House/Senate Reconciliation Votes

In reviewing the struggle in his mind the careful student will distinguish here between the two totally distinct propositions in reference to restriction.

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

After the reading of the report the first and vital question was then put to the House: Will the House concur with the Senate in admitting Missouri without restriction as to slavery? On this, a last, short, fervent debate occurred. Lowndes of South Carolina, Holmes of Massachusetts, and Mercer of Virginia spoke vigorously. Kinsey, of New Jersey, as one of those holding the balance of power between the contending forces, voiced the opinion of the moderate restrictionists who were now ready to compromise. The cause upon which he relied was the cause of the Union, and to the desire and love of Union he appealed. This had been the cause of compromise before, as it was destined to be many a time later.

The House decided to give up restriction, by a vote of 90 to 87. Fourteen of those who voted to forego restriction on Missouri were from the free States. Taylor, the persistent and valiant leader of the early free-soilers, who, as a member of the conference committee from the House, was the only one of all the committee that refused to concur in the report, made a last effort for his cause by endeavoring to secure the insertion of a line excluding slavery from all the territory west of the Mississippi except Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, but the phalanx of restriction had been broken and his worthy effort failed. The Missouri bill, enabling Missouri to form her constitution, passed both houses March 2, 1820. The following day the Maine bill passed the Senate. Maine was admitted, and the people of Missouri were authorized to form a State government and constitution. And this was the end of the second struggle.

In reviewing the struggle in his mind the careful student will distinguish here between the two totally distinct propositions in reference to restriction: (1) The original restriction of Tallmadge, which Clay vehemently opposed, proposed the exclusion of slavery from Missouri: this was restriction on a State, and was opposed on that ground; (2) the final restriction of Thomas proposed the exclusion of slavery from the Territories of the United States north and west of Missouri. This proposition was adopted but it did not emanate from the original Missouri restrictionists, nor did it by any means satisfy them. The final compromise measure was proposed by a steadfast opponent of the original Tallmadge amendment. ” The current assumption,” says Greeley, ” that this restriction was proposed by Rufus King, of New York, and mainly sustained by the antagonists of slavery, is wholly mistaken. The truth, doubtless, is that it was suggested by the more moderate opponents of restriction on Missouri as a means of overcoming the resistance of the House to slavery in Missouri. It was, in effect, an offer from the milder opponents of slavery restriction to the more moderate and flexible advocates of that restriction. ‘ Let us have slavery in Missouri, and we will unite with you in excluding it from all the uninhabited territories north and west of that State.’ It was in substance an agreement between the North and the South to that effect, though the more determined champions, whether of slavery extension or slavery restriction, did not unite in it.”

This statement of Greeley’s is borne out by the record and the final vote. After the prolonged and bitter contest; after a de bate then without a parallel in the history of Congress, a debate equaled only in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which itself had settled the slavery question by compromises; facing bitter prophecies of disunion as an alternative; with earnest and impassioned appeals for compromise still resounding in their ears, eighty-seven original restrictionists held out for restriction on Missouri. They would not consent to a single other slave State in the American Union, and restriction was finally abandoned only by a majority of three votes. Slavery was allowed in Missouri, and restriction was beaten only by the plan of proffering instead an exclusion of slavery from all the then Federal territory west and north of that State. Without this compromise, or its equivalent, the Northern votes needed to pass the bill could not have been obtained.

Maine was now admitted, and nothing remained but that Missouri should form her constitution, that it be formally accepted by Congress, and that the new State take her place with the rest.

A Missouri convention assembled at St. Louis and adopted a constitution for the new State, July 19, 1820. The people of Missouri were displeased with the long delay which had been imposed upon them by the introduction of a subject which they felt was a concern of themselves alone. It was their right, in their opinion, to settle the slavery question for themselves. [1] In this feeling of resentment, and led by extremists in the convention, they inserted a provision in their constitution declaring that ” it shall be the duty of the General Assembly, as soon as may be, to pass such Jaws as may be necessary to prevent free negroes or mulattoes from coming to or settling in this State under any pre text whatever.” [2]

[1: Interesting wording by the author. Did “people of Missouri” include the African-Americans living therein? – JRL]

[2: The constitution also forbade the legislative emancipation of slaves without the consent of the masters. These two new subjects were to be presented for the consideration of Congress, and it was evident that the whole subject would again be reopened. It seemed as if Missouri wished to meet Congress in a spirit of defiance.]

This constitution was laid before Congress by Mr. Scott, the delegate from Missouri, on November 20, 1820. The objectionable clause in her constitution gave rise to a stouter and more serious contest than any that had preceded. There arose once more a bitter parliamentary struggle, which provoked dire threats of the dissolution of the Union. The lines of the old contest formed again. The antislavery men and restrictionists who had so hotly contested Missouri’s admission as a slave State determined to continue that opposition. They were joined by some who had formerly voted against restriction but who were now ready to vote against admission. They based their opposition on the ground that the obnoxious clause in Missouri’s Constitution was an insulting reflection upon every State in which colored men were citizens and that it was in direct contravention of that clause in the United States Constitution which declares that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.”

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