Special House Committee on Missouri Compromise

The committee had desired to arrive at a conclusion which would give general satisfaction,

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

On January 24, 1820, Mr. Eustis, of Massachusetts, offered a resolution declaring the admission of Missouri on condition that the objectionable clause in her constitution be expunged. His object was to remove the only objection to the admission of Missouri. This resolution was negatived by a large majority.

On January 29, 1820, a resolution from the Senate came to the House and was taken up there in committee of the whole. This Senate resolution admitted Missouri, and provided:

That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to give the assent of Congress to any provision in the Constitution of Missouri (if any such there be) which contravenes that clause of the Constitution of the United States which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.”

One objection which had been urged to admitting Missouri with her objectionable constitution was that to do so would be to consent to the unconstitutional provision of her fundamental law. The Senate resolution was intended to meet this objection. It admitted the probability that Missouri’s objectionable clause contravened the Constitution of the United States and merely asserted the Senate’s unwillingness to have its admission of Missouri interpreted as making Congress a party to such violation. This was not satisfactory to the opponents of Missouri, who held that the responsibility was on Congress; it was the duty of Congress to prevent a violation of the Constitution, and this resolution merely shirked the responsibility. It was seen that the resolution would be rejected by the House.

Between January 29th and February 2nd six amendments were proposed in the nature of binding Missouri either to expunge the offensive clause of her constitution or never to enact a law in obedience to that clause. The debates of these days covered the evils of slavery, the rights of the South, the balance of power, and the nature, obligations, and benefits of the Union. On February 2nd Mr. Clay, seeing that all efforts at amendment had failed, and anxious to make a last effort to settle this distracting question, moved to refer the Senate’s resolution to a special committee of thirteen members.

On February 10th Mr. Clay, in behalf of the committee of thirteen, reported. The committee had desired to arrive at a conclusion which would give general satisfaction; they had sought a full and frank comparison of opinion among themselves; the committee was of the unanimous opinion that no condition ought to be imposed on Missouri except those suggested at the last session of Congress, i.e., that her constitution should be republican and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States; that the question of restriction should not be raised. This limited the consideration of the committee to the question whether Missouri’s Constitution was in conformity with these conditions, and it was found that the only objection to her constitution was the clause to which exception had been taken. On that clause the same diversity of opinion appeared in the committee which had been made manifest in the House — “With these conflicting opinions the committee thought it best that, without either side abandoning its opinion, an endeavor should be made to form an amendment to the Senate resolution which should contain an adequate security against the violation of the privileges and immunities of citizens of other States in Missouri.”

Accordingly, Missouri is to be admitted into the Union “upon the fundamental condition that she shall never pass any laws pre venting any description of persons from going to or settling in the said State who now are, or hereafter may become, citizens of any of the States of this Union; and upon the Legislature of the said State signifying its assent to that condition, by a solemn public act, which is to be communicated to the President of the United States, he is to proclaim the fact, and thereupon the admission of the said State is to be complete. To prevent, however, this amendment from being considered as impairing any right which may appertain to Missouri, in common with other States, to exclude from her jurisdiction persons under peculiar circumstances (as paupers and vagabonds), a further proviso is added declaring Missouri’s right to exercise any power which the original States may constitutionally exercise.”

This report from the special committee of thirteen was laid on the table until February 12th. The debate was then again renewed, involving charges and countercharges on the balance of power between the sections and on the matter of slave representation. The majority in opposition to Missouri was still obdurate, and the Senate resolution, amendment and all, was rejected by the close vote of 83 to 80. Members in ill-health, who had not been in the hall when their names were called, appeared and asked to have their votes recorded. This could not be done except by unanimous consent. This was not given, and the work of the committee of thirteen seemed to have come to nothing. Mr. Livermore, however, an opponent of Missouri, who had objected to the contested votes, gave notice of a motion to reconsider in order that the question might be fairly tested in a full vote of the House. On the next day, February 13, 1821, Mr. Livermore made his motion for reconsideration. Some of the friends of Missouri opposed the motion for reconsideration, partly because they would not have Missouri burdened with any conditions whatever, holding that she was only kept out of the Union by violence and injustice; partly because, as in the case of Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, they held that the battle had been fairly fought and won by the other side, and that another way must be found to settle this question. Mr. Clay made a successful plea for reconsideration, and again the House plunged into a heated debate.

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