Congress Debates the Missouri Compromise

The subject of citizenship for persons of color was examined from every point of view

Continuing The Missouri Compromise,
our selection from The Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume 16 by James Albert Woodburm published in 1905. The selection is presented in ten easy 5 minute installments. For works benefiting from the latest research see the “More information” section at the bottom of these pages.

Previously in The Missouri Compromise.

Time: 1820

These speeches opened a long and animated debate. The principal theme of discussion was the citizenship of free persons of color, and the subject was examined from every point of view. Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, attempted a definition of the term citizen. There was not a State in the Union, in his opinion, in which colored men were citizens in the sense in which the Constitution uses the term — no State in which they have all the civil rights of other citizens; and therefore the Constitution of Missouri did not infringe the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Archer, of Virginia, remarked that if there were colored persons who were citizens in some of the States, there was notoriously a much larger class who did not belong to this description, and the clause in Missouri’s Constitution might be considered as operating only on this latter class. To reject her constitution in the present state of the public mind would lead to suspicion that the policy of restriction was to be reopened; in that case the wound inflicted on the harmony of the country would be incurable; every man must perceive that the Union would be gone.

Mr. McLane, of Delaware, asserted that free negroes and mulattoes are not that description of citizens contemplated by the Constitution of the United States as entitled to Federal rights. What rights they have are of a local nature, dependent upon the gratuitous favor of the municipal authorities of the States; these rights are limited to the States granting them and confer no Federal privileges and immunities. The free negro must be shown to be of “that description of citizen” to whom the Constitution meant to guarantee equal rights in every State.

Mr. McLane was answered by Mr. Eustis, of Massachusetts, who showed that the rights of citizenship in the States were left to the States themselves, and that in Massachusetts the free negro was in the enjoyment of equal citizenship under the laws; there the free negro was in the enjoyment of civil rights, which were guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States, and of which he should not be deprived.

On December 13, 1820, the House rejected the resolution for the admission of Missouri by a vote of 93 to 79. Mr. Lowndes then said that while he did not wish to be disrespectful to the majority of the House, he now called upon that majority “to devise and propose means necessary to protect the Territory, property, and rights of the United States in the Missouri country.” The Missouri question now disappears from the Congressional debates for two weeks. On January 5, 1821, Mr. Archer, of Virginia, offered in the House a resolution instructing the committee on the judiciary to inquire into the legal relation of Missouri to the United States — to ascertain whether there were United States tribunals there “competent to exercise jurisdiction and to deter mine controversies, and, if there be no such tribunals, to report such measures as will cause the laws of the United States to be respected there.”

Mr. Archer asserted that in his opinion Missouri stood entirely disconnected from any legal or political relation with the United States Government. “With our own hands we have cut all the moorings, and she floats entirely liberated and at large. She stood formerly in the relation of a Territory; she had proposed to assume the relation of a State. This House had refused her permission to do so, and Missouri stands discharged from all relation to the Union.” This resolution was the next phase of the Missouri question, which gave rise to a spirited debate. The friends of Missouri held that their position was anomalous. She was not a Territory, she was not a State; the authority of the Union hung over her, but there was no legal mode by which it could be exercised — the channels through which the authority of the United States Government could be exercised had been cut off. On the other hand, the opponents of Missouri’s admission held that her relations to the Union were as they had been, and they succeeded in laying the Archer resolution of inquiry on the table. This prevented the House judiciary committee from giving a public legal declaration of Missouri’s relations and rights, and by this action the House assumed the existence of the Territorial relation, without, however, any express settlement of the question.

Missouri next came up in the House debates on a question of amending the Journal. On January nth Mr. Lowndes presented three memorials from the Senate and House of Representatives of Missouri. On the 12th Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, moved to amend the Journal by inserting the words “the State of” before the word “Missouri.” After some rapid sparring in debate the parties ranged themselves for another vote, and the motion of Mr. Cobb was lost by the casting vote of the Speaker and the House thus again refused to recognize Missouri as a State. Mr. Parker, of Virginia, then moved to amend the Journal by inserting before “Missouri” the words “the Territory of.” The House had denied what Missouri is not, they must now say what she is. The Speaker then explained from the chair that the Journal should be prepared by the clerk. The rules of the House made it the duty of the Speaker “to examine and correct the Journal before it is read.”

In this case the memorials had been purposely made to read so as neither to affirm nor deny that Missouri was a State, since the House was divided upon that question. The motion of Mr. Parker was voted down, and the House proceeded to discuss the right of the Speaker to make the alterations in the Journal which he had made in these memorials. Thus, while refusing to ac knowledge Missouri as a State, the House refused to declare that she was a Territory.

More information here and here, and below.

We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history