid by each 
 stati- was to be proportioned by the value of land, had been 
 found defective. In 1783, a change was proposed to the states 
 by congress, in whicli the quotas of tTie states were to be sup- 
 plied in proportion to the whole number of whites and three- 
 fifths of the slaves. The ratio then agreed upon was stated by 
 congress, in its address to the states, to be •" the result of mu- 
 tual concession.' Now, if slaves were considered as part of 
 the population for one purpose, they ought to be so considered 
 for other purposes. Taxation and representation ought to be 
 concurrent. True it is, that the elective franchise is not exer- 
 cised in the southern states by slaves, and it would be a mon- 
 strous anomaly to permit it to them : but this is a matter of 
 municipal jurisdiction, with which the general government has 
 nothing to do. Every state exercises the right of determining 
 in wliat part of its population the privilege of voting shall be 
 vested. In every state, some portion of the people is exclud- 
 ed. In one state, the elective franchise is confined to free- 
 holders ; in another, to such as pay a certain amount of taxes. 
 Paupers and the military are excluded in some, women in 
 nearly all, children in all. The southern states have an equal 
 right to exclude slaves. Negroes held in bondage contribute 
 by their labour to increase the wealth of the country, like other 
 laljourers. It is true, they do not serve in the militia ; but 
 the same observation may be made of portions of the popula- 
 tion of other states in which slaves are not held." 
 
 So opposite were the views of the two sections of the 
 Union, that nothing hut compromise could have united them 
 in favour of the constitution. Extremes were given up on 
 each side, and a medium found with which both might be 
 toleralily satisfied. Instead of allowing a representation for 
 the whole number of slaves, the convention determined that 
 three-fifths only should be represented ; and instead oN,axing 
 the whole niunl)er, the same standard was adopted. Thus, 
 in the words of general Hamilton, " a comlyromhing expedient 
 
37 
 
 was adopted^ which regards them as inhabitants, but as de- 
 based by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, 
 which regards the slave as divested of two-fifths of the 
 
 The slightest reflection is sufficient to convince us of the 
 extreme delicacy and importance of the next question, in re- 
 lation to this subject, which the convention was called upon to 
 determine. The slave trade had long been considered by- 
 most of those who were not interested in its continuance, as a 
 flagrant reproach upon the professors of Christianity. From 
 the time of cardinal Ximenies to that of Benezet, the best and 
 wisest men had raised their voices against it. About the 
 period, however, of the meeting of the convention, there seems 
 to have been a more general turning of men's minds to the 
 subject than at any previous epoch. In the United States 
 especially, the growing abhox-rence of the traffic was becoming 
 louder and more universal. Pennsylvania abolished the slave 
 trade, and put a period to slavery itself within her jurisdiction, 
 in 1780. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island, not 
 long afterwards prohibited the traffic to their citizens. Vir- 
 ginia had previously done the same. Societies, whose declar- 
 ed object was the abolition of the slave trade, were instituted, 
 and a correspondence and concert were maintained with Eng- 
 land and France. The press teemed with essays in which the 
 sinfulness and impolicy of the traffic were displayed with great 
 strength of reason and warmth of invective. In a word, Eu- 
 rope and America seemed to be stirred up in opposition to its 
 continuance. 
 
 It was at a moment so unfavourable to the temperate dis- 
 cussion of the question, when the minds of the people in 
 one portion of the Union had been powerfully and enthusiasti- 
 cally acted upon, and a deep sense of interest connected with 
 a certain pride which revolted at interference in \vhat M^as 
 considered a domestic and municipal concern, was felt no less 
 strongly in the remainder, that the convention entered upon 
 the subject of slavery. With the power to regulate com- 
 
 » The Federalist, No. LIV. 
 
38 
 
 inercc, proposed by the constitution to be given to the gene- 
 ral government, congress would have had the right to forbid 
 the importation of slaves into any part of the United States. 
 Under the old confederation, this power belonged to the state 
 governments only, and had been exercised by several of them. 
 It was now proposed by some of the southern members, that 
 it should be excepted, for a limited period of time, from the 
 general powers of congress. From all that has transpired of 
 the proceedings of the convention, it appears that this proposal 
 was most warmly pressed by two states alone — South Carolina 
 and Georgia. The remaining states were desirous that con- 
 gress should possess the right of immediately abolishing the 
 traffic, but the two states most directly interested in its con- 
 tinuance, held out until they carried their point by compro- 
 mise. 
 
 To those who now inveigh against every thing like compro- 
 mise or concession, and who are for carrying through their 
 projects at every hazard and expense, a review of the pro- 
 ceedings of the convention on this occasion ought to be in no 
 small degree edifying. Compared with the magnitude and 
 solemnity of this subject, how trifling in importance does the 
 question of the admission of slaves into Missouri appear ! 
 What were the consequences of tolerating slavery in that 
 state, compared with the danger and sin of the slave trade ? 
 What comparison is there between the opposition that was 
 made to the restriction on Missouri, and that which arose in 
 the convention on the proposal to give congress the power of 
 suppressing the traffic in slaves ? In the convention, it is be- 
 lieved that Virginia, Mar) land, Delaware, and North Caro- 
 lina, of the slave holding states, and ;J1 the eastern and mid- 
 dle states, were in favour of the abolition, while two states 
 only, and those of no great political importance, opposed it. 
 la the case of Missouri, it is well known that the Union was 
 nearly equally divided. The members from the slave hold- 
 ing states were unanimous in their opposition to the restric- 
 tion, and they v/ere supported by several members from the 
 eastern and middle states. The state authorities too, in the 
 southern and south-western section of the Union, manifested 
 
29 
 
 a determined resolution to oppose the measure. How much 
 strongfc-r then must the arguments of those members of the con- 
 vention who were in favour of the abohtion, have appeared ? 
 With how much more weight and probability of success must 
 they have contended against the limitation of the powers oi 
 congress, for even a very short period of time, than those who 
 advocated the restriction on Missouri ? In drawing a picture 
 of the consequences of abolishing or continuing the slave 
 trade, how much darker must have been the shades in the 
 one case, how much brighter the tints in the other, than a 
 corresponding view of the results of the Missouri question : 
 On the one hand, the philanthropists of the convention could 
 point to the certain continuance of crime and misery, the per- 
 petuation of a barbarous piracy in Africa, and the almost in- 
 definite multiplication of a wretched and dangerous race with- 
 in our own confines. From an adherence to the determina- 
 tion of abolishing the traffic on the other hand, what worse 
 consequence would ensue than the refusal of two states, not of 
 the first magnitude, to enter the Union under the new consti- 
 tution, and possibly the failure of that constitution? What! 
 (it was probably asked, as recently similar exclamations have 
 been uttered) shall political advantages be put in competition 
 with moral duty ? Shall an addition to the geographical extent 
 of a country be ranked in importance by a Christian people 
 with the removal of a load of sin and reproach from their cha- 
 racter ? Shall the possible benefits that may accrue from the 
 constitution have more weight with us than the abolition, as 
 far as we have the power to effect it, of a vile and inhuman 
 traffic, which has converted a vast continent into a theatre of 
 plunder and misery ? Nothing short of an immediate and total 
 cessation of this unrighteous system can satisfy the divine 
 justice, or make any atonement for the wrongs of Africa. To 
 give congress power to abolish the trade in twenty or even ten 
 years, is to make a mockery of humanity. How many thou- 
 sands may not be dragged across the Atlantic in that period of 
 time ? Not a moment of those twenty long years will be lost 
 by the dealers in human flesh ; and when at length this v/hole 
 continent shall have become saturated with slaves, and then 
 
30 
 
 only, it is agreed a stop may be put to their further intro- 
 duction. 
 
 Such, or similar to this, was probably the language with 
 which the proposal to limit the power of abolishing the slave 
 trade, was met in the convention. Among the members of 
 tliat body, were men, second to none of the human race in a 
 rational zeal for freedom ; profoundly attached to the great 
 principles of Christianity and morals ; and bounded in their 
 philanthropy by no narrow prejudices of colour or country. 
 The convention was composed, indeed, principally of the men 
 who had devoted themselves for their country, during the re- 
 volution, both in congress, and in the field, and whom we 
 have a right therefore to consider as deeply interested in her 
 fate. At their head was that unequalled patriot to whom the 
 republic owes so much both of her prosperity and her glory, 
 who saw clearly, and steadily supported her true interests, 
 and to whose authority, if authority on matters of opinion 
 ought ever to govern, the people of the United States are pe- 
 culiarly bound to submit. Second only to him, in weight of 
 character, was Franklin, a warm and zealous philanthropist, 
 an uniform enemy of slavery and oppression in every shape, 
 of which his situation as president of the Pennsylvania So- 
 ciety for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, is a convincing 
 proof, and whose entire life had been passed in vindication 
 and support of the rights of the human race. Among the 
 members were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Jared 
 Ingersoll, John Dickinson, who, as statesmen, may be com- 
 ])ared with any of those who now occupy conspicuous situa- 
 tions on the political theatre. These men were philanthro- 
 pists, but they were at the same time patriots and philoso- 
 phers. If they saw and regretted the miseries of African sla- 
 very, they did not shut their eyes to the causes which brought 
 that curse upon the country, nor to the consequences which 
 would ensue from attempting to force its abolition. The 
 union of the states, luider a free and energetic government, 
 was the great object of their desires and efforts. They could 
 not have been insensible to the force of the arguments with 
 which the immediate abolition of the slave trade was pressed, 
 
31 
 
 but stronger motives urged them to postpone the exercise of 
 their right to abolish it. They felt as became men for the suffer- 
 ings of the negroes ; but they looked to the inestimable blessings 
 which the adoption of the constitution would confer on the 
 whole body of whites. In the freedom, security, and happiness 
 of the latter, they found something to counterbalance the mise- 
 ries which a temporary permission of the slave trade would 
 produce; and, however cruel and mistaken they considered 
 the policy of the two states by which the abolition was op- 
 posed, the patriots of those days refused to put the great 
 cause in jeopardy by an obstinate adherence to preconceived 
 opinions. They could not but perceive that by acceding to 
 the constitution, with this limitation, something would be 
 gained even for the cause of the negroes. If the states were 
 disunited, or left to regulate their own commerce, the trade 
 might be continued until every district of the immense west- 
 ern countries was blackened (to use Dr. Franklin's expres- 
 sions) by negro slavery ; whereas, by acceding to the consti- 
 tution, a fixed and certain limitation was put to it. 
 
 Mr. Madison, the late president of the United States, who is 
 known to have been an advocate of the abolition of slavery, in- 
 the federal convention, thus expressed himself when the ques- 
 tion was discussed in the Virginia convention : — " I should 
 conceive this clause to be impolitic if it were one of those things 
 which could be excluded without encountering greater evils. 
 The southern states would not have entered into the Union of 
 America without the temporary permission of this trade. And 
 if they xvere excluded from the Union the consequences might 
 be dreadful to them and vs. We are not in a worse situation 
 than before. The traffic is prohibited by our laws, and we 
 may continue the prohibition. The Union in general is not 
 in a worse situation. Under the articles of confederation it 
 might be continued for ever. But by this clause an end may 
 be put to it after twenty years. The gentlemen from South 
 Carolina and Georgia, argued in this manner : — ' We have 
 now liberty to import this species of property, and much of 
 the property now possessed has been purchased or otherwise 
 acquired in contemplation of improving it by the assistance 
 
32 
 
 of imported slaves. What would be the consequences of hin- 
 dering it from us ? The slaves in Virginia would rise in 
 value, and we would be obliged to go to your markets.' I 
 need not expatiate on this subject. Great as the evil w, a dis- 
 viemhcrment of the Union would be ruorse.''^ 
 
 Nothing can furnish stronger evidence of the value entertain- 
 ed by the convention of union and the constitution, than their 
 proceedings on this question. Not merely did the permission to 
 continue the traffic in slaves, shock the moral sense of the hu- 
 mane part of the community, but it affected likewise the politi- 
 cal interests of the eastern and middle states, by increasing a 
 species of population which gave political importance to the 
 southern states, without adding to their political energies. 
 Great as these obstacles were to an harmonious agi'eement, 
 they were not allowed to stand in the way of union. 
 
 Thus, as we have seen, in three signal instances, in which 
 the political rights, the pecuniary interests, and the moral 
 feelings of the community were involved, that redeeming 
 spirit of compromise, which a sense of mutual regard and 
 mutual dependence created, preserved the Union inviolate. 
 
 Our constitution having owed its existence to a spirit of 
 compromise, the continuance of that spirit has been visible in 
 all public measures adopted since that period. It is only ne- 
 cessary to take a glance at our political history, to be satisfied 
 that through each successive administration, the common- 
 wealth has been buoyed up and propelled by this principle. 
 Our statute book will show that the interests and feelings, and 
 even the prejudices of particular sections, have been consult- 
 ed, and that sacrifices of no small importance have been made 
 at the shrine of union. In the appointments to public offices 
 that have been made since the formation of the constitution, 
 this fact is clearly manifested. From the time of Washing- 
 ton to that of Monroe, the most scrupulous regard has been 
 paid to the principle of selecting individuals, as nearly as pos- 
 sible, in a due proportion from each state. In many cases, 
 tills attention to state feelings and wishes, mav have been 
 carried too far ; but the error, if any, has arisen from just 
 views of the policy of the government. It is evident, too, 
 
33 
 
 that the same causes which existed, at the period of the for- 
 mation of the constitution, for an opposition of interests, still 
 existing, there is a similar necessity for mutual forbearance 
 and concession in navigating the vessel of state. There are 
 still large and small states ; the various sections of the Union 
 still difler in their pursuits and interests ; and an opposition of 
 feeling and interest is still perceived between the " free" and 
 " slave" states, although the bonds of union have been drawn 
 closer by the present constitution. Without entering into de- 
 tails which would swell the number of these pages far beyond 
 the desired limit, it may be sufficient to advert to the laws 
 which have been enacted for the protection and support of 
 commerce, since the present government went into operation, 
 as a proof of the desire of mutual accommodation that has 
 prevailed. By far the greater part of the tonnage and sea- 
 men of the United States, belong to the eastern and middle 
 sections of the Union. The southern states, on the other 
 hand, are agricultural, and although they derive advantages 
 from commerce, in the exportation of their produce, yet, ab- 
 stractedly speaking, it is their interest to send their produce 
 in the vessels of whatever nation will carry it the cheapest. 
 Every impediment that is thrown in the way of foreign na- 
 tions is detrimental to their profits ; every advantage given to 
 the shipping of the eastern states is a premium paid by them. 
 This, I have shown, was manifest to the members from the 
 south in the convention ; but they agreed, nevertheless, to en- 
 ter the Union, upon comproniise^ without restricting the com- 
 mercial states. Nov/, in 1789, when we began the experiment 
 of the present constitution, the commercial states constituted 
 the majority both in the senate and house of representatives. 
 Since that period the wonderful increase of the population of 
 the west, has added greatly to the political power of the agri- 
 cultural states, and given them at least an equality in the 
 house of representatives, and a majority in the senate. The 
 uniform policy, however, of the legislature of the United 
 States, has been to favour American tonnage, and American 
 commercial interests, at the expense of foreigners ; and, in 
 support of this policy, the southern members have laboured 
 (5) 
 
34 
 
 as strenuously as the eastern. Heavy duties have been laid 
 on foreign produce, imported in foreign vessels, and compara- 
 tively light duties on the same species of produce when im- 
 ported in American vessels. Heavy tonnage duties have se- 
 cured to the vessels of the eastern and middle states the al- 
 most entire transportation of the produce of the southern 
 states, and efTectually excluded foreigners from the coasting 
 trade. But, Avithout minutely entering into the advantages 
 which the commerce of the eastern states possesses, through 
 the conformity of the south and west to the spirit of the con- 
 stitution, I will confine myself to two recent cases, affording 
 a decisive proof, if any were wanting, of the disposition of 
 these portions of the Union, to sacrifice their own interests, 
 to promote those of their eastern brethren. Both of these 
 cases grew out of the policy of the British government to re- 
 strain the transportation of the produce of its colonies to its 
 own vessels. In 1817 the legislature of Nova Scotia forbade 
 the exportation of plaster of Paris, except in British or colo- 
 nial vessels, and thus cut off the vessels of the eastern states 
 from a very lucrative carrying trade, which they had long 
 possessed." To countervail this regulation, and with the hope 
 of throwing open the trade again, a bill was brought into the 
 house of representatives by Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, which, 
 in the space of two weeks, passed both houses by great ma- 
 jorities, and became a law. By this act, the importation of 
 plaster of Paris in British vessels, was forbidden, and the 
 l)enalty of a forfeiture of vessel and cargo, prescribed, for a 
 violation of its provisions. Now, it doubtless occurred to the 
 members from the southern states, that the Biitish government 
 might, by way of retaliation, forbid the importation of cotton, 
 tobacco, or rice, in American vessels, and thus materially check 
 the sale of the chief articles of their produce. The proba- 
 ble injury to their own interests, was, however, disregarded, 
 when the question was, whedier those of their eastern bre- 
 thren should I)e sacrificed. In a short time after this mea- 
 sure was adopted, anoUier, more general and important, re- 
 ceived the sanction of the members of the legislature from all 
 sections of the Union. I allude to the great navigation act, 
 
35 
 
 as it may be called, by which the colonial policy of the Bri- 
 tish government, as regards their West India possessions, 
 was counteracted. This decided and energetic measure, was 
 warmly advocated by the southern and western members, and 
 passed the senate bv nearly an unanimous vote, and the house 
 of representatives by a great majority. At the last session of 
 congress, notwithstanding the excitement which the unfortu- 
 nate Missouri Question had created, when a bill to provide 
 more effectually for the enforcement of the navigation act, 
 was brought forward, it received the same decided support 
 from the southern members in both houses. The follow- 
 ing extract from a speech of Mr. Barbour, a senator from 
 Virginia, delivered on the 6th of April, 1820, shows the 
 views entertained of this subject by the southern people, 
 and the Avarm and cordial sentiments still entertained, in 
 that quarter of the Union, towards their eastern brethren. 
 " There is one view of this subject," said this gentleman, 
 " which I am anxious to press upon the senate. We have 
 heard, during the present session, the harsh and discordant 
 sound of disunion. We have been told that there exist sepa- 
 rate views, interests, and feelings. A geographical line has 
 been attempted to be set up. What a fine occasion does this 
 present to silence these unhallowed insinuations ! The south 
 and the north, the east and the west, uniting in a great mea- 
 sure of policy, particularly, indeed, beneficial to one quarter 
 of the Union, but cheerfully submitted to by the others, in 
 furtherance of a national benefit. We will not permit any oc- 
 casion of this kind to pass by, without disproving these sec- 
 tional aspersions. We will cheerfully meet the sacrifice, if 
 any should ensue ; and find our indemnity in the proud re- 
 flection, that the interests of the xvhole^ constitute the polarity 
 of all our movements. To the navy, I look, sir, as a great 
 bond of union. You may divide territories ; you may claim 
 a sectional share in victories by land ; but a naval victory is, 
 from its nature, indivisible. We may be told of a Bunker's 
 Hill, a Bennington, or Saratoga, on the one hand ; on the 
 other, of the Cowpens, or Guilford, or York, or New Or- 
 leans ; but a naval victory, broad as the element on v/hich it 
 
36 
 
 is achieved, difFusL's equal joy and enthusiasm throughout the 
 boundless territories of the republic."* What an unhappy 
 contrast to the feelings and temper of this speech, is display- 
 ed in some of the most prominent publications on this side of 
 the Potomac .'f 
 
 If, in answer to the inferences I have deduced from the con- 
 currence of the southern members of congress, in measures 
 tending peculiarh- to benefit the eastern people, it be said, that 
 the interests of the agricultural south have been equally at- 
 tended to at Washington, I am quite ready to admit the fact. 
 It proves •what it is my object to have proven : that in the 
 words of our common father "every portion of our country 
 finds the most commanding motives for carefullv guarding 
 and preserving the union of the whole. The norths in an un- 
 restrained intercourse with the south^ protected by the equal 
 laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the 
 latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial 
 enterprise, and precious materials of manufacturing industrv. 
 The souths in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same 
 agency with the north^ sees its agriculture grow and its com- 
 merce expand." 
 
 I have thus endeavoured to show, that compromise is at 
 least not a new feature of our political history. I believe most 
 readers will agree with me, that it has heretofore been the stay 
 and foundation of our Union. It remains to show, that the 
 compromise of the Missouri Question, as agreed to at the 
 last session of congress, ought to be maintained in good faith 
 by all the parties. If, on examining into our annals, we find 
 that the most virtuous and enlightened of our statesmen have 
 built our political system upon the foundation of compromise, 
 
 • National IiUclligenccr, September 27, 1820. Tlic whole speech well de- 
 serves perusal, both from llie force of the argument and the true American 
 spirit it breathes. 
 
 f If any ollifi- proof were wanting of llic conformity of tliesoutlicrn states 
 to the spirit of the conslitiition, abundant evidence would be found in the 
 proceedings of the last session of congress, at wiiich a retaliatory tonnage 
 duty was imposed on French vessels, for the exclusive benefit of the ship- 
 I'ing interest. 
 
■37 
 
 that its efficacy and beauty have arisen from an abandonment 
 of local views, prejudices, and passions, it is natural to sup- 
 pose, that after thirty years experience of the blessings of that 
 system, there could be nothing in the idea of compromise to 
 startle either the moralist or the politician. 
 
 From v/hat then has arisen the clamour against the Missouri 
 compromise ? If it can be demonstrated, that it was prudent- 
 ly entered into, even admitting it to be a choice of evils ; and 
 that it is both our interest and duty to preserve it inviolate ; 
 we must look to some of the causes which I have hinted at in 
 a preceding page, for a solution of the question. 1. The pro- 
 ceedings which led to the compromise of the Missouri Ques- 
 tion must be fresh in the recollection of all my readers. The 
 temper in which that " distracting question" was discussed by 
 both parties ; the frightful consequences that appeared likely to 
 ensue from the success of the friends of restriction ; could not 
 fail to make a deep impression on the minds of all interested 
 in the welfare of this country. To me it appears clearly es- 
 tablished, that disunion, with its countless train of evils, would 
 have followed from a refusal to admit Missouri into the fami- 
 ly of states. In speculating upon future events, experience 
 mihappily teaches us not to expect that political bodies or in- 
 dividuals will always put themselves under the guidance of 
 reason, and turn away from the suggestions of passion and 
 present interest. If the southern members of congress had 
 listened to the voice of wisdom, and looked forward to the 
 future welfare of their posterity, the prosperity of the repub- 
 lic, and the cause of humanity, the proposed restriction would 
 have received an unanimous vote of approbation. Like their 
 celebrated predecessors of 1787, they would have been fore- 
 most in the great measure of arresting the march of slavery, 
 and the future inhabitants of Missouri would have had cause 
 to be grateful for another " immortal ordinance," as that of 
 1787 has been so justly styled. Unfortunately, however, 
 other views and feelings prevailed. Many no doubt believed 
 that the constitutional power was wanting, but upon others 
 the strong incentive of interest, added to that sensitive repug- 
 nance to legislation on the subject of slavery, which has too 
 
88 
 
 often prevailed, operated with powerful effect. It is plain, that 
 those who seriously disbelieved in the power of congress to 
 restrain the states, could not conscientiously give way. The 
 worst altt-rnative was prt-ferable to a violation, as they sup- 
 posed, of their duty. The arguments too by which others of 
 the southern members supported what they conceived to be 
 their inalienable rights, were sufficiently plausible. The ter- 
 ritories of the United States being purchased with the blood 
 and money of the entire nation, are as much the property of 
 one portion or section as of another. If the restriction on 
 Missouri were enacted, the southern citizen would be prevent- 
 ed from removing thither with his agricultural stock. He 
 would thus be deprived of equal rights with the inhabitants of 
 other parts of the Union. Those who have reflected upon the 
 strength with which the propensity to emigration acts upon the 
 people of every part of this country, must be sensible that 
 great obstacles are required to resist it. The stream must 
 have an outlet, or it will break down the barriers intended to 
 confine it. It was in vain to say to the southern people, it is 
 not intended to throw any impediments in the way of your 
 emigrating to Missouri. Whatever we may think, in this 
 part of the Union, of the superior advantages of free labour, 
 the southerrk agriculturalist considers the services of his slaves 
 necessary to the successful cultivation of the soil. To pre- 
 vent his availing himself of them in the new states, is tanta- 
 mount to imposing an interdiction on himself, and would de- 
 bar his entrance into what he considers with justice as the com- 
 mon patrimony of the nation. The interdiction of slavery in 
 Missouri, it was likewise contended, would increase the dangers 
 to which the southern whites were exposed, by preventing such 
 removal of their slaves as might reduce their comparative nu- 
 merical strength in the elder states.* It was evident too that 
 the value of slaves would be increased by a permission to 
 transport them to Missouri. 
 
 Urged on by interests and feelings of so powerful a nature, 
 and supported by the persuasion that the constitutional power 
 was not vested in congress, the southern states would proba- 
 
 • Sec Note E. 
 
39 
 
 biy not have given way. Every thing that appeared showed 
 a disposition to maintain what they considered their rights, at 
 every hazard. It was not, let it be remembered, an abstract 
 principle alone for which they contended, but what appeared 
 to them a clear and palpable interest. A determination to , 
 withdraw from the Union, in case the house of representatives 
 persisted in upholding the restriction, was boldly avowed even 
 on the floor of congress. The speeches of one of the senators 
 from Virginia, and of another from South Carolina, when ta- 
 ken in connexion with the proposed resolutions of the Virgi- 
 nia house of delegates, and their proceedings with respect to 
 the appointment of electors of president, show too plainly what 
 was intended. No one, I think, who has carefully attended 
 to the proceedings of that memorable period, can hesitate to 
 believe that an actual disruption of the ties which bound us to- 
 gether would have taken place, if the compromise had not 
 been effected. It is not requisite to produce this eifect that 
 actual violence should be resorted to in the first instance. To 
 resolve the confederacy into its original elements, open resis- 
 tance is not necessary. The mere omission to appoint presi- 
 dential electors, or to choose members of congress, would be 
 a virtual destruction of the system. Congress may, it is true, 
 direct a choice to be made by the people ,• but when the latter 
 side with their state government, the mandate would be im- 
 potent. 
 
 But admitting that an actual dissolution did not take place, 
 that a president and congress were still chosen by all the states, 
 and that the senators and representatives from each state still 
 attended at Washington, would not consequences only less dis- 
 astrous than a dissolution have occurred ? Of what avail would 
 be the deliberations of a congress in the temper that could not 
 fail to be engendered ? What concert would take place 
 between a senate and house of representatives, in one of 
 which the eastern, and in the other of which the southern, in- 
 terest predominated ? What measures in support of the com- 
 merce and manufactures of the eastern and middle states could 
 be expected from the southern members, when they saw no 
 disposition on the part of the former to make reciprocal con- 
 
10 
 
 cessions, and supposed their own peculiar interests neglected? 
 No one can believe that the business of a single session could 
 be transacted with such discordant materials. 
 
 The compromise, then, I contend to have been wisely and 
 
 j prudeiith- entered into, inasmuch as, without throwing open 
 the whole IMissouri country to the pestilence of slavery, it 
 saved us from the awful consequences of disunion. Admitting 
 
 ' it to be an evil that slavery is permitted in the state of Mis- 
 souri, those of the eastern members who voted for the com- 
 promise did so to avoid a greater evil. One of these gentle- 
 men,* who had the courage to disregard the excitement of the 
 moment, and who have subsequently been the objects of a 
 coarse and vulgar persecution, has entered into an explanation 
 of the motives which guided him in his vote on that momen- 
 tous occasion. The following passages of his letter confirm 
 the view I have taken of the subject, and vindicate the purity 
 of his intentions : — " Soon after the commencement of the pre- 
 sent session, a bill was introduced for the admission of Mis- 
 souri into the Union. Mr. Taylor (a member from New- 
 York) proposed an amendment, which prohibited the further 
 introduction of slaves into the new state. At the request of 
 the mover of this amendment^ the discussion of it was post- 
 poned for some time, and a committee was appointed for the 
 purpose of investigating ivhether a compromise coriki not be 
 ffffctcd. During the agitated state of the public mind, the 
 proposed restriction was discussed in both houses of congress. 
 Much warmth and irritation was evinced ; and a dissolution 
 of the Union was spoken of, as a consequence which would 
 inevitably result from a question presenting a conflict of inter- 
 est, and affecting us geographically. Before the report of the 
 committee was made, I had a severe conflict in my mind, as 
 to the course I ought to take. If I voted differently from 
 what I had originally, I was aware that I should be charged 
 by some with inconsistency, and perhaps by others with a de- 
 reliction of principle. If I adhered to voting for the amend- 
 ment, I saw no practical result from it : the question would 
 
 • Mr. B. Smith, of New Jersey. 
 
41 
 
 in all probability remain unsettled for a long time, and might 
 ultimately lead to a cHssolution of the Unio7i. As the senti- 
 ments of Washington and Jefferson made a deep impression 
 on my mind at an early period of my life, they could not be 
 viewed with indifference by me at a time when I was about to 
 vote on the most important question that had been discussed 
 in congress since the adoption of the constitution. After 
 mature deliberation, I determined to vote in favour of the 
 compromise J and I solemnly declare I did what I considered 
 necessary to prevent a dissolution of the Union, It will be a 
 source of regret to me, if any of my constituents should dis- 
 approve of the course I have thus pursued : but, conscious of 
 the rectitude of my intentions, and believing that I have con- 
 tributed to save my country from a civil xvar^ I have secured 
 the approbation of my own heart, which is more desirable than 
 popularity, notwithstanding the desire I feel to preserve the 
 confidence and esteem of my fellow citizens."* 
 
 2. However much we may differ with respect to the expe- 
 diency or necessity of the compromise, there ought, it appears 
 to me, to be but one opinion on the propriety of maintaining 
 its provisions inviolate. Every principle of honesty and good 
 faith should urge us to adhere to it. It was well said by the 
 able and patriotic editor of the Baltimore Weekly Register, 
 that the circumstances under which this act was passed gave 
 it a moral force and obligation equal in validitv to an injunc- 
 tion of the constitution.! The Missouri Question indeed re- 
 vived feelings and opinions which had slept since the forma- 
 tion of that constitution; and the proceedings which led to the 
 compromise were more like the negotiation of a compact be- 
 tween sovereign and independent states, than the legislative 
 discussions of the representatives of one people. The compro- 
 mising acts were to all purposes a treaty between two sections I 
 of the Union, to the performance of which the faith of both 
 parties is pledged. If it had not been acted upon by either 
 party, we of this quarter of the Union would still, I conceive^ 
 be bound to the performance of what we have stipulated : but 
 
 * National Intelligencer, September 18, 1820. f See Note F. 
 
 (6) 
 
43 
 
 the southern states having performed, as far as they were called 
 upon, the conditions of the compact, relying upon the observ- 
 ance of it on our part, we have no alternative left. The inhabi- 
 tants of Maine, and those of Missouri, applied at the same time 
 lor admission into the Union. The senate, which, as it contains 
 a greater proportion of members from the " slave states" than 
 the house of representatives, may be considered as the represen- 
 tiition of the south, opposed the admission of Maine, until the 
 pri\ ileges of Missouri should be recognised. For this purpose, 
 the two states were connected in one bill, and the admission of 
 Missouri was avowedly made a sine qua non to the admission 
 of Maine. When the question came to be compromised, the 
 southern states agreed, not only that Maine should be admit- 
 ted into the Union, but that slavery should be prohibited in all 
 the territories north of thirty-six degrees, on condition of the 
 unrestricted admission of Missouri. Now, they have faith- 
 fully performed that part of their stipulations which they had 
 it in their power to perform. The state of Maine has been 
 admitted into the Union, and the eastern interest has thus re- 
 ceived an accession of two members in the senate. The faith of 
 the southern states is undoubtedly engaged that the act restrict- 
 ing the territories shall be adhered to. Shall then this treaty 
 be broken by the eastern and middle states, after they have 
 derived the advantage of a performance by the other party? 
 Shall the dreadful example be set, of the violation of a solemn 
 engagement between communities, who, above all others, 
 should cherish the principles of honesty and good f;\ith to- 
 wards each other? What answer will the representatives of 
 the "free states" give to the remonstrances of those of the 
 south, when they are reminded of the alarming crisis which 
 existed when the compact was concluded, of the frightful 
 prospect that lay before the Union, of the obstinacy with which 
 both parties maintained their opinions and determinations, of 
 the concessions made by the southern states, highly detrimen- 
 tal as they conceived them to be to their interests, and of their 
 immediate performance of their engagements ; and when they 
 arc assured by the southern members of their determination 
 rigidly to adhere to that part of them that is to be executed 
 
43 
 
 hereafter, and apprized of the solemn obligation imposed upon 
 the eastern states to carry into effect the single measure which 
 they were bound by the compromise to perform ? Will it be 
 said, in answer to this, that the majority in favour of the com- 
 promise was so small as not to indicate the dispositions of the 
 people of the " free states ?" It is sufficient to reply, that the 
 act was passed by a majority of the representatives of the 
 people, and, did they exceed the minority by only a single 
 vote, the latter, by the constitution and the principles of equi- 
 ty, are bound by it. But if the majority in the house of repre- 
 sentatives was small, it was abundantly decisive in the senate, 
 where the states meet each other as equal sovereigns. Two 
 questions, it will be remembered, were disposed of in that 
 body. On the question of striking out the restriction from the 
 bill providing for the admission of Missouri, twelve states 
 voted in the affirmative, six states voted in the negative, and 
 three were divided. On the second question, of limiting the 
 extension of slavery in the territories, sixteen states voted in 
 the affirmative, four states voted in the negative, and two were 
 divided. In the house of representatives, on the last question, 
 eighteen states voted in the affirmative, three only in the nega- 
 tive, and one was divided. The majority, in both cases, would 
 seem to be sufficiently conclusive. 
 
 Again, it has been urged by the opponents of the compro- 
 mise, that the restriction on the territories lying north of thir- 
 ty-six degrees and thirty minutes, being merely a legislative 
 act, not binding on the successors of the present congress, may 
 be repealed at any future period ; and thus, if Missouri be 
 admitted into the Union, a great present evil will be tolerated, 
 in consideration of a promised act which may never happen 
 to be performed. Now nothing can be more irrational or un- 
 just than this species of argument. Because it is supposed, 
 by one party to a compact, that the other may possibly here- 
 after refuse to comply with his agreement, the example is to 
 be set of an immediate violation of it. In a dispute between 
 individuals, no court of law would hear of such a plea. It is 
 plain that those who have recourse to this kind of anticipation 
 must suppose that the " slave states'" will at some future day 
 
44 
 
 possess both the disposition and ability to prevent the execu- 
 tion of this part of the act. Nothing is easier than to show 
 that this supposition is altogether unfounded on reason, and 
 not at all calculated to make a part in the chapter of probabi- 
 lities. 
 
 To argue on the presumption that the restriction on the ter- 
 ritories is nothing more than a common legislative act, is to 
 take for granted what I think it would be very difficult to 
 prove. I have already shown, I conceive, that it must be 
 regarded in a very different light, and that the honour and 
 good faith of both parties are solemnly engaged to its entire 
 performance. The eastern states, having admitted Missouri 
 into the Union, will throw upon those of the south and west 
 an obligation, which, as they value the union of the states and 
 their own honour, they will be solicitous to fulfil. But, ad- 
 mitting that the " slave states" may hereafter feel it to be their 
 interest to extend the regions of slavery, that they may see in 
 the compact nothing to bind their faith or their consciences, 
 and supposing their members in congress to be unanimous in 
 their disposition to repeal the act, will they possess the power 
 to do so ? The " free states" have always heretofore had a 
 majority in both houses of congress. Supposing Missouri to 
 be admitted at the next session, with two senators and one 
 representative, the numbers on each side will then stand thus: 
 
 Free States. Slave States. 
 
 New Hampshire, - - 2 Maryland, - - - - 2 
 
 Massacluisesls, - • 2 Virginia, - - - - 2 
 
 liliode Island, ... 2 Norlli Carolina, - • 2 
 
 ■\'crniont, .... 2 South Carolina, - . 2 
 
 Connecticut, - . . 2 Georgia, - - - - 2 
 
 New York, .... 2 Kentucky, ... - 2 
 
 New Jersey, - - - 2 Tennessee, . - . - 2 
 
 rennsylvania, - - - 2 Louisiana, . - - - 2 
 
 Delaware,* .... 2 Mississipj)!, - - - 2 
 
 Oliio, 2 Alahama, .... 2 
 
 Indiana, 2 Missouri, .... 2 
 
 Illinois, 2 — 
 
 Miiinc, 2 . 22 
 
 26 
 
45 
 
 In the house of representatives, the relative strength of the 
 " free states" is considerably greater. Supposing a bill to re- 
 peal the limitation on the territories to pass the senate, it could 
 not fail to be defeated in the lower house, as the following 
 table will show : 
 
 Free States. 
 
 
 Slave States. 
 
 
 •New Hampshire 
 
 > 
 
 6 
 
 Maryland, ... 
 
 9 
 
 Massachusetts, 
 
 . . 
 
 13 
 
 Virginia, . - - - 
 
 23 
 
 Rhode Island, 
 
 . 
 
 2 
 
 Nortli Carolina, - - 
 
 13 
 
 Connecticut, - 
 
 . 
 
 7 
 
 South Carolina, - - 
 
 9 
 
 Vermont, - - 
 
 . . 
 
 6 
 
 Georgia, . . - - 
 
 6 
 
 New York, - 
 
 • - 
 
 27 
 
 Kentucky, - . - - 
 
 10 
 
 New Jersey, - 
 
 - - 
 
 6 
 
 Tennessee, . - - 
 
 6 
 
 Pennsylvania, 
 
 - - 
 
 23 
 
 Louisiana, .... 
 
 1 
 
 Delawai-e,* - 
 
 - - 
 
 2 
 
 Mississippi, . . - 
 
 1 
 
 niiin ... 
 
 
 6 
 
 Alabama, . . . - 
 
 1 
 
 \jiilUf • • • 
 
 Indiana, - - 
 
 . 
 
 1 
 
 Missouri, . - . - 
 
 1 
 
 Illinois, - - 
 
 - . 
 
 1 
 
 
 — 
 
 Maine, - - - 
 
 . . 
 
 7 
 
 
 80 
 
 107 
 
 The majority, therefore, in the house of representatives, of 
 the states opposed to the extension of slavery, is twenty-seven., 
 a sufficient number, one would suppose, to quiet the fears of 
 the alarmists for the present. Is there any probability that 
 the present numerical superiority of the " free states" will be 
 lessened at a future congress ? 
 
 One of the strongest arguments adduced by the advocates 
 of the expediency of restriction, was founded on quite a dif- 
 ferent supposition. Reason, it was said, demonstrated, and 
 statistical evidence proved, the pernicious effects of a state of 
 slavery upon the population of a country. If the increase of 
 population be governed by the product of the means of sub- 
 sistence, it would follow, that as free labour is more produc- 
 
 • I have included Delaware among the " free states," as it is known that 
 the opinions of a great majority of her inhabitants are hostile to slavery, and 
 her legislature was unanimous in the vote passed in favour of the restriction 
 on Missouri. 
 
46 
 
 tive than slave labour, so a free population would increase 
 more rapidly than one in which there was any considerable 
 admixture of slaves. The other checks, too, to a multiplica- 
 tion of the human species, operate with much greater force in 
 a community composed partly of slaves and partly of freemen, 
 than in one which contains none or only a few slaves. Thus 
 it was shown by Mr. Raymond, in his ingenious Essay on the 
 INIissouri Question, that the white population in the old " free 
 states," including the five New England states. New York, 
 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, increased in a ratio 
 of nearly one hundred per cent, in twenty years ; while that of 
 Maryland increased at a rate of only thirteen per cent., Vir- 
 ginia twenty-five per cent.. North Carolina thirty per cent., 
 and South Carolina sixty-four per cent. What is more to the 
 present purpose, is the fact, that during the period that inter- 
 vened between the years 1790 and 1810, the whole population 
 in the " free states" increased in a much greater ratio than the 
 whole population in the "slave states." Thus, in 1790, New- 
 Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Ver- 
 mont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and 
 the territory north-west of the Ohio, contained 2,027,238 
 persons. In 1810, the same portion of country contained 
 0,831,673;. — an increase of nearly ninety per cent. In 1790, 
 Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 
 Kentucky, and Tennessee, contained 1,893,078 persons of all 
 descriptions; and in 1810, 3,246,554; — an increase of little 
 more than sixty-eight per cent. During this period, great 
 addition was made to the number of slaves bv importation 
 Irom Africa, in consequence of the near approach of the period 
 at which, by the provisions of the constitution, the trade was 
 to cease. The i)rincipal settlement, too, of the fertile countries 
 of Kentucky and Tennessee, was made during this time, and 
 great numbers emigrated thither from the eastern states. It 
 is therefore proved, by evidence about which there can be no 
 dispute, that notwithstanding the peculiar advantages which 
 that portion of the United States in which slave labour is used 
 enjoyed in tlie high price of its products, its population did not 
 increase so rapidly as that of the " free states," by more than 
 twenty per cent. 
 
47 
 
 It is reasonable to suppose, that since the year 1810, the 
 increase of the population in both quarters has been nearly in 
 the same proportion. No general returns have been made 
 since that period. The census which is now taking will eluci- 
 date this and other important points in our statistics. In the 
 meantime, a pretty accurate estimate of the present amount of 
 our population may be gathered from the returns made to dif- 
 ferent states, and from other authentic sources. The following 
 calculation, copied from Mr. Niles's Register for February 
 last, will probably be found to correspond very nearly with 
 the official returns : 
 
 
 Freemen. 
 
 Slaves, 
 
 Federal JVo. for 
 repreee7itation. 
 
 New Hampshire, 
 
 260,000"^ 
 
 "S ^ i?* 
 
 260,000 
 
 Massachusetts, - - 
 
 510,000 
 
 C3^ <-* .. — i 
 
 510,000 
 
 Maine, ----- 
 
 300,000 
 
 
 300,000 
 
 Rhode Island, - - - 
 
 85,000 
 
 Z Hto-^ 
 
 85,000 
 
 Connecticut, - - - 
 
 280,000 
 
 3 ^r s "^ 
 
 280,000 
 
 Vermont, - - - - 
 
 275,000 
 
 m <5 to 3 
 
 275,000 
 
 New York, - . - . 
 
 1,300,000 
 
 these 
 ing, tl 
 stimat 
 r is 10 
 
 1,300,000 
 
 New Jersey, - - - 
 
 275,000 
 
 275,000 
 
 Pennsylvania, - - - 
 
 1,100,000 
 
 \lll 
 
 1,100,000 
 
 Delaware, - - - - 
 
 80,000 
 
 g <-► to 
 
 80,000 
 
 Ohio, 
 
 580,000 
 
 580,000 
 
 Indiana, - . - . 
 
 235,000 
 
 cr _, fi> 
 o 5 ,. 
 
 235,000 
 
 Illinois, 
 
 125,000^ 
 
 ^■%o 
 
 125,000 
 
 
 5,405,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 5,405,000 
 
 
 10,000 
 
 
 Add 6,000 
 
 
 5,415,000 
 
 5,411,000 
 
 Maryland, - - - 
 
 - 290,000 
 
 120,000 
 
 372,000 
 
 Virginia, ... 
 
 . 630,000 
 
 450,000 
 
 900,000 
 
 North Carolina, 
 
 . 450,000 
 
 180,000 
 
 558,000 
 
 South Carolina, 
 
 . 250,000 
 
 220,000 
 
 382,000 
 
 Georgia, - - ,- 
 
 - 190,000 
 
 130,000 
 
 268,000 
 
 Kentucky, ... 
 
 . 520,000 
 
 120,000 
 
 592,000 
 
 Tennessee, . . - 
 
 - 340,000 
 
 60,000 
 
 377,400 
 
 Louisiana, ... 
 
 . 65,000 
 
 75,000 
 
 110,000 
 
 Mississippi, 
 
 . 50,000 
 
 30,000 
 
 68,000 
 
 Alabama, . - - 
 
 . 50,000 
 
 30,000 
 
 68,000 
 
 
 2,845,000 
 
 1,415,000 
 
 3,694,400 
 
 Add slaves. 
 
 1,415,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 Gross, - » 
 
 4,260,000 
 
 
 
V 
 
 48 
 
 If wc add to this amount of 4,260,000, the population of 
 JMissouri, estimated at 75,000, the whole number of persons 
 in the "sia\e states" >vill be 4,335,000, giving the "free 
 states" a majority of 1,080,000 : but as, by the constitution, 
 three-fifths only of the slaves are represented, the actual 
 political power of the "free states" will be to that of the 
 "slave states" as 5,411,000 to 3,764,000. In the senate, the 
 former will have twenty-six votes, and the latter twenty-two. 
 In the house of representatives, if the ratio of representation 
 remain as at present, the " free states" will have one hundred 
 and fifty-four votes, and the " slave states" one hundred and 
 seven. If, however, as is more probable, the ratio be fixed at 
 40,fXX), the former will have one hundred and thirty-five votes, 
 and the latter ninety-four. Such, or nearly similar, will pro- 
 bably be the relative political strength of the two divisions of 
 the Union, for several years. The admission of the territory 
 of Arkansaw as a state, cannot be expected to take place for 
 five or six years; and should slavery be tolerated in that coun- 
 try, the strength of the "free states" in the senate will be 
 maintained by the accession of Michigan. But, supposing 
 two states to be carved out of the Arkansaw, and Florida to 
 come into the Union, the preponderancy of the " free states" 
 in the house of representatives must from the nature of things 
 still be preserved, until the great territorv beyond the Mis- 
 sissippi, north of tliirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, is 
 ready to be admitted, with its unmixed population of freemen. 
 After that, there can be no danger of the slave representation 
 becoming too numerous. It is plain, then, that if the repre- 
 sentatives of the "free states" think proper to maintain it, no 
 alteration can be made in the law by which the line of demar- 
 cation is fixed. 
 
 Having thus, I thinl:, demonstrated that the political inter- 
 ests of the " free states" will not materially suffer by the fulfil- 
 ment on their part of the compact, one objection to the com- 
 promise will l)e removed. It is contended, however, that since 
 the last session of congress, a new case has arisen, in conse- 
 quence of certain objectionable features of the constitution 
 which the people of Missouri have adopted. It was agreed 
 
49 
 
 by the compromise, It is said, that the abolition of slavery 
 should not be required of Missouri ; but the framers of her 
 constitution have gone beyond the bounds asked for by their 
 friends in congress, and have introduced provisions which 
 cannot be assented to without a violation of the paramount 
 constitution of the United States, and a dereliction of all moral 
 principle. 
 
 The passages of the Missouri constitution, against which 
 these objections are taken, appear to be the following: — 
 
 Art. III. Sect. 26. " The general assembly shall have no 
 power to pass laws, — 
 
 " First^ For the emancipation of slaves without the consent 
 of their owners, or without paying them, before such emanci- 
 pation, a full equivalent for such slaves so emancipated ; and 
 
 " Second^ To prevent bona fide emigrants to this state, or 
 actual settlers therein, from bringing from any of the United 
 States, or from any of their territories, such persons as may 
 there be deemed to be slaves, so long as any persons of the 
 same description are allowed to be held as slaves by the laws 
 of this state." 
 
 " It shall be their duty, as soon as may be, to pass such 
 laws as may be necessary, — 
 
 '■'■ First^ To prevent fi-ee negroes or mulattoes from coming 
 to and settling in this state, under any pretext whatever." 
 
 Now, I am quite willing to admit that it would have been 
 better if these clauses, especially the latter, had not been in- 
 troduced : they savour too much of hostility to the feelings 
 of the people in this part of the Union, on the unfortunate 
 subject of negro slavery. The restriction, too, upon the 
 emancipation of slaves, is absurd, because, as is justly stated 
 by Mr. Niles, in his Register,* there is nothing to prevent 
 the legislature from imposing any tax that they think proper 
 on this species of property. But the question is not whether 
 the provisions of a constitution are enacted with bad sense or 
 bad taste, but whether that instrument is, upon the whole, such 
 as may rightfully pass the ordeal of congress. I would, in the 
 first place, observe, that it is not fair to point out the obnoxious 
 
 • October 21, 1820. 
 (7) 
 
50 
 
 parts of such a charter, and to leave unnoticed such as may 
 possil)ly rtdeem it. From the observations that have been 
 made on the Missouri constitution, one would be led to sup- 
 pose that it was conceived in a spirit repugnant to the prin- 
 ciples of republicanism and Christianity, — that it was, in fact, 
 a tissue of inhumanity and impolicy. How far this represen- 
 tation of it is correct, will be seen by a few extracts that I shall 
 make : " The general assembly shall have power to pass laws, 
 to prohibit the introduction of any slave into this state, for the 
 purpose of speculation, or as an article of trade or merchan- 
 dise : to prohibit the introduction of any slave^ or the offspring 
 of any slavc^ who heretofore may have heen^ or xvho hereafter 
 may he^ imported from any foreign country into the United 
 States^ or any territory thereof in contravention of any exist- 
 ing statute of the United States: and to permit the owners 
 of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, 
 where the person so emancipating will give security that the 
 slave so emancipated shall not become a public charge." Art. 
 III. Sect. 26. The same section makes it the duty of the 
 general assembly, to pass laws " to oblige the owners of slaves 
 to treat them with humanity, and to abstain from all injuries 
 to them extending to life or limb." In the next section, we 
 find the following provision : " In prosecutions for crimes, 
 slaves shall not be deprived of an impartial trial by jury; and 
 a slave convicted of a capital offence shall su^er the same de- 
 gree of punishment^ arid no othcr^ than rvould be inficted on a 
 white person for a similar offence; and courts of justice^ before 
 whom slaves shall he tried^ shall assign them counsel for their 
 defence.^'' Sect. 28. " Any person who shall maliciously de- 
 prive of life cr dismember a slave, shall suffer such punishment 
 as woidd be inflicted for the like offence if it xvere committed 
 on a free luhite person^ Surely these provisions display no 
 very inhuman spirit towards the slave population. They are 
 carefully guarded from bodily injury; a fair trial is secured to 
 ihcm ; and, from the provision respecting equality of punish- 
 ment, we have a right to believe that the dreadful spectacle of 
 burning a human being will not be witnessed in Missouri, as 
 it has been recently in one of " the old thirteen states." The 
 moral improvement of the whites seems also not to have been 
 
51 
 
 forgotten in this constitution. Article VI. Sect. 1. " Schools, 
 and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in 
 this state;" the funds arising from lands granted by the United 
 States, for the support of schools, are to be applied in strict 
 conformity to the object of the grant ; and " one school or 
 more, shall be established in each township, as soon as practi- 
 cable and necessary, where the poor shall be taught gratis." 
 Sect. 2. Measures are to be taken for the improvement of 
 such lands as may be granted for the support of a seminary 
 of learning. The declaration of rights, subjoined to this in- 
 strument, recognises and establishes '' all the great and essen- 
 tial principles of liberty and free government." In every re- 
 spect, save in those provisions which are held to interfere 
 with its claim to admission into the Union, Missouri appears 
 to me to have done herself credit by her constitution. 
 
 In the next place, if Missouri is to be admitted without any 
 restriction upon the right of holding slaves, (and if the princi- 
 ples of the compromise be adhered to, she must be so admit- 
 ted,) it is not easy to understand why she may not lawfully 
 prescribe terms for their emancipation. If she is to be admit- 
 ted on the same footing as her sister states, and she asks no 
 more, she has an equal right with them to prohibit emancipa- 
 tion without the consent of the owner of the slave. The con- 
 stitution of Georgia, made in 1798, restricts the power of the 
 legislature still more closely on this point. Those of Kentucky^ 
 Mississippi^ and Alabama^ restrict the legislature in precisely 
 the same terms. It is evident that the clause which the enemies 
 of compromise appear now to considers© obnoxious, was copied 
 literallv from the constitutions of the latter states, which were 
 all submitted to congress for their approbation, and received 
 the unconditional sanction of that body. If the three states I 
 have named, were admitted without difficulty or objection, what 
 reason is there for a discrimination in the case of Missouri ? 
 
 But, it seems the provision respecting free negroes and 
 mulattoes, is in violation of that article of the federal consti- 
 tution which declares (Art. IV. Sect. 2,) that " the citizens of 
 each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
 ties of citizens in the several states ;" and consequently, tliat 
 
5^ 
 
 until the prohibition of the settling of that description of per- 
 sons in the state be repealed, Missouri cannot be admitted. 
 Now, the first thing to be remarked upon this article of the con- 
 stitution of tlie LJnited States, is, that it never has been, and 
 never can be, literally enforced, until a complete amalgama- 
 tion be made of the laws and customs of the different states. 
 The rights and immunities of citizenship differ widely in al- 
 most every state. A citizen of one has the right of holding 
 slaves ; a citizen of another has the privilege of voting for i-e- 
 presentativcs, without possessing freehold property, or even 
 paying taxes; a citizen of a third state may have an immuni- 
 ty from service in the militia. It was never supposed that in 
 either of these cases, the privilege of citizenship went along 
 with the individual into every other state to which he thought 
 proper to emigrate. To preserve, as much as possible, to the 
 states, the right of managing their own municipal concerns, it 
 is necessary that this provision of the constitution should not 
 be extended in its operation beyond what necessity requires. 
 
 To understand fully the bearing of a constitutional or le- 
 gislative provision, it is proper to inquire into the object its 
 authors had in view, and the practice that has obtained under 
 it. With the knowledge we possess of the opinions and views 
 of the southern members of the convention, it is difficult to 
 believe that it could have been their intention to include free 
 negroes among the number of citizens to which this clause of 
 the constitution refers. It was, as it still is, their policy to 
 shut them out from their confines. Nothing could be more 
 dangerous to their power over the slaves, than the residence 
 among them of free negroes, with the privileges of citizens. 
 The greater the privileges and immunities bestowed on this 
 class by some of the " free states," the stronger reason would 
 there be for the " slave states" to refuse them an equality of 
 privilege. It would seem probable, therefore, that the only 
 o!)ject contemplated Ijy the constitution, was the placing the 
 Avhite citizens of each state on the same footing, to a certain 
 extent. 'J'hat this is the true construction of the article, ap- 
 ])ears from all the proceedings that have taken place since the 
 hjrmation of the constitution. In many states, a broad distinc- 
 
53 
 
 tion has been made between whites and free negroes, which, 
 if the latter ought rightfully to be comprised within the clause 
 in question, is totally untenable. In the constitutions of some 
 of the original states, the elective franchise, one of the first 
 privileges of freemen, is confined to the whites. By the le- 
 gislative acts of other states, they are expressly excluded from 
 their territory^ under heavy penalties, and no objection has, I 
 believe, ever been taken to this measure, on the ground of op- 
 position to the constitution. A stronger proof, however, of the 
 true construction of this clause, is to be found in the constitu- 
 tions of the states that have been admitted since the adoption 
 of the federal constitution. Kentucky, it will be remembered, 
 was admitted shortly after that period, at a time when ma- 
 ny members of the convention were in congress. The 8th sec- 
 tion of the 2d article of her constitution, provides, that the 
 privilege of voting for representatives shall belong to " every 
 free male citizen," with certain qualifications, " negroes^ mit- 
 lattoes^ and Indians^ excepted.'''' The constitution of Louisiana 
 is equally explicit on this point ; " no person shall be a repre- 
 sentative, who is not, at the time of his election, a free xvhite 
 male citizen of the United States." (Art. II. Sect. 4.) " Eve- 
 ry free white male citizen," with the usual qualifications, to 
 be an elector. (Art. II. Sect. 8.) Similar provisions exist in 
 the constitutions of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Alabama, and 
 Mississippi. That of the last named state is sufficiently posi- 
 tive and definite ; " no person shall be a representative, unless 
 he be a ivhite man.^'' (Art. III. Sect. 4.) Now, it is impor- 
 tant to bear in mind that the constitutions of the states I have 
 enumerated, from Kentucky to Alabama, were successively 
 presented to congress for their approbation, and were all ap- 
 proved of by that body. The inference from this fact is un- 
 avoidable, that they were believed by congress to contain no 
 provisions inconsistent with the constitution of the United 
 States. But, if any other than whites are to be considered as 
 comprehended within the clause of the 4th article of that instru- 
 ment, the provisions which confined the elective franchise and 
 the power of being elected, to free whites, and expressly ex- 
 cluded negroes, are plainly at variance with the constitution, 
 A free negro, in New York, has the privilege of a citizen, in 
 
54- 
 
 voting at public elections ; but he is denied that privilege in 
 Kentucky, and Ohio, by the express words of their constitu- 
 tions, which congress has approved. It follows that an inter- 
 diction to the negroes of equal privileges with the whites, has 
 been admitted by that body even in the constitutions of the 
 states north-west of the Ohio. Why should not the construc- 
 tion of the federal constitution thus given, be allowed to ope- 
 rate in favour Missouri ? Her constitution it is true goes fur- 
 ther, and makes it the duty of the legislature to pass such laws 
 as may be necessary to prevent the emigration of free ne- 
 groes ; but the principle is the same, and if persons of this de- 
 scription are not considered citizens, there can be no violation 
 of the constitution. If however this provision of the Missou- 
 ri constitution must strictly be considered as interfering with 
 that of the United States, this may perhaps be deemed a case 
 in which a contravention of one of its articles, if ever allowable, 
 might with some propriety be winked at. The free negroes arc 
 justly considered as a great political evil in the states which 
 ;hey chiefly inhabit; they are depraved in their morals, debased 
 in intellect, and unqualified to perform the duties of citizens. 
 Even in the "free states" they form a dangerous class of the 
 community, and while in the rest of the Union strenuous ef- 
 forts are making to remove them out of the country, it would 
 seem a great hardship upon the people of Missouri, if they 
 were not allowed to close their doors from the first against 
 their entrance, 
 
 I come now to consider another objection to the compro- 
 mise, one which has been repeatedly urged, and is calculated 
 to make ai\ impression on many worthy members of the com- 
 munlt)'. 
 
 'inhere can be no compromise of a principle, it is said. What 
 is morally right must be expedient. Political considerations 
 ought never to interfere with the enforcement of the dictates 
 of humanity. " Wc would acquiesce," says one of the prin- 
 cipal oi)ponents of the comjiromise, " in great sacrifices of a 
 ynerely material nature^ for the permanence of the Union. 
 Hut there are discernible limits to sacrifices even of that de- 
 scription ; and with regard to some of a different kind wc 
 would nt\er consent that they .should be made on any account.''^ 
 
55 
 
 " The integrity of the Christian and republican conscience is 
 paramount to every other consideration." " The noruslave 
 holding states, as they are called, with those -which must fall 
 into their system of action, not only could exist in a separate 
 confederacy^ but would be sure to flourish and maintain them- 
 selves in independence and prosperity against all the world." 
 " Possessing the main strength of the Union in every respect, 
 thev may well meet with equanimity all menaces from the 
 other part, of defection and violence ; and it would be their 
 duty rather to risk the execution of them than to surrender 
 any one great principle^ essential to the honour and true wel- 
 fare of the whole, and consecrated by reason, as a part of the 
 religion of human nature."* The inference to be drawn from 
 these propositions, as applied to the Missouri Question, is no 
 other than this, that the principles of religion and morality re- 
 quire of us to adopt measures for the benefit of a particular 
 part of our population, let the consequences to the remaining 
 portion be what they may : that the peace and prosperity of 
 eight millions of freemen and Christians, may rightfully be 
 sacrificed to promote the welfare of a million and a half of 
 slaves. 
 
 Now, were there no examples in the history of mankind, 
 were there none in our own history, of the admission of the 
 question of expediency into a discussion of morals by w^ise 
 and virtuous men, reason might still demonstrate, that, to be 
 practically serviceable to humanity, philanthropists must be 
 governed by considerations of expediency. " Moral philoso- 
 phy," says a great authority on this subject,! " cannot pro- 
 nounce that any rule of morality is so rigid as not to bend to 
 exceptions." " Veracity, which seems, if any be, a natural du- 
 tv, is excused in many cases towards an enemy, a thief, or a 
 madman. The obligation of promises, which is a first prin- 
 ciple in morality, depends upon the circumstances in which 
 thev were made : and so of most other general rules, when 
 they come to be actually applied." If by complying stricdy 
 with any moral obligation in a particular case, we should be 
 likely to do more real injury than service to mankind, it is 
 
 • Prospectus of the Xalional Gazette, p. 11. t Archdeacon Pale}-. 
 
56 
 
 clear, Unit it would be morally inexpedient to do so. For in- 
 stance, slavery is a great evil, and all men may be said to bo 
 under a moral obligation to put a period to it. But if in a 
 tommunitv where any considerable proportion of slaves exists, 
 greater evil would be produced by their entire and immedi- 
 ate emancipation, than by retaining them in bondage, neither 
 morality nor reason would require their emancipation. " To 
 ha\c discharged slaves from all obligation to obey their mas- 
 ters," says Paley, when accounting for the silence of the Scrip- 
 tures on the subject of slavery, " which is the consequence of 
 pronouncing slavery to be unlawful, would have had no better 
 effect than to let loose one half of mankind upon the other. 
 The most calamitous of all contests, a bcllum servile, might 
 probably have ensued, to the reproach, if not the extinction, of 
 the Christian name."* Beattie expresses similar ideas of this 
 moral duty. " I cannot blame the present race of planters for 
 not giving liberty to their slaves ; when I consider that so 
 many savage men, set free at once, might annul the property 
 and destroy the lives of thousands of innocent persons, and 
 perhaps involve the whole empire in confusion."| Now, if 
 slavery be an evil and a crime, and if in all cases measures for 
 the removal of moral evil are to be pursued at every hazard, 
 it ought not to be continued an hour, no, not an instant after 
 it becomes possible to extirpate it. Not merely are those who 
 hold slaves bound to emancipate them at once, but those who 
 possess the pecuniary means, or the physical force, are equally 
 under an obligation to tear the shackles off the slaves in every 
 (juarter of the globe. The true reason why this is not attempted, 
 is because the evils of emancipation would be greater than those 
 of slavery ; in other words, that though it is morally wrong to 
 hold nun in bondage, yet it is both morally and politically in- 
 expedient to emancipate any great number of them at once. In 
 fact, history furnishes us with frequent examples of this spe- 
 cies of compromise, in which a lesser w'rong has been tolerat- 
 ed, that a greater evil might be avoided. 1. I have adverted 
 in a preceding page to the compromise which was entered into 
 
 • Moral Pliilosopliy, Hook III. Part 2. 
 
 t Elements ol" Moral Science, Tart III. Chap. 3. 
 
57 
 
 In the convention, on the subject of the slave trade, an evil 
 at least as great as the extension of slavery. The question 
 there was, what humanity would gain by the decision, and 
 the illustrious men who formed the constitution, satisfied 
 themselves that it would be better on the whole that a tempo- 
 rary permission was given to the continuance of the traffic, than 
 that the union of the states should be jeopardized. It should 
 not be forgotten, that Washington concurred in the propriety 
 of this compromise, he who was a sincere and fervent Chris- 
 tian, who was scrupulously exact in the performance of all 
 moral duties, and who has left it as his recorded belief, that 
 " there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there 
 exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble 
 union between virtue and happiness — between duty and ad- 
 vantage ; — between the genuine maxims of an honest and mag- 
 nanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity 
 and felicity. That we ought to be no less persuaded that the 
 propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a na- 
 tion that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which 
 heaven itself has ordained." 
 
 2. A precedent still more in point, may be found in the 
 system pursued by the general government, in relation to this 
 very question of the extension of the right of holding slaves, 
 as it affected the new states east of the Mississippi. Since the 
 adoption of the constitution, seven new states have been carv- 
 ed out of the territory which belonged to the United States, 
 previous to the treaty by which Louisiana was acquired. Of 
 these, five, namely Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Ala- 
 bama, have been admitted without any stipulation or restric- 
 tion on the subject of slavery. The remaining three, Ohio, 
 Indiana, and Illinois, consented to prohibit slavery. It is 
 evident, that without any express legislative enactment, or 
 written compromise, an understanding existed between the 
 " free" and " slave states," that slavery should be tolerated 
 within a certain line, and excluded beyond it. That line was 
 formed by the course of the Ohio, from the latitude of forty- 
 one degrees, in which it leaves Pennsylvania, to its junction 
 with the Mississippi. The celebrated ordinance of 1787, ex- 
 (8) 
 
58 
 
 eluded shucrv from the territory north-west of this river^ but 
 uhen its provisions were applied to the south-western territo- 
 ry, the article forbidding slavery was expressly excepted. 
 Now here is something, which if not an actual compromise 
 between philanthropy and political expediency, bears at least 
 a strong resemblance to it. The rulers of the nation appear 
 to me to have been under an equally strong obligation to pro- 
 hibit slavery, south of the Ohio, as their successors are now 
 said to be under to prohibit it south of thirty-six degrees and 
 thirty minutes. It will probably not be contended, that the 
 obligation is stronger west of the Mississippi than east of that 
 river. Yet it does not appear that the philanthropists of that 
 time felt it to be a matter of conscience with them, to oppose 
 the admission of Kentucky, or Tennessee, or Mississippi, or 
 Alabama, because slavery is recognised in their constitutions. 
 In consenting to ratify a tacit agreement, which had in view 
 the preservation of the harmony of the Union, and conse- 
 quently the " true welfare of the whole," they could not have 
 supposed that they were " surrendering any great principle," 
 or violating " the integrity of their Christian and republican 
 conscience." 
 
 3. I have yet another example to produce of an acquiescence 
 in the existence of a modified and limited evil, by enlightened 
 and philanthropic statesmen ; and as the specimen is taken from 
 the political history of a nation, who have certainly persuaded 
 themselves, if not us, that " they are the freest and most moral 
 people of which there is any memorial,"* it may have greater 
 weight than any that might be drawn from the annals of this re- 
 publican and unpretending country. I allude to the treaties that 
 have been formed by the British government for the suppression 
 of the slave trade. It is not material what objects the present mi- 
 nistry may have had in view in effecting the abolition, whether 
 they sincerely desired to ameliorate the condition of Africa, or 
 wished to obtain a monopoly of the power of raising colonial 
 produce. If their conclusions have received the approbation 
 and sanction of those distinguished philanthropists, to whose 
 opinions we in this country, and especially that portion who 
 oppose the compromise, pay so much respect, they may serve 
 
 • Ediuburgh Review. 
 
59 
 
 to instruct and edify those who are averse to making- any bar- 
 gain with evil. It is well known, that after labouring for 
 twenty years, Mr. Wilberforce and his friends succeeded in 
 effecting an abolition of the slave trade by British vessels, in 
 1806. It was soon found that unless other persons concurred 
 in the measure, no great benefit would accrue to Africa. Ne- 
 gotiations were consequently opened, but with little success 
 until the period of the general peace. The principal obsta- 
 cles arose from Finance, Spain, and Portugal. The first of 
 these powers agreed to abolish the trade at the expiration of 
 five years, and the British government consented by treaty, 
 that a traffic should be continued for that space of time, which 
 they in the same breath pronounced to be " repugnant to the 
 principles of natural justice and of the enlightened age in 
 which we live." It was contended in parliament, when this 
 treaty was laid before them, that no compromise of the great 
 principle of abolition should have been entered into, and that 
 it was preferable to have continued the war, rather than to 
 have acceded to it. But the majority of the parliament ap- 
 proved of the treaty, on the ground that it was better to admit 
 of a partial evil than to risk greater mischiefs, by striving after 
 too much. " Morals," said lord Castlereagh on this occasion, 
 ''were never well taught by the sword ; their dissemination 
 might sometimes be made a pretext for ambition, but the real 
 object could not be long concealed, and it was to the light of 
 experience, to the promulgation of wisdom, and not to the ex- 
 ercise of violence, or the influence of war, that they could 
 look with any prospect of success for the abolition of the slave 
 trade." " If France could not be persuaded to act in the 
 manner desired, she could not be compelled to it, nor was it 
 to be expected that she should be taught morality at the point 
 of the bayonet."* Portugal likewise agreed to abolish the 
 traffic in a certain number of years. The treaty with Spain 
 however is more in point, as we find gcograpliical lines laid 
 down in it exactly as in the treaty between the " free" and 
 " slave states," respecting the Missouri Question. In 1814, 
 that power consented to abolish the trade in a fixed number 
 
 • Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, \iA. XXVIll. p. 28 >. 
 
60 
 
 of years. In the succeeding year, the allied so\ creigns issued 
 a public declaration on this subject. After denouncing the 
 " African slave trade," as " repugnant to the principles of hu- 
 manity and of universal morality," they proclaimed, that ^' the 
 public voice in all civilized countries demanded that it should 
 be suppressed as soon as possible," and that it was especially 
 the desire of these " august sovereigns," that "• an end should 
 be put to a scourge which has so long desolated Africa, de- 
 graded Europe, and afflicted humanity." 
 
 With such high authority to support them, the British 
 government commenced fresh negotiations with Spain. If 
 they had a right to ask any thing of her, it could have been 
 nothing short of a total and immediate abolition of a traffic, 
 the character of which had been so forcibly stamped. Ac- 
 cording to the principles of some of the advocates of the 
 Missouri Question, there could have been no half-v/ay mea- 
 sures, no paltering with humanity, no sacrifice of conscience. 
 Had the enemies of our compromise been the negotiators on 
 that occasion, it is evident that, consistently with their de- 
 clared opinions, they must have insisted upon a surrender 
 of every thing by the Spanish government ; and, if this had 
 been refused, either have lost everything, or involved the two 
 countries in war, and drenched the fields of Europe again in 
 blood. Lord Castlereagh and his colleagues, however, it 
 seems, were of opinion that this mode of proceeding would 
 not have been exactly consonant with the principles of Chris- 
 tianity. Finding that his Catholic majesty had insuperable 
 objections to an entire abolition, the British ambassador con- 
 cluded a treaty, in 1817, by the provisions of which, the traf- 
 fic, so far as it respected Spanish vessels, was confined to that 
 part of the coast of Africa xvh'ich lies south of the equator^ 
 and was to be interdicted altogether at the expiration of three 
 years. Here, then, we have a precedent for lines of demarca- 
 tion. " The barbarous and unchristian traffic" was legalized 
 ■within a fixed limit : " the scourge which had desolated Afri- 
 ca" was now only to desolate it south of the line : " Europe" 
 was only " to be de^adcd" to a certain extent, and " humani- 
 ty" to be " afflicted" by metes and boundaries. " What an 
 
61 
 
 outrage upon true philanthropy !" no doubt the advocates ot" 
 the restriction are ready to exclaim : " What a base desertion 
 of principle ! What a sacrifice of the immutable and unbending 
 rules of morality, to the paltry consideration of expediency ! 
 Surely all Christendom was moved to protest against this 
 treaty. Doubtless that venerable body, the British parliament, 
 refused to ratify it. At all events, such men as Wilberforce 
 and Mackintosh must have raised their voices against it." Let 
 us see how far this supposition is supported by facts. 
 
 The treaty was taken into consideration, in the house of 
 commons, on the 9th of February, 1818. In proposing a re- 
 solution to carry its purposes into effect, lord Castlereagh ex- 
 pressed his confidence that " the house would be satisfied of 
 their object and effect being most beneficial." " There was no 
 slave trade now north of the line ; it could be carried on by 
 possibility only to the southward of the line, from May, 1820." 
 " One great portion of the world was rescued from the horrors 
 of this traffic, aggravated as it must be by contraband specu- 
 lators." " On the whole, he hoped that there would be but 
 one feeling of gratitude to Spain^ for an exertion ivhich ivas 
 so much to her honour^ and to the benefit of the xvorld^ — an 
 exertion, he said, for it was a great exertion on her part." 
 3Ir. Wilberforce declared, that " as one most seriously inter- 
 ested in the abolition of the slave trade, he must sav that he 
 thought the noble lord entided to his warmest gratitude, for 
 the efforts which he had made, during a long course of diplo- 
 matic attention to the subject, and for the successful issue to 
 which he had eventually brought those efforts." " The nego- 
 tiation which led to the treaty now under the consideration of 
 the committee, had been a very protracted one : he was per- 
 suaded that Its favourable termination arose in a great measure 
 from the foundation laid at the congress at Vienna ; and he 
 congratulated the British government on having, in conjunc- 
 tion with the other great powers of Europe, established those 
 principles which led to so important a result." " It was not 
 fair to estimate the whole of the benefit to be derived from the 
 measure, from looking at it singly," &c. Sir James Mackin- 
 tosh " approved the present treaty in the higheat degree."" 
 
6^3 
 
 " He considered the immediate prohibition of the Spanish 
 slave trade on the north of the equator, and the establishment 
 of the right of search to enforce it, as a most important step 
 towards the still distant point of general abolition." Mr. C. 
 Grant said, " he would not trouble the house with many ob- 
 servations, as it appeared to be uiianimous in its approval of 
 the present treaty.''"'* The treaty was in fact approved of by 
 a vote nearly unanimous. Not a word appears to have been 
 said, in or out of parliament, of the impropriety of a compro- 
 mise of this question, We hear nothing of " keen sarcasms" 
 against " men whose principles of morality and religion were 
 bounded by the equator." It was nowhere urged, that " any 
 mere disaster is preferable to the commission of crime." The 
 English government and people conceived that Spain had done 
 much for the cause of humanity, when, in spite of interest and 
 prejudice, she agreed to confine the evil within a certain bound- 
 ary. Under this belief, they cheerfully ratified the treaty, and, 
 as I conceive, acted with prudence and good sense. If, in 
 answer to this, it be said that the proceedings between inde- 
 pendent sovereigns furnish no precedent in point with the 
 Missouri Question, because a broad distinction may be taken 
 between the right which a government possesses to control the 
 actions of its subjects, and the claim of one nation to interfere 
 with another, I reply, that the distinction, as applied to this 
 case, is more specious than real. The slave trade was con- 
 trary to natural justice, it violated the natural law, and had 
 been denounced by the general congress of Europe. If the 
 position taken by a writer in a paper of high authority on this 
 subject be correct, that the federal government, having it in its 
 power to prevent the extension of slavery to Missouri, and not 
 exercising that power, became accessary to the commission of 
 crime,! then Great Britain must have been equally accessary 
 to the continuance of the slave trade, since a single squadron 
 of her " thousand ships" would have been sufficient to sweep 
 this unrighteous traffic from the surface of the ocean. She 
 possessed the power, therefore, and the right, I^ecause, aften 
 
 • Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol, XXX VIT. 
 j National Gazette, No. IV. 
 
63 
 
 the declaration of the congress of Vienna, the slave trade might 
 be considered as little better than piracy. Thus, although I 
 admit that in most cases one nation has no right to interfere 
 with the actions of another not injurious to herself, yet I con- 
 sider the question of the slave trade one in which it was lawful 
 to interpose. The question of expediency was quite a different 
 one. I have endeavoured to show, too, that the discussion 
 and result of the Missouri Question, at the last session, re- 
 sembled in many points the negotiation of a compact between 
 independent communities.* 
 
 In considering the compromise of the Missouri Question, 
 then, I conceive we have a right to ask what humanity will 
 gain by a fulfilment of its provisions, and what she would lose 
 by a rigid adherence to the supposed moral obligation of ex- 
 cluding slavery from all the countries over which we have a 
 right to legislate. 
 
 It is an important fact, one which ought constantly to be 
 borne in mind in the contemplation of this subject, that pre- 
 viously to the last session of congress, no interdiction existed 
 against slavery in any part of the great territory ceded by 
 France in 1803. From the Mississippi to the Pacific ocean, 
 from the Gulf of Mexico to the extreme northern boundary of 
 the United States, it was politically lawful to hold human be- 
 ings in bondage. East of the Mississippi, a line of demarca- 
 tion between the territory in which slavery is tolerated, and 
 that from which it is excluded, had existed for many years. 
 The Ohio, from the latitude of 41° to that of 37% at which it 
 enters the Mississippi, formed the boundary. The medium 
 of its course would be the parallel of 39°, which may be con- 
 sidered for the present purpose as the line east of the Missis- 
 sippi. If, two years ago, it had been proposed to continue 
 that line west of the Mississippi to the Spanish boundary, it 
 is reasonable to believe that there would have been a ready 
 acquiescence on the part of the " free states," and that the 
 cause of freedom and philanthropy would have been consider- 
 ed to have gained a great triumph. Now, although the north- 
 
 • See Note G. 
 
64 
 
 crn boundarv of Missouri is about a degree and a half north of 
 the parallel of 39°, yet as by the compromising act slavery is 
 only permitted south of 36° 30', the gain west of the Missis- 
 sippi has been very considerable. In other words, if the me- 
 dium line of the parallel of 39° had been carried across the 
 Mississippi, the whole of the present state of Missouri (with 
 the exception of a narrow slip of territory) and a large tract of 
 country which is now given up to free population, would have 
 fallen within the line of slavery. Humanity therefore has 
 gained, by the present arrangement, more than she did east of 
 the Mississippi. 
 
 But it is impossible to look at the map of the country be- 
 tween the Mississippi and the Pacific, without perceiving that 
 the theatre of slavery has shrunk into a very narrow compass, 
 and being made sensible of the extreme impolicy of any mea- 
 sures that could possibly put to hazard the great gain that has 
 been effected. If we take the boundary of the United States 
 west of the Mississippi to be such as it was settled by the 
 treaty with Spain of February, 1819, which will exclude the 
 province of Texas, the territory within which slavery may 
 hereafter exist will be found to bear about the same compari- 
 son to that from which it is to be excluded, that Virginia does 
 to the whole United States east of the Mississippi. South of 
 the parallel of 36° 30', tlie territory of the United States con- 
 tracts almost to a point. The number of square miles within 
 the slave district, including Missouri and I^ouisiana, may be 
 estimated at about 170,000; while the area of the district 
 north of 36° 30', excluding IMissouri, is probably not less than 
 1,500,000 square miles. If two new " slave states" may exist 
 south of the line, there is room for twenty " free states" north 
 of it. The most zealous enemy of the compromise must, I 
 think, admit, that considering all circumstances, a great point 
 has been gained, in fixing the line of demarcation so far south. 
 
 If the cause of humanity will gain considerably by the ful- 
 filment of the compromise, I think it apparent that it will lose 
 much, if not every thing, by an adherence to the determina- 
 tion of excluding slavery from Missouri and Arkansaw. The 
 act of March last, which received the sanction of both houses 
 
65 
 
 of congress, and was approved of by the president, authorized 
 tile people of the territory of Missouri to form for themselves 
 a state constitution and government, and declared that the 
 state thus formed should be admitted into the Union on an 
 equal footing with the original states. With this charter be- 
 fore them, the people of that district have appointed delegates 
 to frame a system of government. A convention has assem- 
 bled, and, after full discussion, has solemnly adopted a consti- 
 tution, which they have bound themselves and their constitu- 
 ents to support. In conformity with that constitution, the 
 government has been organized, and has gone into operation. 
 A governor and legislature have been elected. The legislature 
 has commenced the exercise of its functions. Senators and 
 representatives in congress, and presidential electors, have 
 been chosen. We will suppose that the house of representa- 
 tives of the United States rejects the constitution of Missouri, 
 and refuses to admit her representative to a seat. What course 
 will the senate pursue ? Will that body appi-ove of the con- 
 stitution, and admit the senators elected under it to the exer- 
 cise of their rights ? If such should be their determination, 
 in what situation would the country be placed, with a contest 
 of such a nature as would necessarily follow between the two 
 houses ? Admitting, however, that the senate abides by the 
 decision of the other house, and that Missouri is denied ad- 
 mission into the Union. Her delegates return home with the 
 information that this sovereign and independent state, for such 
 it has become by the authority of congress, is excluded from 
 the confederacy. What course is left for the people of Mis- 
 souri to pursue ? They have an organized administration, a 
 legislature, an executive, a judiciary, and all the necessary 
 agents and machinery of government. Can any one, not 
 wilfully blind to the consequences, doubt that an attempt will 
 be made to get on without the assistance and control of conr 
 gress ? It has been remarked by Europeans, tliat the ann of 
 government is never seen in the United States. This is on 
 some accounts more true of the western states than of their 
 Adantic brethren. The blessings o f the federal system are not 
 so clearly visible in the former : its power is still less so. Thtt 
 (9) 
 
66 
 
 main business of government is performed by the state func- 
 tionaries ; and such is the distance of some of the recent states, 
 that the tie of dependence becomes much less apparent. The 
 general government is known to them in hardly any other capa- 
 city than that of a great landholder and collector of purchase 
 moneys; and its visitations are not much more acceptable than 
 those of private persons with similar claims. It would re- 
 quire, therefore, neither great changes nor great exertions, on 
 the part of the people of Missouri, to enable them to under- 
 take business on their own account. Their internal arrange- 
 ments are perfected ; and if they are thrown out of the attrac- 
 tion of the present sphere, it by no means follows that they 
 may not revolve in another system. 
 
 If the lociU situation of Missouri were different from what 
 it is, were she placed in the vicinity of states hostile to the 
 principles for which she is contending, she might be made 
 sensible both of the beneficial influence of the general govern- 
 ment in suppressing state animosities, and of its power upon 
 herself. But a glance at the map is sufficient to show that 
 she has little to fear from her neighbours. On her right are 
 Louisiana, and the Arkansaw territory ; in front of her right 
 flank, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky, states whose 
 population and policy are the same, and whose feelings on the 
 subject of negro slavery, and of state rights, are certainly not 
 such as to induce them to volunteer to prove to her the dis- 
 advantages of being out of the pale of the Union. To the 
 north-east, it is true, is the state of Illinois ; but when it is re- 
 membered that both the senators from that state voted against 
 the restriction, it will be seen that Missouri has not much to 
 apprehend from that quarter. On her left flank, and in her 
 rear, is a vast tract of unsettled country. 
 
 Under these circumstances, Missouri, possessing a state 
 government in full operation, and surrounded by friendly pow- 
 ers, may be disposed, perhaps, to determine the question whe- 
 ther liberty, security, and prosperity, cannot be enjoyed with- 
 out the aid of the United States, if the doors of the confedera- 
 tion are shut against her admission. Could the voice of an 
 bumble individual be heard amid the tumult of party, I would 
 
67 
 
 say to the opponents of the compromise ; In excluding Mis- 
 souri from the Union, you adopt a measure pregnant with 
 the most disastrous consequences. No matter how it was 
 obtained, an act was passed, authorizing the people of Mis- 
 souri to form a state constitution, and it has accordingly been 
 formed. You cannot undo what has been done. You cannot, 
 if you would, send the people back to their former territorial 
 government. A constitution is too solemn a thing to be trifled 
 with. The people of Missouri having, after full discussion, 
 refused to provide against slavery by that instrument, pride 
 at least will induce them to persist in that determination, if 
 congress make the alteration of their charter a sine qua non 
 of their admission. Nothing but a choice of evils will then 
 be left to the federal government. If they simply leave Mis- 
 souri out of the Union, and allow her to manage her concerns 
 in her own way, what an alarming precedent will be set! Will 
 not the other states in that quarter, come, in time, to exercise 
 the same privilege ; and seeing Missouri get on without it, 
 will they not be led to think that the expense of a general go- 
 vernment may very well be saved ? Or, if the necessity of 
 a confederacy is still perceived, will not one which may con- 
 sult western interests and feelings only, be preferred ? 
 
 Will you proceed with the business of legislation as if Mis- 
 souri formed part of the Union ? Will you, in opposition to 
 the principle of all others the most deeply engrafted on the 
 minds of the people, impose direct or internal taxes upon the 
 people of Missouri, without allowing them a representation in 
 the public councils ? It will perhaps be answered, that Mis- 
 souri may be considered as still in a territorial condition, and 
 taxed accordingly. It is plain this cannot be admitted. The 
 consent of congress, which is necessary to her entrance into 
 the confederacy, is not now necessary to her existence as a 
 sovereign and independent state. She has become such al- 
 ready by virtue of an act of congress. Will you attempt to 
 enforce your paramount authority, and execute your laws in 
 defiance of her constituted authorities ? Alas ! this would be 
 u.frightful spectacle for humanity. The means to obtain suc- 
 cess are not in your power. You could not employ regular 
 
68 
 
 troops on such an occasion; and if you could, the whole re- 
 gular army of the United States would be insufficient. You 
 would find, to your cost, that the militia of the western states 
 could not be drawn out against their brethren. To send the 
 eastern militia, no matter in what number, across the AUe- 
 ganies and down the Ohio, would be little short of madness. 
 Let it not be forgotten, too, that this would be a contest not 
 between an effective government and a body of malecontents, 
 but between two organized and established governments ; one 
 identified with the interests and passions of the people, the 
 other holding by a slight grasp to its constituents, and divided 
 within itself by contending parties. In such a contest the is- 
 sue would not be doubtful for a moment. Let us suppose, 
 however, the power of the general government to have finally 
 triumphed, and the restriction on INIissouri to have been ef- 
 fected to the utmost extent that its most ardent advocates 
 could desire. It is impossible, when we reflect on the well 
 known disposition of the western states, to believe that this 
 end can be attained without a long and arduous struggle. 
 Civil war, with its hideous train of calamities and crimes, 
 rapine, pillage, and devastation, the destruction of human life, 
 the extinction of all the kindly feelings of brotherhood, and 
 the lighting up of all the fierce and vindictive passions of our 
 nature, will be the inevitable result. Are the enemies of the 
 compromise prepared to meet these consequences ? Does 
 humanity require such sacrifices on her altar ? Will not the 
 future historian say, when he recounts the progress of intes- 
 tine discord, " the waste, the wo, the bloodshed, and the tears," 
 that will have followed the attempt to enforce the restriction, 
 that philanthropy was not the gainer, when, for the sake of 
 excluding a small number of a vile and wretched race from a 
 narrow strip of territory, that country was made the bloody 
 arena of civil conflict, and the grave of thousands of a lofty 
 and virtuous people. 
 
 Let me suggest one more consideration to the advocates of 
 the restriction, — a consideration which may have more weight 
 than any that could be drawn from the probable future situa- 
 tion of the whites, with a certain class " whose philanthropy 
 is never warmed but towards the savage, the mulatto, and the 
 
69 
 
 slave."* The dissolution of the Union, or even such events 
 as would place Missouri out of the pale of the confederation, 
 would Inevitably lead to the extension of slavery over the 
 whole territory west of the Mississippi. Of the probability 
 of this result, it appears to me, no reasonable man can doubt. 
 What, but the principle of compromise and the love of har- 
 mony, has induced the people of the southern and western 
 states to consent to a line of demarcation by which they are 
 hereafter to be cooped up in a corner of the great commons of 
 the republic ? Let these motives be withdrawn, and we shall 
 find them pursuing their immediate interests without restraint. 
 Again, Missouri independent, supported or even not opposed 
 by the states immediately around her, and commanding by her 
 situation the navigation of the noble river from which she de- 
 rives her name, may at no distant day be able eifectually to pre- 
 vent the execution of any act of congress in the territories 
 behind her. The dykes which the friends of humanity have 
 raised against the encroachment of slavery will thus be thrown 
 down, its dark waves will pour like a torrent over the regions 
 of the west, and crime and misery, instead of being, as now, 
 confined within a narrow compass, will be extended to, and 
 perpetuated in, an almost boundless tract of country. W'hen 
 these things come to pass, as, unless Providence interposes 
 by some especial miracle, they in all human probability will, 
 what will be the reflections of those who now oppose the com- 
 promise ? The sincere but mistaken philanthropists may con- 
 sole themselves with the belief, that however disastrous the 
 result of their measures, they were governed by pure motives : 
 but those (if there be such) who urge this question with the 
 view of pushing their own political aggrandizement, will have 
 no refuge from the condemnation of posterity. 
 
 It is to be hoped, however, that a wiser and more Christian 
 spirit will prevail in the councils of the nation; — that this 
 youngest of the sister states will be freely and cheerfully ad- 
 mitted to an enjoyment of equal privileges with the other 
 members of the confederacy; — and that the harmony of the 
 Union, upon which the glory and prosperity of the republic 
 depend, will remain unimpaired. 
 
 • Edinburgti Review. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 NOTE A— Page 6. 
 
 IT was one of the unfortunate effects of the mere agitation of 
 the Missouri Question, to stir up jealousies between different sec- 
 tions of our country, which had been long dormant, and to give a 
 keener edge to the local animosities that still prevailed. In the 
 excitement of the moment, feuds as ancient as the settlement of 
 the country were revived, and wounds, which an union of thirty 
 years as one nation had in a great measure healed, Avere again 
 opened. Northern interests and southern interests, eastern prin- 
 ciples and western views, were in the mouths of all the speakers, 
 while the highest and noblest interest of all, that of the republic, 
 seemed to be nearly lost sight of. A strong proof of the exist- 
 ence, or, as it may perhaps be moi'e properly termed, the resur- 
 rection of an antifederal disposition at that period, is afforded by 
 the debate in the house of representatives, on the 3d of February 
 last, on the question of publishing the secret journal of the old 
 congress, from 1783 to 1787. Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina, 
 who had himself been a member of that congress, advocated the 
 publication, in a speech, the object of which evidently was to im- 
 press on the western states north of the Ohio, that those of the 
 east were hostile to their interests, and thus perhaps to detach 
 them from the support of the restriction on Missouri. This pur- 
 pose was to be effected by retailing what he supposed to be a 
 piece of secret history, the general bearing of which was, it is . 
 true, unfavourable to the eastern states, but which had been sa- 
 tisfactorily explained at the time. " There were some of those 
 proceedings," he said, " which ought to be published for general 
 information. He would state one of them, which was perhaps 
 not known to the nation, and was a most important part of the his- 
 tory of our country. It was not noticed by Judge Marshall or 
 Dr. Ramsay, in their histories of our country ; and was not no- 
 
/ '* 
 
 ticcd probably because they knew nothing of it, not havhig ac- 
 cess to the secret journal that contained it. In the year 1785," 
 Mr. Pinckney proceeded to state, " the Spanish government sent 
 a minister to this country with full powers to treat for a surren- 
 der of the right to navigate the Mississippi, for twenty-five or 
 thirty years, exclusively to Spain. If that treaty had taken place, 
 the consequence would have been, that the whole of the country 
 on the Mississippi would have been either separate and indepen- 
 dent of this government, or in the hands of France. This propo- 
 sition from the Spanish government, when made, was referred to 
 Mr. Jay to report upon it ; and to the astonishment of the coun- 
 try," Mr. P. said, " that gentleman had not only reported in fa- 
 vour of accepting it, but supported that opinion with much ear- 
 nestness, and with the best exertion of his talents. The question 
 was then submitted to the votes of the states. All the eastern 
 and northern states," said Mr. P., " joined in support of the trea- 
 ty ; and had it not been for the greatest exertions I ever witness- 
 ed in a public body, from those opposed to it, that treaty would 
 have been ratified. If it had been^ where now would have been 
 the members who Jill these seats ? Either subjects of a power 
 hostile to us, or members of a government wholly independent of 
 us, and our rivals."* 
 
 Now it may fairly be asked, if all the inferences intended to be 
 drawn by Mr. Pinckney were correct, cui bono, what good pur- 
 pose, in a national point of view, could have been effected by this 
 statement ? The more offensive a subject is, the stronger reason 
 is there against disinterring it. When the object is to prove that 
 a candidate for public favour is not deserving of what he aims at, 
 reference to former actions may be necessary. But in a case of 
 this nature, the obvious effect would be to dissolve the ties of 
 brotherhood between states " which have the strongest motives 
 for cultivating mutual affection and esteem." The fact however 
 Ts, that this particular transaction has been greatly misstated by 
 Mr. Pinckney. The true history of it may be found published in 
 the Debates of the Virginia Convention on the Constitution of 
 the United States. The subject of the abortive treaty was inci- 
 dentally mentioned, and a full representation made of the occur- 
 rences by the late president Madison, and others who like him 
 
 • National Intelligencer, February 19, 1830. 
 
73 
 
 were opposed to the miserable system of exciting local animosi- 
 ties, a system which, whether practised in the north or the south, 
 in the middle or the western states, is equally deserving of the 
 most scornful reprehension. 
 
 The following extracts from the speeches of some of the most 
 distinguished statesmen of Virginia, may sei-ve to remove im- 
 pressions conflicting with the harmony of the Union, and may 
 therefore not be out of place here. 
 Mr. Patrick Henry — 
 
 " There is a dispute between us and the Spaniards about the 
 right of navigating the Mississippi. This dispute has sprung 
 from the federal government. I wish to know the origin and pro- 
 gress of this business, as it would probably unfold great dangers. 
 In my opinion, the preservation of that river calls for our most 
 ■ serious consideration. It has been agitated in congress. Seven 
 states have voted so as that it is known to the Spaniards that un- 
 der our existing system the Mississippi shall be taken from them. 
 Seven states wished to relinquish this river to them. The six 
 southern states opposed it." Sec* 
 Colonel Henry Lee — 
 
 " I feel myself called upon to come forward and tell the truth 
 with respect to the transaction about the Mississippi. — There are 
 men of integrity and truth here, who were also then in congress. 
 I call upon them to put me right with respect to those transac- 
 tions. As far as I could gather from what was then passing, / 
 believe there ivas not a gentleman in that congress who had an 
 idea of surrendering the na-vigation of that river. They thought 
 of the best mode of securing it. Some thought one way and some 
 another way. / was one of those who thought the mode which waa 
 alluded to the best to secure it. I shall never deny that it was my 
 opinion. I thought I was promoting the real interests of the peo- 
 ple. ' But,' says he, ' it was under the veil of secrecy' — There 
 was no peculiar or uncommon desire manifested of concealing 
 those transactions. They were carried on in the same manner 
 with others of the same nature, and consonant to the principles 
 of the confederation."! 
 Mr. Madison — 
 " My honourable friend has referred to the transaction of the 
 
 * Debates of the Virginia Convention, page 115. f Page 136. 
 
 (10) 
 
federal council with respect to the navigation of the Mississippi. 
 I wish it was consistent with delicacy and prudence to lay a com- 
 plete view of the whole matter before the committee. The his- 
 tory of it is singular and curious, and perhaps its origin ought to 
 be taken into consideration. I will touch on some circumstances, 
 and introduce nearly the substance of most of the facts relative to 
 it, that I may not seem to shrink from explanation. It was soon 
 perceived, sir, after the commencement of the war with Britain, 
 that among the various objects that would affect the happiness 
 of the people of America, the navigation of the Mississippi 
 was one. Throughout the whole history of foreign negotiation, 
 great stress was laid on its preservation. In the time of our 
 greatest distresses, and particularly when the southern states 
 were the scene of war, the southern states cast their eyes around, 
 to be relieved from their misfortvmes. It was supposed that as- 
 sistance might be obtained for the relinquishment of that naviga- 
 tion. It was thought that for so substantial a consideration, Spain 
 might be induced to ofl'er decisive succour. It was op/iosed by 
 the northern and eastern states. They were sensible that it 7night 
 be dangerous to surrender this important rights particularly to 
 the inhabitants of the wester?! country. But so it was, that the 
 southern states were for it, and the eastern states against it. Since 
 obtaining that happy peace, which secures to us all our claims, . 
 this subject has been again taken into consideration, and delibe- 
 rated upon in the federal government. A temporary relinquish- 
 ment has been agitated. Several members from the different 
 states., but particularly from the northern, were for a temporary 
 surrender, because it would terminate disputes, and at the end of 
 the short period for which it was to be given, the right would re- 
 vert of course to those who had given it up. And for this tem- 
 porary surrender, some commercial advantages were offered. For 
 my part, I considered that this measure, though founded on con- 
 siderations plausible and honourable, was not yet justifiable, but 
 on grounds of inevitable necessity. I must declare, in justice to 
 many characters who were in congress, that they declared that 
 they never would enter into the measure, unless the situation of 
 the United States was such as could not prevent it."* 
 
 Again, in answer to Mr. Henry, Mr. Madison said, " I never 
 
 • I'age 225. 
 
can admit that seven states are disposed to surrender that naviga- 
 tion. Indeed it never was the case. Some of their most distin- 
 guished characters are decidedly opposed to its relinquishment. 
 When its cession ivas Jiroposed by the southern states, the north- 
 ern states o/i/iosed it. They still o/i/iosc it. New Jersey direct- 
 ed her delegates to oppose it, and is strenuously against it. The 
 same sentiments pervade Pennsylvania ; at least I am warranted 
 to say so from the best information I have. Those states, added 
 to the southern states, would be a majority against it."* 
 
 This distinguished statesman added afterwards, in reply to an 
 observation of Mr. Henry, " That if the honourable gentleman 
 thought that he had given an incorrect account of the transac- 
 tions relative to the Mississippi, he would, on a thorough and com- 
 plete investigation, find himself mistaken. That he had his in- 
 formation from his own knowledge, and from a perusal of the do- 
 cuments and papers relating to those transactions."! 
 
 Mr. Lee, in a short speech, positively affirmed, " that it was 
 the inflexible and determined resolution of congress, never to give 
 them up. That the secretary for foreign affairs, who was author- 
 ized to form a treaty with Gardoqui, the Spanish ambassador, 
 had positive directions not to assent to give up that navigation, 
 and that it never had been their intention or wish to relinquish it. 
 That, on the contrary, they earnestly wished to adopt the best 
 possible plan of securing it."| 
 
 Mr. Monroe, the present president, in giving a history of the 
 first offer of cession, which he acknowledged to have been made 
 at the instance of the southern states, said, " If I recollect aright, 
 the minister of the United States at the court of Madrid inform- 
 ed congress of the difficulty he found in prevailing on that court 
 to acknowledge our independence, or take any measure in our 
 favour, suggested the jealousy with Avhich it viewed our settle- 
 ments in the western country, and the probability of better suc- 
 cess, provided we would cede the navigation of this river as the 
 consideration. The latter circumstances were made known to 
 the legislature, and had their weight. "§ 
 
 Mr. Madison again spoke upon the subject, in answer to Mr. 
 Monroe. " The eastern states," he said, " had no idea of abso- 
 lutely alienating it. I think one material consideration v.'hich go- 
 
 * Page 237. t ^^S^ 238. 1 Page 238. § Fuge 239. 
 
70 
 
 vcrncd Ihcm was, that there were grounds of believing there was 
 a serious negotiation between Great Britain and Spain, which 
 might bring on a coalition between those nations, which might 
 enable them to bind us on different sides, permanently withhold 
 that navigation from us, and injure us in other respects material- 
 ly. The temporary cession, it was supposed, would fix the per- 
 manent right in our favour, and prevent that dangerous coalition." 
 " With respect to the secretary of foreign affairs,"* said Mr. Ma- 
 dison, "I am intimately connected with him. I shall say nothing 
 of his abilities and attachment to his country. His character is es- 
 tablished in both respects. He has given a train of reasoning which 
 governed him in his project. If he was mistaken, his integrity 
 and probity more than compensate for his error." — " I am led to 
 think there is no settled disposition in seven states to give up that 
 object, because New Jersey, on a further consideration of the sub- 
 ject, actually gave instructions to her delegates to oppose it. And 
 what was the ground of this ? I do not know the extent and par- 
 ticular reasons of her instructions. But I recollect that a mate- 
 rial consideration was, that the cession of that river would dimin- 
 ish the value of the western country, which was a common fund 
 for the United States, and would consequently tend to impover- 
 ish the public treasury. "f 
 
 NOTE B— Page 10. 
 
 The first act of the new political drama, appears to have been 
 duly opened. The parts of the respective dramatis persona have 
 probably been some time cast., (to use the theatrical expression) 
 and the dresses are now assumed for the occasion. Whether it 
 will end as a tragedy, or farce, remains yet to be determined. 
 The attack has been commenced by a writer under the signature 
 of Cato, in the "American Daily Advertiser" of the 16th of 
 October. This ingenious essayist sets out with the proposition, 
 that '* the Missouri Question has awakened the people and di- 
 rected their attention again to the sublime contemplation of 
 the original and inalienable rights of man." And then fol- 
 lows the material question, " shall a man be chosen as the 
 chief magistrate of a free people, who in addition to the act of 
 holding his fellow creatures in bondage, enforces with all his ofTi- 
 
 • :\Ir. Jaj-. t ^"S^ 247. 
 
77 
 
 clal influence, the pernicious doctrine of the extension of slavery 
 into the new states whicli are to be admitted into the Union ?" 
 An apparently liberal admission is made in the middle of this 
 address, that " this great question as to the extension of slavery 
 can safely be trusted to its own merits, and ought not to be used 
 for the aggrandizement of any fiarty or individuals." But un- 
 fortunately, at the conclusion, the cloven foot is again visil)lc. " If 
 a judicious ticket should be framed with a view to the objects of 
 this appeal, would it not be carried in Pennsylvania ?" " If Penn- 
 sylvania should rise and succeed, it would show her determina- 
 tion on this great subject ; and it would moreover have a ten- 
 dency to baffle and abate the pride of southern sufficiency, by let- 
 ting it be known, that the Pennsylvanians will no longer be held 
 in a state of pliancy to the will and pleasure of the south." 
 
 This liberal and philanthropic appeal was followed in a few 
 days by the subsequent notification, which appeared in several of 
 the newspapers. 
 
 " ANTI-SLAVERY. 
 " Electors of President and Vice-President. 
 " The citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia, and of 
 the adjacent counties, who are opposed to the extension of slavery, 
 and in favour of a public declaration of the sentiments of Penn- 
 sylvania upon this momentous question, are invited to assemble 
 at the mayor's court room, on Saturday afternoon, the 2 1st instant, 
 ('October) at four o'clock, for the purpose of agreeing upon an 
 electoral ticket to be supported at the approaching election, 
 against the ticket agreed upon at Lewistown." 
 
 Accordingly, an electoral ticket has been formed by the 
 <■<■ enemies of slavery," pledged, as one of the speakers at the 
 meeting observed, " to vote for any one in preference to James 
 Monroe," whom the same philanthropist, in the true spirit of 
 Christian charity, denominated " a perjured traitor, the tool of 
 George IV." It is apprehended, nevertheless, that the anti- 
 slavery ticket has but a slender prospect of success in Pennsyl- 
 vania, a circumstance deeply to be lamented if it be true, as some 
 suppose, that a change of rulers is what " conscience dictates to 
 be done," but no less to be rejoiced at, if, as others suppose, the 
 opposition to the present incumbent has arisen from the artifices 
 of a few needy and desperate politicians, who, " resolved to ruin 
 
78 
 
 or to rule the state," make use of philanthropy as a stalking- 
 horse, to effect their unhallowed purposes. 
 
 NOTE C— Page 10. 
 
 It is impossible to conceive of any thing more wretchedly im- 
 politic, more opposite to the spirit of our gentle and tolerant re- 
 ligion, and, if it were worth while to regard it in that point of 
 view, when considerations of so much more importance present 
 themselves, I might add, in worse taste, than the system adopted 
 by some of the writers in this quarter of the Union, in relation to 
 the domestic slavery of the south. There was a period of our 
 history in Avhich a far different temper prevailed. The existence 
 of that evil in the southern states was admitted by all, save a few 
 miserable fanatics, to be the misfortune of the southern people, and 
 not fairly attributable to them as a crime; and the necessary allow- 
 ances were made for the consequences resulting from the situation 
 of master and slave. Since the agitation of the Missouri Question, 
 however, and as if it were part of a scheme of policy to render 
 southern statesmen obnoxious, the columns of certain newspapers 
 have been filled with vituperations against the moral and religious 
 character of the " slave holding states." Instances of supposed 
 cruelty and oppression exercised upon the slaves ; intemperate 
 comments upon proceedings, unavoidable while the relations of 
 slavery exist ; sarcastic reflections upon the state of society and 
 manners among the white population of the south ; effusions 
 which can have no other effect than to abuse the public ear in 
 one part of the Union, and to kindle feelings of indignation in the 
 other, are protruded into view. In defiance of the spirit of our 
 constitution, and the dictates of common sense, the mere circum- 
 stance of possessing slaves is presented, by this new inquest of 
 philanthropy, as sufficient to disable a citizen of this community 
 from holding a public office. Now, if the object be to establish a 
 sectional party in opposition to the present incumbents, the means 
 are certainly well chosen. That they will utterly and signally 
 fail of eff'ect, however, I have no manner of doubt. If on the other 
 hand these editors suppose they are advancing the cause of hu- 
 manity, it is only to be lamented that they should have adopted a 
 mode above all others calculated to defeat their purpose. 
 
79 
 
 On this subject I would wish to refer the editors of the pa- 
 pers to which I allude, to the pages of Mr. Walsh's triumphtml 
 vindication of this country, in his " Appeal from the Judgments of 
 Great Britain." " It is certainly wretched sophistry," says this 
 able and learned writer, " to argue from single instances of disor- 
 der and vice ; and neither fair nor charitable to display only what 
 is bad, in a mixed system, in which the good may greatly predo- 
 minate."* " Habitual ejaculations of contempt and ill nature 
 have a sure tendency to produce total alienation."! " We do not 
 deny in America, that great abuses and evils accompany our ne- 
 gro slavery. The plurality of the leading men in the southern 
 states are so well aware of its pestilent genius, that they would be 
 glad to see it abolished, if this were feasible, with benefit to the 
 slaves, and without inflicting on the country injury of such 
 magnitude, as no community has ever voluntarily incurred. 
 While a really practicable plan of abolition remains undiscover- 
 ed or undetermined, and while the general conduct of the Ame- 
 ricans is such only as necessarily results from their situation, they 
 are not to be arraigned for this institution, i/", as I have no 
 doubt is the case, it Jiroducess here much less misery and vice 
 than it produces in the other countries which are cursed with it., 
 it furnishes occasion rather for praise than blame.'^\ " Those, 
 advertisements for the recovery of runaways, which are copied 
 into the English Reviews and books of travels, with exclamations 
 of such horror and reproof, as though English newspapers con- 
 tamed nothing to chafe the feelings of humanity and rouse the 
 spirit of freedom, are incident to the existence itself of negro 
 slavery ; and I think I have shown that this is an evil which could 
 neither be avoided nor removed by America. JSl'egrocs cannot 
 be held as property without being subject to alienation. A mort- 
 main would be impracticable, and if it could be established, mis- 
 chievous to all parties. The proclamation of the intention to sell, 
 while it gives effect to the necessary and useful right of aliena- 
 tion, affords the subject of it a better chance of being transferred 
 into good hands. At all events it is an inevitable incident of an in- 
 evitable institution. Slaves who abscond from the master must be 
 reclaimed, or there would be an end to all slavery in the most mis- 
 chievous of all forms of abolition. Without the aid of the public, 
 
 • Page ix. f Page xlix. * Page 421. 
 
80 
 
 the master would be unable to recover the fugitive. And it is to be 
 presumed that the latter is quite as often a delinquent, seeking in- 
 dependence for the sake of licentiousness, or from a refractory dis- 
 position, as a victim escaping the exactions of avarice or the lash 
 of tyranny. Unfortunately the character of the negro race with us, 
 and indeed the character which is produced in all cases of bondage, 
 might warrant a presumption more unfavourable to the slave. His 
 flight is, in a general point of view, a violation of the order of so- 
 ciety, which it is the interest, and abstractedly the duty, of every 
 citizen to repress and correct."* " The American negro slavery is 
 almost wholly free from two of the grievances which character- 
 ize that of the West Indies — under feeding and over working. 
 With regard to the article of food, the American negroes are as- 
 suredly better supplied than the free labourers of most parts of 
 Europe. "t " In defiance of the lessons of history and of the true 
 philosophy of the human mind., the British writers have insisted 
 that freedom must be altogether an empty name in the country 
 where domestic slavery is established. Their doctrine would de- 
 prive Greece and Rome of the distinction upon which the admi- 
 ration of mankind for those republics, has been chiefly built. ":J 
 " All our experience in America, since the revolution, confirms 
 the opinion of the orator, or at least assures us that the citizens 
 of the slave holding states understand (juite as well, and cherish 
 as fondly, the firinciples of refiublicanism, as those of the other 
 members of the Union."^ " The native citizen of the slave holding 
 states, displays specifically as much sensibility, justice, and stead- 
 fastness, in all the domestic and social relations, as the European 
 of whatever country. He is as strongly influenced by the ties of 
 kindred and friendship, as open to the impressions which attemper 
 and refine our nature. He has had a large share in the forma- 
 tion and administration of our institutions and laws ; in all the 
 executive offices, civil and military ; and we have never disco- 
 vered in him any particular proneness to tyranny or inhumani- 
 ty ; a torpid conscience or an imperfect sense of equity. In none 
 of the nobler virtues and qualities has he ever proved deficient in 
 the comparison with the individual born and fashioned among 
 freemen alone."]) 
 
 • Page 418. f Pai^e 407. t Page 401. § Page 40.3. |l Page 404 
 
81 
 
 The view here taken of slavery, and " slave holders," is one 
 which every reasonable man, of whatever country, must adopt, 
 and which, it is consoling to think, is in substance entertained by 
 the great body of the community in the " free states," in spite 
 of the efforts of a few politico-philanthropists, aided by the al- 
 most unavoidable excitement of the IVIissouri Question. The ab- 
 surdity of the proposition that would exclude all the citizens of 
 the southern states from holding the office of chief magistrate, 
 can only be equalled by some of the prejudices that appear to 
 have formerly existed among a portion of the southern people. 
 In the debates of the Virginia convention on the federal consti- 
 tution, one of the speakers said, " We are told of the blue laws 
 of Massachusetts ; — are these to be brought into debate here ? 
 Sir, this puts me in mind of an observation I have heard out of 
 dbors, which was, that because the New Englandmen wore black' 
 stockmgs and plush breeches, there can be no union with them." 
 " Had we this political jealousy in 1776 ? If we had it would 
 have damped our ardour and intrepidity, and prevented that 
 unanimous resistance which enabled us to triumph over our ene- 
 mies. It was not a Virgiiiian^ Carolinian, or Pennsylvanian, but 
 THE GLORIOUS NAME OF AMERICAN, extending from 
 one end of the continent to the other, that was then beloved and 
 confided in. Did we then expect that in case of success we 
 should be armed against one another ?" 
 
 In the history of ancient Greece, we may find abundant proof, 
 if proof were Avanting, of the dangerous consequences of suffer- 
 ing local jealousies, and sectional questions, to creep into the 
 covmcils of a confederacy. » Many of the Grecian statesmen," 
 says Dr. Hill,* " seem to have been aware of the fatal effects of 
 these intestine wars, and by various means endeavoured to eradi- 
 cate the seeds of discord, and to unite in friendship all who bore 
 the name of Greeks. Nothing could be better calculated to ac- 
 complish this patriotic design than the institution of the Olym- 
 pic games. The exclusion given to all competitors who were 
 not of Grecian extraction ; the common sacrifices offered to the 
 same gods ; the similarity of pursuits, and the participation of 
 the same pleasures ; all these circumstances tended to remind 
 them of their common origin, and to make them view each other 
 
 • Essays on the Institutions, Sec. of Greece, p. 81. 
 (11) 
 
8^ 
 
 in the light of allies and of friends. There also, the inhabitants 
 of cliilcrcnt states often became connected with one another, per- 
 ceived the folly of the prejudices which they had entertained 
 against all who were not of the same tribe with themselves, and 
 diffused among their countrymen at home the same liberal sen- 
 timents which they themselves had conceived." The council of 
 the Amphyctions had a similar effect. " Amidst the jealousy 
 and hatred to which mistaken views of interest or ambition often 
 gave rise, its stated and frequent returns continually reminded 
 them of their common origin ; of the similarity of their language, 
 and government, and manners ; of the earnest desire of their an- 
 cestors to join them in amity with one another ; and of the folly 
 of wasting against their brethren that strength which they might 
 need to exert against the many barbarous nations, who envied 
 their superiority, and were ever bent on their destruction.-" 
 " During the early periods of the history of Greece, the council 
 of the Amphyctions seems to have often succeeded in infusing 
 sentiments of mutual friendship into the minds of the Greeks. If 
 schemes of conquest and ambition, or the jealousy of contending 
 states, afterwards rendered all such efforts unavailing, we cannot 
 deny its tendency to form the Greeks into one great confedera- 
 cy ; and have only to lament that the wisest and most salutary 
 institutions are too often unable to counteract the effects of the 
 follies and vices of men." 
 
 NOTE D— Page 13. 
 
 The compromise, as is usual with most schemes of conciliation, 
 displeased the violent partisans on each side. Some of the south- 
 ern members thought that too much was given up, when the line 
 •was drawn so far south as 36° 30'; while the ultras of the i-estric- 
 tion, the philanthropists /^«/•« el /lar excellence^ appeared to thuik 
 that there could be no medium hi this case between defeat and 
 victory. It is amusing, if not edifying, to see how near extremes 
 sometimes appruacli. An epithet, originally applied by the great 
 apostle of southern slavery to the members who threw their weight 
 into the scale of compromise after voting in favour of the restric- 
 tion, has been caught by the intemperate politicians and enthusi- 
 asts of the " free states," and, like most other cant expressions, 
 has passed with the unrenecting part of the community on the 
 credit of the utterers, displacing the solid currency of reason and 
 
83 
 
 fact. The persecution encountered by these members can hardly 
 be said to reflect much credit on its authors. Charity, which is 
 near akin to philanthropy, might, one would suppose, have sug- 
 gested the reflection that the vote was given from pure motives 
 and a sincere belief that the best interests of the country required 
 it. It is true, that a literal compliance with the request or instruc- 
 tions of public meetings, would have precluded any compromise 
 by which slavery should be tolerated in Missouri : but a member 
 of congress has other and higher guides, in his judgment and 
 conscience. When a clamour, somcAvhat similar to that to which 
 I have alluded, was excited against Washington, on the occasion 
 of the British treaty, that great patriot expressed himself in the 
 following terms : " Next to a conscientious discharge of my public 
 duties, to cai^^y along with me the approbation of my constituents 
 would be the highest gratification of which my mind is suscepti- 
 ble : but the latter being secondary, I cannot make the former 
 yield to it, imless some criterion more infallible than partial (if 
 they are not party) meetings can be discovered as the touchstone 
 of public sentiment. If any person on earth could, or the great 
 Power above would, erect the standard of infallibility in political 
 opinions, no being that inhabits this territorial globe would resort 
 to it with more eagerness than myself, so long as I I'emain a ser- 
 vant of the public : but as I have hitherto found no better guide 
 than upright intentions and close investigation, I shall adhere to 
 them while I keep the watch ; leaving it to those who will come 
 after me to explore new ways, if they like or think them better." 
 Marshall's Life of Washingtoii, Vol. V. p. 635. 
 
 NOTE E— Page 38. 
 
 " The removal of considerable numbers of the' slaves from the 
 old slave holding states to the south and south-west, tends mate- 
 rially to increase the relative majority of the whites in those states, 
 and is likely to continue so as greatly to lessen the danger to 
 which they may be held to be exposed. The slaves emigrate 
 cither with their original owners, or with persons of the same or 
 an adjoining state, to whom they are sold, and who piu'chase them 
 for their ov.^n use ; or with the negro traders, as they are called. 
 The greater number go with the two first description of persons 
 to a more fruitful soil, to a climate equally or more favourable to 
 their constitution; altogether they suflcr but little, if at all, by the 
 
84 
 
 change of position. They are not in q;eneral committed to a new 
 mastor who is unknown, or who does not possess the best testi- 
 monials as to his views and to the respectability of his character." 
 
 Walsh's Jfij'ieal, fi. 415. 
 
 NOTE F— Page 41. 
 
 " The votes on this question conclusively prove that a large 
 majority in both houses were of opinion that congress holds a 
 constilHtional right to inhibit slavery in the territories of the 
 United States without their original limits; though many, adverse 
 to the restriction on Missouri, may have thought it inexpedient 
 to impose such restriction. The territory north of 36| degrees 
 north latitude is ' for ever' forbidden to be peopled with slaves, 
 except in the state of Missouri: the right, then, to iV:hibit slavery 
 in any of the territories, is clearly and completely acknowledged; 
 and it is conditioned, as to some of them, that even when they 
 become states., slavery shall be ' for ever' prohibited in them. 
 There is no hardship in this: the territories belong to the United 
 States, and the government may rightfully prescribe the terms 
 on which it will dispose of the public lands. This great point 
 was agreed to, in the senate, thirty-three votes to eleven ; and in 
 the house of representatives, by one hundred and thirty-four to 
 forty-two, or really by one hundred and thirty-nine to thirty- 
 seven;* and we trust that it is determined < for ever,' in respect 
 to the countries now subject to the legislation of the general go- 
 vernment. It is true, the compromise is supported only by the 
 letter of a law repealable by the authority which enacted it ; but 
 the circumstances of the case give to this law a moral force 
 equal to that of a positive provision of the constitution ; and we 
 do not hazard any thing by saying, that the constitution exists in 
 its observance." After showing the improbability of any great 
 profits being hereafter made on cotton, rice, or tobacco, the sta- 
 ples chiefly derived from the labour of slaves, Mr. Niles proceeds : 
 " Except for the commodities mentioned, slave labour is not de- 
 sirable in the United States, because it is generally unprofitable. 
 A comparison of Pennsylvania with Virginia certainly shows us 
 
 • Five members h.iviiig voted in the negative, because ibcy were in favour 
 of an entire reslriction on all the country west of the Mississippi, except in 
 tlie slate of Lou^^iana. 
 
85 
 
 that it is the labour of freemen which enriches a country. A far- 
 mer in the former, with three or four hands, lives better and more 
 comfortably, and saves more money, than another in the latter, 
 with four times as many slaves. For the work done in the com- 
 mon business of agriculture, the labour of free persons is by far 
 cheaper than that performed by slaves : there is an intelligence in 
 its details, which the slave is not entrusted with, or, if known to 
 him, that he has no motive to exert. From these facts, I conclude 
 that the demand for slave labour will be exceedingly checked in 
 the United States, and of course the wish to have them, or desire 
 to breed them, be greatly diminished ; and I believe the effect of 
 these things will be, that Kentucky^ Tennessee, and Missoiiriy 
 will before many years follow the lead of Pennsylvania, &c. and 
 cease to be slave holding states, as well from principle as interest. 
 In Kentucky, as I am told by several gentlemen of high standing, 
 there is so strong an opposition to slavery, that the chief slave 
 holders have long feared to call a convention to alter the consti- 
 tution, though much desired, lest measures should be adopted 
 that might lead to a gradual emancipation. Tennessee has not 
 many slaves, and they are but little approved of in that state : if 
 the culture of cotton fails, they will hardly be desired by any as 
 ordinary labourers. They cannot be easily profitable in Missouri, 
 and the influx of a free population may soon forbid the further 
 introduction of slaves." Weekly Register, March 1 1, 1820, 
 
 NOTE G— Page 63. 
 
 I must again refer the enemies of compromise, and especially 
 those Avriters in the National Gazette who have professed to pre- 
 fer a dissolution of the Union to a " surrender of principle," and 
 the " renunciation of any immediate political good, rather than 
 to incur a great guilt," to the unanswerable vindication of the 
 conduct of the government and people, in respect to the slavery 
 of the southern states, contained in Mr. Walsh's Appeal, a work 
 which must be considered of far higher authority than the effu- 
 sions of any newspaper. They will there see upon what grounds 
 the plea of expediency has been heretofore admitted into our na- 
 tional councils ; and how far a community may be said to incur 
 any " great guilt," that avoids pushing a " moral principle" 
 through the disastrous consequences that may sometimes ensue. 
 A few extracts from this book may not be out of place here. In 
 
86 
 
 retorling upon the British government the charge of holding 
 human bcujgs in bondage, the author cjuotcs a passage of a speech 
 of Mr. W. Grant in the house of commons, which, as it contains 
 much good sense applicable to the present moment, I am induced 
 to place before the reader : " Mr. W. Grant said, he had ever 
 considered that the end of legislation was to do good, and to con- 
 sider justice in our means of doing it. Now, there were some 
 occasions on which it was impossible to do so ; and there the 
 greatest good must be the object, even in violation of strict jus- 
 tice. He would illustrate his meaning by an instance. Let them 
 suppose a case of emancipation. Wherever slavery existed, there 
 necessarily existed oppression, and the continuance of slavery was 
 consequently a continuance of oppression. If he had professed 
 to do justice, and a slave were to ask him how could he account 
 for the use he had in view in making him a slave, if he meant to 
 do justice he should not continue him a slave ? he should answer, 
 that his means were circumscribed, and that it was true fihilan- 
 throjiy to effect the g-reatest good which the nature of the case 
 mould admit. If he forbore to do an act, abstractedly an act of 
 humanity, but which would produce a diftcrcnt consequence, he 
 surely acted rightly: were he to act otherwise, he should not 
 satisfy his conscience, because he should not diminish the misery 
 he wished to relieve." 
 
 Let us now hear Mr. Walsh : " It was more than a practical 
 moralist could expect or exact, that the southern states, retaining 
 sovereign governments of their own, should trust the federal 
 councils with the determination of such a question as the eman- 
 cipation of their slaves, on which the highest interests of property 
 and safety were immediately dependent."* " The question of 
 the existence of slavery is not, as I have intimated, — could not 
 be — put within the jurisdiction of the present government of the 
 United States. The condition of things assuring, for a long lime, 
 to the part of the country exempt or soon to be exempt from the 
 evil, a numerical majority in the federal legislature, this domestic 
 interest of the southern members of the Union, vital and pre- 
 eminently delicate in its nature, would have been placed at the 
 mercy of men incapable, like the Edinburgh Reviewers, of under- 
 standing it thoroughly; liable to an undue bias, resulting from the 
 
 • P.ige 386. 
 
87 
 
 action of good principles; and who, whatever their general spirit 
 of forbearance, considerateness of character, and warmth of poli- 
 tical friendship, might, from ignorance and tirejudice combined, 
 through a mistaken fiatriotism and philanthropy , or in obedience 
 to a sentimental clamour of their constituents^ seconded by a 
 generous zeal in their own breasts, hastily take a step which 
 would sooner or later involve both master and slave in the south 
 in one common ruin" " The eleven of the American states in 
 which slavery is now abolished, are not implicated in the demerits 
 of the question. To break loose from the confederation^ and thus 
 to risk their own political independence, because the other mem- 
 bers do not perform that which is impracticable, — because these 
 happen without their own fault to be aftlicted with the curse of 
 negro slavery, or to attempt to enforce by arms an abolition^ is 
 what no sa7ie person will consider as incumbent upon them, and 
 what would hardly be advised by England, who neither coerces 
 nor discards the West Indies, and who would not ' give the law' 
 to Spain, Portugal, or France, with respect to the slave trade — 
 infinitely the more detestable crime and destructive evil — when 
 those powers were at her beck."* " But those members of the 
 Union, of which I am now speaking, [the free states] while they 
 have inculcated without reserve, in the national councils, every 
 truth either abstract or practical appertaimng to the question of 
 negro slavery, have not been blind to the just sentiments of their 
 southern associates, who alone are accountable ; nor have they 
 overlooked, though they may not have always fully measured, the 
 difficuhies uiherent in the situation of the latter: they, who have 
 better opportunities of understanding it than the British review- 
 ers, are far from thinking that it <■ affords no apology for the 
 existence of slavery '"\ « The complaints which the British tra- 
 vellers and reviewers have made of the unjust disfranchisement of 
 the free blacks, have no foundation in fact, as regards the eastern 
 states ; nor in sound speculation, in reference to the southern. 
 The disfranchisement which exists in the latter cannot he said to 
 be unjust, if injustice in the business of life be not a mere abstrac- 
 tion, and have any thing to do with the consideration of stlf- 
 prescrvation, and the welfare of the majority "^ 
 
 * Paje 38r. t P^ge 388. 4 Page 39.). 
 
88 
 
 1 will inticly add, as a contrast to the tamper in which some of 
 tlic pai-as^raphs of newspapers cast of the Potomac arc written, 
 the following; passage from an article in the Richmond Enquirer, 
 of October 24, 1820 : 
 
 " We assure our brethren to the north, that notwithstanding 
 the existence of slavery among us, we are as much devoted to the 
 principles of liberty as they are, and would cheerfully do any thing 
 in our power to blot out fi-om among us a stain, which, while we 
 acknowledge its existence, mc confess ourselves unable to eradi- 
 cate. Point out any plan by which we can accomplish it with 
 certainty as to the result, and justice as to its mode of operation, 
 and wc shall not be backward in giving it the consideration it 
 deserves." 
 
 lUE tNi». 
 
 la iV - a &' 
 
i 
 
 VN 
 
 > 
 

 .o^^. 
 
 
 
 <i^ ^-o 
 
 
 .^* ^^-u-. -.^ 
 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 
 ■'--y : 
 
 • »* O- 
 
 
 . ' * "' 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 J'^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 .% ■ 
 
 "^P ./ •>■ *^ ,sx* . V.^^* •>■■.', 
 
 ^ * » , -1 * -?,^ O " o « o ' .0 ^^ * • ( 1 • <S^ 
 
 'V 'V^ ^<^ • 4.^' '^^ \^4%'^* V <;<> J 
 
 V -I %' ./^ •^^ <V \V 
 
 

 t 
 
 
 
 ,-^'^ oo"" 
 
 , -1-:^:, 
 
 ^^ -^.^ 
 
 
 
 ~0^ '"oTo' 
 
 
 
 .^^ 
 
 
 
 o " = , r^^ ^V 
 
 .0^ 
 
 . L . . 
 
 '7' 
 
 "-0 
 
 a'^ 
 
 ^^^ -^^ 
 
 •J 
 
 V <* ■ • • ^ ' . 
 
 » 1 
 
 
 '^^ 
 
 o 
 
 ° " ° ^ u ^^ 
 
 
 4, y3 
 
 
 1, p *>* 
 
 * "7 
 
 I! 
 
 c » • • ' O 
 
 - * o 
 
 
 .0-' o ° " ° f <^^ 
 
 A^ 
 
 
 ■■>' 
 A 
 
 
 o « o . VJ ^, 
 
 U? o 
 
 
 
 ' o „ o A) ^^ . , . 
 
 
 
 ^;^ 
 
 ^ s • * '^ O 
 
 
 
 o ' 
 
 
 1^ LIDRAar BINOli 
 
 INOINQ 
 
 
 • I T 
 
 
 -^