the intention of its authors, the extent of the injury inflicted, the determination to persist in it, and the danger of delay. But in cases of deliberate, dangerous, and palpable violations of the Constitution affecting the sovereignty of the State and the liberties of the people, it is not only the right, but the duty, of such State to interpose its authority for their protection in the manner best calculated to secure that end. When emergencies occur which are either beyond the reach of judicial tribunal, or too pressing to admit of the delay incident to their forms, States which have no common umpire must be their own judge and execute their own decision."

The report then sets out nine grievances that should be remedied, one of which is as follows: "The admission of new States into the Union, formed at pleasure in the western region, has destroyed the balance of power which existed among the original States and deeply affected their inter

ests.

Proceeding to enumerate certain defects in the Constitution which should be removed by amendment, they specify the three-fifths representation of slaves allowed to the Southern States, insisting that representation should be based on the number of free inhabitants.

Concerning this matter the report states: "These [the Southern States] are entitled to slave representation by a constitutional compact. It is therefore merely a subject of agreement. It has proved unjust and unequal in its operation. Had this effect been foreseen the privilege would probably not have been demanded; certainly not conceded. Its tendency in the future will be adverse to that harmony and mutual confidence which are more conducive to the happiness and prosperity of every confederated State than a mere preponderance of power, the prolific source of jealousies and controversies, can be to any of them."

The report also specifies this amendment: "No new State shall be admitted into the Union without the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses."

"This amendment," says the report, "is deemed to be highly important, and, in fact, indispensable. In proposing it it is not intended to recognize the right of Congress to admit new States without the original limits of the United

States. . . . At the adoption of the Constitution, a certain balance of power among the original parties was considered to exist. . . . By the admission of these States that balance has been materially affected and, unless the practice be modified, would undoubtedly be destroyed. The Southern States will first avail themselves of their new Confederates to govern the East, and finally the Western States, multiplied in number and augmented in population, will control the interest of the whole. . None of the old States can find an interest in creating permanently an overwhelming Western influence."

It is not necessary to note further the amendments proposed, except to say that they propose to restrict the power of Congress to lay an embargo, and to interdict commerce and declare war without the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, except in case of invasion,-making naturalized citizens ineligible to Federal office or as Members of Congress, prohibiting the President to be elected from the same State for more than two terms in succession, and making the President ineligible to reelection.

The last of the resolutions recommends,-in case the applications named in the foregoing be unsuccessful and peace be not concluded, and the defense of these States be neglected, as has been the case,-that a new convention be called to meet at Boston the following June.

The convention adjourned on January 5, 1815, just three days before the great victory of General Jackson at New Orleans; and, peace having been concluded, the meeting at Boston never took place.

More, possibly, of the proceedings of the convention has been set out at this place than is consistent with a proper arrangement of the subject herein discussed. What we are now considering are the sectional jealousies and disturbances growing out of what is called the balance of power between the two sections of the Union and the slavery question as contributing thereto. That part of the report, as above set out, which admits the rightfulness of the remedy by secession will be hereinafter considered. Now we note the other phases of the report, its insistence on the exclusion of new States, the complaint of the disturbance of the balance of power by such admission, and the complaint of political power

granted to the Southern States by the three-fifths representation of slaves. It will be noted that the report demands the proposed amendment to the Constitution as to the admission of new States as indispensable, and insists on the preservation of the balance of power as established in the beginning.

CHAPTER IV

THE MISSOURI QUESTION

THE war with Great Britain ended, and there was for a time a cessation of sectional disputes; but in a few years came the application of Missouri for admission, and the same sectional jealousy was again aroused. The East and the North changed their position in reference to the balance of power. The effort now was not to preserve the balance, but to destroy it, by giving a preponderance to the North. Missouri was a part of Louisiana and was slave territory. To her as a territory slavery was allowed, and when she applied for admission it was as a slave State. Her first application was in the year 1818. In the next year an Enabling Act was passed. Resistance was made to her admission, not on the ground assumed in respect to Louisiana,-that it was a violation of the Constitution to admit new States formed of territory acquired since the adoption of the Constitution,—but on the ground that there should be no admission of any more slave States.

On December 18, 1818, the Missouri territory presented a petition for admission into the Union as a State, and a bill in accordance therewith was introduced in the House on February 14, 1819.

Talmadge, of New York, offered an amendment prohibiting the further introduction of slavery into the proposed new State, and providing that all children of slaves born after the admission of the State should be free when twentyone years old.

The debate on this amendment was conducted with great ability and attracted the attention of the whole country. Taylor, of New York; Mills and Fuller, of Massachusetts; Livermore, of New Hampshire, and others favored the restriction, and Barton and Pindall, of Virginia; Henry Clay; Holmes, of Massachusetts, and many others spoke against it. After

ten days of debate the vote stood on the first branch of the amendment,—prohibiting the further introduction of slavery, -eighty-seven yeas to seventy-six nays; and on the second branch,-freeing afterborn children of slaves,-eighty-two yeas to seventy-eight nays.1

The debate showed that the restriction was supported, not so much on any ground of humanity or kindness to the Negro, as on a determination to prevent an increase in the political power of the South that would come from an addition to the number of slave States. The effort was to destroy the so much lauded balance of power by giving a preponderance to the North and East as against the South. It was evident that, as the foreign slave trade had been suppressed, the increase in the number of slaves could only come by an excess of births over deaths among those slaves already in the Union. It was also evident that this excess of births over deaths would come only from a condition in which the slaves were well treated, and that if there should be an increase in the excess, it would come from the fact that the condition of the slaves would be affected favorably by their diffusion over new territory. And it was manifest that such amelioration would come from such diffusion over the new and fertile lands of the West, giving to the slave that greater comfort and happiness that come to all who migrate to sparsely settled communities, and inhabit fertile lands.

The speeches of Henry Clay are not reported in the Annals of Congress, but it appears from a reply made to him by Mr. Talmadge that Mr. Clay pressed this consideration. Mr. Talmadge said that Mr. Clay had "pressed into his service the cause of humanity," had "pathetically urged us to withdraw our amendment and suffer this unfortunate population to be dispersed over the country," urging that "they will be better fed, better clothed and sheltered, and that their whole condition will be greatly improved."

"2

Expressions showing that restriction was not for the benefit of the Negro, but of the white man, will be hereinafter quoted.

The bill passed the House as amended. In the Senate the restriction amendment was voted down by twenty-two 'Annals, 15th Congress, 2d Session, p. 1214.

Ibid., p. 1175.